My words today will be in honour of the men who suffered tremendous mental and physical trauma at the hands of overzealous trainers aiming to expose their wards to genuine warlike situations. It will be, as well, in memory of one wasted life, one lost gem. These men were picked and thus groomed to be the future defenders of our nation, our first line of defence. This is an indication of not just their physical calibre, but also a testament to their mental and analytical prowess. Can we condone such brutal treatment? For what purpose have they been tortured? One man died in this senseless excercise of military excellence.

One defence of the trainers who enacted and oversaw this exercise was that it had the primary function of exposing these men to honest, brutal, warfare conditions. It was necessary, as such, to deny the unalienable human rights accorded even prisoners of war, and violate the Geneva Convention in order to expose these soldiers to the true horrors of war, and thus prepare them. The question that arises, then, is that is this not an indictment of our military service's willingness to defy the honoured Geneva Convention? By arguing that genuine war has no ground for such civilities, are we, even in peacetime, contemplating the possibility, even inevitability of such flagrant abuse of basic human rights? If this be the case, I regretfully express my disgust at this hypocrisy and callosity; that we may so openly proclaim our enlightened state, yet never waver in our willingness to trample on human lives in the search of military superiority and excellence.

Another offer made in defence of the overseers of the exercise was that, ultimately, the soldiers had the right to at anytime stop the proceedings. Through this they hope to escape liability and censure, and claim that the responsibility for this tragedy lies in that the soldiers could and should have stopped the exercise when they felt it going too far. The very premise, however, of the exercise was one of suspended reality. They have had to give up their reality and place trust in their trainers to put them through a course to strengthen them. These men had to believe that they were helpless prisoners, and their trainers their captors. I believe that they, in their terror and confusion, took illusion to be reality, and had neither the clarity of thought, nor indeed the emotional and mental facilities to make a conscious decision to call for a stop. Can the abused hold reasonable belief that a calling for help would result in a cessation of abuse?
I acknowledge that speculation weakens the prior argument. It cannot hold in a logical debate. Thus I present another. These men preservered; and in one case, to a terrifying end. Do we, as a result of their admirable and utter tenacity pile judgement on them, and wrest fault from negligence? Do we fault them for seeking to be the best that they can be, and thus testing their limits?

Logic holds another argument. If these men suffered and broke, then they cannot survive a true war experience, and thus do not measure up to the necessarily high standards needed by the protectors of our nation. It needs but a blunt rebuttal: the exercise is a test of mettle and a means to achieve greater improvement, not a vessel to eliminate lesser soldiers.

To the men currently recuperating I wish to express my hope that they shall eventually return to full health, and that neither psychological shadow nor emotional darkness remain. For the bereaved family, I know that few words can be of any worth and pertinence now, but I express my hope that his death may yet be not in futile waste. It may engender a safer and more fruitful experience for the soldiers to come; this shall with good hope be his legacy. As for the accused, I hope that I may still persist in my belief in intrinsic human goodness. I shall never know if this belief is misplaced, but that is of little consequence. The essence, ultimately, lies in that work be done towards ensuring that such a tragedy has had its place in history, and no more.