Battle heroes or murderers? Damning and sickening revelations in regards to the conduct of Aussie troops in Afghanistan simply hold mounting

The sensational libel trial involving a much-decorated SAS trooper whom newspapers have accused of illegally killing six Afghani males is uncovering disturbing accusations of horrific warfare crimes.

The Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case resumed in Sydney this week, and it continues to forged a crucial mild on the conduct of Australian troops throughout their deployment in Afghanistan.

Roberts-Smith’s prolonged cross-examination by Nicholas Owens, counsel for the three newspapers that the warfare hero is suing, was very revealing.

The newspapers’ case is that Roberts-Smith dedicated six grotesque murders whereas serving with Australian SAS forces in Afghanistan, after which engaged in a spread of different improper conduct designed to cowl up these murders.

Learn extra

The highlights (or maybe lowlights, relying on one’s perspective) of Owens’ gruelling cross-examination of the plaintiff included the next:

• Roberts-Smith denied that Australian troops had planted proof on the our bodies of killed Afghanis as a way to cowl up the truth that that they had been murdered – a follow apparently generally known as “throwdowns”. He admitted, nonetheless, that he had heard that different Western troops engaged on this follow.
• He denied that he had machine-gunned to dying an unarmed Afghani captive, who had a prosthetic leg, after he had surrendered. The prosthetic leg was the notorious trophy later used as a ingesting vessel by Australian troops. Roberts-Smith stated that the Afghani was armed and that he had killed him with two rounds.
• He denied killing an unarmed farmer, whose palms had been handcuffed behind him, by kicking him over a cliff and ordering one other soldier to kill him. “It didn’t occur… That’s fully false,” he stated.
• He denied that he took half within the killing of an unarmed detainee by a younger Australian soldier as a way to “blood the rookie”. Apparently, Owens stated that the defendants could be calling the Assistant Minister for Defence, Andrew Hastie, to present proof in relation to this incident. Hastie is a former SAS officer who was current when this killing allegedly occurred.
• He denied killing an previous Afghani man who had been captured in a tunnel.
• He denied falsifying official navy studies as a way to cowl up his illegal actions in Afghanistan.
• He denied bullying and assaulting former SAS colleagues in Afghanistan who knew that he had dedicated illegal killings.
• He denied saying to at least one former SAS colleague “watch your again…(or you’ll) …cop a bullet in your head”.
• He denied sending an nameless threatening letter to a former SAS colleague as a way to cease him giving proof crucial about Roberts-Smith to an inquiry.
• He denied threatening a former SAS colleague as a way to stop him from giving proof towards him in his defamation motion.
• He denied pressuring different SAS colleagues into giving false proof for him.
• He admitted destroying a laptop computer in 2018 by setting fireplace to it and “wiping” one other laptop computer, however denied that he had carried out this as a way to destroy incriminating proof.
• He denied “imperilling nationwide safety” by retaining labeled surveillance footage and mission studies from Afghanistan on his pc, however admitted that doing so was “a poor resolution”.

All in all it was a quite tough week for the Victoria Cross winner, who Owens accused of giving “intentionally false”, “fully disingenuous” and “conflated” proof.

Whereas Roberts-Smith didn’t make any severely damning admissions throughout cross-examination, and his anticipated denials are wonderful so far as they go, Owens nonetheless fairly successfully constructed up an image of gross misconduct and duplicity on the plaintiff’s half.

It now stays to be seen whether or not the newspapers can show that this image is correct – by the use of admissible proof.

Roberts-Smith’s cross-examination has not but concluded, and the result of this trial now seems more likely to activate whether or not the proof to be led by the defendants is credible or not.

The newspapers suggest to name 21 former SAS colleagues of Roberts-Smith and 4 Afghanis to present detailed proof in respect of the six murders allegedly dedicated by the warfare hero.

If their proof is believed – and counsel for Roberts-Smith has already branded the troopers who’re to present proof as bitter, jealous and unreliable – then Roberts-Smith will lose. A lot will rely on how these key witnesses carry out beneath cross-examination.

So as to succeed of their defence of fact – which is the one viable defence on this case – the newspapers do not need to show that Roberts-Smith was responsible of all six alleged murders. A pair would most likely suffice.

Additionally on rt.com

The proof to be given by Liberal MP Andrew Hastie will likely be of specific curiosity on this regard. The incident that Hastie is alleged to have witnessed was notably horrific, and if he provides an eyewitness account fixing Roberts-Smith with guilt, this may create a significant issue for the plaintiff. 

The defendants additionally suggest to name Roberts-Smith’s ex-wife – most likely to present proof in respect of the allegations of pressuring witnesses and destroying proof.

Roberts-Smith has foreshadowed calling former Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, who’s now Director of the Australian Battle Memorial, to present proof as to his good repute previous to publication of the articles on the middle of the case.

Roberts-Smith’s cross-examination will proceed subsequent week, and the defendants will then lead proof from their witnesses.

The trial is anticipated to final for one more six weeks, and it’s sure to disclose extra damning revelations in regards to the conduct of Australian troops in Afghanistan earlier than it lastly concludes.

Like this story? Share it with a pal!