Murky waters of SASR allegations
IT WAS ironic that on the 22nd anniversary of the Australian Special Air Service Regiment’s most costly disaster the regiment was facing allegations of serious misconduct.
On the night of June 12, 1996, two Black Hawks from 5 Aviation Regiment collided at High Range, killing 15 SASR troopers and three aviators.
On June 8 CDF Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin announced an investigation into allegations of serious misconduct on operations by Australia’s Special Forces.
Those allegations, which emanated from within the defence community, have been referred to the ADF Inspector General to conduct an inquiry.
The CDF’s background was a fighter pilot in both the RAN and RAAF.
Both the CDF and Chief of Army designate have extensive SF backgrounds.
They will have to deal with the inquiry’s report when it is completed.
While not being asked to investigate their own, they may have to face dealing with their own.
The SAS is too often described by those outside the ADF as Australia’s military elite.
Others, especially fighter pilots, never renowned for a deficit of self- aggrandisement, might disagree.
In the sense they are a “select few” that description may be correct, but through the SASR gruelling testing and selection process for candidates, “exclusive” may be a better description.
That in no way denigrates SASR individual or teams’ skills, though they tend to work in isolated, small teams rather than in multiple, co- ordinated larger teams as do other combat arms.
Their roles often require them to push the boundaries of conventional military mores. The allegations made against some SASR personnel who have operated in Afghanistan are that they encouraged, tolerated or concealed what might in some circumstances be considered unlawful acts.
The facts of those allegations are in dispute, and those who may be formally accused remain innocent until proven guilty.
The issue has ignited passionate debate within the wider defence community, which would be well advised to moderate open discussion, particularly on social media.
If the IGADF finds there are matters which require further action, including possible war crimes, the ADF then has a serious issue.
In the first instance individuals suspected of committing war crimes could be dealt with under the Defence Force Discipline Act as well as the civil law of the host country, unless exempted by formal status of forces agreements with that country.
This has been the case in Afghanistan.
However Australia is one of 133 countries that recognise the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Notable exceptions include the US, China, India, Pakistan and Israel.
Australians accused of “war crimes” could thus find themselves before this court, beyond the jurisdiction of Australian domestic or military law, unless they have already been dealt with appropriately by the latter.
Even then it is possible the ICC could direct Australia to surrender accused individuals into its jurisdiction.
If individuals have transgressed acceptable behaviour, then there have also been failures of supervision and leadership.
It augurs interesting times.