This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Top U.S. Air Defense Commander: Turkey’s Shootdown of Russian Jet “Had to Be PRE-PLANNED”
Lt. General Tom McInerney is an expert on handling threats from fighter jets.
McInerney served as:
- Commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad) – the military agency responsible for protecting the United States and Canada from foreign jet attacks – for the Alaska region
- Commander of the Alaskan Air Command
- Commander of 11th Air Force in Alaska
- Commander of the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing, Clark Air Base, Philippines
- Commander of the 313th Air Division, Kadena Air Base, Japan
- Commander of 3rd Air Force, Royal Air Force Station Mildenhall, England
- Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force
- A command pilot with more than 4,100 flying hours, including 407 combat missions
In his role as Norad commander for Alaska, McInerney dealt with more Russian fighter jet incursions (which he calls “bear penetrations”) than anyone else in the world.
So McInerney knows how to tell innocent from hostile incursions by foreign fighter jets, standard rules of engagement of foreign fighter jets, how to read radar tracks, and the other things he would need to know to form an informed opinion about the shootdown of a foreign jet.
Yesterday, McInerney told Fox News – much to the surprise of the reporter interviewing him – that assuming the Turkish version of the flight path of the Russian jet is accurate, Russia wasn’t threatening Turkey, and that Turkey’s shoot down of the Russian jet “had to be pre-planned”, as the jet wasn’t in Turkish air space long enough for anything other than a premeditated attack to have brought it down:
McInerney is right … especially given that a U.S. official told Reuters that the Russian jet was inside of Syria when it was shot down:
The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
But even if Turkey is right that the Russian jet was shot down over Turkey, the shootdown was still a war crime.
Specifically, as McInerney notes in the interview above, Russia was in no way threatening Turkey. It was on a bombing run against ISIS.
International law expert Francis Boyle - Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, who was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 – said by email:
The Russian bombing of Syria is technically legal because they have the explicit permission of the Syrian government, but of course Putin will ultimately act in accord with his interests, not what is best for the Syrian people.
***
As the International Court of Justice ruled in the seminal Nicaragua case (1986), any use of force even in alleged self-defense must also fulfill the basic customary international law requirements of (1) necessity and (2) proportionality. Even accepting the government of Turkey's version of events, it does not appear that there was any "necessity" for Turkey to destroy the Russian jet.
Washington's Blog asked Boyle whether this is analogous to the "use of force" by someone with a gun who claims he was threatened by someone else. He answered affirmatively, explaining:
Necessity and Proportionality are each separate requirements for the use of force in self-defense.
From another [International Court of Justice] case, the basic test for “necessity” is that the necessity of self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. Clearly, that was not the case here.
- advertisements -
Maybe it's just me, but whatever happened to the initial "reports" that the Turks warned this Russian plane five times? Seems like the Turks' shit is weak. (BTW, didn't some USCENTCOM weenie "corroborate" the "five warnings"?)
here's what the survivor said:
http://thesaker.is/the-air-navigator-of-the-su24-i-have-a-debt-to-repay-...
(Right up the old tailpipe)
Yep this thing stinks on ice.
Under US law, Obama is a Principle in a war crime, because either or both he knew in advance or he acted after the fact to protect the war criminal.
"18 U.S. Code § 2 - Principals (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal."
A war crimes: "18 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes (a)Offense.—
Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b)Circumstances.—
The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c)Definition.—As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians."
You could take all of DC to the shed with that. Unfortunately, they would be the ones to take themselves to the shed.
There is so much moral hazard running wild in DC it is a wonder that it has not imploded on itself.
Who could have dreamed that a nipple of Turkish territory would start WW3.
I'm guessing that is a bend in a river or a small mountain range. I bet it is really hard to tell exactly where you are at 12,000 feet. Unless of course you have GPS data....which I sure they do...come on Turkey...prove you are right...or you get no symapthy for a 'bear mauling' that is coming.
Wait, you mean if I put the sign "trespassers will be shot" it doesn't give me the right to shoot them? In what kind of world we are living..?
P.S. Do I really need to attach a "sarcasm" tag?
If you want to see just how low the IQ bar is to be a CNN talking head, just watch this interview.
Sorry, General.
oops... I am referring to the blonde Stepford bimbo jacked up on hydraulic fluid, not the general!
mia culpster.
Wonder what ethic or racial or homophobic slur they will charge McInerney with before the discredit and blackball him?
'ETHNIC"? OR "ETHICAL"?
He could be a patriot. I'm sure he's aware he's taking risks.
Turkey seems to be getting out of favor very fast. Someone needs to clue in the news personality with the bad dye job.
War crimes? Jezus, there about 767 of those every day and you-know-who is as big a player as there is. Its all bullshit, and bullshit walks.
Bob
767 - Room 101 = 666
Nod's as good as a wink.
The Filthy Cesspit That Is Geopolitics......
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...
what does one expect from a nation as america where retards wait for the media to tell them its black friday and they should stampede to buy a frying pan ??? national braniac moment
Ha, today you mock us, but just you wait. The plan, the actual CFR plan is to bring all this and more to a country near you soon.
War Crimes? The concept of the Geneva Convention is so 20th Century; there are no war crimes in the 21st. Century, if there were, the Washington Empire would have been held accountable for war crimes 14 years ago.
The only "war crime"
is to lose that "war."
Given the most probable outcome of any serious World War, everyone will lose that "war," and hence, everyone will become "war criminals."
Close but it really goes, 'The most immoral thing about war is losing one.'
War is a crime in and of itself. Sometimes it is necessary - self defense, but it always involves a crime.
Very true. Only those belonging to a losing war party are ever accused of committing war crimes. The UK committed worse crimes against the South African Boers than nazi Germany against anyone, but the UK won their "war" ( 400.000 well armed standing UK troops against 30.000 Boers without heavy arms but knowledgeable of the country - and the UK had finally to resort to concentration camp practices where they starved and murdered the women and children of the Boers ). A certain Winston Churchill was there as a war correspondent, you know, afterwards a famous Nobel prize winner ( literature, particularly for his narrative on WW2 - you know who won at the time, don't you ..... ).
I get your point and your right about the victors deciding what & what is not a 'war crime' but your reference about the Boer War was before the international framework of law was in place in the 20th century. Hell, just look what all of the major European powers did in Africa starting in the early 19th century up through WW1. Hell, America committed a shitload of 'war crimes' in the Philippines after we 'liberated' them after the Spanish-American War and the Filipinos surprisingly weren't too fond to have the Americans replacing the Spanish in largely the same role.
The purpose of the camps was to remove the support of the population from the Boer's, not to kill the civilians. Just a few years before the British killed a large number of their own military through incompetence in the Crimea due to poor support with logistics and medical care, this was just another case of it.
It didn't end there either, a few more years later and the early campaign in Basra in WW1 had 100's of British troops freezing to death in the open in futile attacks due to screwed up logistics and incompetence, logistics is actually a really hard thing to get right, but when a military force gets it right they tend to be a very formidible one.
The Nazi's on the other hand were either running death camps (fast death), or more likely imo just slave labour (slow death) since they built factories around all their concentration camps pointing to industrial output being important to them, at the cost of someone elses liberty and eventually life.
And the Boers did have heavy artillery, but more importantly they were the first modern enemy, hence the British army had to relearn everything from uniform to tactics.
BS the British didn't run 'concentration camps' durin gthe 2nd Boer War. They had 65 of them which were offered 'shelter' to displaced Boer women and children in which they were severly malnourished and given poor medical treatment on purpose. They were used as pawns against the Boer guerillas.
The US military did the same exact thing almost in the Philippines after the Spanish American War to finally break the back of the Filipino resistance on Luzon and Mindanao.
I'm sure all the killed Boer women and children really appreciate that their deaths were not "intentional". Grow up. There was the will and the ruthlessness to apprehend and place the civilians into the concentration camps. That makes the British hyopcrites responsible for their welfare. You are an apologist, sir.
Who won hendrik?
House of Windsor + House of Orange + Rothschild's + ?????????
They needed more gold to keep the empire alive. Germany lost WWI when Britian won the Boer War.
That apparent error in proofreading indirectly emphasizes the QUESTION regarding the degree to which Russia IS threatening Russia, by standing up for their national interests against the international bankers, et alia ... At the present time, there are no good ways to resist the increasingly psychotic psychopaths that are dominating NATO, especially including what appears to be some of the most extreme manifestations of that in Turkey.
I am not aware of any good ways to fight against collective insanities using weapons of mass destruction. Rather, those collective insanities are therefore able to become even more insane, due to the background situation being an abundance of weapons of mass destruction. Russia, like everyone else, is STUCK inside having to cope with an increasingly INSANE world, which is dominated by the most psychotically psychopathic people having risen to be the kinds of professional hypocrites who are most in control of civilization.
We are damned if try to, and damned if we do not try to, resist the domination of increasingly psychotic psychopaths. Russian efforts to somewhat promote its national interests against the international bankers, et al., that are covertly controlling NATO countries, amounts to "Russia IS threatening Russia," because pretty well everyone is STUCK inside of the escalating and exacerbated MAD Mutual Assured Destruction systems, backing up the MAD Money As Debt systems ... Everyone is a threat to themselves, in the sense that Russia IS threatening Russia when it attempts to protect itself from the global hegemony of MADNESS.
Mary J: You sing like the Leaves of Grass.
Thanks for that high praise, Macon!
P.S.
Between the time I posted my first comment, and now, I have noticed that the original proofreading error I quoted has since been corrected in the article above.
International law expert Francis Boyle - Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois:
"The Russian bombing of Syria is technically legal because they have the explicit permission of the Syrian government, but of course Putin will ultimately act in accord with his interests, not what is best for the Syrian people".
My question number 1: Who gave the right to some professors from some US, to make statements on behalf of the Syrian people ?!
My question number 2: Who gave the right to some president of some US, to make statements on behalf of the Syrian people ?!
Q1 Baron de Rothschild and the Satanic Templar Knights of the Round Table ( Soros, Houses of Windsor, Orange, Saud, Dark Forces . . . . ) Enablers ( Mossad, MIsly, NSA, GE, CFR . . . )
Q2. Ditto
It is ALWAYS de facto.
The de jure is bullshit.
Meanwhile, it is clear that Russia has the same opinion regarding what happened as was presented in the article above, as was reviewed in this recent Zero Hedge article: Chief Of Russian Air Force Accuses Turkey Of Coordinated Ambush On Downed Jet
In general:
There are no rights without remedies.
There are no freedoms without force.
THE BIG PROBLEM IS THAT BACKING UP RIGHTS WITH REMEDIES, OR FREEDOM WITH FORCE, HAS NO SANE WAY TO BE DONE AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
It appears to me that the article above was correct in its interpretation of events, which largely overlaps with the Russian interpretation, which emphasizes the degree to which the "leadership" in Turkey has become quite criminally insane. Therefore, indeed, the "stakes are high," since Article 5 of the NATO treaty would oblige NATO to commit collective suicide, if one of its member states was sufficiently insane to go through some series of psychotic breakdowns of the delicate balance that has precariously been maintained through the MAD Mutual Assured Destruction policies.
The way I see it, the most extremely psychotic psychopaths have the de facto "right" to speak and act for everyone else, in order to get a World War going that everyone would lose. We have become so entangled in the de jure bullshit, that we are vulnerable to the most psychotic professional hypocrites driving us over the edge of MADNESS!
I repeat this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/who-said-it-short-term-border-violation-can-never-be-pretext-attack
Who Said It? "A Short-Term Border Violation Can Never Be A Pretext For An Attack"
Since the social pyramid systems are based upon ENFORCING FRAUDS, it is necessarily the case that civilization is controlled by the best available professional hypocrites. Of course, as those increasingly psychotic psychopaths head toward starting World War, one must expect "some of the most epic hypocrisy ever to spew from the mouths of NATO and its allies."
All of the de jure BULLSHIT embodied in the NATO treaties are entanglements that are heading toward the human species' de facto collective suicide. The most most extreme edge of NATO, namely Turkey, can drive us all off that edge of MADNESS, because all of the other bankster controlled NATO countries have agreed to that treaty.
Everything comes as a package deal, with the best and worst stuck together. Of course, that applies to NATO too, and may well become the worst package deal that was ever delivered to us!
Screw article 5. If Turkey wants to stick its jimmy in the ringer - too bad. They can fuck off if they think we're going to follow them. No one (at least not that we know of yet) forced them to do what they did - even though it was so fucking stupid, I will not be surprised if we -the US- somehow are behind this too.
When push comes to shove, NATO will come apart like a cheap suit.
EU maybe, but not Nato. Even the fact that Turkey is a member of Nato will not cause it to fail.
This is just a sideline game...
"The Russian bombing of Syria is technically legal because they have the explicit permission of the Syrian government"
Stop there. The rest is cojecture.
You can see how that "reporter" struggles to stop the general saying what he said.
As always… Cui Bono?
And once again... The Usual Suspects.
At the very least, it must be ever more embarassing to Those That Never Comment on Their Operations that H0 is refuted daily by the facts.
I'm pretty sure the whole problem is they don't feel feelings like embarrassment or, well any feelings except perhaps hatred. I'm pretty sure most power elite and intel folks are clinically diagnosable psycho/sociopaths.
What are the chances that the Turkish plane was remotely controlled to shoot down the Russian plane?
The US had been informed about where and when the Russian operations were to take place.
Where did Turkey buy those planes?
Don't drink, .... and post.
Nicaragua v. US is a testament to US hypocrisy and disregard for international law.
To me, something that would seem to make sense and that could de-escalate the tension over Syria would be for Russia to offer to France, and England, Turkey, and the United States and anyone else of importance to do their bombing for them within 5 minutes on any target.
Having military planes of various national flavors in the air over Syria seems dangerous as hell and fraught with the potential of escalation and direct conflict between these military powers.
Russia could place several of their bombers on patrol in the area where they wait for coordinates to be given to them of any place that needs to be bombed within 5 minutes. The country requesting a bombing mission could be kept aware of the current location of Russian bombers, and their intended tracks for the next hour so that when coordinates are relayed by radio then bombs could be released within a few minutes because the planes would be approaching the targets. The allies against ISIS could even suggest routes for the Russian bombers to fly ahead of time, but not provide details on what leg of a mission or which exact coordinates that bombs would be released. Any country that desires a strike mission would have to file a top secret request and their reasons for any bombing mission within 1 day that could be reviewed by France, England, Russia, and the USA with strict confidentially agreed to and no media leaks. The top secret requests would be at a general level and not contain any information that would give away any countries spying technology, or their human sources of recon. Each bombing run should have a very specific reason, shouldn’t it with some kind of evidence or data? The bombers could keep a list of excluded locations that could not be bombed just to make sure innocents are not harmed. And very importantly, the accuracy and timing of the bombing missions could be easily determined by satellite or other reconnaissance.
The above would seem reasonable in ways and France and the USA and anyone else could have any target taken out within five minutes time.
My skin in the game is that I have 2 children and I would not like to see the fight against ISIS escalate into war between countries. War between countries with todays advanced BNC technology could end very badly for many with much collateral damage of innocents. And the downstream detrimental effects to many countries economies might worsen the plight of many industries that rely on unfettered global trade.
Close in-ground support can't be performed anywhere near in the type of fashion you outlined above especially from satellite or even high-altitude drone reconnaisance.
Russian AF becomes UBER?
What's the going rate for a bomb run? Charge per mile and load? *
* Slight upcharge for 'moderate' terrorists?
If Russia will be obliged to warn the United States about the forthcoming destruction of clusters of terrorists in advance, for one day, then Russia will always be bombed just bare rocks.
The one day filing would for rationale would occur after the bombing has already occurred.
You have no idea of the problems involved in co-ordinating air strikes.
I co-ordinated everything from F4 to B52 strikes 50 yrs ago and keeping ground forces, supplementary aviation assets and the actual strike aircraft co-ordinated was a real FUBAR excercise.
Now imagine trying to do that with various forces with fuel on station requirements, language problems, system incompatibility, etc...
Here's the sound track for a B troop 1/9 Cavalry BDA (Bomb damage assessment), starts with orders in the TOC, checking damage, moping up, a little sympathy here and there, played this in my chopper often...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnYWfVPT5aI
That napalm smell, ya know.