If you'll please just read this interview with someone who has looked into the case in Sweden in great detail.

I'd rather be a loner than go back to that shitbook.

You've commented the exact same thing in a previous post on this. Please actually engage with the counter-arguments and materials I responded with here .

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.

Learn a trade

You still need a phone number to register an account as far as I could tell when I did the other day. You no longer need to share your number with any contacts and can set it so noone who has your number can look you up on signal. You can optionally set a unique alphanumeric 'username' instead to hand to people to look you up. But yea, Signal still requires you to give them and their authenticatian service (through sms code) your phone number.

Someone recently told me this anecdote:

I overheard on the train home two middle aged ladies talking about their kids mobilephones.

One was saying how they dragged their teen and their mobile phone to the iphone store so they could setup the location tracker and "quiet mode" (parent phone can completly disable the teens phone), and how their child was upset but they are glad it was done.

The other lady was asking how she to can do the same.

It's because they operate in secrecy.

McBride's lawyer Davis said outside the court:

“It was the fatal blow made in conjunction with the decision made a few days ago that limits what we can say to the jury on David’s behalf in terms of what was his duty as an officer was on the oath he took to serve, as we say, the interests of the Australian people.

Well the ruling was, he doesn’t have a duty to serve the interests of the Australian people. He has a duty to follow orders. That is a very narrow understanding of the law in our view that takes us back really pre-World War II. We all know how military law has been judged since then in terms of compliance to follow orders.

So facing that reality, we’re limited in terms of what we could put to a jury in term’s of David’s duty … together with the removal of evidence makes it impossible, realistically, to go to trial. It is a sad day and a difficult day for us to advise David on his options this afternoon and he embraced them.”

McBride said: “I stand tall and I believe I did my duty and I don’t see it as a defeat, I see it as a beginning of a better Australia.”

This summary misses a key point:

McBride’s defence says he had a separate duty to act in the public interest

A young and talented photo-journalist, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, both Reuters employees, were gunned down by a US Apache on 12 July 2007 in the Al-Amin neighbourhood of eastern Baghdad, along with a number of other people on the street. Saeed was wounded and tried to crawl away, only to be shot dead along with the passer-by who stopped his van to help him. Two children in the vehicle were severely wounded. WikiLeaks revealed what really happened that day when they published the Apache footage in 2010 under the name of Collateral Murder, along with the Rules of Engagement in use at the time. Julian is charged with publishing the Iraq RoE (count 14) but not the video. This means the video won’t be shown in court as evidence. It would presumably be too embarassing to the US government to show the footage in court.

Remember: the indictment of Julian relates to 2010-2011 publications only: the Afghanistan War Logs, Iraq War Logs, Diplomatic Cables, Guantanamo Bay Detainee Briefs. The charges have nothing to do with the 2016 release of Podesta/Clinton’s emails, or with Russia.

Remember the indictment of Julian relates to 2010-2011 publications only: the Afghanistan War Logs, Iraq War Logs, Diplomatic Cables, Guantanamo Bay Detainee Briefs. The charges have nothing to do with the 2016 release of Clinton's emails, or with WL allegedly helping Hillary loose the election to Trump.