Nuremberg revisited. David McBride’s final chance for justice

Afghanistan War Crimes David McBride, demanding a basic principle of the Human Rights Law, applying for a Supreme Court of Court. Stephanie Tran Reports.

In a final proposal for justice, David McBride’s legal team applied for a special permission to the Supreme Court, arguing that Australia should not ignore Nürnberg lessons.

“Our basic argument in the Supreme Court is that the orders of disobedience are for the benefit of the public and that there are some conditions that there are moral and legal conditions,” his lawyer Eddie Lloyd said.

If there is only one task to follow the orders blindly, and there is no situation in the world to exist to obey an order, we ignore Nuremberg.

. Nuremberg DefenseAfter the Second World War, the Nürnberg Court officially rejected and decided that individuals could not escape the criminal responsibility by claiming that these orders “follow the orders” when they violate the basic principles of law. This doctrine has become the cornerstone of modern international humanitarian law, which found out that the moral agency’s chain of command could not be provided.

McBride’s legal team wrote the following in special leave presentations:

“Even if these orders are authorized under military law, there must be conditions that a soldier can follow the orders and really should do. Military orders, including general orders, are not laws adopted by the Parliament or governed by courts; Their validity should not obey one aspect of a soldier’s “official duty”. The Nürnberg Court admitted that following the orders that did not defense the actions that violate basic principles of law such as crimes against humanity. The same principle should be applied in accordance with the Australian laws: Obedience to orders cannot excuse a soldier’s behaviors that disturb the ultimate service duty. This is not to encourage the challenge of orders as a norm – such exceptions should remain extremely rare – but to admit that the task cannot be reduced to blind obedience. In the current case, he tried to communicate with serious abuse at the highest military command level. The insistence that the task is fully defined by the orders eliminates the necessary protection against the excessive access by the orders and ignores the principle that the task is evaluated not only by the military command but by the law. “

For McBride, an old military lawyer turned to informative, the problem is entering the center of democratic accountability.

McBride said, “The prosecution says I have to obey whatever orders,” McBride said. “But look at Gaza. Look at what the blind obedience produces. This excuse was rejected for a reason in Nürnberg. It is not a defense when the orders are illegal.

The “system” needs to change. War Crimes Information Moreover David McBride

Inferences for Australian soldiers

“Every day Australian troops can be sent to Iran and Iran can be said to follow the orders in the pioneer that when this lie is a lie. McBride’s lawyer warned.

Rex Patrick reiterated this concern of the Founder of the Fund of Justice Fund: “By blowing the whistle on war crimes in Afghanistan, David McBRide did not violate a general military order. The events that need to be allowed to be allowed to be allowed.

NSW Greens Senator David Shoebridge criticized prosecution and called for an emergency reform. “This prosecution should never be and we call for intervention to end the prosecution once again and to correct the laws of broken information that punishes those who explain the truth urgently,” he said. “It is dangerous for democracy if we accept that the defense members should follow the orders even if they betray the public interest.”

The release of McBride, who is currently for five years and eight months, is at the discretion of the Chief Public Prosecutor, the same department, who finally decided to prosecute it. The legal team caused serious concerns about the fairness of this regulation.

“This is a complex federal crime,” the Chief Public Prosecutor decides whether he’s a conditional evacuation, “he said. “Now 61 years old and can do 5 years and 8 months. This is a great conflict of interest, because this is the same department of the Chief Public Prosecutor who decides to maintain the prosecution. They are not forgiven, they do not stop the prosecution.

The result of McBride’s special leave application is expected to be delivered on 9 October 2025.

McBride, “The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear our case – this is now we have come away,” he said.

But no matter what, we cannot renew, because we represent the courage to say truth, justice and no.

David McBride

“I am more modest than the support I continue to receive from the Australians of the Australians. This fight has never been about me – this is all of us and your beloved values. You give me strength and promise: I will never give up and we will not disappoint you.”

You can donate David’s Legal Fund To help the case in the High Court.

Richard Marles hidden war crimes by rejecting justice for David McBRide