"the killings were accidental, not deliberate"

The truth of this depends on exactly how you define the words.

But almost one of the first things I learnt in my legal studies is how the law treats the situation of bank robbers who burst into a bank with guns blazing (but without taking aim at anyone), and kill people "accidentally". And I'm sure the situation of bank robbers who burst into a bank and throw grenades around is just the same, exactly what common sense would suggest.

Jeremy, With your ,"exactly what common sense would suggest",example, are the customers firing back and throwing grenades at the robbers?

Jeremy, you leaches and parasites, sometimes known as lawyers, drool over such incidents. What would you have done in a forward position in Afghanistan if suddenly someone in a house began shooting to kill you and the accompanying diggers? You would take time off to consider all the niceities of law for such situations. You wouldnt act before looking for definitions, would you? And if you didnt have the volumes at hand you'd radio back to HQ to hurry and send in the required law books wouldnt you? How would you settle the situation these Aussie commandos foundthemselves in?

But then, Jertemy, you wouldbe the last person to volunteer for such a dangerous life threatening role. Whilst you languish in the comfort and security these diggers provide you it is ok to slander them in this way. Its ok with you. I am finding it hard to define the sort of words to describe the sort you lot are. Words fail me.

socratease

Hi all...

'JEREMY', I understand you view the events as disclosed herein from that of a legally trained individual. And I respect that.

However, the law as we know it in peaceful Australia, has little or no relationship to that which exists in a state of war.

True, Soldiers are somewhat regulated by 'Rules of Engagement' as we were in South Vietnam. But those 'RoE' fly out the window when you are involved in a 'Contact', you can bet on that !

'RoE' are determined (often) by those individuals who have NEVER been 'outside the wire'. And who have little or no knowledge of what exactly happens during a Contact !

This high ranking lady Brig., no doubt an eminent silk to be sure, has carefully framed manslaughter charges against these three blokes.

From, I would suspect, ensconced in the quiet Air Conditioned comfort of her office.

This venerable Lady has decided after considerable deliberation, that these charges are the most appropriate, without EVER knowing or experiencing the abject fear and dread associated with being actively involved in a Contact !

I have, and you can believe me, things can go chaotic in seconds !

Of course, I wasn't there. Nor I suspect, was this Brig. or her many legal advisers ?

And the preparatory enquiries mounted by the Provosts, would prove very little anyway. As most provosts (and I say this with respect) are generally NOT engaged in duties, 'outside the wire'.

If these three are convicted of manslaughter, well.................?
God help the future of this country.

Cheers...Sung Wu.

O Sung Wu, I congratulate you on your measured and elegant use of rhetoric.

You are ofcourse quite right.
The female Brigadier in the security and the comforts provided by men like the commandos is quite prepared to bite the hands that protect her. She has no experience of close quarter combat against an enemy like the Taliban and what to do in the same dilemma the commandos if ever she found herself in. This is what you get by putting a woman in such a position of authority.

She should be prosecuted by public opinion for total disrespect and lack of understanding and sympathy for men like the three commandos she wants to prosecute in a court marshal.Is she trying to gain publicity to promote her own ambitions?

If she has such a regard for the safety of children she should ask herself who put the children in such a dangerous position and exploited them. Did the men know there were children in the house being made to form a shield to hide the cowardlky animal. What has the Taliban sunk to that they are will stoop to use children as shields and hide behind them?

socratease

Ah. Oh Sung Wu.

This event probably gives you some perspective on the sensitivities of many a scummy “Crim” gone before your eyes during one of your other varied occupations previously mentioned: as they were marched to the Persecution Chambers of the DPP. Ring a bell? Dwell on that for a while!

Oh what a feeling, Toyota.

"o what a feeling " diver dan?

Perhaps in your more lucid moments there may be some who manage to understand what on earth you try to say.

socratease

Some good commens above, but to my mind they seem to lack a moral perspective.

The moral perspective in this situation is not whether we should be there or not, but the difference to found in a theatre of war to a peaceful situation.

The fact that our soldiers are in a war zone fighting a dangerous enemy on government orders cannot be equated with a common felon entering a bank with nefarious intent.

If a bank robber bursts into a bank and starts throwing grenades around or firing guns, how can that be equated with a military person bursting into a house on, presumably reliable intellegence, believing a terrorist is inside and being confronted by women, children and gun fire?

The robber is acting of his own free will in a peaceful community, the other is obeying orders which, if defied, would see him court martialled.

Does this not suggest that there is no similarity between the two events - that one is moral as defined by a war situation and rules of combat and the other is not, as defined by laws against property not yours, and civilian safety in a non-war theatre?

No one should decide from a position of safety and theory in a non-war zone the fate of military personnel under orders and serving in a war zone.

In other words, unless a commanding officer sees something out of accord with rules of combat and orders, and precedes with a charge against the soldier, those lacking real experience of combat should not interfere, or be permitted to interfere, as their experience and understanding is very different to those they sit in judgement on and no amount of legal learning can counterbalance lack of experience inside an area of combat.

The situation is not black and white as with that of a bank robber who offends the clearly laid down laws of a peaceful society

Hi there 'DIVER DAN'...

I have absolutely no idea to what you ellude too ? Might be a good idea in future, instead of speaking in riddles, masked in some sort of allegory, perhaps you should articulate exactly what your complaint is, in order not only to enlighten me, but for the benefit of others.

Apropos my 'varied occupations' - I've had but three jobs in my life.

(a) the military (8 years); (b) a 'screw' (7.6 years); and (c) the coppers, (32+ years) ! You got some problem with that 'DIVER DAN' ?

'SOCRATEASE', thank you for your support and kind words, I appreciate it. I sometimes wonder if it's worth continuing with both the Forum & OLO ? Most folk are pretty decent, and though many disagree with me, they argue their position, both eloquently and with some conviction, often laced with considerable humour.

Then there are those few herein, who need to unleash their bile and venom upon others for whatever their reason/s are, it sure beats me ?

Cheers...Sung Wu.

At Ease Socratease!

Again you rant through a part of your anatomy not designed for the issue of words.

You may continue to rattle the empty cans on the perimeter wire, and await the return of your Hero.

Well done "Private".

More than what can be said about yours, you dumb prick

socratease

a lot of these responses seem to be a rent-a-lout attempt to destroy the opportunity to discuss this issue .

As would be expected of the national public-interest watchdog for defence issues, the Australia Defence Association has been monitoring this incident since it occurred.

Can I suggest that those interested check out the two long discussions on this matter posted on the formal comment page of the ADA website at http://www.ada.asn.au/Recent.Comment.htm

This gives the background to the charges, and to the laws actually applying and their consequences. Most of the circumstances of the February incident are quite specific to the incident, and the general aplication of the law involved to other combat situations is very limited to almost nil.

This key point has been missed in most public discussion of the charges. As has the fact that every Australian soldier in every war we have fought has been constrained by the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) in their application of lethal force. The ADF is not the SS or the Japanese in World War II - we have never permiited our military to apply unconstrained force on the battlefield.

This is why soldier's actions are always governed by Rules-of-Engagement(ROE)and Orders-for-Opening-Fire (OFOF).

The public debate has also largely been based on several incorrect assumptions about this incident. And/or the acceptance as fact of certain points about the accidental killing of civilian non-combatants in the February 2010 incident that can and should only be tested in a court.

Some other incorrect public comment, such as the incident somehow being a "war crime", are wrong in both fact and law. No-one (except Taliban propaganda) disputes that these killings were accidental.

The nub of the operational and legal matters in question is how this battlefield accident occurred - and whether it might have occurred through negilent or careless inattention to ROE, OFOF and other command (ISAF) orders. For the diggers concerned, the Army and Australia, this is best now sorted out in court.

It also means that the the diggers concerned cannot be tried (unfairly) in the International Criminal Court (Australia being a signatory to the Rome Statute).

Neil James
Executive Director
Australia Defence Association
(02) 6231-4444
execdir@ada.asn.au
www.ada.asn.au

Hi 'SOCRATEASE' & 'OZ'...

Sadly 'OZ' there are some individuals who possess so little mutability or variability in their tedious little lives, they need to engage in all manner of fatuous and asinine language in order to draw attention to themselves.

And yes 'SOCRATEASE' our peculair little friend, 'DIVER DAN' is very much misanthropic ? Or, why ever would he/she not attempt to discuss intelligently, such an interesting and challenging topic as this ?

Cheers to you both...Sung Wu.

a very unimpressive article & responses - all playing to their own cheer squad . C grade propaganda .

Applicable comment to a self-confessed “hero” :

Who preaches from a Moral mountaintop constructed entirely on a base of an alleged (?) Curriculum Vitae, which in the pages of an “Online opinion” hold the worth of a double-sided two bob coin in a game of two up.

And “Bingo”, on cue, the not so mysterious arrival of an ambiguous and urgent post by none other than the Executive Director of the vested interest group, Australia Defence Association, attempting to “white wash” (and bank-roll?) a murderous act by ADF Personnel,. I do declare my suspicion, this looks like an ambush!

Thumbs down to that Cowardly act; the lodgement of two handgrenades by the ADF personnel, into the living room of a family dwelling containing Women and Children: An indefensible and non-accidental act of brutality and butchery, rightly to be condemned and very correctly deserving of investigation and the laying of charges against those concerned.

To the defenders of this act of Bastardry, sleep well if you can!

if military personnel (or others) are charged with war crimes, then they should be tried by the international criminal court. if the charges relate to alleged crimes that apply to civilians - such as murder, manslaughter, rape, sexual assault or other crimes against the person (or property), then the accused should be tried in courts of law. there are no good reasons for drawing distinctions between offences allegedly carried out by military personnel and civilians. governments are moving toward this recognition through overhauling their military tribunal laws (see for example canada and recent government commissioned reports from the usa. this means that human rights provisions would/do extend to military personnel in the same way as they would/do extend to civilians, along with the general principles of criminal law.

Successful Guerrilla attack:

Enemy dispersed:

Remains of smouldering camp fire and live rounds indicate panic retreat:

Fall-in and move out.

"The lodgement of two handgrenades"...you pompous ass.It shows in the sort of language you use.

If you had been there that night and were fired at from inside the house you would have held fire, would you, and only after asking if there were any women and children inside and if so to come out would you have returned fire, would you ? The Taliban love you.

All you need to do in answer to my present thread is answer "YES" or "NO" to my question so we can see what you are like.. Let all the correspondents on OLO read you loud and clear.

You would have needed another pair of trousers, wouldnt you?
here in the shelter of your comfortable home, out of reach of the sort of danger our boys are in, you like to play judge jury and executioner. You poor miserable person.. I would never have by mistake said "man".

socratease

And by the way, whilst we are playing the blame game, why didnt we send to trial for war crimes against the innocent non0-combatants all those who died in the fire-bombing of Dresden and Cologne at the end of WW II.
Over 100,000 died in the two bombings. There was no fighting anywhere near those towns, and the germans were in full retreat.Can anyone think of any other examples?

And here we are prepared to flay and skin three commandos in the thick of mortal combat.

Makes me want to puke...the sheer hypocrisy.

socratease

This is a recording:-

And this note to the authors of the “hysteron proteron” defending the obnoxious slaughter of women and Children by the ADF in Afghanistan, found attached to an unexploded IED, buried six inches under the road way on A76, North of Kabul;

Quote:

“Thumbs down to that Cowardly act; the lodgement of two handgrenades by the ADF personnel, into the living room of a family dwelling containing Women and Children: An indefensible and non-accidental act of brutality and butchery, rightly to be condemned and very correctly deserving of investigation and the laying of charges against those concerned”.

End of quote:-

Socratease : Don’t ring me, I’ll ring you!

"Dont ring me I'll ring you"

What a cop out,Diver. Dive for cover now. It's just like you to want to have your say ansd run from any accounting for what you've said. You have something in common with the taliban. Guess what it is?


Not a word about the sort of scum who would use the woman and the children as human shields. That's your style, Diver. That scum bag knew what he was doing as he lay in wait in ambush. The commandos, by way of contrast didnt have a clue as to who were in the house. There is a difference most others with a modicum of intelligence and decency would see...but not you, Danny boy!
Who opened fire first? What should the Taliban gunman have done? he should have sent the occupants out so that he could lie in wait in ambush. I had to answer my own question,Danny boy, because I knew you wouldnt/couldnt !That is standard procedure NATO soldiers are trained to do and they do so every time. These rules of engagementare not the common prractice of the Taliban. Children are a rich source of protection. They dont protect cildren,they use the bodies of children to protect themselves in stead.

Say no more, Diver.It only serves to illustrate self-abuse.

Socratease