Slashdot Mirror
Australian Police Chief Seeks Terror Reporting Ban
DJMajah writes "News.com.au reports that Australian Federal Police chief Mick Keelty has called for a media blackout on reporting of terrorism investigations and cases before trial in a speech to the Sydney Institute last night. Although he doesn't believe public institutions should be immune from public accountability, he goes on to say that public discussion should be delayed until information is made available by the courts or legal proceedings are complete. This all comes after last year's widely reported case of Dr. Mohammed Haneef who was detained then later deported from Australia on evidence described as weak — and seen by some, including Haneef, as a conspiracy."
This was going to be the first post, but it took such a long time to clear with the censors because of the also, possibly I shouldn't have written about or about rights to free issues.
If the media can only report what the courts tell them, then who's to say that the information isn't censored? Seems very 1984ish to me. If Australia takes this step, it's only a matter of time before they're creating news altogether.
Wow, seriously.
It always starts small -- shut down the press for this reason, and then expand and control.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I simply cannot believe that people would make such recommendations, and not understand the import of their intent.
It's one thing for a tin-pot dictator in the middle of nowhere to do so, and it is quite another for someone in a position of authority in a western-styled democracy to make such statements. Then again, could be that the position of authority is what's making him make such statements.
I am just... baffled.
The Federal Government and the Prime Minister have said they have no intentions of doing this.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-blacks-out-keeltys-opinion/2008/01/31/1201714110077.html
If they stop reporting, then people won't ask politicians for statements and they won't need to stuff both feet (plus those of an advisor) in their mouth. Keeping the Immigration Minister away from the Haneef case would have been a start.
Those poor Australian police. All that open, free society stuff is just so darned inconvenient when you want to make sure some guy's enjoying the attentions of an Egyptian torturer before news of his arrest is published.
If I was Osama, I'd be laughing myself sick watching these clowns destroy that nasty, evil free society I hate so much. I couldn't do a better job with another hundred planes.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The people who get to make up these plans way too much television without getting the moral of the story. It is as if they have armies of interns looking for the most popular of the bad ideas expression in science fiction stories.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I fail to see why this is relevant for slashdot...
He's calling for an end to criticism of government institutions, specifically himself. This is particularly inappropriate given his record of incompetence and false charges against Mohammed Haneef.
Wouldn't we all like to be protected from criticism of ourselves and our incompetence.
But then I realized that he fully bought into the fairy tale and just wanted to make sure that the people nabbed and tazered while waiting to board their flights are prosecuted in star chambers.
Oh well.
-FL
He's also been criticised heavily by the Federal Opposition spokeperson on justice matters, Christopher Pyne, whose party appointed Keelty to the job and under whose watch most of the contentious matters Keelty is referring to occurred.
The organization Keelty heads, the Australian Federal Police, screwed up a terrorism case badly (the guy was a doctor who had the misfortune to have some distant relatives amongst the British firebombers of last year) in a blaze of publicity. He's coming across as blaming the messenger for his organization's faults.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Forget the Haneef stuffup, it's things like what happened in the Ul-Haque case that the Feds really don't want the press talking about pre-trial. Or at any other time I'd wager. ASIO wasn't happy with the outcome anyway.
Keelty and the AFP demonstrated incredible incompetency in the case of Dr Haneef. The AFP even selectively leaked details to the press, then called for Hanfeef's lawyer to be disbarred when he released the whole transcript (to show the AFP were leaking selectively). I'm amazed Keelty still has a job after that. The police acted like thugs at the APEC protests. Politically Keelty was too close to the old government.
This is about Keelty tried to stop the press from reporting his serial incompetency. When we get an incompetant cop who calls for free speech to be restricted, it's really time to pension him off.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/keelty_has_nothing_to_fear_from_a_free_and_fair_media
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/keelty-defends-afp-over-haneef/2007/07/20/1184560027975.html?s_cid=rss_news
Some of the evidence that the Federal Police were trying to have accepted was found by the press to be wrong, and had to be retracted. From that point the case started to collapse.
If it hadn't been for the inconvenient press, it is quite likely that Hanif would have been convicted.
It is this sort of thing that Keelty is trying to forestall.
The press are just so damned annoying when you are trying to fit somebody up...
This is basically a last ditch attempt by the police to try and get the cushy situation their compatriots have in the US where all it takes is a gut feeling and cries of national security to toss someone in Guantanamo Bay. The judges aren't letting them do that here, and the public is getting royally pissed off(the Haneef and APEC failures were a part, if only a small part, of getting the previous government kicked out of office).
Even if our FOI laws aren't the greatest they're not actually going to censor this sort of thing.
I think claiming that this is the first step into becoming a police state would be exaggerating the problem. The police are hoping for a little temporary discretion from the media while terrorism cases (always an emotive point nowadays) are being investigated. After the investigations are completed the media are free to investigate themselves, and publish whatever they want. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I can see why the police want a bit of temporary breathing space. It's a long road from this to being a police state.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It's important to understand who this address was delivered to, The Sydney Institute. They like to pretend they're a neutral think-tank but in reality are firmly alligned to the right wing on most, if not all issues.
It is the government that should have kept out of the case until the court case had proven his guilt or innocence. As evidence came (in the media) out that he was not really involved, the government stepped in and said - doesn't matter we'll cancel his visa and get him deported, bypassing the court entirely. The day after he was granted bail, he was put into a detention centre with cancelled visa.
This guy and the Oz government, at the time, used the media in an attempt to mislead us by presenting a one-sided view of the case. They complained when Haneef's legal team made effective rebuttal through the media. Investigative journalism uncovered they're weak case which was, by all appearances, built in co-ordination with the government. That's already mixing executive and legislative power and now he tries to breakdown our democracy further by "delaying" public comment on ongoing (for years?) terrorism cases. The guy is a sore loser and has dangerous ideas.
I think you guys are wrong in suggesting that this limits Freedom of Speech in some unfair manner. How is this any different from preventing live media reports in the middle of a war-zone? Does it really make sense to broadcast live reports of the exact positions and plans of your armed forces?
In my view, this is a very reasonable limitation of Freedom of Speech and more to the point it simply *delays* when you may report on the matter. If you believe that this delay hampers the rights of the defendant in an unfair way then that is worth discussing, but I don't see this as being the case.
It doesn't help the cops torture anyone or pull any dirty tricks because whether the media reports on it right away or when the case reaches court it amounts to the same thing: cops that abuse the rights of the defendant will be punished by having the evidence revoked and/or the officers themselves punished. Whether the story breaks out way before the defendant reaches the court or on the day of he still enjoys the exact same legal rights.
If you are afraid that defendants will be tortured then laws should be passed to punish the offenders once the case reaches court and laws should be passed to ensure such cases *must* reach the court within a reasonable period of time. This way anyone who abuses their power won't get off easy.
The media doesn't protect people's rights, the courts do. All the media does is apply pressure on politicians or citizens which indirectly affects what laws get passed. The media has a very short attention span. Their stories are controlled by a spin factor more than anything else, as opposed to courthouses that take the necessary time to study the case in great detail. I wouldn't want to live in a court where a person's guilt is determined by the media, if you know what I mean, because popularity and justice are two different things altogether.
they also stop from reporting on terrorist threat hype also, then it may balance out ?
Perhaps if you were Osama and believed the mythology of the Neo-Conservatives. He provided funding and inspiration for the terrorists at an earlier date but was never directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. In fact his "multinational terrorist organization" Al-Qaeda did not exist until after the American government declared it did; in reality Osama has and has a small ineffective group of Islamic fundamentalist followers. This is a link to a BBC documentary, The Power of Nightmares that provides a more accurate depiction of the so called "War on Terror".
The irony of the situation is that the Australian Federal Police (AFP), who arrested Dr. Mohammed Haneef, used the media to no end in justifying the arrest, explaining why he was such a dangerous terrorist and how they were saving the world. They played the mass media to their ends, yet couldn't handle the lawyers for the defence doing the same thing to explain to the general public why he was innocent.
They're now blaming the media for covering both sides of the story, and eventually favouring the case for Dr. Haneef once the facts became known, for their inability to prosecute successfully, basically saying that if only they had have been able to push their agenda in the media, and there was no opposition to the lies they were spreading, then they may have been able to prosecute Dr. Haneef successfully.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
and wonder why banning people from dialing 911 (or whatever the emergency phone number is in australia is) is a good thing?
there are 10 types of people in this world; those who get this joke, and those who don't
So all they'd need to do is copy all important information to another legal proceeding, never finish that one, and all that information will remain secret forever.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Compare no, link yes! This is Mick trying to cover Mick's arse by blaming the media. Previously he has tried to blame scotland yard, Indian police, unidentified tipsters, the chief prosecuter, disloyal officers, and of course Haneef himself. Personly I am suprised he hasn't thought of pinning the mess on Corey
Mick's problem is not that he prostitutes his position to curry political favour, it's the fact that everyone knows it.
As for Labour sticking with Mick, not a chance! Remeber in 2000 the AFP raided the home of a Labour MP's adviser in what amounted to a fishing expedition on opposition foreign policy of the time. Labour will relish doing Mick slowly and publicly with the promised full blown inquiry. As for Labour being any better, well soak in the irony of Rudd suggesting Mick's opinion on censorship should be censored.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hahahahaha.
Oh wait, you're serious.
Did you hatch from an addled egg?
The phenomenal amount of ignorance you show is staggering, even to a comrade.
Please read the report by http://www.9-11commission.gov/ detailing the history, growth, attempts to stifle, and finally dispersing of osama's terror network.
This is exactly why you should cultivate the habit of reading once in a while rather than sitting and watching Sopranos.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/keelty-warns-against-robot-criminals/2007/07/05/1183351363490.html
Although there is method to the madness:
Apparently, he wants to use such nutty pretexts to funnel money to private companies.
First of all, the US does not have a clearly constitutionally defined right to privacy. But those rights have been steadily created by US courts, and later written into law. And the US pioneered a lot of privacy legislation and rights that later became the basis of similar legislation by other nations.
Furthermore, although Americans like to complain a lot and air a lot of political dirty laundry in public, it's wrong to conclude from that that the US is necessarily worse than Australia in areas of privacy or individual rights. I think you really need to do a deeper analysis than just go by what people talk about in the media.
Finally, although after 9/11, under Bush, the US lost some ground in terms of individual rights and privacy rights, it's too soon to tell what the long-term outcome will be. McCarthy and Nixon, for example, both were serious political crises, and both led to a strengthening of privacy rights and free speech in the US.
Civil servants might believe that, as might the government, but the civil servant's first duty is to the people. That means: he or she blabs when it is appropriate. Insiders tend to believe that the short-term integrity of the hierarchy is synonymous with the public good. They are wrong.
Wikileaks, no DNS
He did not call for a ban, he instead asked for the media to exercise some self-restraint on these matters. The main point he was making is that if an innocent person's name is dragged through the mud, then it is the media's fault for doing it.
I happen to disagree with him though. If you detain someone without reasonable grounds and continue to interrogate and harass for days, then you're pretty much responsible for the ill treatment.
Yes, the poster is serious. The charge is not that Islamic Terror groups didn't exist; that much is obvious. But that their affiliation was a much more loose, informal thing than what was initially claimed about Al Qaeda. There were multiple groups working on multiple aims, not all of which were even consistent.
For added irony points, the actions of Western governments to eradicate such movements seems to have inspired such a unity of purpose that the fiction is now fact.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
The Nazis had this 'Concentration Camp Reporting Ban'. Worked pretty nicely.
Just giving some second thought on this.
I believe a newsban could be usefull, but it would require independant regulation and should allways be temporary with a resonable maximum (4 weeks or so).
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
apologize to all Americans for all the Police State jokes I've made in the past seven years.
Perhaps you should remove that radish from your rectum.
OSx86 FTW
Only after they've implemented this policy, so that's its full effects and ramifications are known, should we even know they're considering it. If there are any negative consequences, surely they will be righted in a fast and fair method.
Exactly. I don't deny on any level that Osama is a terrorist faction leader, that he funds terrorism, that he sees American liberal society as a threat to his Islamic movement, or that he desired to attack America. However he was and is not the head of an international terrorist network, there were no sleeper cells in the United States, and as the military discovered in Afghanistan there was no secret network of cave compounds.
My point is that the Islamic Fundamentalists have never been coherently unified with Osama as their leader. Other than giving a recognizable label to all terrorists for people to follow the purpose in designating the Islamic Fundamentalists Al Qaeda with Osama as their leader was to be able to try the terrorists under laws created for organized crime. In the words of George Bush, "Al-Qaeda is to terrorism what the mafia is to crime".
The devision of the world into good and evil has been a tactic of the Neo-Conservatives since the Cold War. With the soviets "defeated" the Neocons needed a new international threat for Americans to be unified in fear against. One of the founding beliefs of the Neocons was that the Liberal society in America was destructive and simplified myths were needed to guide the people in right direction. In fact to a certain extent the Conservatives helped the terrorists along the way; if not for the billions in weapons and aid the Reagan administration sent to the Mujahidin they would never have pushed the Soviets out of Afghanistan and possibly not believed themselves to be powerful enough to strike against other Westernized nations in the middle east and around the world.
This is exactly why you should cultivate the habit of reading once in a while rather than sitting and watching Sopranos.Truth be told I have never watched the Sopranos. The sources I read, unlike the Neo-Conservatives, the CIA, and the Bush administration, don't routinely fabricate evidence to push an agenda.
What they should ban is the media showing videos of hostage takers etc.
If the bad guys knew that nobody would show their videos and demands, they'd be more likely to stop using this tactic.
...is Good News. Hrmm...
"Yes, I have a Disaster Recovery Plan. It's called my Resume"
Or rather, perceive, I should say, is that Haneef (an Indian citizen) was a relative/roommate of some of the terrorists
who carried out the failed UK bombings last year.
The Howard government and the Australian political establishment tried to get some mileage out of
a showcase terrorist case by putting him on trial and feeding disinformation to the media.
Luckily, Haneef seemed to have a good lawyer, and the Indian government, Indian media and Australian
media seemed to be wise to the manipulation the Aussie government was upto.
light of truth shineth not in darkness. Anytime you have this kind of secrecy, know that there has been dishonesty, lies, and injustice. Often these cases when finally resolved contain within the final rulings a convoluted nonsense in place of logic that can only be rationally explained by concluding that many facts are missing, replaced by preconceived notions benefiting some hidden or obscured party. That is why in the United States there was written in the Constitution guarantees against Bills of Attainder, Ex Post Facto Laws, endless retrials, forced self incriminations, etc. The current Bush/Blair administration has tried to bury two hundred years of American law under an administrative fiat of Brit nonsense like this but is on the way out. After Bush leaves will be a tsunami of lawsuits and penal investigations of the previous administrations illegal torture, murder, assault on the Federal Constitution, fraud benefiting multinational corporations many of Brit origins, etc., all protected by a temporary Republican rubber stamp congress at the time of the commission of the crimes. The result will be that the light will finally shine in the United States once again. In Australia however, that unhappy country having given up the right of its citizens to possess weapons, only darkness and autocracy is in its future relieved at the end of its dark tunnel by an Indonesian invasion to prevent further Chinese penetration and to provide living room for its expanding population. This invasion has already begun, with Australia forced to give up its island of New Guinea under the fig leaf first of 'self determination for the Papuans', and later to outright occupation by Indonesia. Publication bans do not work in the modern age anyway, as the Paul Bernardo affair in Canada can easily attest. American newspapers had a field day reporting on the lurid sex affairs of Bernardo and his moll who sacrificed her own sister to her perversions and then copped a plea that let her off scott free and sent Bernardo to rot in jail forever. And the stupid fool of a Canadian judge bought her line and probably went to bed with her himself...had to try to keep THAT secret too! Makes one wonder if all those 'judges chambers' where all those secret conferences take place come complete with beds and BDSM chambers as well.