部分属实

评分: 5.5/10

Coalition
C0235

声明内容

“在议会中被问及一名在澳大利亚被秘密监禁的澳大利亚人时,拒绝提供任何信息——此人涉及一项秘密罪名,经过秘密审判,甚至连囚犯的姓名都是秘密。他们谎称囚犯同意了保密。”
原始来源: Matthew Davis

原始来源

✅ 事实核查

该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 的de de 核心hé xīn hé xīn 事实shì shí shì shí 已yǐ yǐ 得到dé dào dé dào 主流zhǔ liú zhǔ liú 报道bào dào bào dào 的de de 充分chōng fèn chōng fèn 证实zhèng shí zhèng shí 。。 。
The core facts of this claim are substantially verified by mainstream reporting.
20192019 2019 年nián nián 1111 11 月yuè yuè ,, , 一名yī míng yī míng 前qián qián 军事情报jūn shì qíng bào jūn shì qíng bào 官员guān yuán guān yuán (( ( 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 化名huà míng huà míng "" " 艾伦ài lún ài lún ·· · 约翰斯yuē hàn sī yuē hàn sī "" " ,, , 又称yòu chēng yòu chēng "" " 证人zhèng rén zhèng rén JJ J "" " )) ) 确实què shí què shí 在zài zài 堪培拉kān péi lā kān péi lā 的de de 亚历山大yà lì shān dà yà lì shān dà ·· · 麦科mài kē mài kē 诺奇nuò qí nuò qí 中心zhōng xīn zhōng xīn 被bèi bèi 监禁jiān jìn jiān jìn ,, , 条件tiáo jiàn tiáo jiàn 极其jí qí jí qí 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
In November 2019, a former military intelligence officer (court-pseudonym "Alan Johns," also referred to as "Witness J") was indeed imprisoned in Canberra's Alexander Maconochie Centre under extraordinary secrecy conditions [1].
该gāi gāi 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 被bèi bèi 指控zhǐ kòng zhǐ kòng 、、 、 定罪dìng zuì dìng zuì 和hé hé 判刑pàn xíng pàn xíng 均jūn jūn 依据yī jù yī jù 联邦lián bāng lián bāng 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng ,, , 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 其qí qí 姓名xìng míng xìng míng 、、 、 罪名zuì míng zuì míng 和hé hé 刑期xíng qī xíng qī ,, , 甚至shèn zhì shèn zhì 高级gāo jí gāo jí 监狱jiān yù jiān yù 工作人员gōng zuò rén yuán gōng zuò rén yuán 也yě yě 无法wú fǎ wú fǎ 获知huò zhī huò zhī 案件àn jiàn àn jiàn 详情xiáng qíng xiáng qíng [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
The prisoner had been charged, convicted, and sentenced under Commonwealth court orders that kept his name, charges, and sentence confidential, preventing even senior prison staff from knowing details of the case [2].
20192019 2019 年nián nián 1111 11 月yuè yuè 2828 28 日rì rì ,, , 绿党lǜ dǎng lǜ dǎng 参议员cān yì yuán cān yì yuán 尼克ní kè ní kè ·· · 麦mài mài 基姆jī mǔ jī mǔ 在zài zài 议会yì huì yì huì 质询zhì xún zhì xún 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 时shí shí ,, , 外交部长wài jiāo bù zhǎng wài jiāo bù zhǎng 玛丽mǎ lì mǎ lì 斯sī sī ·· · 佩恩pèi ēn pèi ēn 代表dài biǎo dài biǎo 总zǒng zǒng 检察长jiǎn chá zhǎng jiǎn chá zhǎng 克里斯蒂安kè lǐ sī dì ān kè lǐ sī dì ān ·· · 波特bō tè bō tè 做出zuò chū zuò chū 极简jí jiǎn jí jiǎn 回应huí yìng huí yìng :: : "" " 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 由yóu yóu 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 在zài zài 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén 同意tóng yì tóng yì 的de de 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 下xià xià 实施shí shī shí shī 。。 。
When Greens senator Nick McKim questioned the government in parliament on November 28, 2019, Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne, responding on behalf of Attorney-General Christian Porter, gave only a minimal response: "The orders were imposed by the courts with the consent of the parties.
总zǒng zǒng 检察长jiǎn chá zhǎng jiǎn chá zhǎng 部门bù mén bù mén 正在zhèng zài zhèng zài 协助xié zhù xié zhù 管理guǎn lǐ guǎn lǐ 受shòu shòu 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 约束yuē shù yuē shù 的de de 信息xìn xī xìn xī "" " [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
The attorney general's department is assisting in the management of the information that is subject to the court orders" [3].
麦mài mài 基姆jī mǔ jī mǔ 认为rèn wéi rèn wéi ,, , 这zhè zhè 是shì shì 对duì duì 他tā tā 所suǒ suǒ 认为rèn wéi rèn wéi 的de de fundamentalfundamental fundamental 滥用làn yòng làn yòng 国家guó jiā guó jiā 权力quán lì quán lì 的de de 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 议会yì huì yì huì 问题wèn tí wèn tí 的de de inadequateinadequate inadequate 回应huí yìng huí yìng [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
McKim argued this was an inadequate response to legitimate parliamentary questions about what he characterized as a fundamental abuse of state power [3].
该gāi gāi 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 在zài zài 20182018 2018 年nián nián 至zhì zhì 20192019 2019 年初nián chū nián chū 监禁jiān jìn jiān jìn 期间qī jiān qī jiān ,, , 其qí qí 通讯tōng xùn tōng xùn 受到shòu dào shòu dào 严格yán gé yán gé 限制xiàn zhì xiàn zhì [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
The prisoner's communications were severely restricted while imprisoned from 2018 to early 2019 [2].
联邦lián bāng lián bāng 警察局jǐng chá jú jǐng chá jú 在zài zài 监狱jiān yù jiān yù 当局dāng jú dāng jú 提醒tí xǐng tí xǐng 后hòu hòu 介入jiè rù jiè rù ,, , 当时dāng shí dāng shí 该gāi gāi 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 要求yāo qiú yāo qiú 一名yī míng yī míng 访客fǎng kè fǎng kè (( ( 一位yī wèi yī wèi 作者zuò zhě zuò zhě )) ) 帮助bāng zhù bāng zhù 出版chū bǎn chū bǎn 监狱jiān yù jiān yù 回忆录huí yì lù huí yì lù [[ [ 44 4 ]] ] 。。 。
Federal Police were alerted by prison authorities when the prisoner requested a visitor (an author) to help publish a prison memoir [4].
这zhè zhè 促使cù shǐ cù shǐ 澳大利亚联邦ào dà lì yà lián bāng ào dà lì yà lián bāng 警察jǐng chá jǐng chá 对duì duì 其qí qí 牢房láo fáng láo fáng 及其jí qí jí qí 兄弟xiōng dì xiōng dì 住所zhù suǒ zhù suǒ 进行jìn xíng jìn xíng 突击tū jī tū jī 搜查sōu chá sōu chá ,, , 其qí qí 电子邮件diàn zi yóu jiàn diàn zi yóu jiàn 和hé hé 电话diàn huà diàn huà 访问fǎng wèn fǎng wèn 被bèi bèi 暂时zàn shí zàn shí 冻结dòng jié dòng jié [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
This prompted AFP raids on both the prisoner's cell and his brother's home, and his email and phone access were temporarily frozen [2].
该gāi gāi 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 只有zhǐ yǒu zhǐ yǒu 在zài zài 向xiàng xiàng 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 首都shǒu dū shǒu dū 领地lǐng dì lǐng dì 最高法院zuì gāo fǎ yuàn zuì gāo fǎ yuàn 挑战tiǎo zhàn tiǎo zhàn 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 限制xiàn zhì xiàn zhì 后hòu hòu 才cái cái 为wèi wèi 公众gōng zhòng gōng zhòng 所知suǒ zhī suǒ zhī [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
The prisoner only became known to the public when he challenged these restrictions in the ACT Supreme Court [2].

缺失背景

然而rán ér rán ér ,, , 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 严重yán zhòng yán zhòng 歪曲wāi qū wāi qū 了le le 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 措施cuò shī cuò shī 的de de 性质xìng zhì xìng zhì 以及yǐ jí yǐ jí 是shì shì 谁shuí shuí 建立jiàn lì jiàn lì 了le le 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 措施cuò shī cuò shī 。。 。
However, the claim significantly misrepresents the nature of these secrecy measures and who established them.
最zuì zuì 关键guān jiàn guān jiàn 的de de 是shì shì ,, , 实施shí shī shí shī 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 的de de 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi 完全wán quán wán quán 是shì shì CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 决定jué dìng jué dìng —— — —— — 它们tā men tā men 是shì shì 由yóu yóu 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 本身běn shēn běn shēn 发布fā bù fā bù 的de de ,, , 据称jù chēng jù chēng 涉及shè jí shè jí 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn (( ( 佩恩pèi ēn pèi ēn 提到tí dào tí dào 的de de "" " 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén "" " )) ) 。。 。
Most critically, the court orders imposing secrecy were NOT solely a Coalition Government decision—they were issued by the courts themselves, with the stated involvement of the prisoner (the "parties" mentioned by Payne).
该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 错误cuò wù cuò wù 地dì dì 暗示àn shì àn shì CoalitionCoalition Coalition 单方面dān fāng miàn dān fāng miàn 实施shí shī shí shī 了le le 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì ,, , 而ér ér 实际上shí jì shàng shí jì shàng 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 实践shí jiàn shí jiàn 允许yǔn xǔ yǔn xǔ 在zài zài 国家guó jiā guó jiā 安全ān quán ān quán 和hé hé 敏感mǐn gǎn mǐn gǎn 案件àn jiàn àn jiàn 中zhōng zhōng 使用shǐ yòng shǐ yòng 压制yā zhì yā zhì 令lìng lìng [[ [ 55 5 ]] ] 。。 。
The claim falsely suggests the Coalition unilaterally imposed the secrecy, when in fact Australian court practice allows for suppression orders in national security and sensitive cases [5].
该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 缺乏quē fá quē fá 关于guān yú guān yú 此类cǐ lèi cǐ lèi 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 为何wèi hé wèi hé 存在cún zài cún zài 于yú yú 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 体系tǐ xì tǐ xì 中zhōng zhōng 的de de crucialcrucial crucial 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng 。。 。
The claim lacks crucial context about WHY such orders exist in Australia's legal system.
约翰yuē hàn yuē hàn ·· · 伯恩斯bó ēn sī bó ēn sī 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 在zài zài 对duì duì 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 案件àn jiàn àn jiàn 的de de 裁决cái jué cái jué 中zhōng zhōng 指出zhǐ chū zhǐ chū ,, , 联邦lián bāng lián bāng 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 是shì shì 保护bǎo hù bǎo hù 敏感mǐn gǎn mǐn gǎn 安全ān quán ān quán 信息xìn xī xìn xī 的de de 标准biāo zhǔn biāo zhǔn 机制jī zhì jī zhì [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
Justice John Burns, in his ruling on the prisoner's case, noted that Commonwealth court orders are a standard mechanism for protecting sensitive security information [2].
这zhè zhè 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 独有dú yǒu dú yǒu —— — —— — 它tā tā 反映fǎn yìng fǎn yìng 了le le 国家guó jiā guó jiā 安全ān quán ān quán 事务shì wù shì wù 中长期zhōng cháng qī zhōng cháng qī 存在cún zài cún zài 的de de 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 实践shí jiàn shí jiàn 。。 。
This is not unique to the Coalition Government—it reflects long-standing Australian legal practice around national security matters.
该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 将jiāng jiāng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 议会yì huì yì huì 回应huí yìng huí yìng 定性dìng xìng dìng xìng 为wèi wèi "" " 拒绝jù jué jù jué 提供tí gōng tí gōng 任何rèn hé rèn hé 信息xìn xī xìn xī "" " ,, , 但dàn dàn 这zhè zhè 歪曲wāi qū wāi qū 了le le 实际shí jì shí jì 发生fā shēng fā shēng 的de de 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 。。 。
The claim characterizes the government's parliamentary response as a refusal to "provide any information," but this misrepresents what actually occurred.
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 确实què shí què shí 提供tí gōng tí gōng 了le le 信息xìn xī xìn xī —— — —— — 即jí jí 存在cún zài cún zài 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén 同意tóng yì tóng yì 的de de 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 。。 。
The government DID provide information—namely, that court orders existed with the consent of parties involved.
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 受到shòu dào shòu dào 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng (( ( 由yóu yóu 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 发布fā bù fā bù )) ) 的de de 约束yuē shù yuē shù ,, , 无法wú fǎ wú fǎ 透露tòu lù tòu lù detailsdetails details 。。 。
The government was legally bound by those court orders (issued by judges) from revealing details.
部长bù zhǎng bù zhǎng 们men men 不能bù néng bù néng 简单jiǎn dān jiǎn dān 地dì dì 无视wú shì wú shì 压制yā zhì yā zhì 信息xìn xī xìn xī 的de de 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng ,, , 即使jí shǐ jí shǐ 在zài zài 议会yì huì yì huì 中zhōng zhōng 受到shòu dào shòu dào 质询zhì xún zhì xún [[ [ 66 6 ]] ] 。。 。
Ministers cannot simply disregard court orders suppressing information, even if pressed in parliament [6].
这是zhè shì zhè shì 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 约束yuē shù yuē shù ,, , 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 政治zhèng zhì zhèng zhì 阻挠zǔ náo zǔ náo 或huò huò 欺骗qī piàn qī piàn 。。 。
This is a matter of legal constraint, not political obstruction or deception.
此外cǐ wài cǐ wài ,, , 关于guān yú guān yú 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 就jiù jiù 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 同意tóng yì tóng yì "" " 撒谎sā huǎng sā huǎng "" " 的de de 指控zhǐ kòng zhǐ kòng 是shì shì 没有méi yǒu méi yǒu 根据gēn jù gēn jù 的de de 。。 。
Additionally, the claim that the government "lied" about prisoner consent is unsubstantiated.
佩恩称pèi ēn chēng pèi ēn chēng 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 有yǒu yǒu "" " 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén 同意tóng yì tóng yì "" " —— — —— — 该gāi gāi 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 本人běn rén běn rén 被bèi bèi 列为liè wèi liè wèi 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 的de de 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
Payne stated the orders had "consent of the parties"—the prisoner himself was listed as a party to the court proceedings [2].
伯恩斯bó ēn sī bó ēn sī 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 的de de 判决pàn jué pàn jué 明确míng què míng què 提到tí dào tí dào 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 挑战tiǎo zhàn tiǎo zhàn 监禁jiān jìn jiān jìn 期间qī jiān qī jiān 施加shī jiā shī jiā 的de de 限制xiàn zhì xiàn zhì ,, , 确认què rèn què rèn 他tā tā 作为zuò wéi zuò wéi 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén 具有jù yǒu jù yǒu 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 地位dì wèi dì wèi [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
Justice Burns' judgment explicitly references the prisoner's own legal challenge to restrictions imposed on him while imprisoned, confirming he had legal standing as a party to court proceedings [2].
囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 向xiàng xiàng 监狱jiān yù jiān yù 当局dāng jú dāng jú 提出tí chū tí chū 的de de 关于guān yú guān yú 限制xiàn zhì xiàn zhì 的de de 书面shū miàn shū miàn 投诉tóu sù tóu sù 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng ,, , 他tā tā 了解liǎo jiě liǎo jiě 并bìng bìng 参与cān yù cān yù 了le le 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 程序chéng xù chéng xù ,, , 而ér ér 非fēi fēi 在zài zài 不知情bù zhī qíng bù zhī qíng 或huò huò 不bù bù 同意tóng yì tóng yì 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 的de de 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 下xià xià 被bèi bèi 秘密mì mì mì mì 监禁jiān jìn jiān jìn 。。 。
The prisoner's written complaint to prison authorities about restrictions suggests he was aware of and engaged with the legal process, not silently imprisoned without knowledge or consent to orders.
澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 首都shǒu dū shǒu dū 领地lǐng dì lǐng dì 司法部sī fǎ bù sī fǎ bù 长沙cháng shā cháng shā 恩ēn ēn ·· · 拉滕lā téng lā téng 伯里bó lǐ bó lǐ (( ( 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi CoalitionCoalition Coalition 成员chéng yuán chéng yuán —— — —— — 他tā tā 来自lái zì lái zì 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 首都shǒu dū shǒu dū 领地lǐng dì lǐng dì 绿党lǜ dǎng lǜ dǎng // / 工党gōng dǎng gōng dǎng )) ) 表示biǎo shì biǎo shì ,, , 他tā tā 对duì duì 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì "" " 深感不安shēn gǎn bù ān shēn gǎn bù ān "" " ,, , 并bìng bìng 指出zhǐ chū zhǐ chū 这zhè zhè 代表dài biǎo dài biǎo 了le le 联邦政府lián bāng zhèng fǔ lián bāng zhèng fǔ 对duì duì 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 公正gōng zhèng gōng zhèng 原则yuán zé yuán zé 日益增长rì yì zēng zhǎng rì yì zēng zhǎng 的de de 漠视mò shì mò shì [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] 。。 。
The ACT's Justice Minister Shane Rattenbury (NOT a Coalition member—he was from the ACT Greens/Labor) stated he was "deeply disturbed" by the secrecy and noted it represented the Commonwealth government's growing disregard for principles of open justice [1].
然而rán ér rán ér ,, , 即使jí shǐ jí shǐ 是shì shì 拉lā lā 滕téng téng 伯里bó lǐ bó lǐ 的de de 批评pī píng pī píng 也yě yě 承认chéng rèn chéng rèn 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 实施shí shī shí shī 了le le 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng ,, , 而ér ér 非fēi fēi solelysolely solely 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 。。 。
However, even Rattenbury's criticism acknowledged the courts had imposed these orders, not solely the government.

来源可信度评估

提供tí gōng tí gōng 的de de 原始yuán shǐ yuán shǐ 来源lái yuán lái yuán 包括bāo kuò bāo kuò 《《 《 卫报wèi bào wèi bào 》》 》 (( ( 具有jù yǒu jù yǒu generallygenerally generally 高gāo gāo 事实标准shì shí biāo zhǔn shì shí biāo zhǔn 的de de 主流zhǔ liú zhǔ liú 媒体méi tǐ méi tǐ )) ) 和hé hé 一个yí gè yí gè TwitterTwitter Twitter 账户zhàng hù zhàng hù (( ( @@ @ WitnessJ8WitnessJ8 WitnessJ8 )) ) 。。 。
The original sources provided include The Guardian (mainstream media outlet with generally high factual standards) and a Twitter account (@WitnessJ8).
《《 《 卫报wèi bào wèi bào 》》 》 文章wén zhāng wén zhāng 研究yán jiū yán jiū 充分chōng fèn chōng fèn ,, , 引用yǐn yòng yǐn yòng 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 文件wén jiàn wén jiàn 和hé hé 议会yì huì yì huì 记录jì lù jì lù [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
The Guardian article is well-researched and cites court documents and parliamentary records [1][2][3].
TwitterTwitter Twitter 来源lái yuán lái yuán 无法wú fǎ wú fǎ 在zài zài 本běn běn 分析fēn xī fēn xī 中zhōng zhōng 核实hé shí hé shí ,, , 但dàn dàn 《《 《 卫报wèi bào wèi bào 》》 》 报道bào dào bào dào 提供tí gōng tí gōng 了le le 大量文件dà liàng wén jiàn dà liàng wén jiàn 。。 。
The Twitter source is not accessible for verification in this analysis, but the Guardian reporting provides substantial documentation.
然而rán ér rán ér ,, , 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 本身běn shēn běn shēn (( ( 来自lái zì lái zì mdavismdavis mdavis .. . xyzxyz xyz )) ) 以yǐ yǐ 高度gāo dù gāo dù 压缩yā suō yā suō 和hé hé 框架kuāng jià kuāng jià 化huà huà 的de de 方式fāng shì fāng shì 呈现chéng xiàn chéng xiàn 事件shì jiàn shì jiàn ,, , 排除pái chú pái chú 了le le materialmaterial material 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng 。。 。
However, the claim itself (from mdavis.xyz) presents a highly compressed and framed version of events that excludes material context.
将jiāng jiāng 事件shì jiàn shì jiàn 定性dìng xìng dìng xìng 为wèi wèi straightforwardstraightforward straightforward "" " 腐败fǔ bài fǔ bài "" " 和hé hé 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ "" " 撒谎sā huǎng sā huǎng "" " ,, , 过度guò dù guò dù 简化jiǎn huà jiǎn huà 了le le 涉及shè jí shè jí 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 、、 、 国家guó jiā guó jiā 安全ān quán ān quán 程序chéng xù chéng xù 以及yǐ jí yǐ jí 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 约束yuē shù yuē shù 代表dài biǎo dài biǎo 在zài zài 议会yì huì yì huì 中zhōng zhōng 关于guān yú guān yú 敏感mǐn gǎn mǐn gǎn 事务shì wù shì wù 可kě kě 披露pī lù pī lù 内容nèi róng nèi róng 的de de 复杂fù zá fù zá 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 。。 。
The characterization as straightforward "corruption" and "lying by the government" oversimplifies a complex situation involving court orders, national security procedures, and legal constraints on what government representatives can disclose in parliament about sensitive matters.
⚖️

工党对比

** * ** * 工党gōng dǎng gōng dǎng 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 做过zuò guò zuò guò 类似lèi sì lèi sì 的de de 事情shì qíng shì qíng ?? ?
**Did Labor do something similar?** Search conducted: "Labor government secret trials national security suppression orders Australia" The suppression of sensitive national security information in court proceedings is a long-established practice in Australian law that predates the Coalition Government and is not unique to them.
** * ** *
Labor governments (2007-2013) also dealt with cases where sensitive security information required court protection [7].
搜索sōu suǒ sōu suǒ 进行jìn xíng jìn xíng :: : "" " 工党gōng dǎng gōng dǎng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 秘密mì mì mì mì 审判shěn pàn shěn pàn 国家guó jiā guó jiā 安全ān quán ān quán 压制yā zhì yā zhì 令lìng lìng 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà "" "
Australian courts have issued suppression orders in national security cases under both Labor and Coalition administrations—this reflects the balance between the need to protect legitimate security information and principles of open justice, which is an ongoing tension in Australian law [8].
在zài zài 法庭fǎ tíng fǎ tíng 程序chéng xù chéng xù 中zhōng zhōng 压制yā zhì yā zhì 敏感mǐn gǎn mǐn gǎn 国家guó jiā guó jiā 安全ān quán ān quán 信息xìn xī xìn xī 是shì shì 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 中长期zhōng cháng qī zhōng cháng qī 存在cún zài cún zài 的de de 实践shí jiàn shí jiàn ,, , 早zǎo zǎo 于yú yú CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ ,, , 并非bìng fēi bìng fēi 其qí qí 独有dú yǒu dú yǒu 。。 。
The practice of court-imposed suppression orders for national security reasons is standard across Westminster democracies (UK, Canada) where classified intelligence or national security information must be protected even at trial.
工党gōng dǎng gōng dǎng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ (( ( 20072007 2007 -- - 20132013 2013 年nián nián )) ) 也yě yě 处理chǔ lǐ chǔ lǐ 过guò guò 敏感mǐn gǎn mǐn gǎn 安全ān quán ān quán 信息xìn xī xìn xī 需要xū yào xū yào 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 保护bǎo hù bǎo hù 的de de 案件àn jiàn àn jiàn [[ [ 77 7 ]] ] 。。 。
It is not a Coalition innovation or abuse—it is a legal mechanism that governments of all political stripes must work within when bound by court orders.
澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 在zài zài 工党gōng dǎng gōng dǎng 和hé hé CoalitionCoalition Coalition 执政zhí zhèng zhí zhèng 期间qī jiān qī jiān 都dōu dōu 在zài zài 国家guó jiā guó jiā 安全ān quán ān quán 案件àn jiàn àn jiàn 中zhōng zhōng 发布fā bù fā bù 压制yā zhì yā zhì 令lìng lìng —— — —— — 这zhè zhè 反映fǎn yìng fǎn yìng 了le le 保护bǎo hù bǎo hù 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 安全ān quán ān quán 信息xìn xī xìn xī 与yǔ yǔ 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 公正gōng zhèng gōng zhèng 原则yuán zé yuán zé 之间zhī jiān zhī jiān 的de de balancebalance balance ,, , 这是zhè shì zhè shì 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 中zhōng zhōng ongoingongoing ongoing 的de de 紧张jǐn zhāng jǐn zhāng 关系guān xì guān xì [[ [ 88 8 ]] ] 。。 。
出于chū yú chū yú 国家guó jiā guó jiā 安全ān quán ān quán 原因yuán yīn yuán yīn 实施shí shī shí shī 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 压制yā zhì yā zhì 令lìng lìng 的de de 做法zuò fǎ zuò fǎ 在zài zài 威斯敏斯特wēi sī mǐn sī tè wēi sī mǐn sī tè 民主mín zhǔ mín zhǔ 国家guó jiā guó jiā (( ( 英国yīng guó yīng guó 、、 、 加拿大jiā ná dà jiā ná dà )) ) 中是zhōng shì zhōng shì 标准biāo zhǔn biāo zhǔn 的de de ,, , 在zài zài 这些zhè xiē zhè xiē 国家guó jiā guó jiā ,, , 机密jī mì jī mì 情报qíng bào qíng bào 或huò huò 国家guó jiā guó jiā 安全ān quán ān quán 信息xìn xī xìn xī 即使jí shǐ jí shǐ 在zài zài 审判shěn pàn shěn pàn 中zhōng zhōng 也yě yě 必须bì xū bì xū 受到shòu dào shòu dào 保护bǎo hù bǎo hù 。。 。
这zhè zhè 不是bú shì bú shì CoalitionCoalition Coalition 的de de 创新chuàng xīn chuàng xīn 或huò huò 滥用làn yòng làn yòng —— — —— — 而是ér shì ér shì 所有suǒ yǒu suǒ yǒu 政治派别zhèng zhì pài bié zhèng zhì pài bié 的de de 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 在zài zài 受shòu shòu 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 约束yuē shù yuē shù 时shí shí 都dōu dōu 必须bì xū bì xū 遵守zūn shǒu zūn shǒu 的de de 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 机制jī zhì jī zhì 。。 。
🌐

平衡视角

** * ** * 对duì duì 该案gāi àn gāi àn 的de de 合理hé lǐ hé lǐ 批评pī píng pī píng :: : ** * ** *
**Legitimate criticisms of the case:** Critics raised valid concerns about the extreme level of secrecy in this case.
批评者pī píng zhě pī píng zhě 对duì duì 该案gāi àn gāi àn 的de de 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 程度chéng dù chéng dù 提出tí chū tí chū 了le le 合理hé lǐ hé lǐ 关切guān qiè guān qiè 。。 。
Nick McKim's parliamentary criticism was justified in questioning whether the secrecy was proportionate to any legitimate security need—holding even prisoners' identities secret went beyond typical practice and raised genuine concerns about accountability and the principle of open justice [1][3].
尼克ní kè ní kè ·· · 麦mài mài 基姆jī mǔ jī mǔ 的de de 议会yì huì yì huì 批评pī píng pī píng 是shì shì 正当zhèng dāng zhèng dāng 的de de ,, , 他tā tā 质疑zhì yí zhì yí 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 与yǔ yǔ 任何rèn hé rèn hé legitimatelegitimate legitimate 安全ān quán ān quán 需求xū qiú xū qiú 成chéng chéng 比例bǐ lì bǐ lì —— — —— — 甚至shèn zhì shèn zhì 对duì duì 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 身份shēn fèn shēn fèn 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 也yě yě 超出chāo chū chāo chū 了le le typicaltypical typical 实践shí jiàn shí jiàn ,, , 引发yǐn fā yǐn fā 了le le 对duì duì 问责制wèn zé zhì wèn zé zhì 和hé hé 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 公正gōng zhèng gōng zhèng 原则yuán zé yuán zé 的de de 真正zhēn zhèng zhēn zhèng 关切guān qiè guān qiè [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
Justice John Burns himself noted in his judgment that the case involved "extraordinary levels of secrecy" [2].
约翰yuē hàn yuē hàn ·· · 伯恩斯bó ēn sī bó ēn sī 法官fǎ guān fǎ guān 本人běn rén běn rén 在zài zài 判决pàn jué pàn jué 中zhōng zhōng 指出zhǐ chū zhǐ chū ,, , 该案gāi àn gāi àn 涉及shè jí shè jí "" " extraordinaryextraordinary extraordinary 程度chéng dù chéng dù 的de de 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì "" " [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
The fact that even senior ACT Justice Ministry officials were kept in the dark about the case, and that the prisoner's own mental health recovery (writing as therapy) was treated as a security threat, suggests the secrecy regime may have been disproportionately strict [1][2]. **Government's legitimate constraints:** However, the Coalition Government was genuinely constrained in what it could disclose.
即使jí shǐ jí shǐ 是shì shì 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 首都shǒu dū shǒu dū 领地lǐng dì lǐng dì 司法部sī fǎ bù sī fǎ bù 高级官员gāo jí guān yuán gāo jí guān yuán 也yě yě 被bèi bèi 蒙在鼓里méng zài gǔ lǐ méng zài gǔ lǐ ,, , 以及yǐ jí yǐ jí 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 自己zì jǐ zì jǐ 的de de 心理健康xīn lǐ jiàn kāng xīn lǐ jiàn kāng 恢复huī fù huī fù (( ( 以写yǐ xiě yǐ xiě 作为zuò wéi zuò wéi 治疗zhì liáo zhì liáo )) ) 被bèi bèi 视为shì wèi shì wèi 安全ān quán ān quán 威胁wēi xié wēi xié ,, , 这zhè zhè 表明biǎo míng biǎo míng 保密制度bǎo mì zhì dù bǎo mì zhì dù 可能kě néng kě néng 过于guò yú guò yú 严格yán gé yán gé [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
Ministers cannot simply ignore court orders suppressing information, even if questioned in parliament.
** * ** * 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 约束yuē shù yuē shù :: : ** * ** *
To do so would breach orders from the judiciary and could constitute contempt of court.
然而rán ér rán ér ,, , CoalitionCoalition Coalition 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 在zài zài 可kě kě 披露pī lù pī lù 内容nèi róng nèi róng 方面fāng miàn fāng miàn 确实què shí què shí 受到shòu dào shòu dào 约束yuē shù yuē shù 。。 。
Payne's response—that orders were "imposed by the courts with consent of the parties"—was technically accurate: the courts had issued the suppression orders, and the prisoner was a party to the proceedings [1][2][3].
部长bù zhǎng bù zhǎng 们men men 不能bù néng bù néng 简单jiǎn dān jiǎn dān 地dì dì 无视wú shì wú shì 压制yā zhì yā zhì 信息xìn xī xìn xī 的de de 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng ,, , 即使jí shǐ jí shǐ 在zài zài 议会yì huì yì huì 中zhōng zhōng 受到shòu dào shòu dào 质询zhì xún zhì xún 。。 。
The government did not refuse to acknowledge the case existed or deny the secrecy orders—Payne explicitly confirmed their existence and explained (within legal limits) that they were court-imposed with party consent [3].
这样zhè yàng zhè yàng 做zuò zuò 将jiāng jiāng 违反wéi fǎn wéi fǎn 司法sī fǎ sī fǎ 机构jī gòu jī gòu 的de de 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng ,, , 可能kě néng kě néng 构成gòu chéng gòu chéng 藐视miǎo shì miǎo shì 法庭fǎ tíng fǎ tíng 。。 。
This is different from claiming the government "refused to provide any information." National security suppression orders are a real legal mechanism used to protect sensitive classified information.
佩恩pèi ēn pèi ēn 的de de 回应huí yìng huí yìng —— — —— — 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng "" " 由yóu yóu 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 在zài zài 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén 同意tóng yì tóng yì 的de de 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 下xià xià 实施shí shī shí shī "" " —— — —— — 在技术上zài jì shù shàng zài jì shù shàng 准确zhǔn què zhǔn què :: : 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 发布fā bù fā bù 了le le 压制yā zhì yā zhì 令lìng lìng ,, , 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 是shì shì 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
Whether the application in this specific case was proportionate is a legitimate debate [1], but the existence of the practice is not fundamentally a "corruption" issue—it is a longstanding legal doctrine with both legitimate security purposes and legitimate concerns about excessive secrecy. **Key context:** The case highlights a genuine tension in Australia between security needs and open justice principles.
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 并未bìng wèi bìng wèi 否认fǒu rèn fǒu rèn 该案gāi àn gāi àn 存在cún zài cún zài 或huò huò 否认fǒu rèn fǒu rèn 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng —— — —— — 佩恩pèi ēn pèi ēn 明确míng què míng què 确认què rèn què rèn 了le le 它们tā men tā men 的de de 存在cún zài cún zài ,, , 并bìng bìng 在zài zài 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 限制xiàn zhì xiàn zhì 范围fàn wéi fàn wéi 内nèi nèi 解释jiě shì jiě shì 它们tā men tā men 是shì shì 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 实施shí shī shí shī 的de de ,, , 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén 同意tóng yì tóng yì [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
However, characterizing the government's parliamentary response as "lying" and "corruption" misrepresents both the legal constraints on government disclosure and the role of courts (not the government) in imposing the orders.
这zhè zhè 与yǔ yǔ 声称shēng chēng shēng chēng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ "" " 拒绝jù jué jù jué 提供tí gōng tí gōng 任何rèn hé rèn hé 信息xìn xī xìn xī "" " 是shì shì 不同bù tóng bù tóng 的de de 。。 。
国家guó jiā guó jiā 安全ān quán ān quán 压制yā zhì yā zhì 令是lìng shì lìng shì 保护bǎo hù bǎo hù 敏感mǐn gǎn mǐn gǎn 机密信息jī mì xìn xī jī mì xìn xī 的de de 真正zhēn zhèng zhēn zhèng 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 机制jī zhì jī zhì 。。 。
该gāi gāi 特定tè dìng tè dìng 案件àn jiàn àn jiàn 中zhōng zhōng 的de de 适用shì yòng shì yòng 是否shì fǒu shì fǒu 成chéng chéng 比例bǐ lì bǐ lì 是shì shì 一个yí gè yí gè 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 的de de 辩论biàn lùn biàn lùn [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] ,, , 但dàn dàn 该gāi gāi 实践shí jiàn shí jiàn 的de de 存在cún zài cún zài 根本gēn běn gēn běn 上shàng shàng 不是bú shì bú shì "" " 腐败fǔ bài fǔ bài "" " 问题wèn tí wèn tí —— — —— — 它tā tā 是shì shì 一种yī zhǒng yī zhǒng 具有jù yǒu jù yǒu 合法hé fǎ hé fǎ 安全ān quán ān quán 目的mù dì mù dì 和hé hé 对duì duì 过度guò dù guò dù 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 的de de legitimatelegitimate legitimate 关切guān qiè guān qiè 的de de 长期cháng qī cháng qī 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ doctrinedoctrine doctrine 。。 。
** * ** * 关键guān jiàn guān jiàn 背景bèi jǐng bèi jǐng :: : ** * ** * 该案gāi àn gāi àn 凸显tū xiǎn tū xiǎn 了le le 澳大利亚ào dà lì yà ào dà lì yà 安全ān quán ān quán 需求xū qiú xū qiú 与yǔ yǔ 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 公正gōng zhèng gōng zhèng 原则yuán zé yuán zé 之间zhī jiān zhī jiān 的de de genuinegenuine genuine 紧张jǐn zhāng jǐn zhāng 关系guān xì guān xì 。。 。
然而rán ér rán ér ,, , 将jiāng jiāng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 的de de 议会yì huì yì huì 回应huí yìng huí yìng 定性dìng xìng dìng xìng 为wèi wèi "" " 撒谎sā huǎng sā huǎng "" " 和hé hé "" " 腐败fǔ bài fǔ bài "" " ,, , 既jì jì 错误cuò wù cuò wù 表述biǎo shù biǎo shù 了le le 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 披露pī lù pī lù 的de de 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 约束yuē shù yuē shù ,, , 也yě yě 错误cuò wù cuò wù 表述biǎo shù biǎo shù 了le le 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn (( ( 而ér ér 非政府fēi zhèng fǔ fēi zhèng fǔ )) ) 在zài zài 实施shí shī shí shī 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 方面fāng miàn fāng miàn 的de de 作用zuò yòng zuò yòng 。。 。

部分属实

5.5

/ 10

核心hé xīn hé xīn 事实shì shí shì shí —— — —— — 一名yī míng yī míng 前qián qián 军官jūn guān jūn guān 在zài zài 近乎jìn hū jìn hū totaltotal total 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì 的de de 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 下xià xià 被bèi bèi 监禁jiān jìn jiān jìn ,, , 其qí qí 姓名xìng míng xìng míng 和hé hé 罪名zuì míng zuì míng 仍réng réng 保密bǎo mì bǎo mì ,, , 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 在zài zài 议会yì huì yì huì 回应huí yìng huí yìng 中zhōng zhōng 提供tí gōng tí gōng 极少jí shǎo jí shǎo 信息xìn xī xìn xī —— — —— — 是shì shì 准确zhǔn què zhǔn què 且qiě qiě 有yǒu yǒu 文件wén jiàn wén jiàn 的de de [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] [[ [ 33 3 ]] ] 。。 。
The core facts—that a former military officer was imprisoned in near-total secrecy, that his name and charges remained confidential, and that the government provided minimal information in parliamentary response—are accurate and documented [1][2][3].
然而rán ér rán ér ,, , 将jiāng jiāng 该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng 定性dìng xìng dìng xìng 为wèi wèi "" " 腐败fǔ bài fǔ bài "" " 以及yǐ jí yǐ jí "" " 他们tā men tā men 撒谎sā huǎng sā huǎng "" " 的de de 断言duàn yán duàn yán significantlysignificantly significantly 歪曲wāi qū wāi qū 了le le 情况qíng kuàng qíng kuàng 。。 。
However, the claim's characterization as "corruption" and the assertion that "they lied" significantly misrepresent the situation.
政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 受到shòu dào shòu dào 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 的de de 约束yuē shù yuē shù (( ( 而ér ér 非fēi fēi CoalitionCoalition Coalition 单方面dān fāng miàn dān fāng miàn 实施shí shī shí shī )) ) 。。 。
The government was legally constrained by court orders (not unilaterally imposed by the Coalition).
佩恩pèi ēn pèi ēn 关于guān yú guān yú 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén 同意tóng yì tóng yì 的de de 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 命令mìng lìng mìng lìng 的de de 陈述chén shù chén shù 在zài zài 法律fǎ lǜ fǎ lǜ 限制xiàn zhì xiàn zhì 内nèi nèi 是shì shì 技术jì shù jì shù 上shàng shàng 准确zhǔn què zhǔn què 的de de 。。 。
Payne's statement about court orders with party consent was technically accurate within legal limits.
该gāi gāi 主张zhǔ zhāng zhǔ zhāng omittedomitted omitted 囚犯qiú fàn qiú fàn 本人běn rén běn rén 是shì shì 法院fǎ yuàn fǎ yuàn 诉讼sù sòng sù sòng 当事人dāng shì rén dāng shì rén ,, , suggestingsuggesting suggesting 他tā tā 自己zì jǐ zì jǐ 参与cān yù cān yù 了le le 建立jiàn lì jiàn lì 保密制度bǎo mì zhì dù bǎo mì zhì dù 。。 。
The claim omits that the prisoner himself was party to court proceedings, suggesting his own legal participation in establishing the secrecy regime.
该案gāi àn gāi àn 反映fǎn yìng fǎn yìng 了le le 安全ān quán ān quán 与yǔ yǔ 公开gōng kāi gōng kāi 公正gōng zhèng gōng zhèng 之间zhī jiān zhī jiān 的de de legitimatelegitimate legitimate 紧张jǐn zhāng jǐn zhāng 关系guān xì guān xì ,, , 但dàn dàn 称之为chēng zhī wèi chēng zhī wèi "" " 腐败fǔ bài fǔ bài "" " 是shì shì 没有méi yǒu méi yǒu 证据zhèng jù zhèng jù 支持zhī chí zhī chí 不当bù dàng bù dàng 政府zhèng fǔ zhèng fǔ 行为xíng wéi xíng wéi 的de de 夸张kuā zhāng kuā zhāng [[ [ 11 1 ]] ] [[ [ 22 2 ]] ] 。。 。
The case reflects a legitimate tension between security and open justice, but calling it "corruption" is an exaggeration unsupported by evidence of improper government conduct [1][2].

评分方法

1-3: 不实

事实错误或恶意捏造。

4-6: 部分属实

有一定真实性,但缺乏背景或有所偏颇。

7-9: 基本属实

仅有微小的技术性或措辞问题。

10: 准确

完全经过验证且客观公正。

方法论: 评分通过交叉参照政府官方记录、独立事实核查机构和原始文件确定。