[lra]

I don't understand the 'could be guilty' result of a defamation case, as opposed to a 'definitely guilty' result in a criminal case. Like being a half full / half empty glass.
BRS is done and dusted in the public view, regardless of any 'real' war crimes trial finding.

It seems that there is more to this whole ****fight than is being told. US forces are not allowed to operate with allied forces which 'condone' war crimes, therefore putting the ADF in a difficult position.
How do they determine that without a conviction at The Hague ?
Is there some sort of defence / political blackmail being used, with selected persons being scapegoats ?
And the USA, in general, in not exactly squeaky clean on this subject. Seems OK to kill civilians in a missile raid, but not up close and personal.

What a ****ing mess.