Rules, reality and the fight for justice

The argument is not whether rules matter. It is whether later judgement properly understands the reality in which those rules were applied.

Much of the debate surrounding Operation Banner now takes place through law, process and retrospective examination.

That is understandable.

Law matters.

Rules matter.

Accountability matters.

But there remains a deeper question.

How should actions be judged decades later when those actions occurred in circumstances very different from those experienced by those now judging them?

Operation Banner was not conducted in a courtroom.

It was conducted in streets, fields, border areas and communities under sustained threat.

Soldiers and police officers often made decisions under pressure, uncertainty and incomplete information.

Many were young.

Most exercised little strategic control.

Yet decades later, those same events are revisited within legal, political and institutional frameworks far removed from the original conditions.

This creates tension.

Not between law and lawlessness.

But between rules and reality.

Many veterans do not reject legal scrutiny.

What concerns them is whether operational context is being lost.

As later debates have highlighted, soldiers operated under rules of engagement, military instruction and political direction established at government level. The famous “yellow card” existed precisely because force was regulated and constrained. Parliamentary debates continue to reflect this point: soldiers served under government authority and approved operational frameworks. (Hansard)

For many veterans, therefore, the issue is not accountability itself.

It is proportionality.

Who bears responsibility?

Where does risk settle?

How much weight is given to circumstance, pressure and command environment?

JFV has described part of this concern as risk relocation.

Responsibility increasingly appears to settle upon those closest to the event while distance grows from the political and institutional levels that shaped the environment.

The argument is not that soldiers should stand outside the law.

They should not.

Nor that wrongdoing should be ignored.

It should not.

The argument is that lawful service, operational reality and duty of care should remain part of the equation.

Because this debate extends beyond Operation Banner.

Future soldiers, police officers and security personnel will observe what happens now.

If retrospective judgement becomes detached from operational reality, confidence suffers.

Trust suffers.

The relationship between state and servant suffers.

The fight for justice therefore continues.

Not against the law.

But over how justice understands reality.

DOWNLOAD A PDF VERSION OF THIS PAGE