Original subtitles

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.