this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
180 points (96.9% liked)

Australia

3480 readers
100 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
180
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

(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

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Can we get a simplified summary?

[–] [email protected] 124 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 98 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not my original comment but i saw someone say 'the first person to go to jail for these war crimes is the man who reported them'.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

That's a really sad, yet probably entirely accurate, assessment.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

They had to do what daddy America told them to. Remember what happened to the last Australian government who went against the USA.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] BeeDemocracy 2 points 3 months ago

This is the best explanation of the case in full context I've seen.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

When is his "if you're seeing this video I've died mysteriously in prison" video coming out?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Welcome to the present! See my pinned post as to why I am only able to reply to your comment 8 days later (for now!)

[–] BeeDemocracy 2 points 3 months ago

I'm gutted. Devastated.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Your link doesn't appear to be working. Here's an archived version of that article.

[–] BeeDemocracy 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure he thought war crimes were happening, he just thought they were investigating the wrong soldiers to cover up for higher-ranking and more decorated soldiers like Ben Roberts-Smith to pretend that they cared about war crimes

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

I think he'd be pissed off at the ABC for missing the point and just covering the war crimes, effectively covering up the arses of those higher up.

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

Could mean exactly what I said as well

investigating the wrong soldiers to cover up

That's what I said. The two statements are not mutually exclusive

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 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.