Category Archives: Foreign Interference

Foreign Influence “greed” = Australian Weakness “greed”

This blog is inspired by the Four Corners documentary on Chinese influence in Australia (see below).  This message from Lao Tzu sums up the real issue from an ancient sage in China.  We have to go deeper if we wish to stop the conflict. It is not about cleverness, cyber security, bioterrorism, it is about “who we are” as a people and what we believe in. What is true? What is important? What serves the Australian people?

Fear is false evidence appearing real. True friendship is transparency.

It is not the fault of a foreign country when it influences Australia. It is the belief in powerlessness in Australian leaders that compromise sovereignty for economic advantage as they have been conditioned to believe that is more important than democratic principles. The fault line in the sand is within which attracts the problem from with-out. It they truly believed in democracy they would not allow disproportionate influence.

It you don’t want donations to influence then ban donations.

If our government seriously wants to stop Chinese or other foreign interference then values is where you must focus. What you focus on expands. Do not underestimate the strength of balanced decision making weighing up all sides to Advance Australia Fair. If all politicians operated from a base of community services, principled decision making and had the courage to be willing to sacrifice economic gains external influences would disappear.

Lao Tzu’s message is directed to both leaders in China and Australia. For those who do not want to hear criticism are in denial of the violence they project covertly or overtly in the name of friendship or freedom. The most genuine friend will be the one who holds the mirror up to those in denial so they can see themselves without their story.

Only love will sacrifice everything to reveal the truth that sets all free.  Yet there is no sacrifice when you no longer attach your identity to materialism. True freedom comes from allowance not domination. You can be free in prison. You can be imprisoned in a mansion. A person is respected when what they say and do aligns. This means the inner truth and outer appearance are integrated. This is what creates a “great” leader.

Greed is both the “thief” and the “rich” as it causes imbalance and unrest.

The Four Corners documentary holds a mirror up, perhaps life is sending China and Australia a message – like attracts. Eventually truth surfaces, you cannot control anyone, as nature will rebalance to find harmony. Truth tellers are natural rebalancers that feel the impulse to speak the truth to perceived power, this rebalances power dynamics.

The Chinese people are not the enemy. Criticism is not the enemy. Greed is the enemy as it has no culture, no identity, no name yet quietly it corrupts and erodes innocence as insecurity (not enough) is the home of greed. The problem to solve is insecurity. In conflict resolution we teach “solve the problem do not hate the person”. We seek wise solutions as no problem is intractable when you understand human nature not in the sense of “know your enemy” but in the sense of “understand your potential friend”.

So those dominating are never free until the pain of denial becomes too great and they must change. What you resist persists what you look at disappears, society disappears because “you are me”. When I hurt you I hurt myself.  Truth is not about belief it is about clarity to see through the illusion of the lies we tell ourselves that become cultural stories. Many surround themselves with “yes” people they call loyal or glee clubs they call friends (clubs) to reinforce the lie as the truth.  Yet truth cannot be faked, it is what it is and unifies naturally.  Lao Tzu demonstrates real justice which is based on wisdom (divine law) not law (legislation) or the constitution. Wisdom looks into the root of behaviours that cause imbalance (or disharmony) in society.

The wise do not control or force behaviour change through pain, they recognise to rebalance one must honour only truth. that is why we call a Justice “Your Honour”. Truth sets both parties free as they evolve through respecting unbiased decisions. Truth leads to unity which some call social order, real order is natural resonance which requires no social contract as harmony is the outcome. 

I contemplated the endless lies we speak identifying as this country or that, this power or that, pro this or anti that. I shake my head as confusion not Confucius is the outcome which is the maze with no exit. That is why violence escalates my friends. You are fighting yourselves believing it is the “other”. The cyber wars, 5G mmwave (US), sub-6 spectrum (China, world), exploiting labour, connectivity, smart cities, city deals, buying up resources to control or predict outcomes to feel secure. 

When truth is the centre-peace, you can predict harmony as you understand universal lore.  This always works to the highest good of all, as the sum of the parts is the whole. Yet we are still at a primitive stage believing in self interest, economic growth, security as force, personal fortunes whilst the planet traverses tipping points, the icecaps melt, the magnetic fields weaken, resources redirect away from those in greatest need and we call this security as Earth Inc (titanic) sinks.  This is a false economy.

Below is the Four Corners Documentary entitled “Interference: China’s covert political influence campaign in Australia” | Four Corners.

I did smile at Peter Dutton making a moral stand on the relationship between Sam Dastyari and Huang Xiangmo, when he too met with him.

The issue of access due to lobbyists when ordinary Australians, like myself, can’t get access.  Santoro charged $20,000 for access. This is greed.  How is that democratic? We have no economic value yet we are citizens and our taxes pay for their privilege. Is this how we advance Australia fair? This is about allegiances.  For whom do political figures work? Who places them in positions of power?  Who elects the faceless faces who have disproportionate influence?  What happens to the Australian public? Are they truly safe?

Australia has interfered in East Timor and I am sure if we drilled own we could find the mirror here in so many cases where other foreign influences have manipulated us into issues that are not relevant to the Australian people.  The real work for Australian politicians, intelligence and law enforcement is to look within if you genuinely want to change what is happening outside.

I think of the murdered Assistant Police Commissioner Colin Winchester, he comes to me in inspiration these days as I feel for his case. My own father believed the accused David Eastman was a miscarriage of justice, he wrote many Letters to the Editor.  In 2014, after 2 decades in jail, David Eastman was released. He was later awarded $9 million in compensation.  The police must be protected when they uncover crimes or confront illegal power. Colin Winchester was going to testify in Queanbeyan against cannabis growers. The cannabis growers were known as the Bungendore 11 and linked to the Italian mafia who started two crops in NSW in the 1980s under the supervision of the police informant.

Immediately I go to the murder of Donald Mackay. The murder of Liberal Party candidate and Griffith anti-drug crusader Mr Mackay was Australia’s first political assassination. It is alleged it was at the hands of the Calabrian mafia, apparently the same group as Winchester.  A quick search provides more insight into what creates corruption, money laundering, drug trade and illegality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Ndrangheta

My thoughts turn to poverty, corruption, greed and powerlessness parading as power. The same mirror that others can see themselves caught up in.  So how do we help them exit what is, a self defeating circle of pain and fear intensifying a culture of violence?  I see the links as all the same root cause. Yet we still spend energy making the “other” wrong yet we won’t look into where we are “wrong”.  Byron Katie speaks of projection and she is right.  We have to question our own thinking every time we see an enemy, imagine if every side did this.

When I was teaching truth to children, I gave them a blind spot test. They look at two dots, cover one eye and then one dot disappears. The eyes play tricks. The dot represents what we deny, refuse to see, the reality is, it is there, but we won’t see it as we are right the other wrong.  The other is the “enemy”. The Christians say in relation to judgement “take the log out of your own eye” until we do, we blame the world for what is our own blindness, our own weakness contributing to a values free world. At what point do we stop what we want the other to stop. Until you stop the other won’t as what you think about you bring about. This is the law of attraction. We create our reality, remember! We blame others but we don’t see ourselves as the same.  We are all in it together. This is a truism.

This article by the Guardian provides insight into the hypocracy that we witness in politics.  Peter Dutton is now Home Affairs Minister with the power to decrypt and access every citizen’s information inclusive of the Covidsafe app for contact tracing without a warrant.

In the story below Malcolm Turnbull asked Scott Morrison to deal with Petter Dutton. Yet he did not do anything to reinforce values and sovereignty, there is no leadership by example when there is nothing to see here when clearly there is.

Scott Morrison says of Peter Dutton’s meeting with Chinese billionaire: ‘Nothing to see here’ – as it happened

Going back to Lao Tzu’s example  we do not go to the root of the problem of “greed” as we are persuaded that economic growth is more important than Australian sovereignty, it would be argued as pragmatic “the way things are done”.  Is it serving the Australian people’s true interests? This is why Australians become disheartened, why social order breaks down, it is because Australians don’t know who to trust anymore as all seem amoral.  We then lose respect for those in power as they don’t respect themselves. This is loss of face.  We respect integrity and honesty.

This article demonstrates the hypocracy as each follow the  money not values to ensure the real security of Australians. So we are indeed stuck between a rock and a hard place. The enemy is within, not outside. So in my view $270 billion on new weapons only escalates the problem and diverts precious resources. We have to learn to think differently if we want to reclaim our sovereignty and dignity as Australians. I always see the Man from Snowy River, as so many forget or don’t remember our heritage. Clancy allowed this stranger to come on the ride with other bushmen. They were rounding up horses in the high country. There was one colt that was wild and free.  Everyone was too scared to follow the colt of Old Regret down the sheer mountain face. It was the man from Snowy River who showed courage, others thought suicide! as he jumped the log and headed down a near vertical cliff face. He didn’t think of himself, he went for it, took the risk and his story was told in years to come by Banjo Paterson. Banjo was reminding Australians of courage in the face of great risk. We don’t respect those who feather their own nests at the expense of the public. We respect those who truly represent us as they have taken our taxes and given us narratives of democratic representation.  We discover it is they who stand back, too afraid to confront what they fear, saying this is the way it is, no choice, this is the future.  Clancy and this stranger from the high country would say “bullshit mate”. You define your own reality.  You take the reins. You don’t hang back. You take a leap of faith (remember Indiana Jones) not a great leap forward. You decide what you want on behalf of Australians and commit to it.  This is leadership. This is integrity. This is power.  But if you sell out “freedoms” and weakly claim it is a trade off for a higher standard of living, you have sold out to the highest bidder. You will lose everything as life will not support you, as greed takes from life. Why? You are out of balance or indeed harmony. Life will rebalance. As nature is the power. So if you suppress, oppress and control others the pendulum swings back the other way as it must, as all are part of nature, to restore balance we must speak up and be heard. Whistle-blowers are being nudged from within. So for those who say one thing and do another, the children are watching. They will copy and call it “the way things are done”. If you speak with integrity what you believe you live, then others will feel inspired. That is how you restore Australian sovereignty. You live as an example of what it means to be a genuine Australian. We are waiting for you.  I wonder who you will be?

Below is an article discussing Peter Dutton and China.  It doesn’t mention Malcolm Turnbull and Goldman Sachs.  It was Josh Frydenberg who received a job in Goldman Sachs on leaving the government. They are all in it together in my view.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/09/malcolm-turnbull-scott-morrison-peter-dutton-china-allegations

Malcolm Turnbull says PM must ‘deal with’ Peter Dutton China allegations

Turnbull says Scott Morrison must address claims about Dutton’s meeting with Huang Xiangmo as a matter of national security

‘Dutton has a lot to explain’: Malcolm Turnbull on Dutton’s meeting – video

Malcolm Turnbull has called on Scott Morrison to “deal with” Peter Dutton after allegations that the immigration minister met the former Australian resident billionaire Huang Xiangmo after he paid $10,000 to a lobbyist.

Turnbull, who introduced foreign interference laws in 2017, said the allegations contained in a Four Corners-Nine newspapers report regarding a meeting between Dutton and Huang following a payment to former Liberal minister turned lobbyist Santo Santoro were “very troubling”.

“The allegation is that Santo Santoro received money in return for securing privileged access to the minister on behalf of Huang Xiangmo and all of that, in circumstances where there has been rising concern about lobbyists, about foreign influence,” Turnbull said.

“Look, Peter Dutton has got a lot to explain about this.”

Earlier in the day, Morrison had defended the government’s record citing Turnbull’s foreign interference laws and highlighting instead former Labor senator Sam Dastyari’s resignation after rolling controversies regarding his relationships to Chinese-linked donors, including Huang.

“All I know is Sam Dastyari had to resign in disgrace over foreign interference and behaving in a reckless and shameful way, betraying his own country,” Morrison said.

“I think when it comes to these issue, our government’s record is squeaky clean.”

But Turnbull said Morrison could not waive off the allegations and he used Dastyari’s example as a reason for his successor to move quickly on the issue.

“Remember the furore that arose about Senator Dastyari. All the same issues have arisen again and this has to be addressed at the highest level of security, priority, urgency by the prime minister,” Turnbull said.

“The buck stops with him. I know what it is like to be prime minister and, ultimately, you are responsible and so Scott Morrison has to deal with this.”

“Scott Morrison is the prime minister and you can’t waive this off and say it is all part of gossip and the bubble. This is the national security of Australia.”

Asked later about Turnbull’s comments, Morrison said he had spoken to Dutton.

“I have spoken to Peter Dutton and there are no issues here that troubled me,” Morrison said. “No suggestion that Peter in any way, shape or form has sought or been provided with any benefit here.”

The allegations relate to the desire by Huang for Australian citizenship. The Four Corners investigation revealed Huang tried to speed up a citizenship ceremony for his wife and children late in 2014.

Dastyari claimed he was surprised that after passing on the ceremony application to Dutton’s office, it was approved within two weeks in the holiday period in January 2015.

According to the report, when Huang applied for his own citizenship in late 2015, he was already being investigated by ASIO. He was worried about his access so consulted Santoro who had boasted Dutton was one of his “best friends”.

Huang put Santoro on a retainer in 2016, according to the report, and in the same year, Huang, Dutton and the minister’s senior staffer had lunch at Master Ken’s restaurant in Sydney’s Chinatown.

Dutton rejected the allegations as a “beat up” and said he met Huang as a “significant leader in the Chinese community”. Huang’s bid for citizenship failed.

“I have had that one meeting with him over lunch. I have never seen him since. What has he got from me? He is now offshore and is prevented from coming back into Australia,” said Dutton.

Dutton said that the transactions for lobbying businesses on both sides of parliament was an issue for lobbyists.

“There are lobbyists who are registered on both sides of parliament, people that operate as lobbyists,” he said.

“Their transactions and how they conduct their business is an issue for them.

Dutton said while he had never met Huang when his family’s citizenship ceremony was approved, it would be unusual for a minister to knock it back.

“You take at face value what somebody like Sam Dastyari, as a member of parliament, was vouching for and they ask for the ceremony and it would be very unusual for a minister of the day to knock that back,” Dutton said.

“So if Mr Dastyari has not been above board or misrepresented the reason for the citizenship ceremony then I think that is something that he, and frankly, Mr Shorten need to explain.”

Bill Shorten described the Four Corners revelations as unhealthy.

“It is explosive and very surprising revelations on Four Corners last night about the conduct of the minister in charge, one of the ministers in charge of national security where it is cash for access and meeting people connected to the Chinese government.

“This is very unhealthy.”

News is under threat …

… just when we need it the most. Millions of readers around the world are flocking to the Guardian in search of honest, authoritative, fact-based reporting that can help them understand the biggest challenge we have faced in our lifetime. But at this crucial moment, news organisations are facing a cruel financial double blow: with fewer people able to leave their homes, and fewer news vendors in operation, we’re seeing a reduction in newspaper sales across the UK. Advertising revenue continues to fall steeply meanwhile as businesses feel the pinch. We need you to help fill the gap.

We believe every one of us deserves equal access to vital public service journalism. So, unlike many others, we made a different choice: to keep Guardian journalism open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This would not be possible without financial contributions from those who can afford to pay, who now support our work from 180 countries around the world.

Reader financial support has meant we can keep investigating, disentangling and interrogating. It has protected our independence, which has never been so critical. We are so grateful.

We need your support so we can keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. And that is here for the long term. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

SAS soldier Braden Chapman speaks out about War Crimes

The article below is from the ABC and discusses Australian SAS war crimes in Afghanistan. War is not a game, real people die. No-one thinks deeply about the real suffering for families of each death, how terror impacts communities and the reality that violence cannot bring peace no matter how you dress it up. Only peace brings peace.

All violence has the same root, powerlessness. The destruction of war or violence deepens powerlessness which expands violence. It is a formula that has never been about peace, it has always been endless war as men believe force works. War is an imbalance with our true nature.

Immediately looking at the story below I contemplate the Australian Federal Police raids on the ABC. The person of interest was David McBride, an SAS officer who was raising concerns about military abuses and as a lawyer investigating humanitarian law.

Refer YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXWoKgKyudk
Refer YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNp7pHbZ0HE

This issue is a murky one in the sense that where is the line drawn in respect of lawful killing. I always feel uneasy with the words ‘lawful killing’ contrasted to the situation when civilians are arrested and jailed if they commit murder. Yet in the military setting they have safeguards as they are in the business of killing. They use buzz words such as national security, defending democracy, ridding the war of terrorism when it is evident through important whistle-blowers that the wars are not about defence but oil interests. It is evident that there is a revolving door into government by commercial interests who are making money out of disasters, a term coined ‘disaster capitalism’. Disaster capitalism makes clear that defence contractors are paid in one day what a regular soldier makes in one week and do not have government oversight at all. The large military industrial complex is embedded in government as contractors alongside government employees with high level secret clearances. This is called the ‘deep state’.

My heart goes to the Afghan citizens who have experienced decades of heart wrenching abuse, who are the poorest people on the planet and who have suffered like no other with no outpouring of compassion for their plight. They have experienced their families murdered, Taliban oppression, harassment and murder of women who break (in their eyes) sharia law, they witness their country invaded, ransacked, polluted with depleted uranium and turned to rubble with no legal consequence. They have been so hungry that they eat grass and dirt. The perpetuated violence was the continuance of the cold war orchestrated by elements in the United States attempting to create another Vietnam for Russia. The CIA paid mercenaries (extremists) to come in to Afghanistan and fight the Russians. The violent war lords had no allegiance other than to money were ruthless in their violation of human rights, executions and exploitation. This country which was once a peaceful country where families were incredibly close, poetry and music was their entertainment as they survived the harshest winters and invaders to become a hardy people. Their innocence was shattered.

I recall Donald Rumsfeld regarding Afghanistan as not a good target as it was a pile of rocks. He wanted more spectacular targets to feel he was fighting a real war and could test out weaponry. Thus, we are not talking responsible leadership focused on the noble vision of securing peace and security, but rather an cold and calculated interest in perpetuating violence without any regard for civilians using the name of national security which is today code for commercial interests who have co-opted the US government through donations or political status. It was Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector in Iraq who stated the US was engaged in an illegitimate war of aggression. The same applied to Afghanistan. He was critical of John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister who he regarded as turning Australian into the 51st State of the US. He advised for us to take down the Australian flag and hoist up the US flag. Thus, Australian military activities in Afghanistan are under the command of the US and the real issue is under humanitarian law how are civilians (unarmed) protected.
Refer my recordings of Scott Ritter at the University of Melbourne: https://www.worldpeacefull.com/peace-journalism/

This link is how a few US Generals viewed the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/04/donald-rumsfeld-iraq-war

The Australian government followed US policy and entered Afghanistan to fight ‘terrorism’. The close ‘oil’ relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal family and the revelations about the Clinton Foundation and Isis funded by the Saudi’s, suggests the interests having nothing to do with the public interest but are commercial profiting from conflict. The fact that the Saudi’s funded the US invasion of Afghanistan matching dollar for dollar (see Charlie Wilson’s war) reveals foreign interference and collaboration with other agenda’s playing out. The US nationally promoted the cold war fight with Russia and ironically the Taliban went to Texas to meet with Unocol to construct a gas pipeline. The profits from the deal between oil barons, the US government and the Taliban provided material aid to an extremist regime (created by the war with Russia) that violated human rights justified by extreme Islam. The Taliban hung people in Kabul stadium, religious police raids, oppressed and stoned women to death and applied harsh punishments for anyone violating Sharia law.

Ref https://www.counterpunch.org/2002/01/10/bush-enron-unocal-and-the-taliban/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

The is the “pink elephant” in the room where all look the other way, it is the profit that matters not the human rights of people. Torture emerges from the same indifference to humanity that is profiled in the psychopath. I always remember Bill Clinton’s announcement of decoupling of human rights from trade (as a red flag) and later the US exited the UN Human Rights Council as a statement of ‘who they have become’. That should alarm the Australian government given the Australian people’s values and what we regard as the very basis of democratic principles and the rule of law. This demonstrates a culture of violent abuse that is called business as usual, as it is profit that matters not human life. Does this make America great? I am sure Abraham Lincoln would turn in his grave as life, liberty and happiness is distorted for the benefit of the few not the many.

Afghanistan is the poorest country on earth and was used for a proxy war benefiting commercial interests without any regard for civilians. There has been no compassion for these long suffering people who survived against the odds. They would see the great evil in the West as their country was polluted with depleted uranium, villages bombed, civilians addicted to heroin, women turning to prostitution and an illegal child trafficking trade. They are a beautiful and kind people, very humble and simple who had no defence against forces greedily seeking their resources and not standing in nobility to protect an abused people. The greed is a core issue.

The most important issue in this sad tale is the US shadow government and deep state has to be put on the global agenda and referred to the International Criminal Court for ‘crimes against humanity’. These are unaccountable powerful organisations, corporations and non profits engaged in illegal endless wars, the drug trade, guns and trafficking. Kevin Shipp (former CIA) stated Hillary Clinton heads up ‘a criminal cartel’ in Washington D.C.. This must be investigated in an international court of law. Otherwise the dark intelligence war becomes one of assassinations to silence whistle-blowers furthering the targeted killing of civilians rather than justice. Refer https://www.fortheloveoffreedom.net/

Refer https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/julian-assange-clinton-foundation-isis-same-money-saudi-arabia-qatar-funding-a7397211.html

As a peacemaker it is vital that the truth comes out if peace is what we truly desire for our children and grandchildren. Yes, it can be scary as those who feel threatened will use legal or bullying means to silence others. The rule of law by neutral judges holding the real scales of justice must be the nonviolent pathway that leads to peace and reconciliation as accountability is central to trust in government. This has to be done as the violence is ‘not who we are’ as we become awakened to the fact that we live in a global village where not only are we each others keepers (responsible for each other) but to know ‘what you do to another returns to the self’ (universal law). For those who believe they are fighting for a higher power I can assure you that power is love as truth. Denial and powerlessness stays silent in the shadows. True power is the love that shines the light on the darkest corner, for even those languishing in ignorance and hatred are calling for the light of change. Karma can only be removed by unconditional love. So there is a way out of darkness.

My last point is I want my country to become sovereign and protect the civilians interests not follow the unofficial licence to abuse and murder civilians in illegitimate wars that do not benefit our country. May those in positions of power find the wisdom to Advance Australia fair for the highest good of all. Australia could position itself as a mediators not accomplice in crimes against the people. What stops them bringing this behaviour to Australian citizens when oppression orders a crack down and criminalises dissent? We must all remain vigilant to the wolf in sheep’s clothing or the smiling assassin.

It is the truth that sets us free. ‘us’ has two meanings.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/former-australian-sas-soldier-braden-chapman-speaks-out-about-unlawful-killings-and-war-crimes-in-afghanistan/ar-BB11gHcQ?ocid=spartandhp

 

Special Air Service Regiment sandy berets © Commonwealth of Australia Special Air Service Regiment sandy berets They are Australia’s elite special forces, the lethal operatives of the Special Air Service Regiment, the SAS.

For years, the secrets about what they did in the valleys, fields and mud villages of Afghanistan have remained hidden.

Until now. 

Former SAS operative Braden Chapman first deployed to Afghanistan in 2012, when the brutal conflict there was in its 11th year.

With a major inquiry soon to report on suspected war crimes, Chapman, who was on many covert missions, has decided to speak out about what he saw.

He said he witnessed soldiers in SAS patrols commit executions in cold blood.

A Four Corners investigation has uncovered a culture of impunity and cover-up within the SAS.

“When you’re back at the unit, people would make jokes about the size of the rug that they’ve swept everything under, and that one day it’ll all come out and people are going to be thrown in jail for murder or anything else that they’ve done,” Chapman said.

Attached to 3 Squadron SAS as a signals intelligence officer, Chapman’s mission was to track Taliban targets.

He said there was a “buzz of elitism” being part of the SAS.

“It is the best thing you could do for your career to go to that unit, especially when you’re a lower rank and you’re actually gonna get to do a lot of hands-on stuff.” 

But he was soon shocked at the behaviour of some of his comrades. 

“They’re going to look back and see that we were the guys in there murdering people, and invading, and not there to do something that is honourable,” he said.

‘Almost like target practice’

In May 2012, Chapman was on patrol with 3 Squadron SAS in a village.

The unit was moving towards a target building, when they saw an Afghan man leave the area.

“When we got to within maybe 20 to 30 metres away and he saw us, he quickly grabbed his phone from his pocket and he threw it. And at that stage he stopped. He put his hands up just like that, then just stood there,” Chapman said.

“As we got closer to him, the soldier then just fired and hit him twice in the chest and then shot him through the head as he walked past him.”

Chapman said the soldier was an experienced member of 3 Squadron SAS.

“I was only 5 to 10 metres behind him at the time,” he said.

“The visual image to me was, the guy had his hands up and then it was almost like target practice for that soldier.”

Chapman was ordered to go through the dead Afghan man’s pockets.

Another Australian patrol with an assault dog then arrived at the scene.

3 Squadron SAS soldiers during deployment in Afghanistan in 2012.

“It [the dog] actually came and started chewing on the head of the man who’d been shot. And I remember looking to the dog handler and saying, ‘Can you get this thing away from it,’ because it was pretty gruesome,” Chapman said.

“And he’s just like, ‘Oh, let him have a taste.'”

Chapman said the killing by his fellow SAS patrol member disturbed him greatly.

“In my books, it’s murder.”

Just days later the helmet camera of another SAS operator captured members of 3 Squadron discussing the soldier who had killed the Afghan man with his hands up. 

“F***ing bullshit. Not happy with it.”

“[The soldier is] a brother, but, ‘Bash who I want. Shoot at whoever. Kill a kid. Oh well, just keep shooting c***s.'”

The soldier who shot the man is still serving in the special forces.

‘Straight-up execution’

During the same month, a 3 Squadron SAS patrol was searching for an insurgent bombmaker when another unlawful killing took place.

The patrol’s dog handler and another SAS soldier, who Four Corners has called Soldier C, were headed towards a mud compound when a young Afghan man in his 20s was spotted in a wheat field by one of the Black Hawk helicopters ahead.

What happened next was captured on a helmet camera. 

Soldier C aims his assault rifle at the Afghan man.

The man is cowering on the ground and appears to only have a set of red prayer beads in his right hand.

Soldier C turns to the dog handler and asks: “You want me to drop this c***?”

The dog handler tells him to ask the patrol commander.

Soldier C then asks the same question twice to the patrol commander, whose response is inaudible on the video.

Within seconds, Soldier C squeezes the trigger and the bullet tears into the Afghan man on the ground.

The Australian shoots him twice more and then walks off.

Chapman was not aware of this shooting until Four Corners showed him the video, but knows the identity of the soldiers involved.

“He’s asked someone of a superior rank what he should do. But it comes down to the soldier pulling the trigger. It’s a straight-up execution.”

The killing of the civilian, identified as Dad Mohammad, was later investigated by the Australian Defence Force (ADF), after Afghan tribal elders complained.

Soldier C told ADF investigators he had killed the Afghan man because he had been seen with a radio.

He also said he shot the young man from 15 to 20 metres away, in self-defence.

But the video shows he was fewer than two metres away while the man was lying on the ground.

Dad Mohammad's father Abdul Malik said his son had face wounds. © ABC / Four Corners Dad Mohammad’s father Abdul Malik said his son had face wounds. The ADF investigators concluded that Dad Mohammad was lawfully killed because he posed a direct threat to the Australians.

Four Corners can reveal that Soldier C is still serving in the special forces.

As part of a major inquiry into allegations of war crimes within the special forces in Afghanistan, the Inspector-General of the ADF is investigating whether it was common practice to plant radios on bodies.

Chapman said throughout his deployment, there was systematic use of planted weapons and radios to justify killings.

“I did see plenty that were planted,” the former soldier said.

“They definitely got them off somebody else and walked over and sat it next to a body.”

Chapman said weapons were also planted on dead Afghans.

“Other members of my troop back in Australia, they did use to joke about how the same serial number [of a gun] was in every single photo of a dead Afghani,” he said.

“So, you know, inferring that somebody was planting these AK-47s.”

‘Someone’s lied giving evidence’

Another incident that still haunts Braden Chapman involved the death of an elderly Afghan man, Haji Sardar, during a raid on the village of Sarkhume in mid-March 2012.

Chapman is the only Australian witness to speak publicly about what happened to Haji Sardar.

He said Haji Sardar was initially shot in the leg by the SAS-led patrol.

An Australian medic helped patch up the wound, which was not life-threatening.

A senior SAS soldier then took the injured man away.

“Some time later he came back and our medic asked him, ‘What happened, where is he?’ Because he’d worked on him, he [the medic] considered him his patient. And then he [the soldier] just…shook his head and said, ‘He didn’t make it.'”

Chapman said the SAS medic was upset, because he believed the man had been killed.

“He was just saying that the man, he was fine. There was no way he would have died, and he knew that the soldier had killed him,” he said.

After complaints by villagers, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) found Haji Sardar had been beaten to death by an Australian soldier.

“Haji Sardar was first injured and then taken away for investigation and died as a result of torture,” said AIHRC chairwoman Shaharzad Akbar.

AIHRC chairwoman Shaharzad Akbar and Haji Sardar after he was killed.

Australian Defence Force investigators later determined that Haji Sardar had been carrying a weapon and that his killing was lawful.

AIHRC was told by villagers that Haji Sardar was an unarmed civilian.

“I’d say that someone’s lied giving evidence because there’s no way that you can justify an execution,” Chapman said.

Four Corners has obtained hours of footage shot by members of 3 Squadron SAS during the unit’s 2012 rotation through Afghanistan.

It shows the destruction of buildings, motorbikes and the shooting of dogs.

“We try and say that we’re there to help and the Taliban are bad. But if we go in and we start destroying infrastructure or destroying their private vehicles and burning down their homes it doesn’t really send the right message,” Chapman said.

“They’re going to run straight back to the Taliban, who usually are not doing that.”

Potential for war crimes charges

Braden Chapman’s squadron and its time in Afghanistan in 2012 are of key interest to the Inspector-General’s investigation.

Glenn Kolomeitz, a former special operations lawyer for the ADF in Afghanistan, said the special forces were highly trained in the rules of war.

“These guys were given training throughout their work,” he said.

“[There’s] no excuse in terms of the training as provided and the understanding, absolutely.”

Mr Kolomeitz said he believed there was potential for charges to be laid under the war crime murder provisions of the Commonwealth criminal code.

“We have obligations at international law, domestic law, and indeed moral obligations, to not ignore these sorts of allegations,” he said.

3 Squadron SAS successfully captured many targets during its deployment in 2012.

Chapman said the unlawful killings he witnessed may constitute war crimes, and he believes the soldiers responsible deserve to go to jail.

“I just want the truth to come out, and people who did commit crimes to be held accountable,” he said.

He said he also believed officers who ran the special forces should wear some of the blame.

“It is a culture issue as well, and these incidents that are happening would filter through to them. They know what’s going on over there,” he said.

Chapman said a strict code of silence was observed by members of the regiment.

He said he learned this early on in his deployment when talking with one of the more experienced operators.

“He said to me, ‘I hope you’re ready and prepared for this deployment because you need to make sure that you’re OK with me putting a gun to someone’s head and pulling the trigger. Because I don’t want to read about it in 10 or so years.'”

Chapman said that soldier was the one who later dragged the wounded Haji Sardar away before he was found allegedly beaten to death.

For Chapman, speaking out is his chance to atone for staying silent about what he witnessed in Afghanistan.

He believes even if he had made a complaint at the time, it would have gone “nowhere”.

“I didn’t break any rules of engagement,” he said.

“But I feel now that even if it had ruined my career back then, I probably should have made that complaint.

“It’s definitely affected me. You try to look back at your career, try and be proud of it, but then you’ve got all these incidents. You see yourself as part of the bad guys.”

Defence did not answer Four Corners’ questions about particular incidents involving the killing of Afghans.

In a statement, it said the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force was investigating “whether there is any substance to rumour and allegations” about possible war crimes committed by Australian special forces in Afghanistan.

It said the inquiry was ongoing. 

MP Andrew Wilkie Explains the Illegal Extradition of Julian Assange

In the public interest.

Thank goodness we have one politician who speaks truth to power. Andrew Wilkie MP is a former Office of National Assessment analyst (intelligence). He also was a whistleblower in respect of the illegal war in Iraq.

It is important that truth comes out. Silence and apathy is what allows injustice to occur.

Julian Assange Awakens Secrecy as Repugnant to Freedom

This is an article from the Australian ABC regarding Julian Assange, lawyers, breach of privacy and surveillance.  The article focuses on the recording of Geoffrey Robertson QC a famous Australian barrister, well known by those of us over 40 for the ABC program ‘Hypothetical’.  Geoffrey Robertson demonstrated justice as he challenged influential Australians to respond to controversial issues, scenarios indicating how they would handle a difficult problem. He demonstrated Justice and Inquiry. 

He is a human rights lawyer and his lawyer-client privilege was breached due to powerful interests not driven by Justice but power. 

I felt inspired to give J F Kennedy a voice in this blog which drives to the heart of this problem.  

Transcript: https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-newspaper-publishers-association-19610427

The keystone message of Kennedy is as follows:

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

The important question for US lawmakers and politicians is – Can you face high crimes and misdemeanours and correct mistakes rather than criminalise the messenger?   Wikipedia provides insight into the meaning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

When you deeply contemplate the journey of Julian Assange you realise he is a light on the hill as he reminds the US of its true purpose as they have lost their way.  He is a beacon who not only revealed US secrets but awakened the world to what is called the ‘dark side’ of surveillance and political corruption. Justice is not a business deal it is about the truth that sets all free.

Recently I wondered about him. I sent light and protection to him and that he is safe as the US seek to jail him for revealing what is on ‘a need to know basis’. 

When you have experienced inequality before the law, illegal surveillance, privacy breaches and corruption your Cinderella world view dissolves as you become dis-illusioned.  That is, the illusion falls from your eyes and you see clearly.

2020 (vision) is about clear seeing.

Until you walk in Julian’s shoes you cannot know the sacrifice he made in the public interest, albeit global interest. We are learning about how power operates as distinct to Justice. The lengths people will go to, to win and pervert the course of  justice. The lack of ethics, integrity and use of manipulation of the rule of law is under the spotlight. 

It is noteworthy that those persons exposed crimes and/or breaches to the Constitution are not arrested but the whistle-blowers are pursued as if criminals and rights to Justice undermined.

The Brave New World is a teacher, we are being given glimpses into this possible future and every person is choosing. This is the real universal vote. Complacency (compliance) or democracy?

The surveillance state is increasingly being privatised as contractors are paid by national intelligence agencies accessing secrets themselves.  Secrets (security) are leverage.  Imagine how wide spread is espionage as intelligence becomes private security (business) becomes intelligence in the revolving door of greed where there is always a back door to breach privacy and make money from vulnerability.  Greed is the key issue arising out of a desire to live like the US, yet, must we rob Peter to pay Paul. Debt is another leverage point.

Some key quotes from the ABC article below are worthy of contemplation.

“It’s important that clients can speak frankly and freely in a confidential space with their lawyers in order to be able to protect themselves and ensure that they have the best possible legal strategy and that the other side does not have advance notice of it,” Robinson said.

Referring to a Spanish allegation that the US Government had advance notice of legal conversations in the embassy, she said: “That is … a huge and a serious breach of [Assange’s] right to a defence and a serious breach of his fair trial rights”.

“I wasn’t surprised at all. It’s an occupational hazard for human rights lawyers. You’re bugged, you’re followed by secret police, you’re spied upon,” said Robertson, one of Australia and the UK’s most respected human rights barristers for almost 50 years.

The extradition hearing comes amid a flurry of activity related to Assange: on Friday his legal team also confirmed they will try to seek asylum for the WikiLeaks boss in France, and on Thursday an English court heard that Assange was offered a US presidential pardon if he agreed to say that Russia was not involved in a 2016 leak of Democratic Party emails.

When the ABC asked questions of the US embassy in Canberra, it referred questions to the US justice department, which did not respond by deadline.

The ABC also sent questions to the CIA and the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Neither responded by deadline.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/julian-assange-and-his-australian-lawyers-were-secretly-recorded-in-ecuadors-london-embassy/ar-BB10hrG3?ocid=spartandhp

Julian Assange and his Australian lawyers were secretly recorded in Ecuador’s London embassy

Dylan Welch, Suzanne Dredge and Clare Blumer 2 hrs ago

WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange leaves Westminster Magistrates Court in London, Britain January 13, 2020.

© REUTERS/Henry Nicholls WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange leaves Westminster Magistrates Court in London, Britain January 13, 2020. Barrister Geoffrey Robertson’s shuffles into the entrance to Ecuador’s embassy in London, a camera recording the sound of his shoes echoing on the hard tiles.

It’s just after 7:00pm on January 12, 2018.

The camera rolls as Robertson stops at the front door, unbuttons his overcoat and removes his cap.

Once inside the embassy, other cameras follow him as he’s ushered into a meeting room, where the storied Queen’s Counsel is offered a cup of tea.

After a few minutes, he is greeted by the embassy’s most famous resident, Julian Assange.

The camera continues to roll, recording every word of the confidential legal conversation which follows.

While this may be typical surveillance at a secure diplomatic property, what Robertson did not know was he and a handful of other lawyers, were allegedly being targeted in a remarkable and deeply illegal surveillance operation possibly run at the request of the US Government.

Pictures: The case of Julian Assange (Showbizz Daily)

And recordings such as Robertson’s visit are at the heart of concerns about the surveillance: privileged legal conversations between lawyer and client in a diplomatic residence were recorded and, later, accessed from IP addresses in the United States and Ecuador.

Robertson was only one of at least three Australian lawyers and more than two dozen other legal advisers from around the world that were caught up in the surveillance operation.

Long-time WikiLeaks adviser Jennifer Robinson was one of the other Australian lawyers caught in the spying operation.

“It’s important that clients can speak frankly and freely in a confidential space with their lawyers in order to be able to protect themselves and ensure that they have the best possible legal strategy and that the other side does not have advance notice of it,” Robinson said.

Referring to a Spanish allegation that the US Government had advance notice of legal conversations in the embassy, she said: “That is … a huge and a serious breach of [Assange’s] right to a defence and a serious breach of his fair trial rights”.

On Monday evening (Sydney time), Assange will face an extradition hearing relating to US criminal charges against him for his role in the WikiLeaks releases of classified US Government material.

The extradition hearing comes amid a flurry of activity related to Assange: on Friday his legal team also confirmed they will try to seek asylum for the WikiLeaks boss in France, and on Thursday an English court heard that Assange was offered a US presidential pardon if he agreed to say that Russia was not involved in a 2016 leak of Democratic Party emails.

The offer of a pardon was allegedly made by the US congressman Dana Rohrabacher when he visited Assange in the embassy in August 2017. Rohrabacher has denied he was making the offer on behalf of Donald Trump.

‘It’s an occupational hazard for human rights lawyers’

The surveillance was uncovered via a very public investigation into the Spanish company contracted by the Ecuadorian Government to provide security at the embassy, UC Global.

WikiLeaks Spanish lawyer, Aitor Martinez, told the ABC the surveillance came to light after Assange was arrested, when former UC Global employees provided a large file of material.

“This consisted of recordings from cameras installed in the embassy and hidden microphones; recordings made with secret microphones placed inside the embassy; hundreds of secret copies of the passports of Mr Assange’s visitors; multiple emails exchanged between the company owner and the employees,” Martinez said.

The recording of lawyers and legal conversations was not accidental, according to the Spanish criminal case, which is now investigating UC Global and its owner, former Spanish Navy marine David Morales.

“David Morales was justifying himself by saying that he had been expressly asked for this information, sometimes referring to ‘the Americans’,” a UC Global employee turned prosecution witness said.

“He sent on several occasions — via email, by phone and verbally — some lists of targets in which we had to pay special attention … they were mainly Mr Assange’s lawyers.”

“I wasn’t surprised at all. It’s an occupational hazard for human rights lawyers. You’re bugged, you’re followed by secret police, you’re spied upon,” said Robertson, one of Australia and the UK’s most respected human rights barristers for almost 50 years.

Robinson — also an Australian citizen — was spied on while providing confidential legal advice to Assange.

“It is incredibly troubling that our secret and privileged legal conversations with Julian Assange were recorded and apparently handed to US authorities,” she told the ABC.

“It is one of the most fundamental principles of protecting attorney-client relationships that we are able to have confidential and private meetings, to discuss legal strategy.”

The concerns about illegal monitoring of confidential legal discussions may become part of his defence, with his lawyers expected to argue that the espionage has denied Assange his basic legal rights.

Foreign Minister Marise Payne did not respond to ABC questions about the Spanish case. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT) also declined to discuss it, only noting that it had previously sought assurances that Assange would be treated appropriately under UK law.

“The Australian Government cannot intervene in any extradition request for Mr Assange, which is a matter for the UK authorities,” a DFAT spokeswoman said.

Robinson said that she believed Canberra had not done enough to protect Assange, an Australian citizen.

“This is a case in which an Australian citizen is facing 175 years in prison in the United States for the same publication for which he won a Sydney Peace Prize and the Walkley award for the most outstanding contribution to journalism,” she said, referring to WikiLeaks’ publication in 2010 and 2011 of confidential US documents that revealed, among other things, war crimes and illegal spying on world leaders.

“His Australian lawyers — all of us Australian citizens — have [also] had our rights as lawyers and our ability to give him a proper defence superseded by the US and potentially the UK Government.

“This is something that the Australian Government ought to be taking very seriously and ought to be raising both with the UK and with the United States. It is time the Australian Government stands up for this Australian citizen and stops his extradition.”

The file

The ABC has obtained hundreds of internal UC Global documents, videos, audio files and photos tendered in the Spanish case, which commenced in April last year days after Spanish newspaper El Pais published videos and audio of Assange and guests being spied on in the embassy.

The files reveal the remarkable and expanding secret surveillance targeting the WikiLeaks boss and his guests.

In an email from September 2017, Morales ordered UC Global staff to find out what the walls around Assange’s bedroom were made of, and to photograph the embassy’s rooms and its furniture.

Then in December, UC Global updated the embassy’s camera system, installing audio-capable cameras.

A month later, and under instructions from Morales, they installed a listening device in the false base of the meeting room’s fire extinguisher.

They also installed a microphone in the women’s bathroom — a place where Assange would regularly hold sensitive legal meetings.

The case is being investigated by Spain’s federal court, the Audencia Nacional, which is examining whether Morales and UC Global are guilty of breaching both Assange’s privacy and lawyer-client privilege, as well as crimes relating to misappropriation of funds, bribery, and money laundering.

“From 2015 to mid-2018, when UC Global lost the embassy’s security contract, a battery of illegal espionage measures was deployed, with massive interference in the privacy of [Assange], in his communications with his [legal] team, in meetings with his doctors, and in general against everyone close to him,” a criminal complaint filed by Assange’s Spanish lawyers stated.

“In those years the defendants created a sort of ‘Big Brother’ in which all the movements of Mr Assange and the people close to him were monitored.”

The case commenced after a group of Spanish citizens contacted senior WikiLeaks employees and demanded a significant sum of money in return for what they said was voluminous proof of the espionage.

A former UC Global employee — who cannot be identified for legal reasons — also separately approached WikiLeaks, wanting to reveal what they saw as the illegal behaviour of their former company.

WikiLeaks referred the case to Spanish courts, who launched an investigation and arrested Morales. He was later released on bail.

“This spying did not only affect Mr Assange’s lawyers, it also affected all of his visitors, including journalists,” Martinez said.

“It got to the point where, during a visit to Mr Assange, the head of Ecuador’s intelligence service [Rommy Vallejo, on December 21, 2017] was also spied on,” Martinez added.

“In the meeting between Mr Vallejo and Mr Assange the possible release [from the embassy] of Mr Assange in a few days later was discussed.”

Within hours of that secret meeting, which was known to only a few people, the US Ambassador to Ecuador complained to Ecuadorian authorities, and the next day the US issued an international arrest warrant for Assange, Martinez said.

“That leads us to believe that the conversation was urgently sent to the US authorities and that they urgently issued the international arrest warrant the next day,” he said.

Martinez was himself spied on while having legal meetings with Assange at the embassy.

“Mr Assange began to suspect that he was being spied upon … so he asked us to hold the most sensitive meetings in the women’s toilet at the back of the building,” Martinez recalled.

“We honestly thought it was an exaggerated step to hold our legal meetings in the women’s toilet, where he would even open the water tap to avoid anyone listening.

“It was interesting to find out that Mr Assange was, in fact, correct: the material before the court proves that UC Global knew the meetings were held inside the women’s toilet, as they proceeded to install an additional microphone [there].”

‘It goes to the heart of client-lawyer privilege’

While the case made headlines in Europe and the UK, there has been little to no discussion here about what it means for the Australian citizens and lawyers caught up in the alleged espionage operation.

The Law Council of Australia told the ABC the alleged surveillance operation was “deeply disturbing”.

“The allegations that Julian Assange’s conversations with his lawyer were being recorded are really serious,” the council’s president, Pauline Wright said.

“If you can’t have that full, frank discussion without fear that that’s being recorded and potentially released to the authorities … it erodes trust in the whole system.

“It goes to the heart of the client lawyer privilege.”

The file also reveals that Morales’ surveillance project — dubbed Operation Hotel — did not just observe Assange and his guests. Internal UC Global documents reveal staff also stole or illicitly photographed visitors’ belongings.

The file includes photos of passports, mobile phones, computers and other electronic devices owned by dozens of activists, journalists, lawyers and public figures that visited Assange.

The file also reveals a growing desire, on Morales’ part, for ubiquitous surveillance of Assange and his visitors.

Morales directed UC Global to scrutinise particular people visiting Assange, whom he refers to as “el huesped” (the guest).

“We must … create or improve the following profiles (personal data, relationship with the guest, phones, emails, number of visits, et cetera) of these regular visitors or collaborators of the guest,” he said.

He lists nine people, one of whom is Robinson.

“We must do everything to know their data … I want a person completely dedicated to this work, so if you have to hire someone for it, tell me,” Morales said.

“All this must be considered top secret.”

UC Global staff sometimes resisted their boss’s more intrusive requests. In December 2017, Morales allegedly directed an employee to steal the used nappy of a baby who sometimes accompanied his mother when she visited Assange.

The theft was necessary, Morales said, to DNA test faecal matter to establish if the child was Assange’s son.

“I decided to talk to the mother of the child,” the employee said in his statement to the court.

“When we were outside of the embassy, I told her that she must not take the child to the embassy anymore because they planned to steal her baby’s diapers to prove whether he was the son of Julian Assange.”

‘Amigos americanos’

The Spanish criminal complaint states the turbo-charged surveillance operation began after Morales travelled to Las Vegas in 2015 for a security fair. There, he signed a contract with Las Vegas Sands, a company owned by billionaire Trump donor Sheldon Adelson, according to the complaint.

Ostensibly, the contract was to provide security services to Adelson on his mega yacht, the Queen Miri.

But, when Morales returned to Spain, he told UC Global staff they were now “playing in first division”, according to two witness statements tendered in the case.

“[Morales] said he’d gone to the ‘dark side’, referring to himself as a casual collaborator with US authorities, and he said that as a result of this collaboration, ‘The Americans will get us contracts all over the world’,” one witness said in his statement.

Throughout the operation, the employees were repeatedly told by Morales that the surveillance operation was being directed by people he referred to as “amigos Americanos” (American friends).

Concerned about the increasingly illegal behaviour, the UC Global associate pressed Morales on the euphemistic references to “Americans”, demanding to know exactly who they were working for.

According to the statement, Morales replied: “la inteligencia de Estados Unidos” (United States intelligence).

“However, when I asked him who was the particular intelligence person he was meeting to provide them information, Mr Morales ended the conversation and told me that this topic was handled exclusively by him outside the company,” the UC Global associate told prosecutors.

The associate told the court he had repeated and heated discussions with Morales about the operation and who was behind it.

Once such conversation ended with Morales making the gesture of opening his shirt and saying: “I’m a mercenary!”

US action

At first, Morales collected the surveillance footage and delivered it by hand to unknown people in the US.

Later, he asked staff to create a file server and then a secret website to stream the embassy cameras.

A UC Global employee responsible for running the secret website told the Spanish court he noted at least one visitor to the site with an American IP address.

In a Spanish interview, Morales said neither he nor UC Global staff installed any listening devices in the embassy and suggested WikiLeaks had placed the microphones around the embassy.

When the ABC asked questions of the US embassy in Canberra, it referred questions to the US justice department, which did not respond by deadline.

The ABC also sent questions to the CIA and the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Neither responded by deadline.

Foreign Influence in Whitlam Dismissal

in the public interest. The issue here from my perspective is sovereignty and self determination. For me 11/11 is about Australian democracy not the first World War. Although there is a link.

http://www.changingthetimes.net/essays/dismissal.htm The Dismissal

The Dismissal: Why

Gough Whitlam Couldn’t

Simply Say No

 

 

 

A companion paper to Remember, Remember, 

The Eleventh of November, As A Time Of Blood And Death.

by David Atwell

I am quite sure by the time some even finish the end of this paragraph, they may think that I am some crazy left-wing Australian unworthy of breathing their oxygen. Yet, considering some 31 years have passed since the greatest political crisis of Australian history, and having done much academic study since then, I do believe that “It’s Time” to begin, not only a Constitutional analysis of those events back in November 1975, but also ask the fundamental question why the dismissed Australian Prime Minister, who was central to this drama, one Gough Whitlam, simply did not tell the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to basically fornicate off.

For those of you who may not be aware of this infamous act in Australia history, I will spend some time narrating it here. On 11 November 1975, Remembrance Day in Australia took on a whole new meaning. Instead of remembering the ending of the First World War in 1918, Australians had a new thing to remember: the sacking of a democratically elected government, lead by Gough Whitlam, by the Governor-General Sir John Kerr. This act had come about for several reasons, which I will now outline.

The obvious reason for Whitlam’s dismissal, now readily known as simply The Dismissal, was due to the fact that the Opposition in Australia, the Liberal Party and their coalition partners the Country Party, used their numbers in the Senate to defer the Supply Bill. This Supply Bill was the all important annual Budget, which ensured that the government of the day could govern the country, as it paid for everything more or less. Without it the country would soon shut-down as the Federal government would have no money. As a consequence of this, Kerr argued he was given no choice other than dismiss the current government and ensure new general elections. Whether he had to power to do so, without such advice from the Prime Minister of the time, is highly questionable and we will look at this a little later.

There are other reasons for The Dismissal, although it must be stressed that they are of the conspiracy type and little hard evidence exists to prove them. Having said that as the saying goes truth is stranger than fiction, and considering these theories have persisted for over 30 years, combined with the fact that they have become Dismissal folklore, they should be mentioned even if not necessarily accepted. What they often do, however, is orbit Fraser’s desire to become Prime Minister through any means available. Hence if Kerr gains much of the blame, for The Dismissal, Fraser too should accept much of it as well, because of his political expediency in order to become Prime Minister, regardless of the Constitution, and the damage that it received thanks to his political games.

All of the leading conspiracy theories involve, thus, Fraser on the one hand and the American Central Intelligence Agency on the other. Depending upon which exact theory we follow, they always seem to depend upon how much the CIA was actually involved with The Dismissal itself. Mind you it must be noted that it was not as if the Whitlam Government was not involved with the CIA themselves on various matters, nor can it be denied that the Coalition Parties had not had dealings with the CIA either. What a number of the conspiracy supporters point out, though, are three undeniable events which took place leading up to The Dismissal: all involving the CIA.

The first event took place during the cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate between the Whitlam government and the Opposition. Out of nowhere, or so it seemed, the government accused the leader of the Country Party of sharing a house in Canberra with a couple of CIA employees. This was somewhat denied at first, but eventually Doug Anthony, leader of the Country Party, finally admitted to this whilst claiming that it did not prove a thing.

The second instance was far more substantive albeit somewhat connected with the first. When the Whitlam government found itself in trouble over the Loans Affair (which we will look at a bit later) the government launched an attack against the CIA. No one knows, to this day, why Whitlam begun this action, but essentially he demanded from them a list of every employee, agent or otherwise, who was in Australia during the period in question. By treaty, such information was supposed to have been passed on to the Australian government, regardless of party, as a matter of course anyway, but for some reason Whitlam demanded that it all be done in public and the list was to be tabled in Parliament. This list was supposed to be handed to Whitlam on or around 11 November 1975. It never was.

And finally, connected with the CIA agent list business, there was a back channel communiqué made by the CIA to the Australian Secret Intelligence Agency (ASIS) office at the Australian embassy in Washington DC. In no short terms it asked ASIS whether the security arrangements between the two countries had altered and in what direction was Whitlam taking Australia politically. Although it was probably an honest attempt at trying to get an understanding as to what Whitlam was doing, it nevertheless gained the attention of the Head of ASIS who immediately informed Whitlam. Within 24 hours Whitlam had been sacked.

But, regardless of whether or not the conspiracy theorists might be right, at least the legitimate reason why Whitlam was dismissed was the Loans Affairs. These loans all involved one shady character by the name of Khemlani. The Whitlam government wanted to raise a $au4 billion loan to develop the north-west gas and oil fields just in the immediate aftermath of the Yom Kippur War whence OPEC, lead by Saudi Arabia, placed an oil embargo upon the West for its support of Israel during that conflict. The irony is today, the north-west gas and oil fields are one of Australia’s great resources. Whitlam’s mistake, however, was his willingness to use Arab money, as the loan source, instead of the traditional manner of having the loan raised in London or New York.

In doing so, when news got out about the loan, was bad enough, yet the government was able to whether the storm in June-July of 1975. However, it then sealed its fate when, even though Whitlam announced to Parliament that the loans were not going to be sought and that authorisation had be withdrawn to further loan negotiations, two of his government Ministers, one REX Connor and Jim Cairns, decided to continue seeking these loans secretly and thus in total contradiction to what the Prime Minister had told Parliament. Inevitably word got out, from Khemlani himself as a matter of fact, that he had continued to negotiate the loans well after Whitlam had said otherwise. And luckily, or possibly deliberately, for the Opposition, such news arrived just as debate over the Budget had commenced. About three weeks later The Dismissal took place.

Now our first question to raise, in order to explore why Whitlam simply did not tell Kerr to take a hike, is the Constitutional ins-and-outs from which Whitlam was coming from. Essentially Whitlam believed in the Westminster system’s doctrine of Ministerial Advice. Basically it means that the Monarch or their representative – in other words the Governor-General in this case – can only act upon the advice given to them by the Prime Minister or one of the other Ministers of the Crown – in other words Cabinet Ministers. The Monarch may reject this advice, however, but they may not initiate independent action themselves nor may they gain advice from any other source other than those already mentioned above.

In Australia, prior to The Dismissal, it was generally believed that this doctrine of Ministerial Advice had been written into the Constitution under the following Sections:

 

62. There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

63. The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

64. The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

 

Do note that the term Federal Executive Council usually applies to the senior members of Cabinet: in other words the Prime Minister, the Deputy PM, and one or two other Ministers of State.

The supporters of Kerr, however, always point towards Section 2 (as well as Section 64 Para i & ii above) in justifying his actions insofar as the Governor-General has the right to hire and fire:

 

2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

 

But this Section cannot be taken alone, nor Section 64 for that matter, when dealing with such issues, because Section 67 very clearly defines the situation:

 

67. Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the appointment and removal of all other officers of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall be vested in the Governor-General in Council, unless the appointment is delegated by the Governor-General in Council or by a law of the Commonwealth to some other authority.

 

 

In other words the Constitution states that the Governor-General can appoint and dismiss, but can only do such things when the Governor-General is advised to do so by members of the Federal Executive Council. It goes without saying that this was never the case in November 1975.

So essentially Whitlam was taken by surprise on that fateful morning as he never expected whatsoever to be ambushed by his dismissal.

And now finally we get to explore the alternate history part of this essay. It is well known that it took some 2 hours before Whitlam finally made a public appearance with some eloquence, tempered with great passion, in giving his famous speech on the steps of Parliament, proclaiming in part:

 

Well may we say ‘God Save the Queen’, because nothing will save the Governor-General.

 

These are some fighting words, but Whitlam never really made a fight of it: not at least in the more traditional sense of leading a revolution against the Governor-General (and the Monarch) akin to what our American cousins did some 200 years prior to 1975. In many respects, considering the great anger of the crowd in Canberra that day, it would not have been hard for Whitlam to have done that. Certainly the large student population would have likely joined such a revolution as would have the large trade union population. And, as events would unfold throughout the rest of November and early December, such a revolution could have taken place judging by the tens of thousands of protesters who turned out at the various Labor Party political rallies running up to the election in December 1975.

 

The answer to this question probably lies in two parts. And it was all because of Whitlam in many respects. At this point in time we should probably look at the man himself in question albeit briefly. To begin with he was a World War II veteran. In fact he served in the Royal Australian Air Force. Furthermore, he was also a lawyer for many years before being elected to Federal Parliament. As a consequence, he had served in Parliament for many years. He was also, what was called back then, a social democrat – not a revolutionary socialist. And finally, after Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War, and the wholehearted unpopularity which it had gained by early 1972, wherein millions of Australians marched everywhere against that war, all convinced Whitlam that war achieved nothing but blood and death.

So here we are, in November 1975, with Australia on the very edge of civil war. Regardless of the moment, Whitlam would have known for certain that, even though he may have had much support in various parts of the nation, a significant number of Australians would be against him regardless of what he decided to announce on the footsteps of Parliament. As such, and even though Whitlam probably did not know it at the time, the armed forces had been alerted to expect trouble by the Governor-General. Although the reservists had not been called up, the regular forces were mobilising nevertheless with the possible task of taking on rioting students and trade unionists. This could have meant that Australia would face a war, in the end, not too dissimilar to Vietnam, which was clearly an experience anyone, let alone Whitlam, would want to avoid. Furthermore, Whitlam knew all too well the fate of the socialist Chilean President Allende from only a few years before where his death, at the hands of the military, meant a dreadful future for Chile under the likes of Pinochet. Taking account of all this, then, as well as Whitlam’s character, it is not surprising then that he declined to call for a revolution.

Although the above few paragraphs may appear to make Whitlam out to be pious, in truth he was anything but. He was a politician first and foremost. Whilst Whitlam may have feared destruction and much bloodshed, had he called for a revolution, we must remember that he was also a lawyer who loved the Constitution. He believed that the Constitution was on his side. But he also believed that he was just given a huge political windfall. Due to lots of different reasons, the Labor Party had become very unpopular with the voters. The oil blockade of OPEC ensured a global recession had taken place. Not only was the price of oil high, but food and everything else had become much more expensive. Similarly, unemployment began to rise and numerous companies had gone to the wall. Then there was the Loans Affair business. All this made for one very unhappy Australian electorate.

Then came The Dismissal. This changed the entire political scene, not just overnight, but within a matter of minutes. All of a sudden Whitlam was seen in a new light by many Australians insofar as it was seen that big business, the Liberal Party, not to mention the nation’s elites, had broken the rules in order to kick Whitlam out of office by any means necessary. To put it simply, in terms most Australians understood, the so called “neutral umpire”, that being the Governor-General, had conspired with the “enemy” which led him to deliberately cheat and break the rules. Whitlam, in the few hours he had from when he was dismissed to when he gave his impromptu speech on the steps of Parliament, had probably thought about this and believed that, in just under a month’s time, he would romp it in at the elections and given a new lease of life. He more than likely believed that, if he played by the rules, whilst the others did not, Australians would side with him, if for nothing else, he played the game fair.

What Whitlam did not calculate on, however, was the political campaign waged by Fraser. Fraser knew he was tarnished by The Dismissal, regardless of how innocent he tried to portray himself, and hence basically ignored The Dismissal in his election campaign. Consequently, he concentrated on petrol prices, he concentrated on Australia being in an economic recession, he concentrated on bankruptcies, and he concentrated on unemployment. At first, Australians hardly listened to what Fraser had to say, as they were too wound up in the emotional climatic events of The Dismissal itself. But as the election approached, Australian’s anger over The Dismissal lessoned and they looked into their ever shrinking wallets. It is probably fair to say that the election results in December 1975 were of mixed emotions. In the end, however, Australia may have wanted to vote for Whitlam, but their reduced hip pockets made them vote for Fraser instead.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Primary Sources

Books

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1987.

Congalton, A. A., Status and Prestige in Australia, Melbourne: F. W. Cheshire Publishing, 1969.

Fraser, M., Malcolm Fraser on Australia, (eds) White, D. M. and Kemp, D. A. Melbourne: Hill of Content Publishing, 1986.

Kerr, Sir John, Matters for Judgement, Melbourne, Macmillian Press, 1979.

Mackerras, M., Elections 1975, Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers, 1975.

Quick, J. and Garran, R. The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, Sydney: Legal Books, 1995.

Whitlam, E. G., The Truth of the Matter, Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia, 1979.

Whitlam, E. G., The Whitlam Government 1972-1975, Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia, 1985.

Secondary Sources

Journals

Archer, J. and Maddox, G., “The Concept of Politics in Australia“, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP7-12.

Forward, R., “Editorial opinion and the Whitlam government“, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP136-141.

Holmes, J., “Swingers and stayers, 1974-75“, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP47-53.

Staveley, R. W. 1976, “The conventions of the constitution: Kerr’s folly”, The Australasian Political Studies Association Journal, Volume XI, May, (1976), PP16-19.

Books

Ayres, P., Malcolm Fraser, Richmond: William Heinemann, 1987.

Beed, T., “Opinion Polling and the Elections”, in H. R. Penniman, (ed.), Australia at the Polls, Washington: American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977, PP211-256

Bolton, G., The Oxford History of Australia, The

Middle Way 1942-1988, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Browning, H. O., 1975 Crisis, Sydney: Hale and Iremonger, 1985.

Chomsky, N. Necessary Illusions, Boston: South End Press, 1989.

Clark, M., A Short History of Australia, fourth edition, Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1995.

Connell, R. W., Ruling Class, Ruling Culture, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Cooray, L. J. M., Conventions, The Australian Constitution, and the Future, Sydney: Legal Books Pty. Ltd. 1979.

Freudenberg, G., A Certain Grandeur, Ringwood: Penguin Books, 1977.

Goodall, P., High Culture, Popular Culture, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin, 1995.

Goot, M., Constructing Public Opinion, Sydney: Ethnic Affairs Commission, 1984.

Herman, E. S. and Chomsky, N., Manufacturing Consent, New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.

Horne, D., Winner Take All?, Ringwood: Penguin Australia, 1981.

Horne, D., Death of The Lucky Country, Ringwood: Penguin Australia, 1976.

Howard, C., The Constitution, Power and, Politics, Melbourne: The Dominion Press, 1980.

Kelly, P., November 1975, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin, 1995.

Kelly, P., The Dismissal, Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers, 1983.

Kelly, P., The Unmaking Of Gough, Sydney: Angus and Robertson Publishers, 1976.

Lane, P. H., An Introduction to the Australian Constitution, second edition, Sydney: The Law Book Company, 1977.

Lloyd, C. J., “The Media and the Elections”, in H. R. Penniman, (ed.), Australia at the Polls, Washington: American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977, PP171-210.

Lloyd, C. J. and Clark, A., Kerr’s King Hit, Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1976.

McMullin, R., The Light on the Hill, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Marshall, I. And Kingbury, D. Media Realities, South Melbourne: Longman, 1996.

Molony, J., The Penguin History of Australia, Ringwood: Penguin Books Australia, 1987.

Reid, G. S., “Conventions and the Constitution”, in A. Parkin, J. Summers, and D. Woodward, (eds.), Government, Politics and Power in Australia, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd. 1980, PP67-69.

Sawer, G. 1980, “Laws and Convenstions”, in A. Parkin, J. Summers, and D. Woodward, (eds.), Government, Politics and Power in Australia, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd. 1980, PP62-66.

Sawer, G., Federation Under Strain, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1977.

Sexton, M., Illusions Of Power, Sydney: George Allen and Unwin, 1979.

Smith, R, , “The News Media”, in R. Smith, and L. Watson, (eds.) Politics in Australia, North Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1989, PP254-269.

Turner, G. “Media Texts and Messages”, in S. Cunningham, and G. Turner, (eds.) The Media in Australia, second edition, St Leonards: Allen and Unwin, 1997, PP291-348.

Ward, R., The History of Australia: The Twentieth Century 1901-1975, London: Heinemman Educational Books, 1978.

Weller, P. and Smith, R. F. I. 1977, “The Rise and Fall of Whitlam Labor: The Political Context of the 1975 Elections” in H. R. Penniman, (ed.), Australia at the Polls, Washington: American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1977, PP49-76.

West, F., “Constitutional Crisis 1975 – An Historian’s View”, in A. Parkin, J. Summers, and D. Woodward, (eds.), Government, Politics and Power in Australia, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty. Ltd. 1980, PP70-80.