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.
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.
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
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.
I’m saying it’s better a fucked up secret is kept than 10 people die not the other way around
I think often when people think of other people dying they internalise it as a headline does. Such and such died, ok that’s sad I guess.
I think the correct way to interpret it is to take the death of the person you have been the closest to ever. All that pain and grief and rage, multiply that by the number of people expected to feel that per person, then by the number of people dead. you start to interpret pointless, preventable, or cruel deaths with the appropriate amount of madness-tinged grief then.
Men (and children) did die, though. That’s the point.
More than 10 I might add
Yes, although I did find it a little ironic that when I went to Wikipedia to check this it specifically mentioned “at least 10” deaths. All human lives are equal, of course, but to me there is an important distinction between the deaths of completely innocent and uninvolved civilians vs the deaths of service men and women to have chosen to involve themselves in a conflict. Western bias makes it easy to overlook this point, but those civilians who were murdered are literally just us in a parallel universe. We owe it to ourselves as much as anyone else to properly investigate these crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice. And if governments and military organisations are unable to do this transparently, then anyone who does (journalists, whistleblowers, etc) should be celebrated and protected.
If we want militaries to be more than murderers for hire then murders by militaries must be taken at least equally as seriously as murders by random citizens.
The journo literally doesn’t need to have clearance. That’s why we have whistleblower protection laws.
I don’t want to downvote because that’s not good conversation.
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.
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.
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.
I’m a citizen of a modern western democracy, pretty qualified I would think.
I think every disaster movie ever aims to disprove that
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.
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.
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
Whatever changes in society, I don’t think people will look down on those who risked their lives to ensure we had a tomorrow, those who engaged in wars in DEFENCE of Australia will never be looked down upon. It’s those who participate in wars that were started for political reasons, where peace was definitely an option but not the default. Even then, I don’t think poorly of those who fought in those wars, even though that war was pointless and politically motivated, they though they were doing what they thought was the right thing to do. Soldiers committing war crimes though. Nah, fuck them, there will be a warm place in hell for them.
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.
Holy bootlicker batman. Who did they protect in iran?
You do you man, I have my opinion you have yours
Bro he leaked war crimes you ass, that’s the morally right thing to do.