All language subtitles for JAG - 08x15 - Friendly Fire-eng

How is your fuel, Sugar 2?

I show 4.0, Sugar 1.

Another ten minutes,
we'll be headed home.

Hey, look at those fireworks.

Someone's firing at us.

Beehive, this is Sugar 1.

We're taking ground fire
20 clicks southwest of Kandahar.

Request permission to hit them
with 20 Mike-Mike.

Stand by, Sugar 1.

Any reports of unfriendlies
near Kandahar, sir?

Not tonight. Tell him to stand by.

Hold your fire, Sugar 1.
We're checking it out.

I'm gonna take a mark.

Got a couple vehicles, light artillery.

Whoa! You see that?

See what, Sugar 1?

Taking A.A. Fire.
Declaring self-defence.

Switches hot. Set to single release.

Rolling in. Master arm on.

Hitting pickle.

Bomb's away!

- Shack.
Disengage.

Disengage. Friendlies.

They were shooting at us.

Sugar 2, you saw that, right?

The Navy's never filed
criminal charges

over a friendly fire incident
in wartime before, until now.

Lieutenant Commander David Ridley
dropped a Mark 82 laser-guided bomb

on a platoon of British soldiers.
Three dead, three wounded.

What did
the preliminary enquiry find, sir?

Commander Ridley
did not have permission

from the AWACS to engage.

What are the charges, admiral?

Involuntary manslaughter,
dereliction of duty.

You and Lieutenant Roberts
will prosecute.

Yes, sir.

Looking forward to getting back
into the courtroom again, sir.

Commander Turner, you'll defend.

Aye, sir.

It's a high-profile case.

The media will be in the courtroom.

Commander Rabb,
since you'll be presiding,

do you have a problem with that?

Judge Rabb?

Well, as an aviator, I think he has
a certain hands-on understanding

- of the issues.
- As an aviator, sir,

the commander may be biased
in favour of the pilot.

Then don't be.

Absolutely not, sir.

Commander, colonel,
I'm counting on both of you

to maintain
a certain level of decorum.

You'll have no trouble from us, sir.

That will be all.

Aye, sir.

You seemed pretty confident
in there, Harm.

Well, I've observed enough judges.
How hard can it be to be one?

I was referring to your assurance
that there will be no sparks between us

- in the courtroom.
- There won't be.

Yeah. That's what I thought
when I was a judge.

We know what happened then.

Yeah, you started throwing
your judicial weight around

- and tried to buffalo a guilty verdict.
- Excuse me. I was showing restraint.

You were trying to hijack
the proceedings

by circumventing the rules.

Your rules.

You were making them up
as you went along.

Oh, no, you don't.

I was following the law.

You can be sure of one thing.

While I'm in the seat,
there will be no retribution.

No payback?

No.

Good. I'll hold you to it.

The meat loaf not up
to your, uh, standards, petty officer?

I'm going to be your clerk of court, sir.
I thought I'd better do some reading.

Well, research never hurt anyone,
but a good judge's clerk

will temper book smarts
with common sense.

By the way, I don't expect you
to be a silent partner.

Yes, sir.

What does it say in there anyway?

"A judge must be a passive recipient
of information,

a quiet force who is most effective
when nearly invisible."

Commander, Coates.
Do you mind if we join you?

Unless Your Honour no longer mixes
with lowly trial lawyers.

Now is not a good time
to get on my bad side, Sturgis.

"A trial lawyer who becomes a judge

is like a boxer
who becomes a referee."

I've never had a judge hit me.

The day is still young.

"It is exceedingly difficult
for the passionate advocate

to become the objective observer."

Don't you two have trial prep?

My client is on his way.

And Colonel MacKenzie is interviewing
our witnesses, sir.

Well, why aren't you with her?

Colonel MacKenzie's gone out
to the Coral Sea, sir.

Due to my limited duty status, sir,
I'm kind of landlocked.

Are you, uh, worried
about being a judge?

Why would I be?
You two have all the work to do.

I'm just an objective observer.
Right, Coates?

Right, sir.

You could've told the admiral
you didn't want to.

Why would I do that?
That would be lying.

Millions of years ago,
there were hunters

who killed sabre-toothed tigers
with sticks and stones.

Back at the cave there were others,
not so courageous, but wise and fair.

And they would divvy up the meat
amongst the tribe.

You two don't think
I can carve the meat fairly?

You are a natural-born killer,
commander.

What we have here, colonel,
is command-and-control error,

not pilot error.

You're part of
command and control, CAG.

And I'm only as good
as the information that I'm provided.

So you didn't know
the British were conducting

a live-fire exercise near Kandahar?

The Coalition Air Operations Center
never told us.

I briefed my pilots
only on what I knew.

Even without the heads-up
about the British troops,

Commander Ridley is still bound
by the rules of engagement.

Correct.

The enemy is not, however,
bound by any rules whatsoever.

Well, our rules prohibit
deliberately descending

into antiaircraft range
in order to draw enemy fire.

Commander Ridley descended
to take a mark

of the suspected enemy position,
not to draw fire.

The AWACS never gave permission
to engage, sir.

Colonel, when you are taking A.A. Fire,
you do not need permission.

Not from AWACS or a JAG officer.

CAG, the antiaircraft fire
reported by Commander Ridley

turned out to be tracers
fired at ground level by the British.

Well, it all comes back to intel,
doesn't it, colonel?

No one ever briefed the AWACS
that there were friendlies in the area.

If the strike controller had
had that information,

there wouldn't have been a delay
in getting the word to Ridley

and he never would have engaged.

Given the circumstances,

I believe that dropping a single bomb

on an apparent enemy position
was both necessary and proportional.

What circumstances?

There had been unfriendlies
in the area three days prior.

And on two previous missions,
I'd taken incoming.

Doesn't that count for something?

It would, had you shot at
the unfriendlies instead of the British.

From 5,000 feet, at night,
tracer fire looks like A.A. Fire.

- Ask my wingman, he saw it.
- That's another problem.

When I interviewed
Lieutenant Commander Barry,

he said he never saw
the second burst,

- the one that prompted you to fire.
- So he missed it.

He saw the first one.

The British say they stopped shooting
when they saw you descend.

They claim there was
no second burst.

We're gonna need to find
a defence for you, commander.

It is absolutely
second-guessing at its worst.

It's hypocritical, unjust,
and dangerous to the country.

A pilot in combat makes
a split-second decision,

then is forced to answer
to some pinhead politician

if something goes wrong?

Hey, it's war.
Lots of stuff goes wrong.

You cannot turn an honest mistake
on the battlefield into a crime.

And you can't treat
American fighting men like criminals

if an accident happens. Come on.
We have a war to fight.

I don't always agree
with him, but he's right.

- Partly.
- What part is that, sir?

That we do have a war to fight.

And I'm not just talking
about Afghanistan.

I'm talking about a place that is
even more dangerous: Capitol Hill.

Appropriations.

Not sure I, uh, see the connection.

Well, the British
are screaming bloody murder, A.J.

That makes senators with
purse strings nervous about funding.

It's tragic, the whole thing.

One grave error,
three young men pay with their lives.

Now another one is gonna have to pay
with his career.

Well, sir, uh,
that has yet to be determined.

Commander Ridley made a mistake.

Now surely, when it comes to holding
our people accountable,

the Navy's standards are higher

than those of the court
of public opinion.

Our standards are the same
as they've always been, Mr. Secretary:

A presumption of innocence

and a fair and impartial hearing
of the facts.

Which is why you appointed an aviator
to sit in judgement of one of his own?

Commander Rabb
is an excellent attorney

and I'm sure
he'll make an excellent judge.

I hope you're right.

Washington is at least as much
about appearances

as it is about policy.

I told you that I would fight
the good fight

to get the Navy what it needs.

I just hope that this incident
doesn't jeopardise that.

I know you share that hope
with me, A.J.

Yes, sir.

Blood work showed

amphetamines in
your system after the incident.

That would be from the go pills, sir.

One pill every two or three hours
in flight.

Plus traces of benzodiazepine.

- No-go pills, sir.
- Sedatives?

Yeah.

It's for a combat nap before takeoff.

So you're mixing stimulants
with sedatives.

Everything is prescribed
by the flight surgeon.

These go pills,
they make you, uh, jittery or nervous?

No, sir. More like, uh,

honing my concentration
to a razor-sharp edge, sir.

Good.

Good. Just make sure
you tell that to the jury.

All the pilots take
anti-fatigue medication, commander.

Uh, I don't see how the prosecution
is gonna use that against me.

They're not going to, Ridley.

We're gonna use it
to get you off, if we're lucky.

All rise.

Please be seated.

This court-martial
will now come to order.

Let the record reflect that the accused,
counsel and members are all present.

Is prosecution ready to proceed?

We are, Your Honour.

- And the defence?
- Ready, Your Honour.

Before we begin, will counsel
please approach the bench?

- What's with the cheering section?
- I have no control over

the secretary of the Navy,
Your Honour.

Let him know that I will not stand

for any displays of favouritism
in my courtroom.

I'll do my best.

- All right, let's roll.
- Excuse me?

Proceed, colonel.

Friendly fire.

Such an innocent-sounding phrase.

But there's another term too:
Fratricide.

The killing of one's brother.

In this case, our brothers in arms,
British soldiers in Afghanistan.

The prosecution will prove
that the defendant,

Lieutenant Commander David Ridley,
violated the rules of engagement

and disregarded instructions
from a strike controller

on an AWACS aircraft.

The result, Commander Ridley
recklessly dropped

a precision-guided bomb,
but not on the enemy.

On British soldiers, killing three.

His excuse? Well,
he claimed it was self-defence,

that someone was firing at him.
But there are no other witnesses

- who can corroborate that.
Colonel.

This sounds more
like a closing argument.

Please confine your opening
to a preview

of evidence you plan to submit.

I thought I was, Your Honour.

It's my call, counsellor.

The prosecution will prove
that Commander Ridley is guilty

of dereliction of duty
and involuntary manslaughter.

Thank you.

Friendly fire is a problem
as old as warfare itself.

General Stonewall Jackson,
in the Civil War,

was killed by his own men
on a night-time mission.

During Desert Storm,
nearly 25 percent of our casualties

were caused by friendly fire.

And while these losses are tragic,
they're also unavoidable.

- Objection. This is argumentative.
- Overruled.

It is against this backdrop
that you will consider the case

of Lieutenant Commander
David Ridley,

a decorated and highly skilled pilot
who took incoming fire

three days earlier
from the same locale.

We were positioned in Wadi East,

a ditch about 25 kilometres
southwest of Kandahar.

And what are your duties,
Lieutenant Whitehall?

Range safety officer
of the live-fire exercise.

Will you please tell the members
what happened that night?

My unit was engaged
in tank-stalking operations.

Were your men firing weapons?

Small arms and machine guns,
lieutenant, all at ground level.

And did there come a time
when you observed any aircraft?

There did.

Will you please tell the members
what happened then?

When we saw the American aircraft
approaching, I called for a check fire.

And did the firing cease?

Ours did, lieutenant.

But one of the American jets
swooped down over our position.

Did you transmit
to Coalition Air Ops?

Our generator
had just broken down.

A few seconds later,
the American bomb hit us.

I lost three men,
Lance Corporal Greengrass,

Lance Corporal Weatherall,
Staff Sergeant Porter.

You were injured in the attack
as well.

I was some distance
from the strike, sir.

But clearly not far enough.

Your witness, commander.

Lieutenant, why did you tell your men
to cease firing

when you saw the American jets
overhead?

We all knew about
the American gunship

firing into that wedding party
at Uruzgan, sir.

Killed 40 civilians.

The wedding party where celebrants
were firing arms into the air?

Objection, Your Honour. That incident
is irrelevant to these proceedings.

Your witness opened the door,
counsellor.

Overruled.

Local Afghans were firing
into the air, commander.

Apparently,
that's how they celebrate.

The American crew wasn't charged
with a crime in that incident, was it?

Your Honour.

- Now you're pushing it.
- Sorry, Your Honour.

During your tank-stalking exercises,
did your men fire weapons into the air?

- No, sir.
- But they fired from the Wadi floor

upwards towards the tank
on higher ground.

That's correct, sir, yes.

Your machine guns shoot tracers,
don't they?

- Every fifth round.
- And tracers light up the night sky?

That's correct. Yes, sir.

So your men were firing
small arms and machine guns.

You were trying to fix
a broken generator.

You were worried
about two jets flying over.

And yet, you're sure
none of your men fired

after Commander Ridley's plane
descended over your position?

I'm quite sure, sir.

Nothing further.

I don't mind
taking an unpopular case.

Public opinion is against us.
The SECNAV wants a quick hanging.

Turner's a tough opponent.
I can handle all that.

But to have to fight the judge too?

It's completely out of line.

You know,
he's injecting his own opinion,

breaking my momentum
wherever he can.

How much more payback
do you think the guy can dish out?

With all due respect, ma'am,

maybe we should just focus
on what's under our control.

Are you defending him?

Because he is out of line, Bud.

I'm sorry if you can't see that

because of some residual
commander-worship.

I think you're right, ma'am.

Sometimes the people we look up to
do have feet of clay.

So would you say I was
a, uh, passive recipient

- of information today?
- Sir?

A quiet force, who is most effective
when nearly invisible?

Yes, commander.

Is that what you really think?

I think, uh, Colonel MacKenzie
is having a tough time in there, sir.

And you think
that I'm the cause of that?

I think she might think
you're the cause of it.

Colonel. No, as you were.

I just wanted to commend you
and Lieutenant Roberts

on just an excellent job thus far.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I'm a bit surprised
at the apparent level of hostility

between you and the commander
in the courtroom.

I imagined you might have
a bit more sway.

Well, neither the commander nor I
sway easily, sir.

Well, if I can be of any assistance
in your pursuit of the truth.

You can, sir.

- Really?
I think it would be helpful

if you weren't sitting
on my side of the courtroom

during the proceeding, sir,
in the interest of eliminating sway.

Hmm.

Yes, I can find other ways
to spend my afternoons.

Colonel, again,
keep up the good work.

Commander Ridley asked
for permission to engage.

I told him to stand by.

What did you do next,
Lieutenant Kaufman?

I attempted to ascertain whether there
were any friendlies in the area, ma'am.

And what did
Commander Ridley do?

He descended,
declared self-defence

and dropped a 500-pound bomb
before I could get back to him.

- Your witness.
- Nothing at this time, Your Honour,

subject to my right
to recall the witness.

I have a few questions, lieutenant.

- Your Honour?
- Yes, colonel?

Nothing, sir.

Now, wouldn't you normally have
that information available,

what coalition troops
are in the area?

Yes, sir.
But there was a breakdown.

The British reported their exercise
to the Coalition Air Ops Center,

but it slipped through at the centre
and never got to us.

But Commander Ridley
would have expected to have received

the information immediately,
correct?

Your Honour, I have to object
to the hypothetical question.

You're objecting to my question?

I am, Your Honour.

Overruled.

May we approach?

Sure. Come on up.

You may approach.

Your Honour, I object
to your questioning the witness.

The court has that right, colonel.
You know that.

Do you have a problem
with my questioning?

No, but I had planned
to ask the witness

- the same questions later and still do.
- Oh, great.

Then the members get to hear it twice.

Once with the inference
that the judge favours the defence.

That was not my intent, colonel.

Clarity was.

Well, the effect
is to prejudice the prosecution.

Look, if I'm gonna lose, I'd like to do it
without any help from the bench.

- What is your problem?
- You are, Your Honour, respectfully.

First, you interrupt
my opening statement,

and then you let defence counsel

refer to another friendly fire incident
where no charges were filed.

And now your questions
of Lieutenant Kaufman

imply that the Air Ops Center
was to blame.

So, what do you want, colonel?

Some judicial restraint, sir.

You're asking me to refrain
from questioning witnesses?

No, Your Honour. I am asking you
to recuse yourself on grounds of bias.

It is sad and demoralising

when family members fight
amongst themselves.

And that's what is happening
to our Navy

in its unfair prosecution
of fighter pilot David Ridley,

charged with manslaughter

for a friendly fire incident
in Afghanistan.

Ridley is a scapegoat
for bad intelligence,

incompetent allies
and even the fog of war itself.

Yesterday, things got ugly

when Marine Colonel
Sarah MacKenzie, the prosecutor,

accused the judge,
Commander Harmon Rabb, of bias.

Now, I don't know
Commander Rabb.

But he is a hero,
a decorated fighter pilot.

And he has not bailed out
of this case.

So I'm with the commander so far.

And to the Navy,
I have only this to say:

Don't put handcuffs
on your fighter pilots.

That will mean defeat in every way.

I can't discuss the case,
Mr. Secretary.

Of course not.

I would never dream
of asking you to, commander.

But I do have one question, though.

You've flown in combat.

Did you ever find yourself in a position
like Commander Ridley was in

in the skies over Afghanistan?

Sir, I can't talk about it.

Oh. As a judge?

As an aviator, I can't discuss it.

Well, as an aviator,
do you endorse his actions?

Sir, I don't know what I would
or wouldn't have done

without a full understanding
of the context of the situation.

But you're going to have
to render decisions as a judge.

After a careful review
of the facts and the law, sir.

And I suspect
that will be difficult for you

because you can so easily put yourself
in the shoes of the accused.

A lawyer is trained
to look at all sides of an issue.

A judge is required
to view the issues objectively.

But I think there may be
more sides to this

than you realise, commander.

The cockpit is only one context
in play here.

We're in a war on terrorism

and we need to have our allies
standing confidently alongside us.

I understand that, Mr. Secretary.

Well, then you also understand
how critical it is

to have accountability for the death
of three British soldiers.

I will see to it
that justice prevails, sir.

I thought we weren't gonna
discuss the case.

Are we? I wasn't aware.

Well, if we are, sir,

it could be construed
as unlawful command influence

and obstruction of justice.

Oh, well, heh, then you'd better run.

You're the only one I can turn to, sir.

In the middle of a trial?

Commander Rabb
refuses to recuse himself

despite clear evidence of bias.

Interlocutory appeal isn't permitted.
I have to wait until the end of the trial.

But if Commander Ridley is acquitted,
Court of Criminal Appeals won't hear it

because the prosecution
can't appeal an acquittal.

It's a Catch-22.

That's quite a catch, that Catch-22.
It's the best there is.

This isn't a joke, commander.

Oh, what is it exactly
you want me to do?

Remove Commander Rabb
from the case.

- I don't think I can do that.
- Then order him to recuse himself, sir.

Can't do that either.

Do you see any reason
you shouldn't sit on this trial?

Sir, I feel I can continue

to discharge my duties
fairly and impartially.

Then I request permission
to withdraw myself as trial counsel.

On what grounds?

I'm incapable of rendering
competent services.

Colonel, if you were truly incapable

of doing a good job,
you wouldn't know it

and you wouldn't request
to be removed.

The mere fact
that you made the motion

means you're a competent attorney.
Hell, it's a...

Catch-22.

- Request denied.
- Aye, sir.

You think I'm favouring
the defence?

Your rulings do all seem
to favour Commander Ridley, sir.

You did ask me
to speak my mind, sir.

I'm not favouring the pilot.
I'm just getting after the truth.

Yes, sir.

What, you think I'm going too far?

I think that in some situations,

it's, uh, impossible to keep
your personal feelings out of it.

I have no personal feelings
toward Commander Ridley.

I didn't mean
Commander Ridley, sir.

Commander Barry, you were Ridley's
wingman on the night of the incident?

- Yes, ma'am.
- Fire any weapons that night?

- No, ma'am.
- Declare self-defence?

- No, ma'am.
- In fact, you never saw

what Commander Ridley described as
a second burst of fire, did you?

No, ma'am. But I saw the first.

Which turned out
not to be enemy fire at all.

Apparently so, colonel.
But David Ridley doesn't lie.

If he says he saw green lizard men
firing at him, I'd believe him.

Objection. Not responsive.

Sustained.

Would you instruct the members

to disregard the witness's
last statement, Your Honour?

So instructed.

Would you articulate
the instructions, sir?

Come on, colonel. The members are
up to speed. Let's move it along.

Perhaps the best way for me
to move it along is to sit down.

Your witness.

Commander Barry,
how long was this mission?

From the time of taking off
from the Coral Sea to our return,

about nine hours, sir.

In-flight refuellings?
Five, sir.

Makes for a pretty gruelling
nine hours, eh?

Keeps us on our toes, sir.

At what point in the mission
did the incident occur?

We were just minutes
from heading back to the Coral Sea.

- Must've been tired.
- No, sir.

Given the length of the mission,

battle group commander
authorised use of go pills.

Doesn't that make it difficult
to sleep?

We take the no-go pills for naps.

Is this standard procedure?

No, sir.
This particular mission required it.

You took these pills
on the day of the incident?

Yes, sir. We both did.

So you're mixing amphetamines
and sleeping pills

on the day of a combat mission?

Yes, sir.

Medications which may affect
mood and judgement

and can cause amnesia
and paranoia.

Objection.
Assumes facts not in evidence.

It's sustained as phrased.

Commander, were these medications
a problem for you?

No, sir.

I'm the flight surgeon
aboard the Coral Sea.

Commander Sachs,
do you routinely provide

dextroamphetamines to flight crews?

I do. As anti-fatigue medication.

Better bombing through chemistry?

Objection. Argumentative.
Sustained.

Don't amphetamines have
serious side effects, commander?

Properly used, they increase alertness
and focus attention.

And improperly used?

Over-stimulation could be
deleterious to performance.

But I dispense only enough
for each flight.

These pills come with warning labels,
don't they?

These days, all medication does.

"Can affect perception

and impair the ability
to operate machinery."

You shouldn't drive a car
while taking these drugs.

That depends on the amount.

But it's okay to fly
a $40-million aircraft

loaded with high-tech weaponry?

Again, commander,
the proper amount of medication

used by pilots in top physical condition.
It's not a problem.

"Medication may provoke irritability

and an unreasonable concern
about threats to one's well-being."

That sounds like paranoia,
commander.

That would be extremely rare.

But not, uh, unheard of.

Some people are allergic to peanuts,
Commander Turner.

We don't ban flight crews
from eating them.

Are you equating peanuts with
amphetamines, Commander Sachs?

Objection.
Counsel is baiting the witness.

Colonel, counsel has the right
to cross-examine the witness.

Overruled.

I'm just saying
that these warning labels

list everything imaginable,

no matter how infinitesimal the risk.

How many casualties
have to mount up

before you no longer consider the risk
to be infinitesimal?

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained. Commander.

Do you consider this medication
to be safe?

These drugs have been in use
since before Vietnam.

Their safety's been demonstrated.

But assuming these pills affected
Commander Ridley's perception,

could that explain
why he saw a burst of gunfire

that no one else did?

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Sustained.

From now on
I'll let you be the one who objects.

At the briefing,
Captain Bales, the CAG,

told us there'd been unfriendlies
in the area.

Did this come as news to you?

Hardly, sir. We'd been fired on
three nights earlier.

Did the CAG tell you in the briefing
the British would be in the area?

No, sir. Apparently, he never got word
from the Coalition Air Ops Center.

Would you tell the members
what happened that night?

It was pretty uneventful.

Five refuellings,
no calls for air support.

And then...

Hey, look at those fireworks.

Someone's firing at us.

I asked the AWACS for permission
to fire 20 Mike-Mike, the machine gun,

and was told to stand by.

What did you do then?

I descended to get a better look
and take a mark of the position

in case it was necessary
to use a precision-guided bomb.

Whoa! You see that?
See what, Sugar 1?

Taking A.A. Fire.
Declaring self-defence.

Did you feel justified
in declaring self-defence?

Yes, sir.

I believed I was being fired upon.

Commander, you use amphetamines
during this mission?

Yes, sir.
Ten milligrams prior to takeoff.

Three additional pills
of 5 milligrams each during the flight.

Your witness.

Lieutenant Roberts will do the cross,
Your Honour.

Very well. Lieutenant.

So the AWACS strike controller
instructs you to stand by

and you interpret this to mean
go down for a closer look?

I interpreted it
to mean not to engage yet.

What was the altitude you were at
when you noticed the ground fire, sir?

About 12,000 feet.

And this surface-to-air fire
that you thought you saw,

- was it reaching your altitude?
- No, sir.

So you weren't in any danger
until you descended?

That's true, lieutenant.

But if it had been the enemy,
they might have had other weapons.

But it wasn't the enemy, sir.

I had no way of knowing that.

I thought it prudent
to check out the situation.

Wouldn't it have been more
prudent to ascend to a higher altitude

and wait for word
from the AWACS?

Perhaps. I'm trained to be
aggressive as well as prudent.

Did the medication that you're taking
make you more aggressive?

Uh, no.

Does the medication affect
your perception?

No.

So you don't blame the pills
for the deaths of three British soldiers?

No, I don't.

If there's any blame, it's all mine.

Thanks, sir.

Sir, how did
Colonel MacKenzie know

that Commander Ridley wouldn't use
the medication as an excuse?

Well, she saw Turner
hadn't asked Ridley

if the pills affected his perception.

And Commander Turner
would have asked

if the answer
had been helpful to his case.

The colonel is
a really good lawyer, isn't she?

Yeah.

So she and Lieutenant Roberts
have the case won, sir?

Well, unless the members believe
Commander Ridley's claim

that he had taken
a second burst of fire.

Do you believe
Commander Ridley, sir?

He was very convincing
on the stand.

But then, so was the British officer,
Lieutenant Whitehall,

who claimed they stopped firing, so...

I almost forgot.
Instructions to the members.

"If there is a reasonable doubt
as to the guilt of the accused,

your verdict must be not guilty."

Won't there always be
some doubt, commander?

Keep reading.

"A reasonable doubt
is not mere conjecture.

It is an honest, conscientious doubt
suggested by the evidence.

An absolute or mathematical certainty
is not required

to find a defendant guilty."

Glad I'm not
one of the members, sir.

Just be glad
you're not sitting on that bench.

I thought Commander Turner
might've been on to something

with the tracers looking
like surface-to-air fire.

Yeah, but it went nowhere.

Whitehall is preoccupied
with the generator.

Commander Ridley descends.
He swears he's taking incoming.

The British swear they ceased firing.

Somebody's gotta be lying, sir.

Unless Commander Ridley saw
what he thought was antiaircraft fire.

Well, what could that be, sir?

I mean, they're in the middle
of nowhere on a dark night.

Yeah, really dark
after that generator went down.

Sir?

I think I know
what Commander Ridley saw.

That's great, sir.

No, it's not.

I can't tell anyone.

What do we do now, sir?

We need to make sure
that justice prevails.

Let's take a look at
the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Maybe there's an answer there.

"So another example would
be, say, a witness hobbles into court

using a cane and testifies
he's so disabled he can hardly walk.

But the judge remembers
seeing the witness on the ski slopes

two weeks earlier."

The judge has to disqualify himself?

That's what the book says, sir.

Under the Code of Judicial Conduct,

"the judge must not have
personal knowledge

of disputed evidentiary facts."

- Any exceptions?
- Yes, sir.

"If the judge learned the knowledge
in the court proceeding,

he can remain on the case."

Great, so I can stay on the case.

I just... I can't do anything
with the information I have.

No, sir.

"A judge must refrain
from any action that assists a party."

"Assists."

Yes, sir.

What if he assists a party
but hurts their case?

Well, then I guess
it wouldn't be assistance, sir.

Nice work, Coates.

Thank you, sir.

For everything, sir.

For requesting me as a clerk
and letting me take part in the case.

The theme of our closing
should be personal responsibility.

You can't blame the British.
You can't blame the Ops Center.

I don't know. If Commander Ridley
had had the intel, ma'am.

- Good morning.
- Morning, sir.

Good morning.

I, uh, was wondering
when you thought

we might get this case
to the members?

Well, that depends on
Commander Turner.

He hasn't rested yet.

Do you have rebuttal witnesses?

Depends on
what the commander does.

Hmm, because I thought you might be
getting into the AWACS electronics.

Why would we?

I'll see you in court, then.

He's trying to tell us something,
ma'am.

Deconfliction reports.

- Masint records.
- Electromagnetic-impulse sensors.

Ma'am, is it okay for Commander Rabb
to be helping us?

Have you ever known
the commander to do anything...

Improper? No.
Unconventional, huh, yeah.

EMI transmissions.

What about them, ma'am?

The AWACS picked up something
from the British position.

Well, that wouldn't be unusual.

Brits have vehicles
that would throw off EMIs.

Here's one that spiked.
Something electrical?

Something that would be
visible from above?

- I don't get it.
- Oh, I think I do.

It looks like the commander
just handed us the winning evidence

for the defence.

It's not like
Colonel MacKenzie to be late.

Sorry, Your Honour.

Take your time, colonel.

May we approach?

Yes.

As the court is well aware,
under Brady v. Maryland,

the prosecution is required

to turn over all exculpatory evidence
to the defence.

AWACS
electromagnetic-impulse recordings

from the night of the incident.

It's a little late for Brady material,
isn't it, colonel?

We just received the information
this morning.

But I'm sure the court will grant
a short recess to allow you to digest it.

Ground fire wouldn't cause
electromagnetic impulses,

so I don't see
what relevance this has

unless whatever produced
the impulses could be mistaken

as antiaircraft fire.

Are you ready to proceed,
commander?

Yes, sir. I am. Thank you, colonel.

Don't thank me, commander.

- Bring in the members, marine.
Yes, sir.

It's called the "Black Crow."

It's a sensor that picks up and
identifies electromagnetic impulses.

Can you identify the sources
of these impulses?

Yes, sir. Different equipment produces
different electronic signatures.

We can distinguish a laptop computer
from a radar antenna

from a car's spark plugs.

In fact, sir, we can tell a Cadillac
from a Volkswagen 20 miles away.

Did the sensor pick up
any EMI activity on the ground

- the night of the incident?
- Yes, sir.

There was an output
of approximately 1 kilowatt

from what turned out
to be the British position.

And could you identify the source
of the impulses?

They have the signature

of a Rolls-Royce R7
gasoline generator, sir.

Did the impulses hold steady?

There were three spikes to
10 kilowatts within about five seconds.

What would cause spikes
in electromagnetic impulses?

The generator may have sparked two
or three times when it went down, sir.

Did the sparks light up
the night sky?

Not from where I was standing, sir.

- You were on the ground in the Wadi?
- Yes, sir.

And the generator was
on the bed of a truck above you?

Yes, sir.

Where was Ridley's aircraft
at the time the generator sparked?

Directly above us, commander.

And therefore, directly above
the generator that was sparking?

Yes, I suppose so.

But that still does not excuse
what he did, sir.

Nothing further.

All rise.

Please be seated.

Will the defence please rise?

Will the senior member
announce the findings?

Lieutenant Commander David Ridley,
United States Navy.

This court-martial finds you
on all charges and specifications

not guilty.

I wanna thank the members
and counsel for completing their duties

with the highest standards
of professional conduct.

But before I adjourn
these proceedings,

Commander Ridley,

although you were not found guilty
of a crime under the UCMJ,

I find that your conduct in this matter
raises questions

as to your ability to fly in combat.

Accordingly, I'm recommending
to your commanding officer

that a field evaluation board
be convened

to consider your future
as a naval aviator.

This court is adjourned.

I assume your friends at State

are doing damage control
with the British.

All the years as our allies?
No, that won't end in a day.

It helps that our pilot
really did see something

that looked like antiaircraft fire.

Truth won out. Hmm.

Everybody wins.

So it behooves us to make sure
that such a tragic incident

can never again occur
on our watch, A.J.

More dollars spent
on communication technology,

uh, command and control, training.
That sounds like the antidote to me.

Sounds like
an appropriations bill to me.

Bigger piece of the pie,
we all benefit.

Commander.
- Mr. Secretary.

I just wanna say that your
first assignment to the bench was...

distinctive.

- A.J.
Mr. Secretary.

- Colonel.
- Sir.

Have a seat.

Uh, I need to find someone to serve
as a judge for a couple of months.

Any volunteers?

You can count me out, sir.

Oh, commander,
I thought you did a fine job.

I don't know. The colonel asked
to have me removed from the case.

I got over it.

I'm just not cut out for it, sir.

I'm more of a hunter.

- A hunter?
- It's a metaphor.

The type to hit sabre-toothed tigers
with sticks.

What this job requires is someone
with patience and judgement.

Someone like, uh, Mac.
Colonel MacKenzie.

Well, I think that's the nicest thing
you've ever said to me.

Well, let's see what he says
the next time he has to appear before you,
Your Honour.