Radschool Association Inc Magazine

“Covid Needle”. No author. Probably a good thing that way you don’t embarrass yourself. This piece was a fiction piece based on nothing. Not one part was even close to being accurate. (Brendan - all you have to do is use Mr Google - HERE is one author.)

It’s been well known for a long time that anti-vaxers make up 1-2% of a population. In Australia we have 5% to 10% who will not take the jab. 25% in the UK and 30% in the US. The largest group of people that are not taking the jab are people who have PhDs. They take their flu vaccine every year, plus every other vaccine. One gentleman here in Australia that writes opinion pieces, is ex military, travelled the world extensively, published his WHO Yellow Card showing he has been vaccinated with 24 different vaccines. He will not be taking this jab.

The reason these people are not taking the jab is because they have all done their due diligence and found these jabs to be highly dangerous. And as of January the 8^th, from the TGA adverse events (from the jab) report, 726 deaths. 97,404 adverse reactions including 1688 suspected pericarditis cases and 786 suspected myocarditis cases. The TGA has now for the first time begrudgingly and partially recognized pericarditis and myocarditis. The percentages of these on CDC VAERS is way higher. The CDC now recognize more than half the reported deaths are from the jab. (Fact check – tb) The rate for the under 25 age group developing pericarditis and myocarditis is around ~ 1 in 2,331. The overall mortality rate for the jab is 1 in 14,000 and the rate of serious and permanent side effect, such as paralysis, is 1 in 2,200 (Fact check – tb) . There are 100,000 people paralyzed in the US from the jab. The rate of miscarriage for women that take the jab in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is 82%

These are by far the most dangerous drugs ever unleashed on the human population. See attached and below.

Vaccine death report

https://www.stopworldcontrol.com/downloads/en/vaccines/vaccinereport.pdf

The COVID vaccines are the most dangerous vaccines in human history... by a long shot

The smallpox vaccine used to be the most dangerous vaccine in human history. The COVID vaccines are over 800 times more deadly.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/according-to-dr-paul-offit-we-should

Referring to the attached Why and How the vaccines do not work and are dangerous. This is the real medical science, not the politicised science dished up by governments and government bureaucrats. (Fact check – tb)

The jab induced antibodies do not produce the secretory IgA antibody. Which means they cannot and will not effectively protect the mucous membranes from infection by SARS-CoV-2.

That is aside from the fact that there is zero scientific evidence based on experiment that shows the gene sequence and jab induced antibodies can even recognize the real spike protein as opposed to the jab induced synthetic spike protein, which is quite different from the real one. The jab induced antibodies fight off and kill the synthetic spike protein but there have been zero clinical experiments that show they fight against the real spike protein. They are not game to conduct those experiments because they know what the answer is. They don’t work. Both the drug companies and regulatory authorities have recommended these clinical experiments not be conducted.

Anybody want to know why we’ve got 100,000 daily infections amongst fully jabbed individuals? (Fact check – tb)

In fighting off the synthetic spike protein, your body attacks itself. The most attacked organ is the heart.

I take my medical advice from the world’s leading epidemiologists. There are thousands but dozens who really stand out. Dr Peter McCullough is the most published and cited medical scientist in the world on this subject with some 400 peer reviewed papers and 115,000 citations. Dr Robert Malone invented this gene therapy vaccine technology. What he doesn’t know no one knows. (Fact: Some of McCullough's public statements contributed to the spread of COVID-19 misinformation.)

And these drugs are not vaccines. Anthony Fauci tried to patent the spike protein as a vaccine in 2003 and his application was rejected because it did not meet the patentable, legal or clinical definition of a vaccine in that it did not confer immunity to any specific disease. The drug companies have patented them all as gene therapy.

I have been saying for some time that Australia would have a summer wave and we certainly are. The northern hemisphere had summer waves and Australia was never going to be any different. We now have approximately 120,000 daily new cases. (Fact check – tb) And they are all fully jabbed. These infectious outbreaks are all emanating out of venues where you can’t get in to unless you are fully jabbed. We never get a summer wave from viruses. This is caused by ADE – Antibody Dependent Enhancement which in turn is caused by failed vaccines. They make the virus way worse.

Trying to vaccinate your way out of a pandemic is a failed policy. All that does is create a breeding ground for more variants.

Everyone that has taken the jab have had their innate immune systems destroyed. The jab induced anti-bodies, that are variant specific and dominant, destroy your natural antibodies that are variant non specific. That destruction is permanent and transmissible to offspring. The medical terminology is called Vaccine Induced Autoimmune Suppression. Thousands of the world’s leading immunologists are now talking about this. The jabbed, with no natural immune system, are now prone to getting infected by anything and everything. Any virus or any variant of any virus. And they are. 120,000 a day. These are all fully jabbed, attending venues, getting infected and transmitting the disease to all the other fully jabbed people. It is impossible for these people to ever attain a life long immunity to the virus. They will keep getting infected with it over and over and over again. Indeed a fully jabbed Australian Open tennis player has stated he has had the disease twice. Their lives are now dependant on vaccines. With 90% of the population fully jabbed it is also now impossible for there to ever be herd immunity in Australia. Only the unjabbed can attain life long immunity post infection and recovery. The jabbed are now the super spreaders. There’s an urgent need to protect the unjabbed from the jabbed. The authorities are trying to protect the jabbed from the unjabbed. That will achieve absolutely nothing but division. There is no medical basis for that, it is a political decision.

And these vaccines just don’t work. 120,000 infections a day proves that. I see the authorities, who used to say get jabbed and you’ll be protected, are now pulling out spin. They are now saying the number of people in hospital or in ICU are all unjabbed proving the jabs work. NSW health minister let the cat out of the bag on that. 74% of everyone in hospital are suffering from the delta variant. 62% of those have had either one or no jabs. They are lumping those that have had one jab into the unjabbed basket instead of the jabbed basket and not saying exactly how many have had no jabs. 62% of 74% is 45% That means that 55% being hospitalized or in ICU are fully jabbed. The actual number that are both fully or partially jabbed will be in the high 90% The number that are fully unjabbed is obviously very small because they will not publish that number. That’s obviously an embarrassingly small number. The media and the bureaucrats are using the 62% to say most people in hospital are unvaccinated, a total lie.

We’ve been told for the past 2 years that the jabs have a 90% efficacy rate against infection. Numerous epidemiologists, who have subjugated their medical professions to their politics, along with the political bureaucrats, have been saying this. Now the global socialist movement that are well coordinated globally are now saying all in one voice simultaneously starting with Fauci, we are all going to get infected. That means the efficacy rate is now 0% They have had a 100% turnaround in their opinions without any explanation as to why they were wrong for the past 2 years.

The health authorities keep saying that the jabs will stop you from getting seriously ill and dying. I am yet to have any medical scientist explain to me how a gene sequence, that is totally incapable of recognizing the natural virus and protecting you from getting infected, but it will miraculously save you from ICU and death. Whoever believes that is living in la la land. These are the same people who told us for the past 2 years the jabs have a 90% efficacy rate from infection now expect us to believe them when they say don’t worry you won’t die. None of this is based on any medical science, it is based on a model that is based on an assumption.

Additionally there is a lag between infection and death of some 6 weeks and approximately 4 weeks to hospitalization. The health authorities are deliberately ignoring that in order to spin any lie that the jabs are working. Wait a few more weeks and they’ll all be fully jabbed and you’ll get no more reports on hospitalizations. We know this because we have the figures from the UK and Israel. Israel is up to their 4th shot. You have to laugh at the logic. Take a 4th shot because the first three didn’t work.

The hospitals have been getting paid a $30,000 bonus funding if they get patients on a ventilator and a further $3,000 bonus if they register a covid death. The hospitals are being paid by the government to kill covid patients. Part of the scare campaign to con everyone into taking a frankenshot and letting the government control their lives. The shots are killing way more people than the virus.

No one gets treated for Covid unless you organize your own treatment. If you get infected you isolate at home. No treatment. No one even rings to see if you’re OK. When you get crook you go to hospital. The hospital does not treat you, they monitor you. When you get really crook they give you oxygen and put you on a ventilator.

The PM is now amending the definition of hospitalization. To now, most admissions were for something other than covid. They gave these a mandatory test and many tested positive and they became covid hospitalizations. The PM now wants just covid hospitalizations recorded. Why did he not do that 2 years ago? He has been using the scary numbers into forcing people to take the kill shots. Now most have, he wants to get back to normal. I’ve said before and I’ll say again. The next change will be the definition of death. 96% of deaths are people that died with, not from, covid. That is from CDC published data. Italy just amended their death definition and they lowered their official covid deaths from 130,000 to 4,000, a 97% reduction. Once that has been done the PM will then come out and say, look, the vaccines have worked, hospitalization are down and deaths are down, we can now go back to normal.

Those that don’t take the kill shots have PhDs and the intellectual knowledge to research the latest medical science. This compares to those who take the shots because the government and their political bureaucrats tell them to and dream up their own science to justify their position.

Brendan Godwin

Weather Observations & General Meteorology

Radio (EMR & Radar) Technical Officer

Bureau of Meteorology (Retired)

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brendan-Godwin

https://www.essoar.org/author/Godwin, Brendan

Brendan – while you have every right to say and think as you do, I also have every right to disagree with you – which I do, vehemently. tb.

That's how I see myself in the future

Except with a different coloured shirt - I don't like brown.

The Returned.

Mike Bluett from Wildbear TV is producing a 4-part documentary series for the ABC called, THE RETURNED which explores the experience of return from service. In the series we'll look at how our service men and women experience return, how their families and communities experience return, how the returned have shaped Australian history and culture, and how we honour our returned. The series takes a wide chronological view beginning in the aftermath of World War One right through to the present day. It's a fascinating story.

If anyone has any suggestions about the series or could suggest anyone I might talk to, please let me know. I live in Buderim so would be happy to drop by for a chat.

My email is mike.bluett@wildbear.tv and phone contact 0415 783 622

Ukraine.

Back on the 25^th February, one day after Russia invaded Ukraine, Lawrence Freedman, KCMG, CBE, PC, FBA, an Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King's College London wrote a precis of his thoughts on the situation in Ukraine.

It is very interesting reading and you can get a copy HERE.

A wake up call – Green Politics.

Michael Shellenberger

How has Vladimir Putin—a man ruling a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas, with an average life expectancy 10 years lower than that of France—managed to launch an unprovoked full-scale assault on Ukraine?

There is a deep psychological, political and almost civilizational answer to that question: He wants Ukraine to be part of Russia more than the West wants it to be free. He is willing to risk tremendous loss of life and treasure to get it. There are serious limits to how much the U.S. and Europe are willing to do militarily. And Putin knows it.

Missing from that explanation, though, is a story about material reality and basic economics—two things that Putin seems to understand far better than his counterparts in the free world and especially in Europe.

Putin knows that Europe produces 3.6 million barrels of oil a day but uses 15 million barrels of oil a day. Putin knows that Europe produces 230 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year but uses 560 billion cubic meters. He knows that Europe uses 950 million tons of coal a year but produces half that.

The former KGB agent knows Russia produces 11 million barrels of oil per day but only uses 3.4 million. He knows Russia now produces over 700 billion cubic meters of gas a year but only uses around 400 billion. Russia mines 800 million tons of coal each year but uses 300.

That’s how Russia ends up supplying about 20 percent of Europe’s oil, 40 percent of its gas and 20 percent of its coal. The math is simple. A child could do it.

The reason Europe didn’t have a muscular deterrent threat to prevent Russian aggression—and in fact prevented the U.S. from getting allies to do more—is that it needs Putin’s oil and gas.

The question is why.

How is it possible that European countries, Germany especially, allowed themselves to become so dependent on an authoritarian country over the 30 years since the end of the Cold War?

Here’s how:

These countries are in the grips of a delusional ideology that makes them incapable of understanding the hard realities of energy production. Green ideology insists we don’t need nuclear and that we don’t need fracking. It insists that it’s just a matter of will and money to switch to all-renewables—and fast. It insists that we need “degrowth” of the economy and that we face looming human “extinction.” (I would know. I myself was once a true believer.)

John Kerry, the United States’ climate envoy, perfectly captured the myopia of this view when he said, in the days before the war, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “could have a profound negative impact on the climate, obviously. You have a war and obviously you’re going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you’re going to lose people’s focus.”

But it was the West’s focus on healing the planet with “soft energy” renewables and moving away from natural gas and nuclear, that allowed Putin to gain a stranglehold over Europe’s energy supply. As the West fell into a hypnotic trance about healing its relationship with nature, averting climate apocalypse and worshiping a teenager named Greta, Vladimir Putin made his moves.

While he expanded nuclear energy at home so Russia could export its precious oil and gas to Europe, Western governments spent their time and energy obsessing over “carbon footprints,” a term created by an advertising firm working for British Petroleum. They banned plastic straws because of a 9-year-old Canadian child’s science homework. They paid for hours of “climate anxiety” therapy.

While Putin expanded Russia’s oil production, expanded natural gas production and then doubled nuclear energy production to allow more exports of its precious gas, Europe, led by Germany, shut down its nuclear power plants, closed gas fields and refused to develop more through advanced methods like fracking. The numbers tell the story best. In 2016, 30 percent of the natural gas consumed by the European Union came from Russia. In 2018, that figure jumped to 40 percent. By 2020, it was nearly 44 percent and by early 2021, it was nearly 47 percent.

For all his fawning over Putin, Donald Trump, back in 2018, defied diplomatic protocol to call out Germany publicly for its dependence on Moscow. “Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia,” Trump said. This prompted Germany’s then-chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had been widely praised in polite circles for being the last serious leader in the West, to say that her country “can make our own policies and make our own decisions.”

The result has been the worst global energy crisis since 1973, driving prices for electricity and gasoline higher around the world. It is a crisis, fundamentally, of inadequate supply. But the scarcity is entirely manufactured.

Europeans—led by figures like Greta Thunberg and European Green Party leaders and supported by Americans like John Kerry—believed that a healthy relationship with the Earth requires making energy scarce. By turning to renewables, they would show the world how to live without harming the planet. But this was a pipe dream. You can’t power a whole grid with solar and wind, because the sun and the wind are inconstant and currently existing batteries aren’t even cheap enough to store large quantities of electricity overnight, much less across whole seasons.

In service to green ideology, they made the perfect the enemy of the good—and of Ukraine.

Germany.

Green campaigns have succeeded in destroying German energy independence—they call it Energiewende, or “energy turnaround”—by successfully selling policymakers on a peculiar version of environmentalism. It calls climate change a near-term apocalyptic threat to human survival while turning up its nose at the technologies that can help address climate change most and soonest: nuclear and natural gas.

At the turn of the millennium, Germany’s electricity was around 30 percent nuclear-powered. But Germany has been sacking its reliable, inexpensive nuclear plants. (Thunberg called nuclear power “extremely dangerous, expensive and time-consuming” despite the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change deeming it necessary and every major scientific review deeming nuclear the safest way to make reliable power.)

By 2020, Germany had reduced its nuclear share from 30 percent to 11 percent. Then, on the last day of 2021, Germany shut down half of its remaining six nuclear reactors. The other three are slated for shutdown at the end of this year. (Compare this to next-door France, which fulfills 70 percent of its electricity needs with carbon-free nuclear plants.)

Germany has also spent lavishly on weather-dependent renewables—to the tune of $36 billion a year—mainly solar panels and industrial wind turbines. But those have their problems. Solar panels have to go somewhere and a solar plant in Europe needs 400 to 800 times more land than natural gas or nuclear plants to make the same amount of power. Farmland has to be cut apart to host solar. And solar energy is getting cheaper these days mainly because Europe’s supply of solar panels is produced by slave labor in concentration camps as part of China’s genocide against Uighur Muslims.

The upshot here is that you can’t spend enough on climate initiatives to fix things if you ignore nuclear and gas. Between 2015 and 2025, Germany’s efforts to green its energy production will have cost $580 billion. Yet despite this enormous investment, German electricity still costs 50 percent more than nuclear-friendly France’s and generating it produces eight times more carbon emissions per unit. Plus, Germany is getting over a third of its energy from Russia.

Germany has trapped itself. It could burn more coal and undermine its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Or it could use more natural gas, which generates half the carbon emissions of coal, but at the cost of dependence on imported Russian gas. Berlin was faced with a choice between unleashing the wrath of Putin on neighbouring countries or inviting the wrath of (that spoilt brat) Greta Thunberg. They chose Putin.

Because of these policy choices, Vladimir Putin could turn off the gas flows to Germany and quickly threaten Germans’ ability to cook or stay warm. He or his successor will hold this power for every foreseeable winter barring big changes. It’s as if you knew that hackers had stolen your banking details, but you won’t change your password.

This is why.

Germany successfully begged the incoming Biden administration not to oppose a contentious new gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2. This cut against the priorities of green-minded governance: On day one of Biden’s presidency, one of the new administration's first acts was to shut down the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. in service to climate ideology. But Russia’s pipeline was too important to get the same treatment given how dependent Germany is on Russian imports. (Once Russia invaded, Germany was finally dragged into nixing Nord Stream 2, - for now.)

Naturally, when American sanctions on Russia’s biggest banks were finally announced in concert with European allies last week, they specifically exempted energy products so Russia and Europe can keep doing that dirty business. A few voices called for what would really hit Russia where it hurts: cutting off energy imports. But what actually happened was that European energy utilities jumped to buy more contracts for the Russian oil and gas that flows through Ukraine. That’s because they have no other good options right now, after green activism’s attacks on nuclear and importing fracked gas from America. There’s no current plan for powering Europe that doesn’t involve buying from Putin.

Conclusion.

We should take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a wake-up call. Standing up for Western civilization this time requires cheap, abundant and reliable energy supplies produced at home or in allied nations. National security, economic growth and sustainability requires greater reliance on nuclear and natural gas and less on solar panels and wind turbines, which make electricity too expensive.

The first and most obvious thing that should be done is for President Biden to call on German Chancellor Scholz to restart the three nuclear reactors that Germany closed in December. A key step in the right direction came on Sunday when Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, the economy and climate minister, announced that Germany would at least consider stopping its phaseout of nuclear. If Germany turns these three on and cancels plans to turn off the three others, those six should produce enough electricity to replace 11 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year—an eighth of Germany’s current needs.

Sgt’s Mess, Phan Rang.

Ron Ostrenski got in touch, he asks if anyone has a colour photo of the Sgt’s Mess sign at Phang Rang, it has a Cobra Snake on it.

If you can help please send it to us and we’ll forward it onto Ron.

More Green stuff.

That little yellow thing in the pic opposite is a bulldozer. It is burying windmill blades used to produce green energy. Why? Because these blades need to be disposed of and there is presently no way to recycle them. That’s how green energy works!

The lifespan of a modern, top quality, highly efficient wind turbine is 20 years. After that, then what? What happens to those gigantic fibre composite blades? They cannot economically be reused, refurbished, reduced, repurposed, or recycled so guess what! It's off to special landfills they go.

Those blades are anywhere from 35 metres to over 60 metres long and there are 3 per turbine. And that's with only 10% of the nation currently being supplied with wind energy. Just imagine if we had the other 90% of the nation on the wind grid... 20 years from now you'd have all those unusable blades with no place to put them... Then 20 years after that and 20 years after that and so on.

Hello there, how green is that?

I'm so glad the wind energy people are looking out for the world.

Thanks.

We had a nice mail from Meredith Nestor, (we do get a few - not a lot), she wrote: “I recently discovered your excellent website and found the photo of my mother's recruit course 006 WRAAF RTC Pt Cook June 1951.

Mum was delighted to see the photo, she is 88, lives independently and still remembers everyone she served with. Would you please make the following corrections?

Ella Colman (not Coleman)
The course was conducted at RAAF Pearce in WA (not Pt Cook in Vic)
The course graduated 27 April 1951 (not June 1951).

My father Michael Nestor also served as a Navigator, on a short service commission, and rejoined later as an Air Traffic Controller.

Thank you for making so much history accessible, a magnificent achievement, and for the great joy your website has brought to my Mum”.

(Our pleasure Meredith – and thanks, we’ve made the changes. tb)

Fire Trucks.

Greg Bland got in touch, he says: Greetings, I am conducting research to help in the restoration of a RAAF Fire Service 1958-75 Truck Early Rescue based on the Dodge Power Wagon. I am asking what brand and type of two way radios were fitted to these vehicles. Any and all information I receive from members of this association will be greatly appreciated.

If you can help Greg, let us know and we’ll pass on the info.

Ben Roberts-Smith, VC.

Noel Pearson

War crime allegations must be tested in the right forum.

The trial of Victoria Cross medallist Ben Roberts-Smith for war crimes should result in a judgment for defamation in his favour in respect of the claims made by respondent media that he committed murder during his war service in Afghanistan. Melbourne barrister Matt Collins got it right in a Sydney Morning Herald commentary last June that the Roberts-Smith saga was a war crimes trial masquerading as defamation proceedings.

This case has been troubling from the beginning. That an Australian soldier who has served the country in overseas combat, not least one decorated with the highest possible recognition that could be conferred on behalf of the nation, has been subjected to a public destruction in the way he is, is profoundly disturbing. It is true Roberts-Smith initiated this defamation action, but it has turned out to be an unfair war crimes trial.

My argument is simple. The evidence adduced in the defamation proceedings so far confirms what the public already knows or assumed: Ben Roberts-Smith committed acts of killing in war. There is no dispute Roberts-Smith committed killings in Afghanistan. Indeed, it is for killing that he earned his Victoria Cross. But killing in wartime service is lawful and is not murder.

The respondent media claimed Roberts-Smith committed killings in Afghanistan amounting to war crimes. They have presented witnesses, including former Special Forces soldiers who served with Roberts-Smith, who support the allegations against him. But this testimony only confirms the truth of killing. It does not and cannot confirm the truth of murder.

In January 2019, Roberts-Smith brought proceedings for defamation against Fairfax Media, a subsidiary of Nine Entertainment, for a series of reports that made serious claims against Roberts-Smith, including the grave claim of having committed war crimes in Afghanistan. The claims also related to alleged domestic violence in Australia.

There is no doubt the reports were defamatory of his reputation. The question in defamation proceedings is whether the reports were legally justified. The media respondents are basing their defence against Roberts-Smith’s case on the ground of truth. But this is an impossible defence, and it exposes the absurdity of legal proceedings seeking to establish the truth of criminal wrongdoing in a civil court. For starters, how could the truth of murder, a crime which requires guilt to be established beyond reasonable doubt, be proven in a civil court, which adjudges truth in defamation proceedings on the balance of probabilities? Essentially, Roberts-Smith is at risk of being found guilty of murder on the balance of probabilities.

Whatever truth emerges from the evidence being presented to Justice Anthony Besanko (right) in the Federal Court, plainly, it cannot be the truth of murder, therefore the evidence presented to the court seeking to establish Roberts-Smith’s war crimes is redundant.

It can never amount to truth because Roberts-Smith was an Australian soldier serving in lawful combat. Witnesses, including his fellow soldiers, the investigating media and we the interested public may find these killings unnecessary, questionable and morally repugnant, but we cannot say they were unlawful. Roberts-Smith and all serving soldiers must be able to rely upon the lawfulness of their killing when serving in combat.

If there are grounds showing that soldiers have gone beyond lawful conduct and committed war crimes, then there are laws and procedures that govern such circumstances and soldiers can and should be prosecuted under them. In my view, the core issue facing this case is a question of law, not fact. The question of law is: can a publisher that accuses a soldier of murder or war crimes during lawful war service rely on a defence of truth in response to a defamation action?

My point is that if Roberts-Smith is alleged to have committed war crimes, then he should be prosecuted and his innocence or guilt determined by appropriate war crime proceedings. In the absence of war crime charges and convictions, Roberts-Smith and any soldier who serves the country should be able to rely on the presumption that their killing in combat was lawful. This means their reputations and honour should not be impugned by public reportage that purport to present truths that have never been established according to the proper procedures of military justice.

When they are impugned, then they should be entitled to redress in the civil courts for defamation. I have read the heavily redacted report of the Brereton Inquiry. The report produced by Major General Paul Brereton in October 2020 for the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force sets out disturbing findings indicative of misconduct by special forces soldiers serving in Afghanistan, and potential war crimes. The case of Roberts-Smith was likely canvassed in the Brereton report but, because of the appropriate redactions, this cannot be confirmed. Brereton made a number of recommendations, the principal being that 23 cases of alleged unlawful killings by 19 Australian soldiers should be investigated. The recommendation was that these investigations be undertaken by the Australian Federal Police. Any war crimes prosecutions ultimately require initiation by the Commonwealth Attorney-General.

The campaign in Afghanistan turned out to be a disaster, with the US and its allies, including Australia, cutting and running from what in the end was an ignominious defeat. It would be a strange result indeed if Roberts-Smith is found to have committed war crimes in civil proceedings, as the final wash-up of that long and ill-fated campaign. Which currently serving or future serviceman or woman would serve our country in combat knowing that any killing in which they are involved will not only be subject to the proper laws of war and military justice, but also trial by media?

The investigating media are in a tricky position. They must not be restrained in their investigation of any aspect of the conduct of war but they must be careful in how they present their investigations to the public insofar as the reputations of individual combatants are concerned. The presumption that soldiers undertaking killing in war are engaged in lawful conduct is one that should only be set aside when the law governing war crimes is properly invoked and the accused found guilty. This is the least that servicemen and women should be assured of by the nation that sends them to war.

It is not necessary to feel sympathy for Roberts-Smith or to believe he is a soldier or man of good character in order to accept my argument here. My concern is with the principle that persons who have served in our armed forces be dealt with fairly in relation to their service on the country’s behalf.

The court should rule that the media respondents cannot avail themselves of truth as a defence to their accusations that he committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Whether Roberts-Smith or any other special forces personnel are prosecuted for their conduct in Afghanistan is a matter for the process recommended by the Brereton Inquiry.

Noel Pearson is a director of Cape York Partnership and co-chair of Good to Great Schools Australia

Possible Outcomes of the Russo-Ukrainian War and China’s Choice.

THIS is an interesting opinion of what will result from the war in Ukraine – interesting reading.

Back Go to page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Forward