Elite soldiers warn on cameras

The Australian Defence Force would be wise to proceed with caution with its plan to roll out surveillance cameras to scrutinise the nation’s most elite soldiers on the battlefield. The move was recommended by the Brereton war crimes inquiry, which noted: “The mandatory use of body-cameras by police in many parts of Australia has proved successful in confirming lawful actions, rebutting false complaints and exposing misconduct, and is now widely accepted.’’ But because elite troops and police operate in widely different circumstances, the move is likely to spark a backlash from special forces troops.

The issue arises amid extra attention being paid to war crimes and accountability, after Victoria Cross recipient Ben ­Roberts-Smith’s failed defamation action against a media ­organisation that accused him of multiple ­murders.

Opposition defence spokesman Andrew Hastie, a former SAS captain who did two tours to Afghanistan, warned the cameras could present ­operational security issues for ­soldiers on clandestine missions, and could prove disastrous if footage fell into enemy hands. Mandating video cameras on operations would undermine trust between soldiers and their commanders. “The Brereton report identified a breakdown in moral and ethical standards on the battlefield,” he told Ben Packham. “That’s a human problem, not one solved by technology, such as body and helmet cams.’’

If the SAS was to be entrusted with sensitive, strategic missions, candidates needed to be selected and trained to the highest possible standards in both special warfare and ethics, Mr Hastie said.

A senior SAS veteran told The Australian that body and helmet cameras had a role in some high-level operations. They were used in the raid on Osama bin Laden by US Navy Seals, for example. But their wider use would undermine soldiers’ ability to be effective on the battlefield ­because they would inhibit their ability to make split-second decisions, the veteran officer said: “The battlefield is chaotic and uncontrolled, and there aren’t really any nice rules that apply. The point is, the soldier probably won’t take the risks they need to take if they think everything they’re doing is going to be reviewed afterwards in an armchair.’’ Cameras made no sense if “you’re fighting for your life’’.

A ­retired SAS officer with multiple Afghanistan deployments behind him said the policy was a “flawed, knee-jerk reaction”. “We train to fire and move, so (the cameras) will be pointing at the dirt half the time,” he said.