The silence from the R&SL is deafening.If I'm wrong I will retract my statement,but I don't believe that one word has been uttered by the above group,in regards to the three young men facing Courts Martial for doing their job in the manner in which they were trained.

This whole disgusting business is gaining momentum and support from a wide area of the community,but not it appears from the R&SL.Why?I just wish someone would organize a protest march in Canberra and I will be the first to put my hand up to be there.

It would be interesting to see if RAAF pilots would be willing to carry out another mission if and after being informed that they could be arrested on the tarmac immediately they return' where any non combatants have been killed during that mission'.

Is a man who pulls a trigger to be more accountable than the Captain of a ship who launches a missile'... or a Pilot who presses a button, or the Gunner who pulls a lanyard.

Are we to have a different standard now' that applies only to the, "poor bloody infantry!?"
B.C

KIWI I have posted a new message but I told you I would let you know the court date it is the 11th July 11 I know our club the VVMC will be there hope to see a lot more people supporting these troops Dutchy

Kiwi has quite rightly and very forcefully expressed his concern about the relative silence of the RSL over the impending court martial of the three special forces’ soldiers. The public outcry is supportive of Kiwi’s views, not concerning the RSL position, but about the DMP’s laying of charges in the first place.
Since Kiwi began this blog I have been approached by the National President of the RSL and asked to report on the trial to them and keep them informed of the proceedings. Although I am not a member of the RSL I agreed to do this. It caused me to check the RSL website where there is mention of the trial and of the RSL position. It says as follows:

"The RSL continues to give steadfast and unequivocal support to all members of the Australian Defence Force. This includes the three soldiers recently charged with serious offences alleged to have been committed during their operational service in Afghanistan.
"These soldiers have the same entitlement to the presumption of innocence granted to all Australians charged with alleged offences. This is a fundamental tenet of the Australian system of justice and one the RSL supports unreservedly.
"The League respects and has confidence in the Australian system of military justice. We expect that the principles underpinning this system such as the requirement on the prosecution to prove allegations of commission of serious offences 'beyond reasonable doubt' will be adhered to during legal proceedings.
We also acknowledge that in some circumstances, those alleged to have committed offences are best able to demonstrate their innocence by tendering evidence or having evidence tendered on their behalf during legal proceedings which result in findings of "not guilty."
"The RSL intends monitoring the case against the three soldiers under prosecution but will not engage in public debate about the circumstances which have given rise to the prosecutions. The Law must be allowed to take its course without interference.
"Close and careful scrutiny by the RSL of legal proceedings resulting from these prosecutions should give confidence that they will be conducted in strict accordance with the principles underpinning the Australian system of military justice."

Personally, I do not agree with some aspects of this (and have informed the RSL), and I believe a more robust support of our combat troops is warranted.
Apart from this website notice I am unaware if the RSL has made, or has attempted to make, any public statements about the issue. I shall keep you informed if anything comes to my attention.

Regards to all,
Dave

Hi All,
My thanks to Dave Wilkins for his response to this thread.I still believe that the R&SL are sitting on their hands on this tragic matter.I also went to the National HQ's site and found this;

The RSL welcomes Minister Griffin’s announcement on the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council on Ex-Service Matters. The formation of the Council was an Election Commitment, and we welcome this outcome.



RSL National President, Major General Bill Crews, has said: ‘We acknowledge the wisdom in forming a representative council rather than a council of representatives. The Minister is to be commended on his thoroughness during the consultative process and his perceptiveness in identifying appropriate people to form this council. We congratulate those selected’.



Bill Crews went on to say: ‘It was a challenging task to select a group well positioned to represent all conflicts, all States, and to have a suitable balance of gender and service or other backgrounds. The RSL looks forward to working with this Council in the resolution of the many difficult issues still confronting the Veteran Community.’

It would appear that this negative statement,is as worthless as the one Dave showed in his post.
As you all know, we fought and kicked and scratched our way into the R&SL and to be recognized for what we are,and now the very same people, as the saying goes "cant see the grass for the weeds".Tragic, is the only word that comes to mind.I just pray to God that someone, somewhere will intercede in this matter.How about it National R&SL or is it too hot a potato?

Regards Kiwi

Speaking to still serving members about this apparently the good old government and Dept Defense has put a no talk ban on all serving members what are they afraid about

The RSL has changed its website message on the court martial of the commandos to read:

"On 20 May 2011 the Judge Advocate to the General Court Martial of two members of the ADF from 1 Commando Regiment, charged with manslaughter and dangerous conduct during their service in Afghanistan in February 2009, decided that the charges did not disclose service offences and were bad at law.

The National Executive of the RSL welcomes this decision which recognises that under international laws of war, an Australian soldier on a battlefield is not under a duty of care to innocent civilians who become embroiled in the battle.

The Judge Advocate said that members of the Australian Defence Force are in a unique position when authorised by the Australian Government to fight an enemy and to apply lethal force, which is an inherently dangerous task. There is rarely a time for calm reflection in these life and death situations. If there existed a duty of care to persons on the battlefield any hesitation might prove fatal.

The Judge Advocate also stated that there is similarly no duty of care attached to the giving of orders on the battlefield, as lawful orders cannot be the subject of examination by a subordinate. Therefore a commander's orders placing his men in harm's way, which if a duty of care existed, could lead to hesitation by his troops and not only prove fatal but also afford an advantage to the enemy. No such duty exists.

The charges have been referred back to the Director of Military Prosecutions who may accept the decision, or challenge it on appeal or even raise new charges against the soldiers.

As the Judge Advocate's decision was most comprehensive the National Executive of the RSL is hopeful that no further action will be taken against these two soldiers, nor indeed against a third member of the ADF who has also been charged."

It finishes by saying that it will closely and carefully monitor these legal proceedings "consistent with the pledge of the National Executive of the RSL..."

As indicated earlier, I am not a member of the RSL but have been advising it on the court martial proceedings. Arising from my recent talks with the RSL it has now posted the following announcement on its website:

"Unwarranted Delay in ADF Justice
The Returned & Services League of Australia is greatly concerned at the inordinate delay in the legal process surrounding the decision of the Director of Military Prosecutions to prosecute three members of the Australian Defence Force charged with very serious service offences alleged to have been committed during operational service in Afghanistan.
The alleged offences occurred during an operation against the Taliban in February 2009 but it was not until 19 months later on 27 September 2010 that the Director of Military Prosecutions announced her decision to charge the three soldiers. The charge sheet against the lieutenant colonel was signed at about the same time in September 2010, but those against the other two members were not signed until 14 January 2011, almost two years after the event. Then it was not until 28 March 2011 that the pre-trial hearing by the Chief Judge Advocate commenced hearing charges against the sergeant and lance corporal - during which the prosecution amended the charge sheet.
On 20 May 2011 the Chief Judge Advocate found that no service offences had been committed by the sergeant and lance corporal.
The RSL publicly welcomed the decision of the Chief Judge Advocate but expresses its concern about the charges for which there is no precedent. The RSL understands there has never been an occasion where soldiers in combat on a battlefield owe a duty of care to civilians, as alleged by the prosecution.
The lieutenant colonel accused still has not had his charges considered by a Judge Advocate or a court martial, and no date has yet been announced for this. Such delays in finalising these important matters is a denial of justice and is unacceptable to the soldiers involved, their families and the defence and veteran communities as a whole.
The pre-trial findings of the Chief Judge Advocate on 20 May 2011 are a matter of public record but they indicate significant shortcomings in the prosecution of these serious service offences which, if proven, could result in the imposition of substantial periods of incarceration and the termination of the men's careers as professional soldiers.
The League understands that as a consequence of the decisions by the Chief Judge Advocate at the pre-trial hearing, the matter has been referred back to the Director of Military Prosecutions who has the following options:
• appeal the decision of the Chief Judge Advocate to the Federal Court;
• prefer alternative charges against the two men; or
• withdraw the charges altogether and discontinue the court martial proceedings.
Even accounting for the time taken to investigate the incident by the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service and its referral to the Director of Military Prosecutions, there has been far too much time taken to process and prosecute this case. Added to this is the slowness of the Director of Military Prosecutions' response to the Chief Judge Advocate's decision of 20 May 2011. The transcript for each day's proceedings was available within 24 hours as was the Chief Judge Advocate's findings and determination. The proposed course of action should be both known and publicised by now.
It is also reasonable to assume that the Director of Military Prosecutions' decision about the way ahead could and should have previously been well researched to cover all possibilities arising from the pre-trial hearing. If this is not the case, the League asks why not? If it is the case, we ask why the Director of Military Prosecutions hasn't by now made her decision known to the accused soldiers and to the public?
Whilst the RSL believes in and supports the process of military justice and respects the independence of the Director of Military Prosecutions, we also insist on our democratic responsibility to raise concerns about what we believe is a denial of justice in this instance.
The excessive and unexplained delays in these legal proceedings is deleterious to the morale of the Australian Defence Force, is an affront to all who have previously served the nation and is the antithesis of what members of the League believe should be a robust, fair and efficient system of military justice."

Hi All
Sorry for the delayed reply,but I have been AWOL for a few weeks
So, it would appear that the R&SL have found their voice at last,but only on their website.It would be interesting to know how many hits they have on their site each week,and also how many of those hits are from non service related people.
IF the R&SL were serious, they should have demanded answers from the Government,through the media,be it Press or Television so that ALL Australians can see the disgusting blunder, that has been made in Canberra.

There can be, in my opinion,only one outcome,and that is for the charges to be dropped by the DMP and a formal apology made to the wrongly accused soldiers,but it appears that the R&SL is not prepared to go public on this issue,and that to me shows lack of Moral Fibre.
(Russell Kiwi Hill)