Comentário sobre a sua postagem "Downer defends deadly Digger":
"To fire on someone in self-defence is within the rules of engagement."
That is very true but, surely, the question here is WHO decides that self-defence is applicable or indeed needed?
I do not know what happened during the incident but it is plainly obvious that both parties need to be heard before conclusions are taken.
This is what happens when you have a military force abroad, acting independently by not submitting to a UN command.
Now what happens? The refugees are obviously revolted with the situation and future problems will have to be dealt by the UN police.
It is ridiculous that while ADFs mission is to assist and protect the UN police, they are actually creating more trouble to their UN partners.
ADF IS NEITHER TRAINED NOR EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH PUBLIC ORDER MATTERS - is it such a difficult concept to understand?
sexta-feira, fevereiro 23, 2007
Dos leitores
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
4 comentários:
All ADF personnel as with AFP have under the agreement with the host government , indemnity from prosecution under Timor-Leste law. To say they will be investigated by UN and Timor-Leste auhtorities is nonsense. They cannot porsecute him anyway. The previous blogger is also right in that self defence needs to raised and proved. It is under Australian criminal law a defence to a charge of homicide, to be proved by the accused or a person under investigation. It is always safer for an incident causing death to be subject of at least a pre-trial hearing like a committal hearing or coroners inquest.
Given the heightened tension between ADF personnel and Easterners it is neccessary for the sake of transparency.
Questions might be relevant to self defence including whether or not orders are being followed from a superior which might assist the soldier from proving his innocence.
Given what I have heard some officers, with rank as high as Colonel say about easterners (such as "Alkatiri's dogs", "rebels", "Taur Matan Ruak's militia" etc) the state of mind at the time the soldier attended at the IDP camp is extremely relevant.
This could bring to the open questions such as those about political bias or other influencing non military operational factors. These factors are well and truly public knowledge here in East Timor and little known by your average Aussie.
There is alot which needs to be sorted thorugh before we can just say "self defence". What were the actions of the soldiers prior to the attack? Was the youth acting in self defence protecting hinself and his family in retaliating against the soldiers or others soldiers threat to his or his families life or person? These are all relevant questions.
But what Mr Downer meant to say was: "This boy is a white digger. The other fellow was a half baked savage. He probably desreved it. " As if to say, the right to bear arms and defend yourself, is exclusively that of the powerful and developed. Not the weak and under developed.
What complete and utter rubbish the previous comment is. I have extensive experience of the Australian soldiers in Dili and I am also a resident. I have NEVER heard any Australian soldier refer to 'easterners' as "Alkatiris dogs" or "rebels" or any other derogatory term.
The Australian soldiers here are doing a difficult job under very restricted circumstances.
Oh, and I am not an Australian.
Tradução:
Dos leitores
Comentário sobre a sua postagem "Downer defends deadly Digger":
"Disparar contra alguém em auto-defesa está de acordo com as regras de engajamento."
Isto é muito verdade, mas com certeza que a questão aqui é QUEM é que decide se a auto-defesa é aplicável ou na verdade necessária?
Não sei o que aconteceu durante o incidente mas é francamente óbvio que é preciso ouvir ambas as partes antes de se tirarem conclusões.
É isto que acontece quando se tem uma força militar no estrangeiro, a actuar independentemente para não se submeter a um comando da ONU.
Agora, o que é que vai acontecer? Os deslocados estão obviamente revoltados com a situação e terá que ser a polícia da ONU a resolver os problemas no futuro.
É ridículo que sendo a missão da ADF assistir e proteger a polícia da ONU, estão actualmente a criar mais problemas para os seus parceiros da ONU.
A ADF NÃO ESTÁ NEM TREINADA NEM EQUIPADA PARA LIDAR COM QUESTÕES DE ORDEM PÚBLICA – é este um conceito tão difícil de entender?
The two Australian diggers that fired and killed the two poor timorese, are so efficient that I recommend Mr Downer send them to Iraq.
Ze Cinico
Enviar um comentário