Feb 12, 2014

Snowden a threat to Australian lives? Brandis refuses to show proof

George Brandis' accusation that Edward Snowden has placed Australian lives at risk is the same unfounded accusation we've seen before from national security politicians desperate to avoid scrutiny.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

United States whistleblower Edward Snowden had placed the lives of Australians at risk, according to Australian Attorney-General George Brandis, who made the sensational claim in Senate question time yesterday. Brandis' statement marked a dramatic escalation in the government's rhetoric against the whistleblower, and the first time the specific accusation of endangering Australians has been levelled at him. However, Brandis failed to produce evidence to support the allegation, with the Attorney-General's office failing to answer Crikey's repeated requests for further detail. As activists, civil rights groups, NGOs and some of the world's biggest internet sites joined together to mark February 11 as "the day we fight back against mass surveillance", Brandis angrily lashed out at Greens senator Scott Ludlam:
"You celebrate and make a hero of this man who, through his criminal dishonesty and his treachery to his country, has put lives, including Australian lives, at risk. I wonder how you can sit in this Parliament and hold your head up high when you celebrate a man who, through criminal conduct and treachery, has put Australian lives at risk."
Snowden has yet to be charged with treason even by the United States Department of Justice. Both the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop have repeatedly made the accusation of treason, though the Prime Minister's office has refused to provide any supporting evidence for the claim, while Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has lamented the "profound damage" he says Snowden has inflicted on the US tech sector (rather than the National Security Agency, which broke into companies' back ends, or the companies themselves, which often co-operated with the NSA). Bishop tied herself into knots in January, insisting Snowden was a traitor but praising the review of mass surveillance into which Snowden's revelations forced the Obama administration. Brandis' allegation that Australian lives have been placed at risk by Snowden represents an escalation of the government's rhetoric against a figure who even US Republicans believe is a whistleblower who has exposed substantial wrongdoing. It also echoes claims made against Snowden in the US and the United Kingdom, usually by intelligence agency figures but also by some politicians. However, in no instance has any agency or government produced evidence of any harm done by Snowden. Further, the review panel commissioned by US President Barack Obama found that there was no evidence that the NSA's vast, and vastly expensive, surveillance apparatus had thwarted any terrorist attacks in the entire time it has been operating. It's also instructive to place Brandis' claims in perspective. In November 2010, then-attorney-general Robert McClelland claimed that the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables release could "prejudice the safety of people" mentioned in the cables. Then-prime minister Gillard claimed the cable leak was "grossly irresponsible and illegal". The White House claimed the leaks would put lives at risk, as did then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton; the UK Foreign Office said they might put lives at risk, as did any number of commentators. But when Chelsea Manning, who provided the cables and other material to WikiLeaks, was sentenced last year after being convicted of espionage and theft, the military court was told that despite a "24/7", 125-strong multimillion-dollar taskforce established by the US government to identify what damage the leaks had caused, not a single example of individual harm could be found. The head of the taskforce tried to claim he knew of one example, an Afghan national who had been killed by the Taliban, but had to concede that individual was not mentioned in the cables, and the trial judge rejected the evidence. And as we've repeatedly discussed, governments are only too happy to leak national security information themselves, even information that can cause damage, if it's in their political interests. In their efforts to avoid transparency and accountability, politicians, security agencies and national security propagandists in the media instinctively smear whistleblowers and claim that any unofficial national security leaks place lives at risk. But they never produce a scintilla of evidence to back up their claims. Brandis' smear of Snowden is only the latest example.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

39 thoughts on “Snowden a threat to Australian lives? Brandis refuses to show proof

  1. Matthew of Canberra

    Of course not. Evidence would be “operational”

    But very very embarrassing is close enough.

  2. chas powell

    Brandis is a moron.

  3. zut alors

    The greatest threat to Australia is Brandis & his LNP mates with their lack of constructive policies and their Wall of Silence.

  4. Brian Williams

    Once again Brandis shows himself to be an intellectual lightweight of the worst kind.

  5. Dianne Longson

    Good article Mr Keane! Clearly Mr Brandis has a different definition of criminal behavior than I do. I think all the blustering about this issue by politicians in the US, UK and Australia is more reflective of their own wishes to behave as they want rather than as they should, than of any wrong doing by Mr Snowden.
    I would like to see stronger public questioning of the whole idea that Snowden has been a traitor in some way. To whom was he a traitor? In my view he did not betray his country. He reported wrong doing by the American Government and its agencies to the American people (who pay the government salaries) after finding no other way to manage it. How does that make him a traitor? Perhaps the meaning of the word traitor has changed without my knowledge! That it affected international relations is not relevant to the essence of the act and was what strategists might call “collateral damage”.

  6. klewso

    “Australians” like Downer, Howard, Woodside maybe?

  7. klewso

    Brancid is definitely a turdy general of note.

  8. Yclept

    It’s just the continued sending of a message to potential whistleblowers. In other words, if you dare to reveal their wrongdoing, you will be crucified.

    I feel young again as we approach 1984!

  9. MJPC

    If and when the ALP return to government I recommend a royal commission into the circumstances of Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war.
    That will show the Americans duped our sorry excuse for a government into becoming war criminals, something Mr Brandis seems to have forgotton (overlooked?) when considering history..
    Snowdon, Manning, Assange and the rest are all hero’s in that they had the guts to bring light to the shady world where innocent people are killed at the behest of corporations backed by government forces.
    As for governments leaking information, what like WMD’s where 1000’s of innocents were murdered in Iraq based on lies. The US Government admitted (Colin Powell) the intelligence agencies never broke Iraq military cyphers so any inside knowledge of WMD’s, even if they existed, would never have been obtained by the CIA or NSA.
    Let Brand and his merry men explain that one before criticising a hero.

  10. Jimmyhaz

    It boggles the mind that someone with such limited intelligence has reached the position he has.

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details