Decorated Australian vet loses big defamation case

[lionking]

Was this in his role as a judge, or a different context?

As part of the judgement

 

[lionking]

Australia is a party to the Rome Statue. Why haven't they submitted this matter to ICC for judgement, instead of trying the case themselves?

I’m staggered you think the ICC is a reputable court.

In any case, the ICC would not be interested:

The ICC gives preference to domestic criminal systems. Indeed, if in a domestic jurisdiction, an incident has been investigated and prosecuted, or properly investigated with a decision made not to prosecute, then the jurisdiction of the ICC can not be invoked: this is the principle of complementarity.

https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentar...es_committees?url=jfadt/u_nations/unchap8.pdf

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Yes.

Ben Roberts-Smith: calls for uniform to be removed from Australian War Memorial display

The Australian War Memorial is facing calls to remove Ben Roberts-Smith’s uniform from its display after the federal court dismissed the defamation case initiated by Australia’s most decorated living soldier.

...

The [Greens'] defence and justice spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said: “If this judgment stands, the first step in correcting the official record is for the Australian War Memorial to immediately remove Ben Roberts-Smith’s uniform from public display and to begin telling the entire truth of Australia’s involvement in that brutal war.

“This is not justice for the families who lost loved ones or for the communities that have been brutalised by war crimes, but it takes us a step closer.”

Shoebridge also urged the Albanese government to “urgently progress compensation for families of victims of alleged Afghanistan war crimes, one of the key outstanding recommendations of the Brereton report”.

He called on the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, to “step in and end the unjust prosecution of Afghanistan war crimes whistleblower David McBride”.

Removing this scumbag's uniform from a place of honour is the least that we can do.

 

[arthwollipot]

Ben Roberts-Smith's memorabilia to remain on display at Australian War Memorial, additional content being considered

The uniform and medals of Ben Roberts-Smith will remain on display at the Australian War Memorial for now.

...

In a statement, the War Memorial explained its reasoning for keeping the exhibit on display.

It said the purpose of the War Memorial was to assist in remembering, interpreting and understanding the national experience of war and its enduring impact, and that includes "the causes, conduct and consequences of war".

"The Memorial acknowledges the gravity of the decision in the Ben Roberts-Smith VC MG defamation case and its broader impact on all involved in the Australian community," the statement said.

"This is the outcome of a civil legal case, and one step in a longer process.

"Collection items relating to Ben Roberts-Smith VC MG, including his uniform, equipment, medals and associated artworks, are on display in the Memorial's galleries.

"We are considering carefully the additional content and context to be included in these displays.

"The Memorial acknowledges Afghanistan veterans and their families who may be affected at this time."

 

[lionking]

Ben Roberts-Smith's memorabilia to remain on display at Australian War Memorial, additional content being considered

Pretty poor decision in my view. Four Australians were awarded VCs in Afghanistan. Feature another vet who hasn’t committed war crimes.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I think we need to remember also that most special forces soldiers, of which Roberts was one, are not as seen in movies as cigar-chomping steely-eyed derring-do killers of a zillion enemy soldiers only with an infinity-magazine Uzi, and the pew-pew-pew return fire always misses.

Instead they are highly trained and fairly ruthless killers because that's who they need to be to take on who they are up against. You got a little taste of that with the Chris Kyle story. For example, sometimes these guys had to ruthlessly shoot unarmed women and kids, or old folks, or traitors. And they need to be mentally tough to do that. Sometimes so mentally tough that their methods of operation become thoughtlessly violent and brutal. Part of their training is to be so brutal that the "other side" is intimidated by the outcomes - scaring seven kinds of **** out of them.

But this isn't new. The utter ****-show that is war is not clean-cut and never has been. In the past, there were far fewer rules of engagement, not more. Everyone and their families got their head bashed in with a maul. Or lopped off in public. Or just burned to death in their homes.

So differentiating murder from killing an enemy and discouraging his compatriots and support chain becomes a very grey area. There have been plenty of instances where military actions directly involving civilians has resulted in non-combatants being horribly and arbitrarily killed. So is that murder? Or is that killing and scaring a potential enemy? Both?

That is the question faced by this defamation trial: When does killing your enemy to gain a military advantage become murder.

I don't think I have an answer for that...

 

[lionking]

I think we need to remember also that most special forces soldiers, of which Roberts was one, are not as seen in movies as cigar-chomping steely-eyed derring-do killers of a zillion enemy soldiers only with an infinity-magazine Uzi, and the pew-pew-pew return fire always misses.

Instead they are highly trained and fairly ruthless killers because that's who they need to be to take on who they are up against. You got a little taste of that with the Chris Kyle story. For example, sometimes these guys had to ruthlessly shoot unarmed women and kids, or old folks, or traitors. And they need to be mentally tough to do that. Sometimes so mentally tough that their methods of operation become thoughtlessly violent and brutal. Part of their training is to be so brutal that the "other side" is intimidated by the outcomes - scaring seven kinds of **** out of them.

But this isn't new. The utter ****-show that is war is not clean-cut and never has been. In the past, there were far fewer rules of engagement, not more. Everyone and their families got their head bashed in with a maul. Or lopped off in public. Or just burned to death in their homes.

So differentiating murder from killing an enemy and discouraging his compatriots and support chain becomes a very grey area. There have been plenty of instances where military actions directly involving civilians has resulted in non-combatants being horribly and arbitrarily killed. So is that murder? Or is that killing and scaring a potential enemy? Both?

That is the question faced by this defamation trial: When does killing your enemy to gain a military advantage become murder.

I don't think I have an answer for that...

Roberts-Smith killed non enemies, unless you count all Afghani civilians as enemies. Ali Jan was not a combatant or even an enemy. It didn’t stop BRS from pushing him off a cliff and ordering soldiers to kill him when he survived.

If in his addled mind he believed his action could deter the Taliban, he was seriously deluded. It ******* emboldened them.

I am not in any way anti-military, but I cannot find a milligram of sympathy for BRS.

 

[arthwollipot]

Roberts-Smith killed non enemies, unless you count all Afghani civilians as enemies. Ali Jan was not a combatant or even an enemy. It didn’t stop BRS from pushing him off a cliff and ordering soldiers to kill him when he survived.

Not to mention that he was restrained and controlled. He wasn't a casualty of battle, he was summarily executed.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Roberts-Smith killed non enemies, unless you count all Afghani civilians as enemies. Ali Jan was not a combatant or even an enemy. It didn’t stop BRS from pushing him off a cliff and ordering soldiers to kill him when he survived.

If in his addled mind he believed his action could deter the Taliban, he was seriously deluded. It ******* emboldened them.

I am not in any way anti-military, but I cannot find a milligram of sympathy for BRS.

Not to mention that he was restrained and controlled. He wasn't a casualty of battle, he was summarily executed.

I'm not supporting Roberts-Smith. But I can also understand why he thought such unrestrained brutality had become necessary.

 

[lionking]

I'm not supporting Roberts-Smith. But I can also understand why he thought such unrestrained brutality had become necessary.

Well if that is the case it represents a massive failure of command, and heads up the line must roll. But BRS must pay the price for his crimes, and soon.

My Lai showed (yes different war, jurisdiction and scale, but still) that it’s relatively easy for countries to wipe their hands of war crimes. Calley spent almost no time in jail for his murders. I trust we have moved on from this.

 

[rjh01]

Ben Roberts-Smith's memorabilia to remain on display at Australian War Memorial, additional content being considered

For the above reason the War memorial should say what Ben Roberts-Smith did in detail. This includes at least a summary of the newspaper article and judgement.

Then look at the bigger picture and put on display the full horror of all wars where Australia was directly involved. I would like to see a display of what happened to Australian soldiers who were captured by Japanese soldiers. That would take years to do. But that is ok.

I will have to visit the War Memorial and see if there is anything like that there. Or is my memory correct and most of it is just facts that can be read in history books + the hardware of war?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I trust we have moved on from this.

We haven't.

The lesson is not to get involved with wars that aren't a necessity. There are no clean wars, and Australia should think twice before sending their people to help the US do their dirty work in the future.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Well if that is the case it represents a massive failure of command, and heads up the line must roll. But BRS must pay the price for his crimes, and soon.

My Lai showed (yes different war, jurisdiction and scale, but still) that it’s relatively easy for countries to wipe their hands of war crimes. Calley spent almost no time in jail for his murders. I trust we have moved on from this.

Hardly the first such incident of that type, in that war and many others before. For example, Operation Thunderclap - the bombing of Dresden in 1945. And the relentless war crimes by all armies in WW1, including by Australian soldiers, even ANZACs.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

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.

Given that the war museum is largely run by Nat politicians and donators who have, until now, been defending him on the grounds of " he's a white Australian, he can't be a war criminal!" I think removal will be slow coming.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I think we need to remember also that most special forces soldiers, of which Roberts was one, are not as seen in movies as cigar-chomping steely-eyed derring-do killers of a zillion enemy soldiers only with an infinity-magazine Uzi, and the pew-pew-pew return fire always misses.

Instead they are highly trained and fairly ruthless killers because that's who they need to be to take on who they are up against. You got a little taste of that with the Chris Kyle story. For example, sometimes these guys had to ruthlessly shoot unarmed women and kids, or old folks, or traitors. And they need to be mentally tough to do that. Sometimes so mentally tough that their methods of operation become thoughtlessly violent and brutal. Part of their training is to be so brutal that the "other side" is intimidated by the outcomes - scaring seven kinds of **** out of them.

But this isn't new. The utter ****-show that is war is not clean-cut and never has been. In the past, there were far fewer rules of engagement, not more. Everyone and their families got their head bashed in with a maul. Or lopped off in public. Or just burned to death in their homes.

So differentiating murder from killing an enemy and discouraging his compatriots and support chain becomes a very grey area. There have been plenty of instances where military actions directly involving civilians has resulted in non-combatants being horribly and arbitrarily killed. So is that murder? Or is that killing and scaring a potential enemy? Both?

That is the question faced by this defamation trial: When does killing your enemy to gain a military advantage become murder.

I don't think I have an answer for that...

Absolutely nobody ever has had to shoot unarmed civilians. If you do it deliberately it's because you want to and you're no better than an Einsatzgruppe SS guard.

 

[catsmate]

Ben Roberts-Smith's memorabilia to remain on display at Australian War Memorial, additional content being considered

Hmmm, I await someone with a hammer and can of unleaded.

 

[catsmate]

Absolutely nobody ever has had to shoot unarmed civilians. If you do it deliberately it's because you want to and you're no better than an Einsatzgruppe SS guard.

I too would like to see such a scenario explained.

 

[Orphia Nay]

War is a war crime.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Absolutely nobody ever has had to shoot unarmed civilians. If you do it deliberately it's because you want to and you're no better than an Einsatzgruppe SS guard.

In principle, I agree. But then the RAF and USAAF area-bombed cities for years during WW2, killing hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians. The fire-bombing and atomic strikes on Japan did the same. So were the air-crews who dropped those bombs war-criminals as a result? They are revered as brave airmen...

Again, I'm not defending Roberts-Smith. He is not a shining knight by any means. But pursuing any war-crimes accusations might lead down dark alleys many people will find abhorrent and involving other "national treasures".

War is a war crime.

Absolutely.

 

[novaphile]

The whole thing becomes horribly muddy, when the enemy carefully wears no uniforms.

It's a very different world out there these days.

I've always struggled with the concept that 'soldiers' can be shooting, setting bombs etc. but become a civilian the instant that they drop their weapons on the ground.

I'm honestly surprised that any of the military survived with their minds intact after having to live and work in that mess.