Historically the AFP and ASIO have a nefarious and sinister background and are not to be trusted in the Sydney Hilton bombing and the Port Arthur Massacre, MH17/370 and the Bali bombing to name a few of the high profile incideents. There needs to be thorough investigation into both organisations that have used state-sponsored terrorism on several occasions against its citizens of murder, terrorism, abuse of power, corruption, lying, using false accusations in short criminality against Australian citizens and not honouring their oath.
The illegal, corrupt and criminal government are illegitimate and masquerading as the legitimate government when it has been infiltrated and taken over administratively. It is a de facto government that has usurped power and authority from its rightful place by sedition, High Treason and treachery.
Why Australia needs a Royal Commission into the AFP
The reason I bring this post up again is that the following Facebook comment was left on this post by a former AFP officer, Mike Barclay:
I have shown this comment together with the details of the person who made it to a Sydney based barrister who provides assistance to Blak and Black on an ad hoc basis. Inquiries conducted by both Blak and Black and its legal representatives into the bona fides of the person who left this comment indicate that they are indeed a former AFP officer, who is currently been given the proverbial ‘run around’ by Australia’s law enforcement bureaucracy.
If AFP officers are prepared to perjure themselves on a regular basis in lieu of doing proper police work, where does this leave the average citizen who unwittingly becomes a pawn in this type of systemic corruption? More importantly, where does this leave the average citizen when the two bodies tasked with investigating allegations of corruption in the AFP (ACLEI and the Commonwealth Ombudsman) routinely refuse to conduct proper inquiries, because the outcomes might be ‘politically damaging’?
The issues of corruption in the AFP don’t stop here. The Global Corruption Report 2003 prepared by Peter Eigen, Chairman, Transparency International made the following observations:
What has changed in the AFP since Peter Eigen made these scathing observations? In short, the answer is nothing. As Peter Eigen observed, a delay in responding to FOI requests challenges that openness in practice. It’s these delays,combined with an ongoing process of watering down the FOI provisions, that is helping facilitate the systemic racism and corruption that defines today’s AFP. Indeed, the aforementioned AFP officer who left a comment on Blak and Black’s post Corruption and accountability: the AFP in the Asia/Pacific region went on to say that:
If openness and transparency hinges on access to information, which it most certainly does, denying access to this information can serve no other purpose than shielding those accused of racism, corruption and incompetence.