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. Page 2
  4. All
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. Page 2
  4. All

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