The Brereton Report

[The Atheist]

Defence starts dismissing SAS soldiers in wake of Afghanistan war crimes inquiry

Surely that's the start of the brownwash?

They're not being charged with being accessories, as would normally be the case outside the army.

Also, no mention of whether they retain pension & other benefits. Getting the sack's a fairly light punishment for covering up murders.

 

[lionking]

Surely that's the start of the brownwash?

They're not being charged with being accessories, as would normally be the case outside the army.

Also, no mention of whether they retain pension & other benefits. Getting the sack's a fairly light punishment for covering up murders.

No. None of those named in the Brereton Report were among the sacked soldiers. A far more serious fate awaits them.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The military lawyer who leaked the classified documents to the media that led to this report is currently undergoing prosecution. People have now started calling for those charges to be dropped. I agree. Whistleblowing this situation is grounds for praise, not criminal charges.

Shouldn't he both be praised and prosecuted? He violated a duty. I don't see why that should be waived.

 

[gnome]

Shouldn't he both be praised and prosecuted? He violated a duty. I don't see why that should be waived.

It should be waived if the internal systems for accountability failed so badly that a press leak was the only way it came to justice. Shall they be more consistent at enforcing secrecy than addressing internal crimes?

 

[BobTheCoward]

It should be waived if the internal systems for accountability failed so badly that a press leak was the only way it came to justice. Shall they be more consistent at enforcing secrecy than addressing internal crimes?

He violated his duty and should be punished. The fact he had to do the right thing doesn't modify the other duty. Praise for adhering to duties and punishment for disobeying.


What is this weird western notion that a single resolution needs to be assigned to someone's mixed duties in aggregate?

 

[gnome]

I don't know if I'm insisting on a single resolution in all situations--but in this situation, punishment would make it likely that the next person in his shoes will just shut their mouth and let the wrongdoing continue, and I would rather that not be.

 

[psionl0]

He violated his duty and should be punished. The fact he had to do the right thing doesn't modify the other duty. Praise for adhering to duties and punishment for disobeying.


What is this weird western notion that a single resolution needs to be assigned to someone's mixed duties in aggregate?

If you are arguing that he should expect to be punished for leaking the documents then absolutely. He has embarrassed some powerful people and they will want their revenge.

If you are arguing that morally he should be punished then I disagree. There is a strong case for declining to prosecute - even if the letter of the law says that he can be prosecuted.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If you are arguing that he should expect to be punished for leaking the documents then absolutely. He has embarrassed some powerful people and they will want their revenge.

If you are arguing that morally he should be punished then I disagree. There is a strong case for declining to prosecute - even if the letter of the law says that he can be prosecuted.

The latter. There is no case for declining to prosecute. He unambiguously violated the duty he agreed to uphold.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't know if I'm insisting on a single resolution in all situations--but in this situation, punishment would make it likely that the next person in his shoes will just shut their mouth and let the wrongdoing continue, and I would rather that not be.

Solution: don't employ people with such low regard for honor that they would refuse to fulfill duty Y because they won't be willing to suffer the consequences for violating duty X.

 

[psionl0]

Solution: don't employ people with such low regard for honor that they would refuse to fulfill duty Y because they won't be willing to suffer the consequences for violating duty X.

You are arguing in support of the murder of civilians and the high level cover up of these crimes.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You are arguing in support of the murder of civilians and the high level cover up of these crimes.

No, I am not. The person has a duty to report it and I'm glad they did. It was the right thing to do. I was saying people should employ more people like that.

 

[gnome]

The latter. There is no case for declining to prosecute. He unambiguously violated the duty he agreed to uphold.

Do prosecutors have zero discretion? Do they decline to prosecute others who unambiguously committed a violation of duty?

If you want to say zero, then I would say the best solution is a pardon.

I cannot agree with punishing someone for doing the right thing. Consider--what is the goal of punishment? To deter behavior. You do not want to deter this.

What is the goal of punishing him, in your eyes? To satisfy some words on paper?

 

[gnome]

Solution: don't employ people with such low regard for honor that they would refuse to fulfill duty Y because they won't be willing to suffer the consequences for violating duty X.

If it were so easy as that the crimes would never have been committed in the first place. And it isn't.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do prosecutors have zero discretion? Do they decline to prosecute others who unambiguously committed a violation of duty?

If you want to say zero, then I would say the best solution is a pardon.

I cannot agree with punishing someone for doing the right thing. Consider--what is the goal of punishment? To deter behavior. You do not want to deter this.

What is the goal of punishing him, in your eyes? To satisfy some words on paper?

Again, you are aggregating duties before assigning consequence. There are two separate duties that receive two separate outcomes.

There isn't a goal. One has duties. Adherence and violation of duties gas consequences.

 

[psionl0]

No, I am not. The person has a duty to report it and I'm glad they did. It was the right thing to do. I was saying people should employ more people like that.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it is right that he blew the whistle then in the same breath say he must be punished for blowing the whistle. Preventing murder is a higher duty than adherence to a document.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it is right that he blew the whistle then in the same breath say he must be punished for blowing the whistle. Preventing murder is a higher duty than adherence to a document.

That is exactly what we can do. You literally can do both those things and have it both ways.

And the fact that it is such a higher duty undercuts the issue of incentives, making punishment even more sustainable.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What is the goal of punishing him, in your eyes? To satisfy some words on paper?

Do you want to live in a world ruled by law or one where prosecutors can ignore crimes when it suits them?

I cannot agree with punishing someone for doing the right thing. Consider--what is the goal of punishment? To deter behavior. You do not want to deter this.

Deter doesn't actually mean "absolutely prevent". We do want to deter this behavior. We certainly don't want people doing what this guy did on a whim.

When doing something like this you should have to consider that your actions are going to get a hard looking at. Making the case that he did the right thing in front of a court is probably exactly the right venue. It seems like too much discretion for prosecutors to be wielding.

If, hypothetically, at the end of the process he gets convicted because the law doesn't allow a "right thing" defense and it still appears to be a travesty of justice then that's for legislatures and pardon processes to fix.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do you want to live in a world ruled by law or one where prosecutors can ignore crimes when it suits them?


Deter doesn't actually mean "absolutely prevent". We do want to deter this behavior. We certainly don't want people doing what this guy did on a whim.

When doing something like this you should have to consider that your actions are going to get a hard looking at. Making the case that he did the right thing in front of a court is probably exactly the right venue. It seems like too much discretion for prosecutors to be wielding.

If, hypothetically, at the end of the process he gets convicted because the law doesn't allow a "right thing" defense and it still appears to be a travesty of justice then that's for legislatures and pardon processes to fix.

But why would that be a travesty of justice? Why do we, as members of western society, regard it in aggregate rather than two different duties?

I get that people aggregate it, but I don't know why.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

But why would that be a travesty of justice? Why do we, as members of western society, regard it in aggregate rather than two different duties?

I get that people aggregate it, but I don't know why.

I'm not sure what you mean here but I'm going to just assume you're not even asking the right question.

I think the potential problem here is simply that the laws might be wrong. Specifically, it may not be spelled out what "your duty" is when the situation you are in is that the official whistle blower channels are broken.

And my point is that deciding if he was correct when he took it upon himself and decided official channels needed to be bypassed belongs in the realm of a court and not a prosecutor.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Are any of the people in this thread arguing the prosecutor shouldn't even prosecute also in a Star Trek thread arguing that simply forgiving and forgetting major crimes too easily is a major plot hole?