This morning 400 police armed with 23 warrants raided houses in Melbourne and Sydney under the glare of breakfast television cameras.
I would have thought arrests would have been D-noticed.
Were this mornings raids to counter terrorism or to move IR legislation off the front page?

Nice piece, Gary, with which I find very little to disagree. As sand between my toes has pointed out, this morning's raids (including at least one reported shooting of a 'suspect') smack of a jackbooted attempt by the Federal government to capitalise upon the xenophobic sentiments that have largely kept them in power - at least since the Tampa travesty.

However, I think that any distraction from the IR putsch is fortuitous, rather than strategic - they're just not that smart.

We indeed have the government we deserve. I predict rioting on the streets in the benighted suburbs where most of our small Muslim minority live. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies...

The parts of the anti-terrorism legislation that we know of are certainly radical, but then so is mass killing by terrorists.

It might be possible under the legislation to keep someone under secret house arrest for years, but the average person need not worry himself or herself about that. This suggestion is just a fear tactic – something that the only Government is said to use!

Yes, the laws are repressive, and so they need to be if they are to repress terrorists.

Similar laws saw an ‘innocent’ man shot by police in the UK. One person killed by police against how many innocent people slaughtered by terrorists on buses and trains? Come on! While this person may not have been connected with the terrorists, he was loitering near a building of interest to the police, and he did run from them. He was also an illegal immigrant which could explain his desperate dash. He didn’t deserve to be shot for that, but in the situation just experienced in London, running from armed police was not a good idea.

Talk of anti-terror laws leading to authoritarianism, as Gary Brown is, is pure scare mongering. Again, the ordinary person should ignore such rubbish. Let the people these laws are aimed at worry about it.

As for “wide spread abuse” abuse by DIMIA, Mr. Brown has really left the planet.

Gary Brown also jumps on the Federal Police Commissioner for highlighting a “flaw” in the laws. There is no “flaw”. The Commissioner simply stated the intention of the law, like it or not. If any intelligence is wrong, that’s just something that has to be accepted in the current climate, and mistakes can be repaired.

Two thirds of Australians support the introduction of the laws (“The Australian” 29/10/05), including house arrest and detaining suspects without charge.

As The Australian editorialist also said, “And people who do not like it are resorting to claims that the interests of a tiny handful of individuals, whose rights will be infringed, are more important than measures intended to protect the physical safety of us all”.

hmmmm. Mr Brown makes some good points - and do not think his reference to the abuse perpertrated by DIMIA should be dismissed as readily as some have. The point was timely and pertinent in relation to abuses of power, particularly under the reign of a government that seems tacitly to supoprt the denartments actions.

As for the blurring of the IR issues with this stuff I suspect , as indcated by another, it was for the government a happy convergence of events - to assume the terrorist beat up was driven by a desire to bury the iR debate flatters the strategic thinkers in the government.

The IR laws in fact continue to get a thourough hammering in most forums; and rightly so. At the end of the day the IR debate is a far more important one to this off broadway terorism production.

Gary although you look like the type of long haired chap my “ex” wouldn’t bring home to her mother I agree with your article.

Its particularly timely that you noted “One of the problems in writing in this area at present is the speed at which developments are occurring.”

I hope that once the gory “plot” or “plots” behind yesterday’s arrests become known that people can remember that the intelligence buildup and arrests largely occurred under anti-terror laws that have been in place for years. The draconian laws the Government is proposing are NOT in place and so were not used.

However much the Government crows that its draconian proposed laws are now necessary - as a measure of their worth the government did not see it a crucial to ram the proposed laws through Parliament last week for last nights swoops.

Interesting posts so far on this string:

Sand…

Do you think this is all a big conspiracy to divert attention from IR laws? Was ASIO in league with the young “would be terrorists” on this? I can feel an extreme left mantra coming on!

mahatma...

No rioting in the streets yet. Any schadenfreude arising from this will more likely hurt Muslim bystanders rather than the Government’s popularity.

Leigh

Your basic argument appears to be “this is the will of the majority, right (or sometimes) wrong.” My reading of the state execution of the Brazilian was that he was shot many times in the head while seated. In any case if the will of the majority was accepted in Australia we would no doubt still have the death penalty.

Sneekeepete

As usual you are a rare voice of moderation on this complex topic, although we still don’t know how serious the “terrorist plot or plots” were compared to the IR issue. I’ve got to admit I’m more interested in the (anti) terrorism issue.

I reckon the seriousness of the plot(s) will rest on the amount of bomb making equipment (including kg explosive materials) located and on any terrorist target lists and building structure plans that the police/ASIO picked up.

I cannot see in the legislation where there is any prohibition on reporting the existence of a control order.

The reporting of the existence of a detention order is prohibited only for the duration of the detention, and that duration is limited.

Sylvia.