The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Secrecy, intelligence and accountability > Comments

Secrecy, intelligence and accountability : Comments

By Bill Calcutt, published 20/8/2009

Secrecy in governments can thwart accountability by shielding mistakes and poor judgment from public scrutiny.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
The problem is double standards: When "intelligence" agencies break laws and go rouge (e.g. CIA) they are not held accountable.
Remember John Howard's justification for joining the illegal war in Iraq? Where is the accountability? He told us that he had seen the evidence, but to protect lives he could not reveal sources.
Turns out this was a bald faced lie. The fact that there was *no* evidence for WMD's except that manufactured by the US "intelligence" community. They consumed their own lies to generate "buzz" that could scare politicians. This was known at the time, just ignored.
Rather than chasing down these massive lies and games our press has toed the line and given them a green light for more abuse. After all, if you get caught, nothing happens!
Any other group that kidnapped, destroyed property and framed people would be branded a crimminal/terrorist group (except catholic churches, who can get away with systematic child abuse), but because it is offical "intelligence" they can get away with it! Are these guys like the Mafia: too scary to tackle?
This is how civilisations fall: the masses let a tiny minority "protect" them and this minority can do no wrong.
ALL official intelligence needs a 5-10 year maximum secrecy period, after that it should be public. War mongering (mass murder and industrial/economic sabotage) should be punishable by life in prison.
Why, when the US is clearly in decline, are we following them in economics, social and government themes? Why have we tied ourselves to a sinking barge in so many ways?
Posted by Ozandy, Thursday, 20 August 2009 11:53:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozandy is right.

I find it laughable to talk about governments being "accountable" to the people.

An interesting comparison of the flimsy excuses advanced to defend slavery, and government as we know it, is here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Thursday, 20 August 2009 2:25:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As with John Howard there still seems certain withholding news pressures on the media.

Or is the Guardian telling lies when it says the Afghanistan War could finish up like Vietnam?

Or as stated much earlier by the Washington Post and the Guardian, the Surge was actually a deal made between the Bush regime and the Baathist Sunni Sheiks.

But now the same Sheiks have set off the Sunni insurgency once again because America has broken the promise to have the Baath Party in the new Iraqi government.

When a political historian tries to contact a journo, all they get is No Comment.

But that only makes the historian even more suspicious?
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 20 August 2009 4:25:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot on Bill

Two more points:

- around 90% of "intelligence" used by analysts (of the ONA-CIA Intelligence Directorate type) is reputedly overt. This means newspapers, regional periodicals, websites etc are mostly what analysts read.

- leaders like Howard and Bush justified their prejudices or policies in speeches by citing unnamed "intelligence sources" or CIA advise. This padding out of speeches with intelligence references or uncheckable information is the worst thing politicians can do distort the process of accurate analysis and advice.

Locked into this political milieu the analytical agencies are then forced to provide the slant that political leaders need.

There is, of course, no more telling example of this than ONA merely passing on the US/UK politicized intelligence line on alleged WMDs in Iraq to Howard. Howard both wanted to and was pressured by the US to accept and parrot the WMD myth.

In 2002 Andrew Wilkie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wilkie of the ONA advised the public that this gutless and ultimately destructive process was in motion. He was therefore sacked from ONA - basically for not toeing the political line.

Even in the mystified game of intelligence telling the bosses or other bodies what they want to hear is the road to advancement.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2009/08/arihants-launch-and-australia.html
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 20 August 2009 6:02:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Bill. Part of it comes down to empire building - funding and the need to foster the image of increased counter-terrorism measures as vital to national security.

It cannot be denied that there was a need to fund extra resources after 9/11 and the increased threat to Australia after our involvement in Iraq. The danger is the interests of the empire builders over rational decision making.

While some level of secrecy is needed in the first stages of intelligence collection and analysis, it would be good governance as Ozandy suggested, to make open and honest disclosures after the event (historically speaking).

There is great potential for the so-called interests of national security to become the vehicle for fostering the interests of government policy or agenda without scrutiny nor challenge.

Unfortunately, it is people like Wilkie, Collins and Kessing that pay the price for their integrity while the perpetrators continue unabated.

The first rule of career advancement in the APS is don't rock the boat, don't dissent, toe the party-line.

National security and those who inhabit the periphery of it are a culture unto themselves while good intentions may occasionally surface much of it is vested interests and self-advancement.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 20 August 2009 7:37:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
if you suffer the misfortune of ever becoming a drug addict like i did at the tender age of thirty five.you will find that it dosent take long to get an intel file and surrveilence they will make an intel file on you quoting remarks form mental patients and other drug addicts bribed or intimidated into writing things to demonize you in the community you live in, i have been raided so many times i have lost count all through being an advocate for the rights of addicts who are denied pollitical reperesentation in this society as the government has presumed ownership of their lives.the way they have treat me and other addicts if it is not addressed soon will force us to resort to terrorism as we have a society that will not suffer an amphetimine addict to live so ultimatly when you realize amphetimine is a drug of war 400 tons used in vietnam it is logical we will destroy this society as it is attempting genocide on us and we wont take it. we have splinter cells all through this society so you decide after all you declared a drug war on us ,your own people you traitors.yours with loathing and contempt the motorcycle messiah.
Posted by motorcyclemessiah, Friday, 21 August 2009 4:31:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy