I was glad to see in this case that someone in the chain of command didn't think it was a stellar idea to drop bombs on what could easily have been a bunch of fishermen in an invaded country that are smart enough to run away from the death machines overhead. Sure was disappointing for the pilot though.AuxBatOn wrote:The pilot is merely the eyes and arms of the government. It sees things, reports it through ground control who passes it up the chain of command, eventually to the GoC. With the information the decision makers have, they pass different missions, depending on the compliance of the target of interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAncrBgl ... C#t=33m14s
Could easily have been another one of these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=4m34s
Yes, murder is much more fun when you can say you were just following orders, but the point of the discussion is not to pick on the macho jet jockey who simply takes pleasure in his or her work. The point is the decision makers who don't care enough about the externalities of their "war on drugs", "war on terror", or whatever the flavour of the decade is. Was a load of cocaine worth the life of the pilot carrying it? Just because it's easy and you can get away with it, should governments really be making the decision to shoot down defenseless aircraft? Isn't it better to track a suspected drug aircraft, or worst case let it go if it can't be tracked, rather than taking the chance or murdering innocents? We frown on it when Russia or North Korea does it, so why can't we hold ourselves to the same standard?
As for the Chicago Convention Gilles, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for governments around the world to stop doing things simply because they are illegal. Nixon said it best:
