One is inclined to wonder
What is going on here.... Where is the treason ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/8725899.stm

Surely it is in the interests of *the COUNTRY* for a soldier *after* the event to expose the alleged barbaric tactics.

Surely the intervee's aggressive if somewhat evasive defense is/was inappropriate, given his position?
Was he pre-empting the court process?
Is/was his attitude reflective of the Government? If so one has to wonder how safe are the Tamils under such a government?
Especially given its probable impact on refugees.

The Sri Lankan government is brutal and corrupt. It is NOT a peace loving government intent on forgiving and helping it's defeated enemy within the country. Like all brutal and corrupt regimes, if a major figure does not tow government line, they are threatened with execution, as is the case with the government threats against Sarath Fonseka who has joined the opposition political movement and is a member of parliament.

**BOTH** sides committed atrocities.

Tamils are definitely not safe in Sri Lanka.

To suggest that atrocities were committed against Tamils, with eye witness accounts plus evidence, is NOT treason, punishable by execution.

Just like if an ex Aussie soldier saw atrocities committed by other Aussie soldiers, and he reported those atrocities. That also is NOT treason. It's called "doing the right thing".

Gentlemen...and any others...

I don't hold up much hope for a very fruitful discussion on this.

You folks are (yet again) trying to understand the Asian/Tribal situation through rose colored Western political binoculars.

The thing is obviously a struggle between dominant families.. the elite.
You cannot believe anything no matter who reports it.. so I'd give up now :)

Trying to unravel that mess is a bit like trying to understand Islam from a secular perspective.. it simply cannot be done.

To know what really went on you would have to..... I can't even finish that sentence because you/we/I will just not know.

Forget it Examy... pick another topic.. like... SouthPark does Glenn Beck :)

Dear Examinator,

Treason or truth?

"In the spider web of facts,
many a truth is strangled."

This is certainly a complex situation.
The "facts" appear a bit dubious at
best.

General Fonseka was in charge of
an aggressive military strategy which
crushed the Tamil Tigers. Wasn't he
in charge of events that took place,
and shouldn't he be held responsible
for them?

He then
quit the military after the defeat of the
Tigers and went into politics. (He was the
main opposition candidate in last January's
Presidential election).

Now he's been arrested
and is being threatened with execution because
he has evidence (an eye witness) of the
Defence Secretary ordering army officers to
shoot and kill surrendering Tamil leaders at the
end of the war.

Examy, it all sounds a bit
suss wouldn't you say? What does he hope to gain
out of all this? A bullet in the head, a medal,
or become the next President? Isn't he just
being motivated by politics here? Would he
have come forward with this information if he
wasn't running for office?

Sorry, but I find the whole thing not quite
Kosher. I could be dreadfully wrong, but it
doesn't quite add up for me. H wasn't that
concerned when he was in charge of the aggressive
military strategy which crushed the Tamil Tigers,
why is he concerned about things now?

Foxy,
You are correct I wondered at that too. However, the issue I was making was more along the line of the *principal*. Should a soldier be charged with treason if he/she witnesses or knows of the breaches of Crimes against humanity as is alleged this case.
The Wiki-leaks case where a soldier blew the whistle about the US shooting civilians in cold blood.

There is little doubt in my mind that the general is politicking.
The issue is is the minister being interviewed merely (ab)using the court martial (death penalty) to cover his complicity in the CAH.

The sub issue is that it would appear that the government is tainted.

Polycarp. Haven't you got splinters from your tired hobby horse yet?

Dear Examy,

Thanks for responding.

I was interested in your take on things.

Regarding the question of what a soldier
should do in the case of wrongdoing -
should he report it? One would hope that
a soldier would do the right thing.
However difficult it may be. We have a
conscience for a reason. However, having
said that, I guess I'm speaking as a civilian,
and it would be interesting to get someone
like Custard - who's a poster with a military
background, to give you their answer to that
question. He may have a different slant on
the subject alltogether.

Hmmmm, I was asked to come look at this question, so...

Insofar as Command Responsibility, as the Commander is he ultimately responsible for the actions of the troops under his direct command? Yes - depending upon whether the troops who carried out any improper actions, acted contrary to, or in compliance with, his orders.

However, this situation does not appear to be that clear cut, because from what I am seeing, he was not in 'control' of the actual actions, but only in charge of the overall strategy... Then the responsibility for the conduct of the troops falls on the Tactical Commander of the troops on the ground.

Logically, he is unlikely to be calling for an inquiry into his own conduct (unless he is trying to clear his name), so that suggests he was not actually in 'command' of the troops involved.

Does that extricate him from his basic obligation, as a servant of the people to act in a manner that is honest and transparent? NO.

The General is in the right there and the suggestions he is acting contrary to the good of the State strongly suggest that the responsibility for any wrongdoing which might ultimately be uncovered, lies with the ruling family, whether directly or indirectly.

Will that save him? Probably not, Asian Politics are a brutal place, his only real chance lies in the fact that a lot of the Army might just agree with him (he is obviously playing from a position of some strength, if he weren't he would have been silenced already), in which case, the ruling family is in far more trouble than he is.

That is the trouble with particularly corrupt governments, when they raise huge armies and General's gain in popularity, once the immediate crisis is dealt with, the General's tend to stage a coup and get rid of the Government. The Roman Empire is the best example of this.

Dear Custard,

Your explanation makes sense and gives us
an added persepctive to the topic from
your professional background.

Much appreciated.

Custard,foxy

Thank you for your input they make sense.
The problem is that this situation speaks loudly of the lack of checks and balances.

The question I posed was also oriented towards the the WikiLeaks issue of the US person who leaked film of the US army executing civilians.

Then again there's the issue of the Israeli who blew the whistle on Israel's deceit about their nuclear bomb research.

Even though he has served his time for the crime he is not allowed to talk to foreigners or even leave the country even to migrate to Israel's closest ally the US. That in its self say volumes.

My point is not to throw stones at Israel but to highlight the shallowness of what is supposedly in national interests.

Unlike some on OLO I don't necessarily dismiss "Asian" governments as "tribal" (which is clearly nonsense). Simply put we have similar issues albeit less violent here in Australia.

We all know those who practice XENOPHOBIA and Cultural paranoia on OLO.

The problem in Asia is clearly the more disproportionate power between the Peasants and the self interested 'elite'.

IMO the real difference between us and them is just a matter of degree in power distribution. Usually it comes down to the level of ignorance of the bulk of the people.
Ignorance is most often the motivator for fear et al. Sadly in Aus the ignorance is often wanton, due to indifference.