The Brereton Report

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.

It is the duty of a soldier to refuse unlawful orders. ROE are clear.
It is also the duty of any citizen to expose violations of laws.
There is a balance that doesn’t exist in your philosophy, but does for pretty much every other human.
 
It is the duty of a soldier to refuse unlawful orders. ROE are clear.
It is also the duty of any citizen to expose violations of laws.
There is a balance that doesn’t exist in your philosophy, but does for pretty much every other human.

What are you talking about? Of course a soldier should disobey an unlawful order. Then they should be punished for disobeying an order while getting praised for their disobeying.
 
What are you talking about? Of course a soldier should disobey an unlawful order. Then they should be punished for disobeying an order while getting praised for their disobeying.

This is nonsense. If an order is unlawful, you should not be punished for disobeying it. In fact, technically, it’s not an order.

Furthermore, in a society governed by by the rule of law, you want to know when the law is broken, so you do not punish people who expose unlawful behaviour.
 
This is nonsense. If an order is unlawful, you should not be punished for disobeying it. In fact, technically, it’s not an order.

Furthermore, in a society governed by by the rule of law, you want to know when the law is broken, so you do not punish people who expose unlawful behaviour.

A person still has a duty to expose unlawful behavior even if they will be punished for violating a different duty. You don't need to not punish them for the latter.
 
Do you want to live in a world ruled by law or one where prosecutors can ignore crimes when it suits them?

Actually--yes, I think so. If they do so transparently, and if they are accountable for their own decisions, I think a prosecutor should be able to drop a case if they think it is unconscionable even if the law doesn't accommodate the situation well.

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.

I am absolutely fine with him having to justify his actions and facing consequences if he chose wrongly. And a pardon would be an acceptable outcome.

I am arguing against the moral charge that he should be punished for violating his duty, when he did so for justifiable reasons.
 
I am reminded of a story I read in the Star Wars universe. An Imperial fleet was on its way to bombard a planet because its governor was disobeying the Emperor. The population revolted, overthrew their governor, and surrendered to the approaching fleet--who bombarded them for overthrowing their governor.
 
Haha! That is funny.

Obviously no word for "hypocrite" in Russian or Chinese.
 
The tweet from China has caused a bit of a stir, with some very strongly-worded comments made in Parliament today.

Except for Scotty's comments which were made over Zoom from his isolation in the Lodge.
 
The tweet from China has caused a bit of a stir, with some very strongly-worded comments made in Parliament today.

Except for Scotty's comments which were made over Zoom from his isolation in the Lodge.

Hang on a moment, Morrison can criticise China at will over anything, but China can’t criticise Australian military atrocities?

Hypocrit.
 
Hang on a moment, Morrison can criticise China at will over anything, but China can’t criticise Australian military atrocities?

Hypocrit.
More like the entire world has been criticising China for longterm and ongoing human rights abuses - they have a lot of gall calling this out in the way they did.

And did you see the image attached to the tweet by a Chinese government official? It was pretty awful.
 
China and Russia have stepped up to condemn the actions of the Australian soldiers and call for holding them accountable.

I mean yeah definitely. But it's a bit rich to have this coming from two of the worst abusers of human rights in the world.

ETA Link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-30/russia-condemns-afghanistan-war-crimes/12933224

Yeah, but hello... aboriginals in custody, Australia.

I think it's good that all these countries are airing each others' dirty laundry.

China, I know, has brought to light the conditions in their own factories and put in measures to have them up to ethical standards.


In Switzerland, they're voting on making "Swiss businesses financially and legally liable for human rights violations or environmental damage" and voting on a bill "to forbid Swiss financial institutions from investing in any form of arms production, from nuclear weapons all the way down to bullets".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55088585

Not sure if the Brereton Report would have influenced that, though. But I think it's all going with the times.
 
I'll call and give you refugees for 10.

Indeed.

Scumo is just talking for the votes but I suspect the Chinese government has a much bigger agenda.

They both have big agendas. Trade is on them.

They don't like the way Australia scratches the US's back and not theirs.

They are putting the pressure on with their 100% tax on Australian wine.
 

Back
Top Bottom