You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Looks like the Australian government may have a few questions to answers following on from the latest war crimes issue
Never going to be a winner with a case like that. While not excusing the alleged war crimes, war does horrendous things to people.
war does horrendous things to people.
Yes however whilst there appears to have been systematic failures by the government/ senior command regarding deployments, I think ordering subordinates to execute unarmed people to blood then maybe hard to blame on the heat of battle, stress etc especially when, afaik, not raised as a defence. The review into the regiment identified a cultural issue as well leading to war crimes.
Having attended a function with the person in question presenting it didn’t surprise me in the slightest.
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens now… if anything.
I've no doubt that the Australian Army would have it's version of Military Law and that their soldiers (like ours) would be taught, and expect to be reasonably familiar with the standards laid out in it and more importantly understand that if they step outside of them, they're effectively on their own. I'm also pretty sure that they (the Australian Army) would've had some pretty robust In-Theatre ROE. So I have no doubt whatsoever that this group of soldiers understood perfectly fine and well that they were breaking the law.
This reveals a total failure of both individual behaviour, and of the command structure, and I'd expect that they're going to have to do some pretty deep reflecting on what they do now. I understand that these troopers are SAS and he's got a VC, and challenging this behaviour would've been difficult, but his command clearly either looked the other way, or felt that the behaviour - further up the chain of command, was acceptable.
, but his command clearly either looked the other way, or felt that the behaviour – further up the chain of command, was acceptable.
I think one of the findings was the units in question were a bit autonomous / removed from senior command and it was a rot at nco level leading the units which was “allowed” to flourish
I think one of the findings was the units in question were a bit autonomous / removed from senior command and it was a rot at nco level leading the units which was “allowed” to flourish
That's very convenient. Very much "No not at all institutionalised barbarity. It was just a rogue apple - honest guv"
I think it was more institutionalised barbarity but run by the NCO cadre
I think it was more institutionalised barbarity but run by the NCO cadre
Which is of itself a massive issue. Commissioned officers exist for a reason and it's not to wear a nice white dress uniform and be excellent at small talk at official socials. There is no place for Boris Johnson wannabes in the armed forces - probably once was (household cavalry regiments, I'm looking at you!), but not any more.
Regardless of Australian law, it appears very much they were contravening the Geneva Convention.
That’s very convenient. Very much “No not at all institutionalised barbarity. It was just a rogue apple – honest guv”
That finding is not at all a "rotten apple" argument.
It doesn't seem to be unusual at all - the same was reported of British special forces.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62083196
Train people to do bad things in bad places, and they do bad things in bad places shocker
Eh...
What a daft thing to say.
Train people to do bad things in bad places, and they do bad things in bad places shocker
Daft statement. Not even going to bother arguing it, other than to say its really disrespectful to the overwhelming majority who have no problem sticking to the rules and not murdering innocent civilians.
Not really having been to war twice ive seen what it has done to some people and the way some people act, if you train people to go into combat id say there has to be some acceptance that there may be some who then take to far
Edited to add. This is the same throughout society, but the difference is these have been trained to kill, put in a war zone and given a weapon.
And I'm not doing a disservice to all who serve and didn't go off on one, I myself served and didn't do anything in war I shouldn't have done
Train people to do bad things in bad places, and they do bad things in bad places shocker
Bollocks. Soldiers know the difference between legally sanctioned and disciplined use of force and murder. In this country, they are required to undergo law of armed conflict training every year and are given clear rules of engagement on operations. I'm pretty sure it's the same in the Aussie and Kiwi forces. They absolutely know the penalties for illegal activity, including murder. The vast majority comply with no issues Those that don't aren't fit to serve and/or there has been a serious failure of leadership in their chain of command.
And there it is ---> The vast majority comply
Hopefully you agree firestarter that those that don't comply should be tried and prosecuted accordingly?
Remember also that he isn't being convicted of these things, that would be almost impossible. His problem was that he went after the newspapers that said it happened and it was completely clear that it did actually happen. I would be surprised though if institutionally they weren't aware of it and let it go because it worked for them at the time
I should add that it is also quite shocking. Pushing someone handcuffed off a cliff, not just threatening it, and then getting someone else to shoot them is pretty much off of any scale
Yes of course scruff, but What I was trying to suggest was that it perhaps isnt so surprising that a trained soldier in a war zone with a rifle goes off on one. 2 of my colleagues shot themselves whilst away but they could easily have shot anyone else they were in that poor a state of mind and the government needs to take some responsibility and look after people better
Putting aside the arguments on here, have you seen the size of the guy? He is an absolute unit!
@convert
Which is of itself a massive issue. Commissioned officers exist for a reason and it’s not to wear a nice white dress uniform and be excellent at small talk at official socials. There is no place for Boris Johnson wannabes in the armed forces – probably once was (household cavalry regiments, I’m looking at you!), but not any more.
As I understand it the problem is that chain of command in the SAS & other special forces doesn't necessarily follow rank order like the regular regiments - it's usually experience. So even if there was a commissioned officer they can technically be a subordinate of the NCO who has more experience etc.
Remember also that he isn’t being convicted of these things, that would be almost impossible.
Why would it be almost impossible?
Fella went rogue, there's no defence for it and trying to do so is quite frankly insulting to anyone who has ever served. These weren't the actions of someone battling demons, they were the actions of an individual that had let the autonomy and responsibility of that role manifest as malignant power and control.
The SF have a variation of RoE that allows them leeway when hunting high value targets (HVT) that doesn't necessarily require the HVT to be armed or in the act of ****ery to be sent on their merry way.
They also have a slightly more robust tactical questioning SOP, again necessary for the shitbags they hunt.
Chucking a restrained CPERS (captured persons) off an elevated position then ordering a subordinate to carry out and extra-judicial killing or engaging a scared old man in a tunnel doesn't fit with either of those exceptions.
He's clearly been listening to a barrack-room lawyer instead of a real one before embarking on that fools errand. I hope for the integrity of the Australian SOF community they finally act on these crimes. His actions and the inaction by their MoD is a dishonour to many who served honourably and a further slight to the victims and their families after the spectacular failure that the ISAF mission ended with.
Why would it be almost impossible?
I would think there would be a lack of will in sufficient places to have the desire or evidence to make it stick. In an ideal world yes it would be possible but I'm sure they were aware at the time it happened and that was the time to stop it. If they go after him now then who knew about it will come out and also why it wasn't stopped. That's a difficult hurdle to get over, unfortunately
Politically I think it will be interesting what happens next. The current PM I think would personally want to see something done ... but the national sentiment leans very much toward the sanctity of "war heroes."
He’s clearly been listening to a barrack-room lawyer instead of a real one before embarking on that fools errand.
There's a bit more going on that may not have made it through in the recent news reports. He was working for a rival media organisation from 2012-2021 and was General Manager for some of that time. So guess who was funding this attempt?
Australia is known as the defamation capital of the world (there's no such thing as libel or slander - it's all known as defamation now) as it's easier to win than places like the UK - there's a greater emphasis on the defendant proving the truth of whatever they've published - one of the reasons for the protracted court case (COVID aside)
Putting aside the arguments on here, have you seen the size of the guy? He is an absolute unit!
When I saw him present at a work function to a room full of engineers I found it quite uncomfortable. Stood up on stage he had an absolutely polished presentation which told what he appeared to believe was an incredible story of being a unique individual. Any humility appeared quite false. He explained in great detail the events that led to him being awarded a VC, all the 'terminations' etc. When he was off stage and mingling you could see he was massive!
I was going to mention to one of my ex-military colleagues that I thought he was a bit full of himself but noticed he was just in absolute awe of the guy. And I think it's this that led to him thinking he could pull this off. He didn't realise how many people that he'd worked with were prepared to effecively testify against him. If you've read some of the cover up attempts he's made, the treatment of his ex-wife and g/f it's nasty. He's so convinved of his own brilliance he's believed his own lies, explained away his bullying of other soldiers. He's got away with it for so long he thinks he's untouchable.