Unlawfull

[Des Taff Jenkins]

One way to stop many wars is for any soldier who is accused and sentenced to death for war crimes, to pick a politician to be shot with him , as the only reason he was in that position was through political action.
Des

[j.sabourn]

#23 I seem to remember that whoever was President of the USA at the time saying no American soldier would be charged by the law of anyone pointing the finger at them for unnecesary killing, or words to that effect It was an attempt no doubt as a moral booster for those forces going into ground action against a foe with no moral standards. A bit out of context Des you being out here a lot longer than me, Do the RAAF have an RAAF regiment like the RAF once or still have ? I dont want to appear too ignorant when among those who served. Cheers JS

[happy daze john in oz]

The Nurenburg Trials were held by civilian lawyers.
No soldier can be charged with murder by an army court, murder is a civilian crime.
If you charged a soldier with murder half the army would be in prison.
He can be court marshalled and booted out but that is all.

But as Des puts it, the ones who send them to war walk away free.

[Doc Vernon]

Wont argue the toss here John but a Soldier can be tried for any crime in a Military Court. It is depends a lot on the circumstances and the place . Dont know about here in Aussie, but a lot of other places, the Military Courts handle all the cases that involve Military Personel.

If you read some Articles on Military Law and Trials you will see that this is correct!
Cheers

End of my Rant LOL

[Des Taff Jenkins]

It was a military court that tried and shot Breaker Morant and his off sider in South Africa for shooting a wounded prisoner. I recently read a book that there was a piece of paper floating around that Kitchener had written TOP on, take no prisoners, and he desperately wanted it back, don't know how much truth there was in it.

I am not sure but I don't recall ever hearing of RAAF regiment, maybe don't have enough to form one.
Des

[happy daze john in oz]

Vernon, you are correct about being tried in a military court.

But for example if a soldier shot dead the major on the parade ground he would be charged with murder, but that is a civil matter so would be tried in a civil court.

[William Kean]

If your lawyers are like ours, unscrupulous then the squaddies are in for a rough ride.
Some UK solicitors were paying local tribesmen to make false allegations about UK servicemen.
The solicitors never give up, they hound the squaddies force numerous investigations claiming that they have uncovered new evidence.
Every time our troops go into action maybe they should second one or two of the ambulance chasing lawyers to the front line.
Vic

The problem with asymmetric warfare is shoot somebody with a gun in his/her hand is OK and you are a good lad/lass, shoot somebody who had a gun in his/her hand at the time the shot was taken but the weaponn is removed by the time the body is located and you have just killed a civilian. There is no excuse for brutality by the military in a court of law, however you may see it differently if somebody has been doing their best to kill you in some far off unpleasant part of the world.

[Alan Briggs]

And the so called commanders get off scot free, apparently the closest they got to Afghanistan was the Emirates, and they got a medal for it.
Difficult to fight a war when one side has rules of engagement and the other side has none.

[happy daze john in oz]

Latest news, some ten soldiers have been given termination notices saying they must give reason why they should not be dismissed.

So far no charges have been laid, no trial or enquiry yet here they are in this state.

Could be an attempt by the gov to placate the rulers of Afghanistan, who knows.

All this on the say so of a few, why, it was a war situation and odd things happen there.

[happy daze john in oz]

Australia as applicable to our military. Firstly, let me provide a little history on the disgraceful show trial that convicted General Yamashita.

General Yamashita (above), the ‘Tiger of Malaysia’ was hanged on 23rd February, 1946, for crimes committed by his soldiers in the defence of the Philippines. It is important to note that Yamashita was not accused of personally committing any crime, nor could it be proven that he even knew of the atrocities committed by any of the 360,000 soldiers under his command. Yamashita took command of 14th Army only 10-days before the American invasion. Yet, after the war ended MacArthur had him court-martialled for ‘failing in his duty as commander of the Japanese forces’ by not preventing massacres of civilians in Manila.

His defence lawyer, Col. Harry E. Clark, Sr. argued that Yamashita:

… is not charged with having done something, but simply with having been the commander. American jurisprudence recognises no such principle so far as military personnel are concerned. (and the key point he made was) No one would even suggest that the commanding general of an American occupation force becomes a criminal every time an American soldier violates the law.’ (author’s emphasis)

Due to a lack of communications capability, Yamashita did not have effective control of his army from the time he arrived to take command. The American landings quickly broke the 14th Army into three separate areas. When the war ended, Yamashita surrendered the Shobu Group in northern Luzon, but was convicted of the crimes committed by the independent Shimbu Group in Manila. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision (7-2) that:

‘ … a commander can be held accountable for crimes committed by his troops even if he did not order them, did not know about them or did not have the means to stop them.’

I find this principle totally illogical but wonderfully useful for my purposes! Read the following twice and very carefully as it is the essence of this article. The Yamashita Standard states that:

The highest ranking officer is accountable for, and should be prosecuted and convicted of the crimes of every officer and soldier under his command, even if he/she is unaware of that the crime, or was aware and actually gave orders to stop it. Ignorance of the actions of his/her subordinates and failed attempts to stop them are not a defence.[x]

Well, that seems clear. Find any soldier who committed a war crime during the eleven years our Army was in Afghanistan and the most senior commander in Afghanistan at that time (and probably right up the hierarchy to the Chief of the Defence Force) is just as guilty as the soldier.