Why are Crimes by Soldiers Hidden or Sanctioned by Governments? What of Judicial Oversight?
It is interesting that I happened across this article. I was contemplating people in Syria this morning under the bombs. I wondered about those dropping them. I recall watching a film by an Iraqi doctor showing cross hair targeting of civilians away from bombing targets. I also have heard stories of deliberate murder of civilians as part of a wider depopulation campaign.
I watched a film called Control Room depicting the Iraq war from Al Jazeera’s perspective as an arab speaking news channel. What was interesting was the embedded journalism spoon fed information as propaganda from Central Command. This propaganda was evident as anyone who moved from the approved line was questioned as biased. It was evident that if you didn’t agree with the US position then you were not telling the truth. What was interesting was Al Jazeera is that they showed the human casualties, they stated they had a compassionate (humanitarian) view. Al Jazeera showed both US soldiers and civilian deaths as the reality of war. I believe the war should be shown as it is without censureship because that is the truth of it. However, to manage public opinion the military choose to show themselves in a certain light and claim secrecy when it suits them as they are at war.
My question to them is – why are you at war? What are the real reasons?
Saddam Hussein was pitched as the great evil in Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people the mission. Scott Ritter, a former Senior Weapons Inspector stated in Melbourne in around 2005 that the war was not about weapons of mass destruction but name change not regime change. Refer below and further information click https://www.theage.com.au/national/iraq-how-we-were-duped-20050514-ge05vq.html He made clear that there were political interests using the war to deflect from domestic politics and underlying economic interests driving decisions. Refer radio recordings of Scott Ritter in Melbourne, Australia.
I often state it is “truth that sets us free” from violence as it forces us to face our own deceptions and to no longer pretend this is promoting democracy or peace. The ‘us’ includes all of us. To remember the real democracy opens a space for dialogue, diversity, to meet in the middle (east and west) nonviolently. So the arguments justify war are discovered overtime to be fallacious.
Here is a presentation by Scott Ritter at the University of Melbourne in Australia discussing the US war in Iraq, and importantly, the criminality which is driving war crimes. It’s roots run deep.
Part 1: Scott Ritter (12.13). Questions the deception and true intent of the US Government. He asserts the only sedition is silence.
Part 2: Scott Ritter (11.45). What matters is what is going on behind the scenes…
Part 3: Scott Ritter (12.56). What did the United Nations do? …
Part 4: Scott Ritter (13.43). The bottom line is the CIA knew Iraq was disarmed ….
Fools Gold: Until self interest genuinely and visibly becomes best interest and force becomes cooperation, human lives will be taken in the name of false security.
There needs to be a global discussion outside of official forums to really look at the drivers of war that are destroying communities, killing innocent people in the pursuit of self interest. They fly flags symbolic of many banners but it comes to light later they are false flags or false news as Trump popularised.
The majority of fatalities are Iraqi people who can’t even get to a hospital as even these sites were targeted, this is against the Geneva Conventions and it is definitely crimes against humanity as Geoffrey Robertson QC would confer.
Currently the US (the industrial/military complex) are still at war, the people are still not free of the violence. This is why fair and balanced critiques of wars are a service to humanity rather than the same rhetoric which is increasingly disturbing as war becomes profit and advancing economic interests. It is not representative of civil society who pay taxes. It is in the interest of those who make money out of commercialising warfare to keep these wars going, they search for ways to keep conflicts alive, to ensure enemies are there thus provide the economic demand for bomb making, air planes, munitions, technologies, surveillance and on and on it goes infinitem. The same mentality and impetus applies to Afghanistan.
Refer to this articleon war ‘isn’t done’ https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2018/03/war-iraq-isnt-done-commanders-explain-why-and-whats-next/146889/
I often quote in my blogs 90% of civilians casualties and the thought that this is deliberate is disturbing. If the United Nations was effective, all illegal wars should be stopped immediately and peacekeepers deployed. This is not happening which suggest it is ineffective.
The fact we use violence to create peace is a oxymoron and untrue. As a peacemaker myself I know that only peace can create peace. Only problem solving as an intent for solutions solves problems. Only understanding as intent creates greater understanding. Only equality as intent creates equality of outcomes. Only justice as intent creates justice etc. This is what ‘be the change you wish to see in the world’ creates the means to an end as inspired by Gandhi. The prevailing approach to international relations of using militaries to ‘control’ the agenda rather than open up the agenda to solutions impacts international relations. It is unconscionable and akin to the law of tooth and claw to ensure dominance is prominence. It is not about protection or defence or upholding values it is about attacking what is marketed as problems or great evils or threats where the roots of that conflict are not explored, discussed and resolved. Conflict resolution, negotiation, disarmament, interests based bargaining, dialogue, mediation are all methods to bring warring parties together to resolve the grievances and unpack underlying issues. However, what we see is a eagerness to send troops to war to enforce compliance as rules yet when it suits break those rules e.g. rendition Guantanamo Bay. Again, many innocent people are rounded up and incarcerated outside of US laws and rights. There is no duty of care or reference to the Geneva Conventions as the rules of war increasingly are ignored to suit interests.
The soldiers return with PTSD and many do not even get looked after on pensions. Major Douglas Rokke (Head of Depleted Uranium Project, Pentagon) told me the soldiers were sick and dying from depleted uranium, he saw no care for them or even a duty of care. So this is an issue for the soldiers who believe they are serving their country when the reality is proven over and over that they are serving economic interests and they themselves are engaging in war crimes given dubious reasons for war. I do know of soldiers waking up. I’ve met them.
To get to the bottom of this is to trace the money trail and to look at the elite/business/political influences behind it who are invested in endless war as a theorem for economic growth. The Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld triad were extremely concerning given links to Halliburton (Oil), the Carlyle Group (Bush Senior and bin Laden in this group as well as other powerful people) and Rumsfeld with investments in the Israeli Cerberus Global Investments. What is more worrying is the economic interests paraded as democratic interests, when nothing could be further from the truth. War crimes must have ‘neutral’ judicial oversight as innocent people are being targeted. I am focused here on Iraq but the issues in Afghanistan underlie similar rationales of oil.
For overviews of vested corporate interests/alliances outside of US official roles:
Bush/bin Laden links https://archives.globalresearch.ca/articles/NEW304A.html
Dick Cheney, Halliburton https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and-halliburton.html
Donald Rumsfeld, Cerberus Global Investments https://www.facts-are-facts.com/news/rumsfeld-quayle-have-financial-interests-in-israel#.W2ABC1AzaUk
I was interested to note in the article below that a Judge is investigating Australian soldiers crimes and increasingly people are regarding killing in war as no different from civil society murders. The reason for this is because the majority of fatalities are innocent civilians. What is to stop the military coming into our society and shooting as if we disagree with our government? This get’s called subversive, treason or terrorism as it doesn’t not conform to prevailing views. Democracy is used over and over as the rationale but the actions have no resemblance to true democracy which is freedom of speech, the right to a fair hearing and in the US the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The latter cannot happen whilst violence is used as a solution to violence.
There must be greater accountability not only of soldiers but the leaders who send them into harms way and the very ethos of the military which justifies murder. I understand in specific situations violence may have to be used to stop a greater violence, but it must be under exceptional circumstances not ‘warfare as usual’, sounds a bit like business as usual. Perhaps one in the same.
A briefing on the war in Afghanistan is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(1978%E2%80%93present)
I send love to the Afghan people, the Iraqi people, the Australian soldiers who become lost in this war that has no noble purpose. Please remember you can not make peace by war. peace can only arise through the hard work of understanding cultures, dialoguing with people, finding win/wins and recognising and respecting great diversity. International law is where all wars should be fought as the innocent people are the ones who are trapped with no escape. The peoples in this part of the world are the kindest people you will meet. They are indeed traumatised but they will give you their last bread, as is their culture. Our culture is a young one, with much to learn about respect, diversity and critical questioning when we know situations are not right. People must speak up when they witness or ordered to commit atrocities and not flick it aside as ‘I was following orders [rules]’. Funnily enough I recall Bush saying this was no excuse for Iraqi soldiers yet his own soldiers said exactly the same. As all are pawns. The rules have changed and they are not playing fair as money is involved.
A legal consequence means soldiers may question more as personal responsibility is the focus. This is very important. Wouldn’t it be amazing if the legal fraternity changed the rules to ensure justice is done. Perhaps then we can question the legitimacy of war and the stories around it.
Why Australia should face civil lawsuits over soldier misdeeds in Afghanistan
Disclosure statement
John Eldridge is a former tipstaff (judicial assistant) to the Hon Paul Brereton. His views are his own, and should not be taken to represent the views of any other person or organisation.
Tim Matthews does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners
University of Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.
For the past two years, Paul Brereton, a New South Wales Supreme Court judge and Army Reserve major general, has been conducting an investigation into the conduct of members of the SAS in Afghanistan. While the findings are not yet known, leaks from within the Australian Defence Force (ADF) have suggested that as many as five cases involving unlawful killings have been uncovered.
Much of the media commentary surrounding the allegations has centred on the potential criminal prosecution of these alleged offences. But a further legal issue can arise from investigations of this kind – the alleged victims (or their families) might bring civil claims against Australia’s armed forces, seeking compensation for their suffering.
Read more: Explainer: how Australia’s military justice system works
Cases of this kind have occurred in other countries. In the United States, a number of high-profile habeas corpus petitions have been filed against the government by people who claim they were unlawfully detained by US armed forces on suspicion of being insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Claims for damages have also been successfully brought by former Iraqi detainees against private military contractors over their alleged torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
British courts are also currently considering a number of civil suits arising out of British involvement in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
One of those claimants, Yunus Rahmatullah, was arrested by British forces in Iraq in 2004 on suspicion of being a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist organisation with links to al-Qaeda. He was “rendered” by British forces to the custody of the US army in Afghanistan, where he was detained for over ten years without charge or trial and, he alleges, tortured.
Rahmatullah denies ever being a member of a terrorist organisation. He has made a well-publicised claim for compensation from the UK government, under the country’s Human Rights Act.
Why are civil claims against soldiers controversial?
We are all exposed to potential civil liability in our day-to-day lives. If we drive negligently and cause an accident, for instance, we may find ourselves liable to pay compensation to those we have harmed. The same is true of public institutions and authorities, such as hospitals and the police. Few would suggest this is unfair or unreasonable.
Read more: Inconsistency bedevils Australia’s prosecution of war criminals
However, the extension of civil liability to the armed forces is controversial. Former Army officer Bill O’Chee, for instance, recently argued forcefully against such liability:
Service personnel who commit crimes are already subject to military criminal proceedings, and this is rightly so. However, exposing them to claims for personal injury claims would be perverse and entirely unjust.
The very idea that highly paid lawyers in comfortable courts in Australia can understand, let alone litigate these cases, is fanciful at best.
How absurd it would be for our servicemen and women to be subjected to damages claims in these circumstances, let alone be asked to find the money for legal costs and a possible damages order against them.
Should these civil claims be permitted?
Such civil liability claims have never been brought against individual ADF personnel in Australia before. This would be new legal territory. And nobody is seriously suggesting these soldiers should personally bear the burden of defending civil claims arising from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Rather, any potential claims are likely to be defended by the Commonwealth.
This is the way civil claims against police officers in Australia are typically resolved. In such cases, individual officers will often be required to give evidence as to their version of events. Yet the costs of defending the case, and the compensation (if any) paid to the plaintiff, are borne not by the individual officers, but by the relevant public authority.
Despite the controversy surrounding them, there are still good reasons to allow civil claims of this kind to proceed.
Read more: Friday essay: war crimes and the many threats to cultural heritage
First, criminal and civil claims serve different purposes. A successful criminal prosecution may leave a victim with a feeling of vindication, but it typically does not result in monetary compensation. As a result, it may matter little to victims or their families if the soldiers responsible are professionally disciplined, since they may receive no compensation for their loss.
Secondly, the notion that civilian courts are not competent to adjudicate on military matters is seriously problematic.
Nobody could deny that military personnel are forced to carry out their duties in extremely difficult conditions. It is also true that many lawyers and judges have difficulty appreciating the fraught circumstances in which military decision-making occurs.
But the answer to these difficulties is not the abandonment of such claims altogether. Judges are often faced with the task of making difficult decisions about matters on which they are not experts. Civil justice would simply not work if courts threw up their hands whenever they were faced with such challenges.
Greater accountability for the military
Finally, if the Commonwealth were somehow able to avoid liability for potential civil damages in these types of cases, the ADF may have less incentive to conduct military operations in ways that safeguard the rights of civilians caught in conflict zones.
Given the limited accountability for military decision-making in the public sphere, the possibility of accountability in a civil court would promote stricter adherence to international conventions on war.
Many of the victims who may bring claims of this kind are unlikely to excite public sympathy. For example, one of the claimants in the UK cases, Serdar Mohammed, was arrested while leaving a ten-hour firefight with British troops, discarding a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and ammunition on his way.
But we shouldn’t allow our moral judgement of claimants like Mohammed to erode our commitment to the rule of law. Public authorities, and especially our armed forces, should be held accountable for their actions to the limits imposed by law.