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

A very good article Filthy. Andrew Hastie doesn't come across as the shy, timid troop commander who would be overawed by his big bad troop sergeant and patrol commanders does he?
Does anyone buy that shy, timid shit? It’s not as if SASR platoon commanders are fresh faced subies straight out of Duntroon.
 
But which court would have jurisdiction? Australia has no federal criminal court; offences against the Commonwealth Criminal Code are tried at State level. So which state would have jurisdiction? The state in which the soldier resides or the one where he is / was based? Or would the ACT courts have , based on the Territory Offences schedules of the DFDA?

Bob, the offences are tried in the State courts but under Federal legislation. Its a trap for young players who rock up to a magistrates court to represent someone charged with a social security offence to suddenly find there is a whole new playground to navigate through.

Where any charges arising out of this dogs breakfast are heard I have no idea but someone is going to have make a decision otherwise there might well be a referral to the International Criminal Court (or whatever it is called) in the Hague which would be incredibly embarrassing for the bloody politicians who are running for cover.
 
Bob, the offences are tried in the State courts but under Federal legislation. Its a trap for young players who rock up to a magistrates court to represent someone charged with a social security offence to suddenly find there is a whole new playground to navigate through.
Exactly my point. So which state court has jurisdiction?

It’s easy when someone is charged with a Commonwealth Code social security offence; the state in which they reside has jurisdiction.

But here there are likely to be multiple alleged offenders and probably co-offenders from different states and multiple interstate and potentially international witnesses. The likely offences alleged will be both external and universal; not the usual fodder of state courts. There’s going to be a complete dogs dinner of extradition and jurisdiction issues.

The whole point of the Territory Offences section of the DFDA is to enable the defence justice system to manage these kinds of interstate and to manage external and universal offences.
 
That isn't how all AARs work. Maybe it is wherever you've worked, but a detailed discussion and a full review of all footage by the CoC after every single contact definitely isn't standard procedure for everyone.


Here's the footage:

Which isn't what I said - Was it ?

I said a full debrief would take place in the event of weapons fired in anger resulting in wounding or deaths.

In the event of a shooting that resulted in wounded / killed enemy, I find it very hard to believe that footage from bodycams would not be one of the very 1st things that would be reviewed.

Another CoC failure ?

The 2:09 minutes of video footage is damning against Soldier '' C '' However, the footage gives no context as to why the patrol was being directed by Blackhawks.

Had the Blackhawks been tracking active shooters ? I don't know, you don't know and the footage does not know either.

And oddly enough, the times that I did use bodycams, the contents were downloaded to external hard drives in the Ops Room to ensure that the contents could not be doctored after the event.
 
Where any charges arising out of this dogs breakfast are heard I have no idea but someone is going to have make a decision otherwise there might well be a referral to the International Criminal Court (or whatever it is called) in the Hague which would be incredibly embarrassing for the bloody politicians who are running for cover.

Please see post 621

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.
 
In my earlier years I got up to all sorts of stuff!

Best you adopt the Yank method - Don't ask, don't tell.

After your horrified shock that members of the AF would act like Alpha males and partake in some dangerous jollies, we don't really need to hear about you painting your toenails and filing your nails.

The stories I could tell about RAF Wroughton would have had Larry Grayson, Danny LaRue and Elton John collectively trying to batter the gates down.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I said a full debrief would take place in the event of weapons fired in anger resulting in wounding or deaths.

In the event of a shooting that resulted in wounded / killed enemy, I find it very hard to believe that footage from bodycams would not be one of the very 1st things that would be reviewed.

That's still definitely not standard practice everywhere. It certainly doesn't mean the CoC would be involved in the details of it.


The 2:09 minutes of video footage is damning against Soldier '' C '' However, the footage gives no context as to why the patrol was being directed by Blackhawks

How can it be damning? You've said that all the incidents are only alleged until there's been a conviction.

Are you now realising that's maybe not how it works in reality?

However, the footage gives no context as to why the patrol was being directed by Blackhawks.

Had the Blackhawks been tracking active shooters ? I don't know, you don't know and the footage does not know either.

Why does this make any difference? The shooting is clearly a murder of an unarmed and motionless individual. There's no surrounding context that can excuse that.
 
Last edited:
Which isn't what I said - Was it ?

I said a full debrief would take place in the event of weapons fired in anger resulting in wounding or deaths.

In the event of a shooting that resulted in wounded / killed enemy, I find it very hard to believe that footage from bodycams would not be one of the very 1st things that would be reviewed.

Another CoC failure ?

The 2:09 minutes of video footage is damning against Soldier '' C '' However, the footage gives no context as to why the patrol was being directed by Blackhawks.

Had the Blackhawks been tracking active shooters ? I don't know, you don't know and the footage does not know either.

And oddly enough, the times that I did use bodycams, the contents were downloaded to external hard drives in the Ops Room to ensure that the contents could not be doctored after the event.
It's not always the case, as shown the way the Sgt. Blackman files were found by accident during a completely unrelated police investigation, a good while after the event.

CoC failings don't absolve the blokes of personal responsibility
 
It's not always the case, as shown the way the Sgt. Blackman files were found by accident during a completely unrelated police investigation, a good while after the event.

CoC failings don't absolve the blokes of personal responsibility
The same with Danny Nightingale's interesting collection of ammunition and a pistol stored under his bed. Found during an unrelated search of his rented and shared house
 
The 2:09 minutes of video footage is damning against Soldier '' C '' However, the footage gives no context as to why the patrol was being directed by Blackhawks.

Had the Blackhawks been tracking active shooters ? I don't know, you don't know and the footage does not know either.

How can it be damning? You've said that all the incidents are only alleged until there's been a conviction.

I said in the 2:09 minutes of shown footage it is damning.

Where is the footage of then 15 - 20 minutes prior to the 2:09 minutes shown ?

The shooting is clearly a murder of an unarmed and motionless individual.

Bingo - There we have it. Some internet mouthpiece declares '' Its a murder ''
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Where is the footage of then 15 - 20 minutes prior to the 2:09 minutes shown ?

Why does that make a difference?

It's starting to feel a lot like you either have a very loose grip on LOAC or you're a war crimes apologist.



Bingo - There we have it. Some internet mouthpiece declares '' Its a murder

Indeed. What other words would you use for killing a guy lying unarmed and motionless on the ground?
 
Why does that make a difference?

Because the normal MO is to throw away the weapon as soon as ammo expended / stoppage occurs.

Immediately prior to the 2:09 minutes of footage he could have been spraying like a madman - Hence the troops being directed by Blackhawks.

It's starting to feel a lot like you either have a very loose grip on LOAC or you're a war crimes apologist.

Does it really ?

Sue me.

Indeed. What other words would you use for killing a guy lying unarmed and motionless on the ground?

Are you a member of the DPP ? I believe the results of any investigation are passed to them - The DPP then decide what charges are to be levelled.

Not some keyboard commando.

Enough of your crap.
 
What other words would you use for killing a guy lying unarmed and motionless on the ground?
A suspected unlawful killing.

It’s not murder until intent has been proven. Could he manslaughter with diminished responsibility. Could be a compete fake.

Blackman is a good example.
 
Last edited:
I think there is a slight confusion on this thread between Homicide and Murder. All killings are Homicide lawful and unlawful.

In the context of War killings within the LOAC are lawful and killings outside the LOAC are unlawful. Those unlawful kilings will normally be dealt with as Murder or Manslaughter, both criminal acts

Anyway this whole messy affair can be easily resolved by the transfer of Judicial Proceeding to the Courts of the country in which they occurred, Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
No

A relative was the MO there, held the rank of Gp Capt at that time. Very early in his career.
I was an inmate there for a month in isolation with a tropical disease in 1995 whilst at RAF Lyneham. Coincidentally we had an OFQ on the Wroughton patch as an overspill from Lyneham; quiet but a bit wind-swept.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Because the normal MO is to throw away the weapon as soon as ammo expended / stoppage occurs.

What difference does that make? Again, you don't seem to understand the basics of LOAC.

I also wonder if you've ever actually been in a contact if you think that every fatal incident gets a detailed AAR by the CoC.

Are you a member of the DPP ? I believe the results of any investigation are passed to them - The DPP then decide what charges are to be levelled.

Not some keyboard commando.

Are CDF and the IGADF keyboard commandos? Because they've concluded that there's sufficient evidence to warrant an institutional response.

You seem incapable of drawing a distinction between the process of obtaining convictions against individuals through the courts, and the institutional response to a report that has already found that there were numerous unlawful killings (murders in common parlance).

I think your motivations here are fascinating. Why are you fighting tooth and nail to defend war crimes on a technicality?
 
Last edited:
Its still no different to the Soviets who murdered hundreds of thousands on none Soviet citizens in Eastern Europe. Are you also saying that its OK to kill a million of your of own people? Thats OK then, it means your not as bad as the Nazis. Try saying that to the Poles and coming away with your nose intact. Stalin also had his own pograms against the Jews as well, both before the war and after it. He just called them 'enemies of the people.' I suppose that makes it all right in your book. Not as bad as the Nazis.
I've made it perfectly clear that mass murder is disgusting and unjustifiable, wherever and whatever. I'm merely pointing out that the Nazis were the first to make it an active and deliberate part of foreign, rather than just domestic, policy in the modern era. Anyway, Mao was probably responsible for more deaths than either Stalin or Hitler.

I'm trying to figure out your motivation here:
  • Are you trying to defend the Nazis, because "the Soviets were worse" / "the Germans were forced into being racist genocidal maniacs"?
  • Are you trying to defend Australian war criminals, because "it's always been that way" / "they haven't been convicted in a court of law, so you can't say they're guilty"?
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top