Australian Police Chief Seeks Terror Reporting Ban 146
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."
Not supported by the Governement (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-blacks-out-keeltys-opinion/2008/01/31/1201714110077.html [smh.com.au]
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
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 [myapologetics.com] 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... (Score:5, Informative)
He's also been criticised heavily by the Federal Opposition spokeperson [theage.com.au] 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:Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [apo.org.au].
In many ways, Keelty's reticence is understandable, given that he was slapped down [apo.org.au] 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 (Score:3, Informative)
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:He's copped a right caning for it... (Score:5, Informative)
Keelty always had an enthusiastic ear in the last government, who were desperately seeking another Tampa [wikipedia.org] in an election year. The new government, thankfully, appears to be treating matters a bit more soberly.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:1984 (Score:4, Informative)
"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 [news.com.au]
Re:1984 (Score:2, Informative)