Another ordeal for soldiers
AS the foiled Sheean VC case demonstrated, some within the Defence hierarchy clearly believe independent tribunal recommendations are advisory only for senior politicians, bureaucrats and generals.
Retrospective consideration of awards is one thing, while retrospective consideration of alleged war crimes is entirely different.
An Australian Federal Police special war crimes unit will investigate allegations Australian personnel committed atrocities in Afghanistan.
As if the physical and mental stresses of combat are not enough, soldiers at the heart of the matters must now face scrutiny from so-called legal experts. Such tribunals are primarily self-serving for their members and those who lead them, closely checking the timetables for the next gravy train to leave the station.
They will hardly be motivated to rock the train they’ve caught.
The Afghanistan inquiries enter new, unfamiliar territory in Australian military jurisprudence.
University of Tasmania dean of law Tim Mccormack, a supposed expert in war crimes cases, recently said while war crimes prosecutions had occurred sporadically throughout Australian history, he could not recall a single instance in which an Australian soldier was tried in a domestic court for breaching the laws of war.
“I’m not aware of any since Breaker Morant in the Boer War,’’ Professor Mccormack said.
This demonstrates an alarming ignorance of Australian military history, since Morant and his co-accused were tried and sentenced by a British court martial while still in South Africa.
Australian special war crimes investigator Nick Kaldas, once deputy commissioner of the finest Australian police force money could buy, acknowledged the difficulties finding individuals with appropriate qualifications to conduct such complex investigations.
One could assume those who sit on them will arrive at a conclusion, because not to do so might be interpreted as vacillation.
Whatever they recommend they run the risk of having their findings rejected or overturned if somewhere in Russell Offices someone decides they don’t support the preferred narrative, whatever that might be.
The process will be conducted in the full glare and public dissertation of those who have already decided their preferred outcome.
It promises to be an interesting journey with a mystery destination.