Neil James, Yes it will !

Succinct Aramis !.

These laws apply to everybody; Extreme terrorists certainly do not walk around advertising the fact.

Add to that the fact that our intelligence service is not that sharp and we will all be exposed to dumb law apllied by dumb people.

THe great irony is, once these laws are implemented, we will probably be subject of an act of terror on our soil; all the bed wetters will then come out from under the sheets with a chorus of " we told you so" - all this would prove is that these types of laws are in effective in assymetrical conflict.

The most we can do is resource our sad spooks with more human resources to allow them to get up to speed and do more of what they do now - enahced powers of arrest, detention and the application of ultimate force will do nothing to enhance their knowledge.

A few random comments, mainly against the proposed laws this time.

Neil's comments about moderate application of the laws and historical context are something that have been missing in "oh what a new shock" debate.

Yet Neil's tone "Unfounded allegations that the new measures are unjustified should stop." is somewhat Teutonic and makes me uneasy. If Neil's tone is indicative of how anti-terrorists forces see their role (regarding these proposed laws and in society) then perhaps backers of these laws should think again.

I'm also uneasy that I'm not a legislative expert in this field. Instead I rely on gut feeling. I've read the proposed legislation in "Stanhope's release" but not existing legislation (running to 30 or more Acts).

I don't have a feeling for the effect subtle legal drafting will have on the way politicians, judges and ASIO will apply these laws in the field. I've heard that the sedition/incitement proposal is less draconian than the existing law but do not have the wording and intent of the law background to assess this.

Sneeky may be generalising too exorbitantly when he doubts the quality of the intelligence agencies. However his point about providing them more funding so they can better use existing laws rather than bringing in laws (calculated to drive a wedge in ALP) seems like commonsense.

So basically I'm all at sea on this issue and Neil's line has some truths but leaves me cold.

There are differences in the Japanese threat of invasion during WW2 and the threat of terrorist strike in this present day.
There are also similarities. We are being threatened by aliens, just as we were then . We are at war just as we were then.
And the civil libertarians could almost be regarded as fifth columnists as they try to dismantle the security laws.
After a bombing outrage with its loss of Australian life, they go very quiet, no voice raised in anger at the death and misery caused, but after a while, out they come from their lairs screaming at the unfairness and racism of laws designed to protect us from further terrorist strikes.
During WW2 such people were interned.

Dear Mickijo.

You seem to be living in the small, dark, cell of your own making.

None of the the security intelligence types I worked with made such extreme comments.

One always has to consider the role of a security service in a democracy and rightwing extremists who think they can ally themselves to a duty of care function are off the track.

I think you all should read through these laws, you will find some very disturbing things within them, irrelevant as to what side you support.

Are you aware that if you encourage ill feeling against Prime Minister John Howard, it will be illegal under the new federal anti-terrorist laws. This means anyone.

What that may mean is that those of us putting posts on threads, saying that john Howard is a liar, fraud or can't be trusted, may be charged with sedition. Is this freedom of speech or democracy.

All the blind followers of the ruling fools, may just have to put up with having their mouths sealed, unless you support all proposals put forward. Any dissent may be seen as ill feeling towards the elite.

No more open newspapers, lots of political editing and total suppression of truth. What does that relate to, the public being ill informed, no open government, no dissent nor questioning, no say in what happens. The worst case scenario will give those in power the right to determine who will vote, as voting for any other than the current prime minister may be deemed as encouraging ill feelings towards him.

Sounds far out and ridiculous, but the possibility is real and we all know how politicians view possibilities that will increase their power and control, no matter who it effects. If it is to their advantage, they don't care who it effects or the consquences.

"The measures will also only affect very small numbers of people in most unusual circumstances of their own choosing."

Like catching a train?

Don't you see? Don't you see that this has all happened before?

It's that damn sketch! viz:

(narrator)

In the early years of the 21st Century, to combat the rising demand for accountability, the Prime Minister gave his Attorney General, leave to move without let or hindrance throughout the land, in a reign of fear, suspicion and terror that used a terrific draft bill.

This was the Australian Inquisition!

(splintering door)

NOBODY expects the Australian Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...
fear and surprise....

Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry...
are such elements as fear, surprise...

and... and ruthless efficiency..

...I'll come in again.

Neil James' "Fundamental point" is not if or by whom we are under attack but whether we are prepared to be stampeded into giving up critical elements of our reasonably democratic society for very suspect improvements in our homeland security.
His"Most Australians support" is flat out wrong. Recent surveys show 67% of Australians feel the proposals are "over the top"
If history teaches us anything it must be that whatever interpretation can be placed on a power we bestow on our governments, they will eventually find expedient to apply-to all of us. Given the proposals,I am seriously not happy.

'Most Australians'were,until recently, a casual,laid back lot. Happy to earn a quid, have a holiday,not much interested in Foreign Affairs, until foreign bombers jumped out of nowhere and got some of us.
We cannot return to that fairly placid,relaxed way of life anymore, we would be asking for trouble if we did.Ask those who returned to Bali after the first bombing.
Yet if we say we welcome tougher terrorist laws, laws that hopefully will prevent those who hate us from trying to kill more of us, we are branded as "racist".
How else can you stop such killers? Tell 'em not to be so naughty? I do not care how harsh the laws, if they work even most of the time, they will be worth it.

I still haven't figured out exactly - or even approximately - what aspects of the new legislation will actually assist in the "fight against terror" (or whatever we are calling anti-terrorist measures this week). It is a bit like the workplace legislation - long on spin, short on fact, and totally bereft of a basis in logic.

Neil James doesn't help with this confusion either. He is deliberately misleading in places...

>>Jon Stanhope [is]... apparently unhappy with preventative detention or control orders in a minute number of cases of terrorism.<<

... when he knows full well that it is the broader thrust of the legislation that caused the minister to bring this into the public arena.

>>The fundamental point in the counter-terrorism measures versus civil liberties debate is the question whether Australia’s pluralist liberal-democratic society is under attack from Islamist terrorism or not? If the answer is yes, as most Australians appear to recognise..."

Whether or not "most Australians" appear to recognize this (which I believe is in itself open to question), the point is still fundamentally unproven. Yes, it is possible that there may be an increased likelihood of terrorist activity on Australian soil at some time in the future, but an attack on our pluralist liberal-democratic society? Surely, that's over-egging the pudding.

If the possibility of a couple of suicide bombers represents a threat to our democratic system, it is time we outsourced our civil defence to a more capable body. Like the Bandidos, or the Comancheros.

>>Some of the new measures are undoubtedly tough by normal peacetime standards - which no longer necessarily apply. But they are not unprecedented during time of conflict and in coping with associated acts of subversion, sabotage, sedition and treason.<<

We are not at war. We may have a potential problem with terrorism, which may at some time reach our shores. This is not a "time of conflict". As drafted, the new laws are unnecessary and oppressive.

Among the catalogue of social disasters which Multiculturalism has created, we can now add a significant reduction in the civil liberties of Australians.

To those who wanted Multiculturalism and now cry over your lost rights, all I can say is, you sowed the wind and now you have got the whirlwind. It is amusing that they are now the ones screaming about the loss of civil liberties when they themselves were the ones who created this avoidable problem.

We in Australia now have to face the fact that we have imported people into this country who want to kill us and kill our children. These immigrants and their progeny have such a hatred for our society and our culture that nothing less than the complete destruction of our way of life will placate them. ASIO claims that there are at least 20 separate terrorist groups forming cells within Australia and some 800 “Australians” now under surveillance.

Those that once loudly claimed that asylum shoppers could never be terrorists have been proven wrong. Some of the “British” terrorists who have been involved in the four plots to mass murder British people (two have been foiled by British police) were either “refugees” or the progeny of asylum shoppers. One wonders how many times the social regressive caste will be proven wrong before they ever admit that their Quixotic social theories are a catastrophe.

The Dutch people have loudly proclaimed that they are the most tolerant on Earth. But their tolerance has been mitigated somewhat by the realization that their own rednecks were right all along and that their naivety has created a cancer in their own society. One Dutch minister recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders when they refused to shake hands with her because she was a woman. How any advanced society can import backward people with such medieval mindsets and then think it will not cause serious social problems is beyond me.

Pericles, -a balanced perspective I think.

Redneck,
you should have a read of Carniflex experience as a park ranger ....
look up his history. People who roll up with 'crippled' stickers on their car, but get out and play footy.... and 'pension' cards etc..

The information he gave, based on his actual experience, suggests either a deliberate attempt to portray a particular group as low life social parasites, (I didn't get that impression) or his attempt to wake us up to what is going on. (seems more likely from his tone).

The more we emphasise 'multi' culturalism, the more each sub culture will feel as a law unto itself, and less accountable to the 'outside' mob who don't share their language or customs or historical/ethnic background.

On the topic.....

Some of what I've heard (yes, its just hearsay at this point) is quite scary, "cannot create ill will"... "cannot negatively portray the government" ? Those kinds of things (if true) would be a very volatile tool in the hands of a Sargent Shultz.

You do have a point though Redneck, "reaping what we sow" is a very sound agricultural and Biblical concept.

I must confess, that the application of an 'ill feeling toward the PM' law applied to some of the more spoilt and rabid among the greeny/leftist rentacrowd "we stand for peace" (while attacking police or property) mob for a few years might be a good thing, but that would mean even the more genuine among us would be silenced.

Would we be able to speak our passions here if "creating ill will against the PM" is not allowed ? Well, I for one would quickly be in Jail if quoting from 'tell it like it is' Prophets like Isaiah happen to step on the ministrial toes. Hmm...I think I hear hungry Lions roaring under the MCG.....

I wonder if criticizing unjust policies could be construed as "fostering Ill will against the PM" ?

Neil James talks about checks and balances in the law. But he hasn't mentioned a single one. Why? Because they effectively don't exist.

Perhaps Mr James should get some legal advice before talking about legal issues.

And after his performance on the SBS Insight program, I find his claims to being concerned about the welfare of any person of Muslim background laughable.

The new laws will be implemented by the same "intelligence" department which told us about the weapons of mass destructtion in Iraq.
Our foreign policy has made us many enemies.
We have enforced sanctions against another country and thus caused the deaths of thousands.
We have taken part in the invasion of another country (based on false information)and thus caused the deaths of thousnands and continuing suffering for thousands more.
It is hard to feel any confidence that the new laws will make us safer in Australia when we continue to make more enemies around the world by always siding with the USA.
I wish that we could be protected by law against state sponsored terrorist acts.

A far more effective way of making us safer in Australia would be to start making more friends instead of more enemies.

I find the mindset displayed by Mr James in this article deeply disturbing.

We should remember that Mr James was heavily involved with the faulty intelligence that lead to the Iraq War. As a weapons inspector he knew the same facts that Scott Ritter has shared with the public, but still chose to peddle the propaganda.

Current estimates put the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians at 30,000 with twice that many wounded and handicapped. Each month thousands more are dying. These are just the innocent families caught up in this horrible bloody mess

On whose authority does he make the following assurances?

-“A key point is that the new measures are specifically targeted only at terrorists and their committed and active sympathisers - a very small, distinct and readily distinguishable segment of the population.”

Could Mr James share the profile of this group with us so we can add it to the legislation.

I think it is important to remember that there has been no attacks on the Australian mainland, by Mr James target group, not a single incident.

We have a history of bombs let of by home grown criminals who Mr James assures us won’t be targeted by this legislation because they aren’t extremist muslims

-“Confused moderate Muslims need instead to be reassured that only Islamist extremism and its violent manifestations are being targeted.”

Could Mr James tell us how to tell the difference between a moderate muslim who is outraged by the senseless violence and says so and a dedicated jihadi intent on keeping a low profile.

"Could Mr James tell us how to tell the difference between a moderate muslim who is outraged by the senseless violence and says so and a dedicated jihadi intent on keeping a low profile. "

Good question gunerdo,

The answer he is unwilling to provide you is that he can't - and won't.

This leaves no option but to target any Muslim or supporter of a Muslim) who privately or publically expressed concern about senseless violence and anti-Muslim propoganda.

Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, who was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder, at Stockwell Tube station, south London, was not a moderate Muslim, just a passenger on a train.

Explain this Mr James?

The author writes that Australia has come under internal threat from Communists, fascists, etc. Where can he show this? By fascist, I suggest Neil means Nazi's which is an exageration.

I, Sir, am a fascist in the true sense of the term of fascism. I am no Nazi. If any threat to freedoms exist, it is at the hands of the opportunist major parties who crave more and more powers.

To make a political joke and to give military to act as police on civilians stinks of politicians in want of control of the people.

I Sir, do not want to control the freedom of thought. As a Fascist, I want Australian's supported, not prostituted off to foreigners so the pollies can be the peoples Pimps. I live to serve my brothers and sisters, not some greedy and heartless gang of politicians.