David Jones, artist and poet (1895-1974) begins his PREFACE TO THE ANATHEMATA :

'I have made a heap of all that I could find.' (1) So wrote Nennius, or whoever composed the introductory matter to Historia Brittonum. He speaks of an 'inward wound' which was caused by the fear that certain things dear to him 'should be like smoke dissipated'. Further, he says, 'not trusting my own learning, which is none at all, but partly from writings and monuments of the ancient inhabitants of Britain, partly from the annals of the Romans and the chronicles of the sacred fathers, Isidore, Hieronymous, Prosper, Eusebius and from the histories of the Scots and Saxons although our enemies . . . I have lispingly put together this . . . about past transactions, that [this material] might not be trodden under foot'. (2)

(1) The actual words are coacervavi omne quod inveni, and occur in Prologue 2 to the Historia.
(2) Quoted from the translation of Prologue 1. See The Works of Gildas and Nennius, J.A.Giles, London 1841.


03 February 2014

Regardless, false anaLOGOS/HA HA or not?


bLOGOS/HA HA watched with interest Friday's Senate Inquiry : Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee - Public interest immunity claim.

Although not required to do so, the Minister for Border Protection chose to attend.



We were particularly engaged by the following line of questioning from Senator Hanson-Young 

Regarding 1. : 'Operation Sovereign Borders' (Govt)
Regarding 2. : 'Border Security' (Ch. 7)
    
detail
A Person Looks At A Work Of Art/
someone looks at something ...
 
LOGOS/HA HA
               


Senator HANSON-YOUNG: My next question is to Customs. There was a comparison that the minister used just now about other operations which Customs are involved in that they would not want publicised. Do you as the secretary of Customs have to approve activities in relation to the Channel 7 show Border Security? 

You can read the initial response to this question here, on page 30 of the Hansard record. Next, a little further into this :
          
Mr Pezzullo: We collaborate with the Channel 7 group of companies on Border Security. I am not— 
      
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Regardless,  
you have just admitted to having a deal with one television show where they are allowed to have access to border— 

Mr Bowles: I do not think it is an admission. 

Mr Pezzullo: We have an arrangement with Channel 7. I am not aware—I will just quickly check with my director of media. We have no arrangement with any other company that I am unaware of? Good—thank you. No, we do not. 

Mr Morrison: Mr Pezzullo has also said that the techniques relating to law enforcement are edited and suppressed. But, as you know, what we are talking about here today goes well beyond just techniques. These are ongoing live operations that we are running here, and the telecasting of how our people may respond or not respond in particular situations, where they might do it and where they might go—to provide a 'how to' guide to the smugglers, which is what these documents would reveal—I think would put those people at risk. I am still not clear what the alternative position would achieve that you seem to be promoting. 
      
Mr Pezzullo: Indeed, Minister, if I can add a very specific example. This is a historically accurate example; I will need to slightly slide over some of the operational details. The equivalent would be, if we apply the analogy that I think your line of questioning is taking us to, having new, real-time vision of someone being nabbed. A cartel overseer back in Latin America— 
         
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I would like to interrupt you for a moment because I have not asked that and— 
    
Mr Pezzullo: But is a direct analogy, if I may— 
    
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: No, it is not a direct analogy. 
    
Mr Pezzullo: and we would not want to tip them off. 
    
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Can I please finish? 
      
Mr Pezzullo: Of course. 
    
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: It is not a direct analogy because the documents asked for in this order for the production of documents for which public interest immunity is being claimed are from as far back as September. 
    
Mr Pezzullo: And the second part of your 
motion— 
    
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: As far back as September. That was when the first— 
    
Lt Gen. Campbell: If I might interject, that is not far back at all. That is very recent operational information. 
    
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I have just been told—you can correct this if you would like to correct the record—it was a few months. Could you clarify how long between when those recordings happened in the airport and when they go to air? 
    
Mr Pezzullo: I will take advice. 
    
Mr Morrison: You are comparing apples and oranges. 
    
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: It is not live. 
    
Mr Morrison: These are two different— 

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: There are documents in here that we have asked for in relation to incidents that occurred months ago and we are still being told we are not allowed to have them, despite the fact that pages and pages of information has come out from other sources in relation to those incidents. We still have received no acknowledgement from the government, such as in relation to the case where a boat had its hull ripped out because of an operation on the water. We still have not had any information from either the minister or Angus Campbell in relation to this. That happened months ago—and if that was not a serious enough event to clarify with the Australian people what was going on then what is? 
    
Mr MORRISON: You have raised a number of issues there, if I could respond. First of all, your comparison between things happening at our airports and the safeguards put in place by Customs and Border Protection to protect the integrity— 
    
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I am asking what difference— 
    
Mr MORRISON: Senator, if you will let me respond. The integrity of those techniques and so on are protected, as shown by the evidence that has been provided to you. To draw an analogy between that and what we are doing with Operation Sovereign Borders would be false—and I think that is the evidence that has been provided to you. In terms of time frames and Operation Sovereign Borders—a very new operation—as General Campbell has just said, disclosing the sort of information you are seeking would provide the how-to guide. It is very recent information in the context of that operation. 

You also make reference to the fact that other reporters are out there reporting things. That is of no surprise to the government at all. What is different about the government choosing to confirm, or to not confirm, any particular matter that relates to operations carries greater weight in terms of how smugglers might use that information. We understand that and know that to be the case. So it does not surprise us that journalists and others will go and write stories: it is a free country; they can and should do so—they are doing their job. We do not have an issue with that. The question before us is: what is the government going to officially confirm or officially comment on. And the operational commanders of this initiative have advised that disclosing that information puts people at risk, and that is why we are not going to do it. 

extract from Hansard :
Parliament of Australia : Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee:
Public interest immunity claim
Friday, 31 January 2014
Canberra



 detail
 A Person Looks At A Work Of Art/
 someone looks at something ...
 
 LOGOS/HA HA