“National security claims” too easily trump the delivery of justice. Afghan war crimes whistleblower David McBride is a case in point.
Dreyfus seems quite content with an unfair prosecution and one that is infected by improper motive. He’s quite happy for a court, deprived of context and adjudicating to the strict letter of the law (that Dreyfus himself has said were not fit for purpose).
It’s within his authority to do so. The public interest in halting the prosecution is clear. But sadly the Attorney’s been captured by the security apparatus. The AAT Deputy President’s revelation two weeks ago proves that.
Dreyfus is willing to rubber stamp a confidentiality order that improperly tilts the adjudication in favour of the security establishment. He’s unwilling to correct an injustice that would cross the path of that same establishment,
In this, Dreyfus is like many of our senior Labor and Coalition politicians. Over more than two decades they’ve poured hundreds of billions into the national security apparatus which is now bigger, more powerful and influential than it has ever been.
In Parliament, applause is regularly showered on our spies, police and security bureaucrats. They can apparently do no wrong. But privately the politicians are fearful. They fear what might happen to their secrets if they aren’t totally supportive of “national security”. No one in government or opposition wants to get offside with the secret state.
Of course, that doesn’t absolve Dreyfus. Of all our Federal Ministers he’s the one with specific responsibility as first law officer to uphold the integrity of our legal system, especially the vital principle of open justice.
He’s failing to do his duty because he’s weak in the face of Australia’s national security apparatus. He lacks the moral fortitude to sit in the Attorney-General’s seat.
As a result of his cowardice a good man will go to jail and, at the same time, democratic integrity will suffer.
olddogthoughts 