Comment on David McBride: former army lawyer sentenced to five years for stealing and leaking Afghanistan war documents

Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If you sign an NDA with a private company, they can sue you for violating that NDA.

  If the reason you violated the NDA was to reveal that the company is doing something illegal, you are legally protected from that lawsuit.

  The same ought to be true with the government. We have laws describing what the defence forces are and are not allowed to do in the execution of their military objectives. These are laws passed by the Australian Parliament in order to keep us in line with the internationally-accepted standard laid out in treaties. If the military is violating Australian law, it’s important that they be made to stop this. Ideally that would be done by a soldier reporting the crime to their superior, but what if the crime was ordered by superiors? Or if it’s a widespread institutional problem widespread across the military?

  Well for that, we have whistleblower protection laws. We created these laws specifically so that whistleblowers would be allowed to reveal crimes. And McBride had 2 expert witnesses lined up to support his whistleblower defence. But the government stopped them from being allowed to testify, making a ridiculous claim of “national security”. I say ridiculous, because courts are allowed to be closed to the public & press for precisely this reason. We don’t know what the evidence he sought to bring in was, but we do at the very least know it’s not “identities of agents or codes”, thanks to comments from McBride’s lawyer.

  The fact that he was prosecuted in the first place in a gross violation of Australia’s principles. The fact he was not allowed to present evidence in his defence is a gross perversion of the justice system. This is absolutely indefensible.

  source
• livus@kbin.social ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Not going to downvote you, partly because I only downvote spam and partly because kbin doesn't federate downvotes so I can't even see downvotes from you and vice versa.

  But I fundamentally disagree. One of the lessons of Nuremberg was that obeying orders isn't a good enough reason to commit war crimes.

  One of the corollaries to that, for me, is that obeying rules isn't a good enough reason to be complicit in covering up war crimes either.

  If a secret is a crime it's more treasonous to keep it a secret, because the people of our nations haven't voted to leave the Geneva Conventions and go out and commit war crimes.

  source

  • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I just don’t think we can live in such a black and white world.

    I wish we could.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong in any point though, I think i you’re entirely right. Just it’s all an impossible situation.

    source

    • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’d say believing that leaking military secrets is treasonous no matter what’s being leaked is a more black and white opinion than believing the responsibility is on the individuals involved to determine if keeping the secret is unjust.

      source
• naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s not like he handed them to a stranger at a train station or sold them to the highest bidder. He carefully sought out a trustworthy investigative journalist from the most trustworthy and reputable broadcaster in the country. A public one mind you, without a pure profit motive and stringent ethical guidelines.

  source

  • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s still treason, the journo doesn’t have clearance, you don’t know what someone might have on said journo etc.

    I admit it’s not a great example of our democracy manifest .

    It’s authoritarian as fuck, but it’s overseas in active combat zones

    source

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yeah nah, the highest calling is ensuring integrity. Everything else must come second to that or there will be none, and if the military cannot conduct itself in a trustworthy manner then it cannot be trusted and loses the privilege of secrecy.

      If individual soldiers are endangered then it is the military who endangered them, not the person blowing the whistle.

      source

      • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Yeah unfortunately nothing is infallible and it’s better in my opinion to keep a fucked up secret then have 10 men die so we can be open and honest all the time

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      the journo doesn’t have clearance

      The journo literally doesn’t need to have clearance. That’s why we have whistleblower protection laws.

      source
• BruceTwarzen@kbin.social ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Holy bootlicker batman. Who did they protect in iran?

  source

  • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You do you man, I have my opinion you have yours

    source

    • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      And I’ll defend to the death your right to post it, although anyone is equally welcome to offer rebuttal

      source
• Woozythebear@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Bro he leaked war crimes you ass, that’s the morally right thing to do.

  source
• unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I don’t want to downvote because that’s not good conversation.

  I also recognise it’s a slippery slope that will lead to criminal investigations etc being leaked and punished just as hard to keep a politician or police officer safe.

  That is exactly what is going on here - those in power in the military were covering up their own failures and investigating innocent soldiers instead of those committing war crimes, i.e. Ben Roberts-Smith who was their PR guy basically who the politicians were using to sell the war.

  The difference is the military is here to protect everyone, the police are here to protect those in power.

  Given the premise for our military engagements since WW2 it is quite difficult to argue that. I think it’s dangerous to think that the military can be above the law and do things which may damage Australia’s international reputation without the consent of the Australian people. If we don’t know what’s happening we can’t consent to it.

  source

  • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I will concede we should know what is going on, but unfortunately I’m certainly not qualified to make decisions on what we should and shouldn’t know and i doubt you are either.

    It’s bad to know we have to live in ignorance, but imagine if an asteroid was coming to earth tomorrow 50/50 of hitting, the right thing would be tell everyone and let us make our own decisions. The ramifications from that though would be monumental. Yes this is hyperbole but it I think gets my point across.

    Sometimes people in power know better, and if this was the worst thing happening then we’re not doing to bad.

    source

    • unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’m certainly not qualified to make decisions on what we should and shouldn’t know and i doubt you are either

      I’m a citizen of a modern western democracy, pretty qualified I would think.

      It’s bad to know we have to live in ignorance, but imagine if an asteroid was coming to earth tomorrow 50/50 of hitting, the right thing would be tell everyone and let us make our own decisions. The ramifications from that though would be monumental. Yes this is hyperbole but it I think gets my point across.

      I think every disaster movie ever aims to disprove that

      Sometimes people in power know better

      In your previous quote you argue that people shouldn’t know if the end of the world is imminent: who does that protect? In the case where the world ends you get chaos but they were going to die anyway, they got a chance to enjoy their last moments because they knew them. In the case where the world doesn’t end - the people in power effectively lose their power. It’s a bad way to think in a democracy, it’s how we slip into tyranny if we trust power.

      if this was the worst thing happening then we’re not doing to bad

      Someone has been sentenced to prison for exposing war crimes were being committed, damaging Australia’s international reputation and were actively being covered up by senior leadership. Meanwhile those committing and covering up the war crimes are not being investigated because “Sometimes people in power know better”. The fact that the media is complicit in this (especially the ABC who released a hit piece against him on 4 Corners). Sure we could be in complete civil war or have executions, but this (and the secret Morrison Ministries and Governor General David Hurley’s support of said cover up) sets a very dangerous precedent.

      source

      • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I don’t have great thought out answers, everything you say is a good point. I still believe war secrets are necessary and releasing them should be punishable.

        Put 10 years on the incident and a review process provided the conflict is over and then have at it. However if it is proven necessary then scott free for those involved.

        The problem is then everyone person with boots on the ground will live in fear of what they may have done after ten years rolls around. Especially as socially society shifts

        source

        • -> View More Comments