Military injustice: our troops should not be charged

centurion48 says:

07:30am | 07/10/10

@persephone: spot on, mate. Charlie probably thinks he is sticking up for the diggers but he has been out of the military for a long time and things have changed. I think my service record might be longer than his as well (and in a combat corps). Without scrutiny such as this the My Lai massacre would be a forgotten moment in history. His remarks about Defence legal personnel are a cheap shot.

Denny Crane says:

08:03am | 07/10/10

Well said Charlie, Persephone you have absolutley no idea.

We are in a country fighting where have the time, we dont know who the enemy is, the hide behind children and women, they dont care if they get killed or anyone around them, in these situations, thier will be casualities.

What Charlie is saying is that yes we should not be a member of the world court most countries are not, they are looking after thier own people first, and thats how it should be, you seem to be more worried about the Afghans then your own people.

Our troops are thier fighting for you, so you can enjoy the australian lifestyle, too see politicans stabbing them in the back is a utter disgrace and unaustralian.

We need to immediately withdraw from the world court, if that means a no confidence vote against the government so be it.

The problem in Afghanistan will not go away overnight we need regional help, and that means Iran, the USA needs to consult with Iran and get them onside lfit the embargos, Iran being maostly SHI muslim, have not trust of the taliban, and also they know how to deal with this area.

Time is changing and Charlie i support what you said

C1 says:

08:20am | 07/10/10

Pers,

I do not often agree with your views, but you are very right in this response.

Alan Shore says:

02:55pm | 07/10/10

@ Denny, love the remarks, made me smile obviously tongue in cheek.

Charlie says:

07:10am | 08/10/10

I was not there - neither was Brigadier Lyn McDade.  If I was in charge of the investigaton with such serious consequences I would have visited the scene and interviewed all witnesses before I made my recommendations. This process wold allow the DMP to determine whether the action was the result of faulty intelligence, whether the soldiers made a mistake or whethyer they deliberately breached the rules of engagement. The action happened in February 2009.  Why has it taken almost two years to reach the conclusion that they should face manslaughter charges and didn’t the DMP visit the site and interview all witnesses before making the decision.  There is an old adage that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.
I do not believe we should allow an International Criminal Court to have jurisdiction over our miltary forces serving overseas. I believe our government should either negotiate a protection clause for international military operations or withdraw from the court or not send our military overseas on combat missions.

Ted Smith says:

09:19am | 09/10/10

Unless you have been a soldier in the Infantry in battle and seen one of your mates legs blown off by a grenade thrown by a woman posing as a “civilian” you are not qualified to give an opinion, no Australian soldier would ever knowingly kill an unarmed civilian

Chicken Little says:

06:10pm | 09/10/10

The preliminary investigation , if what occurred is as described above, should have come back with ” no case to answer”, Soldiers at War operate at a different level to civilian Police in peacetime Australia.
It is ludicrous , delusional and shows pig ignorance and a complete lack of understanding of what War and the role of soldiers duties & responsibilities in Combat are to suggest they should face a military court.
I suspect that the Brigadier Prosecutor who may have been a lateral transfer into the role was appointed by K Rudd and has her own agenda.

fairsfair says:

09:31am | 07/10/10

Pin it on Garrett, I guess that all depends… did US forces give the nod?

This is one instance where we should actually listen to that bumbling fool and stand up for OUR country. I agree with Persephone on the fact that a trial may very well just clear the boys names. But tell me, who the hell would ever seek to join the armed forces if on top of everything else that they are expected to endure they must now do so with the threat of being criminally charged for incidents such as this?

War is horrid and I don’t think anyone really knows what to think or do about Afghanistan - but I don’t think it really fair to compare this situation and our troops to the Nazi trials.

If the events detailed at the top of this article are true and correct (and the government would have means of determining this) the author’s final paragraph is not an ourtrageous assertion.

Chris L says:

10:08pm | 07/10/10

The facts of the situation, the danger to their own lives and the need for split second decisions should all be taken into account, and one would hope they shall be. However we should not withhold scrutiny because of these factors, indeed it is even more important. Our police force often moves into life threatening situations and make snap decisions and, whenever deaths occur, their actions are closely looked at and reviewed with an eye toward the mitigating circumstances.

Of course the courts are imperfect and I wouldn’t want to be in the position of those soldiers or any of the other professions that protect and rescue us ordinary folk, but worse would be to give people guns along with cart blanche.

acotrel says:

10:36am | 07/10/10

‘a trial may very well just clear the boys names’
NOT ‘may very well’, but highly likely, and certainly, if there is any justice in an international; court! the killing of civilians was almost certainly unintended in this case, however historically there have been many precedents where innocents have been deliberately and cynically slaughtered.  We still expect the culprits to be prosecuted.  What Charlie is doing is prejudging the situation, because he’s imbued with the myth that Australian soldiers can do no wrong.  If we expect the rest of the world to control their military by legal means, Australia should set the same tone in it’s dealings with its own..

Charlie says:

07:34am | 08/10/10

Acotrel should be aware that the Australian Defence Force has had a military justice system in place ever since the ADF was established.

Charlie says:

10:49pm | 08/10/10

Rules of Engagement apply to Australian soldiers engaged in the war against terror in Afghanistan.  They do not apply to the Taliban who do not recognise any conventions of war.
It is impossible for our soldiers to distinguish between the Taliban and civilians because the Taliban do not wear a uniform and most people carry weapons.
This is why our soldiers have to rely on intelligence and get clearance from higher command before they embark on any operation.
Once they cross the line though they have to rely on the professional training and battlefield instincts to survive.
Only those who have served fully appreciate this.

iansand says:

07:38am | 07/10/10

While Genearl Patton may have had similar views to the Waffen SS in many respects I don’t think he actually changed sides at any point in the war.

TimB says:

07:49am | 07/10/10

Quote misinterpretation FTW. He was clearly talking about enemy soldiers, not civillians.

Also, I call Godwin’s on your post.

Nigel Catchlove says:

11:10am | 07/10/10

I tend to listen to someone who has served for 21 years in the Army, achieving the rank of Major and attending Army Command and Staff College when they express opinions about rules of engagement.  Most soldiers and officers with operational service have worked with ROE at some stage of their military career.

Veterans might know a little about what faces soldiers during combat and they also might understand how out-of-touch the legal fraternity can be.  It’s hardly an ‘outrageous slur’ to suggest that direct-entry, lateral recruits into the military don’t have the same level of training and, experience in tactics and strategy as RMC trained officers and staff college graduates.

Charlie’s article may have offended your sensibilities by being a little blunt, although given your past posts it’s a bit rich for you to call someone ‘shrill’.

Soldiers are required to comply with the rules of engagement (ROE) and those rules are reviewed by civilians in uniform like Lyn McDade before being promulgated by the military’s chief of operations.  If the post-operation report showed that the soldiers complied with the ROE then how can there be any case to answer?  If they failed to comply with the ROE then the reasons should be explored by a court or tribunal.

For example, if the ROE were shown to be insufficient to cater for the complexities of combat in the Afghanistan theatre then they should be amended.  If the ROE were too complex for anyone to apply in the heat of combat, then they should be amended. If soldiers knowingly acted in contravention of the ROE then, and only then, do they have a case to answer.

In the case of American soldiers allegedly murdering civilians that is clearly outside of the ROE and in the case of the My Lai massacre, again this was clearly in contravention of their ROE.

Leto says:

12:27pm | 07/10/10

I would suggest that the DMP felt that a breach of ROE did occur, hence the charges of manslaughter.

Do you know what the ROE are for the use of grenades in Afghanistan are? I would suggest that the DMP has all the information regarding what happened, and what the ROE are. She has decided that charges are warranted. Who are we to second guess her?

And 21 years to get to Major isn’t exactly the fast track. After this article, I can understand why.

I’m just dissapointed that those who cannot think for themselves might well be swayed by your extreemly poorly argued article Mr Lynn. Moron.

C1 says:

01:06pm | 07/10/10

I think there may be a record here as I am siding with the views of both Pers and T-Chong - What is happening here?

Well put TC.

As for Nigel’s response regarding Charli’e military experience - as detailed as it might be, he must have been asleep during the lectures on Military Law at Staff College.
Charlie’s article was not blunt - it was ignorant and jingoistic.
Asc for the role of Direct Entry officer - they are bought in for specific roles based on their professional qualification whether it is a pilot, health professional, lawyer or educator. In my experience, some of these direct entry people (if you look at their medal collection) have more operational experience than some of their Arms Corps colleagues.

Charlie says:

10:39pm | 08/10/10

Chong,
We are not talking about My Lai or Nuremburg - we are talking about three of our commando’s who were engaged in a combat operation against the Taliban who do not subscribe to any conventions of war and who use women and children as human shields in their war of terror against the west.  They do not wear uniforms and their rules of engagement are dictated by radical mullahs.
The credibility amongst veterans can be judged by the responses I have received on my blog at http://www.charlielynn.com.au - these are from real soldiers who obviously live in a parallel universe to keyboard commentators such as yourself.

Leto,

I appreciate that the rank of major does not mean much to elitists but I was proud of the rank given I had to leave school at 15 to work for my old man - I was the eldest boy and he was having trouble feeding the 10 of us. I later worked for the Country Roads Board in a bush camp in Gippsland before I was conscripted.  Spent the first two years as a baggy-arse plant operator with the Sappers and put in for a commission whilst serving in Vietnam. Officer training was a struggle because of my lack of a formal education – I graduated last in the class.  After that I applied myself as best I could – worked as hard as I could – raised three daughters – served with the ANZUK force in Singapore – studied hard for promotional exams – served as an exchange officer with the US Army – qualified as a Special Forces Military Freefall paratrooper, completed 200 jumps from as high as 20,000 feet at night on oxygen with full combat gear and was eventually selected to attend Army Command and Staff College where I studied for a year.  I appreciate it is all rather pedestrian in the eyes of those who are better bred but I gave it my best shot.  My old man, a baggy-arse infantryman in New Guinea in WW11 and later a farmer and truckie, was quite proud of the fact that I was ever commissioned - and I was proud to be the source of his pride.

I was never a combat infantryman, I have no legal qualifications, I live happily in Western Sydney and I do my best to avoid elitists, keyboard commentators, cappuccino commandos, mung-bean munchers and pretenders.

acotrel says:

05:09am | 08/10/10

I’m sympathetic to the cause of our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.  Their reaction in throwing the grenade seems reasonable tro me.  If my life was threatened, I could see myself doing the same thing.  That doesn’t change the fact that gross negligence resulting in fatalities, could have been a factor in this case.  I suggest it’s inherently wrong to allow a culture where sodiers can operate with immunity from any sort of prosecution for war crimes.  Lyn Dade has made a decision, and she’s obviously earning her stripes all over again, when she has to bear the criticism of people like Charlie Lynn. As an Australian citizen, I want our soldiers in Afghanistan to maintain the ANZAC reputation (excluding the bit about not accepting the surrender of some German soldiers in WW1).

Charlie says:

11:00pm | 08/10/10

If our commando’s were intent on covering up the situation there would have been no witnesses.
The fact the matter was reported indicates that they followed normal standing operating procedures.  They will have to wear the psychological scars of what they saw after they killed the Taliban insurgent and the memory will haunt them forever.
The matter should have been investigated immediately and passed up the chain of command for appropriate action.
The fact that these three soldiers have been left in limbo for almost two years is inexcusable - justice delayed is justice denied is a favourite cliche of the legal profession but so far their silence has been deafining.

Charlie says:

11:06pm | 08/10/10

The Taliban will already be gloating over the prospect of what will now be a show trial.of our diggers.

persephone says:

03:40pm | 07/10/10

I’m not sure that calling a lawyer a ‘traitor’ is a wise move, Rossco.

Laws of libel apply to websites, you know - even if you’re using a pseudynom (if that’s how its spelt….)

Dennis says:

11:27am | 07/10/10

The Australian reported last week that the attack was launched by the Commandos as a “Compound Clearing Operation” on a residential compound where they believed a Taliban leader was hiding there. They attacked at night.  The Taliban man was sleeping in the room.  It does not say whether the women and children in the room were his family (but I suspect they were).  He chose to fire upon the Commandos and they responded in accordance with their Rules of Engagement.  It goes on to say:

“However The Australian reported last month that the former governor of the province where the incident occurred, Asadullah Hamdam, described the night raid as a mistake. “No. They didn’t do this on purpose; it was a mistake,” he said.

Mr Hamdan said the mistake the commandos had made was not waiting until the morning to launch their assault.

Special forces units, like the Australian commandos from the Special Operations Task Group, favour night-time raids for the element of surprise it gives them.

After a series of disastrous night raids by US special forces, their preferred tactic is now to use loudspeakers to call on all those inside houses to exit peacefully before raiding a house.”

Leto says:

12:38pm | 07/10/10

@ Rod H

He wasn’t a Taliban. He was just a man and his family visiting his brother. Of course, we killed him as he was trying to protect his wife and children (we arrived in the middle of the night, did not announce ourselves, and kicked down doors). How was he to know that we weren’t Taliban? Every man and his dog own an AK-47 in Afghanistan.

Dennis says:

01:01pm | 07/10/10

@Leto - thanks for the additional information.  None of that highly relevant information was mentioned in The Australian or in the above article.  Do you have a source?

Eric says:

01:12pm | 07/10/10

@Leto: How do you know that?

I suspect you’re just making things up.

iansand says:

01:33pm | 07/10/10

Leto - If they had intelligence that a Taliban leader was there, even if that intelligence was wrong, what would you have the poor diggers do?  Should they have made their own inquiries?  Should they only have attacked if there was a Taliban flag (no such thing) waving above the compound?

These blokes were, presumably, told to go to this particular compound for a particular purpose - the arrest of an enemy combatant.  Someone shot at them.  It does not take a huge leap to create a 4 from a couple of 2s there.  So they fought back, never, it seems, knowing that there were kids in the vicinity.

Either there is something we have not been told or these blokes should never have been charged.  Now that they have been charged I fervently hope they are acquitted.

Geoff says:

01:35pm | 07/10/10

@Leto.
 
Right back at you mate - how were the Australian soldiers ment to know he was not taliban.

You expect Australian troops to have a cup of tea with the man shooting at them, to discuss politics (i.e. are you taliban) before they return fire?  You are a fool.

Leto says:

09:51am | 08/10/10

Source: dateline interview with Zahir Khan (the brother of Amrullah khan, who was killed in the assault).

http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/transcript/id/600801/n/Collateral-Damage

http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/600361/n/Questions-from-Oruzgan-A-Special-Investigation

Let me clarify. I do not believe that the Commandos involved are bloodthirsty child killers. I doubt that they sleep too well at night. And nor should they. Somewhere along the line, we stuffed up, and now people we were there to help and protect are dead.

acotrel says:

10:46am | 07/10/10

’ an Australian combat unit throwing a hand grenade into a room with a beligerent and a family is not really up there with the mass genocides, extra judicial killings’

So what if it happens again, next week, and quite often thereafter? I cannot see how the guys couldn’t be charged!

Zeta says:

12:22pm | 07/10/10

@ acotrel - Civillians die everyday in wars. That’s the problem with wars and why we usual go to great lengths to avoid them.

The reason the ICT exists is that sometimes, people do things in wars that aren’t warranted even in the extraordinary circumstances of warfare.

For example - while the Dresden Firebombing that killed some 25,000 people, mostly civilian workers in German munitions plants and created some half a million refugees could have been considered a war crime, with some military historians claiming it served no military purpose, it wouldn’t have been tried by the ICT.

The reason being that it was authorised by a military chain of command and was direct action serving a military purpose in a time of war - namely, the destruction of the German arms manufacturing appartatus.

Say there was a kindergarten right next door to one of those factories, and it was destroyed during the bombing - still not a war crime, because the kindergarten was not directly targeted. Collateral damage, no matter how unjust, is not a war crime.

But say one of those pilots dropping the firebombs saw a school, veered off his flight plan authorised by his commanders and strafed the play ground for a laugh - that’s a war crime.

So even if Australian soldiers throw grenades at children every other day, it’s not a war crime unless the ICT establish they did so contrary to the rules of engagement, contrary to direct orders from their superiors, that they operated beyond the chain of command, and their actions had malicious intent.

Now what should happen, is that if during an after action report Australian commanders identify civilian deaths they can’t account for based on the rules of engagement, they should have some facility to charge those persons responsible. They don’t have that, and that’s why they’re going to the ICT.

Lucy says:

02:41pm | 07/10/10

I remember when Bill Clinton decided to inflict some punishment on Iraq after it was discovered Saddam had a plot (apparently foiled by the CIA) to assassinate George Bush Sr when he visited Iraq after the first Gulf War.

Clinton sent 12 cruise missiles into Baghdad - one diverted due to a navigational mishap as it crossed the mountains and veered off, eventually killing a number of civilians.

Clinton went on television and described it as “an acceptable loss of civilian life”.

As Zeta outlines, this wouldn’t/couldn’t be tried by the ICT.

acotrel says:

05:22am | 08/10/10

Zeta, This is Afghanistan we’re talking about, NOT WW2!  In these modern times we have addressed the matter of risk management, and recognise that we all have a DUTY OF CARE.  Manslaughter charges are brought where there are fatalities involving GROSS NEGLIGENCE.  Rules of Engagement are obviously framed to avoid these situations.  In this case there is apparently doubt as to whether the risks to civilians were appropriately controlled.

Dennis says:

11:53am | 07/10/10

“Civilian casualties? Such is war.  Most “innocent civilians” know to get out of a combat zone as quickly as possible.  Not to mention that if the West did start ignoring human shields, the insurgents would stop using them.” 

That is cold.  Really cold.

JJ of SC says:

12:25pm | 07/10/10

Forgive him for he knows not what he says. Bit more research required into the rank system and how it really works. As for combat experience, i guess the next time you require brain surgery you will be happy with someone who has never actually operated on a brain but has read all the theories!
Have a good day!

TheRealDave says:

01:37pm | 07/10/10

@St Mick

Uncle Pete got his MC for a bit more than just showing up. I’d suggest you take a read of the two books out about him to find out a bit more

Removing the Rank system is one of the most f#@ked up ideas I have ever heard. Seriously. Armies have always had a rank structure since time immemorial. The Romans, probably the best professional army of all time, had a rank structure where most of the officers were ordinary men of non-noble birth. Sure the Legate and his staff was often of Noble birth, but the men were led on a day to day basis by their Centurions and Optio’s on a greater scale than todays NCO’s.

Playing armchair general I’d love to see a system where those entering Duntroon first need to spend a 4 year enlistment as a Digger. Forget this direct entry from highschool/Uni/ADFA crap. The days of needing a fresh faced 21 year old screaming ‘follow me’ into the teeth of machine gun fire is over. Warfare has changed. Society has changed. Technology has changed. We don’t meekly accept casualty figures running into the hundreds of killed per week. Our soldiers are no longer amateurs recruited ‘for the duration’ or conscripted. The soldiers are also better educated and better trained.

There is a reason why the AIF in 1918 was considered one of the finest armies of all time. A lot of the Officers running Companies and Battalions were Diggers at the start of the war and rose through the ranks through merit alone.

...but my lunch is here now…....so I’ll end it here :p

St. Michael says:

02:09pm | 07/10/10

@ Dennis: Yes, it is a cold statement.  War is cold.  It does not have a moral quantity attached to it other than the limited humanities of the Geneva Conventions attach to it.  I make no apology for calling it as it is: if anything we need to stop fooling ourselves that war conforms to the Hollywood stereotype and confront the reality.  If we did so, we would not go to war nearly as often or for nearly as flippant purposes as we do.

And I do stand by what I say.  Look at the statistics for civilian casualties in every conventional war we’ve had in the past hundred years or so.  It’s not a few people here and there.  War is often a situation where civilians get caught in the crossfire - that much you cannot do anything about, particularly if the enemy is using human shields.  As for the accusation that I’m ‘cold’ to say the West should consider ignoring human shields: who is colder - the Western soldier who shoots through a human shield, or the insurgent who brought the shield along in the first place?

@ JJ of SC: congratulations on making my point for me.  Like I said, most of our upper ranks *have not seen combat*, therefore their knowledge of it is *theoretical* at best.  I agree: I don’t want to be operated on by someone who’s never done brain surgery but has read all the pamphlets on it.  I therefore query why we choose to take that approach with respect to military operations.

@ TheRealDave: I wasn’t saying Cosgrove *didn’t* have combat experience. The preconditions for the grant of his Military Cross certainly indicate that he does.  But having combat experience does make him something of a rarity in the Australian high command from what we can see of their medals at least.  And none with the Infantry Combat Badge, which is still an attendance medal, but at least for attendance in a hostile environment.

On the rest—possibly I should have phrased the word “rank” as “rank title”.  I’ll accept the need for a rank structure of some kind for organisational reasons only.  But otherwise I don’t really see the need for an extensive series of ranks and weird titles to the army as we currently have.  The comment about optios and centurions fighting with their men (paraphrasing) does illustrate a common point between us, though: we should be drawing a lot more on the experience and expertise of the infantry commanders on the ground for how the war should be conducted.

I’d actually argue for a draft, too, but that’s a very big subject and not for discussion today.

Dennis says:

04:04pm | 07/10/10

First, you flippantly write off the death of civilians in war as nothing more than an unavoidable “fact” (why bother avoiding it?).  Then you imply that civilians caught in a war zone are not “innocent” anyways (we shouldn’t feel bad about killing them - it’s their fault for being there).  Finally, this leads to your penultimate recommendation that we should ignore the fact that there are civilians altogether and kill whatever moves.  This is not just cold, but bloody-minded.

TheRealDave says:

06:45pm | 07/10/10

@St Mick - Draft? No way - not ever.

You want to put your life in the hands of someone who doesn’t want to be there? I know I sure as hell don’t.

I also agree that far too may ICB’s have been handed out for showing up in a ‘War Zone’ without any shots coming in or going out. The ‘C’ in ICB stands for Combat. There a re thousands of ET and Iraq vets who got it without ever getting incoming rounds thrown their way. While I agree they turned up and patrolled etc its still a far cry from what they are going through in the Ghan nowadays.

In regards to plenty of Officers getting meaningless fruit salad sprinkled on them, to be fair, nearly all of them were commissioned after Vietnam nowadays. Pete Cosgrove was one of the last active serving Vietnam Veterans. We had a generation of Diggers that never went anywhere or did anything from 72-92 apart from the odd bit of ‘Peacekeeping’ and most of that unarmed. Successive governments ran the army down and where to afraid to deploy it anywhere remotely dangerous.

St. Michael says:

12:28am | 08/10/10

@ Dennis: The “old fashioned” method of waging war in an area where there are civilians present is to give due notice to the civilians that a heavily armed military force is going to be entering there very shortly, and that anyone who is present after that date will be deemed as a suspected enemy combatant.  The last time the US *did* conduct itself this way was at the Second Battle of Fallujah, which they *won*, decisively.  It was also a very common practice in World War 2, at least insofar as civilians fleeing the battlefront was a common sight.  They called them refugees back then.

During the ‘Blackhawk Down’ incident there were numerous reports of Somali gunmen running across open spaces such as between buildings to get a better shot while holding women or children in front of them specifically to prevent US troops shooting at them.

I wasn’t asking a rhetorical question when I asked you who you regard as colder: the insurgent who puts the human shield between himself and the Western soldier so he can fire on the Westerner, or the Westerner who shoots through the human shield to protect himself? If you’re content to judge me as cold, what is your judgment in that situation? Or is it simply a question you know you can’t answer?

I do also hold that if US troops starting shooting through human shields, while it would likely cause the death of that human shield, the odds are strong it would preserve the lives of many others.  That is because those using human shields would realise it’s not an effective tactic and stop using them.  Civilians therefore would not be put at risk as human shields from that point on since there is no demand for them.

I also don’t lightly make the remark that some of the “civilians” in the war zone may in fact be the enemy.  Past practice has shown that in many cases they are.  I don’t see the Taliban walking around in military uniforms or clearly identifying themselves as an enemy combatant, do you? On the contrary, they seem to rather like wandering around in civvies.

We supposedly went into Afghanistan to subdue the country and root out Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban.  I don’t believe we should have gone there at all, and I think it’s extremely stupid that we’re in there now.  I am only pointing out that in war, the only high ground you’re ever going to be able to confidently hold is the physical.  Nobody has the moral high ground here: not the West, and certainly not the Taliban.

Lastly, you might bear in mind that a guerrilla force only survives while it has the support of the civilian populace.  The Taliban, by definition, is a guerrilla force.  If you’re going to run the tired old “the civilians are all intimidated”, well, just about every second “civilian” in Afghanistan has an AK-47 or some sort of projectile weapon.  Perhaps if they didn’t like the Taliban they would have done something about it for themselves by now.

St. Michael says:

12:32am | 08/10/10

Also, @ TheRealDave: you’ve probably heard the old joke amongst US forces that for operations in Iraq that their equivalent of the ICB—the Combat Infantryman’s Badge—was “CIB”, which given the number that got handed out was taken to be an acronym for “Crossed Iraqi Border.”

St. Michael says:

01:44pm | 07/10/10

Although it’s notable given the way the Nuremberg trials turned out that the law doesn’t see it that way.  A lot of German officers tried the “we were only following orders” gambit and still wound up kicking at the end of a rope just the same as the heads of the Nazi regime.

I’m not saying the situation’s the same here, but just needed to make the point.

Zeta says:

01:49pm | 07/10/10

Yeah. Our Federal Police never allowed civilians to be handed over to extra-national judiciaries where they could receive the death penalty either instead of arresting them in domestic airports to try them in Australia.

AdamC says:

02:09pm | 07/10/10

Um, Zeta, I think most people would regard Australia as having a greater responsibility to our servicepeople whom we send overseas to fight on our behalf and ‘our’ drug traffickers who go, of their own accord, to Indonesia to committ capital offences.

And I think you understand that as well.

(Not that I think it’s relevant to this discussion, but I think there are obvious problems with suggestion that the Feds should have let the traffickers come into Australia carrying drugs.)

Zeta says:

03:53pm | 07/10/10

All Australians are innocent until proven guilty in an Australian court of law or unless concurrency is acknowledged through formal agreements.

Australian servicemen and women are volunteers and can refuse to fight overseas if they so choose. They do so knowing the risks, just like drug dealers.

But unless the Australian Government institutes capital punishment, Australian law enforcement agencies and Australian prosecutors, civilian or military, have a responsibility to insulate Australian citizens from the death penalty.

Colluding with overseas Police to capture Australians who can then face a death penalty when circumstances permitted keeping them under surveilance until they landed in Australia and arresting them here is irresponsible.

The ICT can order a death penalty as well.

acotrel says:

05:41am | 08/10/10

’ Surely, Australia could never allow its soliders acting under its orders to be handed over to a supranational institution to possibly be jailed? ‘

How about the British Army in the Boer War, and WW1? You could have said that to Mourant and Hancock! And the guys who were about to be jailed for refusing to be withdrawn by Haig just before the battle for the Hindenberg Line?

St. Michael says:

02:32pm | 07/10/10

Neither definition is correct.  Combat is the attempt to kill or injure as many enemy combatants as possible whilst maintaining a minimum of casualties to your own side.  As a gloss on that is the Geneva Convention.  It’s not about killing kids with impunity, and never has been.  But civilians will get caught in the crossfire, particularly if said civilians knowingly put themselves in the line of fire (as with human shields.) or said civilians are shooting at soldiers and then putting their weapons down and walking away to pretend to be civilians again.

Eric says:

03:12pm | 07/10/10

“And killing children with impunity, apparently…”

Ah yes, the ever-dependable shallow slogans of the wisdom-deprived “educated classes”.

acotrel says:

05:49am | 08/10/10

’ I Accidents will happen. The troops need to be very confident that the review process can tell the difference between accident and wilful misconductdon’t feel too many soldiers would feel happy about Lyn McDade’s ability to do that’

. Isn’t Lyn McDade a trained lawyer?  Surely she must know what constitutes manslaughter? The above comment makes me wonder why the army bothers to recruit trained professionals?  I’d advise you to lose that ‘accidents will happen’ stuff.  You too have a ‘duty of care’.

acotrel says:

06:01am | 08/10/10

‘Discipline is a function of command. Drive a wedge between soldiers and commanders and discipline breaks down.’

Correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not in the military,however I worked in an associated industry for 30 years. But as I understand it, the modern army recognises that the soldier on the ground is the one in the best position to know the problems.  He is the one with the modern weapon systems at his disposal, and he is the one managing the risks. Self discipline and motivation are now more the norm.  The chain of command is becoming less important?

Charlie says:

11:26pm | 08/10/10

You might be right Marilyn - perhaps we should withdraw our troops to Christmas Island and get them to train the resident Afghans to go back and fight for their own country!

acotrel says:

03:07pm | 10/10/10

It’s probably sort of like the role of ‘advisers’ was in Vietnam?

acotrel says:

07:03am | 09/10/10

I suggest that a lot will depend on how the soldier’s ‘duty of care’ is defined.  Everybody has a duty to manage risk appropriately, if there has been gross negligence, the charges will be sustained. I’d say one thing about Charlie Lynn.  His article shows a very arrogant and callous mindset!  I note that he is a Liberal Party politician?

Daniel says:

04:28am | 11/10/10

So if I was an “enemy” all I would have to do is grab an innocent person and from then on I’d be unkillable (due to the risk of the innocent being killed)... Nice logic Al, what would you have done in the same situation?
Human shields while terrible, only work if you pay attention to them and if you do pay attention to them it only leads to more people being taken as human shields.
While I have no idea what the situation was I doubt the Diggers had time to call in a hostage negotiator to find a peacefull resoloution to the situation.
Best wishes to the Diggers involved, I thank you for your bravery and from the comments above your forgiveness