Yes, I was just being facetious.
Yes, I know. I was just being didactic.
Well just fkn stop being big words the pair of you, … Orrite??
Not sure why Albert ? I support one team over another.
These “investigative journalists” can comment how the Federal Police search Union offices or a Privare home, as a case for national security. Then when the same Police raid a witch from Fairfax or Murdochs home or raid ABC offices, it is a breach of all our human rights.
Fark them and Fark Carlton.
Seems that the ABC and the Federal Police have been “in discussion” since last September as to when this “raid” would take place.
And I had always thought that a police raid was totally unexpected and planned so that police could get the best results through surprise .
So it was all contrived so the ABC and probably the previous Newscorp “raid” could sanitise their documents and prevent any embarrassment. All are winners, media gets its emotional story, Police do their job and the LNP Government get it all done after the election. This should rate highly on your conspiracy theory agenda @FromOutside50
Agree 3 feds checking in at front desk hardly constitutes a raid.
If Lionel Murphy was involved it would have been much more dramatic.
They actually made a mutually agreed appointment time !!
ABC is subject to FOI legislation. If it is also subject to the same record keeping requirements as the public service, it would be illegal under the Archives Act to destroy records without approval.
In quite a few cases, potential leakers - including journos- are forewarned that they may be subject to an AFP search warrant ( although the exact date is not always known) . The AFP has to get a magistrate’s approval to execute the warrant. Could be that the terms of the ABC warrant required a head’s up).
But, as I understand it, the AFP acts on request, not on its own initiative ( its union has expressed concern at being cast as a politicised agent).
It seems to be common knowledge that Defence referred it to the AFP ages ago , as well as the source, the journos and the files in question.
Dutton and co cannot claim that they had no knowledge or involvement. All they are saying is that they were informed of the execution of the warrants after the event. If the ABC knew about it beforehand, how come Ministers were kept in the dark.? And how much did Andrew Hastie ( named in the ABC papers ) know?
It has been reported that the ABC and AFP had been in discussion since last September for the best mutually agreed time for this “raid”. We are all being played.
Do you have a link to this report? I haven’t seen it.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security ( a statutory committee) can look at this, but only on referrral by the Senate, Reps or Minister. Could be a long way off, pending Parliamentary sittings and establishment of Committee membership
Am I supposed to be more outraged at people being raided for reporting on people acting like ■■■■■ than people being raided for acting like ■■■■■?
Can someone help me out here?
Isn’t that what they were “raided” about.
Sorry the report that the raids were all planned months ago.
After the execution of the warrant, it should not be a State secret of the date the AFP was granted a search warrant by the magistrate. That date - and magistrate approval - should be on the warrant that the AFP showed to the ABC lawyers. The warrant may be up on an ABC site.
Given the 13 June date for the ACT Supreme Court Directions hearing in the McBride trial, it could be concluded that the actual purpose of the AFP exercise was assisting the Prosecution in evidence gathering for the trial.
I think your missing the point pal
Why should Journalists get special treatment when they either break the Law or are part of a Police investigation.
Police do raids to seek evidence or have cause to search for criminal activity. In my view, we currently have the lowest standard of Journalism ever in this Country and they seek to get our sympathy.
No doubt this is a planned exercise with an agenda from all sides.
How many laws are contravened and never pursued? When was anyone in a Minister’s office ever charged for passing on comparable classified materials, when it is known round the traps whodunnit.?
First, the law is applied selectively.
Second, looking at the object and purpose of the law, how has Australia’s national security been impacted by documented evidence of potential wrongdoing in Afghanistan; by attempts by the secretaries of Defence and Home Affairs to get around limits on Defence Signals powers ( acknowledged by the Home Affairs Secretary at Senate Estimates); by knowledge of how many asylum seeker boats have been turned back ( which was OK under Gillard).?
There is so much overclassified material in government, largely designed to protect the government rather than the nation.
My punt is that there won’t be any charges against the media. As the Attorney General said the other day, the target is the source - the ones least capable of defending themselves.
Some in the media are now advertising to potential sources to avoid digital contact - do it all by hard copy -