As Australia’s war crimes investigations drag on, misinformation is catching up

On February 19, 2013, a Mormon elder in regional Victoria was called by a Commando who had recently returned from Afghanistan. The young special forces soldier wished to confess to a murder.

This man, known for legal reasons as Soldier X, is described by fellow Commandos as a man of deep faith and integrity. In his Mormon faith, it’s not enough to simply admit to a sin to attain forgiveness – this can only be achieved through what the Mormons call “repentance sincere and complete”.

A special forces soldier in Afghanistan in 2011.Credit: ADF

What he told the elder that day was how he had been part of a Commando mission that had taken several Afghan prisoners.

“When he entered the room where the prisoners were being held, his [senior soldier] told him to take the prisoners out the back and get rid of them,” says the confession, as noted by the elder.

So he helped take the three prisoners away and “executed” one by shooting him in the head.

“As he shot the third, the way in which the man looked at him caused him to know that he was executing an innocent man,” the elder’s typed two-page statement says.

The moral injury Soldier X was carrying bleeds through the file note recording his 2013 confession to the Mormon elder, who refers to him as “Brother”.

“Brother [X] … knew within himself that the third prisoner was an innocent non-combatant who had just been caught up in the skirmish … The incident has troubled Brother [X] since it happened.”

This powerful confession stayed hidden for five years until it was passed to the Brereton inquiry into war crimes. An investigation was launched and the man interviewed. What he said is unknown, but multiple Defence sources have confirmed that in 2019, Soldier X confessed again to supporters about executing an Afghan prisoner.

His was just one of at least five confessions by special forces soldiers who admitted executing Afghan prisoners between 2009 and 2013. Many more Special Air Service Regiment soldiers have admitted witnessing war crimes. At least half-a-dozen have since made signed statements to the Australian Federal Police.

These witness statements and confessions are compelling, first-hand evidence, often driven by the consciences of former soldiers, that murders happened in Afghanistan. They are at the heart of an uncomfortable truth about a small number of those who served in Australia’s special forces during their long Afghan deployments.

Army Reserve Major-General Paul Brereton conducted the inquiry into SAS and commandos' behaviour in Afghanistan. Credit: Defence Force

But now, well-connected figures in politics, the veterans’ community and, most significantly, some of those accused of war crimes, appear eager to undermine the witnesses and those who have confessed. These people have launched an increasingly active misinformation campaign. Its premise appears to be that war crimes never occurred.

Australian Defence Association chief executive Neil James describes their contentions as “bullshit” and guided by powerful individuals who have an interest in eroding public and political will for ongoing war crimes probes.

If recent events are a guide, the misinformation appears to be gaining traction, thanks to a friendly ear in some influential corners of the media. This week, it prompted a response at the highest levels of Australian politics.

‘I do apologise’

For four years, Justice Paul Brereton investigated allegations of war crimes and, last November, he released his report. Based on significant evidence from witnesses, including confessions, his report concluded there was “credible information” that up to 39 Afghan prisoners and civilians had been executed unlawfully. Defence force chief Angus Campbell backed the findings in an extraordinary televised press conference and confirmed that 19 serving and former special forces soldiers would be referred to the AFP and a special body set up by the federal government, the Office of the Special Investigator, for further investigation and possible prosecution.

Nine months later, a series of stories has been published apparently designed to undermine these findings. This week, several media outlets released stories whose central thrust was that the defence force’s case against 13 accused soldiers had collapsed because it had withdrawn “show cause” notices asking them to explain why they should not be sacked.

Much of this reporting contended that Defence had this month re-deployed to Kabul, Afghanistan, an SAS soldier whom Justice Brereton had identified eight months ago as an alleged war criminal.

In The West Australian, Perth’s daily newspaper, the headline said: “At least one inquiry-linked SAS soldier accused of Afghan war crimes sent back to Kabul”. The story gained traction with the support of Heston Russell, a former commando who has become the go-to veteran for journalists willing to run stories criticising the Brereton inquiry and questioning the war crimes allegations.

Russell fiercely attacked the Brereton inquiry and General Campbell, including on radio station 2GB (owned by Nine Entertainment, the publisher of this masthead).

Defence Minister Peter Dutton.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

“People’s lives have literally been ruined only for them to receive a letter saying ‘no case to answer for’,” Russell told 2GB’s Ray Hadley, who agreed enthusiastically. Russell demanded General Campbell apologise: “He would send an amazing example through the defence force if he simply stood up and said, ‘Hey, I got it wrong’.”

Hadley echoed the call, then turned his attention to politicians. On Thursday, Defence Minister Peter Dutton obliged. Invited onto 2GB, he said: “If people have been wrongly accused and they’ve now been cleared of that, then I do apologise for what they’ve been through, what their families have been through.” Hadley pronounced himself satisfied.

But there was a major problem with this reporting. One of the key allegations was not true. Despite the headlines, Defence had not deployed to Kabul a soldier accused by Justice Brereton of war crimes. Nor has Defence cleared of criminal liability any of the 19 soldiers referred to the AFP and the Office of the Special Investigator. All remain under active investigation.

And the 13 “show cause” notice cases are significantly more complex than the reporting has made out.

‘Powerful interests’

Beyond Heston Russell, identifying who is pushing misinformation, and their true motive, is difficult. Journalists from some of the outlets who reported that a war crimes accused was in Afghanistan have now privately conceded they got it wrong. One said their newspaper had been directed to run the story even though the crucial “fact” had not been verified.

The notion that war crimes accused might want to undermine allegations that could land them in jail makes sense, but it’s less clear why some in the media, other veterans and certain politicians might be willing to give them a platform.

Australian Defence Association chief executive Neil James says vested interests are at play, and “party politics” – the view there is political mileage to be gained by supporting a populist campaign.

“There are powerful interests who don’t want to see war crimes pursued,” he says.

Soldier X is not alone in having put his hand up to wrongdoing. Justice Brereton describes at least eight such cases, albeit in a highly redacted form.

But even without these confidential reports to the inquiry, there is plenty of evidence. Whistleblowers have provided significant public statements. Three Afghan war veterans, ex-SAS medic Dusty Miller, ex-SAS signals intelligence officer Braden Chapman and ex-SAS operator “Tom”, have all given extensive interviews to Mark Willacy for his book, Rogue Forces, released this month.

The book gives the most in-depth account yet of an alleged execution, captured on helmet camera, of an apparently unarmed Afghan man lying in a field. Footage of this incident infamously shows a now former SAS soldier asking his superior: “Do you want me to drop this c---?,” then shooting the man dead.

Dusty Miller, whose story was first told by this masthead in 2019, has spoken up repeatedly in defence of the Brereton Inquiry, and about how an injured unarmed Afghan, Haji Sardar, was allegedly murdered by a senior SAS soldier after he was taken from Mr Miller’s care.

SAS combat medic Dusty Miller

“There’s lots of us that have gone, ‘This happened. That happened’,” Miller has said, describing the Brereton report as “vindication”.

Despite all this, some media are now undermining the war crimes narrative in the public mind.

The tabloid Daily Mail website has been the recent launching pad for much of this misinformation, but other outlets such as The West Australian, Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, and shock jock radio hosts are taking it up with enthusiasm.

Tracing misinformation

The first hint of a campaign appeared in December in The Guardian which ran two pictures supplied by a freelance reporter. One featured two SAS soldiers skylarking in a makeshift bar with the prosthetic leg of a Taliban fighter allegedly executed weeks earlier by ex-SAS soldier Ben Roberts-Smith.

Hundreds of photos exist depicting dozens of SAS soldiers and officers at the same bar also posing with the leg. The fact of the leg’s removal and use as a drinking vessel was revealed by this masthead in 2018. Why were these specific pictures released? Perhaps it’s related to the fact that both men are witnesses for the AFP because they allege they saw another SAS soldier execute a prisoner.

The freelancer has declined to answer questions about this, but has privately told colleagues at The Guardian that he was unaware of this critical fact. One of the two men also voluntarily revealed to the Brereton inquiry in 2018 that he was the one who had taken the leg from the allegedly executed Taliban prisoner. He also provided the Brereton inquiry with photos of the leg mounted on a board. He made the disclosure, which at the point was unknown to investigators, despite the likely adverse impact on his own career.

Two weeks after The Guardian’s article, the Daily Mail took the story up. It ran the same photo but also falsely asserted both men were “facing the sack”. One of the men would later be issued a show-cause notice for misconduct unrelated to the leg, but it was overturned. The second SAS soldier was, to the contrary, recommended for promotion by the Brereton inquiry for his bravery in exposing alleged war crimes. Just last week, he was deployed on an SAS mission to Kabul to help rescue stranded Australians.

Earlier this month, the two police witnesses appeared again in photos leaked to the Daily Mail. This time, the pair was shown at a dress-up event to celebrate Anzac Day in Afghanistan. One was dressed in only underpants and a raincoat, and wore a World War I German military Iron Cross – an heirloom handed down by a great-uncle who had taken it from a German soldier in combat. He wore the cross, dated 1914, under his body armour on missions in Afghanistan as a talisman recognising his relative’s luck in surviving World War I and helping defeat the enemies of the Commonwealth.

A World War One Iron Cross of the kind worn as a talisman by one of the witnesses, (left), compared to the one published on the Daily Mail website’s story on the subject (right).

In the Daily Mail’s hands, an enlarged picture purported to show the Iron Cross, but in fact it had been substituted to show a World War II version engraved with a Nazi swastika. The Nazi party did not even exist in World War I.

The story was quietly taken down by the Daily Mail, but only after the SAS soldier’s lawyer, Justin Quill, queried Daily Mail editor Lachlan Heywood and accused the website of switching the medal to smear his client as a Nazi and of breaching a suppression order over his client’s identity as an alleged war crimes witness. But just one week later, on August 19, the website ran another article again including misinformation.

“SAS soldiers who faced the sack after extraordinary press conference accusing them of war crimes will FINALLY keep their jobs – and at least one is already back in Kabul saving Aussies from the Taliban,” the headline read.

The false assertion that a war crimes accused had been cleared and then deployed to Afghanistan was promptly run by The West Australian and Rupert Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph, only to be finally dismissed as inaccurate by Murdoch’s The Australian.

A series of stories appears to be intended to undermine confidence in war crimes investigations into special forces operatives.Credit:

One former SAS officer, who has spoken to The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on condition of anonymity, is furious the falsehood received so much traction, saying it put the lives of Australian soldiers in Kabul at risk.

The ADF also released a formal statement, confirming “no individuals who have received administrative notices in relation to the Afghanistan inquiry have been deployed by the ADF to support the Australian government’s evacuation effort from Afghanistan”. (Official sources are equally dismissive of any suggestion, made after the Daily Mail’s error was exposed, that perhaps another government agency deployed a war crimes accused to Kabul.

It was not the only error in the Daily Mail story. It also falsely asserted that the Afghan man filmed on helmet camera being allegedly executed in 2012—the infamous “should I drop the c---” video – was in fact a high-value Taliban target whose execution was authorised.

ABC journalist Mark Willacy, who won a Gold Walkley for uncovering the vision, says the man “was not an authorised execution target”.

“The actual target of this operation was an insurgent commander code-named Objective Young Akira, and whose real name was Mawlawi Payendi. Typically, the Daily Mail has got it wrong. Their reporting on this issue has been skewed and inaccurate.”

The same Daily Mail report – quickly churned by 2GB’s Ray Hadley and The West Australian, who asked Prime Minister Scott Morrison about it at a press conference – also made claims that 13 soldiers issued with sacking notices by the defence force as a result of conduct uncovered by Justice Brereton’s inquiry had effectively been cleared by Defence and “their versions of events have ultimately been preferred over what was found in the Brereton report”.

In fact, two kinds of action against accused soldiers emerged from the inquiry: administrative censure and criminal investigations.

Justice Brereton’s report referred 19 men for criminal war crimes investigations. But rather than endorse their dismissal, he wrote it might be appropriate that the criminally accused not be sacked by Defence, in order for the criminal justice system to “take its course”.

For those allegedly involved in some lesser form of misconduct, Justice Brereton recommended that “administrative action” ranging from a censure letter to termination might be appropriate. That, he wrote, was a decision for Defence and not his inquiry.

By June this year, the army had issued 17 notices that required special forces soldiers to “show cause” as to why they should not be sacked. But 13 of these 17 had already been discharged on health or other grounds. Of the four remaining soldiers issued notices, two are reservists (one is serving with the UAE armed forces). Of the 17, this masthead confirmed only one soldier who remains on active duty with the SAS in Perth.

Defence hierarchy is refusing to provide details about why they did not force the 17 men’s sacking, but many ADF insiders point out that given most were already discharged, it was hardly the scandal some wanted it to be.

For its part, the Daily Mail’s editor is standing by its reporting, including the false claim of a war crimes accused deployed to Kabul (it reported the false claim a second time on Thursday), as well as his outlet’s role switching a World War I Iron Cross with a World War II medal engraved with a swastika in a story he later pulled from the internet.

“The stories broken by Daily Mail Australia surrounding our elite soldiers are extraordinary — but they are fair, accurate, and written by a respected journalist with more than 25 years’ reporting experience. These are stories that need to be told,” Mr Heywood said in a statement.

By far the most serious recommendation of the Brereton inquiry was the referral of serving and former soldiers for criminal investigation. All 19 soldiers referred for their alleged participation in executions remain under active investigation by the AFP and the Office of the Special Investigator.

The apparent attempt to wish away the severity of Brereton’s findings ignore that fact.

PR and spin

The most prominent war crimes accused in Australia, Ben Roberts-Smith, has issued no public statements in the past few weeks. He is the subject of three active federal police investigations, including two war crimes inquiries that have sent briefs of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to rule on whether the police case is strong enough to charge him.

Roberts-Smith is also suing this masthead and the authors for defamation. But for almost four years, he has been paying public relations advisers Sue Cato and, more recently, Helen McCombie, to advise him how to maximise positive media coverage.

In the last month, Roberts-Smith’s employer, SevenWestMedia, published not only the false story about the war crimes accused sent to Kabul, but also the Daily Mail’s copy about the SAS soldier and the swastika-engraved Iron Cross.

Weeks before that, the Daily Telegraph published a front-page story that falsely claimed another key police witness against Roberts-Smith was party to the covert recordings of conversations involving the war hero. The recordings captured Roberts-Smith talking about destroying the reputations of journalists, politicians and soldiers who had challenged his war record.

One of Roberts-Smith’s defamation lawyers is also a lawyer for the Daily Mail.

There is no evidence or suggestion that Roberts-Smith, his lawyers or his PR agents, are tied to the latest misreporting.

Some in Defence are frustrated that General Angus Campbell and other senior officers and politicians are not seeking to counter the misinformation and remind the public that it was special forces soldiers themselves who chose to stand up against the alleged misdeeds of a very small number of their colleagues.

But talking about accountability for war crimes remains politically unpopular, says Neil James. And as the ongoing AFP and OSI investigations into 19 former soldiers are likely to take many months, if not years, to resolve, there is plenty of time for a misinformation campaign to build.

And now, even the fact that men such as Soldier X chose truth and redemption over a cover-up is at risk of being obscured by half-truths, lies and spin.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.