I don't know the particulars of this person, the case, etc to comment on them so I won't. However, I will say that 'classified' has often become a way to hide actions that governments and individuals don't want the public to see instead of hiding things in order to protect the public.
I think countries need laws on the duration of classification that get to the heart of national security vs public interest. I think a core issue is that classified information should come out within the lifetime of people involved with very few exceptions. Additionally, crimes found after declassification should have automatic statute of limitation renewals.
One system that may work could be automatic mandatory release unless renewed at a higher level of classification. Every time material is elevated it should require the highest level of administration to approve renewal. Additionally, when things are declassified they should be publicly advertised in some way so that records requests can find them.
There is a need for classified materials, but there should be a high bar to make them and a low bar to release them in order to avoid the government using them as a shield to hid activities they don't want the public to see.
> I will say that 'classified' has often become a way to hide actions that governments and individuals don't want the public to see instead of hiding things in order to protect the public.
You can probably rationalize anything as "protecting the public" with the magic phrases "national security" (no exposing shady government operations), "ensuring order and stability" (no political protests) and "ensuring innovation and prosperity" (no resisting anything the private sector wants to do).
Yes, you can, but that doesn't mean there isn't a real need in some, if not many, cases. The big questions are how do we balance the real need to protect national security with the actual harm to public interest and how do we eventually address the actual harm to public interest that occurred when something was classified.
Don’t forget about “rights of man”; those only exist as babbles philosophy not immutable physics
Perhaps you have no special rights as an individual since you are not that meaningful to its success or existence…
…it’s trivial for someone else to do what you won’t and turn the mirror around for you. Your semantics games can be played on you.
“Adults” sure act afraid of kids. Good. They should be afraid of getting old and having the kids revolt on them.
The other billions aren’t trapped in here with you … you’re trapped here with them. Stop trying to look clever arguing semantics. Do your job and pay your taxes or start conflict and be ended. See what they do to college kids? Why care about the walking dead?
At least in the US government, whomever creates the document classifies the document. It basically requires an act of congress or the President to change it once done.
That being said, "I will say that 'classified' has often become a way to hide actions that governments and individuals don't want the public to see" is just as true there.
Well, that happened in 2009, I was in back in 2007… so, if we want to get super-pedantic, only the President can classify and unclassify documents and he/she delegates the fuck out of it.
Have you read Division 3 of the Archives Act 1983? Something along these lines is fairly widespread, although of course the Sir Humphreys of the world have had some success in limiting the damage done to their interests.
> One system that may work could be automatic mandatory release unless renewed at a higher level of classification. Every time material is elevated it should require the highest level of administration to approve renewal. Additionally, when things are declassified they should be publicly advertised in some way so that records requests can find them.
Never worked with any TS/SCI huh?
I agree with your base idea, but the devil is in the details here. We do need better policy around classified material, given it's supposed to serve the population. But automatic outcome based on some unconnected rules or judgement, uh... doesn't have a great track record for success. We likely do need more accountability to make sure secrets from society serve that society. But I don't think an edict about expiration dates is that.
I understand that the idea is far from perfect, but I am willing to risk some harm to national security in order to avoid actual harm to the interests of citizens. We need to start understanding that hiding things from citizens equals actual harm and, in general, actual harm outweighs theoretical harm in my book. I will also add that the fact that so many people in this forum understand the basics of US classification shows how many people actually have had a clearance in their lives. How much are we actually protecting national security when so many people know the secrets already?
Every generation has to discover Hannah Arendt anew. It's not fair to say coulda-shoulda unless you're God himself. I wonder, the higher up in classification you go, how much of it is how much of it is abstraction as a result of the classification that does harm. How much of it is the gorillas who keep the other gorillas from touching the bananas so that they don't get squirted with water, because "that's the way it's always been done". Meanwhile, October 7th.
There was an article today in Foreign Policy, "U.S. Intelligence Is Facing a Crisis of Legitimacy".
If the material is stamped secret but everybody knows what's going on, then whoever sits on those documents looks like Ellis, the coke-sniffing negotiator in Die Hard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irTozIjeqFM
is exactly what Division 3 of the Archives Act 1983 (Australia) and section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958 (UK) provide for, so this is hardly as unworkable an idea as you make it out to be.
[10-20 years after the proposed laws and regulations pass]
[female newscaster]: Today, the president signed the superbill package preventing government shutdown, while funding all national military, education, and healthcare spending, in a move widely lauded.
Some fringe critics at the political extremes have, however, noted that the bill also approved all national security re-classifications. They claim it defeats the purpose of the reclassification bill by simply having all security requests clumped together.
What do you think Mr. Pundit?
[Male Pundit proceeds to talk about terrorism and protecting our children, and how select members of a congressional committee already individually reviewed the millions of requests via subordinate staffers, and found all of them to be vital for national security]
We can't send to jail, the same people the government previously praised as being national heroes. Discrediting him afterwards would also mean discrediting the government who didn't do their due diligence. So they'll cover for him in order to protect themselves. It's a story as old as humanity.
We (thus far) have not been able to send him to gaol because the civil standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities but the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Ben Roberts-Smith has been shown to have committed war crimes on the balance of probabilities, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think that the government would probably prefer he be locked up, since the current situation is the worst of both worlds: he is legally a war criminal, but remains embarrassingly free and unpunished by the criminal justice system.
I don't think I've read a wikipedia article about a person before that is as clear'n'cut as this is in detailing what an absolute shit the person is. Usually there is some back and forth arguments, but this is just straight up murdering and girlfriend beating asshole all the way.
He sued for defamation against the media organisations who exposed him and he lost _hard_. So all the facts that might ordinarily be in dispute and have tiptoe-around language to avoid being sued for can be stated plainly.
He has a Victoria Cross (Medal of Honor equivalent), you basically have to be mental and not care for your own life to get one, so we shouldn't turn around and be shocked when they don't value the lives of the enemy and their supporters.
While this article is from the nationally funded news broadcaster it is the same news organisation that McBride provided the documents to - which were then used to produce 7 stories, leading to it being raided and the follow-on events. Detailed information of that is available here:
This was somewhat underreported internationally: McBride was whistleblowing because he was dissatisfied with military leadership and the *increased* scrutiny of soldiers.
Ironically, this led to further scrutiny and the identification of alleged war crimes.
If you actually listen to an interview with him and not reporting about him, you'll see him explain that he identified some scape goats for prosecution the Australian military we're trying to throw under the bus for minor issues or straight up things they didn't do, while letting the real psychos like special forces off the hook entirely.
This is the story that has been pushed more recently, but the boy boy YouTube channel recently covered and interviewed the man [] in which he claims they misconstrued his intention in order to intentionally discredit him, probably under direction from the government he was attempting to criticize.
"Two experts were set to support McBride’s case, but commonwealth lawyers sought to have their testimony quashed under public interest immunity laws. The laws suppress information that would prejudice the public interest if they were made public. "
I have a hard time understanding why they couldn't do a closed court hearing, is that not an option in Australia?
"western country" is a very fuzzy concept. The definition needs a list of proper list of requirements otherwise you have countries with very varying levels of individual rights
A third of the country is literally called "Western Australia."
Jokes aside, a Western country is typically defined as a nation with cultural, political, and economic ties to Europe. Our UK roots, democratic governance, military ties (e.g., AUKUS), and post-war European migration certainly place us in this category...
I think GP's point wasn't whether or not Australia should count (I agree that it should), but that the level between "the bad" (the US, Hungary, parts of former Yugoslavia, parts of Eastern Europe etc.) and "the good" (Finland, Estonia, Norway, etc.) is pretty big.
I thought it referred to Western Europe and the Anglosphere exclusively. Central/Eastern Europe wasn't included, especially countries that were part of the soviet bloc. One can talk about them becoming westernized now, but that just emphasizes how they aren't a part of the group, just becoming like it. Also, the US is epitome of western countries. All of it. The good, the bad and the ugly.
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
(P.S. Good luck, David. The international community stands with you.)
You should see the hit pieces happening in the Australian press right now. They're claiming he's not a whistle blower, but apparently an idealogue. They can do this because, despite the fact that the war-crimes he exposed were real, the actual details of said crimes are still hidden behind a "national security" veil.
What do you expect of a country that has abandoned Julian Assange. Australia is a despicable place when it comes to Human Rights, personal freedom, and privacy
Julian Assange deserves credit for exposing the hypocrisy of the US propaganda about freedom and human rights. Australians should be proud of him as he actually embodies much of the advertised Aussie battler spirit
The international community is a common term for the US and their lackeys (EU, Japan and a couple other countries), and they absolutely support Australia.
The situation is similar in many matters : see how almost all of the international community governments support staunchly the current massacre in Gaza, though the people of all countries are protesting daily. In the UK, both Sunak and Starmer support Netanyahu's crimes unequivocally, while hundreds of thousands protest in the streets.
I've lost any hope about our "democracies". We need a complete upheaval.
> The international community is a common term for the US and their lackeys (EU, Japan and a couple other countries), and they absolutely support Australia.
You know that words can mean different things, depending on context. You also know it's unproductive to disregard clear contextualization in favor of starting a strawman argument.
We both absolutely agree however that the only path forward involves a complete rewrite from scratch.
The American experiment has concluded, it's time to collect the data, form conclusions, create and test a new hypothesis.
Sadly that’s from the different times, when morality was worth something. Saying such things would be considered childishly naive in modern world.
And we know that laws themselves are outdated, especially as demonstrated genre, about whistleblowers.
Your mental model of the past is idealistic, morality in the past was lynchings, cop raids against gay people, racism against everyone, segregation, sexism, and imperial power.
I believe you are right to some extent, but also overestimating how strong and important the specific principles you're observing are to most people. Some of us have stronger principles, yes. But more of us have _different_ principles.
And those people will not be walking alongside me, standing up for the freedom of their fellow countrymen. That's fine. I'd rather focus on collectivizing with those who are principled.
In the narrow sense of principle, indeed principles can stand in the way of wisdom. A more wide definition of principle could be that you have them, but that they can change out of, for example, wisdom.
Principles are 'wrong' just like scientific models are wrong. Over time, scientific models get replaced by other models that are less wrong.
What I want to say actually : there is no Right or Meaning just like there is no Truth. There's only (wise) man's search for it.
Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.
George Orwell.
Also, think of Assange, still in high security jail in UK without being condemned to anything in this country : the very definition of arbitrary detention and torture.
Similarly there are still a number of prisoners in Guantanamo illegal prison, some having been there for decades. The very definition of arbitrary detention and torture.
The "West" (the US and their lackeys) has lost any semblance of moral high ground, but keep pointing fingers. That's shameful and despicable.
"Sharing classified documents...". That's a very complicated issue. If those documents put (innocent) people and national safety in risk he is in a very hard to defend position.
Hmmmm which innocent people and whose national safety?
The way I recall leaks from the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, the leaks typically depicted the U.S. killing or torturing innocent people. Sure, it's plausible they might have made some soldiers less safe.
But innocence is not so cut and dry. You can't only look from one perspective and see the whole picture.
First Australian to go to jail over Afghanistan & Iraq is a whistle-blower. Truly a kangaroo legal system.
I find it hard to blame the judge here, it is their duty to discharge the law as written.
However Australia's laws are inherently anti-whistle-blower and IMO therefore anti-democratic. How are the people expected to hold their leaders accountable if their leaders are legally allowed to deceive them and punish any who would expose that deceit?
Claiming that "national security" should somehow trump what are meant to be the most core tenets of our society is just simply more proof that the ruling class considers themselves above criticism, even if it costs the truth to snuff it out.
Why is it we can have a government that is so consistently anti-Australian? The politics of it don't seem to matter because swapping parties in and out hasn't had any impact. Both sides of the ruling class still believe they are above us while still preaching tall-poppy syndrome for the rest of us.
It's interesting to look at the shelf-life of actual, logistical national security issues and compare that to the "peeling an onion" rhetoric around information release. The useful time span seems to be weeks to a handful of years.
This is a deliberate mischaracterization of democracy. If the system meets these criteria then it by definition isn't democracy. Allowing people to claim that it is democracy just let's them hide behind the idea without having to meet any of the obligations that idea puts on them.
I mean, I fully agree with you. But this is the demonstrable reality of modern democracy. They all meet these criteria, and yes, they all hide behind the term democracy while not actually meeting any of it's obligations. If pressed they would say, "What are you going to do about it?" because they designed a system in which you are powerless, and so they know you can do nothing about it.
Our planet is on fire and our world leaders twiddle their thumbs and prepare bunkers to coast out the collapse. Tell me how that's conceivably a result of an empowered populace after decades of said populace campaigning for climate change legislation.
More than half of US people voted for a man who is famous for saying "If Israel did not exist, America would make one" and I guarantee you the majority of those voters don't agree with that statement. The conservative lobby rallying around global warming revisionists is mostly an alignment of interests; if it was a hot-topic issue you'd see it on TV ads and at debates. You don't.
In the US there is no option, the politics of both Democrats and Republicans support Israel heavily, one reason is to protect US' interest in the region, another is being anti-antisemitic.
The same cannot be said for (denial of) climate change, or at least not for the hoax guy that represented the Republicans.
Then pick any issue you wish from the absolute truckload of issues where the people have clearly spoken and yet their government does nothing despite supposedly representing them.
Oh don’t worry, you can also protest. Just make sure to get a permit first and don’t obstruct traffic too much and when the police show up, which they will, disperse peacefully immediately. Just make sure your protest is completely ignorable.
And be sure to protest about things that don't impact the bottom line of capitalists in any way whatsoever. Protest all you want about genders but don't even think about unionizing.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
I would bet most democratic nations still are inherently anti whistleblower. If not all. Australia and USA are no exception to the worse and I mean this in a good way
I'm all for whistleblower protection and don't think he should be serving time, based on the 15 minutes I've been aware of this, (so don't take this "but" the wrong way)
but,
What exactly was he blowing the whistle about?
> McBride had become dissatisfied with military leadership and increased scrutiny of soldiers.
> McBride's lawyers told the court that he had leaked information in an attempt to bring awareness to excessive investigation of soldiers.
What? Is he a counter-whistle blower? What am I missing?
> McBride’s documents formed the basis of an Australian Broadcasting Corp. seven-part television series in 2017 that contained war crime allegations including Australian Special Air Service Regiment soldiers killing unarmed Afghan men and children in 2013.
> McBride’s argument that his suspicions that the higher echelons of the Australian Defense Force were engaged in criminal activity obliged him to disclose classified papers “didn’t reflect reality,” Mossop said.
You'll see the reporting is totally skewed (huge surprise). He identified certain low ranking military members being effectively thrown under the bus for small things, or things it's dubious they even did. While the Australian gov continues to protect the real psychos: special forces and the top brass.
Successive federal governments wanted to keep up appearances with the US, & kept them on station for too long. Oversight & discipline became frayed. Certain US special forces wouldn't work with them because of it.
The grunts were sacrificed to protect the top brass, but especially the politicians who looked the other way.
Particularly embarrassing to do otherwise when one (Ben Roberts-Smith) has already been given a Victoria Cross.
> The documents were leaked to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) by David McBride,[3] upon and seven stories were ultimately published as a result. The documents covered a wide range of topics, however most notably it detailed multiple cases of possible unlawful killings of unarmed men and children.
Odgers says the Army command was involved with “window dressing” which he suspected involved criminality; that is “command was undertaking improper investigations done for PR purposes, and he found that repellant and believed that he needed this to be properly investigated”.
He says, both in court and elsewhere, that his concern was that higher ups were undertaking investigations of soldiers he felt did nothing wrong, for PR reasons, and he believed that was illegal.
I was certainly confused before but I think it makes more sense now.
As a lawyer, his assignment was to prosecute a soldier whom he thought innocent - a scapegoat - when the top brass knew about actual war criminals (e.g. Ben Roberts-Smith).
So it seems to be a regular power struggle? All these guys did shady things and then some of the higher ups want to pick a few scapegoats to clear the record and save their asses? So one of the underlings just blow the whistles but clearly the higher ups still have things under control.
David McBride is a military lawyer and is standing up for justice for
the soldiers accused of war crimes because there is evidence they were
acting under orders and did not simply lose discipline and go rogue.
In other words this was coordinated terror campaign, not a few soldiers
getting trigger happy.
They executed civilians.[1,2,3] You don't execute civilians. Any officer who gives you an order to execute civilians is giving you an unlawful order. This is so fundamental it is covered in basic training.
The reporting around this has indicated that basically there was a culture within the SAS that you needed to be "blooded" and serving SAS personnel were isolated, harassed or threatened by other personnel if they didn't participate by those who were in it.
The people being investigated may or may not have been acting under orders from higher officers...but the accusations are that they also directly threatened other soldiers if they objected to, or directly facilitated, those unlawful orders.
Agrree it's inexcusable. But I still find it hard to belive that 22,
one of the most disciplined regiments, have totally gone to shit
andlost the plot (notwithstanding some seriously criminal instruction
from higher up). And thankyou for the elightening links.
What you've mentioned is underreported. He was whistleblowing because he was dissatisfied with military leadership and the *increased scrutiny* of soldiers.
Ironically, this led to further scrutiny and the identification of alleged war crimes.
This is the impression that I got from reading Wikipedia and quotes from his lawyer, so I wouldn't call it underreported.
Someone elsewhere in this thread linked me to a video where McBride explained that the top brass knew about actual war crimes (e.g. Ben Roberts-Smith,) and wanted to appear to be doing something, so they tasked McBride with prosecuting a scapegoat (whom McBride believed innocent) and that was what caused him to to start gathering and leaking documents.
Are you sure about that? There were no airliners for most of human history, so how could any statement about airliner whistleblowers stand for "entirety of human history"?
Probably because the first Boeing whistleblower died by suicide and the second Boeing whistleblower died due to a stroke secondary to a respiratory infection. The idea that either of these were murders is a stupid conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence, and it deserves to be heavily downvoted.
I think countries need laws on the duration of classification that get to the heart of national security vs public interest. I think a core issue is that classified information should come out within the lifetime of people involved with very few exceptions. Additionally, crimes found after declassification should have automatic statute of limitation renewals.
One system that may work could be automatic mandatory release unless renewed at a higher level of classification. Every time material is elevated it should require the highest level of administration to approve renewal. Additionally, when things are declassified they should be publicly advertised in some way so that records requests can find them.
There is a need for classified materials, but there should be a high bar to make them and a low bar to release them in order to avoid the government using them as a shield to hid activities they don't want the public to see.