By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Australia’s most decorated living veteran, Ben Roberts-Smith, has been charged with five counts of war crime murder, allegations stemming from his service in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012. Police assert that the victims were unarmed and detained when they were allegedly killed, either by Roberts-Smith or under his command. These criminal charges follow a civil court’s earlier finding that Roberts-Smith likely unlawfully killed four noncombatants, a ruling he failed to overturn on appeal. The charges are part of broader investigations into alleged unlawful killings by elite Australian SAS and commando troops in Afghanistan.
Read the original article here
The recent news of a former Australian soldier being charged with five murders in Afghanistan, classified as war crimes, has sent ripples of shock and, for many, a sense of grim vindication. This development marks a significant moment, especially considering the individual in question is Ben Roberts-Smith, a recipient of the Victoria Cross, Australia’s highest military honor. The journey to these charges has been a protracted and, some might say, inevitable descent, fueled by persistent allegations and a high-profile defamation lawsuit.
The initial spark for intense public scrutiny appears to have been Roberts-Smith’s own legal action against a media organization. He sued them, alleging defamation over a series of reports that detailed his alleged war crimes. However, the media outlet mounted a robust defense, relying on the truth as their primary argument. Astonishingly, they were able to present evidence that established it as more probable than not that he had indeed committed these grave offenses. This pivotal victory in the defamation case, ironically, created a massive surge of public interest, a true Streisand effect, that ultimately propelled further investigations into the allegations.
It’s noteworthy that Roberts-Smith’s legal defense was reportedly funded by some very wealthy, right-wing Australian business figures. This aspect of the story itself speaks volumes, suggesting a pattern of powerful individuals aligning themselves with controversial figures, perhaps due to shared ideologies or a desire to protect a particular narrative. The notion that such support might stem from a deep-seated belief in cruelty or malice, rather than genuine righteousness, has been a recurring sentiment in discussions surrounding this case.
The fall from grace for someone as decorated as Roberts-Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient, has been a slow-motion spectacle. For a long time, there was a pervasive feeling that nothing substantial was being done, possibly due to his perceived connections. This has left many feeling a profound sense of relief that a formal charging process is finally underway. The hope now is for a conviction, with some describing him in the harshest terms, labeling him as “pure evil” and “human garbage.”
Comparing this situation to the United States, a stark contrast emerges. It’s been observed that American soldiers who have committed similar war crimes have often escaped significant repercussions, particularly under the Trump administration’s Department of Justice. A particularly harrowing example cited is that of a Navy SEAL who allegedly engaged in horrific acts, including shooting elderly men and children for sport. This individual was also reported by his subordinates, but the DOJ under Trump reportedly dismissed the claims and even labeled the whistleblowers as liars. The broader implication drawn from these instances is a concerning disconnect between accountability for alleged war crimes, especially when committed by individuals perceived as heroes or those from powerful nations.
The legal principle that one might only commit war crimes if they are the president of a powerful country has been cynically remarked upon, highlighting a perceived double standard. The charges against the former Australian soldier serve as a potent, albeit grim, universal message to all military personnel involved in conflicts, particularly those on the “wrong side” of wars. The timeless wisdom of John Donne’s “No man is an island” resonates here, suggesting that every individual’s actions, and their consequences, are intertwined with the fabric of humanity.
Meanwhile, in a parallel development, the United States has been known to sanction officials from the International Criminal Court for seeking to investigate alleged U.S. involvement in war crimes. This action underscores a broader reluctance from powerful nations to submit to international scrutiny regarding military conduct. The discussion around the former Australian soldier’s situation has inevitably led to comparisons with other notable cases, such as that of Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher, who faced charges related to the killing of a teenage ISIS fighter and posing for a photograph with the corpse. While Gallagher was ultimately acquitted of murder, he was convicted of a lesser charge, and his rank was reduced.
The question of whether the Victoria Cross can be stripped from a recipient has also been raised, with some documentary sources suggesting it is an award that cannot be taken away, even in the face of dire consequences. However, it is clarified that in Australia, the Victoria Cross can indeed be forfeited. Its retention is dependent on the outcome of court proceedings, and a conviction for serious crimes like murder would almost certainly lead to its removal by the Governor-General.
There’s a pervasive belief that war crimes are, unfortunately, commonplace in modern warfare, even if society prefers to acknowledge service with platitudes. The defense of such actions, or the turning of a blind eye, is sometimes attributed to a mindset within special operations units that embraces extreme behavior, with individuals openly boasting about their deeds. This is contrasted with the notion that even some Americans, in past conflicts, were allegedly appalled by the actions of their Australian counterparts, wanting no association with them. The allegations against Roberts-Smith, it’s been suggested, were known for a long time, and some U.S. officials sought to distance themselves from the events even before Trump’s presidency.
The commentary surrounding the case also touches upon the perceived detachment of the elite and wealthy from the realities faced by ordinary people. The idea that wealthy individuals might actively support those accused of heinous acts, driven by a love of cruelty, is a dark, yet persistent, theme. The funding of Roberts-Smith’s legal defense by wealthy conservatives is seen by many as evidence of this alleged soullessness. This perspective suggests that such individuals prioritize their own interests, even at the expense of justice and human decency, and are often willing to exploit or harm others for profit. The hope is that, in this instance, justice will prevail and that the former decorated soldier will finally face the consequences for his alleged actions, serving as a stark reminder that even the most celebrated individuals are not above the law.