Where is the presumption of innocence for our soldiers?

I am distressed that following the Brereton report, actions by the ADF appear to presume guilt before innocence. As a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as a senior officer embedded with US and NATO forces, I was part of the group that influenced and made decisions on application of military force across these war zones. I can say without doubt that Australia’s Special Forces were cherished and highly respected.

I have seen the ravages of war, and the impact that deployments and multiple mission rotations have on our volunteer fighting force. Any person would be challenged to remain unaffected from one deployment cycle, let alone the multiple arduous tours of duty many Special Forces soldiers have done. The impact of fighting in a war zone means they will never recover to “normal” life after their service and have already made a lifetime sacrifice doing their jobs.

As for the cases of alleged criminal conduct in Afghanistan, this is not a simple case of a bad few or a failure in military leadership. If proven, this is a national failure and responsibility lies with the National Security Committee through all levels of military command to the actual trigger puller in Afghanistan.

Right now, we should not reactively blame anyone; we should empathise with our Special Forces soldiers for their commitment over many years of war, what they and their families have been through and the vital job they have done and will continue to do into the future. This is not to support in any way the conduct of war crimes if anyone is proven guilty.

I personally stand and salute all of our Australian soldiers who have served in war, including those who right now are alleged to be criminals. They are innocent until proven guilty.

Peter Clay, CSC, brigadier (retired), Griffith, ACT

People power

George Williams doesn’t tell the average punters anything we don’t already know when he says government ministers exercise their powers without adequate oversight (“Ministers usurping parliament’s role a perilous precedent”, 7/12).

Here in Victoria every night, for more than 100 nights in a row, we have watched Premier Daniel Andrews imposing new and ever changing rules on us during the COVID pandemic.

Apart from rattling the spear of fear, he can’t even tell us the specific scientific reasons for the rule changes or which bureaucrats were responsible for them.

Andrews is the perfect example when Williams rightly says the extraordinary and far-reaching powers of our leaders makes it most important that they are subject to scrutiny and disallowance by the parliament without having to wait until election day.

John Bell, Heidelberg Heights, Vic

George Williams does well to draw attention to the inexorable leaching of authority from parliament by the processes of delegated legislation. Perhaps more inimical to our democratic arrangements in the long term, however, will be the demonstrated readiness during the pandemic of parliamentary representatives to delegate sweeping powers to unelected officials entirely outside their control.

French statesman and wartime prime minister Georges Clemenceau famously observed that “war is too important to leave to the generals”, and in like manner, public health emergencies cannot safely be left solely in the hands of health officials. Professional qualifications notwithstanding, decisions involving circumscription of citizens’ personal freedom are well above their pay grade.

In such times of overwhelming national emergency, there is a clear need for an ad hoc public health “war cabinet” consisting of a small group of key ministers and ex officio members, chief of whom would be the chief health officer. It is also the case that such a group would ideally include representation from the Opposition. All decisions should be taken then with the explicit authority of a body that is at least accountable to the electorate.

Alternatively, we might consider making positions such as chief health officer, police commissioner et al, elective, thereby allowing us to divest ourselves of a political class only too ready to devolve to them the responsibilities that come with elective office.

Terry Birchley, Bundaberg, Qld

Keep the faith

Nick Cater’s article referring to the Left anointing itself as the nation’s only true religion adds significant context to the current attacks on mainstream religions especially Christianity, and in particular Catholicism (“Left anoints itself nation’s only true religion”, 7/12). Unfortunately, much of the criticism comes from the ABC, which I assume should be a leader in protecting the concept of freedom of expression.

As a former Catholic schoolteacher of 35 years I am amazed at how many people send their children to Catholic schools yet deride the faith itself.

Many people are cautious of admitting that they belong to a particular religion for fear of ridicule or discrimination. As for Catholic schools they are often looked upon as a good, disciplined education on the cheap. The religious aspirations of these schools are often ignored by those who take advantage of their existence.

Peter D. Surkitt, Sandringham, Vic

Plain language

Some may have appreciated the dual language rendition of “our” anthem at the rugby on Saturday night; others may have cynically considered it mere tokenism.

For me, Australian rugby is at such a poor skill level the Wallabies might be better off just practising their passing and catching techniques rather than spending hours learning one Aboriginal dialect.

Once they practise another, say, five relevant dialects for five different football venues, I suspect they will have forgotten how to pack a scrum.

Jerome Paul, Exeter, NSW