- YouTube
www.youtube.com
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

(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
      2·
      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
        2·
        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.

        • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          6 months ago

          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’.

        • macrocephalic@lemmy.world
          1·
          6 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.

  • No1@aussie.zone
    0·
    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
      0·
      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
        0·
        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
            0·
            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
          1·
          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.