Speaker 1: From Schwartz Media. I'm Daniel James. This is seven AM.
Speaker 1: The Bread and Inquiry uncovered shocking allegations of war crimes
Speaker 1: committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan, but there was one
Speaker 1: failing of Australian soldiers that wasn't investigated. According to documents
Speaker 1: and interviews, some Australian soldiers in Afghanistan used foreign rules
Speaker 1: of engagement in combat, rules they weren't trained in or
Speaker 1: permitted to use, and the use of these rules may
Speaker 1: have resulted in the killing of a large number of
Speaker 1: unarmed Afghans who would not otherwise have been killed today.
Speaker 1: It contributed to the Saturday Paper Ben Mcalvey on how
Speaker 1: and when Australian's special forces are allowed to kill It's Friday,
Speaker 1: February fourteen. Ben, Thanks for joining us pleasure. I wanted
Speaker 1: to start in twenty twelve in a village called Sola
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan. Can you tell me a bit about what
Speaker 1: happened there?
Speaker 2: So?
Speaker 3: There was an SAS raid in Sola in August twenty twelve.
Speaker 3: The reason for that raid was because an Afghan sergeant
Speaker 3: who had been trained by some Australian forces had turned
Speaker 3: his gun on his trainers and killed three Australian soldiers.
Speaker 4: A rogue Afghan soldier named heck Matula had killed three
Speaker 4: of their comrades. Special Forces soldiers from two Squadron SAS
Speaker 4: were going from village to village searching for him.
Speaker 3: So heck Matula, this zabad or sergeant who shot these
Speaker 3: Australians and ran away. Some intelligence popped up that he
Speaker 3: was in this village of Solo, which is in the
Speaker 3: Tarankaut Bowl, and it was you know, poor my brick,
Speaker 3: like everywhere else in Orozgan where the Australians were primarily operating.
Speaker 3: And also it was a place of mixed loyalties, which
Speaker 3: was true of most places where the Australians would end
Speaker 3: up going.
Speaker 4: Two squadrons swept into the village of Solar looking for
Speaker 4: heck Matulla. There they focused on the local mosque.
Speaker 3: So the SAS was sent out almost immediately on a
Speaker 3: kill capture mission. Heck Matula. He was raised on this
Speaker 3: thing called the Joint Prioritize Effects List, which was basically
Speaker 3: a massive kill capture list across the country where if
Speaker 3: they found those people, they would kill them or capture them.
Speaker 3: He became a priority target THEESAS was sent off and
Speaker 3: then they went to Solar and tried to find him.
Speaker 1: So they tried to find him what happened in the
Speaker 1: solo when they got.
Speaker 3: There, they didn't find him and they didn't find the
Speaker 3: evidence of him, but they did detain a number of
Speaker 3: Afghans and one of the people that they detained in
Speaker 3: the official reporting, grabbed an Australian soldier's gun. They wrestled
Speaker 3: and then the Australian shot this man dead, and then
Speaker 3: the Australian SAS killed another man. There were two soldiers
Speaker 3: that were involved in this killing where the official line
Speaker 3: was that they had seen this man with an icon
Speaker 3: which is a handheld radio, that he'd been reporting troop movements.
Speaker 3: So they were killed. And these men were father and sign.
Speaker 3: They were the Mallers, the two Malas of this village.
Speaker 1: So you've been looking into the operation. What was it
Speaker 1: that stood out to you about the mission?
Speaker 3: So one of the interesting things about this mission is
Speaker 3: that they sent someone in to investigate this because this
Speaker 3: mission and these killings had become a bit of a
Speaker 3: political hot potato because Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan,
Speaker 3: had complained about this mission and about these killings. He'd
Speaker 3: complained to the Australian Prime Minister and the ambassador until
Speaker 3: there've been a bit of media interest, so they sent
Speaker 3: in a brigadier to do an investigation about what had
Speaker 3: happened here, and in interviewing the SAS soldiers, the SAS
Speaker 3: said that they had shot these people under IF rules
Speaker 3: of engagements. So ISAF is the multinational force that came
Speaker 3: to support the Australian government, So it's basically all of
Speaker 3: the foreigners that were over there. The Ish rule's engagement
Speaker 3: and the Australian rules are engagement are classified, but there
Speaker 3: are parts of those rules of engagement that I can
Speaker 3: talk about. So the difference between the Australian rules of
Speaker 3: engagement ic rules of Engagement as they're understood by the
Speaker 3: SAS was that you can shoot someone who demonstrates hostile
Speaker 3: intent rather than having committed a hostile act. So the
Speaker 3: standard for leffal force was directly participating in hostilities. It
Speaker 3: was accepted that the ICF rules of engagement were stricter
Speaker 3: than the Australian rules of engagement, but the way that
Speaker 3: the Australians applied those ICEF ruals of engagement that they
Speaker 3: weren't trained in then it gave them a little bit
Speaker 3: more leeway. The way that it had been applied by
Speaker 3: these guys was that you just had to have hostile intent.
Speaker 3: If we thought that you were acting in a hostile manner,
Speaker 3: then we could legally target you. And then these investigators
Speaker 3: found that the entire rotation, that Rotation eighteen, had been
Speaker 3: using these ic rules of engagement and actually they were
Speaker 3: not meant to be using those rules of engagement. And
Speaker 3: the brigadier called this a systemic failure.
Speaker 1: So the soldiers have cited using ISAF rules of engagement
Speaker 1: in the field. You said, there's a different standard was
Speaker 1: to watch constitutes hostile intent? What does that look like
Speaker 1: in practice when it's applied.
Speaker 3: Well, there are multiple ways in which you can target
Speaker 3: the enemy, but the primary way is in self defense.
Speaker 3: You see them acting hostily in front of you, and
Speaker 3: then you can react and shoot them. Threats, however, don't
Speaker 3: just look like somebody raising a gun at you, varying ammunition,
Speaker 3: you know, sending information as to where your position is going,
Speaker 3: and getting help, you know, things like that. Then that
Speaker 3: could potentially be somebody that is directly participating in hostilities
Speaker 3: as well, and that's where the nuance is with rules
Speaker 3: of engagement. So with the ISAF rules of engagement, it
Speaker 3: seemed that the Australian sas basically applied their understanding of
Speaker 3: what hostility looked like or had looked like previously, and
Speaker 3: then applying that to a circumstance. So they had seen
Speaker 3: a lot of Afghans running towards the river and getting
Speaker 3: caged weapons and then coming back and attacking them. So
Speaker 3: if they came to a compound of interest and they
Speaker 3: saw someone running towards the river, then they may consider
Speaker 3: that to be a hostile act. But it's likely that
Speaker 3: something like that would not have been allowed under Australian
Speaker 3: rules of engagement. The best example of that is in
Speaker 3: the report that I cited. They said that patrol reports
Speaker 3: would come back to legal offices and officers and they
Speaker 3: said that they had killed people who had just seen
Speaker 3: running away, and the legal officer said, you know, this
Speaker 3: really doesn't cut the mustard, so please, can you please
Speaker 3: rewrite this report with more descriptors so it's more in
Speaker 3: line with Australian rules of engagement. So that's what it happened.
Speaker 1: So why were the soldiers following rules that they weren't
Speaker 1: actually training. They were trained in Australian rules of engagement.
Speaker 1: Why are they practicing in if rules of engagement if
Speaker 1: they're not trained in those.
Speaker 3: Rules, Well, it certainly looks like the Australian soldiers thought
Speaker 3: that they were allowed to use these rules of engagement.
Speaker 3: And the thing that was really particularly interesting for me
Speaker 3: I had written a book about the kill capture program,
Speaker 3: and basically that's what the ESAs did primarily in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: They come into country, there was multiple lists of people
Speaker 3: who were bad guys essentially as far as they were concerned.
Speaker 3: One of the lists had six thousand people, and then
Speaker 3: they just went out there and did mission after mission,
Speaker 3: either capturing or killing them. One of the major issues
Speaker 3: with these twenty twelve killings and the report that I
Speaker 3: found after that, was that normally you have a very
Speaker 3: strict and codified understanding of when you can employ your
Speaker 3: weapons system, whereas in this instance, the sas were using
Speaker 3: their own understanding of what hostile intents and hostile acts were.
Speaker 3: So it wasn't something that was written down. It was
Speaker 3: just them saying, we've been in Afghanistan for a long time,
Speaker 3: we know what the enemy looks like. I can tell
Speaker 3: when someone who's running away is a bad guy, so
Speaker 3: I can shoot him because I can make that distinction.
Speaker 1: After the break. Who knew this was happening? Ben, There's
Speaker 1: now evidence that some Australian soldiers in Afghanistan used foreign
Speaker 1: rules and engagement. That's a way to justify killings. Did
Speaker 1: the bosses know this was happening. It's a question of
Speaker 1: which bosses knew. But some bosses almost certainly or undoubtedly
Speaker 1: knew that this was happening. I mean the fact that
Speaker 1: these patrol reports were being changed. They had to be
Speaker 1: changed by someone. They were being sent back to the soldiers.
Speaker 1: So as soon as you see a report and it
Speaker 1: shows that the rules of engagement that were being used
Speaker 1: and not the ones that you should be using, then
Speaker 1: you are aware of that and you have an obligation
Speaker 1: to report that. But you weren't reporting that. You were
Speaker 1: sending it back to the soldiers, and it was this
Speaker 1: sort of go along to get a long attitude. The
Speaker 1: Breading Inquiry was supposed to be a sweeping investigation into
Speaker 1: misconduct and alleged crimes by Australian forces. Did they look
Speaker 1: into this?
Speaker 3: They didn't look into.
Speaker 2: This, turning to the Inspector General's report. He found none
Speaker 2: of the alleged unlawful killings were described as being in
Speaker 2: the heat of battle. None were alleged to have occurred
Speaker 2: in circumstances in which the intent of the perpetrator was unclear,
Speaker 2: confused or mistaken.
Speaker 3: This is one of the things that I put to defense.
Speaker 3: I said, in the Breton Report, they say that the
Speaker 3: Australians had a good understanding of which rules of engagements
Speaker 3: they should be using and they applied those. But it
Speaker 3: seems that you know this report that I've seen that
Speaker 3: was a twenty thirteen report calling this a systemic failure.
Speaker 3: This would have been a report that would have been
Speaker 3: available to Paul Burretton and his team. So it's something
Speaker 3: that should have been flagged in the Breton Report but wasn't.
Speaker 1: Do we know why.
Speaker 3: We don't know why.
Speaker 1: And as you've been reporting on this, what do you
Speaker 1: think the skirting of these rules says about Australia's role
Speaker 1: in the war in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: I don't know whether it's a case of skirting the rules.
Speaker 3: I mean, it puts me in the mind of this
Speaker 3: quote from the Cromfort's report. So when Samantha Cromforts did
Speaker 3: her report. There was an officer who often of quote saying,
Speaker 3: you know, special forces, you've got to love them like
Speaker 3: brothers and watch them like children. So if these guys
Speaker 3: think that they should be using or allowed to use
Speaker 3: this ICA rules of engagement that they weren't trained on
Speaker 3: and that their legal officers weren't briefing them on, then
Speaker 3: it's not exactly their failure if they're using this rule
Speaker 3: of engagement in the way that they thought that it
Speaker 3: could be used. But what it does say I think
Speaker 3: about our operations in Afghanistan is that we did get
Speaker 3: to a point where there was a maximalist attitude in
Speaker 3: regards to kinetic activity. So there was a lot of
Speaker 3: shooting and a lot of killing that probably didn't need
Speaker 3: to happen.
Speaker 1: What is the Department Offense sit to you about they're
Speaker 1: doing to address this.
Speaker 3: I would be surprised if they're addressing this at all.
Speaker 3: My understanding is that they generally don't talk about rules
Speaker 3: of engagement with the media, But they did send me
Speaker 3: a line saying that, you know, Burton report had noted
Speaker 3: that rules of engagement changed temporarily and from a geolocation
Speaker 3: perspective suggesting that they were allowed to use these ICE
Speaker 3: rules of engagement. This report that I got from twenty
Speaker 3: thirteen does not say that. It says that the Australians
Speaker 3: were obliged the Essays included to use Australian rules of engagement.
Speaker 1: The Essays has suffered huge reputational damage from this, but
Speaker 1: also from the findings and the Bread inquiry. What impact
Speaker 1: has that had on our special forces capability?
Speaker 3: I mean there's been two erosions of capability, and one's
Speaker 3: post Afghanistan. As you said, there's been this reputational damage.
Speaker 3: It's been difficult to deploy Australian sas, especially in theaters
Speaker 3: where it's sort of primarily a Muslim population. That's been
Speaker 3: an issue. A lot of soldiers have decided that they
Speaker 3: just don't want to be in the army anymore. So,
Speaker 3: you know, you invest a million dollars a year into
Speaker 3: these guys. You know they got these twenty year careers.
Speaker 3: You've got twenty million dollars behind a corporal or sergeant.
Speaker 3: Then he just decides to walk away because this feels
Speaker 3: like he's being treated poorly. So you have that erosion,
Speaker 3: but then you have this other erosion. That happened over Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: Because theesas they're meant to be, you know, all of
Speaker 3: the cliches, the tip of the spear, the greatest soul,
Speaker 3: they're also meant to be the Swiss army knives. And
Speaker 3: in a time when they were meant to be sort
Speaker 3: of migrating over to being able to do other things
Speaker 3: gray role intelligence gathering, they were being used as basically
Speaker 3: an American fungible force. They were just doing these kill
Speaker 3: capture missions. They were doing the same thing over and
Speaker 3: over again against a force that was not a near
Speaker 3: peer opponent, and so their martial skills went down in
Speaker 3: that period as well. So you've had these two instances
Speaker 3: where we've had a lessening of capacity.
Speaker 1: What are the chances of any of us getting to
Speaker 1: the bottom of this as to what actually happened, what
Speaker 1: rules were applied.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that if you want to understand any
Speaker 3: one part of Afghanistan, then you kind of have to
Speaker 3: understand the whole thing. And I think the only way
Speaker 3: that we can understand the whole thing is it's not
Speaker 3: through defamation. It's not even through murder cases as the
Speaker 3: one coming up with Oliver Schultz. It's a raw commission.
Speaker 3: You need to have a body with subpoena powers. You
Speaker 3: need to be able to get to the offices, you
Speaker 3: need to be able to get to the politicians, and
Speaker 3: you need to be able to talk to the soldiers
Speaker 3: in an open, closed environment. So if you think, as
Speaker 3: this report suggests that there were systemic failures, that you know,
Speaker 3: officers had done things that sort of had allowed or
Speaker 3: fostered a circumstance in which unnecessary killings happened, I think
Speaker 3: the only way that we would get justice is through
Speaker 3: something like a royal commission.
Speaker 1: Well, Ben, thank you so much for your reporting and
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your time. Thanks also within use. Today,
Speaker 1: nurses have gathered outside New South Wales Parliament to protest
Speaker 1: hate speech after two nurses were filmed threatening to harm
Speaker 1: Israeli patients. New South Wales and Midwives Association Assistant General
Speaker 1: Secretary Michael Waits s his members were horrified and devastated
Speaker 1: by the footage. Meanwhile, the New South Wales Police Commissioner
Speaker 1: Karen Webb says police have spoken to the Israeli influencer
Speaker 1: who captured the video, who has agreed to say apply
Speaker 1: an unedited version. The investigation is ongoing and the nurses
Speaker 1: have been stood down and communities in Western Australias Pilbury
Speaker 1: region are bracing for impact as tropical cyclone Zelia intensifies
Speaker 1: to a category five system, bringing winds of up to
Speaker 1: two hundred and ninety kilometers an hour. Authorities of closed schools,
Speaker 1: highways and the port Headling Port, while emergency services prepare
Speaker 1: for widespread flooding and damage. Evacuation centers have been set
Speaker 1: up as residents are worned to expect life threatening additions
Speaker 1: when the cyclone makes landfall. On Friday evening. Seven Am
Speaker 1: is a daily shave from Schwartz Media and The Saturday Paper.
Speaker 1: It's made by Adigus Basto, Shane Anderson, Chris Dangate, Eric Jensen,
Speaker 1: Ruby Jones, Sarah mcvee, Travis Evans, Zoltenvecho and me Daniel James.
Speaker 1: Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Cogan
Speaker 1: of Envelope AUDEO. We'll be back Monday. Thanks for listening,
Speaker 1: came