|
January 29, 2008
In a speech to the Sydney Institute Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty argued that terror cases should proceed free of public scrutiny until they have been dealt with by the courts. The implication of the talk entitled 'Terrorism: Policing’s New Paradigm' is that media scrutiny of law enforcement agencies is unwelcome. Keelty said:
But we are now witnessing these records of interviews being leaked to the media to add weight to public campaigns. Whatever you think of this practice, it defeats the purpose for which video and audio records of interview were introduced and it begs the question as to who decides what should or should not be leaked to the media, and where does that decision become accountable?
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. It is also only one part of the greater body of evidence, and when considered in isolation it may serve as a public relations tool in the short term, but it has the potential to severely harm a case in the longer term. Call me old fashioned, but I don't believe anyone accused of, or charged with, a crime can receive a fair trial if the matter is tested in the court of public opinion before being appropriately tested in a court of law. It will always be a challenge to get the equilibrium just right, but let's not forget that it is these freedoms that we want to enjoy and protect for the whole community.
This is the same Commissioner Keelty who leaked information to shape public opinion by smearing people as terrorists---eg., Mohammed Haneef--- prior to any trial through selected leaking of dubious information. This is also the same Commissioner who is strong on surveillance by the national security state that restricts the freedom of citizens, and desires increased surveillance powers. Now he wants less public scrutiny. This is from a Police Commissioner who allowed himself to become an instrument of the Howard Government's political agenda.
Keelty's conception of government is a trust me one. Under this "theory" of government, there is no need for oversight or limits on the power the executive possesses because it is good and so you can trust our leader and his underlings to exercise those powers only for your protection and security. Nobody needs to look over his shoulder or "check" what the leader is doing. We can place faith in our leader for being strong and defending us from the terrorists.
|
Gary,
Jack Waterford argues in the Canberra Times that the leaking that you refer to re the Haneef case:
He says that:
It's about time Keelty started taking some responsibility for the fact that that an innocent man was held too long, and that Haneff's release was the right thing.