The article promises much but delivers little.

The author has failed to identify what the "allegations" are. He hasn't pointed to a source or link for these "allegations".

If the author, in fact, cannot fill in the details publically then why write the article? Maybe its a Pressure Letter to persuade the Defence Department to move on what he and maybe the Department knows - problem is that WE don't know anything from the article.

In this information void I'm just left with the slight suspicion that the author doesn't like Cosgrove very much.

Pete

Like others of his type (champions for misfits like David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib), John Richardson is keen to hound his own people – Australian Government, General Cosgrove, Australian soldiers. Now that his career will not be affected (as it would have been if he carried on as he is now when in the corporate sector), he seems to be making a hobby out of doing his best to harp on purported wrongs committed by his own country. Letters to the editor, letters to senior politicians: none of which have made a jot of difference to the situations he is interested in – and rightly so.

People are entitled to hold any opinions they wish; carry on about anything they wish, and disagree with anything they dislike about governments. They are not, however, entitled to receive information about matters concerning the security of Australia. Whatever happened seven years ago, David Hicks and Habib, all come under the category of security.

It’s none of your business, Mr. Richardson. And, I find people who appear to take great delight in criticising their own country, while rarely if ever criticising the enemies of their country, very offensive.

Spotted at 0925hrs *today*. GEN Peter Cosgrove with a bunch of suits at the Hudson Coffee cafe opposite the Executive Building on George Street.

Hi there...
Leigh - I agree with your general comments. It would seem, prima facie, that our Mr Richardson is one of many who seek to adversely critique the Military in their many operations, and functions. Most of these contributors have never actually worn 'greens', let alone engage in a combat role, during 'active service'.

I personally don't hold Cosgrove's reputation to any lofty heights either - a brave individual to be sure! However, his rapid elevation to the Chief of the Australian Armed Forces, (whatever it's called, these days) was very much of a political 'thank you' rather than sheer military skill and superior administrative acumen. In my humble opinion the present incumbent, has made a better 'fist' of it than General Cosgrove. That said, I reiterate absolutely, that Cosgrave is a very courageous soldier, as evidenced by the award of the MC.

Of course there were many many ordinary riflemen over there who were significantly brave too. Just going 'outside the wire' into dangerous areas, often for protracted periods was in my view, courageous in itself.

But,in order to receive a gong for brave conduct, you've got to be'seen' and in the right place at the right time. And, those brave act/s, MUST be witnessed by a commissioned officer.

Keep your powder dry, Leigh.

Kind regards to you all...O Sung Wu.

Pete:

Details regarding the nature of the allegations, their source & additional background can be found through the related links displayed at the foot of the article.

Re Cosgrove – I actually haven’t formed an opinion of him. I can’t be certain whether he was in a position to ensure that the East Timor allegations were properly investigated or not, or whether the matter was taken out of his hands due to political sensitivities. Perhaps if the allegations were aired openly & honestly, we’d all be able to better judge?

Leigh:

Thanks for acknowledging my right to my opinion, notwithstanding that find them offensive.

As you are no doubt aware, our political leaders make much out of their desire to proudly ‘defend our way of life’ & our ‘values’. As far as I’m aware, our ‘values’ do not include practising or condoning torture, or allowing allegations of murder to be swept under the carpet. Nor do our ‘values’ allow for the indefinite imprisonment & torture of people, whilst denying them their right to a fair trial.

If our ‘values’ & ‘way of life’ are to have any real lasting meaning, then surely we must be prepared to openly & honestly identify & deal with instances where they have been compromised. To do otherwise is just being hypocritical. And whilst the notion might be ‘offensive’ to you, not even our American friends pretend that such matters should be protected from scrutiny for ‘security’ reasons.

By the way, could you clarify who you think our ‘enemies’ are?

JR

Thanks for supplying those links. I've had a look at them.

I assume the 3 militiaman on whose complaints the main issue seems to hinge were working on behalf of the Indonesians against the East Timorese.

Looks like you have a strongly held assumption that the Australian military cannot be trusted but words of militiaman (generally hired guns) can be trusted.

The militiaman have a certain credibility problem due to their well known atrocities and human rights abuses against the East Timorese people. Many locals may have wanted to retaliate against militiaman Ndun after his release - who knows? maybe he fled to West Timor.

I think many subjects, that are much more clear cut, need to be put to trial PROPERLY. Maybe the Indonesian officials and militia below need more legal attention first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suai_Church_Massacre

"The Suai Church Massacre happened on September 6, 1999, two days after the announcement of the results of the independence referendum, in Suai, a city in the district of Cova-Lima in the southwestern part of East Timor. According to the report of the International Commission of Inquiry on East Timor to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, several hundred persons had sought refuge in the church from attacks of the Laksaur militia (a pro-Indonesia militia) in the city. Then the militia, with the support of the military of Indonesia, killed up to 200 people. Twenty-six bodies were identified that had been buried across the border in West Timor, but eyewitnesses claim many more were killed.

Five Indonesian officials, Lieutenant Colonel Liliek Kusardiyanto, Captain Ahmad Syamsudin, Lieutenant Sugito, policeman Colonel Gatot Subiaktoro, and district head Herman Sedyono, were tried in Indonesia for these crimes but were acquitted."

Pete