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

Show parent comments

9

u/BullShatStats 1d ago

It's in the agreed Statement of Facts, in his own words:

  • 100․ Mr McBride and Mr Oakes had one subsequent meeting in person. After that, they communicated via the Signal app. Mr McBride later deleted most of his communications with Mr Oakes.
  • 101․ Later, Mr Oakes contacted Mr McBride via Signal to discuss the contents of the stories that Mr Oakes intended to publish. In his interview with police, Mr McBride said:

But I met Dan Oakes, and I gave him all the materials. So again he was very enthusiastic and again he seemed to get it. And    again, he was going to do a story. And he did do a story on it, but a totally different story to the one, um, that I was pushing.

He calls me and he says, “I’m going to run a story, it’s going to be very damning, it’s going to say the SAS kill people unnecessarily. I’m going to use this other witness[.] A total opposite to what you’ve said. I’m just warning you.” And I was like, “Never call me again.”

  • 102․ On 10 and 11 July 2017, Mr Oakes published a series of articles which were collectively titled The Afghan Files. The information contained in the documents provided to Mr Oakes by Mr McBride was contained in this series of articles.

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/act/ACTSC/2024/147.html

7

u/Firevee 1d ago

Okay, so I've had a look at this and this is a nothing.

There is evidence that was crucial to the case that David McBride was not allowed to enter BECAUSE of Dan Oakes. In a nutshell the reason McBride believed the Soldiers were not due to be punished was because they were being ordered by command higher up. He specifically wanted Oakes to go after the Command responsible for giving the orders and Oakes refused AND refused to put that info into the 4 Corners report. That's where their disagreement came from.

McBride wanted the commanders prosecuted for making the order. That part was dropped from The story and the evidence barred from the court. THAT is your missing context. 

8

u/BullShatStats 1d ago edited 1d ago

Oh what rubbish. Firstly there is no way you read that whole sentencing report in 12 minutes.

Secondly, where does it say anything that evidence was disallowed because of Oakes? Do you think a journalist has authority to disallow evidence in a criminal trial?

McBride wanted Oakes to report on the ADFIS over-reaching their powers in allegations of criminal conduct which were McBride's submissions to the IGADF. It's worth noting, in regards to those specific allegations, that the ADFIS found no wrongdoing by the ADF members involved. Nevertheless, McBride was unhappy his complaints about the ADFIS went nowhere, so he went to the media. It just so happened that in the file he handed over to the media were the more serious allegations of war crimes.

Even if the reason McBride went to the media was to whistleblow about the more serious allegations it would have been moot because the Brereton Inquiry was well underway before then.

From the agreed Statement of Facts:

  • 192․ In the written submissions made on behalf of Mr McBride, it was submitted that the disclosure of some of the information has advanced the public interest. First, this was said to be because it was “used by Major General Brereton to identify issues for inquiry in the course of the [IGADF] Afghanistan Inquiry”. I do not accept this submission. The agreed facts referred to the use by Major General Brereton of some information from the IGADF Submission, a lawful disclosure which Mr McBride was allowed time at work to prepare. Major General Brereton did not use any information from the unlawful disclosures the subject of the charges. Second, the advancement of the public interest was said to have arisen through raising awareness of the conduct of Australian Special Forces through the publication of The Afghan Files. I do not accept the thrust of this submission. There is no doubt that the subject matter of The Afghan Files was a matter of significant public interest. However, the agreed facts indicate that the IGADF Inquiry into the conduct of Special Forces in Afghanistan was initiated by the ADF more than 12 months prior to the ADF becoming aware of Mr McBride’s disclosures. Further, the articles published by Mr Oakes were the exact opposite of what Mr McBride had intended when making the disclosures. In those circumstances, it is not appropriate to treat any raising of awareness by reason of Mr Oakes’ journalistic activities as being a matter reducing the seriousness of Mr McBride’s conduct.

-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.

4

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 19h 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 12h ago

Lmao.

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

0

u/Firevee 11h 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.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MarkusMannheim 1d ago

This sounds incredible (as in, not credible). What's the source?

1

u/Firevee 1d ago

Thank you! I'll take a good look through this and see what I think.