Ben Roberts-Smith, Judge says he is a murderer

[five 7]

Don't want to go into the why's and where fores but if it ever goes to criminal trial, that the politician/politicians that sent these boys there, they are standing in the dock beside him, they are part of the machine that created and control the SAS, they know full well why these troops exist and what they are capable of. They (SAS) are the big stick/junk yard dog that gets let off the leash, as with a dangerous dog the owner should always get held to account as well.
Politicians are complicit in this, maybe next time if they can be held liable they might think twice before sending troops to places at the beck and call of others.
I'm picking as we speak there will be Australian SAS running around the Ukraine just history repeating its self. Might not be official and probably on secondment to British SAS but they will be there.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by zilo

He lost a defamation trial where the JUDGE said he is guilty because the evidence presented sunstantiated the allegation that he murdered an unarmed man and covered it up

Please show me in the Judges summation where the Judge said he was guilty (beyond any reasonable doubt - a pre-requisite in Australia) of war crimes

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by five 7

Don't want to go into the why's and where fores but if it ever goes to criminal trial, that the politician/politicians that sent these boys there, they are standing in the dock beside him, they are part of the machine that created and control the SAS, they know full well why these troops exist and what they are capable of. They (SAS) are the big stick/junk yard dog that gets let off the leash, as with a dangerous dog the owner should always get held to account as well.
Politicians are complicit in this, maybe next time if they can be held liable they might think twice before sending troops to places at the beck and call of others.
I'm picking as we speak there will be Australian SAS running around the Ukraine just history repeating its self. Might not be official and probably on secondment to British SAS but they will be there.

spot on, and Angus Campbell needs to be standing at the 'front' with his troops, something he has never done, he continues to throw them under the bus - a great leader - NOT!!!!

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Please show me in the Judges summation where the Judge said he was guilty (beyond any reasonable doubt - a pre-requisite in Australia) of war crimes

You keep taking the thread off topic - Zilo (and Cav in the thread title) both have stated that the judge says that BRS was involved in the murder of certain persons.

Australia’s most decorated soldier was “complicit in and responsible for the murder” of three Afghan men on deployment, a judge has said, elaborating on his finding against the former Special Air Service (SAS) corporal in one of the country’s longest-running defamation trials.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/...n-murder-judge

Who said anything about criminal convictions?

[Trevor 57]

Zilo, back-reading is your friend, or maybe you could just read where I quoted, and I quote "where the JUDGE said he was guilty"

Perhaps you could fight your own battles, you are embarrassing yourself here

[FairmontGS]

Papers chase Roberts-Smith for $10m

The conduct of war hero Ben-Roberts Smith during the defamation “trial of the century” will come under the microscope as the victorious newspapers look to recover more than $10 million in legal costs.

https://www.afr.com/companies/media-...0230607-p5deup

[aussiblue]

Thinks don't look good https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...an/ar-AA1chBfI

Ben Roberts-Smith revealed to be soldier alleged in Brereton inquiry to have directed the killing of an elderly imam in Afghanistan

[TasRanger]

Placing a radio on a body says it all.

[LG17]

Defence forces are sent (rightly or wrongly) into battle to protect our country and others. Those people, regardless of what defence section they are in, are expected to do a thankless job that very few members here could even begin to understand.
When they are finished doing that job and they return home they are expected to assimilate back into society with very little to no help.
They are basically thrown out and left to fend for themselves.
When they are in a battle of any kind they do what they have to do to defeat the enemy including gathering information about them. They are living a life that 99% of us could never understand and yet we dare to judge them by our standards.
It is so wrong.
I don't know how many ex or current servicemen are members on here (except for Cav) but I would like to thank them for what they have done for us.
I will never try to judge their service and what happens by my non-war standards.

[TasRanger]

Mate, it doesn't matter who has or hasn't been to war etc. War crimes are well defined and our soldiers should be held to account.

[b0son]

The whole 'they're defending our country' line might work when you're talking WW2, when it's actually the case. Not so much when we're basically playing lapdog to the US and the conflict makes no difference to us whatsoever.

I agree that rules wouldnt hold much sway with me either if I was protecting myself. But it doesnt appear that was the case here. Just thugs being thugs.

[FairmontGS]

'Challenging': International law professor details difficulties of prosecuting disgraced soldier Ben Roberts-Smith for war crimes

A senior international law professor has detailed how difficult it would be to prosecute disgraced war hero Ben Roberts-Smith in the wake of a damning civil judgment against him.

The international law expert said it could also raise the "difficult" issue of securing appropriate evidence.

He explained potential witnesses might be Afghan civilians, noting the change in the country's regime which is now under Taliban control.

"All I'm saying is, that prosecuting these types of crimes under all of those circumstances to meet the appropriate legal standard under the Australian court is going to be very challenging," he said.

Mr Rothwell added, given the Justice Besanko's findings, the prosecution could be looking at multiple events which took place overseas, which could add to the "complexity and duration of any criminal proceedings".

Asked about reports in the media calling Mr Roberts-Smith a "murderer" and "war criminal", Mr Rothwell said he was uncomfortable with labels given he has not been charged.

"Ben Roberts-Smith has not been charged with any criminal offence arising from his service in Afghanistan," he said.

He acknowledged the media may feel it has a license to use such phrases given the civil judgement, but highlighted Mr Roberts-Smith has not been convicted of a war crime.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia...1f13202ee47437

[mondeomatureguy]

Hi Guys,
ive never been in the Army or for that matter been to War. Guys like BRS who was in the Special Forces was trained to kill thats the name of the game when you go to war.

I said to my wife and i am not sticking up for the bloke " it was War and who are we to say what went on because we werent there".

Join the Australian Army get trained go overseas and fight for your country return home but if something goes wrong we dont want to know about it your on your own.

[Interceptor]

Originally Posted by b0son

I agree that rules wouldnt hold much sway with me either if I was protecting myself. But it doesnt appear that was the case here. Just thugs being thugs.

Thugs being thugs on both sides of the argument, or as Mr Bob Dylan so eloquently put it:

"Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties
Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise"

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by b0son

The whole 'they're defending our country' line might work when you're talking WW2, when it's actually the case. Not so much when we're basically playing lapdog to the US and the conflict makes no difference to us whatsoever.

I agree that rules wouldnt hold much sway with me either if I was protecting myself. But it doesnt appear that was the case here. Just thugs being thugs.

This.

Another country invading Australia - killing my family- I probably would go beast mode and fu#k Geneva convention.

But as a professional soldier going into a hot zone overseas on a political jaunt- no excuse to blow away unarmed civilians. Cowardice.

[MITCHAY]

The Taliban are well known for upholding the Geneva conventions. Oh wait they dont.. They hide behind women and children.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

The Taliban are well known for upholding the Geneva conventions. Oh wait they dont.. They hide behind women and children.

well said

The people who were there when the ALLEDGED war crimes took place have a right to comment, no-one else

[Interceptor]

Originally Posted by asagaai

no excuse to blow away unarmed civilians. Cowardice.

"Civilians"

Oh my...... the naivety.....

[aussiblue]

The people who were there when the ALLEDGED war crimes took place have a right to comment, no-one else

That's not how democracy works Trev; who made you the dictator in charge? Arguably what good soldiers are in part fighting for; certainly what my father believed when he was fighting the Japanese at the frontline in New Britain in WWII, is democracy and the right for everyone to freely express their views.

He also once commented to me that the ADF played a psychological brainwashing game of trying to convince soldiers like him that all the Japanese they were fighting were less than human so they would shoot to kill (noting the theories that abound about most soldiers aiming to miss e.g https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...-their-targets ). He found that when he got to Wide Bay later on in the war that many of the Japanese left to fight a guerilla war there were very young and inexperienced, relatively untrained relatively poorly armed and what he described as "just bits of kids" and when captured had similar views as to the Aussies as why they were there - doing their duty as expected by their country and fighting for what they thought, however wrongly, was right and had also similarly been brainwashed into expecting the Aussies to be some sort of foreign inhuman monsters. To what extent this sort of brainwashing still goes on and influenced BRS view of the Afghans I don't know but I have my suspicions and perhaps that may explain some of what happened.

In any event my father certainly earned the right to a view and he also strongly believed in the right for everyone to have and express their individual views and often said so. He also believed that the the blame for all wars and all the resultant deaths ultimately only lay at the feet of the politicians and dictators and others with selfish ambitions that initiated these conflicts.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

That's not how democracy works Trev; who made you the dictator in charge? Arguably what good soldiers are in part fighting for; certainly what my father believed when he was fighting the Japanese at the frontline in New Britain in WWII, is democracy and the right for everyone to freely express their views.

He also once commented to me that the ADF played a psychological brainwashing game of trying to convince soldiers like him that all the Japanese they were fighting were less than human so they would shoot to kill (noting the theories that abound about most soldiers aiming to miss e.g https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...-their-targets ). He found that when he got to Wide Bay later on in the war that many of the Japanese left to fight a guerilla war there were very young and inexperienced, relatively untrained relatively poorly armed and what he described as "just bits of kids" and when captured had similar views as to the Aussies as why they were there - doing their duty as expected by their country and fighting for what they thought, however wrongly, was right and had also similarly been brainwashed into expecting the Aussies to be some sort of foreign inhuman monsters. To what extent this sort of brainwashing still goes on and influenced BRS view of the Afghans I don't know but I have my suspicions and perhaps that may explain some of what happened.

In any event my father certainly earned the right to a view and he also strongly believed in the right for everyone to have and express their individual views and often said so. He also believed that the the blame for all wars and all the resultant deaths ultimately only lay at the feet of the politicians and dictators and others with selfish ambitions that initiated these conflicts.

So you were in Afghanistan when the ALLEDGED war crimes took place, well excuse me

[lra]

In post #14, I alluded that there was more behind this saga than just the shock / horror of perceived 'un-Australian' military behaviour.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...922b3d07&ei=28

Some agreement of throwing certain ADF members under the bus may have been made to keep in the hierarchy good books ?

[Trevor 57]

Doesn't surprise me, Angus Campbell isn't a workers friend

[aussiblue]

So you were in Afghanistan when the ALLEDGED war crimes took place, well excuse me

No; but that doesn't give you the right to dictate to people why have a democratic right to express their views on this obviously controversial issue. Just because you have a firm view doesn't mean it right or the only one that people can have.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

So you were in Afghanistan when the ALLEDGED war crimes took place, well excuse me

Were you?

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by DJM83

Were you?

Absolutely not, but I don't believe the bull**** on TV. the inernet or social media, but I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, what about you?

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

No; but that doesn't give you the right to dictate to people why have a democratic right to express their views on this obviously controversial issue. Just because you have a firm view doesn't mean it right or the only one that people can have.

But I believe in innocent until proven guilty, do you? Or are you quite happen to hang him based on what the media reports?

He hasn't been charged, in fact there hasn't even been any mention of it from official sources, but you continue to speculate and add fuel to the bull****

I am not saying he is innocent nor I am sending him to the gallows like some would like to see. I will just wait to see what happens

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Absolutely not, but I don't believe the bull**** on TV. the inernet or social media, but I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, what about you?

I wasnt. And if you werent, you are about as knowledgeable as the rest of us.
Innocent until proven guilty, i agree. But forcing ones opinion on everyone isnt something i agree with, or questioning everyone if they have a differing opinion to me either.

[Trevor 57]

Where have I forced my opinion on anyone, maybe pulling up people who are speculating, but my opinion from the start has been innocent until proven guilty

If that offends you bad luck

[asagaai]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Where have I forced my opinion on anyone, maybe pulling up people who are speculating, but my opinion from the start has been innocent until proven guilty

If that offends you bad luck

Yes you are entitled to that opinion.

As are others who refer to the judgment by a Federal Court Judge who found on the balance of probabilities that BRS was involved in killing unarmed civilians, after full testing of witnesses (both Australian and Afgans) under rigorous cross examination.

This does not, as you point out, equate to guilty of criminal offences, but this Federal Court decision refers to evidence given during that civil trial, which if accepted in a criminal case, may result in a conviction of BRS.

There is nothing controversial in this.

[Trevor 57]

You said it all, except he hasn't been charged and faced a criminal court.

He lost a defamation case, full stop, evidence in a CIVIL case that does NOT have meet the same rigours of a criminal case. I am not the only one saying that in this thread, but believe what you want. Hang him from the gallows

I dunno how many times I have to say this. The judges opinion in that CIVIL case means **** all in reality, it is just his opinion, full stop

Evidence in a criminal case MUST have proven fact, without reasonably doubt, based on probability is NOT a proven fact

I honestly don't know why this is so hard to comprehend