Press freedom under threat!!!!

How come no one was bringing that one on? I can understand why Garry wouldn't do that, but all the others?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/about/b...-abc-office-john-lyons-live-tweeting/11192898

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...-house-abc-headquarters-laura-tingle/11191446

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/06/media/police-raid-abc-australia/index.html

It is the beginning of the end, once the Federal Police (which acts on behalf of our government) is raiding our biggest (and most trusted source of information/news), we are on our way out.
That is exactely what is happening in many parts of our world, right wing fundamentalists instrumenting/limiting/scaring the media/journalists.
We all know the arguments, don't we? It all starts with "fake news", then with commus, Greens and so on.

I say beware, and stand up !!!!!! Aren't you concerned, or is it only me?
Reg.

 

Oh poor you, I didn't raise it because I don't know enough about it. You see, according to the media outlets themselves TWO of the three accusations are accurate and agreed with.

The federal police do not act on behalf of the government, Talk about misleading. They act on behalf of the courts. I suppose in your conspiracy theorist ways Australia is a police state but the reality is different.

So instead of just proffering your insults to those who don’t agree with you perhaps you could outline your argument here. Simply posting your hate does not attract credibility…

 

I am concerned but this has yet to hit the legal system so I am waiting for the lawyers to start arguing it out

 

To clarify, the AFP does not initiate individual investigations of criminal misconduct involving breaches of Federal Law without first receiving a complaint or referral from another government department or agency. With the exception of certain specific crime types for which it has received a specific mandate from the Government such as terrorism, people smuggling, child protection and drugs it is not pro-active i.e. it does not actively seek out breaches of federal law. So for example it doesn't investigate alleged tax fraud until the ATO refers a matter to it for consideration, same with allegations of official corruption, foreign bribery or any other offense in the Criminal Code. Someone has to report it first.

So it this case the real question should be which agency (and by default which government minister) lodged the complaint with the AFP about the media articles. Someone has to have lodged the complaint and provided supporting information before the AFP became involved, the question is who? And I don't see anyone in the current government standing up and saying 'it was me' - much safer to let the AFP take the heat.

 

It all depends on the justification. If there was a murder at the ABC and the AFP seized a bunch of documents of the murdering journo, there's nothing wrong with that, clearly.

I have my own criticisms of the ABC. I would get rid of vacuous opinion shows like The Drum, and redirect it mainly toward the provision of radio in remote areas.

All this said, if the justification is to find their sources, or they have been given classified info, I am strongly opposed to that.

The filing cabinet of secrets was a good demonstration of what I don't want from the AFP.

Sadly, we are a nation without any substantive freedom of speech or press. Even more sadly, any attempt to give us a bill of rights will result in highly watered down rights for the actual rights (free speech, free press, free association, freedom from unreasonable search, etc), and greatly expanded fake rights (right to asylum, right to a fridge 3 TVs and 2 cars, right to not be offended, etc).

I truly have no hope for the future of our country. Heck, I'd have no hope for the yanks either if they had to redo their rights today.

Things simply get worse over time. It is the natural order of things. Enjoy what you have today.

 

Excellent reply,
some forget that the AFP is an extended arm of those in power, one way or another.
Reg.

 

I just saw this thread and thought you might be interested in this article I read recently from Consortium News

They are suggesting that since Assange was charged with espionage there has been an increase in the involvement of the police with the press where they were not before. This is not restricted to Australia. One of the interesting things with respect to Australia is that your government apparently has the right to add or delete the content of emails.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/...urnalists-for-publishing-classified-material/

There is also a related further article

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/05/more-police-raids-as-war-on-journalism-escalates-worldwide/

 

I notice Buttrose is meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the AFP raids.
wtf has it got to do with the PM....would she be trying to have the PM order the investigation
to be aborted...does she have that much power.....
The AFP are conducting criminal investigations...
Nothing to do with the PM....
Nothing to do with Buttrose…
Buttrose should be discussing it with those persons to whom the investigations are being directed...
Buttrose should in reality be told to go fuk herself.....

 

The above is not strictly correct - at least in the sense you are suggesting (which not surprisingly is also the sense certain 'outraged' journalists jumped on in various media articles.

The sections in federal search warrants relating to the changing/deletion/alteration of emails have been included for technical reasons relating to what happens when electronic documents are copied and the fact that some material included in emails and attachments cannot be left in the possession of the original owners.

At law (and in computer science) the mere act of copying a file or email 'changes' the original file. So if the warrant doesn't permit officers to 'change an file' they are cannot copy it from the computer/server/cloud where it is stored. The only 'change' allowed is the act of copying it. Likewise with deleting emails or files - you cannot leave national security documents/child pornography/terrorism related material etc in the possession of person not entitled to hold that material. So in those circumstance if Police can locate such a file they can copy it onto a secure drive and/or delete the 'original' if that original cannot be seized. (If the 'original' file cannot be seized, say because it is stored on the cloud it will be locked down until it can be deleted.

What Police cannot do is take any action that alters the contents of a file or email where the above does not apply. So they can copy an email inviting you to a meeting on X date with Y person (assuming that email falls within the ambit of the warrant) but not access that email and arbitrarily change say, the date or location of the proposed meeting. Nor can they change in any way shape or form the meta-data linked to that file which is also critical and which also cannot be altered. The document & meta-data has to stand on its own merit in court.

So i the whole argument about this point was really nothing more than a rush of blood to the head by the journalists involved.

 

I don't see a problem, as long as they follow procedures let them do their job. The media has to function within the law like everyone else.

 

I am not sure if your being deceptive or just setting the scene for ignorance to highlight itself…


“To clarify” The Australian Federal Police (aka AFP) are not a government department. They are officers of the court, that is to say they don’t answer to the government but they must justify themselves court. They do not simply investigate government matters; they investigate ALL reported crime within their jurisdiction of federal investigation. Once a report is made of criminal activity made by ANYBODY, they have to justify to the court, NOT the party reporting the crime. They have to justify how they investigate or not investigate the criminal matter reported to the Court. It is not the responsibility of the reporting party to provide supporting evidence of the crime… It does help but is not necessity.


Possibly the most important aspect of this case is called the separation of powers a very important part of a democratic system that means the government can request many things of legal system but cannot in any way control the system…


How an investigation is carried out is completely up to the AFP and the courts. In this case it is my understanding the articles provided are not, in themselves, the cause of the investigation but certain information within the articles which could only be derived from ‘top secret ’ papers. So the AFP which is not satisfied the media organisations are providing complete cooperation have approached the Federal court to ascertain warrants to search and seize certain types of papers. In no way can the government provide these warrants and they can only be attained with due cause and justification as approved by the courts.


So when ignorant people justify their gullible hatred with

We know, the question is not who reported such a crime or even who decided how to investigate the suspected criminal activity. BUT has a crime actually been committed. The AFP considers there is a likely chance of a crime. The Federal Courts consider there is enough evidence to provide warrants to investigate a crime. But we have the conspiracy theorists, ignorant of reality, trying to justify their stupidity by posting their hate.


I just love the fact people try to crucify the government, legal system and the police and yet, they are totally oblivious to the fact a crime of the highest degree has been reported… Go figure…

 

Sorry to disappoint - the AFP is in fact 'just another government department' - currently the Commonwealth Home Home Office. And as such it can be disbanded/amalgamated/closed like any other Federal Agency at the will of Parliament. Likewise members of the AFP are not 'officers of the Court' - this term applies strictly to legal practitioners who have passed the bar exam in the relevant jurisdiction. They are in fact civil servants who have been granted specific legal powers by virtue of the Commonwealth AFP Act of 1979.

You are also (grossly) mistaken when you state 'they investigate all reported crime within their jurisdiction'. They do not. In fact, due to budgetary restraints they assess, prioritize and in the end investigate only a tiny % of all Federal crimes that are or could potentially be reported to it.

Depending on capacity restraints they decline to investigate numerous offenses, including drug importations and related breaches of the Customs Border, also frauds committed against he Commonwealth, cyber crimes and other matters that are potentially breaches of Commonwealth law. The Agency simply doesn't have the financial and material capacity to investigate ALL the matters referred to them.

Lastly, when you say 'It is not the responsibility of the reporting party to provide supporting evidence of the crime…' you are also mistaken. Matters referred to the AFP will not be investigated unless the reorting Agency or person provides sufficient supporting information (evidence) with their referral or at least agrees to provide sufficient information in short order so as to convince the AFP that a criminal offense has likely been committed.

 

Yeah, you’re being deceptive. You do know what the separation of powers are??? You do know what an officer of court is???

As for" officers of the Court' - this term applies strictly to legal practitioners who have passed the bar exam in the relevant jurisdiction" Solicitors are not officers of the court...

And before you go claiming the Australian Federal Police act of 1979 supports your deliberate misleading, you might want to read it…

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00710
If you go further you find that appointments are by Royal assessment, as per the act… but anyway.

No I am not mistaken, as stated they have to justify to the federal court what action they decide to take. As stated by

Now I know about the pedantic aspect of your argument here, BUT decision of whether to investigate or not, to pass to other agencies or not or just to drop the case altogether is in fact based entirely on the AFP investigating veracity of the crime reported and who reported it. NO matter what, there has to be a justification made to the decision made. This justification is NOT to the government but the court. As in the AFP case, it is to federal court, in stated matters it is to state court…

Also, territorial matters are that sole of the AFP, that include simple speeding fines to murder… BUT you did read the AFP act of 1979 before trying to say what they do, didn’t you???

No, I am not mistaken about that either. Should you not provide enough information to substantiate a crime then there is good chance It will not be investigated. There is NO demand the reporter of any crime has to provide evidence of the crime.

However, once again the AFP must justify to the Federal court of Australia as to why they did not investigate the report, which of course would be that they considered no evidence of criminal act being committed. This however, puts them in precarious situation should a crime be established after the report…

And lastly, just who do you think grants Search warrants and how do you think they justify them. NOT the government...

At the end of the day, NO the Australian Federal Police are not government public servant. They do not answer to the Government. They answer to the Federal court because as Police officers they are officers of the court. Your claim they are “currently the Commonwealth Home Office”, I think you will find is ASIO, which IS a government department…

 

Look, will you please get over your fixation with the Federal Court. Applications for search warrants are handled by Local Courts in each State or Territory, applications for telephone/data interception warrants are handled by the officers of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Prosecutions are likewise dealt with initially by local criminal courts (for minor matters and committal hearings) then at trial by District Courts or their equivalent in each State or Territory. Likewise appeals relating to Federal Criminal matters go to the relevant Appeals Court in that jurisdiction.

Federal Court involvement in Commonwealth Criminal Matters is limited to a few extremely narrow areas of concern that seldom if ever involve the AFP and in a few rare cases appeals relating to technical points of law.. The vast majority of AFP Officers will never come with koo-ee of the Federal Court their entire careers (unless they are happen to drive past in a car).

As for not having to provide information/evidence in support of a complaint - again that is just wrong. ALL Commonwealth Agencies when reporting matters to the AFP have to provide information/documentation relating to what the alleged offense is, where and when it occurred, time lines of significant events and a breakdown of what the agency to date has done in response to detection of the alleged offense. Plus of course contact points for further information which will be requested by the AFP as it makes an assessment of the matter - including document relating to financial transactions or other technical details. They are then expected to follow up with other documentation as and when requested by the AFP. And all that material becomes evidentiary if a matter is proceeded with because at law it is subject to disclosure to the defense.

 

Yeah, I put my hand up here, they are not officers of the court, they are court officers. The point is that the AFP act independently from government and do not have to account to the government for their actions. Thus, they are not simply a government department, or an arm of government. They have to account to court which under separation of powers are independent to government in action and thought.
The fact is if you read the AFP act you pointed at, you would understand that they do appear in federal court, I believe you are talking about high court. Any court action in ACT and NT is in federal court as they are not states and fall under federal jurisdiction… BUT that is being pedantic.

NO government department can issue warrants, no matter how you think they are issued. No government can actually make laws. All methods you mention are independent of government control or influence. So to speak, thus they do not operate as any arm of government and must justify their actions not to government but to the federal court. Whether or not they appear is irrelevant, their reports and statements are open to the court and are often reported to the federal court.

No, what you are talking about is policy not requirement. A report can be made with the minimal information such as “I overheard a conversation that joe blogs was intending to blow up john smith” IT matters nothing to what is provided but a report has been made. Further request for information is just that a request. IT is not a requirement, but generally leads to the report being further investigated or ignored…

As for the fact all becomes evidentiary matters, I think you’re putting the cart before the horse, the matter has to be investigated, determined and brought to the point somebody has been charged. ALL the point is that the Australian Federal Police do independently of what government demands outside government influence and within the court processes of investigative power.

In other words, the premise of the thread is in doubt over the fact the AFP search warrants. Your claim that the issue is who reported the suspected criminal action is irrelevant. The MOST important thing is, HAS A CRIME BEEN COMMITTED??? So instead of supporting the knee jerk complaints of the grossly ignorant, one would expect people would support the people who is in place to uphold the laws we live under.

I know, we have many activists and protagonists who think they should be above the law when it suites their agenda and complain when it does not. But the question of freedom of the press comes back to just how much do you accept??? Should people’s lives be protected??? Should law enforcement’s methods be protected to insure best result??? Just how many people should we allow to die to quench the insatiable thirst of haters to be told everything that supports their own personal agenda???

No, at the moment this thread is simply somebody posting their hatred to attempt to mislead. Nobody has established anything of the actions other than the reporters and media targets of these actions are not believed to be cooperating with the investigation of the AFP.

 

I was actually defending the AFP when I pointed out that someone had to report the matter first. All the heat the AFP was receiving at the time was in the vein of 'how dare they'. In reality they simply investigated an allegation (as they are obliged to do at law) upon receiving enough information from a complainant to convince them a potential breach of Federal law had occurred. Nothing more, nothing less.

The point being that if journalists and other members of the public don't like the fact the Police became involved then lobby to change the law they (the Police) are tasked with protecting - or at least question the Agency who referred the matter in the first place as to why that Agency thought the matter was serious enough to require investigation. Everything the AFP did follows on from that referral.

 

And my point was that the government has no ability to force action of the AFP as the AFP does not answer to the government but to the court. The government cannot determine how suspected crime is investigated and that they need to justify their actions to third independent party to attain warrants for specific purpose before they can act on such.


And that finally, no matter how people want to portray the actions of the AFP, one would consider the suspected crime being investigated is of one of the highest regards of which could have (and I believe is the case) endangered the lives of others by attaining and reporting secret information.


Before one wants to change the law, one might want to consider if a law has been breached. After which they might want to consider the impact of that breach then finally if the law IS reasonable.


The premise of the thread is the government is using the AFP to censor media by method which is in fact scurrilous and false. I think the point of who reported the activity is secondary to the fact of the crime, which should be addressed first. Should no crime be found or the report is suspect, THEN we can look to party reporting.

 

The raid was related to the case of a former Australian military lawyer charged over the leak of documents to the Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC), which aired a series called The Afghan Files based on the leak. David William McBride is quite similar to Julian Assange, who is set to be extradited to the United States after a trial in February next year. The ABC's Afghan Files (2017) gave an unprecedented insight into the operations of Australia's elite special forces, detailing incidents of troops killing unarmed men and children and concerns about a "warrior culture" among soldiers. ABC journalists had the guts to create this program.

 

The ABC is the only network with the guts to report and investigate stuff like this and certain groups want to muzzle and emasculate the ABC.

 

The mainstream media is a fake news lynch mob, one level up from Social media. Why didn't David McBride follow proper procedures to express his concerns... leaking classified documents to the press, these soldiers will never receive any form of fair trial in the media, a smear is all you get. He's a lawyer he must know this.... clearly justice was not what he had in mind.

 

As you said, he’s a lawyer and must know this stuff. I don’t know if applying for FOI for classified documents would work.

Were the soldiers identified by name? ( I didn’t see this Four Corners)

 

I'm not suggesting he applies for FOI for classified documents. He could have discussed it with someone who has the appropriate clearance to take steps to ensure justice is served. Justice is never served in the media

How naive is this guy

 

I don’t know if anything would have happened . Wouldn’t he have been threatened with a version of the official secrets act?
I thought he’d exposed the information because there was no other way to air it?

 

I guess we will find out, As far as I'm concerned if it was ok to print whatever an individual deem fine to print, why bother classifying information.

 

Again, I know little about the actual incident. However, when these reports came out there was some indication of endangerment of lives in Afghanistan that should have not happened. I don't know if was true that these people’s lives were endangered or not but their lives were turned upside down when government quickly decided to act to move them to safety.

These people will not be safe again for possibly several decades while they hide their true identity and live a life created for them, not the life they want. I am guessing we will never know the truth as to the report being detrimental to these people, but it was caused by the reporting…


So the point really is, how gutsy is it to put people’s lives at risk just to post a story. I agree that the premise of the article needed exposing but just as in Assange’s case consideration needs to be given to the lives of others. This isn’t war, it is some activist giving a story hungry reporters secret information. There should never be collateral damage due to the activism and the desire to be awarded praise to put up a hard hitting story.


I guess the real question is, how many people are you willing to sacrifice before calling these people to account???