Against it in general. Only time I could see it plausible where if there was an incident that required a media blackout.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Stop the boats. 5k a head. (cont. in Part 2)
- Thread starter Gough
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
Against it in general. Only time I could see it plausible where if there was an incident that required a media blackout.
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,528
- 18,208
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
What like the Navy 'accidentally' sinking one?
sherb
Hall of Famer
General Campbell, ex SAS, will explain all to luvvies tomorrow.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Only expected if you are a grown up.
I am grown up, that's why i don't care what a soldier trained in counter-terrorism and desert reconnaissance has to say about asylum seekers on boats. I'm ex-army, i know an SASR general can be just as much of a custard ass yes man as a logistics general.
But as long as you're impressed (not that difficult is it luv)
I don't think any commercial news outlets have outright accused the government of a lack of transparency yet (other than them all reporting Labor's comments). They all seem to be taking a 'we'll wait and see how this plays out' stance for the time being.
That'd be why.
Once the military is in charge of an operation then media disclosures are made to suit the operation, not the media.
As of Wednesday the Navy has been given new operational orders, no doubt similar to Howard's Operation Relux. This means it's primary purpose is no longer acting as water taxis in the service of people smugglers but as a military deterrent. Hence luvvies jumping around and yowling like scalded cats.
How exactly do they become a "military deterrent" will cutlasses be drawn or will depth charges be primed?
No wonder Howard is rubbing his hands in great anticipation at the thought of Cowboy Tone delivering executive commands to Australia's finest marching into action to stop this invasion from the north & it seems all under the umbrella of "mums the word"
No wonder Howard is rubbing his hands in great anticipation at the thought of Cowboy Tone delivering executive commands to Australia's finest marching into action to stop this invasion from the north & it seems all under the umbrella of "mums the word"
Ah well, you probably didn't notice but two weeks ago the coalition was elected to, among other things, bring an end to the people smuggler boats. Ergo the Navy has to be put in charge as it was in September 2001 with Operation Relux. The people smuggler boats stopped about 10 weeks later.
fwii, one of the intentions of Operation Sovereign Borders will be to ensure that no people smuggler clients ever get to set foot on Christmas Island but will be taken direct to Manus or Nauru. This is what happened with Relux.
The reason for the media crackdown operationally is that previous government cheery press releases detailing the safe arrival of cashed up people smuggled clients at Christmas Island courtesy of the Australian navy provided the smugglers with proof to wave before prospective clients that Oz citizenship could virtually be guaranteed for the sum of $12-15,000
The military uses 'operational security' as a reason to not disclose anything, regardless of whether it's strictly justified or not. Their mentality is "don't tell the media anything you don't have to".
If the ADF is given the power to suppress information about boat arrivals, they will suppress it.
Strange that. In a military operation the paramount objectives are achieving the goals of the mission and the safety of service personnel undertaking missions at the order of the Australian government.
Inconvenient detail perhaps.
Don't be obtuse. There is a big difference between "don't tell the public anything that will compromise operational security" and "don't tell the public anything you don't have to". The military is notorious for withholding as much information as possible, regardless of whether it is strictly necessary to do so.
In a free and open society, there should never be a presumption against providing information to the public.
In a free and open society, there should never be a presumption against providing information to the public.
Caesar, a military operation being undertaken at the order of the Australia government is one thing.
A non operational scenario is another.
Operation Sovereign Borders falls into the first category, as did Op Relux. If you think your admonitions ought to apply beyond the second category then you should get yourself another moniker.
That is disingenuous. Not all information connected to a military operation needs to be kept secret for operational security reasons. It is just a catch-all excuse.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Correct. But it will be General Campbell who will be advising the minister as to what information is to be divulged and when. Okay?
Not okay, given the aforementioned military hostility to disclosing anything at all unless they are forced to.
History shows that if you give the military the discretion to keep stuff secret they will use it indiscriminately.
History shows that if you give the military the discretion to keep stuff secret they will use it indiscriminately.
Yeah, right.
There's one at Christmas Island right now, escorted there today by HMAS Maitland.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59niix-1226724652217#sthash.lbCHXkQD.dpuf
Personally I blame Cathy McGowan as an independent cant stop the boats.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn59niix-1226724652217#sthash.lbCHXkQD.dpuf
Personally I blame Cathy McGowan as an independent cant stop the boats.
No one speaks to Sophie it would be near impossible to get a word in.
- Status
Similar threads
