The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Muddy boots ... > Comments

Muddy boots ... : Comments

By John Richardson, published 22/11/2006

Why are allegations against members of the Australian Army in East Timor from seven years ago still being 'examined'?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
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
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 9:49:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 9:51:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spotted at 0925hrs *today*. GEN Peter Cosgrove with a bunch of suits at the Hudson Coffee cafe opposite the Executive Building on George Street.
Posted by The Black Cat, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 10:31:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 11:37:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by JR, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 11:40:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 3:00:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I disagree with torture etc. in general, I find it hard to care about the fate of lowlife Indonesian Militiamen, who were doubtless responsible for countless acts of torture, deprivation of liberty, murder etc etc, anymore than I really care about the treatment of insurgents in Iraq, or the terrorists in Guantanamo (including Hicks).

These people forfeit their right to decent treatment when they opt to maim, kill, torture & kidnap those who are truly innocent, as they have excluded themselves from the human race.

Also, the majority are lucky to be breathing at all since they would not have been covered under the Geneva convention.

I just don't get these bleeding heart lefties who think these scum deserve to be treated as fellow humans. I'm sorry but their treatment just doesn't register as an issue for me, and the better we treat them the more they think they can get away with, since we're giving the distinct impression of being too soft.

Ultimately the only language they understand is violence, and the only way to beat these dogs is to stoop to their level.

I do think however, that if soldiers are caught committing acts of murder & rape against civilians (especially children), as one group of American soldiers has been tried for recently, that the full weight of the law should fall on their shoulders, as they are no better than the terrorists.
Other than that, the fact is war is hell, and we can't expect to send soldiers in among civilians without some serious drama. Soldiers are not corrections officers, and we shouldn't expect them to be so, since their only function is killing the enemy.
Posted by Stomont, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 3:03:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O Sung Wu:

This is the first & only occasion that I have questioned the standards of behaviour allegedly observed by members of the ADF. It may also be that responsibility for the failure to properly investigate the allegations rests with the civilian / political masters of Defence.

Surely our democracy would be an absolute sham if the right to question / criticise was restricted to only those who could claim membership of the group being criticised?

Pete:

Thanks. Yes, allegations were made by members of the Indonesian militia on Dateline, but they arose prior to that & were supported by members of the New Zealand contingent. It’s actually not a question of who “can be trusted”. The fact is that the ADF has supposedly been pursuing its investigations into the allegations for 7 years: more than enough time to find them unfounded, if such was the case.

I agree that the Indonesian militia were guilty of numerous human rights abuses & were encouraged, trained & aided by the Indonesian military, but that isn’t a justification for members of the ADF to behave in the same criminal manner.

Stomont:

So much for our ‘values’.
Posted by JR, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 8:37:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there JR...
Of course you're quite correct. Anyone may critique any organisation, for sure. What I was attempting to illustrate was, that those individuals who cast unfounded criticism of the ADF who have not experienced service therein, should at least establish the veracity of the information they seek to introduce to the scenario.

The ADF are a bit like the coppers. They're generally not permitted to comment on any topical ADF issues, of the day. What I'm trying to say, unless you're aware of, and have been part of the culture. It's sometimes hard to understand those impositions, of not speaking out, that have always existed for members of the ADF.

Best regards...O Sung Wu.
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 9:37:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stomont:

While I too find it hard to sympathise with brutal killers and the like, the reason why I'd be one of those bleeding heart lefties on this issue is simple:

Who gets to say who the bad guys are?

When a crime is committed, there is a motivation (except in cases of insanity).

When you say you're willing to stoop to torture as well, then you have to say to yourself: what's my motivation.

What's an okay motivation here? Is it just torturing to recieve information from terrorists? Okay... what kind of information? Is it okay to torture a terrorist's servant to find out the whereabouts of the terrorist? How bad does the villain have to be? Do we make a ranking system?

Say you've killed X number of people. At what number is torture okay? Just civilians, or just military? Are only certain kinds of killings okay? You can kill with a gun, not a knife?

Do we just leave it up to discretion then, and assume all commanders will act properly? That seems to be the general idea, but in a profession where violence is a necessity, are you always going to get suitable people? what if you don't?

I'm not being facetious here. If you can give me some clear cut answers here, maybe I'd be a little more willing to countenance heinous interrogation techniques. As it stands, the only reasonable way to go I can see is to avoid torture altogether.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 23 November 2006 11:58:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurnRightThenLeft:

I agree with your analysis & suspect that most Australians would.

With the exception of Philip Ruddock’s recent flirtation with sleep deprivation, I’m not aware of any Australian politician - of any persuasion - who has publicly condoned the ill-treatment or abuse of prisoners / detainees, let alone their torture.

All the more interesting that the Howard government hasn’t been open & transparent in its investigation of the East Timor allegations, whilst Great Britain & the US have at least made an effort to hold their military forces accountable.

The unresolved East Timor allegations not only hang as a cloud over the Defence establishment & the government but they also serve to besmirch the reputation & standing of all members of the ADF.

In deliberately choosing to let the matter linger, the Howard government has clearly demonstrated that it ranks self-serving political expediency above the health & reputation of the ADF & our country.
Posted by JR, Thursday, 23 November 2006 4:24:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy