[Australia]: Soldiers to be charged over raid Rafael Epstein, Dan Oakes and Sophie McNeill September 9, 2010
AN OFFICER in line for a medal is among a group of Australian soldiers who will face manslaughter and negligence charges over the deaths of five Afghan children in a bungled raid last year.
The soldiers, mostly from the 1st Commando Regiment, are facing an unprecedented court martial over the raid, codenamed Operation Pakula, near the village of Surkh Morghab in February 2009.
Defence Force officials have sent letters of protest to Brigadier Lyn McDade, the Director of Military Prosecutions, with some officers hoping the charges will be downgraded.
But it is unlikely Brigadier McDade will change her mind, and The Age has been told she is unclear why there has been a continuing delay for the public announcement of the charges.
One source said the charges would be ''dangerous to the whole culture of the military''. Many in Defence believe the courts martial should begin by the end of November, as Brigadier McDade was handed the evidence in November last year.
There is growing anxiety inside Defence about the prolonged legal process, with some lawyers for those involved still in the dark about specific charges faced by their clients.
The Age believes two soldiers, from a group codenamed Force Element Charlie, were directly involved in throwing grenades during the raid and will face manslaughter and other charges.
Their commanding officer on the ground that night, who is believed to be in line to receive a leadership medal, will also face serious charges.
Charges of negligence and failure to get appropriate command approval will be brought against a supervising officer working from Kandahar, and other officers who were involved in the decision to attack a compound not originally targeted.
Officers within Special Operations Command have been frustrated that they have been unable to publicly support the soldiers. The chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, also has privately expressed frustration with the decision to lay such charges, when many believe there is insufficient evidence for any likely convictions.
As reported previously in The Age, it is believed the prosecution will bring evidence that relies in part on other officers within the chain of command, who had reservations about the training and behaviour of the reserve commandos.
A previous army inquiry had raised concerns about the pre-deployment training of the group of reservists, the first such deployment since World War II.
The soldiers were targeting an insurgent leader who was not found at an initial compound. A crucial part of the prosecution argument will rest on the decision to move to a second compound, and whether the intelligence was sufficient for it to be approached with the same level of stealth and tactics.
The soldiers say they exchanged fire for an extended time with an Afghan man, who was killed. Those close to the soldiers are adamant that grenades were necessary because the soldiers were under fire and the shots only ceased after a second grenade was thrown.
Those killed were a teenager, two younger children and two babies. The civilians were in the same room as the Afghan man who fired at the soldiers. Other women and children were also wounded.
The families of the Afghan victims have not been spoken to by Australian investigating officers or military police. Investigators were told it was too difficult and too dangerous to return to the compound.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.