• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Decorated Australian vet loses big defamation case

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
lionking
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
57,992
Location
Melbourne
When I say decorated, I’m talking the Victoria Cross, the highest honour in British Commonwealth nations.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...y-decorated-australian-soldier-latest-updates

Ben Roberts-Smith was in Australia’s elite Special Air Service Regiment and served in Afghanistan. During the 2010s stories were circulating about Australian troops there engaging in war crimes. Roberts-Smith and the patrols he commanded featured in these stories. In short he murdered three non-combatants amongst other war crimes.

His case and those of other Afghanistan veterans were referred to Australian war crimes investigators. If the wheels of justice in general move slowly, when it comes to war crimes, it is positively glacial, and he has not yet been charged, but other soldiers have been.

Anyway, here’s where courageous newspapers (I’m not sure I’ve ever used that term before) came to the fore. The Age published the story, together with supporting evidence from soldiers in the SAS and even videos of one shooting. Roberts-Smith sued for defamation, and the case went on for nearly 2 years.

Today the judgement came, the papers were found to have reported truthfully. He is, in fact, a war criminal and murderer. Let’s hope the war crimes charges are laid very soon.

A couple of interesting side issues. He may be stripped of his Victoria Cross, and however brave he was at that time (and he was exceptionally brave) he has forfeited the right to it in my opinion. The other is one of costs, which look like being around $40m. Roberts-Smith does not have that sort of money, but he has been backed throughout by one of Australia’s wealthiest men, and owner of the Seven West media giant, Kerry Stokes. It remains to be seen if he covers the cost or if Roberts-Smith is bankrupted.

But this story is far from over. Stay tuned.

I, and I believe, the vast majority of Australians are very proud of the bravery and accomplishments of our military. My grandfather and his brothers served in WWI. I can’t even imagine the horrors they faced. Other relatives served in WW2 and friends served in Vietnam. This **** has sullied our military and I hope he rots in jail.
 
Approximately forty Australian soldiers are being investigated for war crimes committed in Afghanistan, one is currently charged. Three former soldiers pled self-incrimination to avoid testifying about committing war crimes, including murder, during the trial.
 
catsmate said:
Approximately forty Australian soldiers are being investigated for war crimes committed in Afghanistan, one is currently charged. Three former soldiers pled self-incrimination to avoid testifying about committing war crimes, including murder, during the trial.
Click to expand...

That’s right. I mentioned the one charged. Afghanistan was a cluster **** beyond doubt, but there are consequences for war crimes, and the culprits have to pay.

It’s a bitter pill to swallow for Australians who care about our military, but it has to happen.
 
lionking said:
That’s right. I mentioned the one charged. Afghanistan was a cluster **** beyond doubt, but there are consequences for war crimes, and the culprits have to pay.

It’s a bitter pill to swallow for Australians who care about our military, but it has to happen.
Click to expand...
Indeed, though at least Australia is investigating its criminality.
 
Had never heard of him, but his attempts to sue for defamation now means orders of magnitude more people now know he is a war criminal. Streisand squared.
 
angrysoba said:
Had never heard of him, but his attempts to sue for defamation now means orders of magnitude more people now know he is a war criminal. Streisand squared.
Click to expand...

True. Of course he’s well known here, and I can see the dilemma he faced. Wait until the inevitable war crime trial, maybe in 5-10 years, or get on the front foot and hope the evidence against him is dismissed in the defamation case. Bad decision, particularly as the Age is owned by the other giant TV network, Channel 9, with very deep pockets.

He may now appeal this decision, and Stokes may well finance this as well, but the judgement seems very solid.
 
lionking said:
True. Of course he’s well known here, and I can see the dilemma he faced. Wait until the inevitable war crime trial, maybe in 5-10 years, or get on the front foot and hope the evidence against him is dismissed in the defamation case. Bad decision, particularly as the Age is owned by the other giant TV network, Channel 9, with very deep pockets.

He may now appeal this decision, and Stokes may well finance this as well, but the judgement seems very solid.
Click to expand...
Mightn't he be required to lodge part of the ongoing costs before an appeal application is allowed?
 
lionking said:
True. Of course he’s well known here, and I can see the dilemma he faced. Wait until the inevitable war crime trial, maybe in 5-10 years, or get on the front foot and hope the evidence against him is dismissed in the defamation case. Bad decision, particularly as the Age is owned by the other giant TV network, Channel 9, with very deep pockets.

He may now appeal this decision, and Stokes may well finance this as well, but the judgement seems very solid.
Click to expand...

On what grounds?
 
lionking said:
Today the judgement came, the papers were found to have reported truthfully. He is, in fact, a war criminal and murderer. Let’s hope the war crimes charges are laid very soon.
Click to expand...

Legal nitpick: No, he isn't.
In a lawsuit, no-one is found guilty or innocent, they are either found liable or not liable, and no-one goes to prison. The only way he can be legally labelled a war criminal and murderer is if he is convicted of these charges in a criminal court.


Note: I have no dog in this fight.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Legal nitpick: No, he isn't.
In a lawsuit, no-one is found guilty or innocent, they are either found liable or not liable, and no-one goes to prison. The only way he can be legally labelled a war criminal and murderer is if he is convicted of these charges in a criminal court.


Note: I have no dog in this fight.
Click to expand...

I’m not interested in semantics. A Federal Court judge used the word murder in his judgement. The newspapers have called him a murderer. Even if he is not convicted by a military court he remains a murderer.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
same here.

Innocent until proven guilty = Judicial system semantics..
One of my peeves is the media always saying "alleged-whatever" when there is clear evidence they are guilty.
Click to expand...

Yes, though this goes further than the media. Here we have a Federal Court judge saying Roberts-Smith committed murder.
 
With so many war crimes being discussed during the case, it's really shown how the military seemingly isn't as honourable as it's portrayed on ANZAC Day.

Or, one wonders, what will the Australian military do after this case? Will they strip Roberts-Smith of his medals? Remove his display in the Australian War Museum? I think that would be a start, but changes need to be made within military culture.
 
When you give people guns and send them out to kill other people, ugly things can happen.
Not unlike law enforcement, where giving people power and the license to kill brings out the worst in people who are already pathological.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom