- cross-posted to:
- worldnews
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews
You must log in or # to comment.
Seems like the people who committed said war crimes should be the ones on trial.
The leak and other evidence were investigated via the Brereton Report.
Two SAS regiments were disbanded entirely and the ADF is implementing some reforms. A new office was setup to further investigate all the allegations. Oliver Schulz has been charged for murder, others such as Ben Roberts-Smith are still under investigation.
It’s not perfect and going after the whistleblower is fucked, but they’ve handled it somewhat okay.
But have you considered that freedom of speech only applies when speech is supportive of the government?
I forgot about that rule.
Wait, he swore an oath to obey the sovereign of a foreign country? And that’s the crux of his defense, that his duty to the monarch of Britain was paramount?
Is anyone else confused af?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The trial of an Australian military lawyer who leaked secret information about alleged war crimes to journalists has begun in Canberra.
He faces five charges of unlawfully stealing and disclosing classified information about alleged misconduct by special forces troops.
A large crowd of his supporters gathered outside the ACT Supreme Court before the hearing, urging the federal government to drop the prosecution.
She argued that military personnel like Mr McBride had no protection for disclosing secret information without authorisation, even if they believed “that doing so advances the public interest”.
Mr McBride’s barrister Stephen Odgers said many authorities, including the High Court, had distinguished between duties that attract a disciplinary response and a criminal penalty.
The barrister said Mr McBride’s understanding of duty was based on the oath of allegiance he made upon enlisting in the ADF, when he swore to serve Queen Elizabeth II.
The original article contains 352 words, the summary contains 145 words. Saved 59%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
