"The protecting human rights justification that could be used by a journalist may, in fact, endanger the life of a classified source".

Since when does such cloak-and-dagger hocus pocus really apply in fact? As if they're leaking the reported tactical details of a reconnaissance patrol outside Tobruk, 1941, and giving away mapped positions of Australian units? As if the system's classified intelligence is so effective and competent anyway!

Pete missed another aspect motivating investigation and prosecution for such leaks: the public gets an idea of how the system actually uses its budget treasure and other privileges, as well as the actual quality of the work. That would be the most serious crime in the apoparatchik's view.

The politicization of these apparatchiks was well proved by the Downer-Bolt precedent - when those two were all but immune to due process - around the Wilkie case. Leaked documents indeed.

Peter Coates gives a pretty weak and one-sided defence of the authorities in this case. The newspaper gained some benefits? So what?

The real issue is the public benefit. Coates is too coy on that essential issue and too keen to support the old boys in the security club.

Leaks occur all the time but this one seems 'special'. If every leak was treated the same way there's be raids every second day.

"I suspect it would have come at the end of a long series of official and unofficial requests by the Australian Federal Police, Attorney-General's and other Commonwealth bodies"...and when Rudd was out of the country. Just to be sure there'd be no political backlash. Something's afoot and it's called Grubby Politicking. Howard was not immune to it either.

"A potential problem is that if a leak and publication is allowed to occur this will encourage other officials or political staffers to leak documents". Too bloody right!! Where would politics be without selective leaks? You seem to forget it goes both ways.

No leaks, no newspaper sales. No currying favour with the media, no positive coverage. A nod and a wink, a scratch on the back, off-the-record interviews parlayed into juicy news items - are you saying all this isn't part of everyday politics in local, state and federal spheres?

"However, I understand that a headline and even a court case can help a journalist's career". Oh that's a wonderful put-down Peter. Look at the bright side, in other words. All very comforting to your run-of-the-mill whistleblower, eh? Imagine if the news was somewhat important?

The government's got a leak and it's embarrassed. Philip Dorling was in the wrong place at the wrong time and mealy-mouthed justifications are part and parcel of the process.

On reflection, the latest panic over Dorling would more likely relate to the leaked internal air force damnation of the JSF (and less directly, the Super-Hornet). I mean, that other case would justify and act as cover for both the fishing expedition and the communications surveillance leading up to it.

As a reminder, this following excerpt of my comments on another forum, just to spread the lerv:

"An instructive case for comparison is the procurement of fighter jets. For example, Indonesia began its state-of-the-art Sukhoi acquisition via a barter deal with Russia, including even palm oil and rice trade, if I’m not mistaken! By contrast, the toady-snobs and covert racists of Australia’s Howard regime snared this country into perhaps the most fictitious aircraft procurement in history. Welcome to the JSF, a project no doubt based around foul-smelling "projected revenue streams" and fantasies of future market pig-outs.

Well done, d|(khe@ds! I suppose that means we’ll get to see blubber-guts Joe Hockey (not his real name) back on the Kokoda track, but armed this time?

Traitors. Cowards. Usurers."

As you imply Peter it is all a matter of judgement. Until the AFP raid few people outside of the ACT were aware of the story. Perhaps because of his DFAT background Rudd has been prepared to let Keelty have his head. McClelland, Debus and Fitzgibbon all burning at about 40 watts - way out of their depth.
No love lost between Keelty and the clique around him at the AFP and Dorling and the Canberra Times.
Had Keelty not put the boots in, the story would have slipped into the great void that most other reports of interest seem to fall into in Australia.
The best way to handle this particular leak was to ignore it. No one was likely to confirm the information that Dorling claimed was the real McCoy. Maybe the information was true maybe it was not.
And why would a person of Dorling's intelligence keep bits of paper around his house?
Keelty's clumsy raid was as usual over kill(he also burns at around 40 Watts). As a result he has given the claims a credibilty that they otherwise lacked.
Nothing in the Dorling story would have raised any eyebrows amongst those who engage in the activities alleged.
As I say it is an issue of judgement and might I say maturity.
Bruce Haigh

Thanks for your comments guys – all written in good faith. However I disagree on many points:

Mil-observer

You ask “Since when does such cloak-and-dagger hocus pocus really apply in fact?” It has in the past. Take Philip Agee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Agee “Agee became somewhat of a minor celebrity in the United Kingdom after the publication of Inside the Company...as well as an MI6 report that blamed Agee’s work for the execution of two MI6 agents in Poland,…” I am naturally unaware of Australian cases.

You say “ the public gets an idea of how the system actually uses its budget treasure and other privileges, as well as the actual quality of the work.” Didn’t apply in this case.

I agree Downer’s attempt to discredit Richard Wilkie by organising the leaking of Richard’s confidential ONA assessment was a typical low-life act. Nothing like Parliamentary Privilege to protect our Lordly Betters.

--

Spikey

“weak and one-sided defence of the authorities” you say. Well it’s a better defence than the Canberra Times (CT) has put up of its calculated attempt to score a headline. Basically it is the Canberra that needs to explain itself.

As I’ve said just because a staff reporter scores some documents doesn’t give a paper the intrinsic RIGHT to publish.

--

bennie

“Leaks occur all the time but this one seems 'special'. If every leak was treated the same way there's be raids every second day”

The fact that the CT made an issue and presumably a profit by harping on the Confidential nature of the documents it scored is probably half the problem.

--
Bruce

Yes police concentrating on a leak can indeed publicise it further but here the CT was pushing things - nations capital - full of foreign dips - home of the AFP, AGs etc. I have various theories why they moved on Dorling - making an example - deterring further wouldbe leakers may indeed come into it http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/raid-smacks-of-revenge/2008/09/27/1222217582568.html.

Yet the CT needs a better defence.

Pete

We probably won't know the real reasons for some time if ever, but it's possible the raid was done for effect elsewhere. So that might have been the obvious tactic, a raid, very public and all that - but the greater strategy may have been to send a message to someone else, like an editor or someone suspected of something worse than this. Please don't just write off military and security people as idiots, they are not, and they may well be working way beyond your horizon.

mil-observer, your comment "As if the system's classified intelligence is so effective and competent anyway!", well it is competent, since this article is written in absence of knowledge of what the AFP was looking for. Also, the JSF may be the greatest air weapon ever, remember folks said very nasty things about the F-111 at its inception, and it has turned out to be a mighty weapon indeed. With the F/A-18, we din't sign up early and paid the price of not getting all the capability in the end, this time we're not making that mistake and investing earlier.

Easy who you call a traitor, in some countries, not as free as ours admitedly, writing such inflamatory stuff about decision makers may well be seen as "traitorous" - depends on your point of view I guess.

Silencing journalists and threatening them with home invasions and seizures is not acceptable under any but the most critical and narrow circumstances (eg. security codes etc...).

Would an adviser ever contradict government? I don't think so.

On this topic about the corrupt advice of former and current government advisers, it seems as though Peter Coates' last article was edited and changed (about Georgia).

In it he originally said (as a former adviser to government no less) that the Georgian invasion was "lawful". This word was removed from the article. I just checked it now.

So to get this straight a former government adviser called the Georgian invasion "lawful" (this former adviser is a representative of a western democracy too), which was essentially a military bombardment of a sleeping civilian population and the murder (iirc) of about 12 Russian military personnel ..... I wonder how many people remember the rubbish and lies spread by the media and politicians about the Russians on national television. Well this "lawful" comment was symptomatic of the deficiency and bias inherent in our political system and support structures. And the problem is endemic because it keeps happening.

Now if I am wrong P.Coates is free to contradict this but I have prior email evidence between me and Graham (and the deleted comment in which i quoted the passage) that indicates this was in the article.

The reason for the heavy handed raid on Philip's house was to deter future potential leakers.

It won't because I doubt they will find anything. Ministerial leaks good, other leaks bad.

So what that we found out Australia was spying on supposed allies and friends? Not earth shattering stuff, but embarrassing for the Government and Minister who I suspect knew of the raid before hand.

Does anyone else see a pattern here? Hicks, Habib, Haneef, the jailing of men in Melbourne for their thoughts (under draconian anti-terrorism laws that are so wide they can be used against anyone, and will I suspect be used against the Left soon enough), the raid on Philip's home etc

I spoke to Philip about inconsequential matters recently. Presumably my details are now with the AFP. What utter rubbish, but dangerous rubbish letting the Keelty's keystoners near anything.

Hi rpg

I agree - we don’t know the reasons for the leak to Mr Dorling. Yeah maybe the police search is for other hidden issues not related to Mr Dorling’s article.

Re “Please don't just write off military and security people as idiots, they are not, and they may well be working way beyond your horizon.” The military, security and intelligence are not innately insidious, its just that they are often used by politicians for low political reasons. The secrecy of these institutions makes them more useable.

Your trust in the JSF maybe well placed, but I doubt it. We can have a long debate about that. Checkout this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837746.ece

--

Steel

I’m getting the impression that you think I’m a Believer in my government past. Even the Democrats – you’ve heard of the Public Interest Disclosures Bill 2007? (here’s the flavour of it http://www.democrats.org.au/speeches/index.htm?speech_id=2203) might not agree with your purist position on searches and leaks.

I think the government would agree that unintentionally I’ve caused them angst and heavy expense at times. They’ve sacked me (twice :) which is why I don’t work for them anymore. I left my posi of just one of maybe 50,000 government policy advisers 6 years ago.

Still I remember the words of one peak boss intimidating me on exit “We’re going to sack you for all the trouble you’ve caused…If you talk son you’ll never work again.”

But I bare few grudges.

We’ll I’ve kept quiet about Confidential, S, and TS stuff and I’m indeed not working (well not for the Government anyway).

Having recently been interviewed on ABC Radio Hobart and ABC Sydney about China, Mr Dorling and Japan's nuclear potential this restores my self-confidence, a bit.

--

Passy

Maybe you’re right. If you've actually spoken to Philip you may have a good handle on things.

Regards

Pete

Pete - the link to the article in times-online, is about funding issues and a shortfall in the UK Defence budget. Unless I missed it, it's not about the JSFs capability. For incidental intelligence on things military, I tend to got to sites like Jane's, http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jdw/jdw080929_2_n.shtml My understanding is that the UK are playing hardball on JSF to ensure they get a full copy of the manual for "everything under the bonnet" so to speak. Sometimes the US restrict "good bits" under ITAR, even to the Brits. Some say this is just the Brits playing poker, of course we're not in for as much but are terribly interested in how their hand plays out.

I saw today, in a report from a Defence newsletter that Rand Corp denies the negative "JSF War Games reports" flying around publicly at the moment, expect to see some much louder denials in the next few days, if they go reported here that is.

I do agree that the inherent setup of agencies in the military does make them susceptable to ill use, dissappointing as that is. (I was totally repulsed by the Downer/Bolt incident relating to Wilkie, that was a low act. It was an emotional time for the previous government over Iraq, perhaps if they could do it again, they might do it differently, one hopes the players learned from it)

Pete

I wasn't talking to Philip about this. It was before then and was just about minor matters.

But the Canberra Times has been arguing this is an attempt to fighten future leakers from leaking and journalists from publishing the leaks.

So Dorling was for a while visiting fellow at ADFA too. Big publicity, lack of prosecution or substantial interference, trivial substance of the leak, party connections, and Canberra Times: does anyone else smell a charade here?

Pete: Agee and MI6 agents are a quite different case: “not applicable”. The Dorling case, whether for the leak purported or if related to that aviation matter I cited as more credible, poses no such risk to any source. Obviously some reporting cannot do that, hence my comparison to tactical combat scenarios. But the cases in question, especially as leaked, pose no such risk to sources. Reflexive admonishment about source protection serves only to further mystify intelligence work under prevailing shrouds of bogus moralism (if not bogus nationalism too).

Btw, I think the main reason you have “kept quiet about C, S, TS” etc. is because such material is generally mundane and over-rated b0||0x. It is a key part of the system's problem that its people are usually so in thrall to its secrecy cult, gushing over classifications and its products' presumed special value and implicit class baggage of exclusivity. On that point, check how rpg confuses “secrecy” with “competency”!

rpg: “Easy who you call a traitor, in some countries, not as free as ours admitedly, writing such inflamatory [sic] stuff about decision makers may well be seen as 'traitorous'...”
If our country is so free, why do I need to go “easy on who I call a traitor” anyway? If you re-examine your warning and its sentiment, maybe you will realize that this country is not so free, thus explaining just why you wrote that caution. That is why “blacklists” here keep functioning so effectively: people internalize the spirit and letter of anti-democratic and anti-dissident zeal; corruption laughs all the way to the next cover-up, mark-up, fake "dissent" puppet show/honey trap operation, financier bail-outs and other offences.

rpg (rocket propelled grenade?)

I looked into the ANDREW (my mistake) Wilkie, Lord Downer, Bolt matter http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/05/1083635154998.html and yes it is appalling. The Bolt investigation appeared to be quietly dropped by the AFP(?). The leaked document was apparently TS Codeword – somewhat higher caveat, I imagine, than those concerning the Mr Dowling matter.

It seems Pro-Government leaks are almost investigated then dropped while anti Government leaks get the full legal hammering. This might make one suspect that behind national security laws lie partisan political outcomes.

Re JSF – thanks, the Janes article was interesting.

If we go with the JSF hopefully Australia can follow Britain’s example and play hardball with the US/Lockheed – Australia should buy as late as possible to get the best/most developed version of the JSF. Block 6 or 7 for a discount?

This whole Rand simulation debate is symptomatic of how under-developed the JSF is. Some are saying “its only a simulation” however Mr Fitzgibbon/Cabinet may well be asked (by Lockheed) to decide on the JSF in 12 months time based STILL on Lockheed’s simulated performance estimates. This may be because Lockheed is likely to build a paper non US version of the JSF for Australia.

The small carrying capacity of the JSF for missiles OR bombs compared to the F-22 is also a rising concern.

However looking at the region the small number of Flankers any Southeast Asian nation is likely to field is cause for hope. Their standard of piloting may not be comparable to the RAAF’s. Only exception being Singapore and they are solidly pro US/Aus.

--

mil-observer

Yep. From what I’ve read so far the Dowling case documents probably involve more bilaterally embarrassing issues than anything else.

I don’t want to cause further concerns to security guys in Canberra about what I remember. No its not “mundane and over-rated” but very vivid. But enough said by me on that.

Pete

No Pete, the supposed "bilateral embarrassment" is also over-rated; purported allies being sussed out is hardly a scandal, even in the more blatant cases of the British in New York and Washington from 1942.

It seems you have caused no concerns to the security minders at all; in fact, your suggestive comments would please them no end. You have made a "plug" for both leaks and contained streams of the business, thereby promoting continued budgetary largess for the minders and the keyhole-peepers alike. Your comments express the mystery and inner warm glow of an initiate: that is exactly what any cult strives to exhibit to the public in order to keep avoiding scrutiny, thus staying impervious to genuine dissent (while punishing it), criticism (while ignoring it), and meaningful reform. Such cults always court disaster.

Researching the recent AFP search/raid and a past raid further I now owe Philip Dorling an apology.

There appears to have been a pattern of security surveillance and raids of Philip’s home that make him a marked man. The raid of Philip’s home in 2000 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/1069027240975.html was perhaps the most notorious. It concerned a series of leaks to the media about a powerful pro-Indonesia bias in Australia’s military intelligence and foreign affairs establishment. The matter was wide-ranging http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1121412.htm

The theory of some in this thread may well by true that the recent AFP raid may have been to search for classified material on several matters and the names of “leakers” on several matters.

(meanwhile some in this thread offer predictably prejudiced personal abuse ;)

The Federal Government in general and its security organs (mainly AFP and ASIO) do not want a journalist in Canberra who can be easily contacted by Public Servants and who can relatively easily meet Public Servants for non-interceptable interviews.

If a journalist is knowledgeable enough to paint a comprehensive picture of formerly quiet matters, and who can publish what he writes widely, then this is an added threat.

Such a person is apparently to be cowered/muzzled before a trial begins or perhaps there may be no trial just the hanging threat of one.

Pre-trial or No-trial limbo of the journalist and intimidation of the wider media may be the point of Government action.

It is possible that not only “Revealed: our spy targets” of June 13 2008 but also Philip’s June 17, 2008 article “US spy base to be built in WA” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/us-spy-base-to-be-built-in-wa/790453.aspx (see last 2 paras) would have angered not only Australian but also US Government authorities.

The US as Australia’s ally in many military things including intelligence matters may have been concerned that the relationship was not being protected securely enough by Australian authorities. So the latest raid on Philip’s house being partially motivated by US demands may be possibility.

On basis of what I’ve read, and now hypothesised, I apologise for doubting that you are doing the right thing Philip.

Regards

Peter Coates

goofd post Peter. At lest you had the courage to admit it.

As JM Keynes said in respone to criticism that he had changed his mind said:

"When I am wrong I change my mind. What do you do?"

Hi Pete. I hope you didn't infer "prejudiced personal abuse" from my previous assessment of your text. I did not intend such, but merely offered critical feedback interpreting the overall effect of your statements which, if considered with detachment, suggest some prima facie high value in secrets and secrecy, and similarly prima facie credibility in Australia's intelligence community thereby.

Anyway, those two paras of the link you pasted:

"The Defence Department and the US Navy signed a classified memorandum of understanding setting out the governing arrangements for the station in November last year.

The conclusion of a secret memorandum of understanding rather than a formal treaty means the agreement has not been reviewed by Federal Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Mr Fitzgibbon has said the ground station will be operational by 2011."

Now, where is the diplo or other ruckus in the above statements? The matter of "formal treaty" should easily cover - even pre-empt - a separate, non-reviewable, classified MoU under ANZUS.

Onto "a series of leaks to the media about a powerful pro-Indonesia bias in Australia’s military intelligence and foreign affairs establishment".

With hindsight it is much clearer that this issue suffers exaggeration and other misleading distortion. I have no doubt Australia's government circles were penetrated thoroughly by "Indonesian agents", probably starting as early as the late '60s. However, that situation must be viewed in the context of prevailing strategic and ideological conditions, which so muddied the waters that definitions of “Indonesian agent” need careful qualification – not a simplistic label of nationality. Soeharto's regime was not only so corrupted by itself, but also by its non-Indonesian ideological patrons. Therefore, would Soeharto-era CIA-, MI6- or Kissinger-mentored ideologues meet definitions of “Indonesian agent” (Ali Murtopo is an interesting case there)? The same greyness applies to architects of East Timor's 1975 invasion and 1999 sacking.

This past decade, Indonesia has made breaks with its prolonged subordination to Soehartoist practice. Such effort involves state institutions conducting themselves more in Indonesia's national interest. Apparent immunity for Soehartoist criminals often points to those western states of their virtual exile.

mil-observer

The main reason for official anger may be that Philip is able to paint a systematic picture of Australia's intelligence relations with the US. This would anger the US sigint body (NSA) which would express displeasure to Australia’s Defence Signals Directorate (DSD). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

Concerning domestic sensitivities in “US spy base to be built in WA” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/us-spy-base-to-be-built-in-wa/790453.aspx Philip makes the insightful observation:

“The conclusion of a secret memorandum of understanding rather than a formal treaty means the agreement has not been reviewed by Federal Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.”

The timing of the Howard Government’s announcement of the MoU, on 8 November 2008 http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=7242, just 2 weeks before the Federal Election, on 24 November 2007, is interesting.

I get the impression that the approval process for the latest Geraldton signals facility was rushed through to avoid the scrutiny of imminently incoming Labor rank and file Parliamentarians - particularly those (as Philip flags) on Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

Rudd and other senior Labor leaders may have had no problems with a significant new US signals facility in Australia but the risk to Howard and Rudd was that members of the Labor Left and Greens would express their democratic right to holdup and cause public airing of any US-Australian Treaty on this matter.

--

Aggravation of Australia’s intelligence relations with the US may also be at the heart of anger over Philip’s “Revealed: our spy targets” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/political/revealed-our-spy-targets/789537.aspx of June 13 2008.

The UKUSA Security Agreement concerns “an alliance of Anglosphere countries for the purpose of sharing intelligence [between] Australia, Canada, NZ, UK and the US." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK-USA_Security_Agreement. According to wikipedia “US Monitors most of...Asia."

Hence it is possible that much of the information in “Revealed: our spy targets” originated from the US. The US does not like to see its information leaked – one of the reasons the Chifley Labor Government created ASIO.

So the US may be pressuring the Australian Government to keep US secrets secure by in turn pressuring Mr Dorling and, more broadly, intimidating the wider Australian media.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Pete,

I think you'll find that UKUSA ensures the approval and continuation of facilities like Geraldton regardless. I haven't seen or heard of a single ALP lower or upper houser who has any serious notion of opposing UKUSA and thereby jeopardizing relationships with the big daddy NSA and others. As far as I can tell, UKUSA would be like pregnancy: even the occasional committee dithering is just not good diplo or defence form in a network of that nature!

Yeah, I have other takes on the Dorling case. I think the hype around 1999 East Timor-related leaks was similarly odd; I can only take serious notice of particular cases of such matters when they involve prosecution, detention, accidents, deaths, etc.