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."

1984

[pwnies (1034518)]

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.

Re:1984

[tpgp (48001)]

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 [myapologetics.com] for a better understanding of the Haneef case.

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

Re:1984

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Yes, the current government merely wants to set up a list of forbidden sites that you have to opt into to view.

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

Re:1984

[deniable (76198)]

The new mouthpiece has smaller eyebrows and a better hairdo. Other than that it's business as usual.

Re:1984

[cheater512 (783349)]

He also has a taste for earwax. :)

Re:1984

[deniable (76198)]

They've only been in for two months. The other side had over a decade. Once they're warmed up, we'll see the level of stupidity they exhibit. Sense of perspective, indeed.

Re:1984

[CrimsonAvenger (580665)]

If you had a sense of perspective, you'd see the difference between proven & potential stupidity.

Yah, proven stupidity has limits, potential stupidity is boundless. At least until the wave function collapses, when it becomes proven stupidity....

Perspective.

[TapeCutter (624760)]

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 [news.com.au]

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 [smh.com.au].

Re:1984

[by 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

[kingturkey (930819)]

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 [news.com.au]

Re:1984

[Psychotria (953670)]

Well, I can somewhat understand his (and your) reasoning--it prevents "trial by public opinion". However, why couldn't the alleged terrorism and details be reported on, while at the same time keeping the name(s) of the suspects secret? A blanket-ban on reporting on terrorism could be seen as irresponsible. For example, if I heard that Mr-X had been captured and it became apparent that he was targeting my local nightclub (whatever), then I'd stay the hell away. With no reporting on the subject at all, I may well go out for a beer and end up with an molotov cocktail (so to speak).

Re:1984

[tx_kanuck (667833)]

Yes, it's a damage to accountability

It is a damage to accountability, but how much is it really? Telling the press (and the public) that they have to wait until after the trial has concluded is something that's been done for many years. Lots of courts have issued publication bans to the media during a trial. As long as the publication ban is removed as soon as the verdict is rendered, is it really that damaging to the accountability?

It's a sword that cuts both ways, especially in a jury trial. If the prosecution feels they have a weak case, they may try to poison the jury pool, however if the defence feels they can make themselves into a martyr to assist their weak case, then they can also do that. To help defend against that, either side can run to the judge for a publication ban, and this just removes that step. It forces both sides to do their fighting in the courtroom itself, and not on the steps outside.

Should a publication ban be in place until all legal avenues have been exhaused? No. An investigation and trial can last for many years. Until both sides have the option to go to in front of a judge to present their cases no publication ban should exist. Once the court procedings have moved onto the appeal stage no publication ban should exist. During the inital trial (at least until the jury has been picked), I can see the justification of a publication ban. Ideally, for a jury you want to pick the most unbiased people you can. A automatic 30 day publication ban (starting once the defendant has seen a judge and been formally charged, but removeable at the judges discretion just as imposing a ban is) can help with that. Once the jury has been picked though, to continue the publication ban requires a signed order from the judge (and one that can be appealed). I'm not entirely happy with that compromise, but given the medias abilty to sensationalize even the most minor events (not that it would ever happen on /.), I would be able to live with that.

Re:1984

[Jesus_666 (702802)]

That's true - for regular trials. But here we have trials for nebulously defined "terrorism", which you can just randomly (from your perspective) end up in with no proper charges raised against you. They're putting people to trial because they feel like it and just being the defendant in such a trial means that you'll probably be regarded a terrorism risk by many nations.

It's scary enough that they can do that. The process requires absolute and total transparency as far as possible without revealing security-relevant information. Nobody should be randomly tried without everyone knowing about it, especially not in such a potentially life-ruining way. And the people should know about it when it happens, not after the fact.

Secret above-the-law trials are just about the last thing we need. Manipulating data after the fact is easy, hence any special terrorist trials should be broadcasted live. By more then one source.

Are you kidding me?

[metlin (258108)]

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.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Nefarious Wheel (628136)]

To misquote the fictitious but very wise Samuel Vimes, "If you start censoring for good reasons, pretty soon you'll be censoring them for bad ones".

Re:Are you kidding me?

[ozmanjusri (601766)]

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 [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:Are you kidding me?

[dbIII (701233)]

Some background on this. This guy tried trial by media when the court would not give him his way and it backfired spectacularly. What he dreamed of being a dramatic showcase terrorism trial did not work, so he leaked bits of interrogation transcripts out of context to the media and then the defence leaked the bits that put them into context.

So how did this start? A doctor that had the misfortune to be related to a terrorist suspect received a bit of heavy handed treatment that previously would have been beyond Australian law and various bits of "spin" were realeased to try to justify this. Vast numbers of people normally not connected with law enforcement were involved since this was the first real test of Australia's anti-terrorist organisations. When they found nothing it all came down to pretending it was real to try to save face and justify expense. The media was initially bluffed but when it finally came time for him to be charged the courts were not. At that point the Australian media were upset that they were manipulated with very poorly constructed lies and turned on the AFP taking delight in each new revelation of utter incompentance.

Not supported by the Governement

[by 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 [smh.com.au]

Re:Not supported by the Governement

[Max Littlemore (1001285)]

Kelty's just a bit of a whiner, really. He's consistantly blamed everyone else for the repeated federal police screw ups, and his latest target is the media. I'm not surprised that the current government isn't taking him to seriously, especially considering how keen they are to distance themselves from the corrupt practices of the previous government.

The only positive out of the actions of the previous government and the AFP is that they were so transparently corrupt and incompetent that our judiciary could prevent us from going down the path of breaking international law to the extent that the current US administration has. If there had been a media blackout, or "editors club" as proposed, the previous government wouldn't have appeared so twisted and the new government wouldn't have got elected. They know it. Mick really should wait until closer to a second term election when the current government has a few dirty secrets to hide before trying to float an idea like this.

Nothing to see here. Nothing's been sensored, there actually is nothing to see beyond a sad old whiner pointing the finger yet again.

It's just not fair!

[hyades1 (1149581)]

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.

Halt to criticism of Keelty

[nbauman (624611)]

Here's where Keelty gets to the point:

He also called for a halt to criticism of public institutions.

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.

For half a second there. . .

[Fantastic Lad (198284)]

. . . my hopes flared, thinking that the police chief meant that everybody should quit going on and on about this tiresome 'Terror Threat' we all supposedly face and that the media should stop broadcasting fear to the public.

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 copped a right caning for it...

[Goonie (8651)]

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

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

[pnevin (168332)]

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 [abc.net.au].

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.

The AFP are just getting pissy.

[Eskarel (565631)]

They've recently found that judges in Australia, unlike the US, won't let them claim someone is a terrorist without actually showing what their evidence is. As such they've been looking like a bunch of idiots lately because they appear to be either letting Terrorists go or harrassing innocent people.

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.