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.