Wikileaks reports:
Today, 29th July 2014 WikiLeaks releases an unprecedented suppression order by the Australian Supreme Court in Melbourne, Victoria, made on June 19th 2014, with regards to a multi-country, multi-million dollar corruption case. The supression order forbids any discloures, by publication or otherwise, of any information relating to the court case by anyone, including the Australian media, ensuring complete secrecy around the largest corruption case in Australia.
Subject of the ban? Well...
1. Subject to further order, there be no disclosure, by publication or otherwise, of any information ... that reveals, implies, suggests or alleges that any person to whom this order applies:
- received or attempted to receive a bribe or improper payment;
- acquiesced in or was wilfully blind as to any person receiving or attempting to receive a bribe or improper payment; or
- was the intended or proposed recipient of a bribe or improper payment.
2. Subject to further order, order 1 applies to the following persons:
- any current or former Prime Minister of Malaysia (including references to 'PM');
- any current or former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia (including references to 'DPM');
- any current or former Finance Minister of Malaysia (including references to 'FM');
- Mohammad Najib Abdul Razak, currently Prime Minister (since 2009) and Finance Minister (since 2008) of Malaysia;
- Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (also known as Pak Lah), a former Prime Minister (2003 - 2009) and Finance Minister (2003 - 2008) of Malaysia;
- Puan Noni (also knows as Ms/Madame Noni, or Nonni), a sister-in-law of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi;
- Mahathir Mohamed, a former Prime Minister (1981 - 2003) and Finance Minister (2001 - 2003) of Malaysia;
- Daim Zainuddin, a former Finance Minister of Malaysia (1984 - 1991; 1999 - 2001);
- Rafidah Aziz, a former Trade Minister of Malaysia (1987 - 2008);
- Hamid Albar, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs (1999 - 2008) and Minister of Home Affairs (2008 - 2009) of Malaysia;
- Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (also known as SBY), currently President of Indonesia (since 2004);
- Megawati Sukarnoputri (also known as Mega), a former President of Indonesia (2001 - 2004) and current leader of the PDI-P political party;
- Laksamana Sukardi, a former Indonesian minister (2001 - 2004; in Megawati Sukarnoputri's goverment);
- Truong Tan San, currently President of Vietnam (since 2011);
- Nguyen Tan Dung, currently Prime Minister of Vietnam (since 2006);
- Le Duc Thuy, a Former Chairman of the National Financial Supervisory Committee (2007 - 2011) and a former Governor of the State Bank of Vietnam (1999 - 2007); and
- Nong Duc Manh, a former General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam (2001 - 2011).
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @04:20PM
No comments yet. I guess the suppression order is working...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday July 30 2014, @04:38PM
Someone really needs to tell them about the Streisand effect...
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday July 30 2014, @04:42PM
Isn't it normal to have media blackouts during the initial investigation? Sounds like some lady spilled the secrets and the court wants to figure out what's going on. They don't want every witness and suspect to be hounded or disappear. However it looks really suspect and it does look like they're trying to make the affidavit disappear. Surely something has happened between 19 Jun and 30 Jul? An investigation? If not, then boo this order and the people who made it happen.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mrider on Wednesday July 30 2014, @05:00PM
There's a big difference between "don't let the people that we are investigating know they are being investigated", and "cover up all evidence of wrong-doing and sweep this under the rug". The first is designed to help prevent those being investigated from knowing that they need to destroy evidence. The second is malfeasance.
It's unclear (to me at least) which applies in this instance.
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Jiro on Wednesday July 30 2014, @05:19PM
But the Internet tough guys who think "Hey, I get to participate in the Streisand effect" are absolutely certian they know which one applies.
(And you left out a third possibility: what if some of them are actually not guilty? Now that this was leaked, their names will be dragged through the mud and they will have no way to defend themselves. And given the countries involved, "having your name dragged through the mud" can mean consequences rather more severe than just having people who read the newspaper laugh at you.)
(Score: 2) by mrider on Wednesday July 30 2014, @05:22PM
Good point! And yes, I didn't think of that.
Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"
Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."
(Score: 1) by Max Hyre on Saturday August 02 2014, @02:41PM
Most people here seem to think that if you're arrested, you're guilty.
</rant>
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday July 30 2014, @07:12PM
we're talking about world leaders taking bribes. it doesn't matter if it is true or not; we will drag them through the mud for fun and profit.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 30 2014, @07:44PM
> we're talking about world leaders taking bribes. it doesn't matter if it is true or not;
However, given that they are "world leaders" it seems unlikely that they will "will have no way to defend themselves."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday July 30 2014, @09:56PM
What consequences can you think of?
To put the things in perspective: Australia had recently some diplomatic troubles with Indonesia in a phone listening scandal [wikipedia.org] - the matters of regional cooperation prevailed over the upset. Now, Australia spooks intercepting phone calls of foreign dignitaries was a direct action, far graver than some allegations of corruption some/many of which may be unfounded and which were made by a single person (who may have acted so for personal reasons/interests).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Jiro on Thursday July 31 2014, @01:22AM
Well, for a starter, the country's government can decide that since a politician's name is mentioned in a news article that makes the country look bad, they should preemptively purge the politician to show that the government is "fighting corruption". And the politician is especially vulnerable to this if the government is corrupt and he isn't, because he's an easy fall guy who lacks the connections to keep himself safe and who many of the corrupt guys probably have grudges against.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 31 2014, @04:29AM
How's that different from being named in a corruption scandal even if/when not a prominent politician?
Yet, I don't see orders issued by Australian courts that would try to protect the identity of normal people which were alleged to commit crimes (corruption included) - this is simply not the usual (and Wikileaks confirms it by using "unprecedented Australian censorship order").
How come politicians (even if foreign politicians) are given preferential treatment by the Australian justice?
If you read the gag order posted by Wikileaks, you'll probably find the answer in: 6.(b) necessary to prevent prejudice to the interests of the Commonwealth in relation to national security. Phrase that let me stupidly wonder and worry about possible interferences in the course of justice:
* how come an Australian judge (at the level of the state, not even at the federal level) is suddenly so knowledgeable and up-to-date in "national security" matters and can, based in her/his own judgement, take care of this aspect? How's the separation of power working in this case?
* however, if s/he is not quite qualified in this concern, just who had the initiative to bring "national security" considerations into the picture in such a way that the usual justice procedures are overridden and have their course altered?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday July 30 2014, @05:19PM
This is a blackout during a court case, which I would (perhaps falsely) assume means the trial.
Its pretty much the norm in Canada as well, (although its utterly ineffective because of the closeness of US media - to the extent the case garners any international coverage).
The listed people are un-indicted co-conspirators in the case, and the order stated:
The case is about bribes offered by Royal Bank of Australia's note printing branch. (Australia prints paper (plastic) money for many countries and they have pretty much cornered the market on plastic money printing).
How is this related to National Security? That seems a bit of a stretch.
So no doubt the named individuals may have taken bribes, but are beyond the reach of Australian law, but their names will come up in the trial, but can't be published.
You can bet no journalists from other countries will be permitted to attend these trials, so it amounts to a pretty effective lock down, while at the same time publishing a list (that they had to have KNOWN would be leaked).
Now journalists will just list Foreign Dignitary "A" through "Q" in their reports.
Barbra, is that you?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday July 30 2014, @06:23PM
I think the Canadian Bank Note company dies quite a lot of plastic money printing as well. I was under the impression that it was more than just ours.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday July 30 2014, @06:35PM
Actually, Canada's banks notes are dependent on Australia too.
They may be printed locally, but the stock and ink, and the security measures come from the RBA note printing branch.
At least that was the case in 2010:
http://www.cfig.ca/docs/currency_polymer.pdf [www.cfig.ca]
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/spencer.pdf [bankofcanada.ca]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:17PM
Thanks human!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31 2014, @10:18AM
So it's dead now? Or undead?
(Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday July 30 2014, @05:25PM
Poor dumb fossilized legal apparatus. There are 196 countries in the world. Some justices with curled wigs in the Ozzie Supreme Court MAY be able to shut up the voices in their own country (probably not ALL of them), and can probably coerce a few other countries to support their gag order, but we now have this thing called the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T, geographically widely distributed, and with some measure of anonymity. They can't stop it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Wednesday July 30 2014, @07:28PM
This thing the Australian court has done is called a "gag order" in the United States and are, on occasion, issued by courts in controversial cases in the interest of justice to prevent a trial from becoming a media circus. However, these orders do not usually ban the press from publishing what occurs in the courtroom; rather, they prevent the defendant, the plaintiff, and their lawyers from talking to the press or making any comments about the trial publicly until after the trial is over. If the judge wants to keep the press from publishing anything about the trial, he can close the courtroom to the public, again something which is legitimate in the interest of justice. The press can always obtain a transcript of the trial after it's over.
At least in the United States, I've never heard of a court attempting to ban the press from reporting upon a court case which has been successful after appeals by the media. But this is Australia, a place where the civil liberties we enjoy in the US are not quite so easily enjoyed.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 30 2014, @08:41PM
Yes. And *SOMETIMES* they are done for purposes of justice, rather than (purely?) to suppress the accusations.
It is my belief that they do MUCH more harm than good. The only plausibly reasonable excuse for them that I have encountered is to allow the selection of juries that are not prejudiced. I'd be more satisfied that that was a reasonable rationale if the gag orders were not so frequently misused. And if juries were not so frequently lied to with complicit instructions by the judge.
So, in this case, POSSIBLE the INTENT was not malign. I suspect that even if the intent was not malign, the effect will be.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by dublet on Thursday July 31 2014, @09:26AM
Allow me to introduce you to the British legal system with its superinjuctions: http://www.theguardian.com/law/datablog/2011/aug/05/superinjunctions-gagging-orders-injunctions-list [theguardian.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_privacy_injunctions_controversy [wikipedia.org]
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 2) by mendax on Thursday July 31 2014, @02:14PM
I expect this kind of nonsense from the British legal system as well. No surprise at all.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 31 2014, @01:01AM
If you run a business in Australia. What effect does this bribery chain have?
(Score: 1) by arslan on Thursday July 31 2014, @02:37AM
I would think not a lot unless you business have relations or some sort of dealings with those countries (i.e. import, business partners, etc.). Can't speak about Indonesia or Vietname, but corruption is par for the course in terms of business, politics and legality in Malaysia. The effect to anyone with dealings with any Malaysian entity is quite substantial. Too much to easily explain unless you have specific scenarios.
(Score: 3) by yellowantphil on Thursday July 31 2014, @03:58AM
What if the next thing Wikileaks releases is a similar order from a US court? Would SoylentNews be able to publish a story about it? Would the story have to be excessively vague, like, "Something you may find interesting was published on Wikileaks in the past few weeks"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2014, @11:24PM
I am in australia, and those are exactly the kind of stories running in every media outlet here. Aparently, even linking to an article that contains the forbidden criteria can land you in hot water
(Score: 1) by GoodBuddy on Thursday July 31 2014, @05:46PM
Why would the court order specify "Any current or former Prime Minister of Malaysia" and then proceed to name specific people along with their title as a current or former Prime Minister. They would have been covered by the court order without their names being specifically mentioned.