Ben Robert Smith

Select to expand quote

hilly said..
if we allow wealth and media influence to dictate what constitutes a 'war crime', we lose the very values our soldiers are sent to defend.

Who wrote that article hilly ? the same very well funded media organisation that had the argument with him in the first place ?

But anyways, part of my point is they weren't sent to "defend our values". Quite the opposite to my recollection.

The US wanted OBL. They thought the Taliban had him. The Taliban agreed to give him to a third party country if he could be afforded a fair trial. The US said no deal, no fair trial, we are sending some bad boys to **** you up cause we don't like you anyway.

They were sent to impose our superiority, not to defend our values.


Edit : and yep, that is also much of my point from before. We think we go to war these days to 'defend our values'. Just explain to me like I am a 10 year old, headmaster - how to you win a war started with the sole aim of 'defending our values' ? Surely the very nature of any form of victory over anyone else means we fail. It is impossible to win.

DILAGAF

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Chris 249 said..
By your philosophy it seems that you would consider that any act carried out by service people would be OK.

Nah mate, either I am not explaining right or you are not getting it right.

This isn't my 'philosophy', far from it. These are my observations of reality. I actually suspect I dislike them more than you. But me not liking them doesn't mean they aren't real.

By your philosophy it seems that you would consider that any act carried out by service people would be OK, if they had been ordered to do it. but not OK even if the situation they had been put in meant they had little choice.

So you reckon the Nuremberg trials upholding these rules of the victors on those defeated were invalid if all those people had received orders to do what they did ?

I have no idea what on earth you read, but at NO stage did I EVER say anything remotely like saying that I "would consider that any act carried out by service people would be OK, if they had been ordered to do it". Saying "I was just following orders" is not a defence to war crimes, legally or morally. That's been the case since Nuremburg and before that.

As far as your reference to things being "not OK even if the situation they had been put in meant they had little choice", that also has NOTHING to do with anything I wrote. Ben Roberts-Smith was never in a situation where he "had little choice" but to carry out the acts he is alleged to have carried out. One other person in the unit (Person 4 in the defo action) may be alleging they were leaned on by BRT and the unit commander, but that is not a usual acceptable defence to a war crimes charge.

Since you're not giving any information on what rules you are referring to about the Nuremburg trials, no reasonable person can give a reasoned reply. I would tend to say, generally, that laying the charges that (for example) Doenitz and Raeder faced was probably an example of injustice. Others (like Schatz, IIRC) were clearly guilty. Perhaps you could tell me exactly what of the Nuremburg charges you are disagreeing with?

Your last sentence seems to indicate that you think that Roberts-Smith was acting under orders. If you know that is true then for god's sake contact his lawyers, the A-G and the press, because no one else who knows has ever made that claim and BR-S and his lawyers haven't.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

hilly said..
if we allow wealth and media influence to dictate what constitutes a 'war crime', we lose the very values our soldiers are sent to defend.

Who wrote that article hilly ? the same very well funded media organisation that had the argument with him in the first place ?

But anyways, part of my point is they weren't sent to "defend our values". Quite the opposite to my recollection.

The US wanted OBL. They thought the Taliban had him. The Taliban agreed to give him to a third party country if he could be afforded a fair trial. The US said no deal, no fair trial, we are sending some bad boys to **** you up cause we don't like you anyway.

They were sent to impose our superiority, not to defend our values.


Edit : and yep, that is also much of my point from before. We think we go to war these days to 'defend our values'. Just explain to me like I am a 10 year old, headmaster - how to you win a war started with the sole aim of 'defending our values' ? Surely the very nature of any form of victory over anyone else means we fail. It is impossible to win.

The fact that one can passionately disagree with a war does not mean that one cannot say that the war should be fought according to the rules of war and of normal humanity.

If, for example, we launched a war against NZ tomorrow I assume you would be against it. Does that mean that you believe that it would be OK if our soldiers stabbed Kiwi babies and barbecued them? Of course you would not. Do you think it would have been OK if Australian soldiers in 1944 had tortured all the Japanese prisoners to death? I hope you would not. The point, to make it clear, is that the fact that a war may be carried our for the wrong reasons (or for the right reasons) does not mean that it's OK to carry out utterly inhumane acts during that war. In no recent war, for many years, has it been considered acceptable to kill prisoners who were not escaping, or civilians who were not engaged in active war and/or guilty of espionage etc.

In WW2, which was a war against evil regimes, there were still accepted rules of war. It was accepted in the western desert, for example, that one should not shoot up a tank crew who had bailed out. It was accepted in the ETO that one should not shoot up aircrew in parachutes. Similarly, in WW1 there was a lot of accepted etiquette even in the horrific trench battles - see Tony Ashworth's invaluable book. Of course, as an expert in the BRS case and all of the relevant issues you would already be across all this.

By the way, have you read the judgment in the defo action? It's probably the best publicly available information.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

Chris 249 said..

The fact that one can passionately disagree with a war does not mean that one cannot say that the war should be fought according to the rules of war and of normal humanity.

If, for example, we launched a war against NZ tomorrow I assume you would be against it. Does that mean that you believe that it would be OK if our soldiers stabbed Kiwi babies and barbecued them? Of course you would not. Do you think it would have been OK if Australian soldiers in 1944 had tortured all the Japanese prisoners to death? I hope you would not. The point, to make it clear, is that the fact that a war may be carried our for the wrong reasons does not mean that it's OK to carry out utterly inhumane acts during that war.

In WW2, which was a war against evil regimes, there were still accepted rules of war. It was accepted in the western desert, for example, that one should not shoot up a tank crew who had bailed out. It was accepted in the ETO that one should not shoot up aircrew in parachutes. Similarly, in WW1 there was a lot of accepted etiquette even in the horrific trench battles - see Tony Ashworth's invaluable book. Of course, as an expert in the BRS case and all of the relevant issues you would already be across all this.

Sounds great on paper. But we all know that rules of war are blurred. War crimes and genocide are being carried out. Look at Israel?

But this is overlooked in Australia when we choose to invite the president of Israel here to help us with our little social cohesion problem.

I've already said that I disagree with that invitation.

It seems that you think that once a country does something arguably wrong politically, then that country's service people should be able to murder, torture, mutilate, harm or do anything else they want, without anyone trying to stop or punish them. That is not logical.

Applying what seems to be your logic, once Germany started WW2 by invading Poland, then the SS should have been allowed to kill everyone they felt like killing and no one should have taken any action at any time. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

To make it clear, even if the war in Afghanistan was wrong, that does not mean that our service people should have been able to shoot prisoners and unarmed people without being their alleged crimes being investigated. The fact that laws can be blurred in war does NOT mean that complete and utter breaches of them should be allowed to go without action.

Please tell me where you think the "fuzziness" about shooting unarmed people who were not trying to escape or engage in hostilities lies. That's generally been considered a war crime for many, many years.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

Chris 249 said..

I've already said that I disagree with that invitation.

It seems that you think that once a country does something arguably wrong politically, then that country's service people should be able to murder, torture, mutilate, harm or do anything else they want, without anyone trying to stop or punish them. That is not logical.

Applying what seems to be your logic, once Germany started WW2 by invading Poland, then the SS should have been allowed to kill everyone they felt like killing and no one should have taken any action at any time. I'm glad I don't live in your world.

I must have missed that you disagreed with Israel's Presidents visit.

No, that's not my logic at all. I don't know what you are on about.

Bull**** it's illogical. You are the one who has, since your first post, conflated a recent visit to old killings as if the Israeli president's visit somehow affected the allegations that BRS murdered unarmed people - something that has been illegal under the laws of war for many years. The fact that someone visited Australia recently is nothing to stop charges related to murders of people of a different country many years earlier.

You are the one who has claimed that "something isn't right", as if there is something wrong about the fact that we are taking action once allegations of murder have surfaced.

What else do you want us to do? Ignore the allegations?

Are you saying that because a country gave someone a medal, that person cannot be charged with or be guilty of war crimes?

Yes, the investigation has taken years. That is because the earlier one tried to move faster and had issues, and because it's hard to investigate something that allegedly occurred in a tight-knit community in which other allegations are involved, in a country where we cannot access the alleged crime site to carry out the usual forensic and other allegations, where the local cop are not cooperating, etc etc etc. It is perfectly logical that the investigation has taken this long, although it's not ideal.

Have you read the judgment of the defo action? It's free for all to read, it's got lots of detail, and it's almost certainly the best publicly available source of information about the allegations, the witness statements (down to exactly where certain witnesses were positioned at the time of various alleged killings, where certain people were when certain things were allegedly said, etc).

If you reckon something is wrong then what steps have you taken to inform yourself?

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

Chris 249 said..

So what, then, is your disagreement with the BRS charges?

The allegation is that BRS did something that has been illegal under the laws of war for many years. That is pretty clear. Why did you bring in the Israeli president's visit? The fact that someone visited Australia recently is nothing to stop charges related to murders of people of a different country many years earlier.

ADF didn't investigate Herzog as far as I'm aware. I don't believe they are investigating any IDF soldiers living or visiting here. Seems to me they are more obsessed conducting a time consuming and very expensive witch hunt on a disgraced former SAS soldier. Why is that and what problem will this solve?

acij.org.au/media-release-legal-groups-demand-police-investigation-of-israeli-president-herzog-for-incitement-to-genocide/

For heaven's sake, the ADF cannot investigate Herzog. The ADF doesn't have the power under Australian law.

The link you referred to is a bunch of people claiming, with no citation or any other evidence, that accepted international law is wrong. Whatever those people may say, the fact is that head of state immunity IS accepted international law. That's a fact.

For you to expect the ADF, which has no such power, to investigate a charge it can't do anything about under accepted law is weird.

The Herzog thing seems to just be a smokeshield for you to claim that we should allow people to get away with murder if they did it a few years ago. So if your kids, partner or family were killed a few years ago, would you be happy if the murderer was wandering around in a well paid job today? Really?

The problem that addressing the BRS case will solve is pretty damn simple. It will confirm that our service people must follow laws and orders. It is beyond weird that you seem to object to that and therefore you seem to be happy to live in a world where people can get away with murder if it was long enough ago, and that people should see and understand that lesson.

The fact that you support breaches of accepted law (which is what the link you posted advocates) means that you must also accept that you could be arrested by the AFP in breach of accepted law. I expect you would be very unhappy if that happened but it seems that you think that laws should apply to other people differently to the way they apply to you and me.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

Chris 249 said..

myscreenname said..

Chris 249 said..

So what, then, is your disagreement with the BRS charges?

The allegation is that BRS did something that has been illegal under the laws of war for many years. That is pretty clear. Why did you bring in the Israeli president's visit? The fact that someone visited Australia recently is nothing to stop charges related to murders of people of a different country many years earlier.

ADF didn't investigate Herzog as far as I'm aware. I don't believe they are investigating any IDF soldiers living or visiting here. Seems to me they are more obsessed conducting a time consuming and very expensive witch hunt on a disgraced former SAS soldier. Why is that and what problem will this solve?

acij.org.au/media-release-legal-groups-demand-police-investigation-of-israeli-president-herzog-for-incitement-to-genocide/

For heaven's sake, the ADF cannot investigate Herzog. The ADF doesn't have the power under Australian law.

The link you referred to is a bunch of people claiming, with no citation or any other evidence, that accepted international law is wrong. For you to expect the ADF, which has no such power, to investigate a charge it can't investigate under accepted law is weird.

The Herzog thing seems to just be a smokeshield for you to claim that we should allow people to get away with murder if they did it a few years ago. So if your kids, partner or family were killed a few years ago, would you be happy if the murderer was wandering around in a well paid job today? Really?

The problem that addressing the BRS case will solve is pretty damn simple. It will confirm that our service people must follow laws and orders. It is beyond weird that you seem to object to that and therefore you seem to be happy to live in a world where people can get away with murder if it was long enough ago, and that people should see and understand that lesson.

ADF or AFP?

YOU said ADF. Read your own post.

The AFP also doesn't breach accepted international laws like the head of state immunity. You may not like it, I don't like Herzog, but that doesn't mean that we get to change international law.

And it's weirdly hypocritical for you to seem to want us to breach international law to investigate Herzog, but don't want Australians to be charged for murder.

And no, I'm not "triggered" by the fact that you seem to be happy to let people get away with multiple murders. Any sane person would be annoyed at your attitude, and this is one area I know a lot better than most people because of my former job.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..

Chris 249 said..

myscreenname said..

Chris 249 said..

myscreenname said..

Chris 249 said..

So what, then, is your disagreement with the BRS charges?

The allegation is that BRS did something that has been illegal under the laws of war for many years. That is pretty clear. Why did you bring in the Israeli president's visit? The fact that someone visited Australia recently is nothing to stop charges related to murders of people of a different country many years earlier.

ADF didn't investigate Herzog as far as I'm aware. I don't believe they are investigating any IDF soldiers living or visiting here. Seems to me they are more obsessed conducting a time consuming and very expensive witch hunt on a disgraced former SAS soldier. Why is that and what problem will this solve?

acij.org.au/media-release-legal-groups-demand-police-investigation-of-israeli-president-herzog-for-incitement-to-genocide/

For heaven's sake, the ADF cannot investigate Herzog. The ADF doesn't have the power under Australian law.

The link you referred to is a bunch of people claiming, with no citation or any other evidence, that accepted international law is wrong. For you to expect the ADF, which has no such power, to investigate a charge it can't investigate under accepted law is weird.

The Herzog thing seems to just be a smokeshield for you to claim that we should allow people to get away with murder if they did it a few years ago. So if your kids, partner or family were killed a few years ago, would you be happy if the murderer was wandering around in a well paid job today? Really?

The problem that addressing the BRS case will solve is pretty damn simple. It will confirm that our service people must follow laws and orders. It is beyond weird that you seem to object to that and therefore you seem to be happy to live in a world where people can get away with murder if it was long enough ago, and that people should see and understand that lesson.

ADF or AFP?

YOU said ADF. Read your own post.

The AFP also doesn't breach accepted international laws like the head of state immunity. You may not like it, I don't like Herzog, but that doesn't mean that we get to change international law.

And the hypocrisy in wanting to breach international law to investigate Herzog, whole advocating for Australians to not be charged with murder, is just weird.

No you said ADF

Your post at 8:16 said ADF - look at the quote of your post, in my response.

The ADF can investigate murders among service people. The AFP cannot take action against Herzog under established international law.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
For heaven's sake, the ADF cannot investigate Herzog. The ADF doesn't have the power under Australian law.

AFP, mate AFP. And they can, under Aussie law, investigate anyone anywhere for accusations of genocide.

So just to confirm then the whole point of this, the $300 million, 10 years and the public arrest, leaked to the press for maximum publicity is to confirm our service people the media decide must follow laws and orders must follow laws and orders, unless the orders don't conform to the law then it is all too muddy to worry about.

But also that there is no need to make any effort confirming that genocide shouldn't be allowed to happen or confirm that illegal wars shouldn't be started so long as there is enough of a front page story with all the other ****e going on and anyone accused of such should be welcome to come visit.

Yep, you have persuaded me now.

Hey, MSN sorry but I no longer stand with you.



Edit : Well sorry there you fellas type quicker than me. I read MSN say AFP and C249 say ADF. I stand corrected if that wasn't the case.