Jump to content

Talk:Pine Gap

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JOINT DEFENCE FACILITY PINE GAP

[edit]

Since 1988 the official title for Pine Gap has been the JOINT DEFENCE FACILITY PINE GAP. It is an Australian Defence Department property and is jointly operated by the Australian and US governments. More than 50% of the employees are Australians. There are not any "no-go" areas within Pine Gap for the Australian and US senior managers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.96.239 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 22 May 2005

Pine Gap is totally Australian sovereign territory and is protected by Australian Government personnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.13.45 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 17 August 2006

Sovereignty

[edit]

Does anyone know what the legal status of the sovereignty of the base is? Is it considered US soil, and protected by US military personnel, or is it Australian soil and protected by the Australian Protective Service and/or the Australian Federal Police? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolinator (talk • contribs) 23:23, 20 April 2006

Australian Protective Service is on the front gates, and I do believe the entire facility is controlled by the Australian government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.157.4 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 14 July 2006

Besides who protects it, sovereignty also affects which state can enter the base. This seems to have changed over time. Access to the base by Australian officials was tested in 1999 when a parliamentary committee had to decide whether to extend the treaty that allows Pine Gap. Committee members were upset at being repeatedly denied access to the facility while their American counterparts were not ([1], 1999). The report by the committee was scathing:

2.19 Our experience has confirmed the anomaly, perhaps highlighting it even more starkly:
  • a congressional committee voting on an annual appropriation is able to visit the Joint Defence Facility and receive a classified briefing; while
  • the Treaties Committee, seeking to advise the community on whether Australia should be bound to an international obligation for the next ten years, is denied access to the facility and entrusted with less information than can be found in a public library.[2]

After the Australian committee eventually agreed to the treaty extension[3], subsequent Australian enquiries were granted visits more readily. While visiting, Kim Beazley said he had "total access" ([4], 2004) and Defence Minister Robert Hill said on his visit that the Government had "full knowledge" of facility activities ([5], 2002). 123.51.3.24 12:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq/Afghanistan Mismatch

[edit]

In the body, mention is made about protests during the war in AFGHANISTAN, but the protest section makes clear this protest was really about the war in IRAQ. Maybe the first paragraph could be cleared up? I know I got the wrong impression the first time 'round. Knnos (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What original research?

[edit]

The tag at the top currently claims there are concerns about original research in this article. Can somebody point out the areas of concern here in the Talk page so they can be addressed? Otherwise, it's too vague to be useful and the tag will be removed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs better referencing, but it looks free of OR at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way it seems to me, too. (This is a major trouble with those stupid nag tags - people slap them down at the drop of a hat, but rarely take the effort to remove them as the article changes. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a number of general errors, and the sourcing is very weak. A very quick review of what there is would call into question some of the conclusions, but that is quite common in Int related articles.
I wouldn't say there is much in the way of OR, but there is certainly Synthesis and speculation. The tag is very recent and there has been no significant change since it was placed so one might assume that's what the originator was alluding to.
ALR (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA or NSA

[edit]

The article is contradictory, indicating both predominate. NSA would make sense, but I have heard CIA from authoritative sources. Would it be better to say it is unknown?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should go with what the references say. CIA is very unlikely; they don't operate satellite or SIGINT facilities. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to substantiate either conclusion. NRO and NSA is most likely, NRO fly the space vehicles and NSA process the product. CIA are predominantly a HUMINT organisation with some all source analysis capability, but their position in the US Int Community means that they get credited with almost everything. That said both NSA and CIA are very territorial. It's likely that there is a CIA Liaison Officer on camp, but I'd be very surprised if there was an analysis capability.
ALR (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the article is contradictory. In the body of the article the base is described as "CIA-run". It is possible that it is officially under the aegis of the Central Intelligence Agency but predominantly staffed by the NSA sigint people. But all this is speculation. It isn't possible to "go with what the references say" because clearly some references say NSA and some CIA. As the base is secret there is no official source about what goes on there, so I think it would be better to cite both claims but state the truth is unknown, --Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had another look at the Treaties Committee report, and Ball doesn't appear to refer to it as CIA run, so that's removable. On the other hand Bamford describes it as an NSA site. It is a US DoD, USAF, site so it's certainly not CIA based on that.
ALR (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot thickens. I've inserted a reference by David Rosenberg (Inside Pine Gap), apparently the longest serving employee at Pine Gap. He doesn't explicitly say the base is run by the CIA but he cites a source Legendary Territorians by Reg Harris (p 93) which provides ample evidence that the second chief of Pine Gap, "Harry", a friend of his, was from the CIA. The implication of Rosenberg's text is that this is true. In the book "CIA" was redacted by US authorities but they didn't redact the citation of Harris's book.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Gap Silkwood Protest Dates and Numbers

[edit]

The Karen Silkwood article says that 300 women were arrested in this protest and that it was 1986. Ileanadu (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Alice Springs? Why Australia?

[edit]

The article ignores this basic question.

In Inside Pine Gap David Rosenberg (p xxi) suggests that Alice Springs was chosen because the signal from the satellites to a ground station in Central Australia would be out of range from Soviet spy boats. But why would they need a station in Australia anyway? What does it do that couldn't be done from Colorado?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A ground station cannot communicate with satellites below its local horizon. To maintain continuous coverage one needs at least three ground stations spaced around the globe. See Deep Space Network, which has a nice illustration.--agr (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So I take it Pine Gap is partnered with the stations in America and Britain. This should be made clear in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't really understand about Rosenberg's point is how it relates to the ground station in Britain. Menwith Hill is not that far from the coast. Couldn't a ground station be built in Japan that was at least as far from the coast? I ask this because my understanding is that Australia is key. It is said that US was concerned when it seemed like Whitlam could close the base.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what this bloom'n amateur understands Pine Gap and Ramstein are part of a worldwide system to operate ... drones or some such like. E.g. missiles and drones need to be programmed and then they 'talk' to the satellites and ground stations. This former German has read that the worldwide system requires both Ramstein and Pine Gap, but Diego Garcia and Ascencion would probably not be in the system if that wasn't beneficial. The closure of Nurrangar could well be due to new technology at the time. Since we obviously don't get to know technical details we can only speculate what they do and what it all costs us. 2001:8003:A0A3:BC00:7128:DF77:9F25:6DE3 (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category

[edit]

Shouldn't this be a category such as Category:Military facilities of the United States in Australia? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Costs

[edit]

It is not clear from the article which percentage of the facility benefits the US and her wars in the ME and which percentage is solely for Australian benefit. Do the US pay rent for the land they use? Do they pay a share for the guards?

I am miffed by the many discussions that never mention the money, except when it's about reducing benefits to people, poor people in particular. Even if it is only an estimate, I would like to see 1. total costs, 2. what we pay, 3. what the Americans pay, 3. what the Brits pay if they derive any benefit from the Pine Gap facility, and 4. how that is indexed and for how many years payment has been contracted in the treaty.

The Australian population who pays for this, is entitled to know what they fork out for whom. I have become a little more sensitive about these issues as it was first said Australia would not have to pay the US Marines in Darwin, and then on 6th October 2013 it was announced we do have to pay, but 1. not how much and 2. not for how many years. 101.166.86.118 (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pine Gap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV Paragraph

[edit]

"During his term in office The Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam (1972–75), threatened to close Pine Gap. According to Victor Marchetti, the CIA officer who had helped set up Pine Gap, the threat to close Pine Gap caused apoplexy in the White House and a kind of "coup" was set in motion. On 11 November 1975 – the day Whitlam was to inform parliament about the secret CIA presence in Australia – he was summoned by the governor-general of Australia, Sir John Kerr. Invoking archaic vice-regal “reserve powers”, Kerr sacked the democratically elected prime minister."

doesn't appear to be NPOV. While it does have a source, there is a clear slant to the paragraph and it thoroughly ignores the rest of the context surrounding the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis, which was a major event in of itself and the given rationale for said firing. In addition, describing the powers as "archaic" appears to be a non-neutral phrase in this context. DiggingLake (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it is one-sided. And I don't believe that Kerr invoked the reserve powers...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory

[edit]

The "Whitlam dismissal" section is way over the top. Is John Pilger seriously the best source we have for this? Cabinet documents for that period have long been available and I am unaware of any basis to Pilger's claim. If the news caused apoplexy in the White House, then there must have been some better source than Whitlam's private musings. What's Pilger's source? --Pete (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pilger's source is apparently Victor Marchetti. He also draws on Christopher Boyce but I think indirectly.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new article on this theory: Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam Dismissal.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pine_Gap&oldid=1209708779"