VC winner accused of eliminating two terrorist IED-makers

This entry was posted in Legal affairs, War and peace. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to VC winner accused of eliminating two terrorist IED-makers

  1. jupes says:

    Meanwhile, every working day since January last year, 50 – 70 people go to work for the Office of the Special Investigator. Their sole purpose is to prosecute 19 former Australian soldiers for alleged crimes, supposedly committed over a decade ago. Prior to that, Justice Brereton and his team spent over four years investigating the alleged crimes of those soldiers. So far, despite millions of dollars spent, not one of the former soldiers has been charged.

    This is what Peter Dutton describes as “addressing matters according to the rule of law”. More like having a fucking lend I reckon.

  2. C.L. says:

    If you read the story, you’ll note that the ‘witness’ didn’t see anything, by his own admission. Cross-examination should be amusing.

  3. rosie says:

    I noticed that.

  4. Not Trampis says:

    This is the VC ‘winner’ who also stated he was not in a relationship with his solicitor and then the next day we had pictures of them hand in hand.
    Yep the man killed himself.
    Lots more witnesses to go so wait until it is finished.

    As for charging people you do know the country has a new government.

  5. C.L. says:

    This is the VC ‘winner’ who also stated he was not in a relationship with his solicitor and then the next day we had pictures of them hand in hand.

    Sounds like Bob and Blanche.
    So what?

    You do realise he was in Afghanistan to kill terrorists, right?
    The ‘witness’ sounds like a coward.

  6. Not Trampis says:

    except he said it to the judge.

    No they weren’t. They were there to uphold the government. Neither you nor he appear to have heard of the Geneva convention and fighting that government does not make you a terrorist.
    no civilised person kills unarmed prisoners. Only cowards do.

  7. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    Neither you nor he appear to have heard of the Geneva convention and fighting that government does not make you a terrorist.

    “Irregular fighters” who wish to gain the protections of the Geneva Conventions must meet four conditions.

    They must be under the control of a recognisable chain of command;

    That chain of command must enforce their adherence to the laws of war;

    They must carry their weapons openly; and

    They must wear a clearly identifiable uniform or insignia, to distinguish them from civilians.

    Apart from the open carriage of weapons, how many Taliban “fighters” would meet those criteria?

  8. Not Trampis says:

    The Taliban clearly make the first three. A uniform in Afghanistan is problematic if only because of economic reasons.

    Clearly making IED precludes any reason to believe they are terrorists.

    When people capture prisoners terrorists may murder them Australian soldiers should never do that. We are supposedly civilised people.

  9. Lee says:

    making IED precludes any reason to believe they are terrorists.

    People making IEDs are automatically not terrorists?

    In what universe?

  10. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    The Taliban clearly make the first three.

    So the Taliban court martials and imprisons or executes their members who break the laws of war by targeting civilian markets, for example? Pull the other one, it has bells on it.

    A uniform in Afghanistan is problematic

    Your limited imagination cannot see any other possibilities for identification marks? Economics seem not to restrict the supply of ammunition or materials for IEDs.

    Making IEDs (or car bombs) to set near civilian targets is an entirely innocent activity? ROFLMAO, you idiot.

    Would you be happy with a drumhead court martial and a firing squad?

  11. Shy Ted says:

    Should have offered him jellybeans. Says a war hero.

  12. Tel says:

    Apart from the open carriage of weapons, how many Taliban “fighters” would meet those criteria?

    Roadside bombs are a type of concealed weapon, not carried openly … which is what makes them effective. The bomb factories are also concealed, and to the largest extent possible the bomb maker will attempt to operate anonymously.

    It’s pretty much the polar opposite of all the Geneva Convention requirements.

    The problem for the occupying military force is that if they accuse someone of bomb making, and then kill them on the spot, the rest of the Taliban can claim it was an unfair execution … thus using it for propaganda and recruitment purposes. Those Australian forces were given certain “targets” they were sent to kill … people presumably fighting for the Taliban, but how do we know for sure?

    Really, all of the US and Australian command structure should be on trial here. There never was a clear and consistent purpose to what they were doing over there, the methods they used were ultimately ineffective, and we have no way to go back and figure out how many of the desginated “targets” ever were Taliban.

  13. C.L. says:

    That’s why I expect there will be no ‘war crime’ trials.
    Once accused, those men have the right to call witnesses. Including generals and ministers and prime ministers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.