Talk:David McBride (whistleblower)

BLP material in SMH article

Are there any opinions on which characterizations from the Sydney Morning Herald piece at https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-i-ve-done-makes-sense-to-me-the-complicated-colourful-life-of-david-mcbride-20190621-p5204h.html are appropriate for this article, particularly from a WP:BLP perspective? It suggests a sense of duty and purpose, but also unreliability in some areas, and a personal agenda that includes, but goes beyond the war crimes allegations. So far the citations used have been generally for basic biographical information; what do we think about repeating some of the other conclusions from that source? TheFeds 06:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

My main problem is that McBride's motivation is being misreported, both here and in the press generally. While he can be called a "whistleblower", he wasn't trying to expose war crimes committed by Australian soldiers. To the contrary, McBride thought soldiers were being hamstrung by ROE (rules of engagement) and was critical of the Australian government and ADF. He believed both were imposing strict ROE on troops for political reasons, which was putting them in danger and leaving them open to accusations of war crimes. For accuracy it really should be made clear that the public exposure of potential war crimes by soldiers (which the ADF was already investigating internally) was unintentional and inadvertent on his part.

To be fair to McBride, he's always stated what his motivation was for leaking the documents but it's apparently not what people want to hear, especially after the ABC was raided.

See below - McBride was complaining about government and ADF misconduct, not the conduct of soldiers. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/06/09/sas-inquiry-whistleblower/ https://www.mondaq.com/australia/court-procedure/867394/military-whistleblower-not-allowed-to-choose-his-own-lawyer-an-interview-with-david-mcbride

McBride was disappointed by what the ABC reported in their first 2017 report, The Afghan Files. He says it was a "different story to the one I wanted." https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/army-leak-lawyer-i-did-the-right-thing/news-story/62d73d89d8c230bc4aa03b1777ccf6fd

McBride was upset with the ABC for focusing on potential unlawful killings by troops, so much so that he stopped speaking to Dan Oakes, the ABC journalist he leaked to. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6457267/judges-warning-for-defence-whistleblower/?cs=14231

McBride wrote a paper in 2012 outlining his problems with the ROE. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/2012/3.pdf

As for characterisation, I will leave that to others. There are contradictions (when he ran for office in Coogee he said he was in the British SAS, now he says he failed to get in twice) but it's unclear whether that's due to sloppy reporting or mental health issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madsqueak (talk • contribs) 07:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterization of what he said. ABC news has been covering up their own role in this so relying on them for any unbiased information in this article is a big mistake. They are used a source many times in this article when it's clear they are part of the story here and have their own agenda. David said all along that he wanted ABC to expose the higher ups for covering up the matter. And his point about the excessive prosecution was that they were making scapegoats out of low ranking soldiers instead of going after much higher ranking officials that would embarrass the government. Why would we not take his word for why he did it? The idea that he was trying to hide war crimes and exposed them "by accident" instead is absolutely absurd. Especially how everything he has provided has been proven true in subsequent court cases. Instead of using ABC which has their own interests in this I would recommend using at least CNN instead for the purposes of this article: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/14/australia/australia-david-mcbride-sentenced-intl-hnk/index.html

Here is his latest interview about this and more detail about this very claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYt4CxFfQUU. Can anyone explain why we can't have his own justification for why he did it in this article? 2601:8C0:A00:A260:7CF7:461A:4778:4E83 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's better to uses sources closer to the original event for why he was motivated to do something, versus more recent interviews after recent developments in the case. GossieGoodTimes (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 Agree with reinstating the motivations for leaking in the summary, I just was unsure if it was better to leave it to the more descriptive and properly sourced section in the body. I was just erring on the side of caution, especially since upon reviewing it seemed to have come up before in the SMH article etc. GossieGoodTimes (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant when it came to light, but and explanation of what is known about his motives definitely belongs in the lead given he is considered a "whistleblower" by some reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Totally understand! GossieGoodTimes (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Explicitly attributing Brereton findings to McBride

Do we have reliable sources that clearly state that McBride provided information about some or all of the specific incidents Brereton discussed in his report? It seems clear that the inquiry took action in response to McBride, but did Brereton actually corroborate any particular disclosure? TheFeds 07:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Since neither the Afghan Files nor part 2 of the Brereton Report have been released, it is impossible to definitively say the Brereton Report discusses the same events. However, multiple news sources do draw a connection between McBride and the Brereton Report (example). Considering both the Afghan Files and the Brereton Report came to similar conclusions re organisational culture, and that the incidents revealed by McBride would have been within the scope of the report, I decided to state it was likely that the two overlapped. Bravetheif (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The inquiry didn't take action in response to McBride's complaints as his complaints weren't about the behaviour of SF in Afghanistan they were legal complaints about the ROE. The ADF had access to all the documents McBride leaked and their inquiry started before the ABC reported anything. McBride is really quite separate to the report (unless he's one of the legal officers mentioned who "drank the Kool Aid" and helped SAS get round ROE restrictions) - he's notable for accidentally revealing that SF were being investigated to the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madsqueak (talk • contribs) 07:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, I stand corrected. However, at what point did the war crimes allegations become part of his public message?[1] (Or is he merely commenting on them as an observer, despite them not being related to his own case?) Would you like to rephrase the statement in the article in a way that is consistent with your understanding (and the sources referenced)? TheFeds 04:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Medal confusion

As an editor has noted and tagged, that there is no "combat services medal" in Australia, at least that I can, in my inexpert research, find. Strangely, there are, though, plenty of "reliable sources" that state that McBride did receive a medal called that, including an Age column by his lawyer, a parliamentary speech by Rebekha Sharkie MP, and an ABC News article that quotes his lawyer again. While the people quoted or writing in these sources are not neutral, the outlets are usually reliable and fact check, etc., so I find it odd that no media have checked and rejected / corrected.

Anyway, wondering if they mean something like the Australian Defence Medal? Someone who knows Australian military matters might advise here. I think I could track down a cite for which, if any, medal McBride was awarded if I could start from the other end, with the likely correct name. Thanks 49.177.64.138 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

I'm not aware of a British or Australian gong called that, it is probably a reference to the Australian Active Service Medal for his first Afghanistan tour in 2011, and/or the Australian Operational Service Medal for the 2013 tour, and possibly also the Afghanistan Medal (Australia) and NATO Medal with clasp ISAF. Given the timeframe it seems likely the Brits were issuing the General Service Medal (1962) with clasp Northern Ireland when he deployed on Op Banner, so he probably has one of those as well. Perhaps his autobio has a photograph of him wearing uniform and/or gongs? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Afghanistan in the 1990s

In recent videos on McBride's own Youtube channel he mentioned some kind of work, I believe in security for some diplomats who were meeting the Taliban in Kabul, during the 1990s. I couldn't find a 3rd party references for this information, but it may be relevant to BLP if someone can find one.60.241.72.34 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

McBride rejects claims that he "wasn't trying to expose war crimes"

He attributes the reporting of that perspective to an attempt at character assassination by the press. And indeed, any investigation of that suggestion reveals it to be palpably ridiculous. McBride's position is given in several youtube videos. How should we include this information into the article? Blex-max (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not clear what you are referring to here. But if we are going to include McBride’s claims, his autobiography is probably the best source because it has been reviewed by critics and can be placed in context despite being obviously self-serving. I don’t think we should be using YouTube videos for that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Enormous blunder in my title - I meant to say he rejects claims he "wasn't trying to expose war crimes" (and was instead trying to condemn the investigation of Aus soldiers). I won't edit it so as to leave the flow of dialogue intact.

Why does review by critics matter? If he said it he said it. And what is the problem with footage of the man himself saying so, particularly in an interview format? Video Journalism is here to stay, and Wikipedia needs to move with that current. YouTube comments can serve as your critics if you like. In making the edits I would of course cite specific sources. Blex-max (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

If there are multiple videos where McBride states his position cohesively and does not change it video to video, I see no reason why they could not be used as reliable sources. Even if his statements are self-serving, they can be prefaced with phrases such as "McBride has stated in interviews that . . .", which retains objectivity. As you say, if he said it, he said it, and the opinion of the person the article is about should obviously be included. Nqire (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The only way such material could be included is if the full context and publicly available material about his motive for the disclosures is also included. For example, this Crikey article clearly states that his own legal team acknowledged that his initial motivation was out of concern about the frontline perpetrators of crimes in Afghanistan being prosecuted. Both Chris Masters and Karen Middleton have made this point. Neither of them can be reasonably accused of assassinating McBride's character, they are just stating the publicly known and acknowledged facts. His initial motive was to protect special forces personnel from being investigated and prosecuted for war crimes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait why....why can't his own statements about why he did it be included? That's insane. Do you have an example of him changing his story on this? I mean direct examples either in video or quotes of him doing it, not ABC or some other Australian media saying he did.

You are also not giving us any first hand accounts of where his lawyers said that. You have a link to a Crikey article claiming that which links to a twitter thread that quotes someone else, not his legal team. The only place I can find the idea that his legal team said this is in a ABC article. The same ABC that clearly has their own conflict of interest here. Do you have direct sources to this? In America we would have a court transcript we could all look at. Does Australia not make that available?

The materials he provided clearly exposed a ton of war crimes. This idea he exposed the war crimes by accident should be treated with high skepticism not taken as objective fact. Especially when all we have to suggest this is a statement from ABC and a twitter post quoting another person. 2601:8C0:A00:A260:7CF7:461A:4778:4E83 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)