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

    • 🇦🇺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.

        • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneOPEnglish
          261·
          6 months ago

          No you:

          According to the affidavit, McBride wanted Australians to know that “Afghan civilians were being murdered and Australian military leaders were at the very least turning the other way and at worst tacitly approving this behaviour”.

          He continued: “At the same time, soldiers were being improperly prosecuted as a smokescreen to cover [leadership’s] inaction and failure to hold reprehensible conduct to account.”

          https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/27/war-crimes-whistleblower-david-mcbride-reveals-why-he-went-to-the-media

            • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneOPEnglish
              16·
              6 months ago

              Riddle me this then: Why would he hand evidence of war crimes being committed to a journalist if HE wanted people to know that soldiers weren’t committing war crimes?

              That Four Corners episode came out fairly recently. Tell me, what motives would Dan Oakes, an investigative journalist with a reputation, have to disparage a whistleblower who is about to be prosecuted? I dunno, maybe he doesn’t want to be the target of prosecution himself and distancing from him is protection?

              Why do you keep referring to the BBC article? It’s quite poorly worded and oversimplified for an international audience. You won’t find many articles about David McBride’s motives from before the case because he was secret then, the ABC gave him up.

                • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneOPEnglish
                  12·
                  6 months ago

                  So it’s either A:

                  • David McBride is an idiot who misinterpreted what was happening as a defence lawyer investigating war crimes
                  • War crimes happened
                  • Commanders and Politicians aren’t smart enough to cover up war crimes committed by PR exercises like Ben Roberts-Smith by investigating otherwise innocent soldiers

                  Or B:

                  • David McBride is not an idiot
                  • War crimes happened
                  • Commanders and Politicians are smart enough to attempt to cover up war crimes committed by the likes of Ben Roberts-Smith (Australia’s most decorated soldier, was used to ‘sell’ the war to Australians).

                  I choose B, but hey, you know better because of some random BBC article and an ABC hit piece

        • 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.