Alleged SAS War Crimes Report

[bobthebuilder]

At the risk of tearing the proverbial out of this discussion, there is a difference between (A) manslaughter/culpable homicide where a death has been caused unintentionally by gross negligence: in English legal parlance "gross negligence manslaughter" -

and (B) manslaughter/culpable homicide with the intention to kill where a partial defence applies, such as loss of control or diminished responsibility (as in the eventual outcome of the Blackman case), but short of actual insanity which would be a complete defence in law: "voluntary act manslaughter".

Mens rea, which you rightly mentioned, is therefore an element both of murder and (to a lesser extent) of voluntary act manslaughter. By referring to "credible information of murder by..." and "a realistic prospect of a criminal investigation obtaining sufficient evidence to charge [redacted] with the war crime of murder", Brereton is clearly satisfied that the alleged acts appear to have been voluntary* and therefore would amount to murder if proven in court and absent any successful partial defence of diminished responsibility.

If Brereton's inquiry had been informed of any manifest signs of diminished responsibility involved in the offence, that could have been taken into account, but it was not for that inquiry to second-guess any conceivable future defence, nor did it have the power to require persons of interest to undergo psychiatric examination.

Finally, having looked at the Inquiry's terms of reference I don't consider that it exceeded its remit. Concerns expressed in this thread about the report's public contents would apply to the redaction regime, not to its actual contents.

* PS - "Critically, the report apparently finds none of these killings occurred in heat of battle, none occurred “in circumstances in which the intent of the perpetrator was unclear, confused or mistaken”, and all persons involved understood the relevant law of armed conflict and the rules of engagement." Australian war crimes in Afghanistan: The Brereton Report

Agree completely; generally diminished responsibility is a matter for the defence to prove in a case of murder; it certainly is here in NSW. Not sure if that is the case in all states.

Each state has its own criminal laws. The NSW law is simple and very similar to the English law on which it is obviously based. Generally, there are three distinct intents that define murder; there are four separate intents that qualify as murder; the intent to commit GBH, the intent to kill, the reckless endangerment and the intent to commit a serious offence (usually one with >25 tariff) that leads to a death. Queensland has added more; I think there are 7.

WA defines three homicide offences: Wilful Murder, Murder and Manslaughter. Wilful Murder covers only for intent to kill. Diminished responsibility would apply as a defence to Wilful murder, reducing the offence to Murder. It might also reduce an offence of Murder to Manslaughter.

 

[par avion]

Agree completely; generally diminished responsibility is a matter for the defence to prove in a case of murder; it certainly is here in NSW. Not sure if that is the case in all states.

Each state has its own criminal laws. The NSW law is simple and very similar to the English law on which it is obviously based. Generally, there are three distinct intents that define murder; there are four separate intents that qualify as murder; the intent to commit GBH, the intent to kill, the reckless endangerment and the intent to commit a serious offence (usually one with >25 tariff) that leads to a death. Queensland has added more; I think there are 7.

WA defines three homicide offences: Wilful Murder, Murder and Manslaughter. Wilful Murder covers only for intent to kill. Diminished responsibility would apply as a defence to Wilful murder, reducing the offence to Murder. It might also reduce an offence of Murder to Manslaughter.

It must be a nightmare for lawyers if they move interstate with each State having its own law. At lease in GB we only have England and Wales laws and Jockland law.

 

[bobthebuilder]

It must be a nightmare for lawyers if they move interstate with each State having its own law. At lease in GB we only have England and Wales laws and Jockland law.

We’re talking Australia. People don’t move interstate. They finish school, go to their local uni, maybe take a year out international shagging travelling and then go home to live with Mum until they marry a local girl.

 

[retread2]

We’re talking Australia. People don’t move interstate. They finish school, go to their local uni, maybe take a year out international shagging travelling and then go home to live with Mum until they marry a local girl.

Local girls for local people. We'll have no trouble here.

Sorry.

 

[par avion]

I didn't - I was responding to @mrdude 's claim that "Yep, and there were plenty axis war crimes - as was the norm back in that time." (link) so I pointed out that it wasn't the norm, and that the Nazis were arguably the first to make war crimes a matter of policy (granted, the Japanese also tried very hard)

If anything, it's you doing the virtue-signalling by jumping in at that point to have your whataboutery moment on the Soviets and GULAG (link).

I'll ask again: why are you so quick to defend the Nazis? Do you feel that history has been unkind to them, in reviling them as scumbag war-criminals? Is it their natty uniforms, active racism, and murderous attitudes to "lesser" peoples?

You totaly derailed the thread by going on about Nazis and mass murders. I pointed out to you that the Soviets were carrying out mass murders well before the Nazis got into mass killings and carried them out well afterwards. Your answer was that was different as the Soviets were only killing there own people so that was all right. I pointed out that mass murder is bad whoever does it.

As for natty uniforms, didn't you serve with a mob who liked wearing brightly coloured trousers and skirts? I used to think you were one of the more sensible posters on Arrse, but it seems I am much mistaken.

How the alleged murder of 39 Afghans by 19 SASR soldiers over a 7 year period from 2006 to 2013 equates to mass murders by the Nazis defeats me.

As you have accused me of defending the Nazis I formally invoke Godwin's which means that you have lost the argument and we can move on.

Thank you.

 

[par avion]

In this ABC video released on 20 Nov 2020, from about 6.00 to 7.00 Chris Masters from the SMH who has been pushing these allegations from the start questions how officers from the most junior up to General can claim to have had no knowledge of these incidents over a seven year period and that the Australian public will question that. He also says that the Diggers will say "Well of course the officers knew, this is classic, we do all the hard work but the officers get off the hook.

Still Brereton says that none of the officers are to blame. 'It's not the fault of Cambell, Burr and Findlay, where's my next well paid public job coming from.

 

[par avion]

10 SASR soldiers to be sacked. Not those being investigated as a result of the Brereton report. 'Thank you for your service boys'. 'We wont worry about things like innocent until proved guilty. No chance of Campbell, Findlay or Burr falling on there swords as being ultimately responsible. Keep posing with their SAS wings and CIB's despite Campbell and Findlay probably never hearing a shot fired in anger. There are some nice very well paid Government jobs lined up for you when you retire.

 

[Portree Kid]

Still Brereton says that none of the officers are to blame.

If it wasn't so serious I would laugh.

Allegations spanning almost a decade, from within a Unit that is about 700 strong and all the officers were able to play Pinball Wizard ( deaf, dumb and blind ) according to Brereton. This, for me at least, hoists a big red flag about the impartiality of said report.

This will go all the way to the top

• Politico's pushing for an unsustainable Operational Tempo to look good in the eyes of the Americans
• Senior Officers to scared to say anything to the Politco's for fear of damaging future employment
• Deaf, dumb and blind Officers to scared to say anything to Senior Officers

 

[par avion]

A Commando officer questions why seven years worth of unit citations should be withdrawn. Chief of Army, Lieutennant General Burr is called to account by journos at a press conference with one young hottie saying "Can you tell me why you shouldn't resign."Rick becomes flustered and scuttles off.

However ScoMo says that senior officers will be held to account. Er Brereton said it wasn't their fault, didn't he read the report. It was all down to those nasty patrol sergeants.

 

[par avion]

This will go all the way to the top

• Politico's pushing for an unsustainable Operational Tempo to look good in the eyes of the Americans
• Senior Officers to scared to say anything to the Politco's for fear of damaging future employment
• Deaf, dumb and blind Officers to scared to say anything to Senior Officers

To be fair, I am not one to stand up for politicians but they can only take the advice of the Chief of Defence Staff and the individual service advisors. They knew the strain that they were putting on their troops. Canada and the Netherlands sacked it when they judged that they had done enough.

Mark Donaldson says in his autobiography that the Chief of Army told him he was being nominated for the VC it was because the public needed heroes. When Ben Roberts-Smith was awarded the VC it was a PR dream. A 6 foot 6inch man mountain action man storming machine gun nests in the best ANZAC tradition. Articulate bloke from a good family and posh school who joined the infantry as a private instead of going to Duntroon. The two SASR VC winners got far more publicity than the 3 RAR bloke.

 

[Portree Kid]

To be fair, I am not one to stand up for politicians but they can only take the advice of the Chief of Defence Staff and the individual service advisors.

Whilst this is undoubtedly true. The Politico's are under no obligation to accept and heed that advice. Ultimately, the Military advisors will do what the Politico's tell them to do.

They knew the strain that they were putting on their troops.

From the top of the CoC, right down to the medical CoC, whom it appears allowed people to be deployed, who should not have been deployable. ( Another can of worms )

To my mind, there needs to be 2 independent investigations.

1. The 1st investigation into the allegations highlighted in Breretons report.

2. The 2nd investigation into the failings within the CoC.

And a lot of people need to heed the words of Scott Morrison '' All must be presumed innocent until proven guilty ''

 

[par avion]

Another video of Rick being questioned about the actions of the top brass and not liking it. A classic question from a chick at 4.40 asking that 'as we saw Japanese Generals being hanged for war crimes that they knew nothing about, shouldn't he reseign?'

 

[Nige]

A Commando officer questions why seven years worth of unit citations should be withdrawn. Chief of Army, Lieutennant General Burr is called to account by journos at a press conference with one young hottie saying "Can you tell me why you shouldn't resign."Rick becomes flustered and scuttles off.

However ScoMo says that senior officers will be held to account. Er Brereton said it wasn't their fault, didn't he read the report. It was all down to those nasty patrol sergeants.

Suggest you check page 471 onward of the report.
Brereton makes observations on command, officers, responsibility etc.
Link to the report

 

[Nige]

Another video of Rick being questioned about the actions of the top brass and not liking it. A classic question from a chick at 4.40 asking that 'as we saw Japanese Generals being hanged for war crimes that they knew nothing about, shouldn't he reseign?'

The conflation of Gen Campbell having his DSC (or whatever) revoked is silly, he was JTF633 commander, not TG66 commander.
That being said, he strikes me as a man of integrity, so I will not be surprised if he gives it back.
The reference to Yamashita is interesting though - but the principle would have to applied to UK and US Generals too, given the war crimes committed by them too.

 

[Portree Kid]

Suggest you check page 471 onward of the report.
Brereton makes observations on command, officers, responsibility etc.
Link to the report

I think this is the paragraph that @par avion was referring to

96. The Inquiry has found no evidence that there was knowledge of, or reckless indifference to, the commission of war crimes, on the part of commanders at troop/platoon, squadron/company or task group headquarters level, let alone at higher levels such as Commander JTF 633, Joint Operations Command, or Australian Defence Headquarters. Nor is the Inquiry of the view that there was a failure at any of those levels to take reasonable steps that would have prevented or detected the commission of war crimes.

IMHO - Over the near 10 year period in question, anyone who believes that, will also believe that I have a very nice bridge to sell in Sydney.

 

[par avion]

The conflation of Gen Campbell having his DSC (or whatever) revoked is silly, he was JTF633 commander, not TG66 commander.
That being said, he strikes me as a man of integrity, so I will not be surprised if he gives it back.
The reference to Yamashita is interesting though - but the principle would have to applied to UK and US Generals too, given the war crimes committed by them too.

She didn't mention Yamashita. There was more than one Japanese General executed. Campbell looks more like someone trying to save his own skin than a man of integrity. If you check the different Australian press reports, the senior officers are taking a lot of flak. Especially for revoking unit citations.

 

[bobthebuilder]

IMHO - Over the near 10 year period in question, anyone who believes that, will also believe that I have a very nice bridge to sell in Sydney.

Andrew Hastie apparently saw and reported wrong doing and recognised the toxic warrior culture amongst some operatives. I doubt he was alone. Unless he’s covering his politician’s arrse with hindsight.

 

[Portree Kid]

Andrew Hastie apparently saw and reported wrong doing and recognised the toxic warrior culture amongst some operatives. I doubt he was alone. Unless he’s covering his politician’s arrse with hindsight.

Gen David Hurley in a 2013 directive.........

An ADF member is exposed to criminal and disciplinary liability, including potentially the war crime of murder … for opening fire on a person when there is a substantial risk that the person is not DPH (direct participant in hostilities),”

....... Who just happened to be the chief of the defence force, the chief of joint operations and the head of Joint Task Force 633.

Must have just popped into his head so thought best to batter out a directive.

 

[bobthebuilder]

Gen David Hurley in a 2013 directive.........



....... Who just happened to be the chief of the defence force, the chief of joint operations and the head of Joint Task Force 633.

Must have just popped into his head so thought best to batter out a directive.

Makes you wonder; since when was Murder a war crime?!!!!

 

[Portree Kid]

Makes you wonder; since when was Murder a war crime?!!!!

Best ask the 400 or so murdered each year in Oz if they knew they were living in a war zone