Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Alleged SAS War Crimes Report

yes, I have. Have you?

Yes, they even printed my details in The Gazette and gave me a nice award.

Now, pray tell what patrol you were part of that fired shots in anger.

Or did you mean that your shiny ARRSE got dragged off its chair and out of some office to sit in on an AAR / debrief.
 
Not quick enough to make the MSM and do exactly what they were intended to do. Paint the forces in a bad light.



If it was that clear, why was it not picked up on immediately at the AAR / Patrol debrief, where it would be safe to assume that all relevant material, including body cam footage would have been watched / reviewed.
That's a failing of the journalists and editor of that paper (funnily enough the editor has a brother in the army who could've told him they were fake before printing). Yep journalists can have an agenda, but nowhere in my reply was I saying otherwise.

That doesn't negate the facts of what I wrote though, which is the body cam footage has been officialy verified not just by the army, but by the actual soldiers there and the one who filmed it.

I can't say what happened with the report(s), or whether there was active influence by Soldier C on others, or others on Soldier C. That's now for Soldier C and the others to explain in the investigations.

All that is clear, is that where Soldier C said he was in relation to the afghan when he shot him, and the events around him shooting the afghan, do not tally up to what the footage actually shows. Wherever the failings lie there, it is something that must be explained.
 
And that highly respected judge may, just may, have anticipated the challenges thrown up by the use of coercive powers, and managed processes accordingly.

Coercion, where such powers exist, has absolutely nothing to do with coaching. Do you understand the difference in this Inquiry?

Glad that you put may, just may in. It is equally possible that he may not. Or are you saying that is beyond the realms of possibility.

Yes - This inquiry has uncovered some irregularities that will now be passed to the appropriate authority to investigate them.

Not really difficult to understand.

Do you understand why a Defence Team will jump all over any '' coercion ''
 
I can't say what happened with the report(s), or whether there was active influence by Soldier C on others, or others on Soldier C. That's now for Soldier C and the others to explain in the investigations.

Hallefu**inglujah.

Let the Investigation ( Due process ) take its course.
 
The coercive powers are there to compel witnesses before the Inquiry to answer questions. The quid pro quo is that any statements made which incriminate that same witness cannot be used directly against them.

The "art" in running the Inquiry is to ensure that those witnesses who appear voluntarily, and those dealt with under coercive powers, are handled in such a manner as to ensure the potential for future trials are not prejudiced by the process. Mr. Brereton will have an extremely fine grasp of the subtleties.
I think you’ve got this exactly right, particularly around Brereton’s “grasp of the subtleties”.

My point about coercion to speak rather than coercion to attend is that it’s near impossible for someone to be coerced into giving evidence they do not wish to give. Even without a right to remain silent, they cannot be forced to speak without the application of abusive pressure.

It’s ludicrous to suggest that anyone was forced to give evidence other than voluntarily
 
Yes, they even printed my details in The Gazette and gave me a nice award.

Now, pray tell what patrol you were part of that fired shots in anger.

Or did you mean that your shiny ARRSE got dragged off its chair and out of some office to sit in on an AAR / debrief.

Long Service and Good Conduct - that`s Gazetted now

Archie
 
Glad that you put may, just may in. It is equally possible that he may not. Or are you saying that is beyond the realms of possibility.

It was sarcasm.

While it's not impossible that he may be dim, it's likely that a judge at the court of appeal, who's entire life has been immersed in the finer points of law (bone up on his father), may just have a finer grasp of how this game is played than you are capable of appreciating. With respect, it's a world, and a way of thinking, to which you are unlikely to have been exposed.
 
It’s ludicrous to suggest that anyone was forced to give evidence other than voluntarily

Clearly, and it's an interesting point.

I have no idea of the legal position, but it's possible that an adverse finding (presumed guilt) could be made should that person refuse to answer questions. This Inquiry has odd powers, so who knows....... and would such an "offence" be tried before military or civil courts?

Anyone know what the real position is?
 
While it's not impossible that he may be dim,

I never mentioned anything about being dim.

He will also know that Senior Officers will not escape severe scrutiny.

Is it not possible that Brereton deliberately left a window of opportunity open ?
 
Clearly, and it's an interesting point.

I have no idea of the legal position, but it's possible that an adverse finding (presumed guilt) could be made should that person refuse to answer questions. This Inquiry has odd powers, so who knows....... and would such an "offence" be tried before military or civil courts?

Anyone know what the real position is?
A start for ten.

The Defence Disciple Act defines how defence discipline works. It does not define laws in the way that the AFA does.

Since the alleged offences took place overseas, they would be tried under the Defence Discipline Act as “Territory Offences”. Basically any offence committed by service personnel that is an offence in Jervis Bay Territory is an offence against the DDA. This gets around the fact that most criminal law is a State jurisdiction. Murder would be tried under the appropriate ACT law as applied in JBT.

If the offence is a federal issue like war crimes or espionage the Commonwealth Criminal Code. If committed overseas, these offences are still “Territory Offences”.

The court would be martial.

As I did a starter for ten. Feel free to rip it apart!
 
Read this.


Yes

It's pretty damning in parts

We pushed our special forces soldiers into more than 1500 contacts with the enemy over eight years. That’s 3.8 per week, for eight years straight. The average SAS soldier completed more than four tours. Some completed as many as eight. The psychological impact of repeated, violent episodes in warfighting started to fracture our forces.

Ian Turner, a commando with multiple tours in Afghanistan, was committed to a psychiatric hospital, only to be returned to combat after his release. He later died by his own hand. He wrote to his sister and said: “I have spent seven years of my life overseas fighting. I’ve had enough.”

The allegations are evil, and immorality at this level is not excusable. The decision-makers that green-lighted this mess of a war, year after year, are just as culpable.
 
Last edited:
Clearly, and it's an interesting point.

I have no idea of the legal position, but it's possible that an adverse finding (presumed guilt) could be made should that person refuse to answer questions. This Inquiry has odd powers, so who knows....... and would such an "offence" be tried before military or civil courts?

Anyone know what the real position is?
Might possbly follow the logic of the current English police caution
You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.

In other words, compelled to attend as a witness, not compelled to testify but simply advised that silence may come back to bite them.
 
Feel free to rip it apart!

I think, under the Inquiry TOR, that it may be up to the Inquiry which path to prosecution is followed.

Thinking about it, the most obvious offence for non-compliance with a judge's coervice disclosure order would be contempt. Maybe that's the downside.
 
I don't get your drift. Given the events, anything is possible.

1. The last thing Australia wants is for this to end up at the ICC, so it has to be dealt with.

2. An inquiry was established and the findings published.

2. Brereton will know that Senior Officers are under scrutiny in all of this.

3. So could Politicians ( If they were putting pressure on Senior Officers )

4. If things were to collapse during the course of the Investigation phase / or even further forward at trial stage, it would kick the ICC into touch.

This would potentially.

1. Save the necks of any implicated Politico's

2. Save the necks of Senior Officers

Of course - That old adage of '' Lessons will be learned '' will be repeated ad infinitum.
 

Latest Threads

Top