Go to war & do not kill : Bugga me

[docM]

Introducing doc Mountain; ex Soldier : who and what I am can be summed up in my comments to the Australian Defence Force Bosses:
The 'decision' to prosecute 3 ANZAC's for obeying 'impossible' Orders, demonstrates a significant lack of knowledge of the Operational realities of the 'killing fields' of Afghanistan and a total lack of experience with and in Command of Combat Troops in a theater of War. To those sycophantic toadies within your collective Departments who green lighted and/or abetted that appalling and disgraceful decision, I say to you 'Burn your Uniform' and walk away. You have contaminated the Mana, (meaning, pride and ethos) of our Military by your wearing its Uniform.

As a dual Citizen of Aotearoa (Kiwi land) and Australia and having served 23 years in both our Armed Forces, I claim my right to express my disgust and dismay at your failure to learn from the past, it seems not. Shame on you all for permitting this to happen.Whom ever made this call has either grossly underestimated the impact this will have on Defence Personnel's moral and retention figures. Then again that is probably the exact intention, given the Chief Prosecutors 'favourable opinion and support of Terrorist's. Cheers doc

 

[Feanor]

I'm slightly confused as to what it is you're saying. For those of us unfamiliar with the events in question, could you post the storyline of events which you are now so emotionally commenting on?

 

[docM]

I'm slightly confused as to what it is you're saying. For those of us unfamiliar with the events in question, could you post the storyline of events which you are now so emotionally commenting on?

Gidday, OK, log onto the West Australian Tribune/post, background and events spelled out in detail.
Basically, Australia Soldiers were deployed on yet another Operation to clear out Kaliban Fighters, who as a normal SOP (for them) they rush into a house a hide behind the skirts and nappies of womwn and children. hedy then engage the Aussies from the cover of a house, which as per ROE's they returned hostile fire. As is the wont of such operations, women and children were killed. he Soldierws are now been prosecuted by the very same overnment that sent them in to do an impossible Job then hang the troopies out to. For polititions to decide to prosecute reeks of 'Political Correctiveness' for f----rks sack you cannot fight a War with Rules of engagement that quarantee your troops will be killed as they are unable to defend themselves. Stupid decision, by ignorant and aggrogant fools, who have never been in Combat, do not understand the type of Warfare they expect their troops to fight. Either let them do their jobs or get them out of an impossible and no win situation. Pathetic example of our world gone to the dogs, no that's not fair on dogs, how about going down the dunny with these willy wonkers pulling the chain on their on freedom. Oh! what a paracitic, self destructive species we are. doc

 

[Feanor]

If they returned fire per their ROEs then they shouldn't be prosecuted.

 

[docM]

If they returned fire per their ROEs then they shouldn't be prosecuted.

Yep, apparently the Kaliban in the house, hiding up the skirts of the innocent, emptied 3 x 30 rounds of 7.62 at the Auzzies boys. Three internal 'routine' post action debriefs and contact investications did not find the soldiers outside ROE's. However, the Chief MP decided in her wisdom, that the unfortunate civie deaths were 'Man Slaughter'. The lady, who made the decision has a serious conflict of interest in that she was instrumental in 'freeing David Hicks' a known associate Kaliban supporter and Terrorist.

Prosecuting a soldier for manslaughter, whilst at War, is an ROE that says ; IF YOU ARE FIGHTING IN A WAR - DONT SHOOT, you may kill someone.

Charge these Soldiers with War Crimes if it is believed they 'deliberately and with premeditation' tossed hand grenades into a room to kill women and children. Who said the shooter was the dead male insurgent it could have been his mother firing the weapon. You just don't stick your head in the window to check the room is clear of innocents whilst rounds are impacting all around you. Hellooooo! what's not right about that picture???? doc

 

[LancasterBomber]

Ive got no problems with charges being laid whatsoever.

Where I would offer sympathy to the diggers in question would be around the maxim 'justice delayed is justice denied'.

The issue should have been expiated in the interests of all concerned.

 

[kato]

Geneva Convention, Article 3, (1) (a). Simple as that. Doesn't matter if they were following their RoE, the GC is supreme. Note that both Oz and Afghanistan are signatories to the GC.

If we go with the unilateral variation and the house wasn't actively defended against attack (ie. no one firing at the soldiers when they tossed in grenades etc) then Hague IV, Article 25 also applies.

Also, reading those two posts there just hurts my head.

 

[chrisdef]

First i want to say as an Aussie im not at all trying to put down these soldiers as untill the full story comes out none of us really know what happened.
BUT i think hiding behind ROE's is wrong too. As a far out example if the ROE's where kill everyone in sight the soldiers on the ground doing the killing are still murderers.

Soldiers need to use there own common sense and morals rather then just rely on there ROE's.

 

[Feanor]

But then there's the problem. If you refuse orders you're on trial under military law. If you carry them out you're on trial by international law. It's not fair to place people under two separate sets of jurisdiction, each one of which will prosecute them if they break it. And then you have to add that their lives are on the line to begin with.

In my personal opinoin when RoEs contradict the Geneva convention, then those acting under the RoEs should be protected from prosecution, and instead those issuing the RoEs should be prosecuted under international law.

 

[Belesari]

I know my opinion doesnt really mean crap but what is the point of fighting a enemy who doesnt care a rats butt about the GC when we have to?

But as was said if they followed the RoE's then i dont see how you can really charge them.

 

[chrisdef]

But then there's the problem. If you refuse orders you're on trial under military law. If you carry them out you're on trial by international law. It's not fair to place people under two separate sets of jurisdiction, each one of which will prosecute them if they break it. And then you have to add that their lives are on the line to begin with.

In my personal opinoin when RoEs contradict the Geneva convention, then those acting under the RoEs should be protected from prosecution, and instead those issuing the RoEs should be prosecuted under international law.

Thats just part of being in the military, but i do agree those issuing the ROE's should be punished with the same crimes those executing them recieve. While it may sound harsh but if your happy to kill someone rather then get in trouble (to make it clear end some innocent person's life to save yourself from an inconvienince to yours) as far as im concerned you deserve whatever you get. I admit though im not and havent been in the military so havent ever been in that situation but still believe someone's life is more important then you getting in trouble.

I know my opinion doesnt really mean crap but what is the point of fighting a enemy who doesnt care a rats butt about the GC when we have to?
.

Thats what differentiates us from them, acting the same way they do makes us no better then them.

 

[Feanor]

Thats just part of being in the military, but i do agree those issuing the ROE's should be punished with the same crimes those executing them recieve. While it may sound harsh but if your happy to kill someone rather then get in trouble (to make it clear end some innocent person's life to save yourself from an inconvienince to yours) as far as im concerned you deserve whatever you get. I admit though im not and havent been in the military so havent ever been in that situation but still believe someone's life is more important then you getting in trouble.

Well here's the real choice: on one hand you have risking your own and your friends lives, as well as immediate punishment by proximal authority for failing to act, as opposed to risking lives of innocents in the combat zone, and punishment by a remote but higher authority. That's not a fair choice to place on individual soldiers in the combat zone. Lives are at stake in both situations, and so is risk of punishment. Men and women who have chosen to serve their country in such a manner should not in addition to the sacrifice they have already made, be set up like this by their own command. Granted a combat situation, with possibly only seconds to make the decision in the first place, this is not only an unfair situation, but one where exercising good judgement isn't even possible.

In short you can't hold people legally responsible under two contradictory sets of laws with punishment threatened by both. Fyi refusing to carry out orders won't just "get you in trouble". Provided that the superiors of whoever issued that order back him up, you can be in as much shit if not more, as you can for breaking the Geneva convention.

Hence why I think that as long as the soldiers were acting under their RoEs, they should not be punished, rather those issuing the RoEs should. Instead of course (as always) it's all backwards. The little guys get smashed, the ones who f-ed them aren't even mentioned.

 

[LancasterBomber]

Fyi refusing to carry out orders won't just "get you in trouble". Provided that the superiors of whoever issued that order back him up, you can be in as much shit if not more, as you can for breaking the Geneva convention.

Complete nonsense.

 

[Feanor]

Complete nonsense.

I don't recall anyone removing death as a punishment from the UCMJ.... quite a few articles in fact. For example article 92 is punishable by death in war time... or article 99.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Complete nonsense.

Feanor is correct. (but within the context of host nation criminal justice provisions). The nuremburg defence of "I was acting under orders" won't protect anyone from the law if that act was deemed unlawful in international law and against the host nations respective code of military justice

My concern on some of the recent articles is the issue that if troops are under fire, and are attacking, then they have the right to respond. If fire is coming from a building and said building is enclosed and therefore nigh impossible to view the attackers, then it has become a legitimate target in defending yourself.

the issue is always about awareness and at some point excessive response where a commander might reasonably expect to cease and assess before continuing the fight. eg post engagement clearing issues etc...

on the basis of whats been provided to the public, I have a doubt as to whether these troops had a case to answer for in the first place. (2nd para 1st sentence)

 

[LancasterBomber]

I don't recall anyone removing death as a punishment from the UCMJ.... quite a few articles in fact. For example article 92 is punishable by death in war time... or article 99.

No I am sorry that is complete nonsense in the context of the conflict at hand. Those in localized command have significant discretionary power in appropriate engagement in an urban battlespace.

To suggest a house in an urban environment automatically becomes an unfettered target simply because we receive fire isn't really acceptable from a broader strategic perspective.

No one operating in that battlespace is living in fear of those articles of the USMJ. To quote them in the context of the conflict in Afghanistan is a complete nonsense IMO.

Charges are not convictions. It is not like we are 'running in' our diggers left, right and centre. This is a necessary function of our system we choose to implement precisely because we set a higher standard - particularly when we operate abroad in highly complex battlespace.

Its not about turning our back on our boys its about the fact we have a significant number of civilians in body bags and less than satisfactory 'clarity' from a command and control perspective.

One thing I am looking forward to with this independent prosecutor is the degree to which she pushes back up the chain of command. If its warranted I support it.

The idea that the charges have erroneously been laid or in some way fabricated is entirely irrational. To suggest such is to engage in low brow dog whistling IMO.

I believe in the integrity of our boys and I want this situation to be avoided as much as possible moving forward. With that outcome in mind I feel it is prudent to 'lift the veil' to illuminate potential improvements in the way we operate.

 

[Feanor]

The amount of discretion it is possible to exercise in any given situation is debatable. However my issue is not with that, but with two contradictory sets of rules.

If my RoEs are that anyone wearing black is hostile (and I'm not making this up, this was a real set of RoEs for a particular engagement for an LAR unit in Iraq) and I mow down a bunch of civilians, then what? I'm prosecuted? And if I refuse my NCOICs orders to mow them down I'm once again prosecuted? And you're telling me to exercise discretion as the solution? That's insane.

 

[chrisdef]

The amount of discretion it is possible to exercise in any given situation is debatable. However my issue is not with that, but with two contradictory sets of rules.

If my RoEs are that anyone wearing black is hostile (and I'm not making this up, this was a real set of RoEs for a particular engagement for an LAR unit in Iraq) and I mow down a bunch of civilians, then what? I'm prosecuted? And if I refuse my NCOICs orders to mow them down I'm once again prosecuted? And you're telling me to exercise discretion as the solution? That's insane.

Stupid but much less insane then you expecting soldiers to shoot civilians rather then get in trouble, as lancaster said soldiers will never ever get the death penalty for refusing to do that.

As an example look at the pathetic sentences given to those "soldiers" (not that they should be called that) involved in the whole Aby Gharib incident.
Even if they got 10 years in jail (which ide put money on they never would) That is still much better then killing some poor civilian who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Feanor]

Stupid but much less insane then you expecting soldiers to shoot civilians rather then get in trouble, as lancaster said soldiers will never ever get the death penalty for refusing to do that.

As an example look at the pathetic sentences given to those "soldiers" (not that they should be called that) involved in the whole Aby Gharib incident.
Even if they got 10 years in jail (which ide put money on they never would) That is still much better then killing some poor civilian who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And if I don't know whether they're civilians or not? All I know is that my RoEs allow me to engage...

EDIT: So at the end of the day, you're saying crucify the grunts in question, it's still better then killing civilians? Sure. But that's hardly fair.

 

[chrisdef]

And if I don't know whether they're civilians or not? All I know is that my RoEs allow me to engage...

EDIT: So at the end of the day, you're saying crucify the grunts in question, it's still better then killing civilians? Sure. But that's hardly fair.

Then ofcourse you dont engage if you dont even know what they are.

Ofcourse the rules need to be changed, its certainly not fair but its still better then killing some poor person for no good reason.