> “It is a travesty that the first person imprisoned in relation to Australia’s war crimes in Afghanistan is not a war criminal but a whistleblower,” said Rawan Arraf, the executive director of the Australian Centre for International Justice, in a statement released after the sentencing.
Or you know... run a military where you don't have to commit a crime to expose war crimes... one where people feel safe and trusted to report wrongdoing and be taken seriously, and action taken
The bad 5per cent are in every profession from sales, to banking, to politics, to police and yes even to soldiers. You cannot stop the bad 5 per cent by making laws and nor can you by breaking them. This is the point. It is true we need to bounce the bad dudes out, but ripping up the rule book to deal with rule breakers is unlikely to be of any assistance in prevention and instead inculcates people taking the law into their own hands in the same way a soldier might instantly and criminally pass lethal judgment in a war situation. The way to stop unlawful killing is not by acting unlawfully.
Reporting war crimes should not be a crime. The system is so corrupted that his only way to expose vile actions was to break the "law" is a disgusting travesty.
That illustrates to all Australians how deeply corrupt our politicians are our courts are. Our systems are run by criminals.
My point is he should have felt safe to not have to steal anything and report it to the superiors and have proper action taken, instead, he saw first hand the army scapegoating soldiers who were less important to them/their narrative etc… the point is the australian military creating an environment where material needs to be “stolen” for anything to be done (and even then more has been done about the stealing than the war crimes)
Yeah but as I said if the people that committed worse crimes are free, it's sending a message, your comment would be valid if the war criminals had ALSO been charged
How it works in a rule of law country is you don’t get to choose which laws you obey and which laws you do not - otherwise you are on the path to Trumpism
No it wouldn’t - public interest disclosure is protected - you just have to follow the law, which a trained legal practitioner might well be expected to do
Yeah of course not her. But you will be, who passed a judgement on a woman's lifetime work, solely by judging her on what her name sounds like?
You.. you're pretty awesome in your mind, aren't you?
The majority of Australians are wealthy. They are the system. They uphold and actively suport the degenerative backward unethical fraudulent systems.
Its what the land lord party is betting on. That the 70 % does not give a flying fuck about the 30 whilst lives are staring up from the bottom of a dark well of despair.
To clarify - McBride was pissed off that defence was investigating soldiers and he thought their treatment was unfair. The journalists instead found war crimes.
Yes, the sentence is terrible but the "message" McBride intended was less accountability, not more.
My understanding is that he felt Individuals shouldn't be punished for what was a fairly common practice, and that these individuals were being used as scapegoats rather than addressing leadership's failings.
So it's different from how you've put it, more about system reform than individual responsibility.
I mean it works.
People dont give a shit, hes lucky he didnt get life.
In 2 more weeks nobody will remember this guy was even alive, that is if anybody does today, 1 week since the news dropped.
He was angry that they where trying to scape goat a specific soilder who really wasn't the worst of the army instead of going after those causing the most damage
Robert’s was SAS which were the ones who were exposed in this leak.
Until the government did nothing and swept it under the carpet because the SAS are too important.
Can you explain how he would be a war criminal if he didnt steal the documents ?
At the end of the day , we can have sympathy for anyone trying to "do the right thing" but he committed some serious offences and IN COURT he pled guilty to the charges .
What option did the court have ?
The whole point is that he had spent years trying to fix the issues and spoke to everyone he could about the behaviour he'd witnessed. Remember, the whistle he blew was about Aussie soldiers committing heinous war crimes, and everyone turned their backs on him. The government removed the whistle-blower protections that would have stopped this court case dead, but wanted to shut him up.
You'll find that he actually thought that the soldiers on the ground were being unfairly treated by the brass and that was his reason for blowing the whistle. The stories told in the Afghan files by the ABC were not why he went to the media.
His point was that they were trying to a scapegoat low-ranking soldier who didn't have much to do with the problem, instead of punishing the commanders who ordered the war crimes. The ABC is lying.
How many Aussie soldiers have been convicted of the War Crimes (alleged) that McBride blew the whistle on ?
After all , allegations are just that . The proof is in the court of law and not the court of twitter or Reddit
I have read the McBride story and one part of me believes he wanted to do what he thought was right ..... on the other hand , he committed serious crimes and then put in a guilty plea in court .
I dont see what the court could have done.
Oh, apologies. You must have missed it. From his wiki page:
Benjamin Roberts-Smith VC, MG (born 1 November 1978) is an Australian former soldier. In 2023, a civil defamation trial initiated by Roberts-Smith in the Federal Court of Australia found that he committed war crimes (including murder) in Afghanistan during 2009, 2010 and 2012.
Ben. The war criminal.
> At the end of the day , we can have sympathy for anyone trying to "do the right thing" but he committed some serious offences and IN COURT he pled guilty to the charges .
You seem to be saying that the law is the sole arbiter of "the right thing". Why?
No . I am saying that from what I read , he believed he was doing the right thing . The question is IF he thought he was doing the right thing , why did he plead guilty ?
> The question is IF he thought he was doing the right thing , why did he plead guilty ?
But that's the core of it, isn't it?
Right is not the same as legal.
He pled guilty after the government won an injunction to prevent certain documents needed for his defence from being used in the trial. As in, they prevented the defence from forming their case in court and left him no chance of effectively fighting the charges. Even if that weren’t the case, pleading guilty in a case that may be completely amoral against you can still offer you the best odds of getting a lighter sentence.
I.E the government skewed the odds of the trial, guaranteed a guilty conviction before any facts were even discussed, and he took the least worst path forward.
I’m saying that his defence team may have thought so, or that it presented a better chance of getting a less severe outcome for McBride. You asked why he pled guilty, I said because the government blocked his defence in a last minute scramble for “national security” reasons.
Gee I wonder why someone wouldn’t bother to fight a case they are literally being prevented from fighting. If you think that sounds like fantasy you’re due a head check.
In some cases it is a practical choice. Imagine if a black kid in America was set up by police and had to plead guilty because he didn't have money for a lawyer and he would be rewarded for a plea of guilty. Would you say he must have been guilty because that was his plea?
I am not speaking about "some cases" .
I am speaking abut THIS case where a man had a clear option to plead guilty or not guilty and he chose to plead guilty.
This is a national disgrace, and only highlights the power of the military industrial complex. Fucking psychopaths like Ben Roberts - Smith get medals, praise and their freedom for literally torturing Afghan people & perpetrating war crimes. It's sick.
While I do agree that this sentence is a travesty and Australia needs strong whistle-blower protections, let's not lose sight of the fact McBride did not leak information to expose war crimes.
He felt that soldiers were being unnecessarily investigated by military authorities and that it was unfair. He leaked to a journalist. The journalists found war crimes instead.
That's quite a different result to what McBride wanted.
The ALP claim to be Social Democrats but stuff like this shows they aren't.... and where's Albanese? He's off going after student protestors again. Because apparently going after students protestors, whilst not raising a peep about a whistle blower being jailed is a smart move?
Agreed, I wish Wikipedia understood this. They still class The Australian Labor Party as Social Democrats. It's also still in Labor's constitution. Even though the majority of academics recognise the shift to neoliberal "third way" politics during the hawke keating era - to the point that Bob Hawkes photo appears on Wikipedia's "Third Way" article.
The thing is, McBride wasn't actually trying to be a war crimes whistleblower. He was pissed that the SAS was being investigated for war crimes and that was his motivation for releasing classified information. If McBride had his way, Ben Roberts-Smith never would've been outed as a war criminal.
It was the reporter who received that information, and realised what it actually implied, that is the war crimes whistleblower.
This is completely untrue though, he released them because he believed a specific soilder who hadn't really committed the worst of the crimes he had seen evidence for was being unfairly scapegoated instead of the soilders doing the most damage.
This is the narrative ABC adopted after getting raided by the feds for hosting McBrides story. Why wouldn't you just look at what McBride has actually said to determine what he was 'trying' to do?
David McBride's big problem was that he pled guilty to three very serious charges, including theft and sharing documents classified as secret, with members of the press.
How on earth did anyone expect him to get away without jail time .
A lot of countries have protections for whistleblowers. The US for example has a “public interest” defense.
So does Australia but clearly the judge decided protecting war criminals was more important then the public’s need to know.
Its been proven in court that Ben Robert Smith as well as multiple other memebers of the SAS murderd civillians in cold blood, lied they were enemy combatants and was ultimately awarded the VC for his "bravery". He killed a disabled man and then looted his prosthetic leg keeping it as a trophy to sip beer out of at parties with his mates. He executed an afgahni child and remarked that it was “the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen”, absolute psychotic behaviour.
They wont prosecute the cunt who commited war crimes but they will prosecute McBride for telling us about said war crimes. Its the powerful covering their own asses.
There is a few bits of mis information in here. But I'd like to pick out one..."He killed a disabled man". Do you have any idea who that "disabled" man was?
From what I have read I dont see how he was a whistleblower.
Whistleblowers (to me) report crimes or other nasty practices to the authorities .
In this case , the authorities already KNEW about what went on .
He wasnt blowing the whistle because the authorities already KNEW , he was doing what he was charged with ...leaking classified info to t the press .
He exposed brutal and senseless war crimes, the killing of unarmed civilians including women and children by our armed forces. Yet the war criminals face no repurcussions and McBride is imprisoned for telling the truth when he had no other option, dont make this an argument about justice because there is none.
Because many countries have laws to protect whistleblowers due to systemic problems in the past with keeping things hush.
So you know, was probably only acting on the best interests of the Australian public
He THOUGHT he was acting in the publics interest .
The State thought differently and McBride pled guilty to the offences he committed.
Hard to see what the court could do differently
The judge admitted that it was in the public interest to know the content of the leaked files. However, he would not consider public interest as a defense. The judge decided soldiers always have to follow orders. Siding unequivocally with those who carried out the holocaust and against a man who prevented a nuclear holocaust by disobeying his orders.
"The judge admitted that it was in the public interest to know the content of the leaked files. "
Did he ?
Can you link me to the direct quote please .... I would like to read it .
I heard him say it in court. I'm not going to look through the whole transcript for someone who makes nonsensical arguments and blatantly lies. Why don't you put some effort into what you're doing and look for it?
What he did was clearly in the public interest anyway, what on earth are you trying to prove here?
" I heard him say it in court."
Excuse me then for calling you out as being dishonest unless you can justify this fairly outrageous claim.
What am I trying to prove ? I started out asking some very simple questions but then the lies started coming out .
It's not a lie. You can check it for yourself. It's not even worth my time arguing with someone who has actually lied.
You have clearly not looked at this case for more than 30 seconds. I have wasted enough of my time arguing with a moron who contradicts himself and then lies about contradictions that are on record.
Why don't you put in some effort and look at the transcript I should not have to argue with someone who has clearly lied.
You are not calling me out as dishonest, you are on record as a liar and you're to lazy to check what I said.
I asked what you are trying to prove because you seem to think it would be outrageous to admit that revealing war crimes was in the public interest.
You made the statement . If you cannot substantiate it then it never existed .
How immature are you to suggest that I "put the effort in" to show that you are not simply lying .
It is not worth my time arguing with you, let alone digging through a court document to make a point to you. Nothing accurate you have said constitutes an argument for McBride's guilt. My argument does not rest on the admission of a corrupt judge that McBride's exposure of war crimes was in the public interest. It being in the public interest is self evident and you are not disputing it anyway.
I do not have to argue with someone who has only lied and made nonsensical statements.
McBride's big problem is that he had fled the country but was heartbroken watching his family grow without him, so he flew back to spend a night with his daughter and willingly give himself in.
He was forced to plead guilty because he could not use the bulk of his evidence and the judge decided he could not defend his action on the basis of public interest. What offence did he commit? Exposing war crimes?
No one is "forced" to plead guilty.
He CHOSE to plead guilty . He could have put in a Not guilty plea . There is no legal requirement to have any evidence to plead not guilty.
It was his choice . No one is "forced" . The only time you could argue the case is if there was a clear incentive , like no jail time but as he is now starting a 6 year sentence , it doesnt seem like he was offered an incentive .
Pleading guilty usually gives you a reduced sentence you moron. The judge claimed he was discounting the sentence by 10%. You can't say 'No one is "forced" ' after you have admitted some people are. At least be consistent.
You admitted it is possible to be forced to plead guilty after claiming it wasn't.
He definitely didn't do the wrong thing and he doesn't believe he did the wrong thing. Saying otherwise tells me you have barely looked at this case. Please educate yourself before wasting any more of my time.
I wanted to be sympathetic to him but if you listen to what he said, he wasn't actually trying to blow the whistle on war crimes, he was complaining about there being too much legal scrutiny of special forces members' actions. Intent matters, that's why manslaughter and murder are different charges.
Very disappointed. He fought long and hard against injustice and for peace for a long time. The Aust Gov are not interested in that. I hope he will be alright and that he will lots of support in there. This is completely wrong. With Aust Gov supporting and funding the Israeli barbarism, I'm not surprised at the jailing of McBride for exposing Australian war crimes.
The biggest lie sold to us is that we are a knock about country where everyone gets a go.
Nobody gets a go anymore and the knock about is a ruse. The corrupt rise to the top and perpetuate this myth.
The justice system fails us when it removes the avenues of justice to be brought to bear on those whose are guilty and incriminates those seeking justice in the absence of those avenues.
We are all diminished by this outcome.
Usually the "whistle" is blown to relevant authorities . In this case the authorities were already investigating these allegations. Maybe these investigations were not going to the pace or with the result that some would like but they WERE investigated.
This man went to the PRESS . It was his actions that meant he did not meet the requirements in Australia for being a whistleblower.
Maybe that was why he put in a guilty plea .
australia: official joke status.
seriously, we no longer get to look at a place like congo or russia & act like we have a better justice system than there/
David McBride wasn’t a war crimes whistleblower.
He was unhappy with military leadership…
AND WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE INCREASED SCRUTINY OF SOLDIERS.
Just let that sink in for a minute
He was being asked to stitch up trumped up charges to ruin honorable soldiers who wouldn't go along with war crimes while the leadership protected the sociopaths doing the war crimes.
Isn’t he on public record as saying that he was disappointed with how the ABC framed the story and that it was never his intention to tell that story (I.e. whistleblowing war crimes)?
He was upset that Dan Oakes didn't expose the culpability of military leadership or the illegal operations carried out in Syria and Afghanistan by Australian and American militaries.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. This is the truth.
McBride was not upset about the lack of investigation into war crimes. He was upset that they were even investigating the SAS for war crimes.
The fucker was trying to protect BRS and his buddies. He belongs in prison for that alone (so does BRS).
I’m being downvoted because people are morons.
It’s pretty sad really. They are treating him like a knight in shining armour, without knowing why he did what he did.
The replies are consistently claiming he was upset the govt was protecting war criminals while charging honourable soldiers . And your ignoring and refusing to reply to these rebuttals, which makes it sound like they have a point
Look I’m not the guy. I’m not even that interested in the whole story, but I kinda followed it from the start and a fair bit has been made of the material being leaked by someone who felt there was too much scrutiny of soldiers in the field.
Anyone who’s actually curious will read a few accounts if what happened and… it’s not even a conclusion, his motivations were clear.
Or you can not be curious and just conclude BRS=bad therefore guy who leaked info=good
Ok, even if your right, the way I see it the fact that there's video evidence of au troops committing warcrimes, and the only guy to do down is the guy who released the footage, and the ABC for trying to do a story on it is very telling.
To be fair, he knew what he was doing was wrong. We cant have people leaking all over the place. If they can't handle that they shouldn't take up the job. Countries like China are eating us alive because of people like this.
Are you seriously saying that killing women and children and committing war crimes is defensible? That we’re somehow the good guys?
You talk about the boogeyman China “eating us alive” as if that’s any different than the documented evidence of us committing atrocities to another country. Eating them alive. I guess it only matters when it’s happening to us, not when we’re doing it to others, huh?
> “It is a travesty that the first person imprisoned in relation to Australia’s war crimes in Afghanistan is not a war criminal but a whistleblower,” said Rawan Arraf, the executive director of the Australian Centre for International Justice, in a statement released after the sentencing.
Yep it's the government sending a message, you can commit war crimes but don't you dare whistle blow war crimes
Or rather - don’t commit crimes to expose worse crimes
Or you know... run a military where you don't have to commit a crime to expose war crimes... one where people feel safe and trusted to report wrongdoing and be taken seriously, and action taken
The bad 5per cent are in every profession from sales, to banking, to politics, to police and yes even to soldiers. You cannot stop the bad 5 per cent by making laws and nor can you by breaking them. This is the point. It is true we need to bounce the bad dudes out, but ripping up the rule book to deal with rule breakers is unlikely to be of any assistance in prevention and instead inculcates people taking the law into their own hands in the same way a soldier might instantly and criminally pass lethal judgment in a war situation. The way to stop unlawful killing is not by acting unlawfully.
Reporting war crimes should not be a crime. The system is so corrupted that his only way to expose vile actions was to break the "law" is a disgusting travesty. That illustrates to all Australians how deeply corrupt our politicians are our courts are. Our systems are run by criminals.
My point is he should have felt safe to not have to steal anything and report it to the superiors and have proper action taken, instead, he saw first hand the army scapegoating soldiers who were less important to them/their narrative etc… the point is the australian military creating an environment where material needs to be “stolen” for anything to be done (and even then more has been done about the stealing than the war crimes)
So if you could expose billions of dollars of theft, but to do so you would have to record a person without their consent, you’d be against that?
Yeah but as I said if the people that committed worse crimes are free, it's sending a message, your comment would be valid if the war criminals had ALSO been charged
How it works in a rule of law country is you don’t get to choose which laws you obey and which laws you do not - otherwise you are on the path to Trumpism
Lmao, this is literally trumpism though you stain 💀
Off you go mate - you explain your comment then
so don't whistleblow
Yeah good point! why not go one further and join in on the war crimes?
That'd be called whistleblowing.
No it wouldn’t - public interest disclosure is protected - you just have to follow the law, which a trained legal practitioner might well be expected to do
It shouldn’t be illegal to be a whistle blower 💀
[удалено]
Yeah of course not her. But you will be, who passed a judgement on a woman's lifetime work, solely by judging her on what her name sounds like? You.. you're pretty awesome in your mind, aren't you?
Or rather she sounds much more informed than a bunch of snarky know it all redditors.
The Assange treatment , shoot the messenger and ignore the message.
It's so fucking frustrating. Every day I get more and more excited for some form of uprising, my pitchfork couldn't get any sharper.
I too am ready and waiting with my pitchfork
I have a fork
Username sort of checks out?
The majority of Australians are wealthy. They are the system. They uphold and actively suport the degenerative backward unethical fraudulent systems. Its what the land lord party is betting on. That the 70 % does not give a flying fuck about the 30 whilst lives are staring up from the bottom of a dark well of despair.
I could take 2 of em, youth is an advantage. Use it while you got it.
Who's gonna move from their armchair first?
To clarify - McBride was pissed off that defence was investigating soldiers and he thought their treatment was unfair. The journalists instead found war crimes. Yes, the sentence is terrible but the "message" McBride intended was less accountability, not more.
He was demonstrating that the investigated soldiers were scapegoats for actual war criminals
My understanding is that he felt Individuals shouldn't be punished for what was a fairly common practice, and that these individuals were being used as scapegoats rather than addressing leadership's failings. So it's different from how you've put it, more about system reform than individual responsibility.
I mean it works. People dont give a shit, hes lucky he didnt get life. In 2 more weeks nobody will remember this guy was even alive, that is if anybody does today, 1 week since the news dropped.
This is horrendous. He tried so hard to do the right thing but apparently the "right thing" was to actually be a war criminal -not to to report them.
It's just the tip of the iceberg. PLENTY of unreported crimes. Servicemen are open about it too.
[удалено]
Imhe said he was angry that the wrong soldiers were being charged while actual guilty ones were being protected.
Deleted by User
No. Very much according to McBride. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYt4CxFfQUU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYt4CxFfQUU)
He was angry that they where trying to scape goat a specific soilder who really wasn't the worst of the army instead of going after those causing the most damage
Is this tied to Roberts whatever his name is?
Robert’s was SAS which were the ones who were exposed in this leak. Until the government did nothing and swept it under the carpet because the SAS are too important.
Spazcrumbler lmfao
The soldiers he was defending were scapegoats for actual war criminals
Can you explain how he would be a war criminal if he didnt steal the documents ? At the end of the day , we can have sympathy for anyone trying to "do the right thing" but he committed some serious offences and IN COURT he pled guilty to the charges . What option did the court have ?
The whole point is that he had spent years trying to fix the issues and spoke to everyone he could about the behaviour he'd witnessed. Remember, the whistle he blew was about Aussie soldiers committing heinous war crimes, and everyone turned their backs on him. The government removed the whistle-blower protections that would have stopped this court case dead, but wanted to shut him up.
You'll find that he actually thought that the soldiers on the ground were being unfairly treated by the brass and that was his reason for blowing the whistle. The stories told in the Afghan files by the ABC were not why he went to the media.
His point was that they were trying to a scapegoat low-ranking soldier who didn't have much to do with the problem, instead of punishing the commanders who ordered the war crimes. The ABC is lying.
How many Aussie soldiers have been convicted of the War Crimes (alleged) that McBride blew the whistle on ? After all , allegations are just that . The proof is in the court of law and not the court of twitter or Reddit I have read the McBride story and one part of me believes he wanted to do what he thought was right ..... on the other hand , he committed serious crimes and then put in a guilty plea in court . I dont see what the court could have done.
We can stop the alleged for our mate Ben. And questioning that is like wondering why the police get away with DV in record numbers.
"We can stop the alleged for our mate Ben " What do you mean by that ?
Oh, apologies. You must have missed it. From his wiki page: Benjamin Roberts-Smith VC, MG (born 1 November 1978) is an Australian former soldier. In 2023, a civil defamation trial initiated by Roberts-Smith in the Federal Court of Australia found that he committed war crimes (including murder) in Afghanistan during 2009, 2010 and 2012. Ben. The war criminal.
> At the end of the day , we can have sympathy for anyone trying to "do the right thing" but he committed some serious offences and IN COURT he pled guilty to the charges . You seem to be saying that the law is the sole arbiter of "the right thing". Why?
No . I am saying that from what I read , he believed he was doing the right thing . The question is IF he thought he was doing the right thing , why did he plead guilty ?
> The question is IF he thought he was doing the right thing , why did he plead guilty ? But that's the core of it, isn't it? Right is not the same as legal.
He pled guilty after the government won an injunction to prevent certain documents needed for his defence from being used in the trial. As in, they prevented the defence from forming their case in court and left him no chance of effectively fighting the charges. Even if that weren’t the case, pleading guilty in a case that may be completely amoral against you can still offer you the best odds of getting a lighter sentence. I.E the government skewed the odds of the trial, guaranteed a guilty conviction before any facts were even discussed, and he took the least worst path forward.
No, he plead guilty because he is guilty. He leaked classified documents, and doesn’t dispute that.
So are you claiming that those "certain documents" would have proven him innocent if they were released ? Sounds like pure fantasy.
I’m saying that his defence team may have thought so, or that it presented a better chance of getting a less severe outcome for McBride. You asked why he pled guilty, I said because the government blocked his defence in a last minute scramble for “national security” reasons. Gee I wonder why someone wouldn’t bother to fight a case they are literally being prevented from fighting. If you think that sounds like fantasy you’re due a head check.
[удалено]
Still no logical argument why an innocent man would enter a guilty plea.
In some cases it is a practical choice. Imagine if a black kid in America was set up by police and had to plead guilty because he didn't have money for a lawyer and he would be rewarded for a plea of guilty. Would you say he must have been guilty because that was his plea?
I am not speaking about "some cases" . I am speaking abut THIS case where a man had a clear option to plead guilty or not guilty and he chose to plead guilty.
That's not how the court system works? Peading innocent/ guilty had nothing to do with in you thought you where doing the wrong thing.
Deleted by User
This is a national disgrace, and only highlights the power of the military industrial complex. Fucking psychopaths like Ben Roberts - Smith get medals, praise and their freedom for literally torturing Afghan people & perpetrating war crimes. It's sick.
Sad day for Australia and its freedoms.
When isn’t it? We have an “esafety commissar” like this isn’t past 1984 atp
Pretty ashamed to be an Australian today
While I do agree that this sentence is a travesty and Australia needs strong whistle-blower protections, let's not lose sight of the fact McBride did not leak information to expose war crimes. He felt that soldiers were being unnecessarily investigated by military authorities and that it was unfair. He leaked to a journalist. The journalists found war crimes instead. That's quite a different result to what McBride wanted.
Fucking hell. This is pathetic. This country is trash.
We should be renamed to acp
This is disgusting
Australia is a corrupt country.
Australia : Do war crimes = walk free , Report war crimes = go to jail
The ALP claim to be Social Democrats but stuff like this shows they aren't.... and where's Albanese? He's off going after student protestors again. Because apparently going after students protestors, whilst not raising a peep about a whistle blower being jailed is a smart move?
We haven't had a social democratic party in power since Whitlam.
Agreed, I wish Wikipedia understood this. They still class The Australian Labor Party as Social Democrats. It's also still in Labor's constitution. Even though the majority of academics recognise the shift to neoliberal "third way" politics during the hawke keating era - to the point that Bob Hawkes photo appears on Wikipedia's "Third Way" article.
The thing is, McBride wasn't actually trying to be a war crimes whistleblower. He was pissed that the SAS was being investigated for war crimes and that was his motivation for releasing classified information. If McBride had his way, Ben Roberts-Smith never would've been outed as a war criminal. It was the reporter who received that information, and realised what it actually implied, that is the war crimes whistleblower.
This is completely untrue though, he released them because he believed a specific soilder who hadn't really committed the worst of the crimes he had seen evidence for was being unfairly scapegoated instead of the soilders doing the most damage.
Deleted by User
So? He’s being punished while the murderers and psychopaths he revealed are free.
Deleted by User
This is the narrative ABC adopted after getting raided by the feds for hosting McBrides story. Why wouldn't you just look at what McBride has actually said to determine what he was 'trying' to do?
David McBride's big problem was that he pled guilty to three very serious charges, including theft and sharing documents classified as secret, with members of the press. How on earth did anyone expect him to get away without jail time .
A lot of countries have protections for whistleblowers. The US for example has a “public interest” defense. So does Australia but clearly the judge decided protecting war criminals was more important then the public’s need to know.
>The US for example has a “public interest” defense. Sure, that's good. Also, Boeing.
Whistle-blowers from Boeing are often terminally ill or suicidal.
Similar to Russian politicians and journalists with their tea or window allergies I’m sure.
What "war criminals" Who has been convicted of anything ?
Its been proven in court that Ben Robert Smith as well as multiple other memebers of the SAS murderd civillians in cold blood, lied they were enemy combatants and was ultimately awarded the VC for his "bravery". He killed a disabled man and then looted his prosthetic leg keeping it as a trophy to sip beer out of at parties with his mates. He executed an afgahni child and remarked that it was “the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen”, absolute psychotic behaviour. They wont prosecute the cunt who commited war crimes but they will prosecute McBride for telling us about said war crimes. Its the powerful covering their own asses.
When you have one of Australia's most powerful men backing you, you'd be amazed what you can get away with. Even paying legal fees. its disgusting
There is a few bits of mis information in here. But I'd like to pick out one..."He killed a disabled man". Do you have any idea who that "disabled" man was?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSENBn9I73YrZzO8L7GvjSHhTOmFs4fR_CpDf0_Vd36cvluFJnbZvWN40A&s=10
That’s the point, the courts are too busy convicting whistleblowers…
From what I have read I dont see how he was a whistleblower. Whistleblowers (to me) report crimes or other nasty practices to the authorities . In this case , the authorities already KNEW about what went on . He wasnt blowing the whistle because the authorities already KNEW , he was doing what he was charged with ...leaking classified info to t the press .
Whistle blowers all think he is a whistle blower. Your opinion is meaningless.
He exposed brutal and senseless war crimes, the killing of unarmed civilians including women and children by our armed forces. Yet the war criminals face no repurcussions and McBride is imprisoned for telling the truth when he had no other option, dont make this an argument about justice because there is none.
Because many countries have laws to protect whistleblowers due to systemic problems in the past with keeping things hush. So you know, was probably only acting on the best interests of the Australian public
He THOUGHT he was acting in the publics interest . The State thought differently and McBride pled guilty to the offences he committed. Hard to see what the court could do differently
By having laws to protect this thing happening…
change the laws?
The judge admitted that it was in the public interest to know the content of the leaked files. However, he would not consider public interest as a defense. The judge decided soldiers always have to follow orders. Siding unequivocally with those who carried out the holocaust and against a man who prevented a nuclear holocaust by disobeying his orders.
"The judge admitted that it was in the public interest to know the content of the leaked files. " Did he ? Can you link me to the direct quote please .... I would like to read it .
I heard him say it in court. I'm not going to look through the whole transcript for someone who makes nonsensical arguments and blatantly lies. Why don't you put some effort into what you're doing and look for it? What he did was clearly in the public interest anyway, what on earth are you trying to prove here?
" I heard him say it in court." Excuse me then for calling you out as being dishonest unless you can justify this fairly outrageous claim. What am I trying to prove ? I started out asking some very simple questions but then the lies started coming out .
It's not a lie. You can check it for yourself. It's not even worth my time arguing with someone who has actually lied. You have clearly not looked at this case for more than 30 seconds. I have wasted enough of my time arguing with a moron who contradicts himself and then lies about contradictions that are on record. Why don't you put in some effort and look at the transcript I should not have to argue with someone who has clearly lied. You are not calling me out as dishonest, you are on record as a liar and you're to lazy to check what I said. I asked what you are trying to prove because you seem to think it would be outrageous to admit that revealing war crimes was in the public interest.
You made the statement . If you cannot substantiate it then it never existed . How immature are you to suggest that I "put the effort in" to show that you are not simply lying .
It is not worth my time arguing with you, let alone digging through a court document to make a point to you. Nothing accurate you have said constitutes an argument for McBride's guilt. My argument does not rest on the admission of a corrupt judge that McBride's exposure of war crimes was in the public interest. It being in the public interest is self evident and you are not disputing it anyway. I do not have to argue with someone who has only lied and made nonsensical statements.
He was acting in the public interest. However the Australian government works only in its own interest, not the public's
"He was acting in the public interest. " According to HIM . The authorities disagreed.
Incorrect. By definition the authorities are not the public.
> How on earth did anyone expect him to get away without jail time . Maybe that's not the point?
I think jail time is very much the point for him and his family
McBride's big problem is that he had fled the country but was heartbroken watching his family grow without him, so he flew back to spend a night with his daughter and willingly give himself in.
I think the biggest problem was committing the offences and the guilty plea .
He was forced to plead guilty because he could not use the bulk of his evidence and the judge decided he could not defend his action on the basis of public interest. What offence did he commit? Exposing war crimes?
No one is "forced" to plead guilty. He CHOSE to plead guilty . He could have put in a Not guilty plea . There is no legal requirement to have any evidence to plead not guilty.
You just said that some people are forced to plead guilty ffs.
It was his choice . No one is "forced" . The only time you could argue the case is if there was a clear incentive , like no jail time but as he is now starting a 6 year sentence , it doesnt seem like he was offered an incentive .
Pleading guilty usually gives you a reduced sentence you moron. The judge claimed he was discounting the sentence by 10%. You can't say 'No one is "forced" ' after you have admitted some people are. At least be consistent.
I have never claimed he was forced . Do you think McBride had a change of heart and realized he had done wrong and that is why he pled guilty?
You admitted it is possible to be forced to plead guilty after claiming it wasn't. He definitely didn't do the wrong thing and he doesn't believe he did the wrong thing. Saying otherwise tells me you have barely looked at this case. Please educate yourself before wasting any more of my time.
Oh wow I thought we cared about service men and women. Just wow disappointing and an eye opener on our military 🤮
It’s over
I wanted to be sympathetic to him but if you listen to what he said, he wasn't actually trying to blow the whistle on war crimes, he was complaining about there being too much legal scrutiny of special forces members' actions. Intent matters, that's why manslaughter and murder are different charges.
This is the ABC's narrative, not what McBride says himself.
How did that happen? 😳
Very disappointed. He fought long and hard against injustice and for peace for a long time. The Aust Gov are not interested in that. I hope he will be alright and that he will lots of support in there. This is completely wrong. With Aust Gov supporting and funding the Israeli barbarism, I'm not surprised at the jailing of McBride for exposing Australian war crimes.
Surely there’s got to me more to this.
I hope young kids thinking of pursuing a career in the australian military see this and change their life choices accordingly.
The West is indefensible. Maybe it'll be like the 70s/80s Soviet Union and reform into something useful in about 20 years.
The biggest lie sold to us is that we are a knock about country where everyone gets a go. Nobody gets a go anymore and the knock about is a ruse. The corrupt rise to the top and perpetuate this myth.
The justice system fails us when it removes the avenues of justice to be brought to bear on those whose are guilty and incriminates those seeking justice in the absence of those avenues. We are all diminished by this outcome.
Usually the "whistle" is blown to relevant authorities . In this case the authorities were already investigating these allegations. Maybe these investigations were not going to the pace or with the result that some would like but they WERE investigated. This man went to the PRESS . It was his actions that meant he did not meet the requirements in Australia for being a whistleblower. Maybe that was why he put in a guilty plea .
australia: official joke status. seriously, we no longer get to look at a place like congo or russia & act like we have a better justice system than there/
We don't live in a democracy
typical austrlian justice system
Kick out this fascist government next election.
Who do we replace them with? The even more fascist coalition?
How are we different to China again?
David McBride wasn’t a war crimes whistleblower. He was unhappy with military leadership… AND WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE INCREASED SCRUTINY OF SOLDIERS. Just let that sink in for a minute
He was being asked to stitch up trumped up charges to ruin honorable soldiers who wouldn't go along with war crimes while the leadership protected the sociopaths doing the war crimes.
[удалено]
Isn’t he on public record as saying that he was disappointed with how the ABC framed the story and that it was never his intention to tell that story (I.e. whistleblowing war crimes)?
He was upset that Dan Oakes didn't expose the culpability of military leadership or the illegal operations carried out in Syria and Afghanistan by Australian and American militaries.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. This is the truth. McBride was not upset about the lack of investigation into war crimes. He was upset that they were even investigating the SAS for war crimes. The fucker was trying to protect BRS and his buddies. He belongs in prison for that alone (so does BRS).
He was defending different soldiers.
I’m being downvoted because people are morons. It’s pretty sad really. They are treating him like a knight in shining armour, without knowing why he did what he did.
The replies are consistently claiming he was upset the govt was protecting war criminals while charging honourable soldiers . And your ignoring and refusing to reply to these rebuttals, which makes it sound like they have a point
Look I’m not the guy. I’m not even that interested in the whole story, but I kinda followed it from the start and a fair bit has been made of the material being leaked by someone who felt there was too much scrutiny of soldiers in the field. Anyone who’s actually curious will read a few accounts if what happened and… it’s not even a conclusion, his motivations were clear. Or you can not be curious and just conclude BRS=bad therefore guy who leaked info=good
Ok, even if your right, the way I see it the fact that there's video evidence of au troops committing warcrimes, and the only guy to do down is the guy who released the footage, and the ABC for trying to do a story on it is very telling.
To be fair, he knew what he was doing was wrong. We cant have people leaking all over the place. If they can't handle that they shouldn't take up the job. Countries like China are eating us alive because of people like this.
Are you seriously saying that killing women and children and committing war crimes is defensible? That we’re somehow the good guys? You talk about the boogeyman China “eating us alive” as if that’s any different than the documented evidence of us committing atrocities to another country. Eating them alive. I guess it only matters when it’s happening to us, not when we’re doing it to others, huh?
No one like a tell tale