Ben Roberts-Smith

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, octave said:

I heard someone (can't quite remember who) describe the killing of the civilian as being "morally reprehensible"   and  "STRATEGICALLY  STUPID"   

In this case, we are talking about an unarmed handcuffed farmer.  If this person were a terrorist then it may be more understandable however I would suggest that interrogating the prisoner may just save lives. Summary execution is more likely to act as a recruiting tool for terrorism.

 

I spent 12 years in the military and I am not anti-military.  In fact, I stand with the soldiers who were brave enough to speak out.

Hey Octave,  just want to point out that your post has a quote attributed to me that isn't mine.

[octave]

Apologies Marty, I quoted your quote from someone else, sometimes my fingers work faster than my brain  For clarity the original quote was this one.

6 hours ago, Admin said:

How many dead soldiers do we have and what happened to those that killed

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I agree with the point about those who sent the soldiers being the guilty ones

[Jerry_Atrick]

I don't think a government can be held vicariously liable for the unauthorised decisions of an elite forces officer in the theatre - especially where the conduct appears to be intentional. The unit may have some liability, which will of course be met by the government.

 

Of course, we had no business being there, except maybe that we wanted to be in solidatrory with our allies when they were attacked; even Middle East states accepted the US going in, in this case.

[spacesailor]

But ! ,

Wasn't he found Not guilty in court .

SO , how can that judge say he IS guilty .

He need a better judge .

spacesailor

[old man emu]

18 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

how can that judge say he IS guilty .

It was not a criminal matter. It was a Civil Matter and the outcome in Civil matters relies on the balance of probabilities, not "beyond reasonable doubt". In a civil matter there is no finding of guilt.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Has he been acquitted of war crimes in a court? I couldn't find anything on the inter-splodge about it.

 

As OME says, in a civil case, the court only has to find on the balance of probabilities. I am not sure how it is defined in Aus, but over here, it is more than 50% sure. The threshold of certainly for a criminal matter is beyoind reasonable doubt, which is defined as greater than 99% sure. How percentages are measured is anyone's guess.

 

Bear in mind, this was not a case against BRS. It was a case brought by BRS against three 9 Entertainment newspapers and three of their journalists. The papers and the journos were relying on the defences that they were reporting  facts that were either reasonably and/or contextually true.  The court found that the facts as they reported was reasonably and/or contextually true, and therefore the respondents (defendents in civil trials) were able to avoid liability for defamation.

 

If you ask me, this was an ego-trip for BRS and Kerry Stokes, who funded it. It blew up in both their faces. It is reported that the judgement will not feed directly into any criminal investigation and/or charges. Evidence requirements are also different in civil cases to that of criminal cases, and I wonder if any charges would be heard in the civilian courts, or if there is a militatry court (as in the case of court-marshalling), in which case, dog knows what the evidence requirements and certainty thresholds are.

 

The only way I can see he will avoid being eventually charged is a) there isn't enough evidence for a criminal case; or b) if there is, then it will come down to the credibility of the witnesses or the evidence gathered. I would expect in the fullness of time - assuming civilian court jurisdiction - he will be charged. It will also give him the chance to clear his name as he will be thought of as a criminal by many until it is settled.

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

9 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The threshold of certainly for a criminal matter is beyoind reasonable doubt, which is defined as greater than 99% sure.

Our system has two differing standards of proof, namely on the balance of probabilities in a civil jurisdiction and beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal jurisdiction.  The the presumption of innocence does not apply in the civil jurisdiction.

 

In a criminal matter, in order for the prosecution to be successful, its case must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, no further guidelines are provided to help determine how to meet this threshold. The prosecution must convince the court that based on the evidence, there is no other reasonable explanation other than that the accused is guilty. 

 

Verse 19:26 of the Gospel of Matthew includes the words "With God all things are possible". Those words have been given a wider usage in common speech, especially in that part of Mathematics dealing with Probability. There it is said that anything's possible, but not highly probable. A great example of that is Steven Bradbury's Gold in the 1,000 m event at the 2002 Winter Olympics. Bradbury was included amongst the starters in that race, so there was a possibility that he could win. However, based on the prior form of all entrants, the probability of his winning were very low. A decision, to bet on Bradbury winning, by a person aware of the prior results of all the entrant would not be considered "reasonably doubt-free". 

 

The concept of the "reasonable person" as it applies to Law is what is called a "legal fiction". Often terms like "the man in the street", "the man on the Bondi tram", or "the man on the Clapham bus" have been used to convey the idea of the "reasonable person" The reasonable person belongs to a family of hypothetical figures in law including: the "right-thinking member of society", the "officious bystander", the "reasonable parent", the "reasonable landlord", the "fair-minded and informed observer", the "person having ordinary skill in the art" in patent law, and stretching back to Roman jurists, the figure of the bonus pater familias, all used to define legal standards. While there is a loose consensus in black letter law, there is no accepted technical definition.

 

So, in Criminal cases, we rely on the presentation of evidence against which no "Everyman" can accept an explanation that has such a minute possibility. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

[onetrack]

Well, Ben's very public car-crash-like defamation case has just got worse, with Judge Besanko publishing his reasons for his defamation case decision. Essentially, he says Ben is a liar and an untruthful witness and almost certainly can be found guilty of murder in any war crimes trial. I'd add what I already believed, that Ben is a devious and manipulative bugger to boot.

 

He's simply not the nice bloke he tries to make himself out to be. I believe the judge is correct in saying he's also a bully, and quite likely uses his huge size to assist in intimidation.

I think things are going to get a lot worse for Ben before they get better. The fact he didn't even bother to turn up at the court to hear the defamation case decision also reflects badly on him.

 

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/ben-roberts-smith-had-motives-to-lie-about-murders-c-10881891

[Old Koreelah]

We can debate the merits of the case against this bloke till the cows come home, but who knows how you or I would behave in a similar situation?

 

Hopefully this case will give all our military people cause to behave better in the field, but should also be a lesson to our leaders about the true cost of sending our people to fight. 

 

 

[onetrack]

Old K - Fully trained Australian soldiers know how to behave as professionals. We are trained in the Rules of Engagement and in the Articles of the Geneva Convention.

Shooting unarmed people, shooting people in the back, or shooting restrained people, is what the Russians and terrorists do, because they don't abide by any Rules of Engagement, nor are they trained in the Geneva Convention rules.

Ben Roberts-Smith is going to find out that disobeying a lot of what he was taught, as regards the Rules of Engagement with enemy combatants, comes with penalties. Abiding by these Rules is what normally separates and elevates our fighting men and women from the terrorists and from ruthless Russians.

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by onetrack

[spacesailor]

BUT

WHY are we obeying some other countries rules !. When our combatants Do not .

Like boxing , With one hand tied behind your back .

spacesailor

[old man emu]

The "Rules of War", more correctly known as the Geneva Conventions, have their origin in the work of Henry Dunant who, after visiting the battlefield aftermath of the  Battle of Solferino in 1859, proposed a permanent relief agency for humanitarian aid in times of war, and a government treaty recognizing the neutrality of the agency and allowing it to provide aid in a war zone. That agency became the Red Cross.

 

During the next one hundred years, the experiences of the Red Cross in wars and revolutions lead to the expansion of those initial proposals, and their adoption by the Western Nations. The collection of these proposals is called the "Geneva Conventions".  These are:

The First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, revised in 1906, 1929 and finally 1949);

The Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the Hague Convention (X) 1907);

The Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949);

The Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the Hague Convention (II) of 1899 and Hague Convention (IV) 1907).

 

The 1949 conventions have been modified with three amendment protocols:

Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts;

Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts;

Protocol III (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem;

 

The countries which formally accept the Conventions and Protocols are

Parties to Geneva Conventions and Protocols

 

Parties to GC I–IV and P I–III	Parties to GC I–IV and P I–II
Parties to GC I–IV and P I and III	Parties to GC I–IV and P I
Parties to GC I–IV and P III	Parties to GC I–IV and no P

 

The emblems of used by the Convention are

 

[Marty_d]

9 hours ago, spacesailor said:

BUT

WHY are we obeying some other countries rules !. When our combatants Do not .

Like boxing , With one hand tied behind your back .

spacesailor

So... you want our soldiers to kill unarmed civilians?

[facthunter]

Australian soldiers training would include knowledge of expected behaviour under signed conventions. There is such a thing as a war criminal.  Nev

[Admin]

A person plants an IED yesterday and kills 5 Australians. The next day on his way to pick up some more IEDs to plant along the road meets up with an Australian walking along the road. The Australian says, hello, you are unarmed so on your way, and have a nice day sir.

 

Now turn that around a bit. You are the Australian soldier walking down that street. Those 5 Australians who were killed were your mates. You meet up with that guy walking down the street...how are you going to feel, are you going to be able to hold back your angar, your emotions...or are just going to put a bullet through that bustards head. But wait, he is unarmed!!!

[Bruce Tuncks]

If that is how it really happened then I agree admin.  But was not the argument about exactly that? What if it was a case of mistaken identity? There has been a lot of that around with bikie killings lately. Was he handcuffed or not? How did it happen that he became handcuffed?

Anyway, I say again that the scenario of fighting such an enemy is terribly unfair to the soldiers.

[octave]

What is the strategic advantage of shooting unarmed civilians?    Do you think ordering a junior soldier to execute someone as an initiation  (to be so-called "blooded) is either strategically smart or ethical?   Are the SAS soldiers who came forward and gave evidence bad in your book?

 

The Taliban are despised by the average Afgahn however these kinds of actions only serve to radicalize the locals.

6 minutes ago, Admin said:

just going to put a bullet through that bustards head. But wait, he is unarmed!!!

 

One of the central allegations is about kicking a  handcuffed man down a hill or cliff and then shooting him.  This was not in the heat of battle.   It takes a lot for other soldiers to speak out against one of their own.

 

 

[facthunter]

People don't like occupying forces. That will never change but you have to win their heats and minds to get anywhere there.   What would we all do if we were occupied?  Nev

[spenaroo]

which then brings the questions of the difference between military and a police force...

and what the different duties/requirements expected.

 

every police officer understands reasonable force

 

and every military force in history understood the need for moral and a focus....

Edited June 6, 2023 by spenaroo

[Admin]

The point I am making is no one can say exactly how they would react in any given situation. There are so many variables like state of mind at that specific point in time. Can you truly sit back in your arm chair and judge with any certainty...I know I can't.

 

[octave]

2 minutes ago, Admin said:

The point I am making is no one can say exactly how they would react in any given situation. There are so many variables like state of mind at that specific point in time. Can you truly sit back in your arm chair and judge with any certainty...I know I can't.

 

 

I think that would be a reasonable point if we were talking about wrongful killing in the heat of battle.  The allegations are so much more than that.  It appears that this man was not only a menace to Afghan civilians but also to the soldiers under his command.  How awful must it be for the solider who was  relatively inexperienced and was ordered to shoot an unarmed prisoner in order the "blood the rookie"     

 

Bringing home the prosthetic leg of a person who was killed and drinking beer out of it does not suggest to me a man who in the heat of battle made a poor decision but suggests someone who is unhinged.

[facthunter]

Many of these soldiers suicide as the result of the trauma they endure. Far more than the number actually killed in battle so WE certainly don't have such experiences as to want to do that in normal circumstances. PTSD used to be called "Lack of Moral Fibre" and people were shot or shamed and dishonourably discharged. It's a far from normal situation  but still some answerability for extreme behaviour needs to be found. If we are as bad as them  (as we see it, not as they view it) then we lose the moral high ground.  WAR is always HELL. No one deserves the Taliban Imposing it's Restrictive and  Primitive concepts on the people Particularly women. Afghanistan is a failed state  but that's another discussion. Nev

[spenaroo]

Check out the seal teams and "canoeing"

its not an unknown and new issue

[facthunter]

What I can't guarantee is that I would be a "NICE" person after being there for years either..  Nev