> who exposed a so-called war hero as someone who actually committed war crimes.

Worth mentioning that this wasn't David's intentions. He leaked the documents as he thought special forces soldiers were being "unfairly" restricted via tighter rules of engagement & defense oversight in order to protect civilians. He wanted the ABC to tell everyone that special forces were being kept on too tight of a leash, not report on war crimes.

What you're talking about is a smear campaign from ABC:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/a...

This story about McBride's motivations really only makes sense if you're motivated to come up with some kind of post facto reasoning for why McBride is a bad guy for leaking the documents, while ABC reporters are heroes for selectively publishing them. Never passed the pub test, thanks for the link.

I'm not splitting hairs about if he's a (accidental) whistleblower or not (which is what that article seems to be about). He's never denied that his initial intentions for the documents were completely different than what transpired.

"He told another media outlet at the time that it was a “different story to the one I wanted. They (ABC) published something about SAS soldiers shooting people by accident, which I found disappointing.”"

Wait, the actions of an activist had unforseen consequences? No, that can't be! Next time you tell me Greta Thunberg is now supporting terrorism.

The phrase used by the attorney general was “enough is enough”. He was found guilty today and sentenced to time served, which was 5 years 1 month. David McBride seems to have been sentenced to 5 years 8 months. Where did you read he was jailed for life?

I don’t agree with either sentence, but they do not appear at odds with one another.

Ok, before he was sentenced he was told he was looking at life, I didn’t actually know about the sentencing. Thanks for the correction.

I disagree on the lack of connection.