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."

Comments

Not supported by the Governement

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:1984

[tpgp]

If Australia takes this step,

I don't think Australia's likely to take this step, the person asking for this is the dumbass cop who arrested an innocent man to attempt to test new anti-terror laws (his relationship with the previous Australian government also suggests he did it for political gain).

Read this article for a better understanding of the Haneef case.

The current government does not support the calls to censor the media.

He's copped a right caning for it...

[Goonie]

Keelty's copped a barrage of (deserved) criticism in the media for his speech. One of the major metropolitan dailies, The Age, editorialised thusly:

Controlling the flow on information is one of the pillars of a secret state and this "tension", or balance, can be a healthy sign of a democracy. The AFP is responsible for fighting terrorism, and it is acknowledged that such a fight involves enormous complexities. However, Mr Keelty has stepped into waters beyond his remit.

Although the AFP often operates in secret to investigate terrorism, its obligation to the public carries with it the greater principle of a duty to open justice. This principle can only be adjudged in the "court of public opinion", of which Mr Keelty is so dismissive. It only needs one example: Mohamed Haneef.

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.

Re:He's copped a right caning for it...

[pnevin]

Keelty's got form. One of the reasons why the Haneef case fell apart was because the guy's barrister released the transcript of Haneef's police interviews to the press, as a response to repeated damaging AFP leaks and also to show what a confused mess the AFP's case actually was. As a result, Keelty is seeking to have the lawyer struck off for unprofessional conduct.

Keelty always had an enthusiastic ear in the last government, who were desperately seeking another Tampa in an election year. The new government, thankfully, appears to be treating matters a bit more soberly.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[ozmanjusri]

I am just... baffled.

Don't be.

This is one of the consequences of a long-term effort by the previous Howard government to boost the power of the AFP and ASIO and to erode civil liberties in Australia. Howard's support for Bush was more than just lip service.

Keelty in particular has been deeply involved in the more unsavoury side of recent failed prosecutions, including allowing the detention and slander of suspects to continue even though he know there was no evidence.

In many ways, Keelty's reticence is understandable, given that he was slapped down by Howard for saying AFP intelligence showed Australia's involvement in Iraq was increasing our exposure to terrorism, but this response - burying evidence yet again - is just wrong.

Re:1984

[tpgp]

Sorry, but these pack of freedom-hating political hacks ain't that much different than Howard's bunch of freedom-hating political hacks.

I don't think you can really compare a dumbassed plan to censor the internet (that will probably never be implemented), with the actual arrest & incarceration (without due process), followed by deportation of an innocent man.

Get a sense of perspective.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

"This all comes after last years widely reported case of Dr. Mohammed Haneef who was detained then later deported from Australia on evidence described as weak"
It was not just weak, it was falsified.

It is precisely because of how they handled the Haneef case that they *should* be scrutinised, monitored, and observed, every step of the way.

Re:1984

[Cassius Corodes]

While the guy may take photo-ops with his laptop open, the fact that he suggested such a stupendous plan argues against his technical competency.

Re:1984

[kingturkey]

From an article in The Australian (a national paper): "Attorney-General Robert McClelland has publicly rebuked Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty over his call for a press blackout on terror laws."

"The Government has no plans to introduce a media blackout on the reporting of terrorism cases,'' Mr McClelland said.

So basically it's just the AFP chief's fantasy.

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23138259-2702,00.html

Re:1984

[HansieC]

Indeed, and when there are 'trials' like David Hicks who is locked up for several years without being charged and has only been brought back to Australia and released BECAUSE of public opinion, it would just get scarier - with this no-reporting-until-the-case-is-over shebang, he'd still be (I'd argue unfairly) in Gitmo.