David vs Goliath
The case of DAVID MCBRIDE: A real life contest in which David fights himself over application of laws and Goliath gets a free hand
‘The system of oaths and allegience is the glue that binds the Commonwealth’ - Garran
David McBride’s trial for whistleblower crimes was held at the A.C.T. Supreme Court in Canberra last week. David says this is the biggest story in the country. He has his sights set on the Governor-General, David Hurley.
I was at the McBride trial. I performed at the benefit concert on Sunday in front of hundreds of people, who are united in their commitment to the principle of responsible action and the rule of law.
The trial itself was uncanny and disturbing in so many ways. Returning home, I had a friend ask me what I thought of it all. I replied that I had written thousands of words in the past few days but that I still couldn't figure out what I wanted to say.
On the one hand McBride's trial is just one of a succession of whistleblowers being persecuted on some technical breach of an employment contract or something similar whilst earth-shattering crimes remain unadmitted.
Some say it has ever been thus. I recall in the 1980s international letter writing campaigns where we to third world satraps, begging for release of some political prisoner, some name on a one page biography.
Then came the persecution of Julian Assange. Only now, the political prisoner is inside our countries; inside the free world that once professed to liberate others from persecution.
The thing is, whistleblowers are like Palestinian terrorists: the more you persecute them the more they seem to breed.
On the other hand we have this leadership in Australia, at the highest levels, which Bernard Collaery denounced in front of the court as a ‘criminal gang’ who ‘stole the country’. Australia is a place where people are promoted for concealing crime. By many accounts, Australia is like a version of Pinochet’s Chile, minus the disappearances, but with the same kind of ‘old boy network’ protections in place for those at the top.
If the only duty of an Australian Defence Force member is the obligation to follow direct orders, absolutely and without condition then it would follow that the Chief of the Defence Force assumes personal agency for all motions of the ADF, including every member within it; even the alleged war crimes are now a direct expression of his will. The Nuremburg Defence is promoted by the top brass in the ADF.
McBride was ordered not to proceed with the allegations and to bury the evidence. This means that senior officers were aware of the allegations and, rather than apply military discipline to the wayward individuals, they encouraged the alleged criminal activity to continue and intensify.
Under whose instruction? Did the ADF Chief take instruction from his boss, the Governor-General, His Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth of Australia? How do the Americans participate in the general cover-up? Can such instructions be sustained by men and women under oath to the constitutional lord, King Charles III? Is the King himself in the know? At what point does His interest become paramount in the cover-up? Could the criminal action of Australian office holders become a threat to the peace of the realm? Do we say these acts and cover-ups are contrary to the law of God and unfaithful to the true profession of the Gospels? Has the King forgotten his people?
Are we caught in a circularity where action occurs without agency, and documents are moved on behalf of the Parliamentary title, QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA, authorised by photostat of the Prime Minister’s signature? Whence did the Prime Minister get his orders? Did he sign the instruction? On what authority?
David’s military oath would have sworn him in as a Commonwealth citizen and subject of King Charles III under a duty to well and truly serve the true sovereign. the same oath is sworn by Governor-General to serve ‘according to law’ on pain of death: ‘SO HELP ME GOD’.
At the top of the sovereign tree is the Defender of the Faith, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Head of the Commonwealth, paramount lord, sworn to observe the will of the people, the Law of Man and of God. He is under oath to ‘govern the Peoples…according to their respective laws and customs’, and to use His utmost power to exercise Law and Justice ‘in Mercy’ and ‘maintain the Laws of God’. But we are made to wonder what, if any, power he still holds?
So David has his sights on the hierarchy, in the person of David Hurley, the Governor-General and formerly chief of the Australian Defence Force during the worst years of the Anglo-American crimes in Afghanistan. Hurley is thick with all of this, so he will remain silent and lie when he needs to.
Who then is David McBride and what are his options?
David is a lawyer. He has duties to not conceal crime. David is an Australian. He has a commitment of loyalty to the law, the democracy and the people of Australia. David is a soldier in the ADF. He has an allegiance under oath to serve the Commonwealth of Australia, not be served by it.
And then David is a Commonwealth citizen, an elector to the Commonwealth Parliament, one of the people of New South Wales. In this he has allegiance to the Monarch, as expressed in his oath of enlistment to the ADF.
What to do when these identities and the joined responsibilities and duties conflict?
The defence in the McBride trial raised all these questions and more, but seemed to present them as if on a platter for the magistrate to choose. The Magistrate listened and then put David under jurisdiction of the Australian Parliament, empowered by Section 51 of the Constitution to make directions for military order and discipline.
If David had entered the court in military uniform, I wonder if the Magistrate would have tried him. Can a civilian magistrate sit in judgement on an Australian soldier, even when accused of Federal Code offences? Indeed, David was in explicit breach of his employment contract: He did make public evidence of crime but only after exhausting the chain of command for remedy. To my mind, it was as a civilian that David released the ‘classified’ documents to the public, not in the course of his military duties nor his employment. It is not clear if those documents were public or private, and if private whose documents are they? Being evidence of crime, do they belong to the public?
The citizenship commitment of Australians is to remain loyal to Australia and its people. The commitment is to democratic beliefs, rights and liberties, and the rule of laws.
Might we then distinguish between the man and the office; the civilian and the soldier? Is self-determination possible? The United Nations declares self-determination a right of peoples that is universal – does Australia belong to this universe?
With so many officers, roles, names and overlapping, often contradictory, rules designed to control us, no wonder jurisdiction is such a confused muddle and the true king somehow so elusive. That’s not to mention the social media and google search algorithms, local city council and shire by-laws, state government regulation, federal government codes, local magistrate judgements, regulatory tribunals, corporate terms and conditions, international conventions, and in our private lives, school rules, sporting club memberships, night club rules of entry all competing for jurisdiction over our thoughts and deeds. How many of these has David also offended?
This David vs Goliath is a tale of biblical proportions. Goliath yet walks and David stands tall. We wish him well.
Wow. Your words when they find you illustrates and illuminates