Whistleblower: The Trial of Major David McBride

High Court To Decide Fate Of Democracy In Australia, Commonwealth.

It is of the utmost importance that the story of Major David McBride be told outside of Australia, where it is currently unfolding. It is of interest to the citizens of every democratic nation across the globe, in particular Australia’s Commonwealth cousins. It demonstrates the vital role that whistleblowers play within a democracy, and that democracy cannot truly exist without them.

This case will also be a test of Australia’s secrecy laws, said to be the strictest among any democracy. There are some down under who now view their country as being a police state, where whistleblowers now face the prospect of a lengthy prison term rather than the protections they ought to be afforded in a democratic society.

There are certain things that by necessity governments must keep secret, things that would jeopardize the security and interests of their nations should this information be made known to others. When the information is of an embarassing nature to the government or, evidence of wrondoing or criminal activity on the part of the government or its officials, this information is exempt from being classified as “Secret”

The secrets they keepThe Australian Wednesday, January 29, 2020

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/right-to-know-the-secrets-governments-keep/news-story/9e7b3c4c2e727e51e9deaacaaf130200

What The Case Is About.

In previous articles I have laid out what this whole thing is about and how it has been mishandled by the Australian press, but I will go over the important points with you.

The Aussie Files: Scandal Of Criminal Proportions

https://onecalgaryvoter.com/2019/06/18/the-aussie-files-scandal-of-criminal-proportions/

When Is A Secret Not A Secret?

https://onecalgaryvoter.com/2020/01/22/when-is-a-secret-not-a-secret/

Timeline

  • Major David McBride, a Legal Officer in the Australian Defence Force was deployed to Afghanistan in 2011 and again in 2013.
  • While he was in theatre during his first deployment he began to notice some things that seemed irregular to him. They had to do with the Rules of Engagement (ROE) under which Australian troops were operating while in Afghanistan.
  • He was concerned that the restrictions being placed upon frontline troops were placing them at high risk, so much so that he wrote an article about it that appeared in August of 2012. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/2012/3.pdf)
  • When he saw the very same thing happen when he deployed in 2013 he knew it was being done intentionally. He would gather evidence that showed the government of the day was acting in an illegal and unethical manner, and that as a result Australian troops were losing their lives in Afghanistan.
  • According to McBride, the evidence pointed to government officials making decisions that were of no strategic value, and that were intended to create better press and higher public opinion ratings for politicians. It was the creation of an “Instagram War” as McBride would put it.
  • Over the course of the next two years McBride took what he found to a half dozen agencies including the Australian Federal Police, and while all agreed that there was evidence of criminal activity, none were willing to pursue the matter. “What do you want us to do, charge the government?” was the response he would usually get.
  • Having exhausted all other options, McBride had no other choice but to leak the documents to the press and he was bound by law as an officer of the court, and by his code of ethics, when he did so.
  • After receiving the documents the press did not report on the government’s misconduct, instead making the story about war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan.
  • McBride is arrested and charged with one count of theft of commonwealth property, three counts of breaching the defense act, and one count of unauthorized disclosure of information.
  • Due to the “Top Secret” classification of some of the evidence some portions of the trial will be conducted in camera and only those people with that level of clearance can be in attendance. Because no other legal officers or defence attorneys in Australia hold this level of clearance McBride will be forced to defend himself.

David McBride’s YouTube Channel

On the 27th of January McBride started a YouTube channel called “David McBride’s Trial” and it will offer you insight into the trial from David McBride’s perspective (well, what he’s allowed to talk about that is), and it will give you the opportunity to get to hear him for yourself.

David McBride’s first video on his new YouTube channel.

Lt. Gen. (Ret’d) David Morrison Subpoena Being Challenged By Lawyers for Att’y General.

Just because senior officials break the law, that’s no reason to be a whistleblower.

Paraphrase of statement made in court by lawyer for Attorney General

Despite being served with it in December, David Morrison is only now challenging the subpoena to testify that he was given by McBride and will be in communicado at the bottom of the world for the next two months.

The argument being made by the Attorney General’s office is that having evidence of criminal misconduct by government officials is not a valid reason for being a whistleblower.

Well then, just what exactly would constitute a valid reason? This is EXACTLY what a whistleblower does and is supposed to do in the given set of circumstances, to blow the whistle on government wrongdoing. They are in effect attempting to nullify the whistleblower, permanently silencing anyone looking to do right by the public, and the law.

People in democracies everywhere need to take note of what is going on here, because if the government wins it’s case against David McBride, the people of Australia will have lost their democracy.

Follow along on David’s YouTube channel David McBride’s Trial and stay tuned for updates.

7 thoughts on “Whistleblower: The Trial of Major David McBride

  1. My short term aim (shorter would be nice) is to be a ‘whistleblower’, specifically regarding the absence of approximately 800 ‘Australian’ or ‘post 1975″ Honours and Awards, upon the Australian War Memorial’ online ‘roll’ (the Roll) of Honours and awards. The Roll contains 46,038 entries, of which 46,008 are ‘Imperial or Foreign’ honours and awards. The reason for the absence of those records, according to the retiring Director of the AWM, Brendan Nelson, is “straight forward”.
    “The answer is quite straight forward, the Memorial does not hold the records or citations in question and therefore cannot digitise them for the roll. The roll contains only those citations and recommendations for which the records have been passed to the Memorial by the Department of Defence to become part of the National Collection.
    In the case of the retrospective awards for Vietnam and the more modern awards of the Medal of Gallantry and other bravery awards these records are still held by the Department of Defence or the Defence Honours & Awards Tribunal and have not yet been passed to the National Archives of Australia or to us.
    The Memorial will add the original records to the online Roll of Honours and Awards once they have been released by Defence, until that time the awarding of these medals has been appropriately recognised by the gazetting of them in the Commonwealth Gazette.” (Brendan Nelson, 22 November 2018)

    They are (4) Victoria Cross for Australia; (8) Star of Gallantry; (58) Medal for Gallantry; (61) Commendation for Gallantry; (81) Distinguished Service Cross (Australia); (161) Distinguished Service Medal (Australia) and the (419) Commendation for Distinguished Service. The earliest of those were Commendations for Distinguished Service awarded to (excusing rank and given names) Bonser, Matthews, Menhinick, Raffo, Spooner, Temple and Wright, for their actions in the Gulf War, and were gazetted twenty- eight years ago on 1 November 1991.

    When I put it to Brendan Nelson that he could play a part in resolving this situation and approach the Minister for Defence for the release of the records, he replied “The Memorial will not be approaching the Minister of Defence regarding the release of Defence records; however you may do so as is your right.” (Brendan Nelson, 9 September 2019).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Over the course of the next two years McBride took what he found to a half dozen agencies including the Australian Federal Police, and while all agreed that there was evidence of criminal activity, none were willing to pursue the matter. “What do you want us to do, charge the government?” was the response he would usually get.

    Having exhausted all other options, McBride had no other choice but to leak the documents to the press and he was bound by law as an officer of the court, and by his code of ethics, when he did so.
    **********************************************

    My Post to Social Media today. (FWIW)

    A Brave Whistleblower : Major David McBride

    Law and the Rule of Law (None can be above, the Law)

    “Just because senior officials break the law, that’s no reason to be a whistleblower.” – lawyer for Attorney General

    The argument being made by the Attorney General’s office is that having evidence of criminal misconduct by government officials is not a valid reason for being a whistleblower.

    Story: Whistleblower: The Trial of Major David McBride

    Here: https://tinyurl.com/the6sb5

    At the Ecclesiastical Law that binds all subjects under the Crown:

    * Australia is a “legal person” under the Crown. Australia can sue and or be sued.

    * The AFP is under the Crown

    * The AFP don’t charge the government, the AFP take Australia before the Crown as, the other party.

    * An “Officer of the court” is an Officer of the Crown. (Can sue and or be sued, at Law.)

    *Australia is fully Liable as the “Respondeat superior” (Let the master answer) because whilst the Australian Army is under the Crown, Australia has a (Master/Servant) “responsibility” to fully familiarise those that join up with the Australian Defence Force, of their “Rights and Duties”, according to Law.

    Respondeat superior: https://tinyurl.com/ybewdrll

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply to Ross Bradley Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s