We remain alone in the civilised world a the only democracy without a bill of irrevocable rights, albeit some states Victoria and Queensland have enacted their own versions!

We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedom of expression/speech, the freedom of the press to report the unvarnished truth if it passes a bona fide public interest test.

And where such public interest involves ethical whistle blows, their right to reveal in the public interest, must be protected within an irrevocable bill of rights.

It cannot be as in China, a privilege that can be withdrawn on any half-baked excuse at the minister's capricious whimsical discretion!

That said such a bill cannot be used to overturn or discredit contractual obligations entered into by fully informed and in mutual agreement, parties!
Alan B.

The author recognises he has covered a vast range of leak cases that vastly differ in severity and necessarily differ in laws deemed broken.

Talking about law breaking, most OLO articles on Assange/Wikileaks/Manning/Snowden have been by weak-left authors who know little of what they write. Further, they refuse to compare Western treatment of leak-defectors with much harsher, fatal, Chinese and Russian treatment.

So the author is refreshingly right in writing:

"It is a mistake to think all leaks to the media are worthy and in the public interest.

The industrial scale leaks of US military data facilitated by Wikileaks, and Snowden and Manning (which have verged on espionage but would be termed "whistle-blowing" by the Left in Australia) were very damaging to US intelligence.

They most likely cost lives and endangered operations.

Such recklessness underlines the case for opposing liberal "whistle-blowing" laws backed by unfettered journalistic privilege."

As the Witness K. case is before the courts one cannot draw a comparison.

Pete, you are at it again, making up stories to make yourself sound authoritative.

No lives were lost due to data releases by Wikileaks or Snowden or Manning.

Being a reservist you like most of them fall into the old category of the ‘need to be needed’. Don’t let your writing suffer the same fate.

Wie geht es Binoy, meinem Freund Gujarati Galen? Ich vertraue darauf, dass Sie beide bei guter Gesundheit sind?

Grüße

Pete

What'd that bloke in movie say "You can't handle the truth !".

Contractual obligations include putting your John Handcock on the official secrets act and swearing on a holy book to keep official state secrets to yourself/take them to your grave!

And if you sign a contract giving your informed consent to those conditions, you haven't a leg to stand on if you later violate that lawful, contractual, obligation

This is vastly different from cabinet confidentiality, where for patent pernicious political reasons some less than ethical politicians may want to keep certain facts, that the public should know, from them!

And where such facts are leaked, possibly by one or more of the more ethical, members of the political party and in the bona fide public interest or right to know!

Then the leakers/whistleblowers ought to have some protection in law. And that's why we need a conclusive bill of irrevocable rights, not privileges handed out or summarily withdrawn at the whim of a capricious minster!

If only to protect the righteous from the scum that want to rule/possess the world!

And very different from, reveal all strategies, that violate personal privacy ( Rusian's/Putin's Assange) or just done without validation for sensationalism or financial gain!? (Russian operative Assange) Putting real lives at real risk or forfeit!

Or because those involved are little better than, Benedict Arnold Quislings, ( Russian operative Snowden) working as traitors against the state and their fellow citizens? Such folk deserve to be put up against a brick wall and executed, in the traditonal manner, by a firing squad!
Alan B.

Are No

"swearing on a holy book" Nope, that doesn't happen. Those with access to confidential-on-up stuff are better agnostic-atheists, rather than religious idealogues.

But please God protect the ignorant OLO commentariat, p--sing in the wind, while they blather on about matters they don't know.

Pete, Alan, having spent more than 15 years working in the military intelligence field I can categorically state huge amounts of classified material is either over classified or should not be classified at all.

As to the official secrets act, you normally are only obliged to keep those matters classified for a period of 25 years, including material which is classified above top secret or code word compartmentalised. But you already knew this didn’t you Pete (apparently).

keep those matters classified for a period of 25 years,
Galen,
Or, until the guilty parties are no longer around to be prosecuted !

Exactly individual exactly

Galen

Given operational..., allies..., TS C...., my work (until 2002) knowledge is rightly classified Never For Publication.

About self taught 2005 onwards, you can check out http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/08/submarine-matters-at-moment.html

Cheers

Pete

If only all that power were used to power on-shore facilities ! Underwater nuclear power stations anyone ? Have them stationed along the coast. Be actually of practical use rather than just a deterrent & exercise vehicle.
Highly interesting site Pete.

Thanks indy

Nuclear submarine and surface warship reactors are only sufficient to run the sub/warship - and being built for war this probably increases reactor development + production costs by a factor of 10 over a civilian reactor.

Civilian towed nuclear power reactor barges (this Russian one is just going into service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station ) need very little power for own use - leaving a rather small 300 MW capacity for a small (say 200,000 person Russian example) city. Maybe one needs 4 very large land based power reactors = 10,000 MW (ie. 10 GW) for Sydney or Melbourne (allowing for 35 years of projected city growth)?

ALSO for floating reactors environmental (tsunamis and especially storms/king tides) and human threats (terrorism, piracy, insider sabotage or safety mistakes, faulty designs, violent protests, large aircraft hits, etc) are much higher than for land nuclear power reactors. Safety barriers/perimeters are harder to construct for floating compared to land based.

Threats to any type of power reactor are vastly higher than threats to coal, gas or renewable power stations.

Cheers

Pete

plantagenet,
My only claim to fame in anything nuclear is that I once asked the #1 bloke in Australia if perhaps nuclear waste could be burnt by dropping small capsules into a live volcano. I was enlightened that this would make the lava radioactive !
So, if we can't rid ourselves of the waste than isn't the whole show a waste ?
I still think it would be worthwhile studying the viability of dumping other toxic waste into live volcanoes.
Otherwise, the only other alternative is population ceilings in order to stop environmental disaster after disaster.

Hi indy

Well nuclear weapon countries like India argue nuclear waste can be "disposed of" in fast breeder reactors.

Unfortunately this is hugely expensive, even by nuclear standards.

It only makes financial sense if one has a nuclear weapons program to cross subsidise it.

Cheers

nuclear waste can be "disposed of" in fast breeder reactors.
plantagenet,
What is the emission of such procedures in comparison to alternative power ?

I don't know indy

Check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor out.

Cheers

It only makes financial sense if one has a nuclear weapons program to cross subsidise it.
plantagenet,
Isn't it amazing how there's economic viability in constructing methods for destruction but not in construction of methods to prevent destruction ?