Australia to dismiss at least 10 soldiers over Afghan killings - ABC

[SomchaiCNX]

Just now, Sujo said:

Because a 4 year investigation said so. Because the top military brass agree. Thats how i know.

 

Those that were witness to it, whistleblowers that were there, top military commanders agree. The investigation referred them for prosecution. The prime minister is on board.

 

But of course you know better.

 

 

And all these bureaucrats served in a war zone? They send others to do their dirty business and then when people find out they punish them. Don't send them in the first place. 

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, evadgib said:

This knee jerk reaction will bite the authorities in the arrse if they're binned without due process; furthermore as commonwealth citizens there's no reason why they can't immediately reapply to join the British Army if they so choose as they're currently unblemished in the legal sense.

Seems to me that something is rotten in the Australian military if anyone can be dismissed without a courts martial.

IMO they have ground for suing the military for illegal dismissal.

[kingdong]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

 

With reference to events surrounding the OP, It has long been established the killing of POWs / innocents only contributes to further conflict and whilst it's hypocritical, propaganda for the enemy.

In conventional warfare with 2 sides adhering to the geneva convention i,m sure you,re correct,against some fanatical irregular militias i would save the last cartridge for myself,easy to sit in our des res,es 5000miles away in judgement.if you look back in history you,ll find it is the unconventional elite units such as sas,selous scouts,32 bn units, that have the most success.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Thorgal said:

They will be recruited very quickly by security/mercenary contractors who operate in gray area war zones with no legitimacy and ruling...

and get paid a whole lot more for doing the job.

 

Can't see this as being good for morale for the guys on the firing line. I care nothing for what the "top brass" say from the splendour of their offices far from the front line.

BTW, unlike ( apparently ) some posters on here I have served in the military, and I doubt it's changed much since I left.

[smutcakes]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems to me that something is rotten in the Australian military if anyone can be dismissed without a courts martial.

IMO they have ground for suing the military for illegal dismissal.

 

Lol the <deleted> would you know about Australian Employment law, or indeed law surrounding Australian armed forces....

 

I am sure the Australian Defense ministry have advisors versed in this type of thing, and i presume employment law issues is the least of the implicated soldiers current concerns....

[smutcakes]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

and get paid a whole lot more for doing the job.

 

Can't see this as being good for morale for the guys on the firing line. I care nothing for what the "top brass" say from the splendour of their offices far from the front line.

BTW, unlike ( apparently ) some posters on here I have served in the military, and I doubt it's changed much since I left.

 

I thought most of the damning testimony came from their fellow soldiers who were there on the ground with them....

 

I thought you were a nurse?

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, kingdong said:

In conventional warfare with 2 sides adhering to the geneva convention i,m sure you,re correct,against some fanatical irregular militias i would save the last cartridge for myself,easy to sit in our des res,es 5000miles away in judgement.if you look back in history you,ll find it is the unconventional elite units such as sas,selous scouts,32 bn units, that have the most success.

Indeed, and it seems that the higher echelon officers are never fond of special forces, as they consider them to be "less controllable" than the normal cannon fodder troops.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

I thought most of the damning testimony came from their fellow soldiers who were there on the ground with them....

 

I thought you were a nurse?

Not all soldiers are staunch.

 

I was, and before that I was in the military ( not as a nurse ). I wasn't born this century.

My career choices are irrelevant to the topic, other than that I have served, so know something of the life military that those that never served could never even begin to understand. They didn't train us to be social workers, and being touchy feely is not a needed quality when under fire from people that want to kill one. Furthermore, one doesn't switch from being aggressive to being passive just because the live action ended for the minute.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 minutes ago, kingdong said:

In conventional warfare with 2 sides adhering to the geneva convention i,m sure you,re correct,against some fanatical irregular militias i would save the last cartridge for myself,easy to sit in our des res,es 5000miles away in judgement.if you look back in history you,ll find it is the unconventional elite units such as sas,selous scouts,32 bn units, that have the most success.

Indeed. They didn't send regular troops to kill Bin Laden, did they?

 

Just the entry testing to join elite forces is so rugged that I never even considered applying. Only the best of the best of the best survive it to join.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, SomchaiCNX said:

How would you know? Ever been in an operation where the enemy looks exactly the same as the "friendly" villagers and where the friendly villagers can be your enemy the next week? If you don't want this to happen, don't train them and learn them how to kill and don't send them to do the job YOU don't want to do. "United we Conquer"

I wonder if any posters that support the prosecution ever served in any capacity? So easy to criticize when never walked in those shoes.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, evadgib said:

Firing anyone without due process is.

IMO it's what is called "covering their *****" by the top brass because they know they are responsible for not doing something about it before they had to.

Like they say in court, ignorance is not an excuse.

[smutcakes]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder if any posters that support the prosecution ever served in any capacity? So easy to criticize when never walked in those shoes.

 

To be fair- there is no doubt that these people are trained to be killers, its what makes them Special Forces and why they are feared. Its also widely acknowledged that they operate in very grey areas of law and also extreme and dangerous conditions- and they need to have protection from prosecution to be able to operate as they are meant to.

 

However IF what these eye witnesses say is true, and what the report details is factual- and some of it is from eye witnesses from within their own ranks- some of these killings were not grey areas at all, they were acts of torture and sadistic killings as if some of these guys had gone completely insane. There was no doubt that the victims were combatants of any nature they were killed for fun. Have you read the report? These were not heat of the battle decisions, which would and should be overlooked in my opinion- it appeared more that it was premeditated and calculated murder for fun.

[Sujo]

55 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

And all these bureaucrats served in a war zone? They send others to do their dirty business and then when people find out they punish them. Don't send them in the first place. 

Yes, andrew hastie, former sas commander and now senator.

 

https://www.macarthuradvertiser.com.au/story/7025488/former-soldier-and-mp-wants-more-oversight/?cs=9397&utm_source=website&utm_medium=index&utm_campaign=sidebar

[Sujo]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and get paid a whole lot more for doing the job.

 

Can't see this as being good for morale for the guys on the firing line. I care nothing for what the "top brass" say from the splendour of their offices far from the front line.

BTW, unlike ( apparently ) some posters on here I have served in the military, and I doubt it's changed much since I left.

Perhaps you can look at andrew hastie comments, former sas commander.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

To be fair- there is no doubt that these people are trained to be killers, its what makes them Special Forces and why they are feared. Its also widely acknowledged that they operate in very grey areas of law and also extreme and dangerous conditions- and they need to have protection from prosecution to be able to operate as they are meant to.

 

However IF what these eye witnesses say is true, and what the report details is factual- and some of it is from eye witnesses from within their own ranks- some of these killings were not grey areas at all, they were acts of torture and sadistic killings as if some of these guys had gone completely insane. There was no doubt that the victims were combatants of any nature they were killed for fun. Have you read the report? These were not heat of the battle decisions, which would and should be overlooked in my opinion- it appeared more that it was premeditated and calculated murder for fun.

Then then planted weapons on them and filed false reports.

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO it's what is called "covering their *****" by the top brass because they know they are responsible for not doing something about it before they had to.

Like they say in court, ignorance is not an excuse.

The report absolved the top brass because there were false reports filed. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the main findings.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

To be fair- there is no doubt that these people are trained to be killers, its what makes them Special Forces and why they are feared. Its also widely acknowledged that they operate in very grey areas of law and also extreme and dangerous conditions- and they need to have protection from prosecution to be able to operate as they are meant to.

 

However IF what these eye witnesses say is true, and what the report details is factual- and some of it is from eye witnesses from within their own ranks- some of these killings were not grey areas at all, they were acts of torture and sadistic killings as if some of these guys had gone completely insane. There was no doubt that the victims were combatants of any nature they were killed for fun. Have you read the report? These were not heat of the battle decisions, which would and should be overlooked in my opinion- it appeared more that it was premeditated and calculated murder for fun.

Hmmmmm. How many guys come home from active service mentally destroyed? A LOT do.

If those guys were mentally damaged to be sadists ( neither of us were there so we don't KNOW, do we? ), that was on their superior officers to remove them from active service- you know who they are, don't you? They are every NCO senior to them, and every officer that served with them. If they were not removed that's down to their superior officers. THEY are RESPONSIBLE. I can guess why they weren't removed- could be a shortage of soldiers to do the job or similar. If those senior officers reported the situation to their superiors and nothing was done that's on the senior officers. THEY are RESPONSIBLE for EVERYTHING that happens under their command, and so on up the line to the very top of the command chain.

 

As usual the guys at the bottom of the food chain are being punished for a failing of their officers and commanders. None of those guys were operating out of the loop.

 

So, how many officers are being punished for their failure to control the troops under THEIR command?

IMO this situation resulted from a systemic failure of command, and the brass are throwing the lowest level to the wolves to cover their own failure.

Edited November 27, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmm. How many guys come home from active service mentally destroyed? A LOT do.

If those guys were mentally damaged to be sadists ( neither of us were there so we don't KNOW, do we? ), that was on their superior officers to remove them from active service- you know who they are, don't you? They are every NCO senior to them, and every officer that served with them. If they were not removed that's down to their superior officers. THEY are RESPONSIBLE. I can guess why they weren't removed- could be a shortage of soldiers to do the job or similar. If those senior officers reported the situation to their superiors and nothing was done that's on the senior officers. THEY are RESPONSIBLE for EVERYTHING that happens under their command, and so on up the line to the very top of the command chain.

 

As usual the guys at the bottom of the food chain are being punished for a failing of their officers and commanders. None of those guys were operating out of the loop.

 

So, how many officers are being punished for their failure to control the troops under THEIR command?

Again, if you read the main findings of the report you would know.

[jaiyen]

15 hours ago, Natai Beach said:

Slit unarmed teenage kids throats and shot old grandpa in his own home. 

I wonder what the families think of this punishment?

There were plenty of armed kids, women and old men who were armed and killed soldiers before they had time to react. Its a WAR !  No time to think, react quickly to a threat, bad decisions do get made but would you prefer our soldiers to get killed because they were too slow and stuck to a rule book ??

[smutcakes]

5 minutes ago, jaiyen said:

There were plenty of armed kids, women and old men who were armed and killed soldiers before they had time to react. Its a WAR !  No time to think, react quickly to a threat, bad decisions do get made but would you prefer our soldiers to get killed because they were too slow and stuck to a rule book ??

Read the report- there are definitely cases like you describe and i fully support the troops when they do kill innocents in error, or through mistaken identity or even perhaps better safe than sorry situations. However if you read the report which you clearly have not, this was not like that at all.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, kingdong said:

Judging by the amounts of advertising for the armed forces i would beg to differ,had a mate in the 70s had a criminal record,got sectoned thru drugs,was released and joined the army the next week.

Getting shot at isn't a particularly good recruiting tool, so they try to appeal to one's sense of adventure. After I been in a few years I visited one of those job fairs and the military had a stand showing guys jumping out of planes, rafting on rapids in Africa, driving tanks etc. I wondered if I'd joined the wrong military force as none of that happened to me.

When they need cannon fodder recruits for active service in a war zone they tend to take almost anyone keen to join up. No psychological screening in my day.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Read the report- there are definitely cases like you describe and i fully support the troops when they do kill innocents in error, or through mistaken identity or even perhaps better safe than sorry situations. However if you read the report which you clearly have not, this was not like that at all.

The point I made before that IF sadists were doing bad things their superior officers must have known about it, and taken steps to remove the soldiers committing illegal acts. If that didn't happen then it's a failure of leadership and officers should be on trial for failure to do their duty. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and others are always watching. SAS on active service, far as I understand it, don't fight alone, but as a group with NCOs and officers in command, so what were they doing when this was going on?

 

[SomchaiCNX]

49 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

To be fair- there is no doubt that these people are trained to be killers, its what makes them Special Forces and why they are feared. Its also widely acknowledged that they operate in very grey areas of law and also extreme and dangerous conditions- and they need to have protection from prosecution to be able to operate as they are meant to.

 

However IF what these eye witnesses say is true, and what the report details is factual- and some of it is from eye witnesses from within their own ranks- some of these killings were not grey areas at all, they were acts of torture and sadistic killings as if some of these guys had gone completely insane. There was no doubt that the victims were combatants of any nature they were killed for fun. Have you read the report? These were not heat of the battle decisions, which would and should be overlooked in my opinion- it appeared more that it was premeditated and calculated murder for fun.

Correct to a point but why this wasn't detected by their superiors before they crossed the line. One person ok maybe but 17 that would be about 20% of the special forces of my country. What triggered it? 

Edited November 27, 2020 by SomchaiCNX

[scaldedfummy]

Honesty and accountability are rare now. It's highly unlikely to ever see a system with honorable principles. 

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, scaldedfummy said:

Honesty and accountability are rare now. It's highly unlikely to ever see a system with honorable principles. 

IMO true, and it starts at the very top with politicians of every party.

[smutcakes]

3 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

Correct to a point but why this was detected by their superiors before they crossed the line. One person ok maybe but 17 that would be about 20% of the special forces of my country. What triggered it? 

 

I am not sure, and to be honest i am not sure what level some of those who could be charged and prosecuted are- perhaps there are some higher ups being dismissed for oversights. I generally trust the Aussies to give everyone a fair go- and this report has been 4 years in the studying so you would like to expect its been done properly.

[Lacessit]

13 hours ago, evadgib said:

Firing anyone without due process is.

The soldiers in question have been asked to show cause why they should not be sacked, and a process is being followed. They have the right to representation in a military tribunal.

[SomchaiCNX]

15 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

Read the report- there are definitely cases like you describe and i fully support the troops when they do kill innocents in error, or through mistaken identity or even perhaps better safe than sorry situations. However if you read the report which you clearly have not, this was not like that at all.

Yet again how was this not noticed? The selection in my home country is so difficult that only a handful are picked to start the training and none of them are psychopaths or naturally born killers. 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

Correct to a point but why this was detected by their superiors before they crossed the line. One person ok maybe but 17 that would be about 20% of the special forces of my country. What triggered it? 

Just guessing but perhaps because they are fighting a fearsome enemy that will not be honourable to them if captured, in a land where EVERY person is a potential enemy that wants to kill them horribly, and they are only there because the politicians wanted them there, not because they believe in the cause, or that it's a just war.

Nothing new here at all. Seen it all before in Vietnam when Americans sent to fight in a war they didn't believe in and with no public support back home.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

Yet again how was this not noticed? The selection in my home country is so difficult that only a handful are picked to start the training and none of them are psychopaths or naturally born killers. 

It was noticed, IMO. The real question, IMO, is why it was allowed to continue, and how high up the chain of command the blame lies?

Edited November 27, 2020 by thaibeachlovers