Society/Culture Victoria Cross winner Ben Roberts-Smith - Allegations of war crimes

[CheapCharlie]

I disagree. Like any Honor or Award it should be able to be rescinded if your later conduct is particularly bad.

It's an award for gallantry in the face of the enemy. A bravery award. It isn't an ethics award.

Here is how George V felt about it...

King George V felt very strongly that the decoration should never be forfeited and in a letter from his Private Secretary, Lord Stamfordham, on 26 July 1920, his views are forcefully expressed:

"The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even were a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the scaffold."

 

[Malifice]

It's an award for gallantry in the face of the enemy. A bravery award. It isn't an ethics award.

Its an award for conduct. Subsequent conduct (if bad enough) should leave one open to the stripping of the entitlement to the award.

Do you think someone who is Knighted for service to the Crown, but then goes off to fight for ISIS against the Crown should remain entitled to that Knighthood?

Here is how George V felt about it...

King George V felt very strongly that the decoration should never be forfeited and in a letter from his Private Secretary, Lord Stamfordham, on 26 July 1920, his views are forcefully expressed:

"The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even were a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the scaffold."

I would feel very uncomfortable with a person convicted of (say) raping and murdering his wife and children to be entitled to wear an Award for Gallantry. His actions subsequent to that award, have shown him not to be very 'gallant' at all.

 

[Malifice]

Even ones entitlement to the Imperial VC can be stripped of you if what you do is serious enough:

Yet the King and others won the day on the wider issue and Churchill approved amendments to the rules relating to the VC which stated that henceforward only “treason, cowardice, felony or any infamous crime” should lead to forfeiture.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/526592/War-veteran-stripped-Victoria-Cross-medal

Minor (or even relatively serious) bad conduct should not be enough to see one's entitlement stripped. But if the subsequent behavior is one that goes to the heart of your gallantry and courage, and is of a serious nature, then the entitlement to the award should be called into question.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Its an award for conduct. Subsequent conduct (if bad enough) should leave one open to the stripping of the entitlement to the award.


I would feel very uncomfortable with a person convicted of (say) raping and murdering his wife and children to be entitled to wear an Award for Gallantry. His actions subsequent to that award, have shown him not to be very 'gallant' at all.

The VC is given for:
"...most conspicuous gallantry, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy or belligerents"

It is an award for very specific and defined conduct. Why should that entail ongoing courage or gallantry throughout the course of ones life?
Later life signs of non gallant behaviour are irrelevant to the initial award

It is pointless comparing it to other awards which are given under other criteria. Comparing it to a Knighthood is embarrassing.

Someone earns that award, they can keep it for life in my book

 

[Malifice]

Someone earns that award, they can keep it for life in my book

I wholly disagree.

 

[Gough]

Is the sort of person prepared to do the types of things SAS soldiers do the calibre of person we should be fetishising as a hero? I'd argue they should probably be on a watch list of some sort.

 

[Gough]

Is it also possible that he was awarded this by way of justifying our involvement in a conflict that we had no place being there anyway. All Australian hero to make us look past the injustice and futility of our presence in Afghanistan in the first place.

 

[Fat Yak]

He has lodged a defamation action in the Federal Court in Sydney against Fairfax Media.

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/au...-smith-speaks-about-allegations-ng-b88925473z

 

[Kurve]

I kind of agree.

Why appoint a trained and decorated killer of people onto an an anti-violence board?

No offence to Ben but that doesn't really make sense.

Plenty of other committees he's be better suited for IMO.

I don't know a lot about how this all works but who's idea would it have been Malifice? Is he being groomed for and managed into politics?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Its an award for conduct. Subsequent conduct (if bad enough) should leave one open to the stripping of the entitlement to the award.

Do you think someone who is Knighted for service to the Crown, but then goes off to fight for ISIS against the Crown should remain entitled to that Knighthood?



I would feel very uncomfortable with a person convicted of (say) raping and murdering his wife and children to be entitled to wear an Award for Gallantry. His actions subsequent to that award, have shown him not to be very 'gallant' at all.

Being Knighted is a completely different set of circumstances to being awarded VC.

 

[Malifice]

Being Knighted is a completely different set of circumstances to being awarded VC.

Im aware of that, but I would be extremely uncomfortable with a person being entiteld to retain the entitlement to the VC if they subsequently (say) start raping children.

It diminishes the award, including past recipients of the award. The VC itself, and the special status of the VC needs to be protected.

We're talking the highest award in the Australian honors system here. It is only awarded to the most gallant, courageous and bravest of individuals.

If your subsequent shit conduct casts into doubt your prior good conduct, it should be possible for your entitlement to the award to be stripped.

Its not like you never won it. You did something amazing to get the award; but you then did something equally beyond the pale to lose the entitlement to it.

It would have to be something severe, enough to tarnish the award, and bring the status of the award into disrepute or infamy.

 

[Malifice]

I don't know a lot about how this all works but who's idea would it have been Malifice? Is he being groomed for and managed into politics?

His old man was a Maj-Gen and also Justice of the WA Court of Appeal and generally regarded as conservative in his judgments. Fair to assume he voted a certain way, and his Son has followed him with the same political views.

There is also this:

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...ts-smith-vc-mg-in-talks-with-tony-abbott.html

He's clearly being groomed for future office IMO.

 

[skilts]

There can be little doubt that this bloke showed exemplary courage in the face of imminent and real danger, and that he was responsible for saving the lives of some of his colleagues. The VC was awarded for this one action, done under extreme circumstances. The level of scrutiny of the actions and behaviour which attach to the awarding of this medal are such that the VC is almost never given undeservedly.

In this one way, and on this particular occasion, Roberts-Smith was indeed a hero. This is not to say that all of his actions in his service have met the standard of such heroism. It is also not to say that he hasn't committed atrocities. It is not to say that he doesn't belt women.

ANZAC day commemorates the fallen, and those who served. Among the general public, the unthinking urgers for the sanctity of Anzac Day tend to take from this that everyone who served was a hero. This is not true. Some were cowards, others were rapists, thieves or murderers. Some, all of the above. Should these service men and women be acclaimed as heroes, just because they turned up, and served completely out of harm's way? This type of thinking only degrades the value of real acts of bravery. Even those who committed conspicuous acts of gallantry in the face of the enemy were also capable of abominable crimes.

In one instance, in a certain place, under hideous pressure, this man distinguished himself by his conduct. Otherwise, he's just as ethical as the rest of us, perhaps even less so than most, it has been alleged.

The bravery of those who have outed him could also be seen as being exemplary. It is the actions of these soldiers which are worthy of accolades, unless, of course, as has been said in rebuttal of these allegations, the whole affair is just an example of professional jealousy. The reporting of his alleged misconduct would appear to be a sociopathic reaction to such a tawdry emotion, if this were the case. The number of similarities in the evidence given by his colleagues makes this a hard explanation to swallow.

I find the phrases, 'rules of engagement' and 'rules of war' to be oxymorons. It is akin to thinking that the legal penalties for a murder committed in, say, a jealous rage, will act as a deterrent, at the moment before action. Unfortunately, the Australian Army is nowadays portrayed by its government as acting more as a peace-keeping force, where nothing like the allegations against Roberts-Smith will ever happen. This is to allay the fears the Australian electorate might have that anyone on our side of an undeclared war (as they all seem to be) might be killed, or kill unnecessarily. Soldiers are trained to kill. If we send them off to conflicts, especially ones in which we have no business, where they are hamstrung in how they conduct themselves, this can easily be the outcome. Both sides of politics are equally culpable in this headlong rush to satisfy America's blood lust. So are those who elect such governments.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Im aware of that, but I would be extremely uncomfortable with a person being entiteld to retain the entitlement to the VC if they subsequently (say) start raping children.

It diminishes the award, including past recipients of the award. The VC itself, and the special status of the VC needs to be protected.

We're talking the highest award in the Australian honors system here. It is only awarded to the most gallant, courageous and bravest of individuals.

If your subsequent shit conduct casts into doubt your prior good conduct, it should be possible for your entitlement to the award to be stripped.

Its not like you never won it. You did something amazing to get the award; but you then did something equally beyond the pale to lose the entitlement to it.

It would have to be something severe, enough to tarnish the award, and bring the status of the award into disrepute or infamy.

Then why throw it in as a comparison? Receiving a Knighthood and being awarded a VC aren't really comparable.

No matter what his alleged shit conduct may be, how could it possibly cast any doubt on his prior good conduct? There were witnesses to his gallantry, there can be no doubt cast on that gallantry, it is recorded for history.

 

[Kurve]

No matter what his alleged shit conduct may be, how could it possibly cast any doubt on his prior good conduct? There were witnesses to his gallantry, there can be no doubt cast on that gallantry, it is recorded for history.

When Colonel Russell Williams as a peeping snowdropper, sexual predator and fetishist, escalating to serial killer who took pictures of the women he tortured and killed while dressing up in their underwear plead guilty, he was purged in a ceremonial fire. All his military kit was committed to the flames and his medals confiscated.

He was no great hero with a VC but the demand to burn Williams came from the bottom up, the lower ranks on and was endorsed by chain of command.

As it should be, imo.

 

[Malifice]

Then why throw it in as a comparison? Receiving a Knighthood and being awarded a VC aren't really comparable.

No matter what his alleged shit conduct may be, how could it possibly cast any doubt on his prior good conduct? There were witnesses to his gallantry, there can be no doubt cast on that gallantry, it is recorded for history.

And it is recorded for history. Were not building a time machine here and never giving someone the award. We would be removing the ongoing entitlement to the award due to subsequent shit conduct.

The status of the VC is an important consideration here. It is our preeminent award for gallantry, valor and courage, and the highest award in our honors system.

If a recipient does something beyond the pale after being awarded it, and retains the entitlement to the award, it diminishes and tarnishes the award.

The Letters Patent reflect that. They provide that the GG may rescind the award for subsequent bad conduct.

It would have to be something pretty ****ing bad though. Murder, rape and treason spring to mind.

 

[ShanDog]

The army program the soldiers minds to carry out thier agenda. Wind them up into killing machines. The soldiers are fed properganda to dehumanise the enemy.

But the guy in question here famously lectures us about Afghanistan saying he knows things that we don't about how bad the Afghans are and he can't say. He told us to trust him. He used his decoration to aid weight to his lecture

Those of us aware of the true nature of what we were doing in Afghanistan.

Alarm bells go off

lol

 

[ShanDog]

To become an SAS member in the first place I'm not sure that you're going to be the sort of bloke you'd happily take home to meet mum, or have your daughter introduce you to.

I really don't know where people get these impressions from. It's just stereotype. I'm sure you'd know a bit about them gough.

 

[Gough]

I really don't know where people get these impressions from. It's just stereotype. I'm sure you'd know a bit about them gough.

They need the ability to kill in cold blood and do. That usually gets you banged up, not held up as some sort of person to aspire to.

 

[ShanDog]

They need the ability to kill in cold blood and do. That usually gets you banged up, not held up as some sort of person to aspire to.

I know SF people, and several on more than just a cursory level. While the job they have undoubtedly affects them psychologically, to suggest they are somehow less than human or lacking humanity or in some way broken is a complete load of shit. I'm sure they wouldn't give a toss what some people on the internet who have zero experience or understand think of them, but I don't like seeing this crap and will call it out so others don't read it and think it's gospel.

 

[CheapCharlie]

I know SF people, and several on more than just a cursory level. While the job they have undoubtedly affects them psychologically, to suggest they are somehow less than human or lacking humanity or in some way broken is a complete load of shit. I'm sure they wouldn't give a toss what some people on the internet who have zero experience or understand think of them, but I don't like seeing this crap and will call it out so others don't read it and think it's gospel.

It was a very unsavoury comment

A lot of the special forces guys come back a mess, suffering long term PTSD and the suicide rates are high. These are guys who sign up believing they are going to make a difference and that what they do does matter.
Sure, hindsight shows not all engagements are just, but these are soldiers, not politicians, and these are guys who do literally put their lives in harms way.

To label them some type of depraved cold blooded murderer is totally out of order.

Is the sort of person prepared to do the types of things SAS soldiers do the calibre of person we should be fetishing as a hero? I'd argue they should probably be on a watch list of some sort.

Should we hold up as role models men who have served their country, done the most difficult of tasks, risked their lives in duty to their country? Damn right we should

They need the ability to kill in cold blood and do. That usually gets you banged up, not held up as some sort of person to aspire to.

Being in the military or being in combat could require you to kill someone. That's the unsavoury nature of war. Being strong of character and willing to make an ultimate personal sacrifice is exactly a trait people should want to aspire to.

The ex SF people i have met don't tolerate fools easily, so I expect some posters on here wouldn't get much of a hearing in person

 

[Gough]

A good mate of mine was a career soldier, ex mercenary, Sierra Leone, Rhodesia and Iraq via Sandhurst and Northern Ireland. I love him but he's no role model.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

It's an award for gallantry in the face of the enemy. A bravery award. It isn't an ethics award.

Here is how George V felt about it...

King George V felt very strongly that the decoration should never be forfeited and in a letter from his Private Secretary, Lord Stamfordham, on 26 July 1920, his views are forcefully expressed:

"The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even were a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the scaffold."

Diver Derrick was a scoundrel in and out of the army

It's what made him so good at what he did.

Should of got three VC,s

 

[ShanDog]

A good mate of mine was a career soldier, ex mercenary, Sierra Leone, Rhodesia and Iraq via Sandhurst and Northern Ireland. I love him but he's no role model.

Your sample size of one is noted. Not having a go at you Gough - respect your thoughts. But I've been around enough people in the military for the last 15 years to know that it's just a cross-section of the general community. In fact, in many areas, it's statistically far better (crime, suicide, sexual misconduct at training institution rates etc).

Whether Roberts-Smith has not lived up to that standard is very much an individual issue and not representative of the character of defence personnel in the slightest.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Fairfax Media says it did not defame Australia's most decorated soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, in a series of reports questioning the actions of Australian special forces soldiers during the war in Afghanistan.

But if the Federal Court accepts he has been defamed, Fairfax says it can prove the truth of a series of allegations he claims the publisher made against him, including claims of war crimes and domestic violence.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fai...s-smith-defamation-claim-20181009-p508on.html