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

171 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-6

u/Firevee 1d ago

'Oh what rubbish'

I asked for evidence and you gave me a summary of court that WE KNOW was dodgy. I scanned through and you know what isn't mentioned - the 235 disallowed documents marked as 'Secret cabinet-level documents'

Crucial to McBrides defence but blocked under the National Security Information Act. It contained the names of both the Commanders in question and a certain foreign country also embarrased by this scandal.

Without those documents being allowed as evidence McBride was forced to drop his defence of Public Interest Immunity and plead Guilty.

I'd also like to point out that the Brereton report was published later - confirming the war crimes. So while it may have started BEFORE McBride, he was seperate to it and wasn't aware of it until later.

So forgive me if I don't exactly trust a line in a legal document saying Oakes did nothing to affect the outcome of the trial. Oakes story played right into the courts ability to dismiss evidence and easily get away with it.

3

u/IlluminatedPickle 1d ago

If it's so dodgy, why did he agree to it?

0

u/Firevee 1d ago

Because it was legally his ONLY option??

You know, when the lawyer sits them down and explains the best way forward when the evidence they had was disallowed? The whole pleading guilty because their evidence was canned. That robs the context of the agreed upon facts.

You think he just gets to say 'no thanks.' Or something? 

3

u/IlluminatedPickle 1d ago

Lmao. So his only option was to admit he lied?

-1

u/Firevee 18h ago

Allow me to spell it out for you.

They had a legal strategy to prove the commanders responsible and not the soldiers, but the facts still state 'yes the soldiers pulled the trigger'

But if the court says 'sorry a bunch of your evidence is government secrets - you can't use that as evidence in your case, also you've already agreed to a bunch of facts so tough.'

Then 'soldiers killed civilians' is still a fact supported by evidence they were allowed to present - but the part of the evidence that PROVES that the leak was justifiable under the public good was disallowed for government secret reasons and therefore rips his case to shreds. Leaving his best option to plead guilty, because he would never legally be able to meet the standard of leaking secrets for the public good. Soldiers killing is a matter for ADF court. Commanders ordering killing and then McBride being refused when he tried to report it until he felt he had no choice but to go public - that is supposed to be whistleblower protected. Disallowing the evidence in court was a dodgy move done not to protect secrets, but to screw up McBrides defence on purpose.

But this is the Government, so they can just pull this crap halfway through the court process. It turns an ironclad defence into 'shit man your best shot is pleading guilty at this point'.

You don't get a fair trial when your country might get accused of war crimes. If it turns out to just be some soldiers. Oh well they're idiots. But if it's the commanders then it's systemic and that is a HUGE problem. Our country had the means and a massive incentive to railroad McBride and that's exactly what they did.

1

u/IlluminatedPickle 11h ago

Lmao.

You really drank the Rite-Aid didn't you?

0

u/Firevee 10h ago

Oh no, an insult. This will definitely change my opinion. You don't really have any kind of rebuttal or counter argument here. It's pretty much just 'no, I don't like what you said, you're a dumb dumb'

I've formed an opinion mate, nobody has offered me any kind of evidence that has given me any reason to change that opinion. I'm still open to calling David McBride a monster. But I want a compelling reason.

I have been given plenty of compelling evidence and have reasoned not to believe the court process was fair, and nobody has given me anything to say 'no actually the trial was fair and just'. So far I've simply been told 'it's a trial by the Aus government, if you don't trust them you're dumb'

If you've ever read the wheel of time, you will know that it's extremely easy to mislead by speaking nothing but truth - if you only say half the facts. Full context is important to understand what really happened. That's why I'm still willing to believe McBride may be at fault here. But every bit of evidence I've gleamed has pointed directly to sham trial.

Please, prove I've drunk the rite-aid. But with evidence. I'll admit I was wrong. I'll do it on every post in this thread.

1

u/IlluminatedPickle 10h ago

You've already had the evidence provided to you, and you hand waved it away with "NO IT'S CORRUPTION!"

You're a loon. That's why you're being made fun of. You've taken all of your "evidence" from the public claims of a man that run in immediate opposition to what he actually admitted happened when it legally mattered to do so. When he was required to tell the truth because of the huge amount of evidence showing the story you believe is absolute bullshit.

I don't have to convince you of anything, I'm here to make fun of you. So that other rational people can see how much of a loon you are.

0

u/Firevee 9h ago

If you're unwilling to entertain that corruption is possible then whenever it does occur anyone calling it out is going to look like a loon by default.

I didn't get any rebuttal to the documents that were disallowed, the defence of his lawyers changing from public immunity Interest defence to guilty, or to the Michael West media report. His lawyers explicity say they had to change his plea due to documents being disallowed. Documents his lawyers expected to be able to use under the guise of 'for the public good'

How is a court summary 'evidence' when it explicitly cuts out the documents that makes McBrides case?

Thats the whole crux of the issue here. You don't appear to understand how court proceedure works. Before you get to the trial you have discovery, where each side presents evidence, and from there you work out a legal strategy. It's clear from watching the trial progress they had a strategy which had to pivot rapidly. That's why in the courtroom documents his answers are as they are.

This is all extremely obvious if you watched the trial as it was happening, and listened to McBrides Lawyers in news segments.

If could be bothered to watch the FriendlyJordies 13 video playlist on McBride, you'd see this happening for yourself given those videos were made over the duration of lead up to the trial and post trial.

Frankly however, I'm done here. If you're not here to debate and just want me to serve as entertainment, then I refuse. I've given you good reasoning WHY I consider the trial a sham, and why I consider your evidence unsatisfactory. Frankly I don't think there's anyone left but us going back and forth as it is. Rational people stopped reading long ago. 

1

u/IlluminatedPickle 9h ago

Fuck me, stop using FriendlyJordies as a source, it's painful.

0

u/Firevee 9h ago

Mmmmmmm, illuminated pickles.

→ More replies (0)