He says, both in court and elsewhere, that his concern was that higher ups were undertaking investigations of soldiers he felt did nothing wrong, for PR reasons, and he believed that was illegal.
I was certainly confused before but I think it makes more sense now.
As a lawyer, his assignment was to prosecute a soldier whom he thought innocent - a scapegoat - when the top brass knew about actual war criminals (e.g. Ben Roberts-Smith).
So it seems to be a regular power struggle? All these guys did shady things and then some of the higher ups want to pick a few scapegoats to clear the record and save their asses? So one of the underlings just blow the whistles but clearly the higher ups still have things under control.
Comments
But he wasn't blowing the whistle on those.
He says, both in court and elsewhere, that his concern was that higher ups were undertaking investigations of soldiers he felt did nothing wrong, for PR reasons, and he believed that was illegal.
I was certainly confused before but I think it makes more sense now.
As a lawyer, his assignment was to prosecute a soldier whom he thought innocent - a scapegoat - when the top brass knew about actual war criminals (e.g. Ben Roberts-Smith).
So it seems to be a regular power struggle? All these guys did shady things and then some of the higher ups want to pick a few scapegoats to clear the record and save their asses? So one of the underlings just blow the whistles but clearly the higher ups still have things under control.
Just purely speculating btw...