Ben Robert Smith, the Victoria Cross recipient found to have committed war crimes on deployment in Afghanistan, has this morning been arrested.
This week, Australia's most decorated living soldier, Ben Robert Smith, was arrested and charged with war crimes. It came as a shock to even those closest to the story.
I was surprised, you know. I knew that obviously something had to happen because the OSI had been investigating for quite some time, but I wasn't absolutely sure that it ever would happen. I, frankly in the background, had to wonder whether Australia had the appetite for locking up its soldiers, particularly a war hero.
And I know back in two thousand and seven, journalist Chris Masters went to Afghanistan to report an Australia's war from the ground, to see how Australia's soldiers were fighting and what the war was doing to them. Over time, he began to hear whispers that some elite soldiers had crossed the line. Years later, working alongside his Nick Mackenzie, Masters helped turn those whispers into one of the biggest investigations in recent Australian journalism.
Australia's most decorated soldier has been entangled in an investigation into the actions of Special Forces in Afghanistan.
Murder war, criminal war hero to zero.
A small group of SAS soldiers had gone rogue getting their kill count.
Up by acting as judge, jury and executioner.
I'm Daniel James, and you're listening to seven AM Today Award winning journalist Chris Masters on the reporting that helped bring Robert Smith's a Learned Crimes to light on what this case says about war accountability and the country that sends soldiers to fight in far away places. It's Friday, April tenth. Chris Sissl began with you going to Afghanistan more than fifteen years ago. Now, can you tell me about when you first went to Afghanistan and what you were doing there and who you met.
I went there three times. The first time was in two thousand and seven. This was a point in that long conflict where reconstruction was pretty much the goal. I was impressed by young Australian soldiers who were putting their life on the line to improve the lives of Afghan civilians. In two thousand and seven, four Corners visited Taran Cott filming with Australian Army engineers on a mission to provide
security and reconstruction for the sake of building governance. I went back in twenty ten and I saw a different phase of the operation when we were moving out into the bad lands and we were applying what they called courageous restraint. Whereas conventional Australian forces were trying to stand between the Taliban and the local population and encourage the local population to accept a new government. The soldiers do
not stay hidden. They patrolled constantly by day and many a night, ninety percent of the time on foot, showing a deliberate face, to become familiar to locals, to gather intelligence and confront the enemy. Then I went back a year later with special Forces, where I saw something of the much more kinetic side of the mission. That is, you know, the feverish fighting, jumping in helicopters, racing out there to try to capture or kill what they called
were high value targets. On the way here, plans changed. They heard on the radio that the Taliban commander was confirmed to be here in this motorcycle shop, so plans changed and the combat forces rushed this location. Now, most of the time there I thought that the Australians, even though it was an ugly war and a difficult war and probably an impossible war, that Australians weren't exactly on
the wrong side. It was only towards the end, when I was working with special forces that some misgivings began to emerge, essentially, because occasionally I'd be out there in the bad lands with them and I just saw the hatred in the eyes of the Afghans and felt that something had to be wrong.
When did the rumors around Ben Roberts Smith start to emerge?
Essentially? I think in the beginning it was the psychologists, the intelligence officers, etc. That started to hear misgivings, and then some of the soldiers themselves started to talk to me. I think it was because they had concerns about some of the stuff that happened over there. They elevated those concerns to their immediate command. But the immediate command didn't seem to want to do anything about it. And that's pretty much how it all started. It takes a while.
It's not as if you know, it's just a matter of some deep throat giving you a tip off and you're putting it in the paper the next day. It was something like twenty fifteen that I started hearing these things about Robert Smith, and it wasn't until twenty seventeen that I put some of the questions to him. And it was really his response that made me think that this really was a serious issue, that there was something to it.
And so when you spoke to him in two thousand and seven, anquist, what kind of the meana did he have with you?
We met in the Rose Garden at the Highatt Hotel in Canberra. It was before Anzac Day twenty seventeen, and of course, you know, you lead big footprints when you do this work. So he knew I'd been asking questions, and he knew that I was in contact with some of the people that he saw as his detractors, and I think he wanted to kind of embrace me into the fold. You know, look, Chris, come and see me.
I'll tell you the truth. You know, I'm a war hero and a much better story than a story about winging soldiers. And when I started putting a few questions to him, not some of the central stuff that emerged later about war crimes, but just some of the misgivings people had had about particular incidents on operation. He really arked up, and I just came away from that meeting with a strong sense that he was the man with something to hide.
He didn't just dismiss those concerns and say, look, soldiers are aggrieved, they see things differently the fog of war. I don't criticize them for having a different view, but I just don't agree with it. He didn't say that at all. He just lawyered up and he took us on, and that was really the beginning of the next chapter.
So he tries try to intimidate you. That original story they get published in twenty eighteen, But was there any point where you felt the heat or intimidation to drop the story.
At that point? You know? Really, I was more a freelance reporter working with Nick McKenzie, who had the backing of the nine network Sidney Morning Herald. And it amazes me when I think about it, that back in twenty eighteen we did make some serious defamatory accusations about Robert Smith, a Victoria Cross recipient, being accused of war crimes. And not just war crimes, but murder. You know, the stakes are very, very high.
Mister Robert Smith launched information proceedings against Fairfax Media in August a series of reports, including war crime allegations. The Victorian Cross recipient continues to strongly deny all the allegations.
I think, really, if you look back on it, you'd say that I don't think anybody anticipated that the bills would end up reaching something like thirty plus million dollars. But our employer probably would have been happier to settle somewhere along the line for commercial reasons. It's just that Robert Smith didn't want it.
You know.
People have to remember that he was the one who sued us, He took us on, and when opposite settlement were considered, it was Robert Smith who didn't want a settlement. He wanted a victory coming up.
Does Ben Robert Smith's arrest redefine the limits of matship? Chris? This story has shocked the nation in many ways. You were reporting helped lead to the bread and inquiry into alleged war crimes. But there are still those that are vehemently defending Ben Robert Smith's character.
I s he Ben Robert Smith as a highly decorated war hero and you always will be that to me. We're talking about seventeen years after the fact. You know this evidence has been brought against him. Yes, there is a process and it will go through the court system. But I highly respect that man and what he's done.
What does that say about the country that it seems to be that this issue is evolving into yet another cultural war.
Yes, look, I think it has divided the nation and we've got some very important debates ahead of us. Whenever I hear this story about leve Ben Robert Smith alone, and I hear it every day, I have to think, well, you cannot be across the evidence. There was one hundred and ten days of evidence in court, We went to a civil trial, it was appealed. There was an attempt to get it to the High Court, which was rejected. So this matter has been adjudicated mightily.
But after a five year battle, with one hundred and one days of evidence, forty one witnesses, six thousand pages of transcript and around thirty million dollars in neal costs to be paid by Robert Smith or his supporters, the verdict was clear.
The evidence is profound, profoundly against Robert Smith. How can you defend an action when an innocent Afghan is pushed to the ground and defenseless is shot to death. How can you defend the fact that this was actually strategically counterproductive, that we were actually antagonizing the Afghan population, making the lives of our own soldiers more dangerous. How can you defend the psychological impact on young soldiers who were bullied
into committing unconscientable acts. The people who continue to say leave this alone can't actually be across the evidence.
Now that bed Robert Smith has been arrested and charged, how different will this criminal case be compared to the civil defamation case.
No doubt about it, it is different. There's a different standard between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. And I think a great many of the witnesses who already been through this probably don't want to go through it again. It's not beyond the realm of possibilities that an Australian jury won't want to convict a war hero, want to send an Australian soldier to prison. But none of that should discredit the evidence and the findings of the original
civil trial. It just seems to be a different issue altogether.
And what's the significance of this case in terms of shedding light on the complexities of war and Australia's role in Afghanistan. Do you think the public is prepared for what might come out?
I think Robert Smith, there's been a few owned goals. He started with a very strong reputation. There's been a lot that's canvas that would challenge into that reputation. And I think also the whole reputation of Anzac to some degree is under challenge. I think back to the Charles ban tenets of what really made the Australian soldiers special
and different, and he often said that it was about matship. Well, I wonder whether that needs to be rethought at the moment, because if you were Ben Robert Smith's mate and you felt that the obligation of matship was that you should cover up all of his unconscioable acts, then what's the point of that? You know, where is the value in
matship in that respect? You know, I have great gratitude for the moral courage of the soldiers who were prepared to invite the opprobrium of their colleagues by standing up for the integrity of their regiment over this nonsense about you know you stick by your mate no matter what.
I mean, what does that mean? You stick by your mate no matter what, even if it allows your mate to continue to do unlawful and damaging acts that are psychologically excredly difficult to deal with by many of the youngest soldiers in the tumult of war, they don't have time to stop and think when they come back and the comradeship, the mateship, the stuff that keeps them quiet starts to dissipate. They start to talk, they start to reflect, they start to think about what went wrong and why
they're not feeling great. You know, special force of soldiers who've done all that training. You know, they're hero worshiped, and yet they would come back often feeling like they were ashamed of themselves.
And finally, Chris, what does this say about the accountability within Australia's mility you in terms of those up the line who oversaw a lot of this culture and a lot of these operations. No one has been held to account at senior levels.
That's an open question. It's a good question too. The critics who say, why are we prosecuting this? We'll often also say and what about the officers? And this is one area where I absolutely agree. I think it's a pity that it's corporals and troopers who are in the frame where it was command accountability. Why did they not know what was going on? You know, why aren't they being held to account? I think a lot more work needs to be done in that respect.
Chris Masters, thank you so much for your time.
Put on you. Thank you.
Also in the news, Prime Minister Anthony Albernesi has called on Israel to end it strikes in Lebanon, saying the Middle East ceasefires should be expanded to include the country. The US, Israel, and Iran have ostensibly agreed to a tensative two weeks ceasefire, but all sides have presented vastly different versions of the terms. There are also conflicting views on whether the ceasefire includes Israel ending its fighting against
Hezbollah in Lebanon. Meanwhile, the federal government has repeated its warnings to consumers that economic relief from the fuel crisis won't follow immediately from the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz ship traffic through the Strait of Homus has remained at an effective standstill since Iran conditionally lifted its blockade. A major shipping company say conditions remain uncertain as vessels
are concerned about security in the Strait. Anthie Albernesi is currently in Singapore for talks aimed at further shoring up Australia's fuel supplies. I'm Daniel James. You've been listening to seven Am. We'll be back tomorrow.