"The Circle" can VC recipient.

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-16/ ... /103851650

This is an interesting read. In substance, the Brereton Inquiry recommended consideration of charges against 19 soldiers but tried to exonerate the senior ADF leaders on whose watch the various atrocities occurred. Now, it appears that the Oversight Panel, headed up by former Inspector-General of Intelligence, Vivienne Thom (who did the necessary on Dyson Heydon), rejected the view that senior officers should not be called to account.

It is a source of considerable concern to me that the ABC has obviously seen it (it was apparently released to One Nation's Malcolm Roberts on Budget Night) but a report of this significance is still hidden from public view.

It is, of course, a source of even greater concern to me that the only person jailed over these war crimes is a man who had nothing to do with them, other than that he exposed them.

"Work remains ongoing to address the issues identified in the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel final report and the government will have more to say about this in coming months," a spokesperson for Mr Marles told the ABC.

[Culprit]

David, We can throw ethics and morality out there, the reality is the law is the law. The solution is to change the law. I've been working within Defence for decades, and that will never happen.

[Magpietothemax]

David, We can throw ethics and morality out there, the reality is the law is the law. The solution is to change the law. I've been working within Defence for decades, and that will never happen.

That is a very authoritarian approach.
The Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg effectively used this defence: I was only obeying the orders I was told to obey.
In fact, the only way that corrupt, antidemocratic laws will be changed is if masses of people come to the defence of courageous individuals such as David McBride, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning
Moreover, the statement "the law is the law" means nothing. In a society riven by massive social inequalities, as we live in now, the "law" is merely the rules defending the property and privileges of national elites which now more than ever are resorting to military violence to prosecute their interests on a world arena.
"Ethics and morality" only have a meaning to the extent that one interprets the class interests behind them.
It is in the class interests of the ruling elite, ie super wealthy financial elite, to demand that we all unthinkingly obey the dictates of "national security", even if it means giving silent complicity to war crimes.
It is in the class interests of the working population to expose these war crimes, so that the truth can work its way into the consciousness of millions who aren't prepared to accept mass murder for profits and geostrategic interests.

[Culprit]

^^This may seem strange but the Military is very "authoritarian". That's how they operate.

[stui magpie]

interesting take on why this guy shouldn't be considered whistleblower.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/davi ... 5je8u.html

[David]

[Magpietothemax]

^^This may seem strange but the Military is very "authoritarian". That's how they operate.

Doesn't seem strange, it is exactly what I said.
The argument that "the law is the law" is essentially the same argument as the SS criminals used at Nuremberg. They were only following their lawful instruction, therefore they shouldn't be held accountable. What follows from that is that they should only be held accountable if the don't follow the instructions of the military and the government, no matter how criminal these instructions actually are, with reference to previously agreed upon legal/moral standards, or by international law.
Therefore, using the arguement that the "law is the law" to condemn the actions of David McBride or Chelsea Manning has a similar moral value to that of the argument used by the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg.
Any person who values democratic rights and the right of population at large to know the truth of what the government and its military forces are doing will abhor the persecution of David McBride, and admire his courage for risking his own personal situation to ensure that the truth is exposed.

[stui magpie]

[Magpietothemax]

[David]

[stui magpie]

Why do you think the public had a right to know? The inquiry had been initiated ages before he went public. It would have made it's findings, delt out any punishments and we would have been none the wiser.

Stuff happens in Military operations all the time that the public doesn't know about.

[nomadjack]

For those of you arguing McBride is a hero for bringing to light misconduct by special forces in Afghanistan...You do realise the issue he raised was that war crimes investigation processes were actually too harsh and punitive on our troops right? His actions and complaints weren't about revealing atrocities committed or the defence force covering up these allegations. His claims of misconduct were that investigation processes were based on unrealistic expectations of military conduct and contravened due process - none of which has been substantiated and which arguably runs counter to the war crimes since alleged and uncovered by journalists such as Dan Oakes. Oakes and other journos made use of the docs illegally provided as part of their investigations, but not in the way that McBride had intended and their findings and the actual misconduct itself would most likely have never have come to light if investigative processes had been restricted as McBride was pushing for. I don't follow why he is being made out to be a hero here or an anti-war crimes whistle-blower?

The actual court transcript is worth reading.
https://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/j ... bride-no-4

163․ Counsel for Mr McBride submitted that his motivation in engaging in the offending conduct was honourable in that he honestly believed that there was misconduct within the ADF with respect to the conduct of the Defence Force investigations of Special Forces soldiers in 2013. It was submitted that this was relevant both to the objective seriousness of the offending, as well as to subjective considerations.

164․ It is significant to note that no attempt was made to prove as a fact, for the purposes of sentencing, that the claims made by Mr McBride were justified, that they were inappropriately addressed by the IGADF or that the mechanisms for complaint or redress available under the law were not adequate. Rather, the contention put on behalf of Mr McBride was merely that he had an honest belief in the matters that he put forward.

165․ It is clear that Mr McBride had formed the opinion that the extent of the investigation of soldiers involved in the killing of civilians in Afghanistan had changed in 2012, and that this reflected the desires of the senior commanders of the ADF, but was improper because it involved investigation of soldiers even in circumstances where there was no prospect that they had committed the war crime of murder.

166․ It appears that his experiences during his second Afghanistan posting, during which he was personally involved in conflict with investigators sent by the ADFIS, had a very profound impact upon him. He had specific issues with the threshold for the commencement of investigations, the conduct of investigators and their use of warrants in one particular case. His experience caused him to lose faith in the leadership of the ADF in relation to the approach adopted to the investigation of killings of civilians in Afghanistan. He came to believe that the approach involved what he described as “cynical window dressing” in order to satisfy political concerns as to the death of civilians.

[Magpietothemax]

Why do you think the public had a right to know? The inquiry had been initiated ages before he went public. It would have made it's findings, delt out any punishments and we would have been none the wiser.

Stuff happens in Military operations all the time that the public doesn't know about.

This comment says it all. You don't believe the public has a right to know that war crimes are being committed by the ADF, and covered up by its top echelons?

Then you are well down the path toward accepting the evisceration of democratic rights and the move toward a police state.

[nomadjack]

Why do you think the public had a right to know? The inquiry had been initiated ages before he went public. It would have made it's findings, delt out any punishments and we would have been none the wiser.

Stuff happens in Military operations all the time that the public doesn't know about.

This comment says it all. You don't believe the public has a right to know that war crimes are being committed by the ADF, and covered up by its top echelons?

Then you are well down the path toward accepting the evisceration of democratic rights and the move toward a police state.

The 'top echelons' were calling for more rigorous examinations of military conduct and allegations of war crimes. Mc Bride was pushing back against this. His allegations of cover ups and abuse of due process which the leaked documents relate to were not about attempts to cover up war crimes, they were about soldier's rights being abused in the investigation process.