Firstly I also want to point out the extensive use of "we" and "our".

Theres a couple of statements you made where I shall begin.

"In a democracy such as ours we must surely put trust in our ministers..."

Why must we?
I thought Australians mostly have contempt for politicians and we don't actually vote for anyone because we like them but we vote for the lesser evil.
Which leads me on to another statement you made.

"In this, it is important to distinguish our system of government from that of our good friend and ally the USA."

(And just because I'd happily see the removal of the Union Jack doesnt mean I want a totalitarian government with unrestrained executive powers)

Why exactly are the U.S. good?
What do they do that makes them our friend?

Inviting us into foreign wars that they instigate that go against International law?

Doesn't that increase our threat rather than our security?

I've pretty much reached my red line with the US.
Firstly, I'm tired of them going into other peoples countries and destabilising and overthrowing governments and helping to create hell on earth in the name of democracy.
This hospital bombing in Kunduz shows what the US are really all about.
Using an AC-130 Spectre gunship to shoot up a hospital goes beyond terrorism.

If we had've not followed the US and UK into these overseas conflicts and had immigration policies which see these foreigners taking over our communities we might now be in the situation were in or have a need to spy on everyone.

If our leaders want to spy on us then we should be able to spy on them.
Show me whats in the TPP and what our leaders agreed to "in our best interests".

You talk of terrorists, but I'm seriously looking at the US government in that context.
I think its actually disturbing to think of what they might do in the future (given what they've done in the past) in defense of the petrodollar, their economy, and their position as the worlds leading superpower.

The US is a positive ally . I would not be so sure about the Us suggesting AU join an illegal war, Abbott wanted that to be the case and asked for it. I am still not sure if we know what side we are fighting for.

We now have govt; stability and things are different. So we can again put faith back into our govt; The US have been long term friends of Australia. And best to stay that way, we are a grossly under- populated country with a great expanse of land, and that is a good reason to have friends of influence.

The US gets bombing coordinates and intelligence from spies on the ground, and that hospital was said to be an Isis facility, and a target.

The times we live in are challenging, technology has moved very fast and left gaping holes to be filled. The massive uptake of technology which has infiltrated every aspect of life all around the globe has its vulnerabilities, just another ongoing crisis that needs continual development to combat.

The middle east in turmoil with Pakistan and Indonesia becoming increasingly worried of creeping hard line Koran readers putting their own interpretation on to it. There is certainly no end of violence coming soon.

Well, I can't speak on behalf of "we", whoever "they" are, but "I" would be happy to see restraints removed when Islamists are dealt with. Remember, Muslims are exhorted to lie if they are threatened; how are our nice methods supposed to contend with that, along with their brutal hatred of us?

If Australians fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists, I don't there is a case of: these Aussies are nice to us, we'll return the compliment.

".. if we once abandon those standards or condone the lowering of their application in respect of our enemies we will surely come to have the same standards applied to ourselves." Don't think so. Our enemies and criminals already apply the standards to the rest of us.

The author has put up some good work to date, but he has dropped a clanger with this one.

I think the question out oversight could be handled differently. Judicial oversight is important but I'd the judiciary are constrained to matters of law it may not be enough. The kicker for me is an oversight that puts the good of the nation and the people who make up the nation above what the law allows and party political priorities.

Not just in how security agencies operate but in all matters where arms of government get to self censor what those who foot the bills are allowed to know. There may be official secrets, commercial in confidence agreenents, cabinet documents that should not be available to other nations but none of that should be free of scrutiny from independent review by nonpartisan audit subject to some rules if conduct.

R0bert

Hey doog,

"The US gets bombing coordinates and intelligence from spies on the ground, and that hospital was said to be an Isis facility, and a target."

Your comment is one that plays the events down, and is the official line on the issue.

The AC-130 Spectre gunship operates at a lower altitude and relies on visual targeting (usually with the use of night vision as missions occur mostly at night).

Perhaps the phase "Raining Death" puts this attack into perspective.
There's no way US forces did not see everything that was happening on the ground and they probably had dozens of personnel involved in carrying out this mission.

MSF had notified US forces of the hospitals location.
And the US continued attacking the hospital even after MSF people on the ground called and notified US officials they were bombing a hospital.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/13/inside-msf-hospital-kunduz-afghanistan-taliban-us-attack/

"It follows as an imperative of these ideals that the standards of fair play must be maintained in all matters of national security."

Ya kidding, right?

And its "metadata" not "mega data". Mine is worth retaining.

Poida