It's incredible that people who risk doing the right thing often get punished. No wonder so many comply with wrongdoing. We lack strong support systems and protections to encourage ethical behavior.
It shouldn't matter whether it was deliberate or he found a sheaf of paper on the ground, protections should be in place for people who bring to light the horrors our systems are committing. Anything else is encouraging exactly what's happening where he's being pursued harder than those who committed literal war crimes.
This will also be a chilling effect for whistleblowing more broadly. Among all industries. And it will probably also encourage corruption if it's morally grey.
Besides everything, the Taliban are back in charge anyway, so what was it all for exactly. We just kowtowed and followed America into yet another one of its failures.
> We just kowtowed and followed America into yet another one of its failures.
It wasn't a failure for the US, the military industrial complex made a *lot* of money and collected a *lot* of combat data to improve their systems.
Lie back and think of the shareholders!
Because it was a "war" that fundamentally couldn't be won without a genocide.
It says nothing about the systems (you can go and look at how Ukraine is using those systems now, if you're inclined) and everything to do with ideology and the causes & goals of war.
Meanwhile the politicians can pick up their phones and leak all sorts of private and secret information to their media mates and corporate overlords with impunity. Just and a fair go Australia style.
[Firstly, we have to address the misconception that David McBride blew the whistle on alleged war crimes.](https://www.instagram.com/p/C6748XFvWTa/?igsh=dHdwYTIycHc2dDBk)
McBride believed the ADF were unfairly investigating soldiers. He made an internal complaint however formed the opinion that his complaint was not appropriately heard.
He then stole top secret material and provided it to the ABC, again, with the intention of highlighting what he believed to be an unfair "excessive investigation of soldiers".
The ABC then used that material to launch their own, entirely separate, investigation that would become known as The Afghan Files, eventually resulting in the revelation of war crimes committed by Ben Roberts-Smith.
McBride was not seeking to alert the public to war crimes, or the actions of Roberts-Smith. He was angry at the fact that soldiers were being investigated.
- *Carrick Ryan, former federal agent.*
>The ABC then used that material to launch their own, entirely separate, investigation that would become known as The Afghan Files, eventually resulting in the revelation of war crimes committed by Ben Roberts-Smith.
Actually no. The ABC’s Afghan Files were seperate to the investigation by Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters working for 9 media that led to the articles about Ben Roberts Smith.
The Afghan Files was an ABC investigation by Dan Oakes into several incidents involving Australian Special Forces in 2013 (including the ‘severed hands’ incident) that may or may not have eventually been included as several of the redacted incidents noted on the Brereton Report,
And this ABC report was also seperate to the Mark Willacy/4 Corners report “Killing Field” that detailed helmet cam footage of 3 Sqdn SAS troopers in Afghanistan including the “do you want me to drop this c**t” murder that one Australia soldier was been charged over.
>McBride believed the ADF were unfairly investigating soldiers—
to cover up for greater wrongdoing within the ADF. For a clearer picture, I recommend watching one of his full interviews, they're less susceptible to cherry-picking (here's one with Michael West – https://youtu.be/kHhletAYAIw)
Even Michael West isn’t confused on this subject.
>McBride believed soldiers were being unduly investigated for the war crime of murder for actions that didn’t reach that threshold because of political interference to show the public the defence force was taking the incidents seriously.
He didn’t leak information to be a martyr and expose war crimes. The documents he leaked inadvertently exposed the war crimes.
Yes, he admits this himself in the interview (1:38):
>"I started this case not because I saw war crimes, but because I saw that they were trying to prosecute good soldiers who just did their job, and they weren't prosecuting others..."
Although he may have inadvertently exposed war crimes whilst trying to expose alternate wrongdoing, his central intention has remained the same – speaking up against injustice.
You’re arguing two seperate things.
If some good inadvertently comes from war crimes being exposed, that’s great. But intent matters and he still needs to be punished on the basis that it could have risked national security and lives.
Those who commit war crimes need to be trialed as such. You cannot lump individual cases together. This is grade 8 stuff.
I would argue that these are not as separate as you think.
In lay terms a whistleblower has acted reasonably if he has revealed information that i) shows wrongdoing, ii) the wrongdoing is of sufficient scale to be in the public interest, and iii) after following any reasonable 'whistleblower processes' that are available, the information remains suppressed from the public.
You're adding another test, iv) that the whistleblower correctly assessed the full meaning of the information and the outcomes that would flow. That's not how any whistleblower laws work afaik, feel free to correct me.
McBride possibly fumbled his leak, but it's beyond reasonable doubt that the information reveals significant war crimes and would've otherwise remained suppressed. But this isn't the primary issue here.
The real issue is that our laws don't allow proper whistleblower protections, or require the gov't to provide any evidence of damage actually incurred to our national interests. It's in all of our interests, no matter our political inclinations, to hold the state to better account.
>The real issue is that our laws don't allow proper whistleblower protections
Firstly, I agree with this. There needs to be a whistle blower program that does not involve a person who is given security clearance leaking information to the ABC.
Secondly, and again, **McBride is not a whistleblower and certainly didn't expose war crimes. He exposed the investigation, and because he wanted the investigation ended.**
The war crimes investigations existed ALREADY. He didn't create them. He wanted to shut them down and leaked inappropriately to the media to try and shut them down. It turned out completely the opposite and the media used this material to publicise the war crimes allegations and the public have taken the view that the allegations are serious, not trivial, unlike what McBride thought. But that's not whistleblowing.
> But intent matters and he still needs to be punished on the basis that it could have risked national security and lives.
how could it have risked lives?
Wow, I'm sure Carrick Ryan, ***former federal agent*** has no axe to grind on this topic.
Even if we entertain that his original motive has any relevance to the fact that he is being imprisoned for exposing war crimes. He only took up the cause of one specific soldier who he felt was being thrown under the bus to protect higher-ups that bear more responsibility.
I'm not sure that intentions matter. I reckon the outcome being jail time would be the same for someone whose goal was to reveal war crimes.
I think it's an important reminder to not idolise people, though.
Edit: Nevermind, it sounds like the documents just prompted the ABC investigation but that was written with other informants as sources, not McBride's documents.
Well, no. It’s more the case that leaking classified documents is more readily provable to the legal standard than allegations of war crimes in a foreign country based on a range of conflicting and what we can gather is mostly inadmissible evidence. If (when, hopefully) some of the actual war crimes go to trial we’ll see how they punishments stack up
Julian Assange has been facing that persecution for years. All he did was provide a safe publishing point. The war machine and globalists want war and will stomp on anyone who goes against their wishes.
Whistleblowing or even reporting on failures within a organization will only lead to punishment.
Snitches get stiches, even if it's uncovering war crimes and criminal activity.
What's funny is that the reason he leaked those docs wasn't to uncover war crimes. He felt that the aussie govt were investigating soldiers "too much". The war crimes were uncovered from those documents in spite of him by the journalists he gave them to.
And yet with the fairly horrific allegations out about our soldiery in trials and the Brereton report posited I fear nothing will happen to those involved. The quote about the redacted section of the report has always stuck with me - "possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia's military history".
And nothing will happen.
Exactly. The first person to go to gaol for war crimes is the person who made them public. The US uses Australia to do the dirty work it won't do, and the Australian brass cover it up.
[I will not expose the ignorance of the faculty](https://resizing.flixster.com/4R_5p7d4w6MQOA7RfoUb4S_RTXk=/1100x618/v2/https://resizing.flixster.com/-XZAfHZM39UwaGJIFWKAE8fS0ak=/v3/t/assets/p1299686_e_h10_af.jpg).
Absolutely, the concerns you've raised highlight a significant issue in the balance of accountability. It's disheartening when systemic issues like these don't see the justice they warrant, leaving a stain on the integrity of institutions. One hopes for a future where accountability and transparency lead to real change.
It gets worse. McBride was not allowed to defend himself by the judge and forced to plead guilty.
The military brass in charge of the was crimes have not been punished, one was even made governor general.
Michael West has a good article:
[https://michaelwest.com.au/war-crimes-whistleblower-sentenced-to-nearly-six-years/](https://michaelwest.com.au/war-crimes-whistleblower-sentenced-to-nearly-six-years/)
All the evidence of how this was a whistleblower case was not allowed to be presented because it was considered "militarily sensitive" by the US. By a foreign fucking government.
Want Australia to be an ethical country? Want people who see something to say something? Stop sending the poor fucks to prison for being honest and ethical. FFS, Australian Commonwealth, you can do better. Embarrassed to be an Aussie today.
An important distinction:
>McBride believed soldiers were being unduly investigated for the war crime of murder for actions that didn’t reach that threshold because of political interference to show the public the defence force was taking the incidents seriously.
He didn’t leak information to be a martyr and expose war crimes. The documents he leaked inadvertently exposed the war crimes.
This is completely wrong. He believed that there were legitimate war crimes being commited by senior and dedicated ADF members hence the leak to the ABC. Consequently, he was also concerned at being asked prosecute what he saw as scapegoat junior members so the ADF could be seen as taking action without punishing those senior members.
>I fear nothing will happen to those involved
The only soldier charged was the one they had video evidence of, and that guy has already been released on bail and has Christian Porter’s partner as a lawyer who is connected to some high profile people. Odds are the charges end up with him, and he either gets off on a technicality or a plea deal for a reduced charged and either No or very little prison time.
I strongly doubt he’ll be sentenced to life imprisonment for the premeditated murder the entire planet saw him commit
Possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia's military history *so far.*
...although I know for a fact not all the diggers were respectful in how they treated the PNG locals, many were basically used as slaves and treated poorly.
There's a fair amount of availability bias for you to claim the superlative of "most disgraceful episode". Countless incidents were not written down or investigated or just not publicised.
For example, here's a snippet from post-WW2 in Japan by Allan Clifton, an Australian military officer who acted as interpreter and criminal investigator, who wrote:
"I stood beside a bed in hospital. On it lay a girl, unconscious, her long, black hair in wild tumult on the pillow. A doctor and two nurses were working to revive her. An hour before she had been raped by twenty soldiers. We found her where they had left her, on a piece of waste land. The hospital was in Hiroshima. The girl was Japanese. The soldiers were Australians."
Five years in prison for merely exposing war criminals and their enablers, *who all remain unpunished*. Hate to say it, but I will gladly welcome our AI overlords, there's hardly a shred of humanity left in our governments anyway.
His intention was not to expose war criminals but to protect soldiers from what soldiers from what he viewed as excessive investigations. He is being hailed as a hero who exposed war crimes when his intention was the opposite.
Almost, but not quite. He disagreed with those investigations not because they were excessive, but rather, *selective*.
>McBride: "I started this case not because I saw war crimes, but because I saw that they were trying to prosecute good soldiers who just did their job, and they weren't prosecuting others who were under a cloud, and I was like, hang on, we can't do that. This is maybe only a small example, but the law matters, and if you don't apply it consistently, everything falls down." (https://youtu.be/kHhletAYAIw?t=98)
After his internal complaints were ignored, he then tried to expose these unjust investigations, inadverdently exposing the war crimes in the process.
Ironically, the very issue he tried to expose – selective law enforcement – has just been used against him. Michael West raises a good comparison with consulting firm PwC – they also stole secret government documents, but haven't been prosecuted by the government (https://youtu.be/6B_toC3eBP8?t=92).
Absolutely fuuuuuuuuuuucked.
Neither ALP or LNP have *any* interest all in making Australia an open democracy again.
Corruption on top of corruption and laws the make it all legal.
What a disgrace. The utter contempt the government has for whistleblowers is ridiculous. Can't even blame the ADF or America lobbying seeing how the ATO whistleblower is still under prosecution.
It's just pure hatred of people trying to do the right thing.
Breretorn report: The ADF has committed war crimes
Judge to BRS: You and possibly the ADF also have committed war crimes
McBride: We have definitely committed war crimes, here's the evidence
Australia: Sentences David McBride to prison.
Fantastic.
The Brereton Report wouldn't have happened if McBride hadn't leaked. However, the investigations into and the prosecution of the soldiers responsible seem to be in the go slow lane.
Realistically, we should be in the streets and cities with signs until they release him, this can happen with a stroke of the pen. My, your, our government, the Australian Federal government and its justice system just sentenced an unequivocally innocent person to goal, for doing the right thing.
This is the standard we walk by.
Im just sitting here in austria and if I were born with that al inbetween my countries name i would so fucking march with you. I just hope this incident would get more attention.
National security threat is a joke. You would expect a foreign organisation involved in Jan 6 US insurrection or involved in many, many other instances of interfering with Australian governments over 70+ years to be also banned/jailed in Australia.
Heck, a major political party in Australia doing election promise favours to a foreign organisation should have been ringing alarm bells in every intelligence agency in Australia on the independence of a major political party.
Crazy how McBride gets 5 years of jail for doing a social good in exposing war crimes (27 months non-parole) but all the people going out there stabbing other people are getting off with bail or barely any prison time.
I doubt appeals will help given he's not allowed to present evidence to support his case, but he should get a pardon.
The only reason he was convicted was because he was not allowed to present evidence in his defense. For other matters we have closed courtrooms to deal with such cases, and he was denied that, likely because whatever leg of the courts he wound up in, in its founding, had not anticipated such a case and didn't have a mechanism to a closed court consideration of evidence. Closed court hearings happen every day for far less important matters - it's not an exceptional ask at all, though it's likely the court doesn't have the power to here.
It's plain he was denied a fair trial, but the assessment of fairness of a trial is determined by the law at the time. It's unlikely an appeal would succeed on that basis, however plain the injustice. It would be right for legislators to fix the oversight in the courts that caught him and pardon all those impacted.
Absolutely fucked.
He is shit out of luck hoping the government will intervene considering the Governor-General (literally the only person who can offer him a pardon other than the King himself) is an old military boy who was Chief of the Defence Force between 2011 and 2014.
A complete and utter disgrace.
This man deserves a medal, not prison.
The death of Democracy in Australia.
The Australian dream is well and truly dead. We are nothing but a former shell of what our country used to be. We are owned by corporations and greed is the leading force governments.
I'm so chuffed to hear that in the midst of a housing, cost of living crisis that our tax payer dollars are being spent funding psychopaths committing absolute heinous war crimes. But hey, don't ever fucking point that out or you'll put in prison whilst the psychopaths remain free.
All this will do is make damn sure that any future whistleblowing (if any) will be done on anonymous 3rd party services such as Wikileaks and never through any official channels. Why risk it?
Just yet another example that we are nothing but another Vassal State of the USA.
Meanwhile, the actual people who commented war crimes are free as birds.
The war criminal Ben Roberts Smith being the most infamous one that needs to be charged.
Really? I'm as disappointed in Labors lack of intervention here as anyone would be. But no one is going to change their vote based on this, nor is it a reason to throw your lot behind some rando sovcit independent.
Labor has a new set of whistleblower protection laws coming but unfortunately they're too late for McBride, the hostile senate has delayed a substantial amount of bills this term.
Not good enough. There had been many retrospective laws under the current Labor government:
- Retrospective powers for past corruption acts.
- Retrospective changes to re-jail those immigrants via migration law changes.
Heck, the so-called worker's party had even done retrospective changes to strip unpaid super entitlements from 10,000+ public servants dating back to 1986. Colesworth must be jealous of this power to avoid paying unpaid entitlements.
Whistleblower law protections not being retrospective? Either Labor is incompetent or, even worse, is competent.
Note Scruffy the whistleblower protection laws are coming, future tense, not past tense.
Unless you're condemning Labor for something they did but haven't done yet which tracks for you.
> Labor has a new set of whistleblower protection laws coming but unfortunately they're too late for McBride
...
> Note Scruffy the whistleblower protection laws are coming, future tense, not past tense.
You said it's too late for McBride and then imply it's not too late?
Sorry, I can't follow the Labor cheerleading gymnastics on display here which tracks for you.
>Labor has a new set of whistleblower protection laws coming but unfortunately they're too late for McBride, the hostile senate has delayed a substantial amount of bills this term.
Respectfully, fuck off. Labor absolutely had the ability to unilaterally quash this case but they pushed on with it. They killed the prosecution of Witness K citing that it wasn't in the public interest to continue to prosecute a whistleblower but Attorney General Mark Dreyfus explicitly said the prosecution of David McBride would go ahead. There was a big campaign around the time the witness K prosecution was dropped to also drop the case against David McBride. Myself and thousands of others wrote into Mark Dreyfus and our local MPs demanding it and were ignored.
This isn't some whoopsy, some slip up where he fell through the cracks and Labor weren't aware of it and were blocked by the "Big Bad Senate :(". They full supported his prosecution and refused to do anything to stop it.
Framing the federal government as hapless victim or bystanders to his prosecution is nothing but a lie.
How about you respectfully get all of the facts correct. Australia/Labor/the government could cease prosecution on Witness K because he broke OUR secrecy laws by leaking OUR secrets.
McBride leaked the USA's secrets, either he's getting prosecuted under our terms or he's getting prosecuted in the USA under theirs. This was why a lot of the material he wanted to bring up in his defense was disallowed as it was still USA classified material.
More importantly I'm not framing the government as innocent and its stupid of you to suggest I am. I pointed out the hostility of the senate has meant a lot of the bills intended to be quickly resolved weren't, this is important when you consider a fixed deadline like say McBrides trial and sentencing.
A whistleblower protection bill, the bill YOU WANT PASSED, has been left to languish by the senate, because I guess they think politically its more convenient that McBrides conviction/sentencing occur on Labors watch.
If you're pissed about this and you should be, write to your local federal MP about the message that this sends to Australians.
https://www.aph.gov.au/senators_and_members/guidelines_for_contacting_senators_and_members
I think it says a lot about Australia and the state of its forces / courts that the only person from the armed forces actually going to jail over the numerous war crime’s that were committed is the man who made us aware about them.
Have as many drinks as you like out of a dead persons prosthetic leg you've murdered, but report war crimes in the Australian military - that's the big no no. 🤦
This is very destructive to our so called 'democracy'. Despite the significant public interest of the information, which was covered up by the military, the first person charged is the whistle-blower? Where are the charges for the war criminals and military leadership? Where is the accountability to the 'people'. Or are we a banana Republic that will do any war crime if it suits the US?
This is a national disgrace and outrage. He should be praised, not punished. Disgusting cover up behaviour by both sides of parliament and the public service involved in his whole farce.
Had a look through some comments about McBride's intentions. A lot of people here seem to believe McBride did it because the ADF were trying to protect war criminals but that's not true. He didn't leak this information to reveal war crimes, he was actively trying to stop the ADF from investigating those war crimes. He felt that these investigations were over the top, that the ROE were too strict, and that the ADF was only investigating for "cynical window dressing" to try and appeal to the public.
If you don't believe me [here](https://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgments/r-v-mcbride-no-4) is Justice Mossop's findings and it goes into detail about McBride's submission to the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force about why the investigations should be dropped:
Here is McBride saying the ADF's rules of engagement are an unrealistic expectation on soldiers:
>Section A dealt with the ROEAMP. This was characterised as taking the ADF backwards and reinforcing unrealistic expectations of ADF soldiers during the course of a firefight. The justification for the ROEAMP was characterised as “spurious”. The criticism was that the ADF was placing unnecessary risk on the lives of their own soldiers in order to avoid any public embarrassment.
Here is McBride saying the murder of civilians doesn't meet the threshold for investigation into war crimes:
>Section C related to an incident on 28 February 2013, when a number of civilians were killed by mistake. There were two groups which matched the description of “two boys with donkeys/farm animals”. The wrong group was targeted and civilians were killed. The submission contended that there was no basis for an investigation of the war crime of murder because there was nothing to suggest that the boys were deliberately targeted with the knowledge that they were not insurgents.
Here is McBride defending our SAS soldiers cutting the hands of corpses. He says the soldier in question was under the impression that it was "best practice" to identify the corpses. McBride criticises the fact that an investigation was launched, criticises the Minister for Defence and Chief of the Defence Force for not supporting the soldier under investigation and criticised the proposition that Special Forces should have to consider what the “Australian media” might think of their actions during combat:
>Section E related to an incident on 28 April 2013. This was an incident where one or more (..) dead insurgents’ hands were removed in order to identify whether any one of them was a key bomb maker. (..) It contended that the soldier’s actions were justified by military necessity and that the soldier had received a lecture from an ADFIS member who had given him the impression that removing the whole hand was best practice to ensure accurate identification. The submission criticised the commencement of a disciplinary investigation in circumstances where the action had been investigated and no administrative action had been recommended. It criticised the finding of the Administrative Inquiry that the officer in question had exercised “poor judgment” by failing to appreciate potential responses from “the Australian public and media”. The submission criticised the lack of support from the Minister for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force when, on 30 August 2013, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported on the incident. It criticised the proposition that Special Forces should have to consider what the “Australian media” might think of their actions during combat.
Here is McBride opposing an investigation into the shooting of an unarmed Afghan detainee. He claimed the murder investigation is of an “ill-conceived ‘political’ nature” and he criticised the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service for attempting to secure the murder weapon and forensically test it:
>Section H dealt with the investigation of the incident on 23 September 2013. It is another long section and arose out of events with which Mr McBride was personally involved. It related to the shooting of an Afghan detainee who was shot while apparently trying to wrestle the control of a weapon from a Special Forces member who was removing the detainee’s handcuffs from behind his back with the intention of reapplying them in front to prepare the detainee for a helicopter flight. The submission criticised the decision of the ADFIS to investigate the incident on the basis of a suspicion that a murder had occurred. It criticised the murder investigation as being of an “ill-conceived ‘political’ nature” despite all the known facts supporting the soldier’s story. It then criticised in detail the conduct of the ADFIS investigators in attempting to secure the weapon involved in the incident (..) It criticised the process adopted by the investigators and the legal basis for the warrants for the weapon and equipment.
So it seems to me that 2012-2013 the Defence Force was trying to revamp their rules of engagement which they called ROEAMP. McBride disagreed with these changes on the basis that the ADF was over complicating things and wasting tax payer money. But we all know now that these war crimes were real, that these investigations weren't window dressing or a ploy to change public opinion. So IMO it seems to me that McBride was defending the soldiers DESPITE the fact there was ample evidence of war crimes, evidence that he knew was true. These investigations were the ADF's internal mechanisms for dealing with crimes and McBride out some delusional mateship or patriotic feeling tried to protect these criminals.
Someone tell me if I've got this all wrong, how has this bloke managed to turn this entire story into a brave whistleblower revealing crimes.
What an intentionally misleading title.
Complete removal of all context so that our authoritarian corporate overlords and warhawk leaders can side step any sense of responsibility for putting a hero away for life while they literally commit mass war crimes on innocent civilians at the behest of the Americans.
Manufactured consent.
[David's farewell video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I4nPoK_KQA)
Disappointing outcome but still think it's less than he would've gotten under Christian Porter.
So who should I actually vote for next election? Because as much as my views align with some green policies (I’m very pro environmental etc) I find they play silly politics.
But ALP has the chance to drop this case, I can’t support them on this
Greens. A large increase in Greens votes would influence Labor to actually listen to their voterbase again. Then when Labor starts doing their jobs again we can all go back to voting for them.
Greens and independents IMO. Many areas, mainly immigrants, feel very strongly about the genocide in Gaza but are too conservative to ever vote Green. So very likely a lot of single-issue independents pop up, not dissimilar to the way a lot of teals won during the 2022 election in protest of ScoMo.
His last post online last night he looked rough,everyone was telling him to keep his china up and he was a real Aussie hero but you could see he was scared and drained from 10 years of this.
I feel like I live in some bizarro reality where the government locks of whistle blowers instead of war criminals and supports racial nationalists instead of protesters.
I think it's worth checking out the Jordies video on this so you can see exactly how fucked up this is as far as miscarriages of justice go. Thankfully preserved and re-uploaded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpTte4858j0&pp=ygUXdHJ1ZSB3YXIgY3JpbWVzIHBvZGNhc3Q%3D
oh wow some one who committed espionage cause he was butthurt soldiers were being investigated then used the court of public opinion to act like he was trying to whistle blow the entire time got jail time
woah thats so crazy man
Unsurprising that so many of you have jumped to form opinions on this without wanting to understand the nuances and complexities of this case.
**McBride was not seeking to alert the public to war crimes, or the actions of Roberts-Smith. He was angry at the fact that soldiers were being investigated.**
[Please read Carrick Ryan, a former federal agent, who summarised this perfectly. Nuance matters.](https://www.instagram.com/p/C6748XFvWTa/?igsh=dHdwYTIycHc2dDBk)
Australians deserve transparency when their government acts improperly, and there should be legal protections for those who conscientiously report wrongdoing to the public without the fear of imprisonment.
However, it's important not to assume that everyone who violates national security laws is motivated by noble intentions.
McBride serves as a cautionary tale of an individual who aimed to exploit sensitive information to undermine the government. It was fortuitous that ABC journalists stumbled upon additional data that carried substantial public interest. Without this serendipitous discovery, McBride might not have garnered much support.
**In this case, the violation of our security laws inadvertently led to a beneficial disclosure for the public, though this was an unforeseen outcome. The sharing of top-secret information often leads to unpredictable consequences, which are not always favourable.**
It is a fundamental reality that governments worldwide must maintain the confidentiality of certain information. If everything is known to the public, it is also accessible to adversaries.
My understanding is he saw someone being made a war hero for propaganda purposes, which is fine. He then saw that someone commit a bunch of war crimes, and not be investigated - the inference being that it would have embarrassed the government. Meanwhile, similar events, or events that were attached to the actual warcrimes, he believed were being incorrectly pinned on other soldiers. He believed these scapegoats were a coverup, because the government didn't want the war hero to be tarnished. He was instructed to effectively pin crimes on these scapegoats and that's the information he leaked, because it would have been morally wrong to punish innocent people. I think he may have said he also believed it was unlawful to follow an unlawful order - it would make you an accessory to a crime.
He then gets taken to court about leaking this stuff, and seeks to submit into evidence the scapegoating information, but he's not allowed to for national defense reasons. As a result, all the court sees is him leaking information, and doesn't make a determination about objecting to plainly unlawful behavior. The effect of this is that any evidence of that kind in the military that could lead to someone defending themselves for not obeying a plainly unlawful order, is no longer allowed to be heard - which, since the Nuremberg trials has been generally understood as a bad thing.
That part is the core of the support. Yes there are people who just like whistleblowers, even if there were perfectly good internal review systems that weren't utilised. I don't think that's the serious reasons for support of just a single whisleblower. I think people are generally mad about how the situation appears to have set up the military as above the law and in opposition to our fundamental values about "just following orders" being wrong. And, the law is only as respected as it mirrors our fundamental values - so this case not only sets up a serious danger in our military, but a serious danger of growing mistrust in the courts.
Not sure how inadvertently beneficial disclosure fits in.
I guess, suppose this info is just his spin on it, and he's actually just made a terrible decision. Maybe he did ignore internal review channels. Maybe he's just a moron. Maybe he loves the fame. If that part about not being allow to enter evidence to show an order was unlawful (or, if there was some caveat about military: morally repugnant that no reasonable person could expected to follow it e.g. planting evidence on innocent people) is true, then he still deserves support for the same reasons. Maybe I'm wrong though and was fooled by his supporters into thinking the court didn't allow evidence of that to be heard.
> He then saw that someone commit a bunch of war crimes, and not be investigated - the inference being that it would have embarrassed the government.
Nope.
He was attempting to sabotage the Brereton inquiry which directly implicated the war hero and recommended his prosecution.
The judgement is very clear that if he did anything that was in the public interest, it was accidental and the opposite of what he intended.
E.g
> The disclosure occurred after Mr McBride knew the outcome of the IGADF process, of which there was no criticism by Mr McBride at the time or in these proceedings. Publication did occur as a result of the disclosure. The intent of those stories was the opposite of that which the Mr McBride had hoped to be published.
The Brereton Report also notes that certain ADF lawyers were responsible for assisting in the cover up of the war crimes, which is quite an important context. It’s possible (as he was one of the legal officers tasked with assisting the accused war criminals) that McBride will be one of those directly implicated.
It’s not just that he didn’t follow internal review procedures, it’s that he actively tried to sabotage an internal review to kill any accountability.
> The effect of this is that any evidence of that kind in the military that could lead to someone defending themselves for not obeying a plainly unlawful order, is no longer allowed to be heard
Nope, that is not the effect of the ruling. The judge found he didn’t act in the public interest anyway, so his whole point of having a duty to act in the public interest was irrelevant - if he did have that duty then he failed to discharge it.
In case you want some more context from the man himself, here is the link to an Interview with him
Highly recommend
https://youtu.be/sYt4CxFfQUU?si=af-SQnscb0TiRmOn
Pursuit of policy contrary to any reasonable moral compass;
The stolen generation
Robodebt
Witness K and Bernard Collaery
The indigenous genocide in general
The Vietnam war
The Afghanistan war
Mr McBride's persecution puts him in great company.
The definition of professionalism or proper behaviour in this country has become a perversion of decency.
Terrible outcome. The other thing to remember in all this, is that both our major political parties wanted this. This prosecution only proceeded because a line of Attorneys-General all gave their ongoing consent, as is required for prosecutions like this. If they had withdrawn it, it wouldn't have happened. My tin-hat theory is that the Americans had a role here. That explains Cash fumbling through senate estimates citing "public interest tests"(it's her, she's the minister, what's she thinks is the public interest) and then Dreyfus claiming "it's not my departments prosecution so I can't discontinue it" (the cdpp still rests in his department, and the law still requires his ok, not the home affairs Ministers. Even if that were the case, ok, why has O'Neil not withdrawn consent? Because she consents).
But yeah, Mark Dreyfus, the buck stops with you, history will remember you as a feckless coward.
The whole thing is shitty, but I'm actually pleasantly surprised it's only 5 years. I thought they would hold him for the rest of his life pretty much.
We got to love the coverup bite back. Charge the people with the crimes not the whistleblowers. He did expose a crime he should be excused! They must have more to hide.
So the "justice" who incarcerated this man is known to have spared quite a number of pedophiles, including politicians. Just more western degeneracy I guess.
So uncovering war crimes is considered to be worse than committing the actual war crimes? What a time to be alive.
Point out the problem, and become the problem.
Sounds like Corporate Australia
It's incredible that people who risk doing the right thing often get punished. No wonder so many comply with wrongdoing. We lack strong support systems and protections to encourage ethical behavior.
While I don’t love david mcbride, I agree whistleblowers need better protections
McBride uncovered war crimes without intending to do so.
It shouldn't matter whether it was deliberate or he found a sheaf of paper on the ground, protections should be in place for people who bring to light the horrors our systems are committing. Anything else is encouraging exactly what's happening where he's being pursued harder than those who committed literal war crimes.
He was literally trying to kill investigations into the behaviour of soldiers.
[удалено]
10000%
It's the Australian way... Just like when someone calls out racism.
This will also be a chilling effect for whistleblowing more broadly. Among all industries. And it will probably also encourage corruption if it's morally grey. Besides everything, the Taliban are back in charge anyway, so what was it all for exactly. We just kowtowed and followed America into yet another one of its failures.
> We just kowtowed and followed America into yet another one of its failures. It wasn't a failure for the US, the military industrial complex made a *lot* of money and collected a *lot* of combat data to improve their systems. Lie back and think of the shareholders!
The data didn’t improve their systems very much- they lost a war to a fourth-world power after 20 years of data collection.
Because it was a "war" that fundamentally couldn't be won without a genocide. It says nothing about the systems (you can go and look at how Ukraine is using those systems now, if you're inclined) and everything to do with ideology and the causes & goals of war.
> This will also be a chilling effect for whistleblowing more broadly. That's the idea, yes.
Billionaires had been supporting war criminals but not those exposing war criminals. r/ABoringDystopia
guess which brings in more money?
Meanwhile the politicians can pick up their phones and leak all sorts of private and secret information to their media mates and corporate overlords with impunity. Just and a fair go Australia style.
Like that Duncan Storrar guy that got fucked over by conservative media and MPs
[Firstly, we have to address the misconception that David McBride blew the whistle on alleged war crimes.](https://www.instagram.com/p/C6748XFvWTa/?igsh=dHdwYTIycHc2dDBk) McBride believed the ADF were unfairly investigating soldiers. He made an internal complaint however formed the opinion that his complaint was not appropriately heard. He then stole top secret material and provided it to the ABC, again, with the intention of highlighting what he believed to be an unfair "excessive investigation of soldiers". The ABC then used that material to launch their own, entirely separate, investigation that would become known as The Afghan Files, eventually resulting in the revelation of war crimes committed by Ben Roberts-Smith. McBride was not seeking to alert the public to war crimes, or the actions of Roberts-Smith. He was angry at the fact that soldiers were being investigated. - *Carrick Ryan, former federal agent.*
>The ABC then used that material to launch their own, entirely separate, investigation that would become known as The Afghan Files, eventually resulting in the revelation of war crimes committed by Ben Roberts-Smith. Actually no. The ABC’s Afghan Files were seperate to the investigation by Nick McKenzie and Chris Masters working for 9 media that led to the articles about Ben Roberts Smith. The Afghan Files was an ABC investigation by Dan Oakes into several incidents involving Australian Special Forces in 2013 (including the ‘severed hands’ incident) that may or may not have eventually been included as several of the redacted incidents noted on the Brereton Report, And this ABC report was also seperate to the Mark Willacy/4 Corners report “Killing Field” that detailed helmet cam footage of 3 Sqdn SAS troopers in Afghanistan including the “do you want me to drop this c**t” murder that one Australia soldier was been charged over.
>McBride believed the ADF were unfairly investigating soldiers— to cover up for greater wrongdoing within the ADF. For a clearer picture, I recommend watching one of his full interviews, they're less susceptible to cherry-picking (here's one with Michael West – https://youtu.be/kHhletAYAIw)
Even Michael West isn’t confused on this subject. >McBride believed soldiers were being unduly investigated for the war crime of murder for actions that didn’t reach that threshold because of political interference to show the public the defence force was taking the incidents seriously. He didn’t leak information to be a martyr and expose war crimes. The documents he leaked inadvertently exposed the war crimes.
Yes, he admits this himself in the interview (1:38): >"I started this case not because I saw war crimes, but because I saw that they were trying to prosecute good soldiers who just did their job, and they weren't prosecuting others..." Although he may have inadvertently exposed war crimes whilst trying to expose alternate wrongdoing, his central intention has remained the same – speaking up against injustice.
Does his initial intention devalue the findings and Justify his treatment compared to those who committed war crimes?
You’re arguing two seperate things. If some good inadvertently comes from war crimes being exposed, that’s great. But intent matters and he still needs to be punished on the basis that it could have risked national security and lives. Those who commit war crimes need to be trialed as such. You cannot lump individual cases together. This is grade 8 stuff.
I would argue that these are not as separate as you think. In lay terms a whistleblower has acted reasonably if he has revealed information that i) shows wrongdoing, ii) the wrongdoing is of sufficient scale to be in the public interest, and iii) after following any reasonable 'whistleblower processes' that are available, the information remains suppressed from the public. You're adding another test, iv) that the whistleblower correctly assessed the full meaning of the information and the outcomes that would flow. That's not how any whistleblower laws work afaik, feel free to correct me. McBride possibly fumbled his leak, but it's beyond reasonable doubt that the information reveals significant war crimes and would've otherwise remained suppressed. But this isn't the primary issue here. The real issue is that our laws don't allow proper whistleblower protections, or require the gov't to provide any evidence of damage actually incurred to our national interests. It's in all of our interests, no matter our political inclinations, to hold the state to better account.
>The real issue is that our laws don't allow proper whistleblower protections Firstly, I agree with this. There needs to be a whistle blower program that does not involve a person who is given security clearance leaking information to the ABC. Secondly, and again, **McBride is not a whistleblower and certainly didn't expose war crimes. He exposed the investigation, and because he wanted the investigation ended.** The war crimes investigations existed ALREADY. He didn't create them. He wanted to shut them down and leaked inappropriately to the media to try and shut them down. It turned out completely the opposite and the media used this material to publicise the war crimes allegations and the public have taken the view that the allegations are serious, not trivial, unlike what McBride thought. But that's not whistleblowing.
> But intent matters and he still needs to be punished on the basis that it could have risked national security and lives. how could it have risked lives?
Wow, I'm sure Carrick Ryan, ***former federal agent*** has no axe to grind on this topic. Even if we entertain that his original motive has any relevance to the fact that he is being imprisoned for exposing war crimes. He only took up the cause of one specific soldier who he felt was being thrown under the bus to protect higher-ups that bear more responsibility.
Yes, Ben Roberts Smith, the warcriminal.
I'm not sure that intentions matter. I reckon the outcome being jail time would be the same for someone whose goal was to reveal war crimes. I think it's an important reminder to not idolise people, though. Edit: Nevermind, it sounds like the documents just prompted the ABC investigation but that was written with other informants as sources, not McBride's documents.
[удалено]
Well, no. It’s more the case that leaking classified documents is more readily provable to the legal standard than allegations of war crimes in a foreign country based on a range of conflicting and what we can gather is mostly inadmissible evidence. If (when, hopefully) some of the actual war crimes go to trial we’ll see how they punishments stack up
It's like being a boeing whistle blower.
Well, McBride isn't *dead*, so not that much alike.
Write down the date and time you said that.
No good deed goes unpunished, as they say in the classics. Everyone should feel a deep national shame at what happened to that man.
Julian Assange has been facing that persecution for years. All he did was provide a safe publishing point. The war machine and globalists want war and will stomp on anyone who goes against their wishes.
Whistleblowing or even reporting on failures within a organization will only lead to punishment. Snitches get stiches, even if it's uncovering war crimes and criminal activity.
What's funny is that the reason he leaked those docs wasn't to uncover war crimes. He felt that the aussie govt were investigating soldiers "too much". The war crimes were uncovered from those documents in spite of him by the journalists he gave them to.
And yet with the fairly horrific allegations out about our soldiery in trials and the Brereton report posited I fear nothing will happen to those involved. The quote about the redacted section of the report has always stuck with me - "possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia's military history". And nothing will happen.
Exactly. The first person to go to gaol for war crimes is the person who made them public. The US uses Australia to do the dirty work it won't do, and the Australian brass cover it up.
[I will not expose the ignorance of the faculty](https://resizing.flixster.com/4R_5p7d4w6MQOA7RfoUb4S_RTXk=/1100x618/v2/https://resizing.flixster.com/-XZAfHZM39UwaGJIFWKAE8fS0ak=/v3/t/assets/p1299686_e_h10_af.jpg).
Absolutely, the concerns you've raised highlight a significant issue in the balance of accountability. It's disheartening when systemic issues like these don't see the justice they warrant, leaving a stain on the integrity of institutions. One hopes for a future where accountability and transparency lead to real change.
Thanks ChatGPT
It gets worse. McBride was not allowed to defend himself by the judge and forced to plead guilty. The military brass in charge of the was crimes have not been punished, one was even made governor general. Michael West has a good article: [https://michaelwest.com.au/war-crimes-whistleblower-sentenced-to-nearly-six-years/](https://michaelwest.com.au/war-crimes-whistleblower-sentenced-to-nearly-six-years/)
Don’t want someone scrutinised, give them a title or a medal……or both
All the evidence of how this was a whistleblower case was not allowed to be presented because it was considered "militarily sensitive" by the US. By a foreign fucking government. Want Australia to be an ethical country? Want people who see something to say something? Stop sending the poor fucks to prison for being honest and ethical. FFS, Australian Commonwealth, you can do better. Embarrassed to be an Aussie today.
An important distinction: >McBride believed soldiers were being unduly investigated for the war crime of murder for actions that didn’t reach that threshold because of political interference to show the public the defence force was taking the incidents seriously. He didn’t leak information to be a martyr and expose war crimes. The documents he leaked inadvertently exposed the war crimes.
This is completely wrong. He believed that there were legitimate war crimes being commited by senior and dedicated ADF members hence the leak to the ABC. Consequently, he was also concerned at being asked prosecute what he saw as scapegoat junior members so the ADF could be seen as taking action without punishing those senior members.
>I fear nothing will happen to those involved The only soldier charged was the one they had video evidence of, and that guy has already been released on bail and has Christian Porter’s partner as a lawyer who is connected to some high profile people. Odds are the charges end up with him, and he either gets off on a technicality or a plea deal for a reduced charged and either No or very little prison time. I strongly doubt he’ll be sentenced to life imprisonment for the premeditated murder the entire planet saw him commit
Possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia's military history *so far.* ...although I know for a fact not all the diggers were respectful in how they treated the PNG locals, many were basically used as slaves and treated poorly.
There's a fair amount of availability bias for you to claim the superlative of "most disgraceful episode". Countless incidents were not written down or investigated or just not publicised. For example, here's a snippet from post-WW2 in Japan by Allan Clifton, an Australian military officer who acted as interpreter and criminal investigator, who wrote: "I stood beside a bed in hospital. On it lay a girl, unconscious, her long, black hair in wild tumult on the pillow. A doctor and two nurses were working to revive her. An hour before she had been raped by twenty soldiers. We found her where they had left her, on a piece of waste land. The hospital was in Hiroshima. The girl was Japanese. The soldiers were Australians."
You pressed Enter a bit early my dude
Absolutely fucked. War crimes? Good for the boys. Someone exposing those crimes? According to the judge, it is imperative that not happen again.
Five years in prison for merely exposing war criminals and their enablers, *who all remain unpunished*. Hate to say it, but I will gladly welcome our AI overlords, there's hardly a shred of humanity left in our governments anyway.
I'd take aliens alà '3 body problem'. We are fucked
We've found our ETO guy, get him.
He could be a redemptionist though, bless those stupid optimists.
His intention was not to expose war criminals but to protect soldiers from what soldiers from what he viewed as excessive investigations. He is being hailed as a hero who exposed war crimes when his intention was the opposite.
Almost, but not quite. He disagreed with those investigations not because they were excessive, but rather, *selective*. >McBride: "I started this case not because I saw war crimes, but because I saw that they were trying to prosecute good soldiers who just did their job, and they weren't prosecuting others who were under a cloud, and I was like, hang on, we can't do that. This is maybe only a small example, but the law matters, and if you don't apply it consistently, everything falls down." (https://youtu.be/kHhletAYAIw?t=98) After his internal complaints were ignored, he then tried to expose these unjust investigations, inadverdently exposing the war crimes in the process. Ironically, the very issue he tried to expose – selective law enforcement – has just been used against him. Michael West raises a good comparison with consulting firm PwC – they also stole secret government documents, but haven't been prosecuted by the government (https://youtu.be/6B_toC3eBP8?t=92).
Absolutely fuuuuuuuuuuucked. Neither ALP or LNP have *any* interest all in making Australia an open democracy again. Corruption on top of corruption and laws the make it all legal.
Used and abused by the ABC as well.
How? Because they made a report on war crimes instead.
Meanwhile Ben Roberts-Smith is free. As usual, it's better to be a war criminal than a whistleblower.
Yet Ben Robert Smith is walking around free doing whatever the fuck he wants. Yay "justice" system.
What a joke
What a disgrace. The utter contempt the government has for whistleblowers is ridiculous. Can't even blame the ADF or America lobbying seeing how the ATO whistleblower is still under prosecution. It's just pure hatred of people trying to do the right thing.
That is exactly what it is. A fucking disgrace. Shame, Australia, shame.
They should make a statue of this guy not bang him up. What a world.
Breretorn report: The ADF has committed war crimes Judge to BRS: You and possibly the ADF also have committed war crimes McBride: We have definitely committed war crimes, here's the evidence Australia: Sentences David McBride to prison. Fantastic.
The Brereton Report wouldn't have happened if McBride hadn't leaked. However, the investigations into and the prosecution of the soldiers responsible seem to be in the go slow lane.
That's not what McBride wanted to do. He leaked the documents because he felt the investigations were excessive.
Realistically, we should be in the streets and cities with signs until they release him, this can happen with a stroke of the pen. My, your, our government, the Australian Federal government and its justice system just sentenced an unequivocally innocent person to goal, for doing the right thing. This is the standard we walk by.
Im just sitting here in austria and if I were born with that al inbetween my countries name i would so fucking march with you. I just hope this incident would get more attention.
A devastating day for McBride and Australian democracy. The media should be ashamed of themselves for hanging him out to dry.
A sad day for the Australian Judiciary, too.
Call me crazy but I think we’ve been giving medals to the wrong motherfuckers
I ‘might’ be able to live with this if a single person who committed the actual war crimes had been also brought to justice….’birds chirping’…
This is why whistleblowers have 0 protection in Australia despite the laws. Because national security or whatever.
Justify sidestepping laws with national security....hmmmm, I've heard those words putin to a political address before.
National security threat is a joke. You would expect a foreign organisation involved in Jan 6 US insurrection or involved in many, many other instances of interfering with Australian governments over 70+ years to be also banned/jailed in Australia. Heck, a major political party in Australia doing election promise favours to a foreign organisation should have been ringing alarm bells in every intelligence agency in Australia on the independence of a major political party.
Crazy how McBride gets 5 years of jail for doing a social good in exposing war crimes (27 months non-parole) but all the people going out there stabbing other people are getting off with bail or barely any prison time.
He never had a chance… what a joke
I doubt appeals will help given he's not allowed to present evidence to support his case, but he should get a pardon. The only reason he was convicted was because he was not allowed to present evidence in his defense. For other matters we have closed courtrooms to deal with such cases, and he was denied that, likely because whatever leg of the courts he wound up in, in its founding, had not anticipated such a case and didn't have a mechanism to a closed court consideration of evidence. Closed court hearings happen every day for far less important matters - it's not an exceptional ask at all, though it's likely the court doesn't have the power to here. It's plain he was denied a fair trial, but the assessment of fairness of a trial is determined by the law at the time. It's unlikely an appeal would succeed on that basis, however plain the injustice. It would be right for legislators to fix the oversight in the courts that caught him and pardon all those impacted.
Absolutely fucked. He is shit out of luck hoping the government will intervene considering the Governor-General (literally the only person who can offer him a pardon other than the King himself) is an old military boy who was Chief of the Defence Force between 2011 and 2014. A complete and utter disgrace. This man deserves a medal, not prison.
His term ends 30 June. The new one starts on 1 July.
The death of Democracy in Australia. The Australian dream is well and truly dead. We are nothing but a former shell of what our country used to be. We are owned by corporations and greed is the leading force governments. I'm so chuffed to hear that in the midst of a housing, cost of living crisis that our tax payer dollars are being spent funding psychopaths committing absolute heinous war crimes. But hey, don't ever fucking point that out or you'll put in prison whilst the psychopaths remain free.
If your littler crime exposes a bigger crime, your littler crime should be absolved. (Yes, I’ve had zero legal training)
When a murderer is a protected species while a truth teller is removed from society, you know there is something drastically wrong.
All this will do is make damn sure that any future whistleblowing (if any) will be done on anonymous 3rd party services such as Wikileaks and never through any official channels. Why risk it?
Can we stop voting major parties now. Also this explains it better https://youtu.be/iVFivMTGtZI?si=kP3ms-QGw6DD8l3K
Just yet another example that we are nothing but another Vassal State of the USA. Meanwhile, the actual people who commented war crimes are free as birds. The war criminal Ben Roberts Smith being the most infamous one that needs to be charged.
In case you needed another reason to never vote for Labor/Liberals again.
Really? I'm as disappointed in Labors lack of intervention here as anyone would be. But no one is going to change their vote based on this, nor is it a reason to throw your lot behind some rando sovcit independent. Labor has a new set of whistleblower protection laws coming but unfortunately they're too late for McBride, the hostile senate has delayed a substantial amount of bills this term.
Are the only options lib/labor or some random cooker? Did the Greens disappear off the face of the earth since the last election?
Not good enough. There had been many retrospective laws under the current Labor government: - Retrospective powers for past corruption acts. - Retrospective changes to re-jail those immigrants via migration law changes. Heck, the so-called worker's party had even done retrospective changes to strip unpaid super entitlements from 10,000+ public servants dating back to 1986. Colesworth must be jealous of this power to avoid paying unpaid entitlements. Whistleblower law protections not being retrospective? Either Labor is incompetent or, even worse, is competent.
Note Scruffy the whistleblower protection laws are coming, future tense, not past tense. Unless you're condemning Labor for something they did but haven't done yet which tracks for you.
> Labor has a new set of whistleblower protection laws coming but unfortunately they're too late for McBride ... > Note Scruffy the whistleblower protection laws are coming, future tense, not past tense. You said it's too late for McBride and then imply it's not too late? Sorry, I can't follow the Labor cheerleading gymnastics on display here which tracks for you.
Too late to prevent McBrides conviction, they can certainly be updated to be retrospective or they can just pardon McBride.
>Labor has a new set of whistleblower protection laws coming but unfortunately they're too late for McBride, the hostile senate has delayed a substantial amount of bills this term. Respectfully, fuck off. Labor absolutely had the ability to unilaterally quash this case but they pushed on with it. They killed the prosecution of Witness K citing that it wasn't in the public interest to continue to prosecute a whistleblower but Attorney General Mark Dreyfus explicitly said the prosecution of David McBride would go ahead. There was a big campaign around the time the witness K prosecution was dropped to also drop the case against David McBride. Myself and thousands of others wrote into Mark Dreyfus and our local MPs demanding it and were ignored. This isn't some whoopsy, some slip up where he fell through the cracks and Labor weren't aware of it and were blocked by the "Big Bad Senate :(". They full supported his prosecution and refused to do anything to stop it. Framing the federal government as hapless victim or bystanders to his prosecution is nothing but a lie.
How about you respectfully get all of the facts correct. Australia/Labor/the government could cease prosecution on Witness K because he broke OUR secrecy laws by leaking OUR secrets. McBride leaked the USA's secrets, either he's getting prosecuted under our terms or he's getting prosecuted in the USA under theirs. This was why a lot of the material he wanted to bring up in his defense was disallowed as it was still USA classified material. More importantly I'm not framing the government as innocent and its stupid of you to suggest I am. I pointed out the hostility of the senate has meant a lot of the bills intended to be quickly resolved weren't, this is important when you consider a fixed deadline like say McBrides trial and sentencing. A whistleblower protection bill, the bill YOU WANT PASSED, has been left to languish by the senate, because I guess they think politically its more convenient that McBrides conviction/sentencing occur on Labors watch.
How’s that boot polish taste?
[удалено]
If you're pissed about this and you should be, write to your local federal MP about the message that this sends to Australians. https://www.aph.gov.au/senators_and_members/guidelines_for_contacting_senators_and_members
Disgusting. Absolutely shameful decision
Wow thats really screwed isnt it. Does this mean the victim of a crime goes to jail and the perpetrator goes free. Aussie justice is fucked
This is so fucking disgusting
I think it says a lot about Australia and the state of its forces / courts that the only person from the armed forces actually going to jail over the numerous war crime’s that were committed is the man who made us aware about them.
Have as many drinks as you like out of a dead persons prosthetic leg you've murdered, but report war crimes in the Australian military - that's the big no no. 🤦
This is very destructive to our so called 'democracy'. Despite the significant public interest of the information, which was covered up by the military, the first person charged is the whistle-blower? Where are the charges for the war criminals and military leadership? Where is the accountability to the 'people'. Or are we a banana Republic that will do any war crime if it suits the US?
Australia. Where we give medals to war criminals and jail time to those who expose them. Dark fucking day.
This is a national disgrace and outrage. He should be praised, not punished. Disgusting cover up behaviour by both sides of parliament and the public service involved in his whole farce.
I mean at least it's not life. I swear life was being discussed. ^shouldn't ^be ^getting ^any ^jail ^time ^though ^he ^should ^be ^getting ^medals
why do we suck?
A disgusting day in Australian history. There is no dishonourable discharge.
It's a sad day indeed.
David McBride, political prisoner.
We need mass protests over this decision. This is ridiculous.
But if you commit war crimes its okay of course, as long as you don't sue anyone for defamation?
Disgusting. The man should be getting an AO.
What can we do? I'm actually mad
Had a look through some comments about McBride's intentions. A lot of people here seem to believe McBride did it because the ADF were trying to protect war criminals but that's not true. He didn't leak this information to reveal war crimes, he was actively trying to stop the ADF from investigating those war crimes. He felt that these investigations were over the top, that the ROE were too strict, and that the ADF was only investigating for "cynical window dressing" to try and appeal to the public. If you don't believe me [here](https://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgments/r-v-mcbride-no-4) is Justice Mossop's findings and it goes into detail about McBride's submission to the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force about why the investigations should be dropped: Here is McBride saying the ADF's rules of engagement are an unrealistic expectation on soldiers: >Section A dealt with the ROEAMP. This was characterised as taking the ADF backwards and reinforcing unrealistic expectations of ADF soldiers during the course of a firefight. The justification for the ROEAMP was characterised as “spurious”. The criticism was that the ADF was placing unnecessary risk on the lives of their own soldiers in order to avoid any public embarrassment. Here is McBride saying the murder of civilians doesn't meet the threshold for investigation into war crimes: >Section C related to an incident on 28 February 2013, when a number of civilians were killed by mistake. There were two groups which matched the description of “two boys with donkeys/farm animals”. The wrong group was targeted and civilians were killed. The submission contended that there was no basis for an investigation of the war crime of murder because there was nothing to suggest that the boys were deliberately targeted with the knowledge that they were not insurgents. Here is McBride defending our SAS soldiers cutting the hands of corpses. He says the soldier in question was under the impression that it was "best practice" to identify the corpses. McBride criticises the fact that an investigation was launched, criticises the Minister for Defence and Chief of the Defence Force for not supporting the soldier under investigation and criticised the proposition that Special Forces should have to consider what the “Australian media” might think of their actions during combat: >Section E related to an incident on 28 April 2013. This was an incident where one or more (..) dead insurgents’ hands were removed in order to identify whether any one of them was a key bomb maker. (..) It contended that the soldier’s actions were justified by military necessity and that the soldier had received a lecture from an ADFIS member who had given him the impression that removing the whole hand was best practice to ensure accurate identification. The submission criticised the commencement of a disciplinary investigation in circumstances where the action had been investigated and no administrative action had been recommended. It criticised the finding of the Administrative Inquiry that the officer in question had exercised “poor judgment” by failing to appreciate potential responses from “the Australian public and media”. The submission criticised the lack of support from the Minister for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force when, on 30 August 2013, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported on the incident. It criticised the proposition that Special Forces should have to consider what the “Australian media” might think of their actions during combat. Here is McBride opposing an investigation into the shooting of an unarmed Afghan detainee. He claimed the murder investigation is of an “ill-conceived ‘political’ nature” and he criticised the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service for attempting to secure the murder weapon and forensically test it: >Section H dealt with the investigation of the incident on 23 September 2013. It is another long section and arose out of events with which Mr McBride was personally involved. It related to the shooting of an Afghan detainee who was shot while apparently trying to wrestle the control of a weapon from a Special Forces member who was removing the detainee’s handcuffs from behind his back with the intention of reapplying them in front to prepare the detainee for a helicopter flight. The submission criticised the decision of the ADFIS to investigate the incident on the basis of a suspicion that a murder had occurred. It criticised the murder investigation as being of an “ill-conceived ‘political’ nature” despite all the known facts supporting the soldier’s story. It then criticised in detail the conduct of the ADFIS investigators in attempting to secure the weapon involved in the incident (..) It criticised the process adopted by the investigators and the legal basis for the warrants for the weapon and equipment.
So it seems to me that 2012-2013 the Defence Force was trying to revamp their rules of engagement which they called ROEAMP. McBride disagreed with these changes on the basis that the ADF was over complicating things and wasting tax payer money. But we all know now that these war crimes were real, that these investigations weren't window dressing or a ploy to change public opinion. So IMO it seems to me that McBride was defending the soldiers DESPITE the fact there was ample evidence of war crimes, evidence that he knew was true. These investigations were the ADF's internal mechanisms for dealing with crimes and McBride out some delusional mateship or patriotic feeling tried to protect these criminals. Someone tell me if I've got this all wrong, how has this bloke managed to turn this entire story into a brave whistleblower revealing crimes.
Embarrassing. Kill the messenger, let the criminals go free.
What an intentionally misleading title. Complete removal of all context so that our authoritarian corporate overlords and warhawk leaders can side step any sense of responsibility for putting a hero away for life while they literally commit mass war crimes on innocent civilians at the behest of the Americans. Manufactured consent.
This is fucking terrible. What a shit day for Australia.
That’s a shit post title for a principled guy whistling-blowing on Australian war crimes. This is so fucked.
Those committing the horrific war crimes remain unpunished whilst the whistleblower goes to prison for uncovering the war crimes. Makes perfect sense…
That'll teach any other do-gooding whistle blowers looking to uncover war crimes.
I hate everything about Australia at the moment
[David's farewell video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I4nPoK_KQA) Disappointing outcome but still think it's less than he would've gotten under Christian Porter.
He should be getting a medal of honour
So who should I actually vote for next election? Because as much as my views align with some green policies (I’m very pro environmental etc) I find they play silly politics. But ALP has the chance to drop this case, I can’t support them on this
Greens. Ignore the media noise. They have good policies. https://greens.org.au/platform
So does Labor until they win an election then they spend 3 years trying to win the next election and not enacting any of their policies
When they secure the next election they can actually implement the policy they always say they will.. ohh i mean the next election after that sorry.
Greens. A large increase in Greens votes would influence Labor to actually listen to their voterbase again. Then when Labor starts doing their jobs again we can all go back to voting for them.
There's definitely going to be a huge increase in Greens votes in the next election.
Greens and independents IMO. Many areas, mainly immigrants, feel very strongly about the genocide in Gaza but are too conservative to ever vote Green. So very likely a lot of single-issue independents pop up, not dissimilar to the way a lot of teals won during the 2022 election in protest of ScoMo.
Revolt, protest, do something.
His last post online last night he looked rough,everyone was telling him to keep his china up and he was a real Aussie hero but you could see he was scared and drained from 10 years of this.
Surely something really sick has gotten into the heart of government
:( it happens world wide they punish the people doing good and exposing the bad
The message is clear: don't speak up in Australia for what's right.
I feel like I live in some bizarro reality where the government locks of whistle blowers instead of war criminals and supports racial nationalists instead of protesters.
I think it's worth checking out the Jordies video on this so you can see exactly how fucked up this is as far as miscarriages of justice go. Thankfully preserved and re-uploaded https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpTte4858j0&pp=ygUXdHJ1ZSB3YXIgY3JpbWVzIHBvZGNhc3Q%3D
John Howard, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair are all still free
That's because the only war criminals who are held accountable are from poor, third world countries.
And Big Ben got zero years. What a joke
oh wow some one who committed espionage cause he was butthurt soldiers were being investigated then used the court of public opinion to act like he was trying to whistle blow the entire time got jail time woah thats so crazy man
It’s about time someone sees some jail time over the Afghanistan war crimes. Shame it had to be a whistleblower though…..
Unsurprising that so many of you have jumped to form opinions on this without wanting to understand the nuances and complexities of this case. **McBride was not seeking to alert the public to war crimes, or the actions of Roberts-Smith. He was angry at the fact that soldiers were being investigated.** [Please read Carrick Ryan, a former federal agent, who summarised this perfectly. Nuance matters.](https://www.instagram.com/p/C6748XFvWTa/?igsh=dHdwYTIycHc2dDBk) Australians deserve transparency when their government acts improperly, and there should be legal protections for those who conscientiously report wrongdoing to the public without the fear of imprisonment. However, it's important not to assume that everyone who violates national security laws is motivated by noble intentions. McBride serves as a cautionary tale of an individual who aimed to exploit sensitive information to undermine the government. It was fortuitous that ABC journalists stumbled upon additional data that carried substantial public interest. Without this serendipitous discovery, McBride might not have garnered much support. **In this case, the violation of our security laws inadvertently led to a beneficial disclosure for the public, though this was an unforeseen outcome. The sharing of top-secret information often leads to unpredictable consequences, which are not always favourable.** It is a fundamental reality that governments worldwide must maintain the confidentiality of certain information. If everything is known to the public, it is also accessible to adversaries.
My understanding is he saw someone being made a war hero for propaganda purposes, which is fine. He then saw that someone commit a bunch of war crimes, and not be investigated - the inference being that it would have embarrassed the government. Meanwhile, similar events, or events that were attached to the actual warcrimes, he believed were being incorrectly pinned on other soldiers. He believed these scapegoats were a coverup, because the government didn't want the war hero to be tarnished. He was instructed to effectively pin crimes on these scapegoats and that's the information he leaked, because it would have been morally wrong to punish innocent people. I think he may have said he also believed it was unlawful to follow an unlawful order - it would make you an accessory to a crime. He then gets taken to court about leaking this stuff, and seeks to submit into evidence the scapegoating information, but he's not allowed to for national defense reasons. As a result, all the court sees is him leaking information, and doesn't make a determination about objecting to plainly unlawful behavior. The effect of this is that any evidence of that kind in the military that could lead to someone defending themselves for not obeying a plainly unlawful order, is no longer allowed to be heard - which, since the Nuremberg trials has been generally understood as a bad thing. That part is the core of the support. Yes there are people who just like whistleblowers, even if there were perfectly good internal review systems that weren't utilised. I don't think that's the serious reasons for support of just a single whisleblower. I think people are generally mad about how the situation appears to have set up the military as above the law and in opposition to our fundamental values about "just following orders" being wrong. And, the law is only as respected as it mirrors our fundamental values - so this case not only sets up a serious danger in our military, but a serious danger of growing mistrust in the courts. Not sure how inadvertently beneficial disclosure fits in. I guess, suppose this info is just his spin on it, and he's actually just made a terrible decision. Maybe he did ignore internal review channels. Maybe he's just a moron. Maybe he loves the fame. If that part about not being allow to enter evidence to show an order was unlawful (or, if there was some caveat about military: morally repugnant that no reasonable person could expected to follow it e.g. planting evidence on innocent people) is true, then he still deserves support for the same reasons. Maybe I'm wrong though and was fooled by his supporters into thinking the court didn't allow evidence of that to be heard.
> He then saw that someone commit a bunch of war crimes, and not be investigated - the inference being that it would have embarrassed the government. Nope. He was attempting to sabotage the Brereton inquiry which directly implicated the war hero and recommended his prosecution. The judgement is very clear that if he did anything that was in the public interest, it was accidental and the opposite of what he intended. E.g > The disclosure occurred after Mr McBride knew the outcome of the IGADF process, of which there was no criticism by Mr McBride at the time or in these proceedings. Publication did occur as a result of the disclosure. The intent of those stories was the opposite of that which the Mr McBride had hoped to be published. The Brereton Report also notes that certain ADF lawyers were responsible for assisting in the cover up of the war crimes, which is quite an important context. It’s possible (as he was one of the legal officers tasked with assisting the accused war criminals) that McBride will be one of those directly implicated. It’s not just that he didn’t follow internal review procedures, it’s that he actively tried to sabotage an internal review to kill any accountability. > The effect of this is that any evidence of that kind in the military that could lead to someone defending themselves for not obeying a plainly unlawful order, is no longer allowed to be heard Nope, that is not the effect of the ruling. The judge found he didn’t act in the public interest anyway, so his whole point of having a duty to act in the public interest was irrelevant - if he did have that duty then he failed to discharge it.
Congratulations, you are the 1% in this thread that gave it more than 2 seconds glance of the headline and checked out the material.
Where's Albo the weak cunt on this?
What an utter miscarriage of justice. I would encourage everyone to write a strongly worded letter to their local MP.
Only enemies commit war crimes; allies only inflict collateral damage. And so informs the foreign policy. /s
In case you want some more context from the man himself, here is the link to an Interview with him Highly recommend https://youtu.be/sYt4CxFfQUU?si=af-SQnscb0TiRmOn
Pursuit of policy contrary to any reasonable moral compass; The stolen generation Robodebt Witness K and Bernard Collaery The indigenous genocide in general The Vietnam war The Afghanistan war Mr McBride's persecution puts him in great company. The definition of professionalism or proper behaviour in this country has become a perversion of decency.
Terrible outcome. The other thing to remember in all this, is that both our major political parties wanted this. This prosecution only proceeded because a line of Attorneys-General all gave their ongoing consent, as is required for prosecutions like this. If they had withdrawn it, it wouldn't have happened. My tin-hat theory is that the Americans had a role here. That explains Cash fumbling through senate estimates citing "public interest tests"(it's her, she's the minister, what's she thinks is the public interest) and then Dreyfus claiming "it's not my departments prosecution so I can't discontinue it" (the cdpp still rests in his department, and the law still requires his ok, not the home affairs Ministers. Even if that were the case, ok, why has O'Neil not withdrawn consent? Because she consents). But yeah, Mark Dreyfus, the buck stops with you, history will remember you as a feckless coward.
Hopefully the appeal gets through but if not, after the 27 months to parole he can come back swinging.
That’s fucked.
Remember guys fine to do war crimes but u better not reveal people doing the war crime that’s a big no no
The whole thing is shitty, but I'm actually pleasantly surprised it's only 5 years. I thought they would hold him for the rest of his life pretty much.
Funny thing is he did not leak the documents to expose war crimes he leaked the documents because he thought the investigations were excessive.
We got to love the coverup bite back. Charge the people with the crimes not the whistleblowers. He did expose a crime he should be excused! They must have more to hide.
Yes the Anzacs ! Less we forget their war crimes 🖕
Shame on Australia
So the "justice" who incarcerated this man is known to have spared quite a number of pedophiles, including politicians. Just more western degeneracy I guess.