SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
defamation
Judge in Defamation Case Rules Against Aussie 'Hero' Accused of War Crimes in Afghanistan
"Today is a day of justice. It's a day of justice for those brave men of the SAS who stood up and told the truth about who Ben Roberts-Smith is—a war criminal, a bully, and a liar," said one of the journalists sued for defamation.
Jun 01, 2023
An Australian federal judge on Thursday ruled in favor of three newspapers sued for defamation by the country's most decorated living soldier, who the court found committed war crimes in Afghanistan, including the murder of civilians and unarmed prisoners.
Following harrowing testimony from fellow soldiers, Afghan civilians, and others, Justice Anthony Besanko of the Federal Court of Australia ruled that Fairfax Media newspapers The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Canberra Times had "established the substantial truth" that former Special Air Service Regiment [SASR] Cpl. Ben Roberts-Smith is a war criminal who murdered four unarmed prisoners in Afghanistan.
Roberts-Smith—whose multimillion-dollar defense was bankrolled by billionaire Australian media mogul Kerry Stokes—is a recipient of the Victoria Cross for Australia, the nation's highest military honor, as well as other awards including the Medal for Gallantry and Commendation for Distinguished Service. He fought in the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Today is a day of justice. It's a day of justice for those brave men of the SAS who stood up and told the truth about who Ben Roberts-Smith is: a war criminal, a bully, and a liar," Sydney Morning Herald and The Age journalist Nick McKenzie—a defendant in the suit—said following the ruling. "Today is a day of some small justice for the Afghan victims of Ben Roberts-Smith."
\u201cAustralia's most decorated living veteran was not defamed when accused of committing war crimes in Afghanistan, a judge has ruled \u2014 calling the allegations he killed unarmed prisoners 'substantially true.'\u201d— DW News (@DW News) 1685634121
Besanko found that in 2012 Roberts-Smith marched a handcuffed civilian prisoner named Ali Jan to a cliff in the southern village of Darwan and kicked him off the edge. Jan survived but was severely injured; Roberts-Smith ordered a subordinate soldier to execute the man.
"Ali Jan was a father, Ali Jan was a husband. He has children who no longer have a father. He was a wife who no longer has a husband," McKenzie said.
While Roberts-Smith argued Jan was a suspected Taliban scout, Besanko wrote that the soldier "murdered an unarmed and defenseless Afghan civilian," that he "broke the moral and legal rules of military engagement and is therefore a criminal," and that he "disgraced his country Australia and the Australian army by his conduct as a member of the SASR in Afghanistan."
In 2009, Roberts-Smith is alleged to have pressured a newly deployed soldier to execute an elderly Afghan man found hiding in a tunnel in order to "blood the rookie," according to the court. Roberts-Smith machine-gunned the man's younger disabled companion to death and then used his prosthetic leg as a novelty beer-drinking vessel, an act the court called "callous and inhumane."
\u201cCW: Afghanistan War Crimes\n\nAustralian soldier Ben Roberts-Smith kicked a handcuffed Afghan man off a cliff and then ordered him shot; shot a teenage prisoner point-blank in the head; and gunned down a disabled man, whose prosthetic leg SAS soldiers later used to drink beer.\u201d— Rebecca J. Kavanagh (@Rebecca J. Kavanagh) 1685599535
Besanko also found that Roberts-Smith bullied a fellow soldier, while finding that the papers did not prove an allegation that he punched a woman with whom he was having an affair in the face after a 2018 argument in Canberra.
University of Sydney professor David Rolph, a defamation law expert, told the Herald that the court's judgment "is a comprehensive victory for the media outlets" and "a vindication of the journalism in question."
"Defamation losses have a chilling effect for the media, particularly for serious investigative journalism," he added. "This decision should give media outlets some confidence that they can undertake public-interest journalism and prevail."
Sen. David Shoebridge (Green-New South Wales) called Besanko's ruling "an important win for fearless journalism in the public interest."
"It's a tragic fact that private media companies, not any part of the federal government, have taken on the public task of telling the truth about Australia's war record in Afghanistan," Shoebridge told the Herald. "The official silence must now end."
\u201c"@benmckelvey said Australia needs to launch a royal commission \u2014 akin to a U.S. congressional inquiry \u2014 to understand what went wrong.\n\nThe defamation trial, he said, was \u201cjust a little peek through the crack in the door.\u201d"\u201d— White Rose Society (Australia) (@White Rose Society (Australia)) 1685600983
In 2017, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation obtained leaked documents—known as the Afghan Files—detailing SASR war crimes such as the murder of unarmed civilians including children. A subsequent parliamentary probe confirmed the commission of war crimes by Australian troops in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.
On Wednesday, Reutersreported Australian defense chief Gen. Angus Campbell was warned by the United States—which has a long history of war crimes in Afghanistan and other countries invaded or attacked during the open-ended War on Terror—that allegations of SAS atrocities could trigger the Leahy Law, which prohibits military assistance to countries that violate human rights with impunity.
Troops from other coalition forces—including Afghans, British, Germans, Polish, and Canadians—have committed or been complicit in atrocities during the Afghan war, as have Taliban, al-Qaeda, and Islamic State fighters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jury in Civil Case Finds Trump Sexually Abused, Defamed E. Jean Carroll
One prominent trial attorney called on New York lawmakers to "extend the CRIMINAL statute of limitations for sex crimes so Trump can be criminally prosecuted for the sexual abuse that this civil jury found Trump committed."
May 09, 2023
A civil jury in New York City on Tuesday found former U.S. President Donald Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming—but not raping—journalist E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages.
After two weeks of testimony and just under three hours of deliberation, the six-man, three-woman jury awarded Carroll $2 million in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages for sexual battery, and $1 million in compensatory damages, $1.7 million for reputational repair, and $280,000 in punitive damages for defamation.
Carroll alleged that Trump—a 2024 Republican presidential candidate—raped her in a dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Midtown Manhattan in 1996 and then defamed her when he denied the accusation.
\u201cThe verdict form is now public in E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. @LawCrimeNews\u201d— Adam Klasfeld (@Adam Klasfeld) 1683665199
In denying the assault, Trump claimed to never have met Carroll, whom he called "mentally sick" and a "whack job" who is "not my type" in "any way, shape, or form."
The Associated Pressreports:
The trial revisited the lightning-rod topic of Trump's conduct toward women.
Carroll gave multiple days of frank, occasionally emotional testimony, buttressed by two friends who told jurors she reported the alleged attack to them in the moments and day afterward.
Jurors also heard from Jessica Leeds, a former stockbroker who testified that Trump abruptly groped her against her will on an airplane in the 1970s, and from Natasha Stoynoff, a writer who said Trump forcibly kissed her against her will while she was interviewing him for a 2005 article.
Carroll smiled as the verdict was read and as she walked out of the Manhattan Federal Courthouse on Tuesday.
Trump—who did not appear at the trial—wrote on his Truth social media platform: "I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE—A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!"
Joe Tacopina, Trump's attorney, called the verdict "strange" and vowed to appeal.
"Obviously, [Trump is] firm in his belief, as many people are, that he cannot get a fair trial in New York City based on the jury pool, and I think one could argue that's probably an accurate assessment based on what happened today," Tacopina said during a press conference outside the courthouse.
More than two dozen women and a 13-year-old girl have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, including rape and assault.
One month before the 2016 presidential election, a 2005 recording of Trump telling "Access Hollywood" host Billy Bush that "when you're a star," women let you "do anything" to them," including "grab 'em by the pussy" surfaced.
Asked during deposition by Carroll's lawyers if he believes the premise of his "Access Hollywood" comments—that powerful men could sexually assault women with impunity—is true, Trump said: "If you look over the last million years, I guess that's been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately."
Trial attorney Lisa Bloom called on the New York Legislature to "extend the CRIMINAL statute of limitations for sex crimes so Trump can be criminally prosecuted for the sexual abuse that this civil jury found Trump committed."
Last May, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Adult Survivors Act, allowing survivors of sexual assault that occurred when they were older than 18 to sue their abusers—regardless of when the abuse occurred—during a one-year period.
\u201cReminder that this verdict was made possible because New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, providing a one-year window for sexual assault survivors to file civil suits, even if the assault occurred outside the statute of limitations. https://t.co/Lbvcs5MiN5\u201d— Kate Riga (@Kate Riga) 1683660314
Tuesday's verdict comes just over a month after Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts involving alleged hush money payments during the 2016 election in bids to cover up sex scandals, including $130,000 given to porn star Stormy Daniels and $30,000 payment to a former Trump Tower doorman who claimed to have a story about a child Trump had out of wedlock.
Rights defenders welcomed the jury's verdict.
\u201cA jury just found Donald Trump liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll.\n\nThe Republican party will STILL eagerly stand by him to prop him up while they offer their unwavering support.\n\nTheir subservience is a slap in the face to survivors and all women.\u201d— Congresswoman Summer Lee (@Congresswoman Summer Lee) 1683663033
"We are grateful to E. Jean Carroll for sharing her truth. We are in solidarity with her and survivors of sexual violence," UltraViolet tweeted.
"We know that sexual violence and rape culture is all around us, often perpetuated or carried out by those in positions of power. E. Jean Carroll is one of over 20 women who have come forward with stories of sexual assault by Donald Trump," the group added.
UltraViolet called on CNN to cancel a planned Trump town hall.
\u201cCNN must cancel Trump's Town Hall. Join us in calling on @CNN to cancel Trump's Town Hall tomorrow: https://t.co/tTmWiL9Lae\u201d— UltraViolet is not paying for this (@UltraViolet is not paying for this) 1683660412
"When media outlets like CNN give Trump a platform, they do a disservice to all their viewers," the group wrote. "Contrary to the network's excuses, hosting a town hall with Trump isn't about hearing 'both sides.' It's a brazen ploy to seize ratings."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Denies Motion to Substitute DOJ for Trump in Rape Accuser's Defamation Suit
"President Trump defamed our client because she was brave enough to reveal that he had sexually assaulted her, and that brutal, personal attack cannot be attributed to the office of the president," a lawyer for E. Jean Carroll said.
Oct 27, 2020
A federal judge on Tuesday denied a Justice Department motion to take over President Donald Trump's legal defense in the defamation lawsuit of E. Jean Carroll, who accused the president of raping her in the 1990s.
"When Donald Trump called me a liar and denied that he had ever met me, he was not speaking on behalf of the United States. I am happy that Judge Kaplan recognized these basic truths."
--E. Jean Carroll
In a highly unusual move, the DOJ had tried to intervene in the case of Carroll, a journalist who last June joined the over two dozen women who have now accused Trump of assault, molestation, or harassment. Had it been successful, the DOJ would have substituted itself as the defendant in the case, and since the federal government cannot be sued for defamation, the suit would have been effectively terminated.
However, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan denied the government's motion, arguing in a 61-page ruling (pdf) that Trump "is not an 'employee of the Government,' as Congress defined that term," and that the DOJ's assertion that the defamation suit is against the United States is invalid.
"The undisputed facts demonstrate that President Trump was not acting in furtherance of any duties owed to any arguable employer when he made the statements at issue," wrote Kaplan. "His comments concerned an alleged sexual assault that took place several decades before he took office, and the allegations have no relationship to the official business of the United States."
"To conclude otherwise would require the court to adopt a view that virtually everything the president does is within the public interest by virtue of his office," Kaplan asserted.
"No one even arguably directed or controlled President Trump when he commented on the plaintiff's accusation, which had nothing to do with the official business of government, that he raped her decades before he took office," Kaplan added.
\u201cNEW: A federal judge ruled DOJ *cannot* take over Trump's defense against the defamation suit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll \u2014\u00a0Trump doesn't qualify as a govt employee and, regardless, his statements weren't "within the scope of his employment" https://t.co/cTPeKnJr0n\u201d— Zoe Tillman (@Zoe Tillman) 1603805907
Kaplan's opinion allows Carroll to proceed with her suit against the president. Roberta Kaplan, Carroll's attorney, welcomed the judge's ruling.
"The simple truth is that President Trump defamed our client because she was brave enough to reveal that he had sexually assaulted her, and that brutal, personal attack cannot be attributed to the office of the president," the attorney for Carroll said in a statement on Tuesday.
Carroll also celebrated the decision, saying in a statement that "when Donald Trump called me a liar and denied that he had ever met me, he was not speaking on behalf of the United States. I am happy that Judge Kaplan recognized these basic truths."
Last June, Carroll claimed Trump raped her in a dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in 1995 or 1996. Trump responded to the accusation by denying he had ever met Carroll, and saying that she wasn't his "type."
"She is trying to sell a new book that should indicate her motivation," Trump said of his accuser. "It should be sold in the fiction section."
Carroll then sued Trump last November, arguing that his denials amounted to libel because of the damage they caused her reputation. In August a New York state court ruled the suit could proceed, which led to the DOJ's attempt to substitute itself for Trump going forward.
To date, at least 26 women have accused Trump--who infamously boasted of sexually assaulting women with impunity in a recording released a month before the 2016 election--of sexual assault or harrassment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular