smh.com.au
Roberts-Smith Defamation Case: Federal Court Upholds War Crimes Allegations
The Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously rejected Ben Roberts-Smith's appeal, upholding the original ruling that dismissed his defamation case against The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age for articles alleging war crimes in Afghanistan, costing him and his backer over \$30 million.
- What are the immediate consequences of the Federal Court's final ruling in the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case?
- The Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously upheld the 2023 ruling that dismissed Ben Roberts-Smith's defamation case against The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This decision ends Roberts-Smith's attempts to refute allegations of war crimes committed during his deployment in Afghanistan, costing him and his backer over \$30 million. The ruling reinforces the initial findings of war crimes against Roberts-Smith.
- How did the investigative journalism that led to this case overcome obstacles to expose alleged war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan?
- This verdict concludes years of litigation stemming from investigative journalism exposing alleged war crimes by Australian SAS soldiers in Afghanistan. The case highlights challenges faced by investigative journalists in uncovering and reporting on such sensitive topics, including obstacles from official sources and the passage of time. The court's decision validates the journalists' reporting and the testimonies of Afghan victims and whistleblowers.
- What are the broader implications of this case for military accountability in Australia and the ongoing pursuit of justice for victims of alleged war crimes?
- The ongoing lack of accountability for alleged war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, despite the Brereton inquiry's findings, remains a significant concern. Fewer than 10 soldiers have faced consequences, and Roberts-Smith, despite the court's decision, retains his Victoria Cross. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the Australian military justice system and the broader implications for military accountability.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative strongly emphasizes Roberts-Smith's guilt and the success of the journalists in exposing his alleged war crimes. The headline and introduction immediately establish a tone of vindication for the journalists and condemnation of Roberts-Smith. The sequencing of information places the weight of evidence against Roberts-Smith early on, shaping the reader's understanding before presenting some counterarguments or contextual information. The framing tends to portray the journalists as heroes fighting against a powerful adversary to reveal the truth, while depicting Roberts-Smith as a villain attempting to suppress that truth.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "war criminal", "murder of four unarmed prisoners", "repugnant behaviour", and "tarnished VC". These terms convey strong negative connotations and influence reader perception. More neutral alternatives might be 'alleged war crimes', 'allegations of unlawful killings', 'actions under investigation', and 'military medal under review'. The repeated references to Roberts-Smith as lacking "honour, credit or credibility" reflect a judgment that is not explicitly supported by the court's verdict, and adds to the negative tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on Roberts-Smith's legal battles and the evidence against him, but gives less attention to the perspectives and experiences of the Afghan families affected by the alleged war crimes. While acknowledging the challenges in obtaining information and the limitations of space, the lack of detailed accounts from Afghan victims and their families constitutes a significant omission. The article also omits details on the specific actions taken against the other soldiers implicated in the Brereton report beyond the mention of a few having medals stripped. This omission might leave the reader with an incomplete understanding of the overall consequences of the inquiry.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified dichotomy between Roberts-Smith's actions and the journalists' reporting, potentially neglecting the complexities of military operations, the chain of command and the challenges of investigating events that took place many years ago in a foreign warzone. While acknowledging obstacles, it doesn't fully explore nuances such as the potential for misinterpretations or differing interpretations of events. The article also frames the situation as either Roberts-Smith being guilty or the journalists being right, neglecting the possibility of shades of gray or partial truths.
Sustainable Development Goals
The court case and its outcome contribute to accountability for alleged war crimes, upholding the rule of law and promoting justice. The article highlights the importance of investigating and addressing allegations of human rights abuses by military personnel, which is crucial for maintaining peace and strong institutions. The long legal battle, while costly, ultimately led to a verdict that affirms the importance of journalistic integrity in uncovering the truth, even when facing powerful opposition.