Support Mick Keelty

derty · 2 February 2008

robert toms said:
... totalitarian regimes are controlled by the bludgeon,and that democracies are controlled by propaganda?

I remember watching a documentary where they explained that the western nations were far more advanced with propaganda techniques than the totalitarian and communist states. Purely because that the latter could use threat of physical violence and material hardship to you and your family to keep the population relatively compliant. Whereas democracies did not have access to these methods and must rely on the population choosing to do or support what was required by using a combination of fear, consumerism and religion.

You may argue at the end of the day who is really freeer (is that a word?) but while we can vote, leave the country, have dissenting views on the government, the justice system and religion, have equal access to education, bla bla bla e.t.c I say we are still miles in front.

If we chose to lose our freedoms in the name of freedom and begin to stoop to their medieval level of operation then we have lost what we stand for and are no better than them.

And in reality I don't think the 'War on Terror' is the huge threat it is made out to be, it is part of the overall fear campaign the helps keep us in line. Sure there are fundamentalist Islamic's who are terrorising the middle east and have managed to bomb a few western targets, though the actual risk of you or one of your family members being harmed in a terrorist event is minuscule, everyday life in Australia is much more dangerous. It is the thought of an attack that terrifies us and the govt (and media) knows this. The phenomena is similar to that of a shark attack.

IFocus · 2 February 2008

Garpal

Mick has been totally discredited on this very issue as he and his department have been caught out trying to undermine the current legal processes.

He also blundered by claims UK has these media powers.... wrong they dont

Todays Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23146973-601,00.html

Mr Keelty's controversial media blackout proposal, made in a speech to the Sydney Institute on Tuesday, has been widely criticised by the federal Opposition, media and civil liberties groups.

Mr Keelty said he believed media coverage of terrorism cases was inaccurate, ill-informed and a potential threat to the justice process.

This si what hes angry about

The Indian-trained doctor was arrested on the Gold Coast in July after one of his cousins was involved in the failed terror attacks in London and Glasgow. He was charged, and his visa was cancelled by the federal Government, but the case against him collapsed after the media exposed mistakes by the AFP and the office of the commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

No mention of sorting out the AFP problems and getting their act together just blame everyone eles

Garpal Gumnut · 2 February 2008

IFocus said:
Garpal

Mick has been totally discredited on this very issue as he and his department have been caught out trying to undermine the current legal processes.

He also blundered by claims UK has these media powers.... wrong they dont

Todays Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23146973-601,00.html

The law is highly biased towards ensuring that terrorists are treated as if they

This si what hes angry about

No mention of sorting out the AFP problems and getting their act together just blame everyone eles

The problem as I see it is, that we spend much of our time criticising those who are tasked in Australia with our protection.

Alleged terrorists are treated as celebrities, and the normal process of interrogation and data acquisition is in too short a time frame, fine if you are talking about someone accused of theft but surely inadequate if one is concerned with national security.

Accused terrorists can destroy evidence or flee while the usual legal processes grind on and on.

gg

Kimosabi · 2 February 2008

Maybe you people should do some proper research on terrorism.

The real terrorists aren't f^ckin muslims.

Start with researching who starts most of the wars in the world and who benefits.

Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and 1 Million dead iraqi's sure didn't benefit from 9/11, but Halliburton and the Carlisle Group sure did...

So_Cynical · 2 February 2008

derty said:
It is the thought of an attack that terrifies us and the govt (and media) knows this. The phenomena is similar to that of a shark attack.

When was the last time 50 people died in a shark attack?

The fundamentalist nuts are real, in the extreme minority, and out there and
more than happy to kill you/us.

And of course, same as everything...the media beats it up.

derty · 2 February 2008

So_Cynical said:
When was the last time 50 people died in a shark attack?

I was comparing the asymmetrical fear vs risk when comparing terrorism with shark attacks, not absolute deaths.

And back to discussing terrorism arrests, how many of the people who have been arrested and charged with terrorism have actually been successfully convicted? The cases are usually initially very high profile, with the government (pick any of the USA, UK or Aust) crowing to the media of their success. Though once it turns out the evidence was hearsay and flimsy they jump on the media saying that they are impeding justice.

REA · 2 February 2008

For what its worth I think that Mick Keelty is no longer the man for the job.

The Corby case was a mess from start to finish, more went on at Mascot airport than was ever admitted by the Federal Police. I saw an interview with one of the senior members of the police force in which he was covering his butt by condemming Corby before she was even tried, it was disgusting.

Then comes the Bali nine more trouble for the Federal Police more cover up and did we get the ringleaders, where were the drugs going we will never know because they arrested nine idiots when in my opinion more could have been achieved by observing.

The doctors case in Queensland was also a mess. Although I believe that the police should be given as much power as needed in the case of terrorism the police have to be a lot smarter than they appear to be.

Mick Keelty I believe only kept his job because he was a friend of John Howard(this is not meant to be disrespectful to John Howard or Mick Keelty) I believe they should have an external investigation of the force and then Mick should retire and go fishing.

IFocus · 2 February 2008

Garpal Gumnut said:
The problem as I see it is, that we spend much of our time criticising those who are tasked in Australia with our protection.

Alleged terrorists are treated as celebrities, and the normal process of interrogation and data acquisition is in too short a time frame, fine if you are talking about someone accused of theft but surely inadequate if one is concerned with national security.

Accused terrorists can destroy evidence or flee while the usual legal processes grind on and on.

gg

Garpal I understand your point but we must all stand equal before the law change the current processes and reduce the rights then terrorism has just won a very important victory.

The problem for Keelty was that he and his department were caught out on a number of fronts not that the processes impeded the investigation but the investigation and prosecution were shambolic with both sides blaming each other for the mess.

Then Keelty comes out and blames the media for revealing the mess. With out this scrutiny we would never have know. If the AFP do not have structures / processors that work then they are derelict in their duty which to some degree has been shown.

As for Haneef I have no opinion

Julia · 2 February 2008

I think where Mick Keelty has drawn so much criticism is his very hypocrisy in suggesting there be a media black out with respect to terrorism investigations.
It's hypocritical because he will very quickly jump in and use the media to further his own objectives when it suits him.

I'm not going into the can of worms which is the discussion about who is/was the fundamental cause of terrorism, i.e. possibly the US of A with their 'boss of the world' attitude, but now that said terrorism is a fact of life these days, I support the Federal Police having wide powers to intercept anyone who reasonably appears to represent a threat to Australia.

That said, I'd like to see Mr Keelty replaced. He has made too many stuff-ups which he has - despite his valiant attempts - failed to cover up.

Spaghetti · 3 February 2008

In Haneef case the media actually stood up for what we believe in as a nation. Keelty is trying to cover up his departments faults by his attack on the media.

I am all for getting the media in line but in this case the media deserves a medal. Not often can you say that about the silly reporting we often have to listen to. But this was first rate journalism delivering what it should. Does not often happen in Australia and I for one think Hedley Thomas is a hero.

On terrorism related charges in general there may at times be a need for media blackout but it should not be decided by the police. Perhaps a court hearing on a case by case basis.

Already we have lost so much freedom and unfair treatment of Australian muslims will only increase a terror threat on our shores. Most humans know when unfair treatment is meted out and will respond so.

Terrorism is a means to cause political change and to lose freedoms hand them a victory. Howard played on the fear and now Keelty plays on his, what we want terrorists to win?

Kimosabi · 3 February 2008

Maybe you people should watch this to get a slightly different perspective of whats really going on instead of the crap that is force fed down our throats on TV and in the Papers.

It Exposes the Australian government's lies about the East Timor massacres, the cover-up of the Bali bombings (including '93 WTC attack) and subsequent anti-terror legislation forced through parliament.

Fool me twice ==> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4135706276167925924

Myspace Page ==> http://www.myspace.com/foolmetwicethemovie

2020hindsight · 3 February 2008

IFocus said:
Garpal

Mick has been totally discredited on this very issue as he and his department have been caught out trying to undermine the current legal processes.

He also blundered by claims UK has these media powers.... wrong they dont

Todays Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23146973-601,00.html
This is what hes angry about

No mention of sorting out the AFP problems and getting their act together just blame everyone eles

IFocus, spot on (for mine)

See gg, "Support Mick Keelty?"
in what way?
to what extent? blindly? irrespective?
just too ambiguous.

Here's a bit more of that article that IFocus posted..
Even the Lib Oppostion have criticised his recent speech (I wonder if Andrews did lol)

Mr Keelty's controversial media blackout proposal, made in a speech to the Sydney Institute on Tuesday, has been widely criticised by the federal Opposition, media and civil liberties groups

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty yesterday refused to countenance resigning despite new pressure from Kevin Rudd and the legal fraternity over the handling of the Mohamed Haneef case and his call for the media to be muzzled during terror trials.

The Prime Minister yesterday rejected Mr Keelty's call in Sydney on Tuesday for a media blackout during terror cases.

Hours later, Mr Keelty suffered another legal blow in the Haneef case when the Legal Services Commission of Queensland decided to dismiss his complaint against the Muslim doctor's barrister, Stephen Keim, who had provided The Australian with the police record of interview showing Dr Haneef was being unjustly treated by police and prosecutors.

"I think the media's role in the Haneef case was in the national interest," Mr Rudd said. "We're not going to be in the business of imposing some sort of media blackout on the reporting of terrorism cases."

Mr Rudd expressed full confidence in Mr Keelty, adding: "The Government has its own view and the Government's view is that the media should abide by the laws of the land and I err ... on the side of the media giving full and frank coverage".

Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O'Gorman said last night Mr Keelty was unfit to remain as commissioner and should quit.

"He should find another job. If he doesn't, the Government should find another job for him," Mr O'Gorman said. "His speech shows he just doesn't get it -- the man isn't in the real world because he's lost any sense of balance."

Asked last night if he would consider resigning, Mr Keelty said through a spokesman he would not dignify such a question with a response.

Mr Keelty's controversial media blackout proposal, made in a speech to the Sydney Institute on Tuesday, has been widely criticised by the federal Opposition, media and civil liberties groups.

Mr Keelty said he believed media coverage of terrorism cases was inaccurate, ill-informed and a potential threat to the justice process.

However, Mr Keelty made no reference to leaks that came from official sources and benefited the AFP or the Government's position.

In his speech, Mr Keelty took a thinly veiled swipe at Mr Keim, saying that the leaking of information was a threat to justice. "When a record of interview is given to the media with accompanying commentary, we run the risk of jeopardising the accused's ability to receive a fair trial when the matter reaches court," Mr Keelty said.

He might be onto something when he says that the trial might be jeapardised - but sheesh - media blackout!?

I used to get a bit annoyed when the irresponsible shock-jocks like Alan Jones and John Laws regurgitated stuff they'd read ( never original research) - and often jeapardised legal process. But not the entire press - c'mon! This isn't Russia under Lenin!

2020hindsight · 3 February 2008

As already posted elsewhere... (libel etc freedom of expression thread)

Rudd says that the "media should simply abide by the laws of the land". - fair enough (for mine).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/01/2151939.htm?section=justin[/url]

Rudd shuts down Keelty on media gags

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the Federal Government does not support Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Mick Keelty's call for a media blackout in terrorism cases.

Earlier this week Mr Keelty said he believed the media should be prevented from reporting on terrorism cases until all judicial avenues have been exhausted.

But Mr Rudd has told Fairfax radio that while he has full confidence in the Commissioner, the Government will not be acting on the call.

"He's speaking obviously in terms of his own capacity as head of the Federal Police," he said.

"The Government has its own view and the Government's view is that the media should simply abide by the laws of the land.

"On the side of the media giving full and frank coverage, I think the media's role in the [Mohamed] Haneef case was in the national interest."

The AFP was roundly criticised for its handling of the case against Dr Haneef, who was accused of links to botched car bombings in the UK but was subsequently released without charge.

2020hindsight · 3 February 2008

The second half of that article posted by IFocus..
Again there's that "Aussie of the Year " tag (2007)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23146973-601,00.html

Mr Keim, who provided Dr Haneef's AFP record of interview to The Australian in July to counter false police leaks against his client, said he was relieved at the decision. He called on Mr Keelty to admit his mistakes and apologise to Dr Haneef.

Mr Keim said he had been made accountable for his conduct in releasing the record of interview, which showed the police case as threadbare and highlighted parts of the evidence as false.

But Mr Keim said that neither the AFP nor Mr Keelty had explained or apologised for their conduct, prejudicial leaks, and hostile actions against Dr Haneef.

Mr Keim, The Australian's 2007 Australian of the Year, said yesterday, said: "I really wish the AFP would say: 'We have completed our investigation into Dr Haneef and he is free to come back to Australia without fear'."

He described the AFP as "intimidatory" for continuing to state investigations were "ongoing", adding Dr Haneef wanted to move on from his ordeal.

The Legal Services Commission, which had the power to initiate action that could have led to Mr Keim being struck off as a lawyer, found he "clearly breached" one of the Barristers' Rules relating to the release of evidence without consent, but there were exceptional circumstances and the breach was at the "minor end". The commission found "there is no reasonable likelihood of a finding by a disciplinary body of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct".
.......
The commission's decision and reasons were in line with findings by the Bar Association of Queensland. The bar's 21-page report states Mr Keim's conduct had "no potential to interfere in the due administration of justice", and occurred in extraordinary circumstances after then immigration minister Kevin Andrews cancelled Dr Haneef's visa.

The bar's report states that the conduct of the Crown case was revealed to have been "seriously flawed".

"Responsibility for that, as between the DPP and the AFP, is controversial but, on any view, the prosecution was shambolic."

In evidence to the bar association, Mr Keim said Dr Haneef "was in an extremely vulnerable position where his rights and interests, including his reputation, his freedom and his right to a fair trial were under assault from misleading leaking of material by law enforcement officers".

"Release of the document radically changed the situation of disadvantage in which Dr Haneef was placed," Mr Keim said. "The record of interview allowed the public to perceive the baseless nature of many of the leaks which had occurred and the weakness of the evidence on which action had been taken against Dr Haneef."

skint · 3 February 2008

derty said:
I remember watching a documentary where they explained that the western nations were far more advanced with propaganda techniques than the totalitarian and communist states. Purely because that the latter could use threat of physical violence and material hardship to you and your family to keep the population relatively compliant. Whereas democracies did not have access to these methods and must rely on the population choosing to do or support what was required by using a combination of fear, consumerism and religion.

You may argue at the end of the day who is really freeer (is that a word?) but while we can vote, leave the country, have dissenting views on the government, the justice system and religion, have equal access to education, bla bla bla e.t.c I say we are still miles in front.

If we chose to lose our freedoms in the name of freedom and begin to stoop to their medieval level of operation then we have lost what we stand for and are no better than them.

And in reality I don't think the 'War on Terror' is the huge threat it is made out to be, it is part of the overall fear campaign the helps keep us in line. Sure there are fundamentalist Islamic's who are terrorising the middle east and have managed to bomb a few western targets, though the actual risk of you or one of your family members being harmed in a terrorist event is minuscule, everyday life in Australia is much more dangerous. It is the thought of an attack that terrifies us and the govt (and media) knows this. The phenomena is similar to that of a shark attack.

Hi Dery, I think I saw that doco. Anyway, the one I saw highlighted the extent to which western governments magnified both the cold war threat and more recently, the terrorist threat for political gain. Interesting.
The increase in police powers more recently highlights the extent to which terrorist activity has been successful. The aim of terrorism is to strike fear and in turn elicit exactly the responses seen occuring in Western democracies. That is, create the paradoxical situation where these countries are increasingly foregoing the fundamental principles on which they were founded upon. Terrorists - 1, Democracy - 0. When laws of detention and so on are introduced that undermine these basic principles, nasty precedents are set that are difficult to unwind. History suggests the potential for increased police powers to be abused is substantial.
It is inevitable that the brand of destructive foreign policy pursued by Bush and others would inevitably enrage millions. Invading Iraq pretty much guaranteed that terrorist activity would increase and this ,of course, was known before the invasion. I think the most productive step towards reducing terorist activity is to undermine and defuse the suppport base by, for example, not illlegally invading countries and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. If Australia were to be invaded most of us would be pretty unhappy about the situation. It is also probable that a small number of Australian citizens, rightly or wrongly, would seek to kill innocent civilians in the invading country.

petervan · 3 February 2008

Keelty knows he is a lame duck pollitically after his support for the Howard goverment and is throwing all his cards on the table to see if he gets support from the Rudd government.The lack of support is obvious with Rudd's rejection of the media ban and I feel it won't be long before he resigns and labour put in their person they want

moneymajix · 3 February 2008

Thich Nhat Hanh:

In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us.

Support Mick Keelty

derty

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

Kimosabi

So_Cynical

The Contrarian Averager

derty

REA

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

Julia

In Memoriam

Spaghetti

Kimosabi

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

2020hindsight

skint

petervan

moneymajix

Support Mick Keelty

You are arguing with a Galah

Ross Island Hotel

The Contrarian Averager

You are arguing with a Galah

In Memoriam

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency