AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT COVERED-UP BUNGLED SAS FIRE-FIGHT

Australia's ABC started reporting on this story on Tuesday night's edition of Lateline. The unedited transcript follows:

TONY JONES: The Defence Department has tonight confirmed reports that an Australian SAS soldier was disciplined after an operation in Afghanistan that killed at least 11 Afghani villagers and in which personal effects were souvenired from one of the dead. The report is contained in an article in an upcoming issue of Time magazine. Tom Iggulden reports.

TOM IGGULDEN: In May 2002, a patrol of crack Australian SAS troops were operating in eastern Afghanistan and were discovered by an armed villager who, according to the soldiers, drew a weapon. It was, in the words of one of the soldiers who fought that day, the last thing the villager ever did. He was shot, sparking a battle that lasted into the night with men from two local villages.

RORY CALLINAN, TIME MAGAZINE: We think it's at least nine that were killed in an air strike and then there was at least two who died as a result of, I think, SAS fire in an earlier engagement. It could be more than two, we're just not 100 per cent sure about those figures.

TOM IGGULDEN: Rory Callinan is the Brisbane journalist who broke the story for Time magazine.

RORY CALLINAN: Once the patrol's been compromised, you know, with the sound of shooting and the confusion, I suppose the fog of war, there's been tragic consequences.

TOM IGGULDEN: After beating a retreat from the initial engagement, one of the soldiers was forced back to the site of the fight to recover a camera he'd taken on patrol against army orders. According to the article, he then souvenired a turban from one of the dead villagers, in contravention of the rules of engagement. The leader of the patrol, who spoke to 'Time' for the story, has since left the army, citing his unease with how the matter was handled.

RORY CALLINAN: He appears to be a very professional person who has been absolutely devastated by this incident, and to this day - I mean, it's nearly three years on or just over three years since it's happened - he's still incensed about it, I guess.

TOM IGGULDEN: Tonight in Senate estimates, Defence Chief Peter Cosgrove confirmed disciplinary action had been taken as a result of actions on that day.

PETER COSGROVE: Tactical actions were reviewed after the incident and were determined by army to be in accordance with the rules of engagement. Some internal aspects of Patrol Kilo 3 were investigated fully at the time, and appropriate disciplinary action was initiated.

TOM IGGULDEN: Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James has tonight defended the Government's handling of the matter.

NEIL JAMES, AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE ASSOCIATION: Look, I don't find anything strange in this at all. I mean, when the military is in combat, you expect quite confused situations, and there's really nothing in this story that would really excite anyone who takes a professional interest in either soldiering or military history.

TOM IGGULDEN: And he says it's important for the SAS to be allowed to operate without excessive public scrutiny.

NEIL JAMES: Now, people can't sit here in armchairs, years afterwards, taking an antiseptic look at things. You really have to trust the decisions of the people on the ground when you put them in that type of combat situation.

TOM IGGULDEN: Defence Minister Robert Hill has refused to comment on the issue tonight.

It is important to note that Australian forces fired after a tribesman "drew a weapon" and that a firefight ensued. The controversy at this point centres on the souveniring of personal effects from a dead tribesman.

Ths story has now evolved into a cover-up "scandal" with the ABC reporting:

The Prime Minister has rejected accusations from a former SAS officer that Australia's Defence Force was involved in a cover-up over a special forces operation in Afghanistan which ended with the deaths of 11 civilians.

The Defence Force is re-investigating the incident, which happened in 2002 and which also involved allegations of looting by one Australian soldier.

Failing to report and covering-up are two entirely different things. It's not at all clear that the govenment has covered-up anything. Whether or not the 11 locals killed were civlians is also open to question: I maintain that civilians cease to be civilians when they take up arms and engage in hostile acts. No matter what happened in this incident, the public has no pressing need to know more. There are those, however, who would like to embarrass the military and the Howard government by turning this incident into Australia's own abu Ghraib:

Cover-up

... Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison insists the incident should have been made public at the time.

"There's a disturbing trend of governments receiving information and covering it up until somehow they're revealed in another way," she said.

"I think this is quite disturbing and problematic."

Bungled fire fight

The incident at the centre of the claims was a bungled fire fight that ended in the deaths of civilians.

A six-man SAS team was part of the US-led mission to track down Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in eastern Afghanistan.

The shooting began after a local villager reached for his gun.

The Australians shot first and that sparked the gun battle.

A nearby rival village thought it was under attack and started firing.

The Australians called for back-up and US war planes were brought in to bomb the areas. Eleven Afghan villagers died.

Looting

Another Australian soldier involved in the battle believed the whole incident had been covered up by his superiors.

Defence Force chief Peter Cosgrove has confirmed that disciplinary action has been taken against some of the soldiers and says there will be a further investigation in light of the article.

The report also claims one of the Australians souvenired a turban and gun belonging to one of the villagers.

Clearly, the ABC reporting of this incident has evolved; we now have a cover-up of a bungled fire fight with attendant looting.

It'll be interesting to see how far the left and the ABC want to run with this. It'll also be interesting to see how the public reacts.