AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty’s resignation leaves me in complete agreement with Peter Faris, for once:
Law commentator and former head of the National Crime Authority Peter Faris QC has told ABC 2 News Breakfast there is no doubt his decision to step down is linked to the case.
“Absolutely. I think he’s just waited for a reasonable time after the [Haneef] inquiry before resigning.”
“My analysis of it was that he was the prime mover in it all and it went terribly terribly wrong as we all know and he should have accepted responsibility and resigned and he didn’t.”
Aside from the Haneef affair, Keelty’s time at the AFP has another very serious stain through the case of the Bali Nine. Furthermore, as noted in this post on a 4 corners story on Keelty’s tenure, there’s some evidence to suggest that Keelty’s AFP became far too focussed on terrorism at the expense of less exciting, but far more common crimes. Not to mention his very strange ideas about freedom of speech – him leaking to the press is fine, bloggers expressing our views not so great.
Good riddance.
As seen by the public, Keelty hasn’t done anything to resign over. This may be different to how the political class, or the ruling party see it.
Haneef case: Erring on the side of caution when arresting terrorits, terrorist sympathisers, or even possible terrorists, isn’t seen as a bad thing by the Ozzi street. (blowing up nighclubs full of ordinary ozzis is something ordinary ozzis take a most stern view about)
Bali Nine: Their immediate relative and the odd moonchild excepted, there is little sympathy for their plight. The day the police tailor their activities around the penalty a suspect receives if convicted, is the day a police officer should resign. They are police, not judiciary.
@SATP huh? I’m a member of the public and I’m happy to see him out the door, and I should add that the political climate set by Howard allowed Keelty to prosper. Buh, bye!
On the most generous interpretation, Keelty naively allowed himself to be used to serve the party-political interests of Howard’s mob. At worst, he deliberately tried to influence public opinion and political decisions in a very partisan manner using the media both openly and by leaking misleading information. Either way he was a shameless empire builder who seemed to have a limited grasp of the balance between individual liberties and state actions that is supposed to be a core element of our system of governance.
Good riddance indeed.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. But, do we really expect things to change for the better with his successor?
Steve, let’s imagine Dr Haneef were a dangerous terrorist of the first order: it’s not impossible, after all, that he was and is. Because of the utterly incompetent investigation, he walked free, untouchable by any magistrate. That’s not how the public want genuine terrorists to be dealt with; we/they prefer them properly prosecuted and imprisoned.
Bye, Keelty.
All due respect to your position in society Phil, you are not representative of the Ozzi street any more than I am. What you & I think or feel may often be waaaaay different to what the ozzi street’s opinion is.
Keelty may well be guilty of not appearing to share your politics, but in no way is he guilty of not being a committed policeman.
Wouldn’t have anything to do with the possibility that he has chosen 30 years as his point for retirement and is ready to enjoy a change in direction?
As was argued on ABC local radio this morning, I reckon Keelty’s standing with the supposed “Ozzi street” was shot when he so clearly aligned himself with the immediate needs of the government of the day.
Haneef case: Erring on the side of caution when arresting terrorits, terrorist sympathisers, or even possible terrorists, isn’t seen as a bad thing by the Ozzi street.
And Steve and the Pub is absolutely right. Honecker and Ulbricht had no problem with arresting suspected terrorists, or arresting anyone they suspected of anything. In fact, if you look at the East German establishment…
Waitaminute. Sure you didn’t misspell “Ossi“? You’re mad.
Beat me too it Liam.
SATP – can you point to any aspect of Keelty’s handling of either the Bali nine or Haneef cases which might support your assertion that he was any good?
One was rendered unprosecutable by bungling, the others were surrendered to a foreign country’s notoriously draconian and corrupt system. Why didn’t Keelty think our law was good enough?
FDB, if the Bali Nine are unhappy with the penalty for drug running, then it is up to them to not run drugs in Indonesia, not up the the Australian federal police commissioner to pander to the sensitivities of people who are committing capital crimes.
The Bali Nine have been arrested and charged, ergo the police did their job.
The part of the Haneef case involving possible bungling or comprimising of the case is beyond the ken of the ozzi street & will have little to no impact upon his standing with Bluey & Curley. There is a lot more to the Haneef case than the federal police. For starters there is the conduct of the magistrate who granted him bail. The conduct of Mr Haneef himself is, to put it mildly, quite fishy.
Down & Out, when in the eastern part of Germany, the “Ozzi/Ossi” is a great icebreaker, fantastic point of difference between us and “Wessis” (which includes people from all western countries)
“The Bali Nine have been arrested and charged, ergo the police did their job.”
The Indonesian police, sure. But I asked you about Keelty, didn’t I?
“The part of the Haneef case involving possible bungling or comprimising of the case is beyond the ken of the ozzi street & will have little to no impact upon his standing with Bluey & Curley.”
On the contrary, I believe that anyone who thinks (as you seem to) that Haneef was guilty would prefer that he was in gaol. Anyone who doesn’t think him guilty would prefer he had been treated in accordance with the law. Who does that leave?
Jesus, Steve, you don’t think a lot of the Australian public. In your vision of Ozzistraße the people know or care nothing about evidence, courts, or rules of behaviour. Why do you look down on ordinary people so?
Perhaps he’s looking up.
“I reckon Keelty’s standing with the supposed “Ozzi street” was shot when he so clearly aligned himself with the immediate needs of the government of the day.”
So true. He was leaned on by Howard and co over some comments he made about the Spanish bombings. To keep his job, he henceforth did the governments bidding.
He became more committed politician than “committed policeman”.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/25/1085461758302.html
Indeed, Katz. From SATP’s numerous earlier postings on the subject, we know that he looks back to Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s misrule with misty nostalgic eyes. So an incompetent and indeed corrupt police commissioner, contempt for the rule of law and due process, and callous disregard of the rights of the individual (other than property rights of the wealthy) are all to be regarded as hallmarks of good government according to SATP’s lights.
Keelty’s resignation is all about superannuation. No other reason. Not Haneef, not Bali Nine. They hit 54 years and 9 months of age and off they go….Get out of Canberra and off to another life.
Just as Sol Trujillo’s resignation was all about tax:
“But Australian tax law meant that from July, having lived here for more than four years, his US assets and income would lose immunity from the Australian Tax Office. Not for nothing is Trujillo leaving Telstra four years to the day after he began work.” http://business.smh.com.au/business/lost-sol-20090227-8k9x.html
Shoulda been sacked.
And a few others.
I tend to agree with SATP. While the affair with Hanneff was a shemozzle, I think it better to err on the side of caution when it comes to Terrorism. The AFP bungled Hanneefs arrest and detention but do you really believe that Keelty personally was responsible? He would have been briefed by junior personnel at all stages of the process and made his decisions accordingly. I think it worth noting too that at the time there was concern that Hanneef was a member/associate of an active Terrorism cell, not merely a sympathiser with Islamist politics. Most of the scaremongering that occurred over this incident were the fault of the media, not at the AFP.
Regarding the Bali nine I think the AFP acted correctly. They had information to suggest that a crime was being committed in a foreign country. They acted to prevent the crime by alerting the local police. This seems to me to be an example of good professional practice and nothing more. It is true that there were consequences to this action that lack popular support (and on this website) in Australia for those involved, but do we really want our senior police organisation making decisions based on political motives? Most views expressed above suggest not.
In a nutshell, yes. Or, at least, Keelty was the one selectively leaking to the media. There’s also evidence to suggest that the decision to charge Haneef resulted from pressure at very senior levels in the AFP – if not Keelty personally, people not far down the chain.
Australia has a long-standing policy of not cooperating with death penalty prosecutions. Under Keelty’s watch, the AFP went against the spirit of this policy by providing information to the Indonesian police, in the full knowledge that the information was likely to be used to charge people with crimes where the death penalty would be sought as punishment. So, yes, I blame Keelty for ignoring the spirit of that policy.
Does Farris have any hard evidence to back up his assumptions or is he just making shit up?
Personally, I’d like to see the AFP get a whole lot tougher on witchcraft and Cathars. They’re the real threat to Australian society as we know it. You can never err too much on the side of caution with witches and Cathars.
Hasn’t the Haneef affair gone too far under the bridge to precipitate a resignation. There’s not much heat. It seems to me that Keelty was an active supporter of Howard’s social agenda – the Bali 9 a kind of proxy death penalty advocacy – now that Johhnie’s gone Keelty doesn’t feel so welcome no more.
.
Maybe he’s got a cushy job awaitin’ him in some autocratic think-tank. His thesis Heinrich Himmler: A Warrior For Freedom is due out soon.
I’m so in favour of the erring on the side of caution principle, that I don’t think we should just limit it to Terrorism©. What about speeding drivers, annoying teenagers, smokers in public places, people who use leaf blowers, useless politicians, people who use the phrase ‘moving forward’ and anyone who thinks that Nick Cave has talent?
You just know it makes sense.
“…..people who use leaf blowers….”
Yer, lock em up and throw away the key.
I think it better to err on the side of caution when it comes to Terrorism.
Unfortunately that’s what Keelty failed to do. Rather than act cautiously to prevent things getting out of hand and do his best to secure a conviction, Keelty ran off at the brain and repeatedly overstated his case, leaked to the media and gave every impression of being a political hack. That’s not cautious.
Look, preventing terrorism is not rocket science, it’s not a new thing, it’s been done before and we have a pretty good idea how it all works. There’s a bucketload of research and experimentation been done on how to prevent terrorism, catch terrorists and clean up after terrorists. What’s missing is political willingness to follow the research, because politicians and media are fixated on a very narrow range of ideas. It’s like crime and transport… they “know” what to do, and if it doesn’t work the answer is to do more of it.
Simplified to almost nonsense, non-state terrorism comes from either poverty or invasion and preventing it means fixing the causes. Using a police state or military invasion makes the problem worse. Applying either after the fact never works but often pushes new groups into terrorism. I’d love to hear counter-examples… about the only one I can think of is the occupation of Australia.
“Yer, lock em up and throw away the key.”
Na ,leaf em alone.
“Australia has a long-standing policy of not cooperating with death penalty prosecutions.”
Really? Australia certainly does have a long-standing policy of in-principle opposition to the death penalty but I’m not sure that there’s a “long history” of simply not co-operating in international criminal case investigation/prosecution where there is a potential for the death penalty to be applied.
The circumstances in the Bali 9 case were quite specific but I’m uncomfortable with the notion that Indonesian criminal investigations should necessarily be conducted in accordance with Australian preferences and requirements.
Australia has a choice whether to share information with the Indonesian police or not.
My view is that if they’re going to use the information to put people to death, that information should not be shared, and it’s my understanding that that at least was the Australian government’s policy.
“My view is that if they’re going to use the information to put people to death, that information should not be shared, and it’s my understanding that that at least was the Australian government’s policy.”
So if the AFP becomes aware that an Australian is smuggling heroin in from Singapore (internally secreted as it turns out) but fails to alert the Singaporean authorities because of the Singaporean death penalty, and the courier subsequently dies in mid-flight after the condom breaks, would it be a morally defensible outcome?
If the AFP becomes aware of the identity of individuals planning a bombing in Jakarta, should they with-hold the information given that a conviction in these circumstances would carry the death penalty?
Your hypotheticals aren’t particularly pertinent Geoff.
I’m pretty sure it’s about not assisting a prosecution, rather than not preventing a crime understood to be imminent.
In any case though Geoff, in answer to your questions:
1) Yes. In this case the courier goes from near-certainty of death to a very slim chance of death. The AFP have done what they could to both bring a prosecution, and protect an Australian citizen’s life as best they can in the circumstances.
2) If the AFP is not in a position to act on the information (arrest the plotters and charge them in Australia), then yes they should share it. As Klaus implies.
Didn’t the parents of Scott Rush inform the AFP themselves, that he was going to Bali in the first place, and they were assured he would be stopped before he left and then when their son was arrested in Indonesia, Keelty – said “oh, noes, the AFP wouldn’t have said we would have stopped him going”.
Go back to the case SATP and see how many opportunities the AFP had to arrest the mules in Oz, or allow them to bring to return to Australia and then arrest them here etc.
This was a deal done between the AFP and Indonesian police as payback probably for allowing the AFP to lead the Bali bombing investigations and other courtesies etc.
There are a 190 million good reasons for us to work closely with the Indonesian authorities, but both Labor and Coalition Govts have often come off second best in respect of placating Jakarta’s domestic agendas and this is just another one, and tragic for the families of these young idiots.
Keelty’s total botch-up of the Haneef case otoh, was a total own-goal and fairly exposed him as both partisan and willing to push way beyond accepted standards for a disinterested public official doing his/her duty etc.
And we can bullshit on the the ‘Ozzi street’ stuff – cause the Newspoll taken in early August 2007 showed only 49% of the population agreeing with the way the Govt was handling the Haneef case – this is only a week or so after Andrews had withdrawn Haneef’s visa. It was rightly viewed as the Govt beating up some “terrorist threat” in the lead-up to a general election. The vast majority of the 49% were Coalition voters FTR, thereby reducing again the “street factor”. One can only imagine what the results of any polling would have revealed after the judical inquiry.
Robert @ 29:
Under that policy the AFP should not have helped the Indonesian police with the investigation of the Bali bombings as it would have been clear that if the people responsible were caught they would face the death penalty.
‘can call bullshit’…
“I’m pretty sure it’s about not assisting a prosecution, rather than not preventing a crime understood to be imminent.”
That’s a distinction that is extremely unlikely to be all that neat and clear in practice, klaus.But I take the point.
Except Chris, that with the crime committed in Indonesia, and the criminals in Indonesia, there would have been certain sovereignty problems with pursuing the Bali Bombers ourselves.
So yes, my desire to see people not be executed has limits:
It does extend to arresting drug traffickers in Australia and charging them under Australian law.
It doesn’t extend to invading Indonesia to protect murderers.
Can you see the differences? They are many and obvious.
Moz, all the joes and I know where you live, trouble is we can’t spell rondition…
MC goes: ‘the affair with Hanneff (sic) was a shemozzle’
All that work I did at Caloundra airport for nothing…sheesh!
And later: ‘this incident were (sic) the fault of the media, not at the AFP’
Well tug my Rubber Bit; google Deadly Hedley Thomas Walkley etc and try harder.
I could go on about the Nielsen the narrowing the gold coast pikkies etc. but Robert, I won’t. For now.
FDB @ 38 – The Bali 9 have been charged and convicted for crimes committed in Indonesia. If the AFP had not shared information with Indonesia then its likely that some of those would have not been prosecuted in either Australia or Indonesia. And from what was reported they were hoping to get people further up the chain which unfortunately did not occur.
I never mentioned invading Indonesia to protect murderers. Australia could have left the Bali bombing investigation up to the Indonesians and not shared information or technical help – like it appears you’d like to occur when it comes to drug trafficking investigations. It wasn’t just the drug mules (there’s probably an endless supply of those) the AFP were after when cooperating with the Indonesians.
The federal police commissioner is a straight up police position, one that should never have been politicised in the first place.
The commissioner’s name should barely be known by the public.
This is the fault of the Howard government. The AFP commissioner shouldn’t have been pushed out to be front & centre at press conferences. He was taking questions & taking heat. THAT is what politicians are for, to take the flak.
The enforced politicisation of the role (possibly against the wishes of the incumbent) is something that seemed to drop off with the change of government.
Is this due to better manners on the part of the Rudd government? Or was Keelty sidelined for political reasons? That is, punished for being the bunny pushed out onto the podium by the Howard govt to answer questions & take heat that should have been meant for ministers in the Howard govt?
SATP re:
What conduct? Did you know, for example that one of the considerations for bail, (even when there is a presumption against bail, or even when bail can only be granted in exceptional circumstances): is the strength of the prosecution case?
As it happened, on the evidence presented by the Crown, and as we all know now, it was piss weak. That’s mainly why the magistrate rightly granted bail.
But you were saying something about his “conduct”–please enlighten us. Was there some flagrant violation of Queensland’s Bail Act? Did he convict one of your bouncers for assault? Pray tell.
anyone who thinks that Nick Cave has talent
.
Me!
The federal police commissioner is a straight up police position, one that should never have been politicised in the first place.
.
Exactly.
.
Is this due to better manners on the part of the Rudd government?
.
No Kevvie’s totally different, um…..
Adrien you are citing Bolt.
You destroy any case you may have when citing Bolt.
Thye only time Bolt has been right about anything was when he confessed to being wrong.
You destroy any case you may have when citing Bolt.
.
Yes I’m sorry. But I’m lazy, I couldn’t be bothered clicking the second page. And funnily enough there aren’t too many stories on this issue. It’s a bit quiet.
.
The only time Bolt has been right about anything was when he confessed to being wrong.
.
No he’s not always wrong. He isn’t wrong on this. Non-political positions should remain non-political – strictly. Look at the States, every time the presidency changes hands thousands of people move around. Npt only that but if the cops and the gov-gen are in cahoots with the day’s govt then what does that do to the separation of powers?
.
Keep dem powers separate for if they’s joins together than it be heap big tyranny. No fun.
.
BTW You’re argument reminds me of someone at Catallaxy who said I was wrong because I quoted Eric Hobsbawm and he’s a commie etc.
.
Granted Bolt’s much dodgier than Hobsbawm.
Bye Keelty. No more AFP sponsored election stunts – for now anyway. But seriously, the Haneef bungle was nothing to do with Keelty – even though he was directly responsible and accountable. Should have been sacked.
Chris, I suspect that you’re too entrenched for this conversation to be fruitful, but do you know of a single instance where the Indonesian authorities have even hinted at an interest in prosecuting the real drivers of drug trafficking? Or given (even offered) any clemency for information leading to arrests higher up?
erring @ 24: “and anyone who thinks that Nick Cave has talent?”
ah-haha. what a shit stirrer! the grinderman – nick cave double header I attended last year was the best gig I’ve ever been to. ah, bless the old Thebbie Theatre.
oh, and good riddance to Keelty.
Yes better to be debating the talent of nick cave
His Ship Song is my favourite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKlaV-9Vzsk
Good riddance too.
The AFP’s conduct in the Haneef matter was appalling. An exercise in how to comprehensively stuff things-up, it would have had any half-way decent copper cringing.
Your basic desk sergeant at the Newtown Police Station could have done a better job.
At least he would have seen the matter for the crap it really was and recommended that perhaps the informant re-think the whole thing before swearing-out a complaint and bringing the whole force into disrepute.
How did this bloke ever become the Federal Police Commissioner?
“the Ozzi street” hehe
.
A colleague from the subcontinent was just mentioning to me the other day how amazed at how little street life or culture there is in this country. Empty streets except for when everyone is going to and from work. Any semblence of street life most probably being moved on by the cops after someone’s sensibilities were offended.
No such thing as an “Ozzi street” in such a suburban culture.
An “Indian street” actually means something involving millions of real people with needs and interests.
.
More like a lot glowing lounge rooms with the television, or the net, or movies, facilitating everyone to imagine all sorts of things about the world and themselves. Some real, many imaginary.
With recent research suggesting that we spend the less time (and energy) entertaining friends/family than most other developed societies. A picture of a rather insular and not very open culture? Which rings true to me, but was not always how I felt about culture in this country growing up.
.
Actually I think the “Ozzi beach” or “Ozzi sporting crowd (any sport will do?)” would be a fairer representation of the mainstream view, as much as anything could or would, if such a thing exists. So would that tell us more about what ‘most’ people think about all this?
According to 4 Corners, it was at least due in part to being “politically savvy”.
FDB @ 48 – from my vague memory of the four corners episode on the Bali 9, one of the goals of the AFP was the arrest by the Indonesians of more than just the drug mules. They missed some of them – whether that was due to bad luck, incompetence or corruption I don’t know. But it is a country we cooperate with on quite a few matters and I don’t think we can expect them to share information with us if we don’t do the same. We’d be pretty annoyed if another country’s police force knew about crimes being committed in our country and didn’t tell us about it. It wasn’t even the case of the behaviour being legal in our country but illegal in theirs.
For what its worth I oppose the death penalty and I don’t support extradition in cases where the death penalty may be applied. But Australia is very selective on when it chooses to publicly oppose the application of the death penalty.
SATP – so how was Haneef a”Possible terrorist”? Ethnicity?
Who will be the next Serjanus of the naked Emperor’s Praetorian Guard? Another meretricious mediocrity unable to spell Nuremberg, let alone understand the concept.Bet.
Yes, that’s a problem. We should be completely non-selective in our opposition to the death penalty.
But it’s not Keelty’s job to make that policy, it’s the goverment’s job.
However,passing information on to the Indonesian police knowing that the result would be that Australian drug couriers – as noted, an offence that would attract a few years’ jail in Oz – would be sent to their deaths was reprehensible.
Agreed! And we missed a big opportunity to state our opposition to the death penalty for the Bali Bombers.
Thats where we disagree. I don’t think its a good outcome where some of those convicted have been sentenced to death, but refusing to cooperate with overseas police forces has risks in itself for Australians too.
I agree with you, Peter. The magistrate, and after him the Federal Court judge, did his job according to his oath of office and applied the law, as his oath required, upon the facts put before him.
There is no point in having laws unless there are judicial officers who will uphold them as they have sworn to do.
Perhaps some closer investigation is required GregM, Peter.
For the magistrate was not a he, but a she.
Making statements such as “.. he did his job..” makes you.. er.. foolish. You don’t know the first thing about the way the magistrate went about her task. You didn’t even know it was a she. No matter what you come out with now, you will never have me believe you did anything but put fingers to keyboard without the faintest clue what you were waffling about.
Shorter Fern Bar Steve.
“Suddenly I’m a feminist if I think it’ll cover up my point gone wrong.”
Cue undeliverable threats of physical violence coupled with strident observations that running a remote pub equips you with far more wisdom than anyone else ever. Followed by chip on shoulder dip and twirl.
Some closer investigation of the Qld’s Bail Act would be appropriate on your part SATP, not on the magistrates gender.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ba198041/s16.html
ie (a) serious crime alleged BUT
(b) good character; no criminal antecedents; no associations with criminal organisations, medical practitioner sworn to save lives; excellent background.
(c] no previous bail history
(d) piss weak strength of prosecution case.
Bail granted. “May it please the Court.”
(Gnashing of teeth in Canberra and certain pubs in perpetuity.)
Oh boy, some ingenues who think the court system is impartial & b/s free, and that it matters not which magistrate hears a matter, as the outcome will be the same regardless of magistrate?
Nabakov, you got a real problem feller. Let it go. I haven’t had a point go wrong yet. It may get on your goat that someone squeezes more living into their day than you do in a month. Deal with it.
Well said GregM in pointing out that Magistrates are sworn to uphold and apply the law, based on the evidence before them.
(Kudos to the barrister who gave a transcript Record Of Interview to the Oz. Brickbats to Ruddock who tried to interfere with that practitioner’s duty to defend his client, [necessary due to political meddling which threatened a fair trial], but always: “without fear or favour.”)
If pointing out that a magistrate is female makes one a ‘feminist’, heaven help us. surely there’s more involved than that?
e.g. advocating fairer treatment of women within the legal profession, and treatment of women by the legal system – domestic violence springs to mind, sadly.
“Ozzi” street? What’s with this trendy neologism? What was wrong with “Aussie”?
Lol bye Kealty!
Can’t say I’m sad to see the end of him. Here’s a man who took the AFP and made it the laughing stock of federal police services around the world. And that was before Haneef.
“Ozzi/Aussie Street” – there’s no such thing, it’s one of those garbage concepts like “monocultural societies” that people drag out to support their opinion.
“There is a lot more to the Haneef case than the federal police. For starters there is the conduct of the magistrate who granted him bail.”…SATP@11
“Oh boy, some ingenues who think the court system is impartial & b/s free, and that it matters not which magistrate hears a matter, as the outcome will be the same regardless of magistrate?”…SATP@62
SATP, I doubt there is anyone here who would contend that the magistrates court, in any state, is perfect. However, they are just as critical as the police forces that bring those accused before them. If you have any evidence that a particular magistrate has been involved in “conduct” unworthy of their office it is your duty to report it to the appropriate authorities.
It is just not good enough to make snide suggestions about Jacqui Payne in this cowardly manner. She strikes me as someone both fearless and diligent. Either put up or shut up.
Keelty’s resignation is all about superannuation …[t]hey hit 54 years and 9 months of age and off they go – Nanu Levu @17
>
Yes – that explains a lot. It explains why he wasn’t sacked, especially after his absurd comments in January 2008 arguing in effect that the duty of the citizen when police go about their work is to keep their mouth shut. He promised to retire now rather than complete his contract.
>
I think some journo should ask McLelland when he became aware of Keelty’s intentions, first checking that Keelty is in the old CSS (which is the scheme that gives the enormous incentive to retire just before turning 55). If he gives anything but a flat and unequivocal denial of foreknowledge then we can all join the dots.
“But it is a country we cooperate with on quite a few matters and I don’t think we can expect them to share information with us if we don’t do the same. We’d be pretty annoyed if another country’s police force knew about crimes being committed in our country and didn’t tell us about it. It wasn’t even the case of the behaviour being legal in our country but illegal in theirs.”
Can you please read the following points closely Chris?
1) There has been no suggestion anywhere, ever, by anyone that the AFP should have let the suspects complete their smuggling mission, take their cut and go free.
2) The information implicating the Bali 9 came initially from the family of one of the suspects in Australia. It was not an Indonesian investigation until the AFP decided to make it one.
3) The suspects could have been arrested in Australia before they left, or when they returned, and interrogated, charged etc under Australian law.
the good old 54/11 eh?
FDB @ 69 – by not informing the Indonesian authorities beforehand it would have greatly reduced the probability of being able to arrest the people further up the chain. Its would have been a pretty big advantage to have the Indonesian police follow the suspects around.
Ideally there would be some way for the AFP to pass information on the basis that those charged would not face the death penalty (though life in an Indonesian jail is not going to be much of an improvement).
If they had arrested the suspects beforehand (and getting a conviction would probably be much harder) its probable that the smugglers would just have found a bunch of other drug mules that the AFP did not know about.
The Bali 9 may have been all they managed to get in the end, but from the AFP point of view they wanted more of the network than that. In terms of credit/publicity presumably the AFP would prefer to do the arrests in Australia themselves.
“The Bali 9 may have been all they managed to get in the end, but from the AFP point of view they wanted more of the network than that.”
At what price? That of knowingly sending Australians to their probable deaths.
Are you really okay with that?
I heard on RN yesterday that there’s a major audit of the AFP due in June. Keelty apparently said that the results will do the AFP ‘a lot of good’ (paraphrasing). Methinks that the combination of his golden handshake and this audit has made it a good time to jump.
It’s a wistful thought of mine that perhaps the audit shows how incompetent and inappropriate Keelty’s behaviour has been, and upon reading the draft he’s been told by the gov’t to shove off now with full honours, or face the boot.
Now let’s see if we can get a credible person to head the AFP and restore its reptuation.
FDB – I agree that the Bali 9 situation sucks, but I’m curious as to what they could have charged them with in Aus?
Conspiracy to import a traffickable quantity of illicit drugs.
FDB @ 72 – I think its easy just to focus on those sentenced to death (and originally only 2 of 9 were given the death sentence) but they were voluntarily participating in a drug trafficking network that involves a lot of needless pain, death & corruption from production to end users.
So I’m not completely comfortable with the outcome, but at the same time we’ll never know how much pain or deaths were avoided by the interception of the drugs and stopping of one of the major Indonesian drug traffickers (albeit shot dead during arrest).
Thanks FDB
If Keelty is in the CSS, I doubt that the 54/11 option would give him any advantage. His salary is too high.