Stop prosecution of ADF personnel in Force Element Charlie

[1938 Observer]

Afghan veterans face manslaughter pre-trial hearing


A pre-trial hearing of two special forces commandos has resumed in Sydney in their court martial over the deaths of six Afghan civilians.

The two commandos were reservists serving part-time.

They face manslaughter in dangerous conduct charges after six locals, including five children, were killed by Australian troops in Afghanistan's Uruzgan Province.

Another two adults and two children were injured in the night raid in February 2009.

In today's hearing lawyer David McLaw, who is representing one of the accused, said the prosecution has failed to define its exact case against the men.

Major McLaw said the case was also too abstract in its use of the term "duty of care".

The defence lawyer went on to say international law has never used negligence when determining the criminal responsibility of killing civilians in armed conflict.

The hearing continues.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin


If useless governments wish to prosecute soldiers heavily engaged risking their lives in a "Firefight", why do they not insist that their erstwhile allies prosecute those "Pilot" the 'Reaper' and other drones which take out civilians on a regular basis?????---------- ALSO--why do they still use cluster munitions????

In reference to "Cluster Munitions" read below..................... Personally I would not trust the Australian or US administration to wash my socks !!

********************************************


Canberra lobbied secretly to dilute cluster bomb ban



Philip Dorling
May 2, 2011


AUSTRALIA secretly worked with the United States to weaken a key international treaty to ban cluster bombs, leaked US diplomatic cables show.

Despite taking a high-profile stance against cluster munitions - condemned as the cause of large numbers of civilian casualties - Australia was privately prepared to pull out of international negotiations on a global ban of the weapons if this threatened ties with US forces.

The US continues to use cluster munitions as ''a legitimate and useful weapon'', including in Afghanistan, and has affirmed that it will not sign the treaty to ban them. The disclosure comes as Federal Parliament prepares to consider a bill to ratify Australia's signature of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.




The draft legislation has attracted sharp criticism from non-government organisations for not matching the spirit of the treaty. One US group complained the legislation could be interpreted to ''allow Australian military personnel to load and aim the gun, so long as they did not pull the trigger''.

Diplomatic cables from the US embassy in Canberra - leaked to WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to the Herald - reveal Kevin Rudd's newly elected government in 2007 immediately told the US it was prepared to withdraw from the negotiations if key ''red line'' issues were not addressed - especially the inclusion of a loophole to allow signatories to the convention to co-operate with military forces using cluster bombs.

Opened for signature in Oslo in December 2008, the convention prohibits the use, transfer and stockpile of cluster bombs - weapons that deliver numerous smaller bombs into a target area. Cluster munitions have been condemned by humanitarian groups for remaining as explosive hazards for decades after the end of military conflicts.

The US embassy in Canberra expressed appreciation in February 2008 for Labor's position, which was considered critical to efforts to defeat ''hardline'' countries and non-government organisations which were seeking a comprehensive ban.

The US diplomatic reports show Australia secretly lobbied Asian countries, including Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, on the issue and Canberra sought advice from Washington regarding which African countries engaged in military co-operation with the US might be recruited to vote with Australia on key parts of the treaty text.

In December 2007, the US embassy reported that the then foreign affairs minister, Stephen Smith, and the defence minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, had agreed to such a negotiating position.

In April 2008, a Foreign Affairs arms control expert, Dr Ada Chueng, told the US embassy that Australia ''shared US frustration and concern with Germany's obstinacy'' on the issue of defence co-operation, and that Australia would make formal representations to Berlin once the US had provided Canberra with ''specific'' points to raise.

Along with Britain, Canada and Japan, Australia was ultimately successful in securing the desired loophole on defence co-operation.


Foreign Affairs officials informed US diplomats that while Australian troops would not be permitted to use cluster munitions, personnel would be free to participate in ''tactical planning'' for the deployment of such weapons.



http://www.smh.com.au/national/canbe...501-1e37t.html

[miolchu]

Soldiers very seldom engage in behavior that is a gross violation of their country's rules of war. When they are put on trial, such as this case, it is usually for political purposes and to create a smoke screen to protect decision makers. The Americans have had their share of scandals. The young soldiers who were prosecuted for abusing Iraqi prisoners were following 'vague' orders of their commanders who where given even more 'vague' instructions by the CIA. The decision makers were never in the spotlight. After the first gulf war the Air Force tried to prosecute a young Japanese-American Captain manning an AWACs communication console after the the Airforce shot down an Army helicopter entering Iraq from Turkey. The fact that DOD had neglected to give him communications frequencies and transponder codes that the Army was using was deemed irrelevant. During the Vietanam War soldiers intentially did not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants in Mei Lai and were prosecuted for following 'vague' orders. The decisions makers were never put in the spotlight. During the war in the Pacific, the United States illegally rounded up and incarcerated Americans of Japanese ancestry while, curiously they did not do the same to Americans of German or Italian ancestry.

As far as things are going for the ADF personnel, not much has changed since the British Army executed Breaker Morant during the Boer War. I hope Australians can raise enough hell that the government will rethink throwing them to the Lions.

[sandyc]

I have to admit I had not been following this thread. But now that I have read it and the associated material I am amazed that this has got this far.
How the hell are these young men and women supposed to act as "soldiers" in situations just like this. This is yet another case of the PC brigade trying to apply "rules" that are counter to all common sense.
We certainly do not want civilians deliberately attacked etc. But the decisions to use force under such circumstances must be field decisions and "blame" cannot be laid at the feet of the armed personnel.

SUPPORT ALL OF OUR FORCES. They do a very difficult job in extreme circumstances. They do not need the potential for "frivolous" prosecution hanging over them. We train them to fight (when needed). What else do we expect them to do.
It is the same with people such as the Archbishop of Canterbury "questioning" why Bin Laden was killed...

Give us a break.
Sandy

[1938 Observer]

Soldiers' manslaughter court martial called off


By court reporter Jamelle Wells and staff

Updated 1 hour 39 minutes ago



The case against two Army Reserve soldiers charged with manslaughter in Afghanistan will not go to court martial.



The soldiers, identified only as Sergeant J and Lance Corporal D by order of the judge advocate, had been charged with manslaughter and, in the alternative, two counts of dangerous conduct, with negligence as to consequence.

The charges related to an incident in which six locals, including five children, were killed by Australian troops in Uruzgan Province in February 2009.

Another two adults and two children were injured in the night raid involving members of the Special Operations Task Group (SOTG) undertaking a compound-clearance operation.

Judge Advocate Brigadier Ian Westwood, who presided over a pre-trial hearing for two of the three soldiers charged over the incident, has dismissed the court martial set down for July.

The matter will be referred back to the Director of Military Prosecutions, Brigadier Lyn McDade, to decide whether to bring further charges against the men.

A third soldier is yet to face a general court martial.

An operational investigation into the incident was referred to Brigadier McDade, who made the unprecedented decision to charge the three soldiers.

The move provoked an outcry in defence circles, with Australia Defence Association spokesman Neil James saying the Director of Military Prosecutions operated outside the Australian Defence Force chain of command

Former Defence chief General Peter Cosgrove says the two soldiers now "have their lives back" and he feels relief for them.

"They had to stand up straight and let the legal system work itself out," he told Macquarie Radio.

"It must have been terrible for them and their loved ones and their mates while they went through this process. But in the end, it seems to me a decision has been reached that gives them their lives back.

General Cosgrove says the men "were always going to have a strong defence on the manslaughter issue".

He cited "the terrible complexity of what happens in Afghanistan" as well as "the stark matter that they would have no doubt have felt that their lives were in danger".

"[They] were fundamentally defending themselves while they were carrying out their mission," he said.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...20/3222526.htm

[miolchu]

I hope that common sense prevails. Even if no further action is taken I am concerned about the harm done these young men. If avoiding all collateral injuries is the primary focus of senior commanders in the ADF, then they will need to return all their young men and women home. There are too many accounts of insurgents using unarmed collaterals as shields. Going into a building at night with what passes as available intelligence is dicey at best. If the military is going to plan operations under these circumstances, they need to expect that they will not always achieve surgical outcomes.

[1938 Observer]

Leader of Afghan raid faces trial despite postive ruling for unit
Brendan Nicholson, Defence editor From: The Australian May 31, 2011 12:00AM

A SENIOR army officer who planned and led a late-night commando assault in which several Afghan children were killed in February 2009 will soon face a court-martial.


Australian Defence Force chief Angus Houston told a Senate estimates committee hearing yesterday the officer, believed to be a lieutenant colonel, would still be court-martialled.

This was despite the rejection of manslaughter charges faced by two members of his unit who threw hand grenades into the children's home.

At a pre-trial hearing in Sydney two weeks ago, judge advocate Ian Westwood dismissed cases against the two soldiers identified as Sergeant J and Lance Corporal D. That meant their court-martial, set down for July 11, would not go ahead and military prosecutors must decide whether to bring different charges.

Air Chief Marshal Houston said the third soldier would still face a court-martial and the independent director of military prosecutions was now reviewing the cases of the other two soldiers.

"Today I must stress that the ruling of the judge advocate regarding the charges against the two soldiers has no effect on the general court-martial to hear the charges against the third member," he said.

That case was being worked through by the registrar of military justice.

"Formal court-martial proceedings will follow and will include the appointment of the judge advocate, the president and members of the court-martial panel, and the date and location of the trial."

The commandos had been sent to capture or kill a man believed to be a senior insurgent. It is understood that the officer is charged with not following the instructions of the then commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, US General Stanley McChrystal, on how such missions must be planned and carried out.


General McChrystal had issued a general order to all US and NATO troops warning them that they could not win the war if the high rates of civilian deaths continued.



At the preliminary hearing involving the first two soldiers, Brigadier Westwood agreed with the men's defence team that as soldiers ordered into combat they did not have a "duty of care" to those who were killed.

I wonder if McChrystal issued a "duty of care" warning to the operators of the unmanned drones which have managed to inflict death on a number of civilians???????

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226065971351

[miolchu]

...general order to all US and NATO troops warning them that they could not win the war if the high rates of civilian deaths continued...

That is certainly very general. What does that mean? Perhaps soldiers will have to detain suspected insurgents, drag them out of town after checking their drivers' licenses to ensure they're legitimate Taliban or Al Queda targets, hand them back their guns or suicide vests, give them a 10 second head start before they start shooting.

Things are heading downhill in Afganistan. It sounds to me that the policy makers are making the same mistakes that the policy makers made in the Vietnam era. Soldiers have to watch for threats in front and in the rear at the same time. We are not going to win any war for anyone's hearts and minds. The Afghans will likely continue to maintain their status quo, with outsiders trying to shove an outside agenda on them. I don't get the sense that they are trying to root extremist outsiders out so they can have more autonomy in the international arena.

Meanwhile, the MOD should pull their noses out of General McChrystal's backsides, and protect their soldiers. I hope Australians will raise enough cain to pressure MOD into doing so.

[1938 Observer]

Commonsense has finally prevailed


Soldier's civilian death charges dropped
Updated August 30, 2011 14:50:06

ABC News [Australia]

The Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP) has dropped charges against an Australian Special Forces officer involved in the accidental death of five children in Afghanistan.




On February 12, 2009, members of the Special Operations Task Group conducted a compound clearance in Uruzgan province.

A total of six Afghans died and four sustained injuries during the operation.

The operation was the subject of an investigation which led to the DMP charging three Defence Force personnel with alleged services offences.

The DMP subsequently referred these charges for trial by general courts martial.

In May, charges laid against two other officers had already been dropped.

With the dropping of charges against the third soldier, the Defence Department says the legal processes resulting from the raid have now concluded.

"Defence was committed to ensuring a proper legal process was observed throughout this matter so the individuals charged received a fair trial and that the integrity of the military legal process was preserved," Chief of Defence General David Hurley said.

"The legal processes that were adhered to in relation to this matter were independent of the chain of command.

"The Australian Defence Force has a reputation for being a highly disciplined and professional force.

"In order to maintain this reputation, it is important that all incidents leading to a civilian casualty are investigated thoroughly, comprehensively and transparently."

Defence Minister Stephen Smith has told ABC News 24 that he has requested a comprehensive assessment of the matter from the director.

"These were the first charges for manslaughter literally in the theatre or the fog of war in living memory," Mr Smith said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-3...ropped/2862560