this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
21 points (95.7% liked)

Australia

3592 readers
218 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
21
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

On the street outside the courthouse immediately afterward, Davis told reporters: “We received the decision just this afternoon, which was in essence to remove evidence from the defense. … The Crown, the government, was given the authority to bundle up evidence and run out the backdoor with it. He is no longer able to put it before a jury.”

McBride said: “I stand tall and I believe I did my duty and I don’t see it as a defeat, I see it as a beginning of a better Australia.”

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

McBride's lawyer Davis said outside the court:

“It was the fatal blow made in conjunction with the decision made a few days ago that limits what we can say to the jury on David’s behalf in terms of what was his duty as an officer was on the oath he took to serve, as we say, the interests of the Australian people.

Well the ruling was, he doesn’t have a duty to serve the interests of the Australian people. He has a duty to follow orders. That is a very narrow understanding of the law in our view that takes us back really pre-World War II. We all know how military law has been judged since then in terms of compliance to follow orders.

So facing that reality, we’re limited in terms of what we could put to a jury in term’s of David’s duty … together with the removal of evidence makes it impossible, realistically, to go to trial. It is a sad day and a difficult day for us to advise David on his options this afternoon and he embraced them.”

McBride said: “I stand tall and I believe I did my duty and I don’t see it as a defeat, I see it as a beginning of a better Australia.”

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You hear that, defence forces? The government says you're goons for the ruling class, not defenders of the people.

They have also implicitly admitted that the interests of the ruling class are at odds with those of the people.

Any sense of moral duty you have in your jobs is unfounded.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

To hell with the Nuremberg Principle. Just follow your orders!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And in case anyone wants to split hairs about how they are only required to follow lawful orders, I'm pretty sure the Nuremberg defendants were also following lawful orders. Plus I don't know how you follow lawful orders to either commit or cover up war crimes. Sounds like that sort of thing should be unlawful.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

I bet if the govt hadn't pinched their evidence and it had actually gone to trial, that would have been one of McBride's arguments; that it wasn't a lawful order as evidence of murder can't be classified. But that's what Dreyfuss's lackeys did with the approval of the judge.

How can you have a trial when the relevant evidence in defence is suppressed. You can't.