Manning, Snowden, Assange-- as ever, the United States plays the role of global leader.Australia too. Bunch of SASR soldiers might have been committing war crimes, the whistleblower is the only one facing charges.
Manning, Snowden, Assange-- as ever, the United States plays the role of global leader.Australia too. Bunch of SASR soldiers might have been committing war crimes, the whistleblower is the only one facing charges.
SASR 2ND battalion has been disbanded and the report from the inspector general of the defence forces - which even if only half true - is damming as fuck and 25 troopers have been referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation against 39 individual offences. I mean it could all still end in a fuckin’ whitewash but no one has (yet) gotten off Scott Free.Australia too. Bunch of SASR soldiers might have been committing war crimes, the whistleblower is the only one facing charges.
Wasn’t it 2nd battalion, not two battalions?The two battalions have been disbanded and the report from the inspector general of the defence forces - which even if only half true - is damming as fuck and 39 troopers have been referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. I mean it could all still end in a fuckin’ whitewash but no one has (yet) gotten off Scott Free.
You know what, I went and checked and you’re right. I saw 2ND Battalion as 2 battalions.Wasn’t it 2nd battalion, not two battalions?
2rd betowleonYou know what, I went and checked and you’re right. I saw 2ND Battalion as 2 battalions.
I think they did the soldiers who did the right thing dirty. I don’t like punishing a whole bunch of people who weren’t involvedYou know what, I went and checked and you’re right. I saw 2ND Battalion as 2 battalions.
They aren’t going to toss innocent troopers out of the service. Apart from being a gross overreaction it would be an appalling waste of the money spent training them to their elite level. In all probability a new battalion comprising of those not involved (or uncharitably, not known to be involved) in this travesty will be stood up to replace it.I think they did the soldiers who did the right thing dirty. I don’t like punishing a whole bunch of people who weren’t involved
IM assuming this is a government bank?
Oh hey, the French have burnt the bank over this. NOW we're getting somewhere.
IM assuming this is a government bank?
You should stop following blatant liars. Sharing the image of a wounded journalist wouldn't be illegal.
This is the sort of thing the bill aims to address.
It's borderline, but it could be called a picture of a public event involving police officers that could harm their psychological well-being.You should stop following blatant liars. Sharing the image of a wounded journalist wouldn't be illegal.
That few?Also, what about the Irony of all these peaceful protestors, who were alledgedly protesting against violence, wounding 62 police officers?
Not even close to borderline as the original Article 24 only renders publishing images punishable if police officers are clearly identifiable on them AND the goal is to cause harm to the identifiable police officer. I don't see any face or ID (other than their police ID number considering that would be legal) of police officers on that image. The only person who could and already can sue anyone is the wounded journalist himself due to privacy laws.It's borderline, but it could be called a picture of a public event involving police officers that could harm their psychological well-being.
In any case, filming the actions that wounded the man would be illegal. And that is preposterous.Not even close to borderline as the original Article 24 only renders publishing images punishable if police officers are clearly identifiable on them AND the goal is to cause harm to the identifiable police officer. I don't see any face or ID (other than their police ID number considering that would be legal) of police officers on that image. The only person who could and already can sue anyone is the wounded journalist himself due to privacy laws.