For years Australian soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith was celebrated as the embodiment of Australian military courage — a Victoria Cross recipient (highest military honour for bravery), one of the country’s most decorated soldiers, and for many Australians a living symbol of the ANZAC tradition. When allegations emerged that he had committed war crimes in Afghanistan, the instinct among many supporters was disbelief. How could a man so publicly honored be capable of such acts? The answer was not supposed to come from loyalty to his reputation, or hostility to it. It was supposed to come from testing the evidence.

Today, Australia remembers Ben Roberts-Smith not as the soldier whose reputation collapsed, but as a lesson in how democracies are supposed to respond when allegations challenge a national mythology.

The process was extraordinary. After a 110-day Federal Court trial involving testimony from dozens of former and serving SAS soldiers and officers, Justice Anthony Besanko found that newspapers had established the substantial truth of allegations that Roberts-Smith had murdered four Afghan prisoners or civilians and committed other serious acts of violence. That was a civil finding, not a criminal conviction, and Roberts-Smith has consistently denied wrongdoing. What matters here is not the verdict but the mechanism: once the allegations were subjected to a transparent adversarial process, corroborating testimony emerged from within the institution itself — from other soldiers, not just journalists. The lesson isn’t that every allegation against a soldier is true. It’s that neither heroism nor patriotism can substitute for investigation.

This is why the reaction to the Israeli documentary NAZA deserves attention. Directed by........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)