107
submitted 1 year ago by cyu@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Hobbes@startrek.website 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Seems like the people who committed said war crimes should be the ones on trial.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The leak and other evidence were investigated via the Brereton Report.

Two SAS regiments were disbanded entirely and the ADF is implementing some reforms. A new office was setup to further investigate all the allegations. Oliver Schulz has been charged for murder, others such as Ben Roberts-Smith are still under investigation.

It’s not perfect and going after the whistleblower is fucked, but they’ve handled it somewhat okay.

[-] luthis@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 year ago
[-] autotldr 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The trial of an Australian military lawyer who leaked secret information about alleged war crimes to journalists has begun in Canberra.

He faces five charges of unlawfully stealing and disclosing classified information about alleged misconduct by special forces troops.

A large crowd of his supporters gathered outside the ACT Supreme Court before the hearing, urging the federal government to drop the prosecution.

She argued that military personnel like Mr McBride had no protection for disclosing secret information without authorisation, even if they believed "that doing so advances the public interest".

Mr McBride's barrister Stephen Odgers said many authorities, including the High Court, had distinguished between duties that attract a disciplinary response and a criminal penalty.

The barrister said Mr McBride's understanding of duty was based on the oath of allegiance he made upon enlisting in the ADF, when he swore to serve Queen Elizabeth II.


The original article contains 352 words, the summary contains 145 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] quindraco@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Wait, he swore an oath to obey the sovereign of a foreign country? And that's the crux of his defense, that his duty to the monarch of Britain was paramount?

Is anyone else confused af?

this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
107 points (99.1% liked)

World News

39332 readers
3098 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS