The ICC, on hearing a complaint brought by victims of the Specialist Order Target Group, deployment. 12 Feb.2009, in which 6 civilians died, and 4 young children seriously injured, summarily lodged a NGO inquiry, which eventually involved the ADF Bureaucracy. It hastily went into damage control. McDade was summoned to fend off the ICC impending inquiry. As a Sovereign Nation, we would launch our own procedural investigation instead.

In the meantime, her investigating Task force in Afghanistan is being stone walled, and unlikely to gain any insight into the sordid affair, except fro media leaks, and paradoxically enough, from an unlikely source - SBS program Dateline ! The video went to Air,and has since been gagged !

An Afghan newsman Farid Popal flew to Urezgan Province, with a cameraman. Interviewed members of the aggrieved family. They claimed compensation, an apology and possibly future restitution. The entire village was interviewed, including the Patrol's translator. Evidently, he apologized for the night in question, and readily confessed, they had raided the wrong compound ! The film clip has since been impounded for security reasons. Reparations were hurriedly validated.

The whole shenanigan has been one the ADF will have to live with forever and a Day !

There has never been witness statements. Forensic evidence;et alone corroboration from anyone. The post-mortem centered on the testimony of the incumbents involved. As far as the 1st Commando Regiment was concerned, they eliminated the enemy, and any fall out was incidental. Noone witnessed the scene, and the Patrol successfully concluded the rendezvous with no injuries sustained. Another copy book engagement ?

So far, only three servicemen have been charged. One l/cpl, a Sgt and the Commanding Officer. The charge: 1/ Manslaughter 2/ Dangerous conduct 3/ Failing to comply with a lawful general Order, and prejudicial conduct.

There could be monumental repercussions throughout the ADF if anyone is convicted. It sets a dangerous precedent, which will affect morale, recruitment, careers, promotion, esprit de corps, Regimental pride. comrade-in-arms, and voluntary serving one's Country, in a War zone ?

On the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely any of the evidence collected will be useful in the short term. No soldier will attest on oath, against comrades, for fear of reprisals and contempt. Civilian testimony would be, at best only tolerated as hearsay evidence. The Panel of Judges ( Senior Officers ) are unlikely to convict on spurious testimony and faulty recollections of the event, over such a long time span. McDade's career prospects will be under a cloud. The window dressing charade will be allowed to run it's course.

The Director of Military Prosecutions will have no case to answer.

rehctub states "So long as the enemy devalues the lives of their own so poorly, evidenced by the way they use them as 'human shields', we will continue to cause civilian casualties..."
The problem is that there appears little evidence that the man firing on the Australian troops was an "enemy" or using his family as "human shields". If this man was merely protecting his family and home from invasion by unknown armed assailants in the dead of night, then there are some serious questions to be answered. Merely dismissing every Afghan killed by our troops as "the enemy" and justifying the killing of children the "the enemy using them as human shields" is no substitute for a genuine investigation and prosecution if our men acted recklessly in killing innocent people.
Although this may be holding our soldiers to a higher standard of behaviour than we expect of the Taliban, that is rightly so. We are the ones who have gone there bearing arms, not the other way around. We cannot maintain our legitimacy there (if we ever had any) if we allow our soldiers to kill civilians with impunity.

Jacinta,

I have thoughts regarding some things you say:

1. “On the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely any of the evidence collected will be useful in the short term”. How about corpses with grenade fragments embedded and the nature of injuries suffered? Not primary evidence? Aren’t soldiers wirelessly connected for voice comms these days and if so there would probably be witnesses to what the orders were.

2. “No soldier will attest on oath, against comrades, for fear of reprisals and contempt”. What are you suggesting might happen? They won’t give a full and truthful account of what happened? They will obstruct the course of justice? They will show contempt of court?

3. “The Panel of Judges (Senior Officers) are unlikely to convict on spurious testimony and faulty recollections of the event, over such a long time span”. Why are there people still chasing alleged WWII criminals if something less than 2 years is considered such a long time span? Do you think soldier's memories are likely to be as faulty Alan Bond's?

Roscop & Rhys Jones
So what you're saying is that so long as the enemy is using their own as shields, our soldiers should not engage.

Or, if our soldiers are being fired upon by 'unknowns' then they should not return fire until they are 100% sure who they are dealing with.

Now that all seams fine, if they were playing some 'board game', but, may I suggest you bring that idea up with the families of the soldiers who have lost their lives, some of which probably occurred due to indecision or uncertainty.

I am assuming you are both aware that it's a war they are fighting, and not ours!

This simply backs up what I and many others are saying. Why are we even there if we can't fight the enemy unless they play fair.

Get the hell out before we waste even more 'borrowed money' and sacrifice more lives, all because only one side has rules.

I say again, we need a referendum on this issue, and fast.

rehctub, No I wasn't "aware that it's a war they are fighting".

Please note text from the ADF's website:

http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/info/general.htm

Australia’s military commitment to Afghanistan operates... as a peace-enforcement mission under...