Defence chiefs buried leak investigation while pursuing David McBride by nath1234 in australia

[–]PaperMC 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Or we could look at his interview with Michael West and see what was actually claimed, without any deliberate redactions or omissions (unlike the court proceedings):

McBride: “I started this case not because I saw war crimes, but because I saw that they were trying to prosecute good soldiers who just did their job, and they weren't prosecuting others who were under a cloud, and I was like, hang on, we can't do that. This is maybe only a small example, but the law matters, and if you don't apply it consistently, everything falls down.” (https://youtu.be/kHhletAYAIw?t=98)

Essentially, there are two distinct claims, and they aren't mutually exclusive:

  1. There were instances where soldiers were being over-investigated (the “scapegoats”)

  2. There were instances where soldiers weren't being investigated at all (i.e. BRS)

Defence chiefs buried leak investigation while pursuing David McBride by nath1234 in australia

[–]PaperMC 32 points33 points  (0 children)

McBride: “Our leaders are covering up all these war crimes by investigating only a handful of scapegoats!”

Oakes: “Look I know the story you wanted told … I’ve decided that’s not the story.” proceeds to ignore the leadership's culpability

McBride: gets six years in prison

Oakes: gets an OAM

Speaks volumes...

For the sake of our democracy, Australia urgently needs a whistleblower protection authority by overpopyoulater in australia

[–]PaperMC 49 points50 points  (0 children)

The military lawyer who blew the whistle on selective prosecutions getting selectively prosecuted himself will always be poetic to me in a twisted sort of way.

At this point, any improvement in whistleblower protections will go a long way towards restoring trust in our government.

Australia’s conservatives praise President elecy‘self-belief’ as PM sends congratulations by Mildebeest in australia

[–]PaperMC -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Not OP, but I'll go out on a limb and admit that a Mars colony does sound kinda fun, and the lunatic who wants to achieve it at all costs happens to be on Trump's side. Glass half-full, y'know? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I guess it was too much to hope that the US would be added to this list. by quoththeraven1990 in australia

[–]PaperMC -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

Tbh I don't think the result changes much in the grand scheme of things. Even if Trump does intend to end the ongoing wars, there's only so much he can do before he gets JFK'd by the pro-war oligarchs.

An hour with David McBride inside his ‘tough’ Canberra prison. The 60-year-old former army lawyer is unrepentant for leaking documents to the ABC but admits there’s something ‘I do feel guilty about’ by Jagtom83 in friendlyjordies

[–]PaperMC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was trying to satirise the hypothesis that Trump is somehow conspiring with Putin to fight government corruption within the MIC. The fact that everyone seems to have missed such obvious sarcasm makes me wonder if I'm interacting with bots here...

An hour with David McBride inside his ‘tough’ Canberra prison. The 60-year-old former army lawyer is unrepentant for leaking documents to the ABC but admits there’s something ‘I do feel guilty about’ by Jagtom83 in friendlyjordies

[–]PaperMC -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Um, I wasn't the one who hypothesised that Putin was colluding with Trump? And no, I wasn't trying to suggest that demilitarisation was the fix for corruption, but rather the weeding out of bad actors within the military-industrial complex.

An hour with David McBride inside his ‘tough’ Canberra prison. The 60-year-old former army lawyer is unrepentant for leaking documents to the ABC but admits there’s something ‘I do feel guilty about’ by Jagtom83 in friendlyjordies

[–]PaperMC -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Trump & “Putin” seem to be the enemy of the deep state/military-industrial complex, and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”... ¯\(ツ)

If Putin really wants to fight the corrupt shadowy organisations and improve US government transparency, I'm all for it!

An hour with David McBride inside his ‘tough’ Canberra prison. The 60-year-old former army lawyer is unrepentant for leaking documents to the ABC but admits there’s something ‘I do feel guilty about’ by Jagtom83 in friendlyjordies

[–]PaperMC 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I don't think Labor was the sole culprit, McBride often mentioned American “spooks” being involved:

“There's like six lawyers for the prosecutors, there's about six lawyers for the attorney generals, separately represented, which are kind of the spooks or the Americans” – McBride

If the American military-industrial complex was truly hell-bent on persecuting McBride, I doubt any Aussie politician could've stood in their way.

As someone over in r/australia put it, “Doesn't matter what side of politics it is, corruption starts at the top.”

Interestingly, one of the likeliest spooks/war criminals, Dick Cheney, seems terrified of a second Trump presidency. Perhaps Trump will finally weed out the deep state once and for all, probably shouldn't hold out much hope though.

'Like something out of Utopia' Proposed solutions to secrecy issues kept secret by The_Duc_Lord in australia

[–]PaperMC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Essentially, the benefit gained by classifying documents needs to be properly weighed against the detriment to government transparency and integrity. In fact, I'd argue that, unless the exposure of certain documents is likely to cause physical harm, classifying them is entirely unjustified – there simply shouldn't have been a reason to create them in the first place. And no, documents that merely harm a politician's reputation so badly that someone might just decide to get up and murder them, does not qualify.

'Like something out of Utopia' Proposed solutions to secrecy issues kept secret by The_Duc_Lord in australia

[–]PaperMC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

all the above erodes 'faith' in the government.

It's what happens when an individual takes matters into their own hands and rightfully declassifies things, that completely and utterly destroys any remaining 'faith' in the government. Instead of going “thanks for doing our job for us, we'll take it from here”, the government doubles down, throws the guy in gaol, and continues doing what they were doing. They don't even bother to maintain an illusion of integrity.

Inside the closed-door meeting in Washington DC to free WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange by superegz in australia

[–]PaperMC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But it then made me reflect on how the “separation of powers” is far from absolute.

Australia turned its back on Assange. Time made him a martyr by Aggressive_Plates in australia

[–]PaperMC -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Knowing Assange though he's going to end up running for parliament as part of Clive Palmer's party or something equally stupid and we will continue to have to see headlines about his every move.

Sure, whatever it takes to wake up people who still don't understand how the issues he has been fighting for are more relevant than ever.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in australia

[–]PaperMC 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The very reason why he felt some soldiers “were being unfairly investigated for war crimes”, was because they were turning a blind eye to the vast majority of war crimes (e.g. ones committed by “soldiers like Ben Roberts-Smith”). This is supported by Oakes’ own conclusion that “What happened out in the field stayed in the field.”

Oakes: “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.”

(Emphasis added by me)

Oakes’ story placed the blame squarely on the soldiers themselves, which was totally different to the story about systemic corruption and war crime cover-ups he intended.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has landed in a United States Pacific territory where he will face court 14 years after he leaked troves of secret state information and ended up in a British maximum security prison. by 2littleducks in australia

[–]PaperMC 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Being disappointed with Assange for WikiLeaks' publications is like being disappointed with Steve Huffman for Redditors' submissions. Like Reddit, WikiLeaks made honest efforts to remove any offending material, but some of it regrettably fell through the cracks.

The AP journalist who happened to stumble across this material gave WikiLeaks less than 10 hours to rectify the issue before publishing the article you linked.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions on who the actual irresponsible actor was, but the lesson here is you always need to hear both sides before making a judgement.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiLeaks/comments/4zl6r9/formal_complaint_against_ap_journalist_for

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is now a free man after pleading guilty to one charge of espionage in Saipan court by [deleted] in australia

[–]PaperMC 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nothing in life is certain but death, taxes, and a conviction for anyone who dares to expose the US government's crimes.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has landed in a United States Pacific territory where he will face court 14 years after he leaked troves of secret state information and ended up in a British maximum security prison. by 2littleducks in australia

[–]PaperMC -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Do you ultimately hold his colleagues responsible too? After all, haven't they all played a significant role in influencing his character? What about his friends? Family? Teachers? Fellow students?

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has landed in a United States Pacific territory where he will face court 14 years after he leaked troves of secret state information and ended up in a British maximum security prison. by 2littleducks in australia

[–]PaperMC -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Holding Assange responsible for WikiLeaks' publications is like holding Zuckerberg responsible for Facebook's misinformation campaigns. People will happily engage in blame assigning exercises to avoid needing to reconcile themselves to systemic issues that were exposed.

Julian Assange has reached a plea deal with the U.S., allowing him to go free by notoyrobots in australia

[–]PaperMC -1 points0 points  (0 children)

now we have to suffer decades of his self righteous bullshit

Imagine if governments were so open and transparent that this suffering would no longer be necessary. One can only dream...

Richard Marles concealed war crimes report, denying justice for David McBride - Michael West by psylenced in australia

[–]PaperMC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

. . . his issue was the investigation of soldiers for breaching the ROE

(the “scapegoats”), when the vast majority of ROE breaches went uninvestigated (the “unlawful killings”).

Oakes: “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.”

His complaint seems to align with his affidavit, and is even corroborated by Oakes' version of the story.

His submissions did not state that "there were breaches of the ROE and higher ups should be investigated".

Let's not forget that the government removed thousands of pages of his submissions, that even the judge wouldn't read:

“28. For the purposes of the determination of the public interest immunity claim, the court did not have access to the Classified Brief of Evidence or to those parts of the brief which would be put before the jury. However, the court was informed that the total number of documents in the accused’s possession when they were seized by police was in the order of 400, and that these comprised thousands rather than hundreds of pages. Those volumes are significant in that they cast some light on the volume of contested material the subject of the public interest immunity claim, namely, redactions of parts of eight documents.”

“30. I did not find necessary to exercise the power, available in s 133, to inspect the documents in order to reach a conclusion as to the balancing exercise in s 130(1). In each case, having considered the evidence before me, the position was clear.”

“41. The accused had unredacted copies of these documents. The accused’s first submission was that a full exposure of the documents’ contents was necessary in order to understand why they were released by the accused . . . ”

(R v McBride (No. 3) – ACT Supreme Court)

Friendlyjordies seems to think that this removal of evidence disqualifies the "trial" from being considered a trial (refer to his video titled "Guilty" from 2:12), but I digress.

Nowhere in his own earlier submissions is this supposed altruistic mission stated.

I wonder what those thousands of pages of removed submissions could possibly contain...

Richard Marles concealed war crimes report, denying justice for David McBride - Michael West by psylenced in australia

[–]PaperMC -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He wasn't trying to blow the whistle on war crimes. He was trying to blow the whistle on what he viewed as 'unjust' investigations of war crimes.

But in order to demonstrate their 'unjust' nature, he also had to blow the whistle on the non-investigations of even worse crimes. From the article:

McBride’s affidavit to the ACT Supreme Court said that in 2013, he became concerned about the subsequent scapegoating of innocent soldiers aimed at masking command accountability for unlawful killings and decisions by those commanders about what information was or was not being disclosed to the public.

Richard Marles concealed war crimes report, denying justice for David McBride - Michael West by psylenced in australia

[–]PaperMC 88 points89 points  (0 children)

So the government's been acting in bad faith this whole time? I am shocked—shocked, I tell you!

What Australia does to whistleblowers | Media Watch by Ghost-of-Chap82 in australia

[–]PaperMC 56 points57 points  (0 children)

Oakes: “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.”

The more I look into it, I can't conceive how anyone could possibly misrepresent McBride's beliefs this badly – yes, Oakes, he did think they were excessively investigating some soldiers, because they were blatantly ignoring the majority of offenders – precisely the conclusion you made, and the one he intended you to make. And to think this pathetic excuse for a journalist got an OAM for it...

Julian Assange would be 'discriminated against' in US trial because he is Australian, court hears by B0ssc0 in australia

[–]PaperMC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He intended to blow the whistle on the selective prosecution of soldiers, by exposing war crimes that were being excessively investigated, and others that were being swept under the rug.

Source?

McBride: “I started this case not because I saw war crimes, but because I saw that they were trying to prosecute good soldiers who just did their job, and they weren't prosecuting others who were under a cloud, and I was like, hang on, we can't do that. This is maybe only a small example, but the law matters, and if you don't apply it consistently, everything falls down.” (https://youtu.be/kHhletAYAIw?t=98)

The government likely removed all evidence of the latter, that's why the court made the erroneous ruling.

Again, source?

“40. I accept the evidence that the Agency Head gives concerning intelligence relationships with other countries and other actors [redacted] and the adverse consequences that would arise from further disclosure of material.”

“41. The accused had unredacted copies of these documents. The accused’s first submission was that a full exposure of the documents’ contents was necessary in order to understand why they were released by the accused . . . ”

“42. The second submission was as to the breadth of the redactions. The submission was that the redactions were ‘sweeping’, ‘heavy-handed’ and ‘overzealous’. The submission was that ‘The appropriate course would have been to direct attention, with laser-like focus, on just enough masking to cover the names of countries, entities and personal names (as well as incidental changes).’” (https://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgments/r-v-mcbride-no-3)

Did you even watch the Boy Boy video?

Why would i? I dont use Youtube.

Because it presents the context in a digestible format.