Australian Federal Police (AFP) have raided the Sydney headquarters of the public broadcaster ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), after yesterday's raid on the home of a News Corp. journalist. A radio talkback host for station 2GB has also been targeted by the AFP.
The Afghan Files: Defence leak exposes deadly secrets of Australia's special forces (2017)
- ABC raid: AFP leave Ultimo building with files after hours-long raid over Afghan Files stories
- Police raid on Annika Smethurst shows surveillance exposé hit a nerve
- ABC's Sydney headquarters raided by Australian federal police (43s video)
- 'Our laws are being upheld': Morrison shrugs off raid on journalist's home
- Scott Morrison deflects questions about raid on News Corp journalist
- Australia: The World's Most Secretive Democracy?
- Live tweeting of the raid by John Lyons (@TheLyonsDen)
Google News link. Also at NPR and Al Jazeera.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
ABC's Sydney Headquarters Raided by Australian Federal Police Over "The Afghan Files" Stories
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 62 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:36PM (28 children)
I'm not familiar with Australian legal traditions. But do they not have strong protections for the press as the US does?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:52PM (14 children)
Well we left our most famous journalist out to dry in an embassy in london for years, so, yeah, about the same.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:28PM (6 children)
Assangel hid like scared child, and even accepted Ecuadorian citizenship when offered. If that makes him your "most famous journalist" then you guys better start producing better journalists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @06:14PM (3 children)
Not sure what youre saying. Have any evidence for that claim? Care to elaborate?
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 05 2019, @06:25PM (2 children)
Well the wording was a bit trollish but the AC is correct.
Assange sought asylum from Ecuador of his own free will [telegraph.co.uk]
He was granted Ecuadorian citizenship. [theguardian.com]
Although, it was subsequently revoked. [dpa-international.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @10:34PM (1 child)
Thats just a bunch of links, I don't see any evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 06 2019, @02:41PM
There's more "evidence" in those links than there is evidence that Assange is a "journalist".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 06 2019, @12:01AM
And that is somehow bad why?
(Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday June 06 2019, @04:43AM
you call it hiding, I call it smart evasion.
So? Australia allows dual/multi citizenship, he's still an Australian even if he has other citizenships.
None of those 2 points actually explains why you think he's isn't Australia's "most famous journalist", care to come again? Fact is most people's heard of Assange, but most non-Australians probably haven't heard of Karl Stefanovic, Koshi, etc.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @10:06PM (2 children)
That wasn't even the only news room raid yesterday .. https://m.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/the-betoota-advocate-offices-raided-by-afp-over-1997-engadine-mcdonalds-leaks/ [betootaadvocate.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 06 2019, @04:05AM (1 child)
After Assange’s Espionage Act Indictment, Police Move Against More Journalists for Publishing Classified Material [consortiumnews.com]:
Sorta off topic--libcom.org had some updates on the Yellow Vests (who were mentioned in the above).
Yellow Vests and Black Raincoats [libcom.org]
[Gilets jaunes Rungis Île-de-France] Don’t vote, let’s struggle [libcom.org]
Accepting to be a drop you become ocean [libcom.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 06 2019, @11:42AM
The global war on journalism [wsws.org]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday June 06 2019, @01:00AM (3 children)
That would actually be Australia's most famous journalist that we left out to dry, if we're going around assigning nationality to a man who travelled the world attempting to evade government surveillance before we took his freedom (not that this really detracts from your point).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 06 2019, @02:33AM (2 children)
FFS, get your blinkers off. People post here from all over the planet*.
* I was going to say all over the "world", but to many Americans the world means just the United States**.
** For some unfathomable reason may also contain Toronto.
(Score: 2) by NateMich on Thursday June 06 2019, @05:14AM
As an American who lives close to Toronto, I feel the need to respond.
First of all, "blinkers" are turn signals to us, but I do in fact understand that words mean different things in different places. Even places that speak nearly the same language.
Next, "world" and "planet" are used interchangeably (here at least) so differentiating like you did is meaningless, or at least your attempt at humor doesn't really work.
Finally, in order to better fathom why we closely associate with Toronto (or rather, Canada itself) in some parts of the US, please understand that it's because we in fact close to Canada.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday June 06 2019, @03:59PM
For FSM's sake, try to comprehend context. Can your RAM hold three comments at once? If so, please read the parent and grandparent posts of the one you replied to. You can even borrow my Amulet of +5 Reading Comprehension, it should help you on your journey. I understand that we Americans can be obnoxious in our tendency to assume everyone on the internet is an American but that isn't what's happening here.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:11PM (11 children)
80% of all news media in Australia is owned by one of two men, Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer, both are right wing ghouls with loyalty to the current conservative coalition in power in Australia(Liberals and LN). ABC is the only large news organization in Australia independent of their editorial control, though it does answer to the government.
After a certain point, "freedom of the press" becomes a meaningless concept if two people are calling all the shots anyways.
As to the legal concept, it is entirely a de facto recognition by courts with no de jure definition, and only extends to "political communication" which allows plenty of wiggle room for the government to ban all sorts of things.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 05 2019, @06:19PM (10 children)
Well I was curious what crime was allegedly committed, since it's not mentioned in the summary.
Apparently, it's "the alleged publishing of information classified as an official secret."
According to the Guardian this is a new law (or, at least, was strengthened recently). Sweeping foreign interference and spying laws pass Senate [theguardian.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday June 05 2019, @06:28PM (9 children)
Yep, "classified" was meant to be something you'd punish someone for sharing if they were granted privilege to deal with state secrets.
Now it's magic state secrets that can protect politicians from consequences, and arbitrarily used to punish anyone for embarrassing the powerful.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday June 05 2019, @08:54PM (8 children)
"Classified" is much worse than that. In the US, no one was ever imprisoned for classifying basic knowledge. So they classify everything, to cover their behinds. Think it could be sensitive info? Classified!
2 + 2 = classified. It's almost that bad.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday June 05 2019, @09:08PM (7 children)
I agree that the US is so much worse.
We just arrested a Swede living in the UK for publishing classified material that pretty much every sane person would agree is information obviously relevant to public interests, on the grounds that it was espionage.
Obviously I'm a believer in gray zones, and I can imagine a world where a publisher hypothetically could use their status to cover transmission of actual espionage on the behalf of a hostile nation's intelligence apparatus, but, Assange, egocentric piece of shit though he may be, was not even remotely that. What do you do when the people doing the arresting are the ones who belong in jail?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 05 2019, @09:58PM (6 children)
The indictment [justice.gov] against Assange is that he participated in the hacking by helping Manning crack a password on the DoD network.
It's Trump's DOJ so it's probably all bullshit. But, if true, that would be a crime separate from merely publishing the information.
Seems like we need a trial to determine if it's true....
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday June 06 2019, @12:07AM (5 children)
Let me preface this post with the fact that both sides aren't the same.
Obama was almost as bad about prosecuting whistleblowers as Trump is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 06 2019, @03:28AM (4 children)
WTF? Obama was worse. Trump sucks, but on this issue there is really no comparison, because 90% of Trump is just talking, while Obama was actually taking action.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday June 06 2019, @03:37AM (3 children)
Obama had a terrible fucking record, But trump is set to pass his record on number of whistleblowers prosecuted after just 2 and a half years [theintercept.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 06 2019, @02:57PM
Additionally, Obama's policy was to NOT go after Assange.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 06 2019, @04:59PM
Orange is the new black.
(Score: 2) by DeVilla on Saturday June 08 2019, @05:18PM
Obama set an expectation that he would be far better about whistle blowers than he turned out to be. I don't feel you could say the same for Trump. I don't think it's fair to fault someone for being closer to what was expected of them.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:14PM
But do they not have strong protections for the press as the US does?
On paper, not even close. The 1st Amendment is unique to the world. There is nobody on the planet that explicitly says "no law". All we need now are judges to uphold the law. For everybody else, all bets are off, too many loopholes to protect the authorities.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @02:49PM (21 children)
Incidents like those described are bad, but sh*t happens in a shooting war.
Here's an idea: how about prosecuting the people really responsible? The US invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, chasing of Bin Laden. Of course, just why the US thought it had to right to invade another country in pursuit of one particular criminal is another story - there are international procedures for that. It gets even murkier when one looks at Iraq (the Shrub wanting to one-up his dad?) or Libya (someone didn't like the way Qaddafi dressed?), or Syria (fund and supply a terrorist organisation for fun and profit). Minor side acts include Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, "rendition" and other pleasantries.
Personally, I would like to see the responsible people on trial in the Hague, from national leaders down through the ranks of the general officers. They have caused far more death and destruction than petty criminals from the Balkans, or German prison camp accountants. The Shrub and "peace prize" Obama could share a cell.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:05PM
That's all well and good - but Oz remains responsible for the actions of Australian troops. Australians can't answer for the actions of Bush and Cheney, but they can be held to account for their own troops.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @03:18PM (8 children)
Look up the details. The pattern was that the Australians didn't verify intelligence with the Afghani government and then sent death squads to eliminate unarmed civilians. When the Afghani officials complained, the officers investigating the incidents, despite having no access to eye witnesses, body cams or the original intelligence, rubber stamped the reports and didn't even acknowledged the victims were unarmed or unrelated.
Oh, and not only that it happened dozens of times over 2-3 years with complaints constantly coming and no one doing anything about it, the victims had a tendency to be the political opponents of the "lets sell everything to the Australians" camps...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:26PM (7 children)
I'm pretty sure you could have stopped typing, and started indicting, at "death squads".
"Good guys", right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @11:10PM (6 children)
Is the killing of people engaged in a war illegal? Which part of "engaged in warfare" was not clear?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday June 05 2019, @11:20PM (5 children)
I didn't check the Australians, but I know the US didn't declare war with Afghanistan.
The "rules of war", allowing to kill the other guys on the battlefield, apply to uniformed soldiers (and, in the case of peacekeeping, anyone shooting at you).
Sending "death squads" after random people based on intelligence is a violation of various international treaties, usually of sovereignty (not quite a problem here), of the propaganda effort that we're the good guys, and of the rights of the accused and the country to go through a fair trial before the death penalty is applicated.
Not saying that many of those guys didn't deserve a bullet, but when we don't do things properly, we just generate more of the hate we claim to be fighting. With occasionally dire consequences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 06 2019, @05:25AM (4 children)
When an invading force with superior fire power comes in and starts shooting up unarmed men, women and children, they are not even remotely the 'good guys'. There never was, and definitely no longer still is a valid reason to have a military backed turkey shoot in Afghanistan.
It's a joke that you even think some of those guys might have 'deserved a bullet'. For what? There's a fucking invasion force roaming their countryside, coming into their houses, killing their friends. Then we hear about this shit with commandos repeatedly murdering civilians with dubious excuse.
You could have lost the first half of that last sentence and been modded up, but by playing the 'I hate towel heads as much as the next bigot' card, you poisoned your post.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday June 06 2019, @05:26PM (2 children)
I'm not defending the Australian forces' actions, but you paint it as black or white. It isn't - it is always shades of grey.
The problem was the Afghan 'spotters', those who provide intelligence to those doing the killing. They didn't try to hide that fact that they were doing this. They used mopeds for mobility and telephones to pass their information on so that others could set up ambushes. The Aus SIGINT could even intercept the messages from time to time. When the SF started to take more active measures to combat this, the spotters began carrying children on the back of their mopeds knowing (or hoping) that this would prevent the Australians from shooting at them. They began taking cover behind the skirts of women - not necessarily their own families - but anyone nearby who would have been unable to refuse them even if they wanted to.
Are such spotters taking part in the war? Are they combatants? Does hiding behind women and children mean that they cannot be engaged? Of course, there are rules of war. But when you have seen your friends killed as a result of the activities of the spotters then it is hardly surprising that boundaries of right and wrong become blurred, and just because one wears a uniform doesn't make someone a superman. They remain human beings with all the weaknesses that the term includes. It needs to be discussed in court but the outcome should not be viewed as being cut and dried.
But suppressing it, which is the desired outcome of the action against ABC, is not the answer. However distasteful it will be, it should, no it must be discussed so that robust rules of engagement can be written that protect both the innocent civilian population and the servicemen that we send to do the distasteful work that must be done. At least the serviceman will know that he is being sent to do a job where he is forbidden to defend himself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 07 2019, @08:24AM (1 child)
The old My Lai excuse! Pro tip, for professional soldiers, don't be friends with war criminals and illegal occupiers. You won't feel so bad when they are killed.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 08 2019, @04:25AM
Yet you didn't answer the key questions:
As I said, I am not defending the actions of those that stand accused, but I am prepared to bet that you have never been in such a situation.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 06 2019, @08:54PM
It's more clear in Iraq than in Afghanistan, with the regular Shia vs Sunni bombing of mosques on Fridays, but the Afghan warlords did get that name long before the invasion, and not for bringing roses every Tuesday at the market.
Some of the people involved, warlords or their militias, independents, or contractors, according to both Sharia or Western sensitivities, committed enough atrocities against other afghans to have earnt a trial ending in a stoning, hanging, or bullet.
There were a lot more civilians than soldiers killed or maimed, not just by being trapped in a battle, and probably mostly by the locals.
Humans suck.
(Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Wednesday June 05 2019, @04:31PM
The worst part here is complacency of Afghan government. If they really were servants of own people they would have treated those soldiers' actions as declaration of war, not merely asked aussies to leave. Foreign soldiers randomly shooting your citizens is something what happens only when they're invading, or at least raiding your country for loot and/or intimidation. In this situation formally declaring war would be nothing more than codifying de jure the situation that exists de facto.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @05:06PM (6 children)
Oh? Do tell. What are they? As I recall, requests for assistance to Afghanistan were slow-walked, stonewalled, or just plain ignored.
As a more blatant example, imagine there was somebody standing 1-meter across the border between the US and Canada who had a sniper rifle and shooting at anybody they could see in the US. The US government requests the Canadian government do something about it, but for whatever reason Canada doesn't do anything. What should the US do? Just throw their hands up in the air and say "oh, well, nothing can be done."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @06:13PM (5 children)
From Wikipedia: "U.S. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda... The Taliban declined to extradite him unless given what they deemed convincing evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks... The request was dismissed by the U.S. as a meaningless delaying tactic, and it launched Operation Enduring Freedom on October 7, 2001..."
Let's consider the timing for just a moment. The US invaded Afghanistan less than a month after the 9/11 attacks. In the world of politics and courts and diplomacy, a month is literally no time at all.
Maybe Afghanistan really would have stalled and dithered and wasted time. Maybe not. Given the horrific nature of the attacks, the diplomatic pressure that could have been brought to bear would have been immense. Rarely has a country had more support, more sheer moral authority that the US had in that moment.
We'll never know how it might have worked out, though. The US didn't spend one moment pursuing matters through any of the international venues available to it. It was more important to break things. The result was to waste that moral authority, to kill orders of magnitude more civilians that 9/11 killed, and to raise entire new generations of terrorists who hate the West.
In a rage-fueled quest for revenge, the US wasted the best opportunity in history to neuter Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism through the sheer weight of global public opinion. And that is the real battle: People must stop feeding, funding and supporting terrorism. Cut off popular support, and Islamic extremists will wither and die. Instead, the US made them into local heroes, and in Syria even went so far as to provide them with weapons and money.
This was not only criminal. It was stupid.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by isostatic on Wednesday June 05 2019, @08:56PM (1 child)
”This was not only criminal. It was stupid“
Depends on your goal. Stupid if you want to stop Islamic terrorism. Not stupid if you want to pump trillions into the military/industrial complex.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday June 05 2019, @09:40PM
With all the talk about UFO's lately, and Trumps "space force"... perhaps they've invented a new way to defraud taxpayers without creating all these dangerous enemies, and souring world opinion against the USA.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 05 2019, @08:59PM
And we all watch in horror as the Trump admin tries to do it all over again in Iran.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 06 2019, @04:04AM (1 child)
Actually, according to Annie Jacobsen [c-span.org] CIA paramilitary forces were in Afghanistan by September 17, 2001.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 06 2019, @05:32AM
I amazed it took 6 days. They were probably too busy masturbating at the thought of getting to kill people. Then remembered that like sex is better than porn, killing people is better when you get to do it yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @05:07PM
The US did it wrong, should've turned it into fused glass.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @07:42PM
Actually the United States' debut military intervention [monticello.org] was pretty much the same thing.
I do share your desire to see W and Obama to face trial in the Hague.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Thursday June 06 2019, @12:10AM
Invasion is one of those international procedures particularly when the crime is as serious as the one committed by Bin Laden and his organization and the host country deliberately shelters the organization in question.
If we merely treated this as a law enforcement matter, then in what century would Bin Laden and Al Qaeda be brought to justice? That's an example of an improper international procedure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @05:44PM (3 children)
excuse me, could anyone remind me why 'murika and kangaroos went to Afghanistan to be gentlemen soldiers again?
i might have been busy with something else and missed the news, but the mentioned country has no WMDs and no oil, so why?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @07:43PM
Osama bin Laden and 9/11. The entire world, practically, cheered us on too. It was only later in Iraq that the cheers died.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @07:47PM
We needed hairy dogs and blankets for the backs of our sofas.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Wednesday June 05 2019, @07:54PM
The obvious reason was the Al Qaeda training camps that the Taliban government were allowing to exist. These were used to plan and train for the 9/11 attacks. This reason is also very palatable to the general public; they can support a war that prevents anti-western violence from reaching their cities.
Additionally, Afghanistan is reasonably close to China's western borders. This can be used in the long term to pressure China with military presence (as one does). This long-term strategy requires massive bases, of course, but the war on terror has already gone on long enough to have already built such bases. Also, because the Taliban has been a persistent threat to occupying forces, these bases remain in continuous use in support of the first reason for being there. The long-term China strategy doesn't require a pivot, but is available when needed.
Alternatively, the China strategy could also be used as a Russia strategy. The nearby parts of Russia, though, don't make as strong a case for bases in Afghanistan.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @06:03PM (4 children)
Maybe the God-emperor and Jealous-of-Bette-Midler American President can pardon the Auzzie war-criminals, like he is doing for the baby-killing American ones.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 05 2019, @06:54PM (3 children)
1968 called. They want their meme back.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @08:01PM (2 children)
1968 called. They want their meme back.
Sorry, the 1968 meme has become very apropos again in George W's and Trump's America, enhanced by Obama's spineless acceptance of the status quo and unwillingness to change many of the toxic policies and power grabs of his predicessor.
1968 can have it back when we're done with it, which by all accounts (Trump's pardons, policies, etc.) looks like it won't be any time soon. Thanks for asking, though.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 05 2019, @10:21PM
No hippies ever called returning vets "baby-killers", it is just that the vets knew that that was what they were. Many of the cases of PTSD that we are seeing, like that of one Democrat presidential candidate, are not from what happened to the troops, but from what they did to children, or were unable to do to save children. Morally compromised. Fortunately, the DOD is working on a drug to make them unremember [tandfonline.com].
Navy guys shelling the shore never see the results of their war crimes. They are kind of like the Air Force that way.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 06 2019, @12:16AM
I think you missed the part where Obama's administration engaged in all sorts of interesting legal adventurism in pursuit of those toxic policies and power grabs. The snakes that feed by crushing prey have very flexible spines.
(Score: 2) by wirelessduck on Thursday June 06 2019, @12:52AM
ABC raid: Outcry as Australian police search public broadcaster
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48522729 [bbc.com]
Australian journalist's home raided over spying report
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48511217 [bbc.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Rupert Pupnick on Thursday June 06 2019, @01:23PM
History shows that when you fight a war of occupation, civilians in the occupied sectors have a way of getting killed. National Security organizations have not yet learned to rewrite history, so they have to go after the press instead.