Your link doesn’t appear to be working. Here’s an archived version of that article.
Comment on If you're seeing this, I'm in jail.
No1@aussie.zone 5 months ago
It’s a lot messier than most think.
Ilandar@aussie.zone 5 months ago
Comment on If you're seeing this, I'm in jail.
No1@aussie.zone 5 months ago
It’s a lot messier than most think.
Your link doesn’t appear to be working. Here’s an archived version of that article.
BeeDemocracy@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
The abc is not biased at all in this, no. They’re not the ones he leaked to.
You make it sound like he accidentally leaked evidence of war crimes. He leaked evidence of war crimes comitted by generals as well as boots on the ground but somehow the abc’s top ‘investigative reporters’ ie gov’t stenographers are still missing that.
surreptitiouswalk@aussie.zone 5 months ago
Did you ready the article? McBride initially posted on his personal blog, which caught the attention of ABC journalist Dan Oakes. The leak happened from there.
My reading of the article was McBride didn’t initially think there were war crimes committed but:
McBride didn’t think war crimes had happened which is why he asserts that the soldiers were being wrongly accused and investigated. Oakes disagreed.
Now the question is, why is Oakes making this allegation allegation against McBride if it’s not true?
unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 5 months ago
I’m pretty sure he thought war crimes were happening, he just thought they were investigating the wrong soldiers to cover up for higher-ranking and more decorated soldiers like Ben Roberts-Smith to pretend that they cared about war crimes
Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 months ago
I’m willing to entertain the idea that he may not have intended to whistleblow in order to reveal war crimes.
But if that’s the case, why couldn’t the government have relied upon a fair trial to establish his guilt? Even if he is guilty, he is owed due process, and being restricted from presenting necessary evidence is a violation of that due process.