as was posted here ... Freedom of information needs to be taken seriously - On Line Opinion - 22/6/2010
We live in a time when human beings are bombarded with more information than at any time in the history of our civilisation. Unfortunately, the quality of this information varies considerably and citizens in the Western democracies have seemingly accepted the passive role of the mighty mushroom. Yet in nations like Australia, with access to modern technology, libraries and the Internet, it often seems to be quite a chore to examine and test various claims made in the media.
We sit before our television screens, our computer screens and newspapers with cynical inertia. But in fact it takes very little time to check and examine the validity of most pieces of information once you know where to look. Therefore, you would expect that information contained in the National Archives of Australia to be open and accountable to citizens interested in learning more about the past actions of our government.
As a researcher, the archives are central to my work, but increasingly I have come to the conclusion that archives should be allowed to play a far greater role in a truly democratic society. In the United States, freedom of information is taken very seriously indeed. Anyone who doubts this should examine the types of documents that freedom of information requests have uncovered.
Advertisement
One particularly poignant example of this is demonstrated by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, Washington DC. The range and depth of US government documents are simply staggering and also deeply embarrassing to many former US government officials whose decision-making processes are shown for what they are. Freedom of information in the United States has forced organisations such as the CIA to open up its archives and release material. In Australia such openness (however reluctant in the case of the CIA) does not exist. In theory archival documents can be searched and requested, but in practice the types of materials exempted from public access are troubling.
During a recent document search, at the National Archives in Canberra, the reality of the situation was yet again demonstrated to me. Information in any document at the NAA can in practice be removed in accordance with the Archives Act 1983 by the access examiner. There are of course some very compelling reasons that documents may need to be protected from unfettered public access, however, I argue that these categories of restriction are most often used officiously to protect the reputation of politicians, the Australian intelligence community and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade from embarrassment and legitimate questions about their past actions.
First, organisations such as these are under no obligation to release all of their documents to the National Archives. Which documents are simply kept by these agencies and never acknowledged is therefore completely unknown to the NAA and the general public. In essence, they choose which archival documents they will provide and acknowledge.
All documents designated for release to the NAA are subject to the examination process which will determine their level of public accessibility. But consider this, many of the individuals who examine these documents and determine their status are most often retired high-level diplomats, spies and military personnel still holding the highest security clearances.
Furthermore, the documents they examine may have been authored by individuals they could personally have known, worked with or were connected to by former colleagues. The documents they examine might also deal with subjects familiar to them from their former professional occupations. In Canberra, the diplomatic and intelligence community is small and six degrees of separation would be an improvement.
This certainly appears to be a case of the fox guarding the hens: particularly when access to important documents is denied to those with legitimate and compelling reasons to see them. Recently I was denied access to the file East Timor - Balibo Killings RV10/00000283 for Series M3128, control symbol 1770, as it was “closed period and consequently access to this item is not possible under the Archives Act 1983”. The question to consider is whether this should be acceptable?
Advertisement
As a researcher interested in knowing the facts I do not wish to speculate nor do I wish to mislead. Perhaps I have put forward certain conclusions in my research, why then can't I know whether or not these conclusions are accurate? As a citizen am I not entitled to compare the public claims of politicians and diplomats with the documentary record? Particularly when such individuals are prone to making grandiose public statements justifying their past actions.
I do not advocate unfettered public access, but under certain conditions there are no compelling reasons that such documents should be kept under lock and key. For example, those wishing to see such documents could agree not to cite the document in any published materials; they could agree to not disclose any information damaging to Australia's national security; they could even agree not to acknowledge that they had seen the document. However, should information in such a document contradict and discredit statements and actions of politicians, diplomats, ASIO and ASIS then legal mechanisms must be implemented to hold them to account for instances of perjury and, yes, deception. Such a mechanism may have an extremely positive effect on the poor quality of public debate and information provided to Australian citizens.
public news and things I spy ..
Tuesday 22 June 2010
Antiwar activists in Melbourne Australia “up the ante” at secret military base / Waging Nonviolence
as was posted here ... Antiwar activists in Melbourne Australia “up the ante” at secret military base / Waging Nonviolence
Inspired by Fr. Daniel Berrigan’s call to be prepared to bear significant costs for peacemaking, my small group of antiwar activists in Melbourne, Australia decided to “up the ante” and try some actions that might be potentially more costly than anything we had done before resisting the war in Afghanistan. This was back in October 2009.
We spent months researching Afghanistan—the geography and politics, as well as the war. We also spent some time placing these events in the context of our Christian faith, asking some hard questions about our activism: were we too focused on symbolism and not enough on effectiveness? Were we too focused on effectiveness and not enough on means?
This culminated in our action at Swan Island, a highly secretive military base in southern Victoria, Australia, near the entrance to Port Phillip Bay. The island also houses a yacht club and public golf course, all accessible via a bridge which is guarded during the day and locked at night. The base itself provides training for Australia’s elite SAS troops, who are playing most of our combat role in Afghanistan, as well as ASIS, or Australian Secret Intelligence Service (our equivalent of the CIA in the US). We figured if we could disrupt the activities of this base, we could probably disrupt some of the preparation for and implementation of the war.
So in the early hours of March 31 (the week before Easter) Jacob Bolton, Jessica Morrison, Simon Reeves and myself went to Queenscliff and swam the short distance to Swan Island.
Having worked out that most people arrive for work there around 6am (and not wanting to block the golf or yacht club traffic), we thought blocking the gate to the military base on the island was our best chance. Simon Reeves and Jacob Bolton stood in front of the gate with a banner which read, “Closed: War Out Of Order” while Jess and I made our way inside.
Jake and Simon managed to block the gate for more than an hour while staff and police decided to arrest them; meanwhile Jess and I had waited for daylight before making our way inside the inner perimeter fence (all gates had been left open except for the one Jake and Simon were blocking).
There we found and turned off the main switchboard to one sector and then came across a seven meter satellite dish. Finding the “emergency stop” button, we pressed it and made our way to the administration center before being found by security. There we were arrested and (in a move we assume was designed to keep the story quiet) charged only with trespass.
We came to court on June 15 expecting a backlash. For me, court is always an opportunity to invite a system which serves to legitimize war and the machinery behind it to join us in withdrawing their support for war. Failing that, it’s an opportunity to invite specific people in the court (the magistrate, court clerks, those in the gallery) to act in ways which erode support for the war (eg. small sentences, words of support). Since we were pleading guilty (the necessity defence has never worked in Australia, and we didn’t have the energy to pursue it well) we imagined we’d get larger or smaller fines depending on what mood the magistrate was in.
After we explained our actions as in the context of engaged citizenship, Christian faith and humanitarian intent, and to our great surprise, the magistrate reached for a little known and very rarely used clause in the Sentencing Act which allowed him to dismiss the charges completely. This was a stunning result, and constituted clear support for our actions under the circumstances.
But there was still one step left to take: as part of continued defiance and seeking to use the court case to broaden the local war resistance movement we returned to Swan Island immediately after the case was dismissed. Here we had organized a public demonstration at the front gate, this time having liased with police (who turned out in force—almost one member for every protester, including water police). Around 40 of the 50 people who had come to support us in court came back to Swan Island with us. After an hour of singing, chalking messages on the road and hearing from war veterans and aid workers, nine people were arrested blockading the gate. For eight of the nine it was their first arrest. A hugely successful day in terms of broadening the local movement.
At the same time, the story was not mentioned in any major daily newspaper or outlet—neither the stunning dismissal of our charges, nor the nine arrests. This despite (or perhaps because of?) the fact that an Australian soldier had been wounded in action at almost the same time as we were in court.
This seems to add further weight to our assessment that while antiwar sentiment is high (a recent poll found that 54 percent of Australians oppose the war in Afghanistan), the opposition is largely passive, indeed inert.
While our dismissal could be seen as a clever ploy to keep the story quiet, I suspect the magistrate was genuinely moved (a small conviction and fine would have been less spectacular, and dismissal constitutes tacit support for illegal action). Still, the result is the same: no backlash.
Which means that I suspect we are back to square one: how do we use nonviolent tactics to invite the repression which garners the sympathy of the majority in order to move them to act? And how do we sustain and broaden a movement willing to suffer in such ways? Almost nine years into the war it feels like we are just beginning.
Inspired by Fr. Daniel Berrigan’s call to be prepared to bear significant costs for peacemaking, my small group of antiwar activists in Melbourne, Australia decided to “up the ante” and try some actions that might be potentially more costly than anything we had done before resisting the war in Afghanistan. This was back in October 2009.
We spent months researching Afghanistan—the geography and politics, as well as the war. We also spent some time placing these events in the context of our Christian faith, asking some hard questions about our activism: were we too focused on symbolism and not enough on effectiveness? Were we too focused on effectiveness and not enough on means?
This culminated in our action at Swan Island, a highly secretive military base in southern Victoria, Australia, near the entrance to Port Phillip Bay. The island also houses a yacht club and public golf course, all accessible via a bridge which is guarded during the day and locked at night. The base itself provides training for Australia’s elite SAS troops, who are playing most of our combat role in Afghanistan, as well as ASIS, or Australian Secret Intelligence Service (our equivalent of the CIA in the US). We figured if we could disrupt the activities of this base, we could probably disrupt some of the preparation for and implementation of the war.
So in the early hours of March 31 (the week before Easter) Jacob Bolton, Jessica Morrison, Simon Reeves and myself went to Queenscliff and swam the short distance to Swan Island.
Having worked out that most people arrive for work there around 6am (and not wanting to block the golf or yacht club traffic), we thought blocking the gate to the military base on the island was our best chance. Simon Reeves and Jacob Bolton stood in front of the gate with a banner which read, “Closed: War Out Of Order” while Jess and I made our way inside.
Jake and Simon managed to block the gate for more than an hour while staff and police decided to arrest them; meanwhile Jess and I had waited for daylight before making our way inside the inner perimeter fence (all gates had been left open except for the one Jake and Simon were blocking).
There we found and turned off the main switchboard to one sector and then came across a seven meter satellite dish. Finding the “emergency stop” button, we pressed it and made our way to the administration center before being found by security. There we were arrested and (in a move we assume was designed to keep the story quiet) charged only with trespass.
We came to court on June 15 expecting a backlash. For me, court is always an opportunity to invite a system which serves to legitimize war and the machinery behind it to join us in withdrawing their support for war. Failing that, it’s an opportunity to invite specific people in the court (the magistrate, court clerks, those in the gallery) to act in ways which erode support for the war (eg. small sentences, words of support). Since we were pleading guilty (the necessity defence has never worked in Australia, and we didn’t have the energy to pursue it well) we imagined we’d get larger or smaller fines depending on what mood the magistrate was in.
After we explained our actions as in the context of engaged citizenship, Christian faith and humanitarian intent, and to our great surprise, the magistrate reached for a little known and very rarely used clause in the Sentencing Act which allowed him to dismiss the charges completely. This was a stunning result, and constituted clear support for our actions under the circumstances.
But there was still one step left to take: as part of continued defiance and seeking to use the court case to broaden the local war resistance movement we returned to Swan Island immediately after the case was dismissed. Here we had organized a public demonstration at the front gate, this time having liased with police (who turned out in force—almost one member for every protester, including water police). Around 40 of the 50 people who had come to support us in court came back to Swan Island with us. After an hour of singing, chalking messages on the road and hearing from war veterans and aid workers, nine people were arrested blockading the gate. For eight of the nine it was their first arrest. A hugely successful day in terms of broadening the local movement.
At the same time, the story was not mentioned in any major daily newspaper or outlet—neither the stunning dismissal of our charges, nor the nine arrests. This despite (or perhaps because of?) the fact that an Australian soldier had been wounded in action at almost the same time as we were in court.
This seems to add further weight to our assessment that while antiwar sentiment is high (a recent poll found that 54 percent of Australians oppose the war in Afghanistan), the opposition is largely passive, indeed inert.
While our dismissal could be seen as a clever ploy to keep the story quiet, I suspect the magistrate was genuinely moved (a small conviction and fine would have been less spectacular, and dismissal constitutes tacit support for illegal action). Still, the result is the same: no backlash.
Which means that I suspect we are back to square one: how do we use nonviolent tactics to invite the repression which garners the sympathy of the majority in order to move them to act? And how do we sustain and broaden a movement willing to suffer in such ways? Almost nine years into the war it feels like we are just beginning.
AFP 'shouldn't be exempt' from scrutiny - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
as was posted here ... AFP 'shouldn't be exempt' from scrutiny - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Federal Parliament's intelligence and security committee says it should not be denied the right to scrutinise the counter-terrorism activities of the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
Committee chairman Arch Bevis says it carries out an important role in ensuring intelligence agencies ASIO and ASIS still respect civil liberties while carrying out their secret duties.
He says the law needs to be changed to ensure the committee can examine the AFP in the same way.
"The committee has a key role in ensuring a balance between the security requirements that we all understand and appreciate, [and] laws that might otherwise be seen to transgress civil liberties and basic human rights that we in a democracy hold dear," he said.
The committee's deputy chairman, former attorney-general Philip Ruddock, says the AFP should not be exempt from appearing before the committee.
"It seems to me the AFP is exempt from that role being pursued while other agencies will be subjected to it," he said.
"There is no logic - it is totally inappropriate and I would urge the Government to look very carefully at this report and to reconsider its approach.
"If it doesn't I believe it is being derelict in its responsibilities."
Federal Parliament's intelligence and security committee says it should not be denied the right to scrutinise the counter-terrorism activities of the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
Committee chairman Arch Bevis says it carries out an important role in ensuring intelligence agencies ASIO and ASIS still respect civil liberties while carrying out their secret duties.
He says the law needs to be changed to ensure the committee can examine the AFP in the same way.
"The committee has a key role in ensuring a balance between the security requirements that we all understand and appreciate, [and] laws that might otherwise be seen to transgress civil liberties and basic human rights that we in a democracy hold dear," he said.
The committee's deputy chairman, former attorney-general Philip Ruddock, says the AFP should not be exempt from appearing before the committee.
"It seems to me the AFP is exempt from that role being pursued while other agencies will be subjected to it," he said.
"There is no logic - it is totally inappropriate and I would urge the Government to look very carefully at this report and to reconsider its approach.
"If it doesn't I believe it is being derelict in its responsibilities."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)