PDA

View Full Version : CIA overthrew Australian government - Whitlam died



rumple_stilskin
24-10-2014, 10:32
How many people know that the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Australia because they criticised the US war machine?

During Veitnam, the USA carpet bombed vast areas of Vietnam. the bombing was indiscriminate and killed mostly civilians. Weapon of choice was mostly Napalm - a liquid that sticks to you and burns. 3 million killed in Veitnam, god knows how many of those were women and children burned alive by the USA.

The Australian Prime minister criticised this, and was promptly removed from office. link below.

http://rt.com/op-edge/198420-australia-pm-whitlam-intelligence-usa/

Armoured
24-10-2014, 10:59
The Australian Prime minister criticised this, and was promptly removed from office. link below.

http://rt.com/op-edge/198420-australia-pm-whitlam-intelligence-usa/

A remarkably selective article that doesn't mention the entire supply (budget) crisis that preceded this. In short, avoids the entire issue of how Westminster-style governments work.

A government that can't pass its budgets cannot function. Australia has some specifics, but in most, a failure to pass a budget is considered the same as losing a no-confidence motion, and results in immediate elections. (See, for example, Joe Clark's government in Canada in 1979).

And in a Westminster government, this is not that weird or unusual a thing for a minority government. But I'm sure it'll play to Russians and Americans who just don't get how Westminster parliaments function.

(There are other reasons to criticise Kerr's approach but pinning this all on the CIA is laughable - would only convince those who don't know or are too lazy to look up any of the _other_ things happening at the same time)

Armoured
24-10-2014, 11:10
It's also pretty funny that the author's source, Christopher Boyce, is described this way:

"One of the de-coders was Christopher Boyce, a young man troubled by the "deception and betrayal of an ally". Boyce revealed that the CIA...."

This for some reason neglects to mention that Boyce was convicted of selling information to the USSR:
Christopher John Boyce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and also a bank robber.

You may have heard of him as "the Falcon" from the movie the "Falcon and the Snowman."

Now: is there any conceivable circumstance in which an honest author or publisher would leave out this information? They could certainly claim that it's still true, whatever, but leaving it out is just dishonest and deceptive.

Yaks
24-10-2014, 12:03
Seriously need to wear a tin foil hat to participate in this forum. maybe i can get one on ebay...

Armoured
24-10-2014, 12:28
Seriously need to wear a tin foil hat to participate in this forum. maybe i can get one on ebay...

Seriously, we need a tin-foil hat smiley.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/04/tinfoil-hat.jpg

rumple_stilskin
25-10-2014, 13:32
It's also pretty funny that the author's source, Christopher Boyce, is described this way:

"One of the de-coders was Christopher Boyce: a young man troubled by the "deception and betrayal of an ally". Boyce revealed that the CIA...."

Now: is there any conceivable circumstance in which an honest author or publisher would leave out this information? They could certainly claim that it's still true, whatever, but leaving it out is just dishonest and deceptive.

No, rather it is your post that is dishonest and deceptive. This article focuses on the main actual reason for the dismissal and not the 'WMD' pretext given, just this time they exploited a legal loophole. You are pushing the Rupert Murdoch 'official line'. I suppose opposing the USA war machine did not matter to the CIA puppet Kerr.

Kerr made it a condition of accepting the governor general role that he could stay in power for 10 years and represent Australia overseas as the head of state. Megalomaniac? Nobody considers the governor general to be the head of state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr_%28governor-general%29

John Kerr was an executive of the Congress of Cultural freedom set up by the CIA. link below.
Congress for Cultural Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was shamed into exile, never to return. Not a real Australian, just CIA puppet.

There is a loop hole in Australian constitutional law that was exploited. You have a situation where the Prime Minister can sack the Governor general and the Governor general can sack the Prime minister.


The authors source as 'Christopher Boyce': go ahead and try to slur the messenger. All Boyce has said has since been confirmed by the wikileaks cables. So he is no longer the source - just the first guy to spill the beans. You missed the point that what started his behaviour off was witnessing the betrayal and treachery to an ally - exactly as he said.

Mark Arbid was also shamed out of government - shall we call him "Kerr II". another USA puppet. Lining up knowledge of future weak points and loopholes to be exploited at an opportune moment. link below. There were others as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8191870/WikiLeaks-Australian-minister-working-as-protected-US-source.html

When challenged about listening to Merkels phone calls, the Obama line was that they were merely "conducting research" - what a laugh. It was to get advance warning of any hostile behaviour so they could set countermeasures in place to derail the wishes of the German people. Countermeasures could simply be to fund a political opponent, spread a WMD lie or whatever to get rid of the colony politician not on the 'USA approved list'. USA does it everywhere, even to so-called allies. it's not limited to the Ukraine or Iran.

JanC
25-10-2014, 14:53
Seriously need to wear a tin foil hat to participate in this forum. maybe i can get one on ebay...

An ignore button would be handy around here actually.

Of course this section of the forum would be pretty dead when you remove rumple's CIA conspiracies, uncle's bankers conspiracies and Fantasist's Obama/media conspiracies.

Yaks
25-10-2014, 15:50
Er except many Australians DO consider the Governor General our head of state.

Australian head of state dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and you do realise that Australia withdrew from Vietnam about the same time as the US did??

rumple_stilskin
25-10-2014, 17:30
A remarkably selective article that doesn't mention the entire supply (budget) crisis that preceded this. In short, avoids the entire issue of how Westminster-style governments work.

(There are other reasons to criticise Kerr's approach but pinning this all on the CIA is laughable - would only convince those who don't know or are too lazy to look up any of the _other_ things happening at the same time)

This is not a design feature of a westminster government system, that possibly Russians and Americans don't understand. it's a loophole in the westminster systems that has been exploited. Here are some facts so you don't get bamboozled into 'This is the westminster system'

200 years ago the English colonised Australia, in 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia came into being - along with the Australian constitution. In this system there is a Governor General who among other things is the head of the armed forces and has the authority to sack the Prime Minister. This position reports to the Queen/King of the England. So mostly, Australia is self governing but the governor general is appointed by the King/Queen in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia


in 1926, it was agreed that each member of the British empire was now of equal status, not subserviant to Britian. Not 100% so, but close as the governor general is still appointed by the Queen/King. Link here:
1926 Imperial Conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So officially agreed equal, but the law still existed that said the King/Queen in the UK appointed the governor general, who could sack the prime minister of Australia. So politically agreed equal, legally not equal at all.

In 1930 the British wanted to reject the appointment of Sir Isaacs as governor general as he was born in Australia and not in the UK, but reluctantly the british agreed as they saw no option. So from the events in 1926 and 1930 you can say practically say that British rule ended at the federal level. Legally though, Britian still appoints the governor general but politically is not enforcable.

At the state level and in judicial matters the british stlll had a lot of control until 1986. Not a complete description, but here is one just one article:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/we-only-became-independent-of-britain-on-this-day-in-1986/story-e6frg6zo-1226014945554

Now the Queen, even in 2014, still appoints the Governor general of Australia on advice from Australia. But does not control the governor general. Perhaps a lawyer could give more precise and accurate facts than myself. So how independant is Australia?, I am sure Australia can not defend itself if attacked by neighbors and so effectively there is some dependance at a political level.

But here is the main point. There was a law enacted in 1901 in Australia where the governor general was able to fire the Prime Minister. This was at a time when Australia was literaly a federation of colonies. If a prime minister started behaving in a way not in the true interests of Australia OR the British empire he could be removed immediately. This was the purpose of the law, and remember this was 1901!!!

Now who would design such a system where both the Prime minister could fire the Governer general and the governor general could fire the Prime minister?

It was only ever for the Queen/King to fire the Prime minister. Perhaps as there were slow communications in those days of 1901 they need a reliable guy far away and so authority was localised. Hence the requirement that the governor general was in fact born in the UK to help with that loyalty.

Now, as the indepedence of Australia has evolved during the last 100 years the laws on the books have not evolved to exactly represent the level of indepedence at any point in time.

The law enacted in 1901 that allowed the Governor general to fire the Prime minister was at a time when the King/Queen of England was controlling the Australian Governor general, and the governor general was acting in the interests of the British Empire when Britania ruled the waves.

If this situation had occurred in 1901 and there was speedy communcations, the King of England would have decided who got fired - it was never legally possible that both could fire each other. Doesn't this even sound rediculous?
If only one can fire the other, its pretty obvious that the one with the authority to do so is the one that was democratically elected at the ballot box - that is the Prime Minister!!

In 1975 I guess Australians thought they were independent, without realising the legal system allowed the subversion of just one position in Australia to render the will of the people void. Now its not an easy thing to rewrite a constitution, it's in the too hard basket. Sometime they will and would be difficult to pull the same stunt twice.

rumple_stilskin
25-10-2014, 18:15
Er except many Australians DO consider the Governor General our head of state.

and you do realise that Australia withdrew from Vietnam about the same time as the US did??

There is a comparison between the Queen of England and the Governor general of Australia as to who is the formal head of state. I was really meaning who was the top dog in Australia - the governor general or the prime minister.(although maybe thats what Kerr meant in which case you may have caught me out). Anyway, why even make the request, the Governor general role is cultural without the significance as it had in 1901. In 1901 the top dog in Australia was the King. In 2014 the top dog in Australia is the prime minister. The governor general was never top anything in 1975.

Withdrawal from Vietnam:
The US withdrew from Vietnam because of public opinion, not because of those in the establishment though there was anything wrong with continuing.
The US establishment did not approve of Whitlams public statements of US barbaric acts in Vietnam at all, as evidenced by his sudden demise.

What the people want and the desire of those in the establishment, i.e. security services or politicians, can be two different things. Even though in a democracy people think they are more closely aligned - often not!

Uncle Wally
26-10-2014, 01:42
Er except many Australians DO consider the Governor General our head of state.

Australian head of state dispute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_head_of_state_dispute)

and you do realise that Australia withdrew from Vietnam about the same time as the US did??


Er like it matters what many Australians consider. Many Americans considered change, what did they get but more of the same. Bankers laughing all the way to the, well bank.

Armoured
27-10-2014, 12:11
Here are some facts so you don't get bamboozled into 'This is the westminster system'


So mostly, Australia is self governing but the governor general is appointed by the King/Queen in the UK.

You neglected the part that the governor-general is selected by the PM, i.e. the monarch formally appoints, but strictly on the advice of the PM. (There was one case of the monarch refusing the PM's choice, but that was before 1931 conference that changed the powers).


Now who would design such a system where both the Prime minister could fire the Governer general and the governor general could fire the Prime minister?

No-one would design such a system. It arose through tradition and is indeed controversial. In practice, though, a direct conflict has never happened (the number of cases of dismissal of a GG or lieutenant-governor is tiny). If it ever happened n the case of such a direct conflict, it woudl be a constitutional crisis.


Now, as the indepedence of Australia has evolved during the last 100 years the laws on the books have not evolved to exactly represent the level of indepedence at any point in time.

True. Keep in mind, neither the UK nor most of the former colonies have fully written constitutions - the concept of constitutional acts includes tradition.


In 1975 I guess Australians thought they were independent, without realising the legal system allowed the subversion of just one position in Australia to render the will of the people void.

Classic misunderstanding of those who don't understand Westminster systems. Governments are elected to govern. If they can't, an election is called. No subversion of the will of the people.

Armoured
27-10-2014, 12:17
I was really meaning who was the top dog in Australia - the governor general or the prime minister.

Again, complete misunderstanding. There is no one 'top dog.' This is not the US or Russia.

Roles have evolved over time, but 'top dog' depends on context.

In terms of governing, PM is 'top dog' as long as he/she controls parliament and government. But there are limits to that power, both parliament and things the GG will never approve/sign (if considered unconstitutional).

GG has reserve powers (primarily, some would say only). For the most part, can make no independent decisions in governing, despite being 'sovereign.' But the reserve powers do at certain times allow (or indeed require) separate decisions.

In US terms: Supreme Court Justice cannot govern directly. But can, in certain circumstances, declare certain actions, laws, regulations unconstitutional. And all US govt agencies and others must follow that ruling. In some small sense, this is analogous to a reserve power. (And like all analogies is imperfect).

Uncle Wally
27-10-2014, 12:27
Oh come on. But how do things really work. When did any of them care what the people think.

Yaks
27-10-2014, 12:43
In 1975 I guess Australians thought they were independent, without realising the legal system allowed the subversion of just one position in Australia to render the will of the people void.

The will of the people was shown at the subsequent called election-where the Liberal caretaker government won decisively and Gough lost again and again.

Armoured
27-10-2014, 13:41
But how do things really work. When did any of them care what the people think.

I tried to send you a secret message with The Truth. It doesn't seem to get through to you though, I guess your protection level is too high.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Tin_foil_hat_2.jpg