Support my legal and personal GoFundMe:🔗https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-dave-mcbride-fight-for-justice-for-afghanistaContact:🌏davidmcbride.com.au✉ contact@...

(Not me) Official video from David McBride’s Official Youtube channel. If you don’t know who he is - I don’t blame you, with how little coverage this story has gotten

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      126·
      6 months ago

      David McBride is a former British Army major and lawyer for the Australian Army. He leaked documents to the ABC which formed the basis of its reporting on unlawful killings (murders) of Afghan civilians by Australian armed forces. He attempted to seek protection from prosecution through Australia’s whistleblower laws, however the Australian Government denied expert testimony through the use of public interest immunity laws so the case went to trial and he was recently sentenced to five years and eight months imprisonment.

      • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.comEnglish
        100·
        6 months ago

        It’s a fucking travesty what’s happening to him. He shone a light on some pretty sordid shit, shit that was definitely in the public interest to be reported, and he’s been made into the villain.

        Our government should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

  • No1@aussie.zone
    56·
    6 months ago

    It’s a lot messier than most think.

    ABC article

    McBride’s intention was not to leak to expose war crimes, it was to show how troops were being unnecessarily hounded by legal etc , ie ‘over-zealous” investigations of special forces’

    The ABC discovered war crimes in the leaks and went down that path.

    Now McBride looks like the hero being victimised for exposing the war crimes.

    • BeeDemocracy@sh.itjust.works
      51·
      6 months ago

      The abc is not biased at all in this, no. They’re not the ones he leaked to.

      You make it sound like he accidentally leaked evidence of war crimes. He leaked evidence of war crimes comitted by generals as well as boots on the ground but somehow the abc’s top ‘investigative reporters’ ie gov’t stenographers are still missing that.

      • surreptitiouswalk@aussie.zone
        22·
        6 months ago

        Did you ready the article? McBride initially posted on his personal blog, which caught the attention of ABC journalist Dan Oakes. The information was leaked to Oakes and the ABC from there.

        My reading of the article was McBride didn’t initially think there were war crimes committed but:

        ADF leadership alleg(ed) that SAS soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

        “If there is political bullshit going on against soldiers, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re SAS or not, you need to stand up for it,”

        McBride didn’t think war crimes had happened which is why he asserts that the soldiers were being wrongly accused and investigated. Oakes disagreed.

        Now the question is, why is Oakes making this allegation allegation against McBride if it’s not true?

          • surreptitiouswalk@aussie.zone
            2·
            6 months ago

            soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

            Is honestly pretty unambiguous wording.

            And the other evidence against your claim is, why would McBride had been pissed off by the ABC’s reporting of his leaked files? If you were right, the ABC’s angle would be completely aligned with McBride’s. Why would Oakes allege there was disagreement there?

        • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          I’m willing to entertain the idea that he may not have intended to whistleblow in order to reveal war crimes.

          But if that’s the case, why couldn’t the government have relied upon a fair trial to establish his guilt? Even if he is guilty, he is owed due process, and being restricted from presenting necessary evidence is a violation of that due process.

    • 🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖@lemm.eeEnglish
      62·
      6 months ago

      Wow u sailed right past the point didn’t ya. Did u wave at it as it went over your head?

      He leaked military documents cos innocent soldiers where being used as scape goats for other people committing war crimes. He didn’t want to see innocent people be punished for other peoples war crimes.

      I would also like to point out the fact he was given a show trial where he wasn’t allowed to even use his evidence.

    • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      6 months ago

      I read through this and thought it was supportive of his exposing of war crimes. But then youre glad hes in jail for exposing war crimes and im just confused.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          8·
          6 months ago

          that wording is misleading at best. 2 things were true

          • certain people were being overinvestigated in order to use resources so that others who were guilty of far larger crimes wouldn’t be investigated… that’s a VERY different thing
          • he also thought that significant war crimes were going unpunished and uninvestigated
        • Ilandar@aussie.zone
          7·
          6 months ago

          McBride had been concerned about what he saw as systemic failures of the SAS commanders, and their inconsistency in dealing with the deaths of “non-combatants” in Afghanistan. In an affidavit, he said he saw the way frontline troops were being

          improperly prosecuted […] to cover up [leadership] inaction, and the failure to hold reprehensible conduct to account.

          He initially complained internally, but when nothing happened he decided to go public. In 2014 and 2015, McBride collected 235 military documents and gave them to the ABC. The documents included 207 classified as “secret” and others marked as cabinet papers.

          Source.

            • Ilandar@aussie.zone
              6·
              6 months ago

              Same article:

              Much has been made of McBride’s reasons for going to the media, but this focus on motives is a form of misdirection. Whistleblowers take action for a host of reasons – some of them less honourable than others. But ultimately, what matters is the truth of what they expose, rather than why.

              That is why we recognise media freedom as an essential part of a healthy democracy, including the right – indeed the responsibility – of journalists to protect confidential sources. Unless sources who see wrongdoing can confidently expose it without fear of being exposed and prosecuted, the system of accountability falls apart and gross abuses of power remain hidden.

              It is also why the formal name for Australia’s whistleblower protection law is the “Public Interest Disclosure Act”.

              This law is designed to do what it says on the tin: protect disclosures made in the public interest, including those made through the media. It recognises that sometimes, even when the law imposes certain obligations of secrecy on public servants, there may be an overriding interest in exposing wrongdoing for the sake of our democracy.

              .As a highly trained and experienced military lawyer, McBride knew it was technically illegal to give classified documents to the media. The law is very clear about that, and for good reason. Nobody should be able to publish government secrets without a very powerful justification.

              But nor should the fact that a bureaucrat has put a “secret” stamp on a document be an excuse for covering up serious crimes and misdemeanours.

              In McBride’s case, the judge accepted the first premise, but rejected the second.