His reason for coming back to australia was very based iirc. Something to do with taking his daughter to a dance I think
Idk, man. If I were in that position, I feel like I'd be sick to my stomach when I got old enough to understand that I was asking for a parent to sacrifice their freedom for a night of entertainment.
Certainly, but in a way his freedom was willingly given. He knew what he was in for when he arrived. I wouldn't blame his daughter for feeling guilty but she has had and will have plenty of time to work those emotions out with him. I think his decision was thought out for many years
That's right, his daughter kept asking him to come to the father-daughter dance at school. Eventually he caved.
I hope he is home with his family soon, he did what was right no matter the cost, and our laws should have protected him.
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, ignoring McBride's initial reason for leaking the information.
Now McBride is allegedly playing a hero being victimised for exposing the war crimes.
That is some twisted narrative the abc has been spinning about their own source.
If David hadn't wanted to expose the murders, he wouldn't have leaked evidence of it. What's more, he leaked evidence of their cover-up up to the highest ranks, which could be argued is he graver war-crime, since it fosters a culture of impunity.
It is true that David saw some soldiers, who served in Afghanistan the year after a lot of those murders took place, prosecuted unfairly, the way he saw it. He believes the Defence leadership were scape-goating these soldiers to be seen to be doing something about war crimes when in reality they continued the cover-up for the murderers. This flauting of command responsibility is the bigger story which the abc continues to ignore.
Edit: also, motive was never discussed during trial. Trial only ever got as far as pre-trial, where the justice ruled on the meaning of 'duty' (just follow your orders) and in a closed session allowed the govt to scoop away David's evidence, leading him to plead guilty.
McBride handed over his original complaint about the “over-zealous” investigations of special forces soldiers along with thousands of pages of supporting documents.
Oakes says McBride was very clear about the story he wanted told.
“He really simply wanted to say that the special forces in Afghanistan were being unfairly targeted and unfairly scrutinised.
“There was no mention of potential war crimes.”
Oakes came to an entirely different conclusion.
“The more I looked into it, I couldn’t conceive how anyone would think these guys were being too tightly monitored. It was precisely the opposite.
“What happened out in the field stayed in the field.”
I knew the essentials of this, that the story he wanted told was more about Army treatment of SAS soldiers. I didn't realise the story was meant to be basically the complete opposite to the Afghan files, though.
I don't think there's any reason why Oakes' recollection of McBride's intent trumps what McBride has publicly said about his intent. Doesn't the court have a word for that?
It seems fairly logical to me. He had the personal experience of witnessing soldiers unfairly scapegoated by superiors. His substantiation for the unfairness is that those superiors were complicit in war crimes. That the motive was there for superiors to make false specific allegations of misconduct in order to sweep systemic issues under the rug.
If McBride were a perfect witness, he'd have been motivated enough by war crimes to speak up. But the doubt about his awareness of what he was exposing is an appeal to authority which flies in the face of Occam's razor.
Simply, whistleblowing as a means of recourse only became preferable after his fellow soldiers, whom made the same choice he personally did to sacrifice their normal lives to enlist, presumably with virtuous intent i.e in Australia's name, were effectively betrayed by their own.
That might leave something to be desired about his morals, but this must be considered in context, and "not whistleblowing" under prior corcumstances isn't something that could reasonably be prosecuted. Oakes is right to conclude that our military personnel should have been more closely monitored in general. That doesn't speak to the specific conduct of the soldiers McBride aimed to exonerate, though.
🚨 News hit today that David is in maximum security prison! He has no natural sunlight and restricted contact with his daughters.
I've posted about it here https://feddit.nl/post/18277656
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
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: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone