All this tightening of laws seems overly popularist. That's my first thought.

But I don't know for sure. Maybe there are big gaps. There's so much printed material (no offence intended George) and do I really want to read it all? I'm tired at the end of the day. I have thousands of pages of other reading to do.

What I'd really like is a coloured chart in major papers. Showing current powers, and proposed powers. Side by side, state by state. We could call it a "legislation justification" document perhaps.

After reading the chart I'd be ready to participate in the debate, read the big articles and say yay or nay depending on how it looks.

Does anybody know if something like this has been published?

The Howard government points to the London bombings as justification for the new anti-terror laws. However, he has failed to demonstrate that the new laws would prevent such an event from occurring. You simply cannot prevent any given person carrying an explosive from boarding a bus or train. Ruddock & Howard have admitted this much with their ‘…These laws are required…..but I cannot guarantee anything..etc’ arguments. I find it ironic when our Government tells us after a terrorist atrocity that we must not let terrorists change our way of life. Otherwise ‘they win’. How is introducing these laws not ‘letting them win’? My view is that the proposed laws are not designed to deal with terrorism at all. They are designed to deal with threats to their domestic power. Terrorism provides a convenient pretext. The recent deportation of the American peace activist, Scott Parkin, provides a good example of how the extra powers will be used.

I don't accept the "Fortress Australia" concept, nor do I fear for my 'basic rights'. I do accept that some people do fear for their basic rights, for reasons best known to themselves. But do they really have anything to fear from a government under whose watch - and despite their stong border control policy - we have seen a 50% increase to 8,000 illegal Inonesian fishing boats in our waters over the past two years? According to today's Australian, these illegal fishermen are also camping on our beaches with their animals who could be carrying who-knows-what.

There is every chance that the terror legislation will be a dog's breakfast, harmful to noone, include terrorists.

Agreed. In addition the legislation to me simply reflects

- how simple it can be for a government to appear pro-active in the face of other governmental issues too complex to attract solutions
- the power of the media in infuencing governmental policy and popular opinion.
- how we subconciously may need to perceive adversaries with some to foment comradeship with others.
- how quickly we forget the amount of willpower it takes for one to annihilate oneself even with the propect of heaven.

"Driven by fear' I wonder if the fear is one engndered by the government?
Evidence; very little beyond circumstantial.
1 The revelation of the British cabinet document July 2002 shows the war to be a scam. Many guessed that, but this is a governement document and sure it confirms what many writers ahve claimed.That is the government went to war on a lie. A lie to the Australian people. Not just a dissembling but agreed to an already arranged war! So much for democracy, Herman Goering rolls in his grave for salutation!
2 The question of the UN two parts. a) allowed by resolution already ratified by Security Council? Choose your lawyers. The UN says illegal. b) The contravention of UNHCR indicates little faith in the UN anyway as Howard has said.
3 Taken together 1 and 2 indicate a Government intent on a return to big power solutions similar to that indicated by Bush's resolution on national security strategy to Congress 2002 Setember 18. In fact Australia will follow big brother. Big Brother already has more than adequate state control but now has more, the Patriot acts, prised by Cheney and wanting extension. The terrorists for the larger part aim to retaliate and rid theircountries of invaders. No Islamic plot extcept at the edges orchestrated by a few.See Dying to Win by Robert Pape and any reputable history of the Middle East and Afghanistan or go to www.tkb.org

The new laws may not prevent an attack,but they can sure slow the progress and perhaps prevent dirty bombs or nerve gas from killing thousands.

We are living in a bit of a fools paradise in this land of OZ.It only takes money from external sources such as Saudi Arabia and the intent and hate of a few within Australia to cause serious chaos and economic hardship for many.I can think of a dozen ways to cause such chaos with a minimum of effort.You don't have to be smart to be a terrorist,just have the cunning,the time,money,planning and patience.

In Russia hundreds of nuclear weapons are unaccounted for that can be easily sold to the highest bidder.We only check 5% of container shipping arriving here.

Isn't it ironic that the weak left are responsible for our lax immigration policies and resultant terrorist infiltration,are now wanting wanting to protect their rights.

The lunatic left see terrorism as a conduit for them to achieve their ideals through anarchy and chaos.

Arjay, I agree with you that it is not very difficult to be a terrorist. If someone wants to execute an attack, there is nothing you, the government or I can do about it. This is precisely why the new laws will have a very minimal effect on terrorism prevention. The only rational way to deal with the threat of terrorism is to understand the source of hate. Robert Pape has shown in ‘Dying To Win’ (as untutored mind pointed out) that the motivation of terrorists is to coerce a foreign occupier to remove their troops from areas they consider to be their homeland. The evidence in the book is difficult to refute. Pape limited his research to suicide bombers, but the principle is the same. If our politicians were serious about preventing terrorism, they have to acknowledge the fact that the current terrorist threat is largely self-made. If we choose to ignore these facts and let our elected leaders continue this cycle of violence, then we truly are living in a fool’s paradise.

Two weeks' detention or a year's house arrest without charge? And now the Qld police want the power to enter licensed premises and private homes with sniffer dogs, without a warrant.

The fascists and terrorists have just about won... Australia isn't turning into a 'fortress' - rather, it's resuming its former status as a penal colony.

Is it terror or the government? We do not know we are not told enough, merely there is a threat and this is hyped to enable laws such as these. My belief is hyped up for political purposes, in line with the view of a unipolar world with America fulfilling it’s destiny, one proclaimed from at least before 1960 (Barraclough Contemporary History 64 reprinted 1987) in which control of oil has featured since Truman’s time.
Readers would know that first Britain and France then America thought the Middle East their playground, appointing or engineering to power their choice. The red line of oil featured strongly as Britain and the US competed for control of oil. The Middle East states were manipulated. Iraq was supported then Iraq and Iran, but before that in the name of oil the Prime Minister of Iran was deposed replaced by the Shah courtesy the US and Britain. His rule was brutal as brutal as Saddam but he supported the West.
The US maneuvered Saudi Arabia, a dictatorship to its purposes, Egypt, the Lebanon and on and on. Sometimes the excuse was Russia, often as facile as those were for Granada, at others Israel and her needs. And on and on and we wonder why they rebel, almost every subjugated country in history has rebelled often by terrorist tactics, though terrorism has no accepted definition. Anything we don’t like then it is terrorist good for home consumption.
Howard still insists that there is no relation between such and our invasion and history of interference. He would for he sees a world of, not compromise and dispute resolution but old style force as rule.
Australia as a democracy needs only some to accept what is going on and he has his support, maintain fear and malleability follows from enough people. We are probably no better read, I wont; say educated for that is merely the three R’s or knowledgeable of foreign affairs than the average American.
Write down the chronology of the period and the explanations of cause.

George Williams is quite tame in his questioning and criticism of the need for these laws. The "Terror Laws", aptly named by the media, actually impregnate our own legal system with a new brand of terrorism that threatens us more than a couple of fuzzy viedos that always seemed to be "released" at the right time for John Howard's agenda. The Howard Liberal Government, with the help of Labor Premiers, has actually legislated terrorism and expanded ASIO's powers from 1400 agents to 45,000 police. We can expect to see more racial profiling and the convenient use of these undemocratic powers applied to cases where judicial laws should apply. Unfortunately the politics of fear has returned a victory for the "terrorists", that is if they exist at all in this country.

It's clear that ordinary Australians (i.e. everyone) are the terrorists in the eyes of the government, which is why they need to crack down on us. They have already proven themselves to be liars and traitors, with all the nonsense stories about weapons of mass destruction, Iraq and Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, etc.

The only thing governments fear is the people. They are terrified of popular uprising against them, and any and all excuses will be used to roll out laws that affect the people rather than terrorists.

How does threatening legitimate political dissent protect us from terrorists who haven't struck here (aside from ASIO that is with their Hilton Hotel bombing in 1978)?

They want laws to detain people for no reason. How will detaining people when there's no clear evidence of them being terrorists help us?

Other posters have pointed out that the deportation of the US peace activist is a great example and warning about what these phoney anti-terrorist laws will be used for. We ignore the quiet, steady creeping of government totalitarianism at our peril.

ConspiracyTheory and The Fish

I agree that Australia's involvement in the unnecessary occupation of Iraq (and to a lesser degree Afghanistan) continues to be the major reason that Australia is under terrorist threat. That said its unlikely that our current government (or an ALP government) will withdraw these troops in the foreseeable future.

So basically where stuck with the threat -just like Spain was before the Madrid bombing.

What interests me about so many of the OLO posts is the deep paranoia about ASIO.

Just the word ASIO scares people. Its like a police car behind you in traffic.

Every country in the word has some sort of internal security and intelligence arm and having studied intelligence agencies for the last 25 years ours is one of the most mild and accountable. It is not the KGB, CIA or FBI. ASIO are basically police who deal with politically motivated violence.

ASIO is made accountable in a number of ways:
- chiefly through the risk of public embarassment
- the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security
- the Ombudsman
- the Judiciary (judges, courts, Royal Commissions)
- and Parliament (including the opposition and current Government)
- and also the press who put it under the microscope when it stuffs up.

The government has not yet rolled out the draft legislation arising from the anti-terror laws proposals. The accountabilty package that accompanies it will no doubt be arcane to people who are worried but it'll be there.

Turning to George's article my major problem with it is where he says "the law can be justified where it is shown that it will help to meet the threat ... This need for justification and accommodation lies at the heart of law-making"

There's no way anyone can prove what might happen in the future.

The terrorist attacks in New York and Madrid where both unexpected and its obvious there was insufficcient security legislation, organisation and procedures to prevent them.

Its also a weak argument that you can't stop terrorist bombings in Australia. Its on the record that ASIO has prevented bombings in the past.

Let's follow the logic of the US pulling out of the Middle East.Iraq then decends into all out civil war.Syria,Saudi Arabia,and Iran also get involved.Oil supplies to the rest of the world are cut.China,India and Japan who have no access to oil will starve without it,so they too invade the Middle East.Welcome to WW3.

Sure the US has made a mess of the political system there but without the US as a moderating influence the whole place would errupt into violence.

All George Bush had to do was to control one man called Saddham,who on turn controlled Iraq.Now they have increased terrorism and brought more chaos to Iraq.It is religion that has stuffed the Middle East.So to talk about withdrawal is a nonsense.The UN won't go there since the place is too feral.There is no choice.We have to stick it out and bring some form of democracy there.

The US is not the evil empire since without them the rest of the world would be well into the next world war fighting over the oil.The Bush administration have made serious errors of judgement and George is a fool who has looked for simple solutions to a complex mess.He thought it would be all over with "shock and awe".

Reading the Posts there seems to be a strong tendency towards looking for the causes of the current terrorism, which should be good news because none of us need to like the Moslems just because we say it is about time our Anglopholic English speaking triology, Bush, Blair and Howard
should start listening to those who know so much about such problems, our university lecturers.

Call these teachers loonie lefties if you like, but remember one of the cruellest and crazy leaders in recent history, Adolf Hitler, was of the right not the left. Many of the people pushing George W. Bush, also happen to be on the political right, as well as including many of the church groups backing the Republicans are of the right but not the left.

So please let us turn to persons who make a life study of such problems as the world is facing now. Please.

Bushbred

plantagenet,

I think it was one of the great Nazi propaganda masters that said something like "all you have to do is tell them they are under attack" and you can do whatever the hell you want (take away civil liberties, etc.)

If the FBI hadn't have obstructed the investigations of John O'Neill who was killed during his first days on the job as security chief of the WTC complex, would these terrorist attacks have happened? How about the Bush family in bed with the bin Ladens, sharing enormous war profits together through the Carlyle Group thanks to 9/11 and the war profiteering? How about the Project for a New American Century paper, written at least a year before 9/11, that called for a "new Pearl Harbour" event to work everyone into a frenzy so their agenda could be pushed through? Did you know that wars are helped and financed by international bankers and corporations because they are good for the economy?

And what about Operation Northwoods, an offical plan concocted by the US military and signed off by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to carry out staged terrorist attacks against Americans to blame on Cuba for the purpose of getting the American public's support for war?

Did you know that America has overthrown at least 50 democratically elected governments in recent history, tried to enforce tyrannical rule of corporations on impoverished third world countries, played games trying to privatise water in some countries, assassinated countless leaders and installed and supported genocidal, tyrannical tin pot dictators?

All this of the kind of government we are supposed to trust and allow them to "protect us" with draconian laws against the terrorism they caused with their own repressive foreign policies and finanical and military support for fanatics through the CIA (among other things)?

Terrorism is a phoney, staged event caused by draconian western powers to frighten the population into submission. Just ask anyone who doesn't live in the west about the "many good deeds" of the British and US governments over the course of history.

Greetings this is the Secretary of War at the State Department of the United States…We have a problem. The companies want something done about this sluggish world economic situation…profits have been running a little thin lately and we need to stimulate some growth…now we know there’s an alarmingly high number of young people roaming around in your country with nothing to do but stir up trouble for the police and damage private property. They’re crawling all over…The companies think it’s time we all sit down, have a serious get-together - start another war…The President? He loves the idea! All those missiles streaming overhead to and fro…Napalm…People running down the road, skin on fire…The Soviets seem up for it…The Kremlin’s been itching for the real thing for years: Hell, Afghanistan’s no fun…So whadya say?…We don’t even have to win this war.…Libya? El Salvador? How ‘bout Northern Ireland? Or a ‘moderately repressive regime’ in South America? We’ll just cook up a good Soviet threat story in the Middle East - we need that oil…Now just think for a minute - we can make this war so big - so big…The more people we kill in this war, the more the economy will prosper…We can get rid of practically everybody on your dole queues if we plan this right. Take every loafer on welfare right off our computer rolls…Now don’t worry about those demonstrators - just pump up your drug supply. So many people have hooked themselves on heroin and amphetamines since we took over, it’s just like Vietnam. We had everybody so busy with LSD they never got too strong. Kept the war functioning just fine…It’s easy. We’ve got out college kids so interested in beer they don’t even care if we start manufacturing germ bombs again. Put a nuclear stockpile in their back yard, they wouldn’t even know what oit looked like…So how ‘bout it? Look - war is money. We all agree the time has come for the big one, so whadya say?!?…that’s excellent. We knew you’d agree…The companies will be very pleased.

Conspiracy and "its not easy"

I'm just waiting for the day when your posts are not dominated by America and CIA plots of the past.

We are talking about Australia today.

How about talking about Australia's conditions and needs in a bit of detail.

Do you realise that you are usually repeating the theories of paranoid Americans. Thats often their way of biting the hand... .

But our frame of reference does not need to be completely derivative of American sources.

Try it - think independently.

plantagenet, these are not "theories" of paranoid Americans. They are facts. Go read a history book or something. Do you doubt America overthrowing left governments? Operation Northwoods? The plans of the psychopaths who are in the White House right now?

As for Australia's needs, America is looking after us very well thank you. They've dragged us into a war for imperialism and the New American Century, and forced their crap on us through the free trade scam.

Honestly, you need to drop the "you're a conspiracy theorist" line and read up on what the American psychos really want for the world.

ConspiracyTheorist

Having also read Chomsky, Phillip Agee, "The Best and the Brightest" etc and said above "I agree that Australia's involvement in the unnecessary occupation of Iraq (and to a lesser degree Afghanistan) continues to be the major reason that Australia is under terrorist threat..." how about discussing Australia a bit.

How about debating facts or even theories about our own patch.

Could start with summary of recent terrorist threats to Australia http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002864.html. See blue hotlinks within it.

Or the Lateline interview of 13 July 2005 http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1413752.htm which includes "both Willy Brigitte and Jack Roche, the British-born Islamic convert convicted of plotting to bomb Israeli targets, have been the most credible terror threats Australia has so far faced."

Or the SMH article of 28 May 2004 "April 2000 Roche travelled to Afghanistan where he briefly met Osama bin Laden - the Sheikh referred to by Hambali. Roche spent two and a half weeks at a training camp, where he undertook explosives training. He also met with Abu Hafs and Saif. Abu Hafs asked him to set up an al-Qaeda cell and conduct surveillance on Israeli targets in Australia"

..."November 18, 2002: Roche was arrested and charged with plotting to bomb the Israeli Embassy.

May 28, 2004: Mid-way through his trial in Perth District Court, Roche changed his plea to guilty."

It could start a whole new academic discipline.

Try ASIO public website at http://www.asio.gov.au/

Not really that scary is it?

plantagenet,

OK, good point. We managed to get them without draconian new laws, didn't we? ASIO didn't need the power to detain someone indefinitely. We don't need to go down the road of targeting left or dissenting groups or people. The usual police work and intelligence gathering without unnecessary new powers can and has done the job just fine.

We need better protections from draconian laws and secret police, and we don't need fearmongering. A better policy would be for the world to put enormous pressure on the USA to quit their barbaric and repressive policies and to eliminate the kind of policies that cause terrorism in the first place, not to mention the ridiculous and dangerous adventures of the CIA training and arming groups like al Qaeda.

Its very sad what has happened in Bali.

Unfortunately those who minimise terrorist threats can be wrong.

A case in pointis former Senator Evans.

He is also a former Vice-President of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties 1970-84. http://home.vicnet.net.au/~humanist/resources/aushumanists.html#AHOY1990 is .

Now working in Brussels he returned to Australia several days ago to give us the following advice: see

JI DECIMATED, EVANS SAYS http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1469766.htm
28 September 2005
“Former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans says he believes the influence of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah in South-East Asia has been smashed."

Mr Evans, who now heads the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, says the terrorist threat within Australia should be viewed as moderate rather than extreme.

"In a speech delivered in Sydney last night, Mr Evans said the International Crisis Group had no information suggesting that JI had sleeper cells in Australia."

"He said there was no question that Australia's support for the United States and the war in Iraq had raised the nation's profile in the Salafi Jihadi world." [I agree with that bit at least]

"But Mr Evans said his organisation was of the view that JI was no longer a serious threat to Australia's interests. "

"The division of Jemaah Islamiah that was operating in Australia in a tentative sort of a way has clearly been effectively smashed by the Australian authorities," he said.

[THE CRITICAL PARA] "Jemaah Islamiah itself has been significantly decimated in terms of its effective operation in Indonesia."”

Now lets hope Evans was not as wrong about terrorism threats in Australia as he was about those in Indonesia.

Idealism is inappropriate in the potentially deadly area of combating terrorism.

Meanwhile Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says the anti-terrorism laws agreed upon by the Commonwealth, states and territories need to be more comprehensive (28 September 2005) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1469757.htm

Death toll from Jemaah Islamiah terrorism in Indonesia: max. 500

Death toll from American sponsored terrorism in Indonesia: min. 200,000

While dealing with the threat of Jemaah Islamiah, let's also deal with the world's most accomplised terrorist: the USA, the ultimate "failed state."

We may disagree on most things ConspiracyTheory but, at least, you have commented on terrorism since actual terrorist bombs killed Australians in Bali around 40 hours ago.

We haven't heard a peep on this string from other OLO posters.

Could it be people need to be prompted by an Article before they feel comfortable to post a comment.

Is a real life Event, without an Article, insufficient?

Condolences.

That's an interesting observation plantagenet. I would agree with it, and it's probably something to do with it being only a few days ago and still in the news without any court cases or anything yet.

There's an article on the political and religious origins of JI on GlobalResearch.ca. JI are as much warring against their own people (everything going wrong in the world today is a moral problem) as they are with westerners and the western world.

An observation of the article is how much alike JI and the Bush Administration are. They both see themselves as the guiding lights of humanity and are busy beavering away to force their ideologies on others in their own ways.

Cheers and take care.

Thanks CT

Concerning the Bali bombing, and how it relates to terrorism concerns in Australia, those interested may also want to see the string rapidly unwrapping on the "Road to Surfdom" blog http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/archives/2005/10/bali.html#comments

Where we (I'm "Pat Dog" there) are discussing the reasons for the bombing.