When one considers the vast numbers of civilians accidentally killed or killed in pursuit of larger objectives during WWII, Korea and Vietnam with no thought of anyone being charged, it is difficult to avoid a sense of disbelief that soldiers can be charged with serious offences because they responded to someone shooting at them, whether or not their presence might have provoked them being shot at.
Many questions arise from these charges, but the four I’d like to pursue (and everyone else is welcome to present other questions) are:
-
Given the inadequate training and leadership adverted to in the second and third quotes below, who should really be on trial?
-
Why is it a crime to take whatever steps are necessary to stop someone shooting at you with the intention of killing you?
-
Is it sensible in a war against an enemy which has no moral or legal standards even vaguely similar to ours, to the extent that it can sponsor 9/11, to restrict ourselves by applying our high standards to our own troops and thereby limit our ability to fight the enemy on his own terms?
I’ll raise the fourth question in my third post as it is somewhat tangential to the issue of combat.
Anger as commandos face manslaughter charge
Dan Oakes and Rafael Epstein
September 28, 2010
Australian commandos have lashed out the military prosecutor’s decision to level a charge of manslaughter over the killing of six civilians during a botched night-time raid in Afghanistan.
As foreshadowed in the Herald, three commandos will face a charges over the deaths of four children and two adults in a compound. It is believed to be the first time Australian troops have been charged with killing civilians in a combat situation.
The Herald reported in early June that a reservist commando and his section commander were likely to be charged, along with their commanding officer, a lieutenant-colonel.
The reservist will be charged with manslaughter or dangerous conduct and the section leader with failing to comply with a lawful general order or prejudicial conduct. A third man, believed to be the lieutenant-colonel, is overseas and will be charged on his return.
Two of the soldiers released a statement yesterday saying they were ‘‘deeply disappointed’’ by the decision of the Director of Military Prosecutions, Brigadier Lyn McDade, to prosecute.
The soldiers said they were sure that when the circumstances of the incident became public, people would understand why they acted as they did.
‘‘Words will never adequately express our regret that women and children were killed and injured during the incident on 12 February, 2009. These were people we were risking our lives to protect,’’ said the soldiers, identified as A and B.
''However, it should not be forgotten that the casualties were ultimately caused by the callous and reckless act of an insurgent who chose to repeatedly fire upon us at extreme close range from within a room he knew contained women and children.
‘‘This forced us to make split-second decisions, under fire, which almost certainly saved the lives of our fellow Australian and Afghan soldiers.’’
It is understood that the Chief of Army, Ken Gillespie, wrote to Brigadier McDade recently expressing his concern at the prospect of charges. Soldiers have also said there is widespread anger at the treatment of the commandos, and a belief that they will never be convicted.
An Australian Defence Association spokesman, Neil James, said yesterday that it was in the commandos’ interests for the charges to be heard at courts martial. ‘‘It’s not only fairer for the Diggers, it’s better for the reputation of the army and of Australia,’’ he said.
The family of the six people killed have said that Australian troops burst into their compound in the early hours of the morning and attacked using machine-guns and grenades.
They accused the Australians - from 1 Commando Regiment, which includes many reservists - of shooting without identifying targets and then admitting they were in the wrong compound.
The soldiers say they exchanged fire for an extended time with an Afghan man, who was killed.
Those close to the soldiers are adamant that grenades were necessary because the soldiers were under fire and the shots ceased after only a second grenade was thrown.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/anger-as-commandos-face-manslaughter-charge-20100927-15u3o.html?from=smh_sb
However, it may be that the people who bear ultimate responsibility were those who allowed apparently under-trained reservists to go on active service.
Commando unit under legal cloud returns fire
Tom Hyland
September 12, 2010 - 3:00AM
SOLDIERS facing possible manslaughter charges over the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan have defended their actions, saying the unintended killings happened after they came under sustained gunfire from a man who ignored appeals to drop his weapon.
Five children were killed when the soldiers tossed grenades into a room during a raid on an Afghan farm compound on February 12 last year.
The soldiers, including army reservists in the First Commando Regiment, have been under a legal cloud since the incident, with the military prosecutor considering unprecedented charges against them.
While they are barred from talking to the media, members of the regiment have told supporters the Afghan man fired scores of bullets from an AK-47 rifle during the nighttime raid near the village of Surkh Morghab in Oruzgan province. Afghan soldiers with the Australians, speaking the Pashtu language, called on him to stop shooting, according to a source briefed by the commandos. Instead, he reloaded and continued firing.
The head of the organisation representing army reservists has been given a similar account.
Retired major-general Jim Barry, president of the Defence Reserves Association, said the commandos were in a room just metres from the Afghan man, ‘‘with the walls exploding around them due to the fire that was aimed at them’’.
The Australians responded with grenades, killing the man. When the commandos entered the room, they found the dead children.
The army has released no detailed official account of the raid, beyond confirming the children and the man were killed after the Australians came under fire.
The incident was investigated first by an army inquiry officer, whose findings were referred to the armed forces investigation service. The second investigation ‘‘astonished and dismayed’’ troops involved, according to a senior member of the regiment who cannot be named. ‘‘They all believe the tragic events of February 12 would have transpired that same way for any other company,’’ he said.
The issue then went to the director of military prosecutions, Brigadier Lyn McDade, last November. The protracted delay in announcing a decision has compounded unease in the regiment.
Major-General Barry said the commandos had been under intense strain due to the protracted inquiries. It was legitimate that there was a defence inquiry into this matter, he said, but it wasn’t referred to the prosecutor until last November, an extraordinary period of time for a military inquiry. ‘‘Under normal circumstances, you’d have thought this would have been dealt with last year.’’
A key issue could be whether flaws in leadership and training contributed to the killings.
A defence investigation into the death of a soldier two months before the fatal raid highlighted major failings in the pre-deployment training of the commandos, the first such deployment by an Army Reserve unit since World War II.
The investigation by retired vice-admiral Chris Ritchie found ‘‘deficient training, assessment, certification and consequently leadership’’ of the commandos contributed to the soldier’s death.
Neil James, head of lobby group the Australia Defence Association, said it was understandable the possibility of charges was causing unease in the army.
‘‘It is better that such allegations or charges are aired, answered and dealt with in open court,’’ he said. ''The alternative is that the individuals concerned … would remain the subject of unproven allegations, untrue public memories, popular mythology or scurrilous media sensationalism for decades.
‘‘In particular, there is the big-picture truth that holding the ADF accountable is an issue that again underlines the moral, legal and accountability differences between us and our enemies and the causes for which we fight.’’
http://www.theage.com.au/national/commando-unit-under-legal-cloud-returns-fire-20100911-1561w.html
continued …