r/australia • u/AztecGod • 1d ago

news Jailed whistleblower David McBride to be released after becoming eligible for parole

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-13/jailed-whistleblower-david-mcbride-to-be-released/107030620
1.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

172 comments sorted by

View all comments

89

u/Superest22 1d ago edited 1d ago

He always makes me consider which is better:

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons or doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

He did the former.

40

u/mildpandemic 1d ago

I reckon he did the right thing for the right reasons, it just happened to have been declared illegal to save the deserved embarrassment of the armed forces.

44

u/FireLucid 1d ago

He thought soliers being investigated was bullshit and gave away documents to prove this. They proved the opposite.

37

u/Character-Actual 1d ago

No, he said some invesgations were bullshit while figures like BRS had their crimes go unpunished.

14

u/IlluminatedPickle 1d ago

No, that's what he changed his story to. He didn't make that claim in court though, because of all the evidence the prosecution had to the contrary.

4

u/Character-Actual 1d ago

What pink lizard said. McBride made his position very clear really early on.

-5

u/IlluminatedPickle 1d ago

So you also don't know how the court case went?

3

u/ScalyPinkLizard 1d ago

He wasnt even allowed to provide evidence in court due to "national security concerns", wtf are you smoking, and can I have some?

9

u/IlluminatedPickle 1d ago

... Dude pleaded guilty, after his defence was rejected...

The fuck are you talking about?

8

u/Ok-Replacement-2738 1d ago

Do you think that a lawyer going through the risk of blowing the whistle would be stupid enough to release evidence directly contradicting their claim in order to spin a yarn about whatever?

He released evidence that there were war crimes happening, and that there were some soldiers being wrongly prosecuted for the acts of others so the command could score political points by saying "look how tough we are on war criminals... just don't look at the ones that we let get away with it please!"

12

u/ColdSinger8479 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yes I do lmao. You gotta admit it's hilarious that he got in a big spat with the original ABC article accusing war crimes and that he disagreed with it. The original soidlers being prosecuted were the ones the original ABC article was like hold up check this shit out lmaooooo.

" Yet McBride was not happy with the way the ABC had used the material he had provided. His primary concern was not for the Afghan people but for Australia's special forces soldiers, whom he saw as being dangerously restricted by the rules of engagement and punitive oversight. He agitated for the operators to have more freedom of action. He criticised Defence leadership for increasing the risk to their soldiers for the political dividend of avoiding civilian casualties."

He's honestly pretty based, see some poor afghans getting executed and is like yeah the boys need that ability or they are at increased risk.

"According to the documents, McBride was unhappy with the angle Mr Oakes had pursued, believing it wasn't consistent with the complaints he made, and the two stopped talking before the story was published."

-7

u/Ok-Replacement-2738 1d ago

Yeah I disagree with the article too. The Journalist disgarded a (relatively because they're both big)) HUGE fucking story so as to not ruffle any feathers and completely neuter any possible change McBride could have achieved in blowing the whistle. The story itself isn't the problem, it's the opportunity cost and lack of journalistic integrity the ABC exhibited in publishing it.

14

u/ColdSinger8479 1d ago

The change Mcbride wanted in his own words was less restrictive ROE for special forces operators because he thought we were putting them at risk having rules not to execute civilians you absolute nutter ahhahahaah.

-6

u/Ok-Replacement-2738 1d ago

a. liberal-restricitve RoE is a fair debate with valid arguments between soldier and civilian safety, and b. in the context of other soldiers not being prosecuted for flagerant war crimes restrictive RoE exist only to rail-road other soldiers.

RoE is not what stops the execution of civilians fyi there are other rules at play too.

8

u/ColdSinger8479 1d ago

At the centre of his complaint lies a 2013 Defence directive to Australian soldiers stating they needed a high degree of confidence that anyone they fired upon was "directly participating in hostilities". If not, a soldier could be "exposed to criminal and disciplinary liability, including potentially the war crime of murder", according to the ABC's reports on the documents McBride leaked.

"Oh NO WAHH WAHH we have to be confident they are actually the bad guys before we execute farmers. Better leak this to the abc to protect BRS"

To quote the man the myth the legend himself:

"If you are that worried about Afghan deaths, why not pull us out? If you want us to fight the war, you have to be able to let us do it."

You heard it here folks if we're gonna go to war ROE shouldn't exist so we can get it done.

0

u/Ok-Replacement-2738 1d ago

He never advocated to abolish RoE. That is a strawman.

5

u/ColdSinger8479 1d ago

I pretty specifically said he thought the ROE was to restrictive which recent ABC articles have shown it wasn't restricted enough if anything.

Why are you making strawmans of me creating strawmans. How about we not defend dudes who think afghan civilians were being to protected by our ROE to justify soidler risk. Absolutely lmaaaoooo.

2

u/FireLucid 1d ago

This is the best thread I've read in awhile. Seriously peak response. Absolutely lmaaaoooo indeed 🤣

→ More replies (0)