Complete bullshit. Regimes that punish whistleblowers harder than war criminals reveal themselves as dreaming of tyranny.
The entire trial was cooked, and I’m furious :(
That non parole period is nuts too, pure revenge. What danger does this man represent? If he’s out on the streets some war criminals better watch their backs?
edit: I should add, it’s also quite frustrating that at the end of all this top brass has had no light shone on them, which was his initial goal on leaking. He thought the SAS was being investigated overmuch as a distraction from leadership failures. I guess we’ll never know. A slap on the wrist for the executioners, no systematic investigation, and an inconvenient man in gaol.
The material was used as the basis for an investigative series exposing war crimes committed by Australian defence personnel in Afghanistan.
If it’s war crimes the good of humanity should come above the good of a regime committing war crimes.
I’m going to be honest - that’s better than I was expecting. Obviously he should not have been sentenced to prison in the first place, and his trial definitely shouldn’t have been pretty much rigged like it was, but I was definitely expecting to see him cop life, or a sentence long enough that it essentially is life.
deleted by creator
I dunno about other universities, but I’d say the UQ protests actually are focused on something they have more ability to change than McBride’s conviction. Boeing has a very cosy relationship with UQ, and their core demand is to end that partnership and stop their own university being complicit in genocide by association.
A UQ student has more ability to change what corporations UQ partners with than they do to change court decisions made in Canberra.
deleted by creator
getting UQ to dissociate with Boeing is hardly likely to actually achieve anything in the context of war
Absolutely fair. But it’s the one thing UQ students have the most ability to affect, and if Boeing and other weapons manufacturers lost their associations with every research institution because of similar protests, that would have a much more sizeable impact.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The year is 2034, war has become the norm. Prisons are filled with dissidents, whistleblowers, and more. Prison gangs move from violence to scary Sudoku.
When the whitleblower gets prosecuted instead of the war criminals…
deleted by creator
This was a much crazier headline the first time I read it, when it was about Danny McBride.
I think leaking military secrets is as good as treason.
Down vote me all you like.
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.
The difference is the military is here to protect everyone, the police are here to protect those in power.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The military is not an impartial or objective body either. They are just as politically active as the police with their own self serving goals.
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
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.
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
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
it’s better in my opinion to keep a fucked up secret then have 10 men die
wtaf
You’re one of the saner voices around these parts.
I honestly don’t even know how to respond to someone saying they would rather have 10 people die because of keeping a fucked up secret than have an open and honest society. Like seriously that’s just beyond the pale.
(⊙_⊙)
the journo doesn’t have clearance
The journo literally doesn’t need to have clearance. That’s why we have whistleblower protection laws.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
Bro he leaked war crimes you ass, that’s the morally right thing to do.
Holy bootlicker batman. Who did they protect in iran?
You do you man, I have my opinion you have yours
And I’ll defend to the death your right to post it, although anyone is equally welcome to offer rebuttal
