Thread by @MurdochCadell

Hopefully this morning the AFP are getting together a team to visit Defence Headquarters and ask for all major documents Hurley signed in his tenure, and seeing whether any of them seem to be attempts to hide the truth/ cover for dubious political requests/ unprecedented.
#Hurley

If they can’t find any, because they are either shredded, or they are not looking very hard, that’s OK, all they need to do is to look in the nine lever arch folders entitled ‘R v McBride’ which are already located in their building. It could save them some time.

In fact, by happy coincidence, if the AFP were to use a little bit of lateral thinking, they could use the very same documents and evidence of my case, to successfully charge Hurley, and others. It’s all there already: signatures on knowingly false statements, with intent.

Hurley didn’t start signing dubious but, highly important, documents just while he was Gov Gen. He was given the GG job because he was well known to be a ‘signer’. He signed off on many a dubious orders: ‘not’ to investigate BRS allegations, but also to investigate scapegoats

All this is in the brief of evidence against me.

In fact, if it turned out that Hurley ignored rumours of war crimes (made by Hasti) his tenure as CDF, it would seem that he should be on trial, and not me.

Not just the charges dropped, but Hurley charged.

The evidence is all already there in the brief against me. The essence of the prosecution’s case is simply that I gave classified documents to the media (I did). My case, is that Hurley, in particular, covered up war crimes (largely by BRS) by endorsing ‘misdirection’ activities.

While there needs to be a ‘balancing act’ between when classified material should be seen by the media, and when it can’t, most reasonable people would agree that the CDF covering up ‘war crimes’ would be a case where it was justified.

This is particularly so, when the only people I could complain about within Defence (before going to the media) were units and people directly (or effectively) under the command of….David Hurley. Who could sack them if they investigated him. So..they chose not to investigate him

It turns out, that by some fault in design(?) , there is actually no provision in the Defence Force structure for a middle ranking officer, like myself, to get a genuine investigation of the CDF, because all the investigators and inquiry officers work (only) for the CDF.

Any investigation of a person’s conduct done by people directly (or even indirectly) under the command and control of the person being investigated, is always void for perception of bias. It’s not some ‘made up conspiracy theory’ . It’s a well established legal fact.

What choice did I have? The internal investigation (by those controlled by Hurley) said Hurley was ‘cleared of all allegations’, but Hurley himself supervised the findings. They didn’t make the report public. There was no way to ‘appeal’

What would an Officer and a lawyer do?

One the one hand, I could do nothing, saying ‘oh well, I believe Hurley is covering up war crimes, but he says he isn’t, and his police say he isn’t, so that’s the end of the matter.’
On the other hand, I could seek an unbiased and fearless adjudication of the issues.

I chose the later course.
I believed that is what an Officer and a Lawyer are meant to do in such a situation.

The key question I asked myself was: ‘If I don’t do anything, will this problem fix itself, or will it only get worse?’

Secondly, is it something that ‘matters’?

I decided that the problem wouldn’t fix itself, because the people that were causing it could not be trusted to suddenly change their ways to fix it. They would simply deny its existence.

I decided if it was going to be fixed, I was going to have to do it myself.

There was another indicator that suggested Defence couldn’t fix themselves: namely, not only did they reject my allegations, they seem to take great offence to fact that I had even made them. ‘Defence’ suddenly didn’t ‘like me’ anymore. How dare I allege David Hurley was a liar?

About this time, David Hurley was in fact leaving the ADF after a ‘glorious career of service to humanity’ (and bigger and better things). I thought of taking the matter up with Mark Binskin. But as Hurley’s deputy for the last 3 years he was compromised, also part of the problem

What happened after that is well known and not in dispute. The same evidence that is used now to prosecute me, will support of prosecution of Hurley: in fact that is precisely my defence: Hurley was covering up war crimes (and many other things) -and the org. was complicit.

Defence claim that while it’s OK to go to the media with allegations against a Corporal, it’s a crime to go to that same media with allegations against a General. Who is it made that rule?
The Generals of course. They say a fact is ‘secret’ if it is embarrassing to them. Funny

Defence seem to think that can simply say that if anyone complains about their behaviour and failures, that it’s not their behaviour that is wrong, but the individual, because they have harmed ‘National Security’.
It’s like saying ‘you can’t dump me, cos I already dumped you’

Even after all the exposure of the facts of the Afghan war, and the passage of ten years, Defence still pretend that their claims of ‘damage to National Security’ are not simply attempts for them to ‘misdirect’ from my allegations: Hurley (and many others) covered up crimes.

You don’t need to be Sun Tzu to know the greatest threat to National Security comes not from whistleblowers, but from corrupt, inept and arse covering Generals.

Of course, if General’s conduct is questioned they will always say ‘that’s a breach of national security’. Right.

Despite the possibility of a lifetime in prison I have never wanted my charges (simply) dropped. Instead I want them ‘reversed’. I say Hurley and others were corrupt, and that the ADF did not seriously care. They say I breached National Security, in my attempts to get it fixed.

My eventual trial will solve who is right and who is wrong. Hopefully at the same time, because if (as I claim) Gen Hurley (etc) was covering up war crimes (+), I would be justified in going to the media, as he wasn’t going to investigate himself. The following necessarily flows:

If my claims were made out, not only would I be acquitted of ‘breaching National Security’, but Gen. Hurley would be guilty, if the paperwork and documents supported it, of any number of crimes involving misuse of public office and concealing war crimes. It’s either me, or him.

Now Hurley won’t be led from my courtroom in handcuffs, but it will be enough if I am acquitted, because that can only mean that the judge, or jury, accept my story: that the conduct of Hurley justified McBride’s attempts to fix the problem with media attention:
I did my duty.