Then you agree with my main point.
Go to war & do not kill : Bugga me
- Thread starter docM
- Start date
in the engagement that triggered this debate, the troops were engaged from enemy within an identified building - sustained fire.
that location became a legitimate target as soon as it was used by the enemy to engage troops.
the bigger issue is that the UN still hasn't come to grips with the fact that State actors are bound by the various conventions, but non state are not and invariably have to be pursued under the laws of either host nation where the action took place, or by the nation who's soldiers were engaged.
unfort this debate gets dumbed down to a view that soldiers are trigger happy and are automatically culpable. state actors get held to account for breaching geneva, berne and vienna conventions but the non state actors who breach those conventions by engaging with military force with civilians co-located or in/near protected buildings etc are treated as the unfortunate aggrieved.
now pending the investigation that is taking place, where natural justice is assumed to be in play. some of the froth and bubble on the internet seems to enthusiastically embrace a denial of natural justice by implying that you can't shoot back unless you have viewed everyone inside the building in case civilians are there. the armchair lawyers seem to oblivious to the fact that it was the non state actors who actually breached international conventions by conducting a firefight out of a co-habited facility.
I resent the fact that this debate has been 'dumbed down' if any of that is directed at me.
I am simply stating the pragmatic realities of the present situation from the perspective of a rational mind which must conclude at this point in time:
a) bias free information particular to this case is presently unavailable in the public domain.
b) the independent prosecutor is sound of mind
c) evidence exists creating a nexus between events in question and a gross breakdown in the CoC leading to a breach in international law.
d) those most culpable for the negligence in care are those charged.
It is patently absurd to come onto an internet forum and demand charges be dropped or that our 'diggers cannot be charged for anything under any circumstances'. We are better than that.
It is pointless to become bogged down in a circular argument over the juxtaposition of the international law and the ROEs. Without specifics of the case we have nothing to discuss.
The 'state' vs 'non-state' argument is appallingly weak IMO but perhaps we can save that flame war for another time as it will quickly become tangential to the case at hand.
It may come to pass that the assumptions of a rational mind collapse under the weight of facts to the contrary. Lets see how it plays out.
I am simply stating the pragmatic realities of the present situation from the perspective of a rational mind which must conclude at this point in time:
a) bias free information particular to this case is presently unavailable in the public domain.
b) the independent prosecutor is sound of mind
c) evidence exists creating a nexus between events in question and a gross breakdown in the CoC leading to a breach in international law.
d) those most culpable for the negligence in care are those charged.
It is patently absurd to come onto an internet forum and demand charges be dropped or that our 'diggers cannot be charged for anything under any circumstances'. We are better than that.
It is pointless to become bogged down in a circular argument over the juxtaposition of the international law and the ROEs. Without specifics of the case we have nothing to discuss.
The 'state' vs 'non-state' argument is appallingly weak IMO but perhaps we can save that flame war for another time as it will quickly become tangential to the case at hand.
It may come to pass that the assumptions of a rational mind collapse under the weight of facts to the contrary. Lets see how it plays out.
nope it wasn't.
it was directed to the general media
isn't this the direction I've inferred?
not suggesting that - I've pushed the natural justice path - and that its held against the reality of these poor bastards being held to acct when the same cannot be applied to NS actors. Look at the nature of the firefight and I struggle to see how they had a case to answer for anyway. However, now that its been submitted then let natural justice provisions apply.
thats true, but I've been cautious in stating my position against what has been declared to date - none of which has any relevance until presented in the approp environment
how can it be weak when we acknowledge ourselves (LTGEN Mark Evans and Gen Hurley have said then same thing). Even James has stated the same. State actors are bound by international obligations as well as national and military law provisions. Non state actors can act with impunity and only get bought to account when captured
Last edited:
I suspect this part is directed at me so I'll respond. It's not that they can't be charged under any circumstances, just that it's not fair or reasonable to place them under the jurisdiction of two contradictory sets of rules. And in this I think we have an issue far more principal and important then the individual case, because until the contradiction is resolved, cases like this will continue to appear, and soldiers will continue to end up in impossible situations.
no1 has posted a news link yet, so this is for the foreigners...
Australian Diggers in Afghanistan battle worsening morale | News.com.au
Soldiers caught in justice divide | The Australian
Australian Diggers in Afghanistan battle worsening morale | News.com.au
Soldiers caught in justice divide | The Australian
A.Mookerjee
Banned Member
My dear soldier, if you, riding your Humm-Vee, or whatever is your mode of transport, run over an Afghan civilian, and seriously maim or kill him, then are you or not available to censure? In such a situation mentioned by you, why engage enemy who hide behind women? Engage them when they want to engage you. Would you expect a medal, if you had killed three or four women, along with ten Taliban fighters? Or would you have given it no thought, because they may be ethnically Pushto women, having the same ethnicity of the Taliban? If I remember right, the Pathan warriors follow a strict code of conduct of warfare, when warring among themselves. They pride themselves as warriors. I consider the ANZAC infantryman to be the best after the Indian infantryman, but what must be the opinion of the Taliban of the ANZAC infantryman, if they use women as shields, fighting Australian soldiers? The training of the ANZAC soldier must be exemplary, but how about having respect for your enemy? After all, your enemy too is braving the odds by facing you, gun in hand.