Idk, man. If I were in that position, I feel like I'd be sick to my stomach when I got old enough to understand that I was asking for a parent to sacrifice their freedom for a night of entertainment.
Certainly, but in a way his freedom was willingly given. He knew what he was in for when he arrived. I wouldn't blame his daughter for feeling guilty but she has had and will have plenty of time to work those emotions out with him. I think his decision was thought out for many years
McBride’s intention was not to leak to expose war crimes, it was to show how troops were being unnecessarily hounded by legal etc , ie ‘over-zealous investigations of special forces’
The ABC discovered war crimes in the leaks and went down that path, ignoring McBride's initial reason for leaking the information.
Now McBride is allegedly playing a hero being victimised for exposing the war crimes.
McBride handed over his original complaint about the “over-zealous” investigations of special forces soldiers along with thousands of pages of supporting documents.
Oakes says McBride was very clear about the story he wanted told.
“He really simply wanted to say that the special forces in Afghanistan were being unfairly targeted and unfairly scrutinised.
“There was no mention of potential war crimes.”
Oakes came to an entirely different conclusion.
“The more I looked into it, I couldn’t conceive how anyone would think these guys were being too tightly monitored. It was precisely the opposite.
“What happened out in the field stayed in the field.”
I knew the essentials of this, that the story he wanted told was more about Army treatment of SAS soldiers. I didn't realise the story was meant to be basically the complete opposite to the Afghan files, though.
That is some twisted narrative the abc has been spinning about their own source.
If David hadn't wanted to expose the murders, he wouldn't have leaked evidence of it. What's more, he leaked evidence of their cover-up up to the highest ranks, which could be argued is he graver war-crime, since it fosters a culture of impunity.
It is true that David saw some soldiers, who served in Afghanistan the year after a lot of those murders took place, prosecuted unfairly, the way he saw it. He believes the Defence leadership were scape-goating these soldiers to be seen to be doing something about war crimes when in reality they continued the cover-up for the murderers. This flauting of command responsibility is the bigger story which the abc continues to ignore.
Edit: also, motive was never discussed during trial. Trial only ever got as far as pre-trial, where the justice ruled on the meaning of 'duty' (just follow your orders) and in a closed session allowed the govt to scoop away David's evidence, leading him to plead guilty.
davidmcbride.com.au
Top