Former Australian soldier Ben Roberts-Smith arrested over alleged war crimes in Afghanistan

do you guys realise McBride leaked it because he thought the crimes weren't that bad and that leaking it would get the heat off?

The problem is, If a soldier’s only duty is to obey the chain of command, then international laws regarding war crimes become unenforceable. True loyalty to a democratic country is loyalty to its values and laws, not to the specific military officers/politicians. Law dictating, that a soldier can't act in the public interest, means the public can never know if the military is acting in their name (since in democracy, military is funded by and accountable to the people) or simply for its own self-preservation. Also during his trial, the government used "national security" claims to block him from using key evidence in his defense. This made it almost impossible for him to argue **why** he did what he did, leading to his eventual guilty plea. > I would say that the only course of action would be for the government (or at least a political party) to have tasked knowledgeable people (lawyers, judges, etc.) to figure out where the law went wrong. The government **already** has those people and knowledge who are screaming about it, it's simple, the current whistleblower protections in Australia are not fit for purpose. The PID Act, lacks a clear overriding clause that says: If the information reveals a war crime, the public interest automatically supersedes the duty of secrecy. What's lacking is political will to change it.

This is a very reasonable take. Thanks for the reply. It still doesn't pass the vibe test for me but on a legal front I guess it fits.

Talk at the time was to make it such a media spectacle that he could argue its impossible to get a fair trial for the eventual criminal charges - which could work. There wouldn't be many Australians who don't know about the defamation suit.

See: Donald Trump

Dude is a stone cold psychopath so there's no chance of that. Therefore the next best thing is to take the piss out of him for being a massive dickhead and kicking off a media circus about his own crimes that he did actually commit.

Both things can be true, but one likely wouldn't have come to light (the killings) without the other (the defamation suit).

I was gonna say, how the f*** is this guy gonna beat out someone like Field Marshal Monash or hundreds of other WWI and WWII candidates?

Ah, thank you

He is since the introduction of Australia's national honours (sometime in the 70s-90s) compared to before that following the British system

If he didn't know, he should have. He wasn't Chief of Army until 2015. I'm not saying BRS is innocent. I'm asking why we consistently prosecute enlisted men and pretend the officers in charge were too special to do their f****** jobs.

Ah, must have been the civil case I remember. Thanks.

[removed]

That’s cruel. I have many family members and ancestors who fought for Australia, and they did it with honour. Would you?

I was going to downvote this, but then I realized you are right. :(

Referring more to the Commonwealth.

The list is endless about what he did but also includes; killing a disabled man, pushing a civilian off a cliff, ordering junior soldiers to be ‘blooded’, planted evidence on civilan casualties multiple times, drinking from the prosthetic limb of a slain civilian. There is no rule of engagement by any country that would allow this. He should go away and probably forever.

Whatever you say, cooker.

You're really gonna use the prosecutions/convictions of Abu Ghraib persecutiors as an example? Pretty sure one of the ladies behind alot of the weird sexual torture got like 1-2 yrs home arrest. What about My Lai massacre commander who got commuted sentence from Nixon and only served few months home arrest. Pretty sure if I googled US war crimes Afghanistan there'd be numerous other examples, and to your point if those are just the one's prosecuted imagine all the others that never make it to court, on purpose.

True but in total years of prison for all of them combined was 13yrs and 6 months so yes there were convictions but the punishments were not really equal to the crimes imo

The US military tried very hard to cover up Abu Ghraib, only after the images were everywhere did they prosecute

Absolute joke. Look at the ultimate records for war crimes prosecutions in the US for recent massacres. The vast majority end in an administrative slap on the wrist.

And many presidential pardons too

Only when they can't get away with it. There have been 127 criminal convictions for US personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. You really want there and ask us to swallow that only 127 US personnel have commited crimes (not just including warcrimes) after decades and that the US does not sweep of most of them under the rug? Seriously you think 127 is all of them?

Not in Trump's America.

The US reserves the right to commit war crimes at will. Thats the point of the 'Hague Invasion Act'. The world's policeman clearly believes he isn't subject to the law.

He claimed to sit on top of a stadium in New Orleans and shot at looters in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina

Depends on who's writing the article. Theres a lot of bullshit people throw just to support their own story

Navy Seals much like SASR have a habit of shooting civilians and executing POWs. For Chris Kyle himself there isn't proven evidence, however going by Gallagher's case this is systemic throughout leadership. Although nothing will ever happen with Trump in charge.

We should remove it because he’s no soldier to be proud of. It’s a memorial, not a history museum. It’s a monument to celebrate our heroes, not celebrate some war criminal because he did a couple good things. It’s not erasing history, obviously history, books, wiki will say what has happened. It’s removing him from being in the same group as the rest of them.

for SAS to go against their own like this speaks to the gravity of the situation - spec ops guys will always close ranks

I don't disagree with you - but he was simultaneously being nominated for accolades and being showered with professional praise. So there was obviously a significant portion of the military/political leadership who felt he was doing exactly what was expected - hence my point that the accountability extends beyond just BRS. I mean... to what extent was he emboldened to commit MORE war crimes by the fact that he was being rewarded while committing war crimes?

But what did we select him and train him to do? What behaviours of his did we reward with promotions and accolades? What did we *really think would happen* deploying him essentially amongst civilians with very unclear rules of engagement or definitions of combatants. I agree that he bears responsibility for his actions. But the people who put him in those situations, who ignored the concerns around him, who effectively encouraged him at every turn... shouldn't they have to answer for it too?

I'd reduce that to like 90%, volunteer only armies almost always inadvertently "select" for psychos for self-evident reasons.

I think that’s extremely optimistic. Sure some reported him, but I reckon plenty went along with it without a shred of concern. Look how long it’s taken to get to this point. 

I think there's a lot of naïveté around how we think our soldiers would be expected to behave in a war like Afghanistan... They're not movie characters, some of them (especially in the "elite" forces) are pretty fucked up. But mainly our justification for being there was extremely shaky and arguably illegal. How do you then turn around and expect your most hardened soldiers to act within the bounds of legality and morality when there's not really a legal or moral justification for being there in the first place? I'm not saying any of this excuses him, more that the responsibility for his actions extends much further than just him.

I mean… how many Afghanis were involved in the attacks on the US again? Where did the funding stem from? I’ll accept that there isn’t nearly the same extent of questions as the Iraq war, but I think part of that is because it was so soon after 9/11 that everyone was more caught up in the fervor of revenge. Two decades on I think we can all see how flawed the justification was, as were the actual objectives of the military there. 

rules of engagement go pretty vague the moment the taliban starts using teenagers and civilian vehicles to bomb you

It's an analogy about responsibilty, not a direct likening... good grief.

punishing their most decorated soldier who was being primed for a career in conservative politics bankrolled by billionaires who broke the law.

Correct. I can excuse fog of war or combat situations but these were literally executions and murder.