lee wrote on Apr 18^th, 2026 at 12:37pm:

Fact is, no one knows who the prosecution has as witnesses other than those publicly named, nor any other evidence beyond what is available via the BRS's failed defamation case. The identities of any other possible witnesses would be confidential.

Secondly, if a state actor (e.g. Afghanistan or another nation) has evidence or witnesses against BRS, this would be an international red flag to the Australian government if it declined to prosecute.

Thirdly, given the sheer complexity of the process, the trial could take years to conclude, during which it could be abandoned at any time.

Fourth, the likelihood of selecting a jury whose members have not already formed an opinion on the matter will be extremely low.

lee wrote on Apr 18^th, 2026 at 5:41pm:

Just imagine if it's a high-ranking foreign diplomat or other internationally highly credible foreign identity... or a nation-state security intelligence org... Given how this has been going for years, it has likely saturated international agencies... made more noteworthy by the accused being a Victoria Cross recipient.

Could be that state actors or other international orgs want to use this case to make a case against, say, the glorification of war.

lee wrote on Apr 18^th, 2026 at 6:43pm:

Why? The US was disgraced internationally by high-profile illegal killings in Vietnam.

Unlike the US, which largely ignores condemnation by state actors, Australia is an easy and weak target for foreign entities to make a point against the US war machine, given that Afghanistan was a US-inspired war lasting over 20 years.

No nation-state thinks it's OK for a foreign state to murder its citizens.

lee wrote on Apr 18^th, 2026 at 7:02pm:

I didn't say they were, only that there could be - e.g. high-level identities taking up the cause of the alleged murdered's relatives or clan... or even the nation-state itself wanting justice for its citizens being seen to be done.

The maximally visible and dramatic circumstances of BRS's arrest - as he was boarding a plane - with his family - in full public view, with cameras rolling... none of it necessary, indicate that the Australian government wanted this to be visible from the moon... Why?

Frank wrote on Apr 18^th, 2026 at 7:44pm:


There are allegations that he "murdered a disabled Afghan detainee, kicked a handcuffed prisoner off a cliff, ordered rookie soldiers execute others in an initiation practice called 'blooding', and planted items on the alleged victims to cover-up misconduct".

So, if the enemy did the same thing you're okay with that, yeah?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 18^th, 2026 at 7:57pm:


Frank?

If the Afghans were sent out to kill the enemy, they shouldn't be prosecuted for killing the enemy, yeah?

You stand by your words, surely.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 18^th, 2026 at 7:57pm:

The enemy is to be killed. They killed the enemy. That was the job.

Now the silly buggers who sent them to kill the enemy are prosecuting them for...er... killing the enemy.
A disgrace.

Frank:

Are other countries allowed to murder a disabled detainee, kick a handcuffed prisoner off a cliff, order rookie soldiers to execute others in an initiation practice called 'blooding', and plant items on the alleged victims to cover-up misconduct, or are these war crimes restricted to Australian soldiers only?