The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Terrorism laws: prevention is better than cure > Comments

Terrorism laws: prevention is better than cure : Comments

By Philip Ruddock, published 23/9/2005

Philip Ruddock argues it is better to have terrorism laws in place before an attack rather than after.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
The Government might be trusted more to do this right if other security related laws, and particularly those related to handbaggage in aircraft, weren't so manifestly absurd.

The proposed criminalisation of leaving baggage unattended looks a bit strange. Clearly, it's not going to deter terrorists from doing this. At best it will reduce the number of false alarms. But if people are really leaving baggage lying around airports at the moment, why are we not hearing about the resulting mass disruption? Or are the authorities ignoring that problem at the moment?

There is today a report that people will be banned from wearing emergency service uniforms if they are not members of the emergency services (with certain exemptions). The concern is that terrorists might use such uniforms, yet again it seems improbable that criminalisation of such conduct will be a deterrent.

At the very least, Governments need to explain in more detail exactly how they think these various measures will help. Otherwise it looks like a piece out of "Yes Minister" - "We need to do something, this is something, so we need to do it."

Sylvia Else
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 23 September 2005 10:49:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would not trust The Hon Philip Ruddock, The Hon John Howard, or any other members of their government, with protection of my liberties or the liberty of the Australian population in general. The idea that abandoning rights is the means to defending them, is arrant and dangerous nonsense. And when done in the name of an illegitimately declared "War on Terror", it means doing it on a blank cheque, in perpetuity, in secrecy and with no accountability.

Spooks calling the shots on who gains & loses their liberty?
Foxes running the hen house?
It's all the same.
Posted by Fiona, Friday, 23 September 2005 11:52:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It reminds me of dialogue in a Simpsons episode:

Lisa: ‘By the same logic, you could say that this rock I’m holding keeps tigers away.’
Homer: ‘But it’s just a rock.’
Lisa: ‘Right. But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?’
Homer: ‘…Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.’
*Lisa resists fistful of cash for a moment, then shrugs and takes the money in exchange for the rock*

I don’t buy it, Phil. You’re trading our liberty for a false sense of security. Also, you have creepy staring eyes.
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 23 September 2005 12:02:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm loathe to say that its our elected representatives (politicians) calling the shots. It appears that the Government, Labor and the Premiers all support these anti-terrorism proposals.

There'll be some cosmetic objections of course.

So rather than writing off the debate as "spooks" and something out of an American show, I think, we need to work within the political realities.

Sylvia, I reckon the bags left in airports proposal will have a priviso that a bag was demonstrably left in an airport to cause mischief and/or fear. Something like that. Intent would be hard to prove though.

The proposal I mainly have a problem with is that brought up in Howard's/Ruddock's 8 September speech http://www.law.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/Interview_Transcripts_2005_Transcripts_8_September_2005_-_Transcript_-_Joint_Press_Conference_Parliament_House

That is "is inciting violence against the community to replace the existing sedition offence to address problems with those who communicate inciting messages directed against other groups within our community, including against Australia’s forces
overseas and in support of Australia’s enemies."

This proposal is messy because the assessment as to whether someone is "inciting violence" is always subjective. The criteria would need to be widely accepted.

The proposal may also become unworkablee in relation to the Internet. If someone was to have a dirty great blog that included hotlinks to pro al-Quaida sites could the blog site manager be charged with inciting violence. Still worse what if he quoted statements origination from al-Quiada (as repoted in the international press or foreign sites) in a learned debate.

That particular proposal is a can of worms.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 23 September 2005 12:43:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prevention is better than cure - but you dont take radiotherapy for a head cold.

I've had it up to here (see sneekee indicating a point near his throat)with this two faced approach - some times we're a target and sometimes we're not, nothing we've done has increased our risk of attack - but just in case we're wrong in our assesment bring down the shutters.

I have no confidence in the integrity of our intelligence agencies or their competence; Ive made my own judgements on risk and prefer to feel relaxed and comfortable as John wanted us to be - just before we needed to be alert not alarmed.

Yet here we have an alarmist resposne to a remote possibility - unless of course ASIO et al know something we dont that is.

Ruddock tells us ASIO has only used its questioning powers 8 times since 2002 AND not its detention powers: I would suggest those questioned under bizarre raids in Sydney and Melbourne were detained in order to be questioned even for only a few hours.

And if the powers have been so rarely used doesnt that suggest the problem is really quite minor? How many of those questioned had any action taken against them? or what action was taken in respose to what they had to say? So why ramp up the powers?

And I want to know everything about the plots to attack our cities and everything about plans to kill our citizens: where are the banner headlines? the micro film images of floorplans, the diagrams of explosive devices, the list of code names, the address of the safe houses, the document drop off points, the photos of the spies lairs, the list of names.

These guys desperate to live a John Le Carre' kind of world are making us pay the price for their fundamental cowardice and over excited imagination.

Governments capitalise on societies fears; this is just another example of that - reject them - pour scorn on them defy them.

Whose that at my door? Ah! Inspector Kelty. How nice to see you.
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 23 September 2005 1:18:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find these proposals very weak on terrorism. How many deaths will it take to convince Ruddock to give up his discredited liberal dream that everyone is equal, all Religions the same? Keith
Posted by kthrex, Friday, 23 September 2005 2:41:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a fear, Mr Rudduck, that our present government’s policies against terrorism, could have Ministers doing the same things as the Nazis and Communists, supervising our schools and possibly shutting down the humanities areas in our universities, where in a democracy both sides of problems like terrorism must also be discussed.

Already there has been an article citing Mr Costello, in our one public West Australian newspaper, that opinions arising in our schools about terrorism should be looked into. Even George W’ Bush admitted when slammed so much for his anti-terrorism rhetoric by Mike Moore, that as a true democracy, the US had to put up with it. The point about teaching genuine accounts of history also, Mr Rudduck, as well as also publishing geunine truthful accounts of what is happening now in southern Iraq, should finally give us ordinary folk an insight into what is really the cause of Islamic terrorism, which incidently the American CIA call “blowback”, something about us possibly doing the right thing using too much of our own interpretations of what should be moral justice, instead of having a go at placing ourselves in the position of Islamics in the Middle East, who certainly cannot be blamed today for believing that once again they are going to be double-crossed by Western interests, as happened to both the Iraqis and TE Lawrence after WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles.

It is very interesting to read in this week’s copy of the Guardian newspaper, how a group of UK Anglican bishops have criticised American foreign policy regarding the war on terror, including some American Christian groups who appear to be using portions of the Bible to support the US political agenda in the Middle-East, which also means of course, that as US allies Britain and Australia must agree with such religous interpretations as well.

For persons who make a study of these sorts of things, Mr Rudduck, it becomes worrying.

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 23 September 2005 5:21:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I fail to be convinced by you, Mr. Ruddock.
The 9/11 attack was predicted, there was knowledge of the existence of terrorists. The agencies that failed to communicate one with another. Yet the initial reaction was to introduce new laws, Patriot Acts, as the name implies limited freedom in the name of patriotism. It was spin.

You do not, other than by assertion, indicate, why new laws are needed. How do increased detention powers help in controlling groups or even individuals not detained. By providing information from the detainee? Just as a claim of possible terrorists among the boat people was difficult to refute, however unlikely logically.

Protestation about the likelihood of terrorist carries the same doubtful truth as WMD’s for Saddam.
Perhaps collusion similar to that revealed by the British memorandum, Rycroft, is operative.
Rycroft signs a record of a British cabinet meeting July 2002. An already decided upon war is highlighted. It indicates that WMD’s in Iraq possession were minor, overt aggression doubtful. The intelligence was to be spun around WMD’s as the most likely of acceptance. So much for the Flood report. Only the UK and USA are named in the report but Australia had already invoked ANZAS treaty, readied SAS troops and been in frequent contact with Blair and Bush.
That terrorism, no clear definition, has been used, as a fear-inducing device, enabling easier passage of Government legislation, is probable. Also aiding in the idea that the UN is useless, we return to Morganthau foreign relations.
The security strategy of Bush September 2002 emphasizes the unilateral action by the US in policing the world, as their perceived destiny. This of course includes developing weapons of mass destruction, denying UN Non-proliferation endeavors.
Perhaps the work of Professor Pape published as ”Dying to Win” or the web site www.tkb.org have not been read. The web site is a record of terrorist activity 1968 to 2004 and includes a wizard tool allowing questioning of the data. The data does not support the current views on terrorism, diverse as they are.
Posted by untutored mind, Friday, 23 September 2005 6:26:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day Mr Ruddock

Thank you for your timely article.

I appreciate its sentiments and its failings. Even so, I am heartened by it, no matter what other posters have to say.

Given that you and Mr Howard and others have children and probably grand children, I believe that you would want to make this country safe for your and their families.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Friday, 23 September 2005 7:59:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very good point Kay

I would like our children and grand children to grow up know that when the states outlaw xxx rated porn, that our federal capital is a leader in this, rather than a follower.

Mr Ruddock, terrosism takes many forms, one is the form described to me by Robbie Swan, of Eros foundation, which he offered for me to test our Victorian RRT laws. He described a video which showed 'nuns' and church people engaging in XXX rated erotic acts, and unquestionably holding them up to public ridicule.

I wrote to my local member, suggesting that now the coalition has the Senate majority, they can, with the stroke of a pen, follow on with the States and outlaw xxx rated porn by mail order from ACT.

Your reply was as follows:
31/5/05 Via Tony Smith
"The Australian government is of the view that it is a matter of individual choice for adults as to whether they access such material"

So, I ask in this public forum a simple question:

STATES HAVE OUTLAWED IT, WHY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOT FOLLOW SUIT ?

You say enforcement is a state matter.. they DID, they outlawed the sale or hire, but not the possession. Why would they not outlaw possession yet outlaw sale or hire ? The clear intent is to make them NOT available. So, the Federal Gov can make it an offence to sale or hire such materials across state borders.

The 'states have not outlawed possession' + the Federal government will not outlaw 'sale or hire across borders' makes the whole situation a nonsense.

My concerns were not addressed, they will be addressed when there is consistency in the laws about this.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 23 September 2005 8:57:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Ruddock,

What are you doing to protect people from state sponsored terrorism? Will the new legislation guard against ASIO sponsored events such as the Hilton hotel bombing of 1978?

Tell us, what does the government know about the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996 and the Bali Bombings of 2002?

Eagerly awaiting your reply!

Conspiracy Theory.
Posted by ConspiracyTheory, Friday, 23 September 2005 9:40:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article, Mr Ruddock, I join with you in hoping that the new anti-terror laws will never have to be used.

One thing that puzzles me: We are in a state of war against terror, and yet many of the normal wartime consequences don't seem to be occurring. The first thing that happens when war breaks out is that people lose the right to dissent. Actual enemies are declared enemy aliens, forfeit any real estate they own to the Crown, and can be interned. Citizens sympathetic to the enemy can also be interned. Why aren't any of these things happening? As far as any terror attack on Sydney is concerned, remember that only 28 people need to killed and the attack will be greater than anything mounted by the Japanese during ww2.

I have heard several pacifist (apologist) speakers downplaying the casualties in the west from terrorism, claiming that only about 7000 people have been killed. What I would like to know is what is the number of casualties required for them to agree that it is now war, and if necessary we will kill the lot. Would a nuclear strike on Sydney be enough? In 1940 there was a large peace movement in England during the phoney war and it took the Battle of Britain for everyone to realise it was a battle to the death.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 23 September 2005 10:12:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, you're right Mr Ruddock. But ONLY if you don't terrorise other people's countries and steal their oil!
That is real prevention and we'll surely be safe forever.

But do we have the guts to face such realities?

Keep selling Mr Ruddock, to those who wish to buy, certainly not me!
Posted by galty, Friday, 23 September 2005 10:45:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Ruddick

I hope that we never have a terrorist attack such as the recent London tragedy. I hope that the negative posters here never have to worry.

I think that posters' comments to your articlle thus far have nothing to do with your article and the protection of this country. Sounds like typical other party political ploys.

God help us if we ever do have a "London" in Sydney, Brisbane, or Melbourne. If we do - I hope that people will accept that you (Government) are trying.

I would rather be alive with you trying - than no trying at all!

And for the posters who want to winge about the Howard Government and anti-terrorism laws - why don't you join up and fight for this county and your children?

Thanks
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Saturday, 24 September 2005 12:48:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To first 8 replies,

(Part 1)

Give up the naive Pilger and Chomsky! Your irrational cynicism is unfounded in regards to any Australian government or Australian watchdog committee, and therefore religious: you NEED to believe in Big Brother, in a hidden reality behind a “manufactured” one.

Such baseless faith implies a sense of “individual rights” reflective of a major authority complex, typical of a self-centred middle-class brat, and which accords with an adolescent sense of “freedom” as anarchic. I can sense your fury misdirected at airport staff who “want to” pry into “your” personal space.

Walt Disney let you all down! In turn, you spit out your dummies and nursery rhymes become veiled mantras for State Power, and “freedom” itself a Foucauldian shackle in disguise! The hatred of anything Walty overwhelms your sheltered world with nihilistic rage, and so you turn to such faith for a footing. But please spare us you’re almighty selfish projections!

It is, I think, in light of your naïve kind that Ruddock said in his piece that terrorists are “deploying whatever resources can be sucked into the cause of terrorism”

If Al Queida are Marxists reacting, as Pilger puts it, to “Western imperialism”, why do they refer to Westerners as “infidels”? This kind of information cannot be mistaken as any media “sound bite”, for it is not capable of being taken out of context. Likewise, the Bali Bombers operation was entitled “white flesh”. And check out the website of Hizb-ut-tahir: their UK branch has articles on the incompatibility of Islam and Democracy; of course, it doesn’t follow that this is true, but such things inform us of the nature of the grievance these groups have, and that the closest a Pilger comes to understanding it is naïvely as a means to it

(see Part 2 below).
Posted by Skippy, Saturday, 24 September 2005 1:06:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont... To first 8 posts,

(Part 2)

“Oh, but that’s just what big brother wants you to think!” you say. How so? What evidence? Cultural studies, sociology of the media? Why not the direction of flow of immigrants? Or is that, too, due to Western governments creating dictatorships, “deterring democracy”? We must be so almighty, powerful, evil! The Other so weak, devoid of agency, child-like. Nobody else is responsible but your Western daddy? And you’re not patronising? Where’s the post-colonialism in Japan’s and South Korea’s prospering after defeat? Why would daddy defeat someone such that they then become a fierce competitor? How could an almighty “Great Satan” sit by and let China and India prosper to the point of becoming potential superpowers? “Oh, but they haven’t”, you reply, “they’ve just culturally contaminated the world with Cartesian Western capitalism”, ruling by stealth of cultural (Hollywood) dominance and unfair trade deals. Funny how many indigenous communities market themselves into tourism, and how many non-Western nations are rife with uncheckable corruption. But agency is only a Cartesian trait, right? Just like veiled women “choose” to be veiled (which supposes they are NOTHING BUT sex objects), but Western working-class housewives are in “bad faith” or under “false consciousness”? What comparisons arise between Pilger’s and Chomsky’s attacks on our (and the US’s) reluctance to assist East Timor in 1975, the plight of those in Kosovo, and the Iraqi interim Prime Minister’s recent cry for world assistance? Would it have been permissible for NATO in Kosovo, or Australian troops in East Timor in 2000, to have withdrawn mid-battle, having “caused” an insurgent uprising? “But”, you say, “Western governments [i.e. Walt] are not acting morally but only out of self-interest!” Assuming you’re right, how else do you pay (i.e. $$$) for the battle? Iraqi oil? A positive move away from dependency on the evil Wihabi Saudis whom we all (even Mike Moore) know are funding terrorism
Posted by Skippy, Saturday, 24 September 2005 1:08:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SKIPPY... say a few words mate :) hmm but try to put them in point form... easier to digest.

Mr Ruddock

aside from my pet hate of X rated porn, and onto the subject of your former port folio and in relation to the current one.

-CULTURAL SOLIDARITY is something that is emerging as an important issue, where Anglo Europeans are becoming more conscious of our own identity, and the connection with the founding of modern Australia.
While previously, as a vast majority, we didn't feel much need, and indeed were apathetic, to do anything to protect our shared heritage.
But the time has come to establish an 'Australian Identity' which has as its prevailing flavor our British/Euro/Judao/Christian background.

This is not to suggest alienating our minorities, nor rejecting anyone on the basis of skin color. But it IS a definite call for our immigration to be radically overhauled in terms of:
-Social Compatability
-Cultural Cohesian
-Political Stability.

Would be immigrants should be vetted strenuously, and it should be made clear to them OUR identity and customs. No one will or should receive special treatment based on their religion, should it be different from our own background. They must know our customs BEFORE coming here and sign an acceptance of them.
It is ludicrous that our emergency services should have to act differently for each an every person who they suspect of having a particular religion. The 'culturally appropriate' handbook would end up bigger than our Tax law.

1/ Establish our Identity
2/ Legislate/operate on that basis
3/ Inform all would be immigrants of 'how things are'
4/ Citizenship must be 'P'plated, with infringements resulting in deportation.

Islamic terrorism will be less of a problem then.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 24 September 2005 9:14:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We live in a democracy, sh!t happens. What does XXX porn have to do with terrorism laws? Who cares what people do in the privacy of their own home. With all due respect, if i want to watch nuns having sex on dvd purchased from Canberra i will and you can take your morals and get stuffed. And if your far right christian crusade ever leads to a ban on xxx movies, i'll find nuns on the internet. As for your plan to legislate my identity. I know who i am i dont need the government to confirm it in writing using PC terms and inclusive language. You aren't serious are you BOAZ? Surely taking the piss? P plates for new citizens. What about born and bred Australian citizens who think what you're talking about is a gross insult to everything they stand for and associate with the Australian way of life? Will they be moved back from full to provisional and any further dissent gets them deported to the nearest detention centre and stripped of citizenship? pfft.

Anyway, i'll take free speech and the chance of being blown up any day. You'd hope that our society was mature and resilient enough to be able to self regulate against those preaching hate. I cant accidently leave my bag in the airport, i cant wear an FBI shirt i bought at vinnies, what's the world coming to? Ruddock can get stuffed and so can Howard and so can Beazley and all those state leaders who think that by removing various apparently superflous freedoms they create a safer, better society. They should concentrate on lowering my taxes and stay the hell out of social engineering.
Posted by weapon, Saturday, 24 September 2005 12:24:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely, preventing is better than annihilating later - but to what extent?

<Latham lifts lid on Iraq spies
By Mark Devis

Former opposition leader Mark Latham has confirmed that the Australian Security Intelligence Service had a substantial commitment of officers operating in Iraq following the US-led invasion. ….The Australian Financial Review 23/09/2005 , p.15
www.afr.com >
Posted by MichaelK., Saturday, 24 September 2005 3:06:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phillip

I thought fridge magnets posters and billboards were meant to keep Australia safe. Now you want to introduce unwarranted random searches, and you justify it with an appeal to the UN Declaration of Human Rights 'right to security'. It's ironic considering your the same guy that got kicked out of Amnesty International for not upholding the UN Declaration of Human Rights, 'right to asylum'.

Dear Fundamentalist Extremist Reliogious Zelots

If you don't play the game don't make up the rules.

XXX

Tieran
Posted by Tieran, Sunday, 25 September 2005 12:39:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Ruddock begins by giving examples of questions have been raised. Where is the question on human rights and/or judicial process?

Answering the question, will Australians be safer, is Mr Ruddock claiming that those eight interviews DID "reveal information about plots to attack our cities"? It seems that he tries to imply this without outright saying it.

He talks about terrorists being adaptable and while this is true (they have taken advantage of the coalition presence in Iraq) what have they adapted to in relation to Australian anti-terror laws?

Mr Ruddock says: "Accountability mechanisms ... ensure innocent people are not caught up in such an operation. Watchdogs such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) are there to respond on behalf of individuals if there are any such problems."

The Commonwealth Ombudsman, according to its website cannot issue a direction to an agency, unlike a court. Anyway, it advises you should use the complaint handling scheme of the agency concerned before writing to the Ombudsman. (see http://www.comb.gov.au/)

That would be the IGIS, but it too can only make recommendations. According to its 2004 annual report, it's a "small agency" on a budget of less than one million dollars and "relies on the assistance of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPM&C) in handling staff and other administration issues and in providing general support." (see http://www.igis.gov.au)

No criticism is intended of these agencies or their staff, but why would they be even aware of a detention without a complaint made?

The ASIO website says the main accountability mechanism is the Attorney General himself (see http://www.asio.gov.au/About/Content/account.htm). So it would be accurate to replace "Accountability Mechanisms ensure... " with "I will ensure..."

Interesting that no mention is made of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights covers refusing legal assistance and incommunicado detention. (see http://www.hreoc.gov.au)

No mention either of the judiciary, which is very surprising given than Mr Ruddock is the Federal Attorney-General.
Posted by David Latimer, Sunday, 25 September 2005 3:21:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have way too many laws.

If the old laws are ineffective and we need new laws then please consider the following options.

1. Put a sunset clause into all the new laws. 25 years should be more than enough and it will spare the next generation from having an even bigger law book to deal with. And if in 25 years the laws are still necessary then we can always extend them.
2. Repeal some of the old laws while your at it.
Posted by Terje, Sunday, 25 September 2005 7:30:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip Ruddock wrote: "Accountability mechanisms are a central feature of Australia's terrorism laws."

... like the kind of 'accountability' that occurred when this Government recently rushed through its hastily drafted Telstra privatisation legislation, opposed by 70% of Australians, in barely a week from when it was first made public?

The Government assured us, against the loud objections of those of us who opposed the war, that the invasion of Iraq would make the world safer from terrorism.

Instead we, and the rest of the world, are now reaping the whirlwind that this Government has helped to sow.

A defeat of terrorism can only occur if its root causes, as well as the symptoms, are addressed. However, this Government has shown itself to be even incapable of addressing the symptoms. As Matthew Franklin wrote ("PM should be blushing", 24 Sep) in Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper on a recent report by British security expert John Wheeler on the failure of Philip Ruddock's Government to implement basic security at our airports:

"But it speaks ill of the Government that it took Wheeler to point out problems that should have been thought of years ago and obvious to any competent transport minister moving around the country."

Given this and the overall record of this Government's dishonesty and its demonstrated ill intentions towards at least a sizable minority (unskilled workers, the unemployed, farmers, single mothers, people with disabilities, people who don't own their own homes) if not the majority, of our community, then we are entitled to assume that this legislation has much more to do with its desire to control us than it has to do with defeating terrorism.

(to be continued ...)
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 25 September 2005 7:45:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(... continued from above.)

I accept that effective measures must be taken to prevent outrages such as those which recently occurred in London and Madrid, but unless we are prepared to live under the kind of state that existed in Cambodia in the late 1970's, no attempts to eliminate terrorism can be entirely successful.

Such a price is clearly unacceptable, and I hold that the price this Government would have us pay today is also far too high. We should not forget Benjamin Franklin's words :

"The man who trades freedom for security does not
deserve nor will he ever receive either."

In any case, the terrorist threat should be looked at in its proper perspective.

No terrorist group in the world could possibly hope to inflict anywhere near the harm on our society as was caused recently to the US by Hurricane Katrina.

The changes in weather patterns, due to global carbon dioxide emissions, are likely to result in this kind of event being repeated many times in the coming years and decades.

Yet this Government chose to use its influence, on the international stage, in recent years to delay urgently needed action to confront the threat of global warming.

Remember John Howard's immortal words, when he came back from the London Kyoto Protocol conference in 1998, having succeeded in undermining the resolve of the global community to act against this threat:

"It is Tony Blair's job to look after Britain's best interests. It is my job to look after Australia's"

... as if such a massive problem can be fixed by each and every nation on earth looking only after its narrow short term interests.

It is Philip Ruddock's own Government, more than any terrorist group, which Australian citizens need to be both alert against and alarmed about.
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 25 September 2005 7:58:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Newsflash for the legislators.... Criminals dont respect nor follow the law.

So, by all means, pen a few more words above a nice wax seal, barrell out a few uniformed burley blokes with guns, search bags and make a whole lot of noise. Afterall, it is your job Philip.

Thanks for letting the terrorists know wots going on at your end. Thanks for alerting them to what targets go into the too hard basket. Thanks for letting them know that they need to look for softer targets. You know Philip, when the only tool in your tool box is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. So, do your job and bang away. lm sure the neighbours wont complain about yor incessant banging on. All that noise is very comforting to their frail backbones and delicate sensibilities.

Keep the scare campaign going and make sure you keep the folks in a perpetual state of fear and paranoia. Conditions from which only government can deliver us. Ah govt. They have come up with the perfect model of perceived action. Keep starting fires, then be the first on the job to put the thing out. Yes, the lunatics are in charge of the assylm and the arsonists have the keys to the fire truck.

Ah, now l feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel safe. Thank the lord for government. Where would we be without their protection?
Posted by trade215, Sunday, 25 September 2005 1:22:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You followers of Mr Rudduck, please note that none of us are in love with terrorist activities, but just want Mr Rudduck to get in touch with any genuine Middle East historian, where he will be told as he already knows, that the moot cause of today's terrorist problems are as mentioned a few years ago by the CIA as blowback or payback caused by Western injustice and intrusion into Arab territories.

Moreover, what Mr Rudduck might need to do, is shut down all humanities classes in our universities, knowing at the same time that historical works are thoroughly checked by experts. Please remember that these are are not people who come out with political spin or half-truths believing they are justified for the good of the country.

The sordid facts are that the nations that have foolishly joined together in the attempt to get rid of terrorism in the wrong manner, have only made terrorism ten times more likely especially against our three English-speaking nations, who now have to keep justifying even more spin and lies to get themselves out of the mess they are now in.

Indeed, a safe bet could be if some of us oldies could live long enough, that democracy promised for Iraq and other associated Middle East peoples, will not be much different than the Dyarky India-style democracy promised to the Iraqis after WW1, with Soviet-style Angliphola commissars wary of every Iraqi government move
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 25 September 2005 5:11:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brushy, not wanting to criticise my elders, but something you shared bears further scrutiny.

"Blowback/Payback for meddling in Arab/Muslim affairs."

Is it not possible, that the West, in full recognition of previous Arab attempts to 'rule the world' as you should well know, (Moors stopped at Tours in 732 and Ottoman Turks at Vienna in 1680s) are actually giving the 'blowback/payback' for those aggressive adventures ?

Or, perhaps, its as simple as 'nothing has really changed' in terms of human nature. The Soviets were in there thick and fast during the early years of Israel's establishment, they were just as much in with the Arabs, to further their own self interest etc... everyone is always making alliances and seeking to fend of other alliances, and are working to weaken potentially threatening states and movements.
In fact I'll bet you did it also in the schoolyard long ago :)

I think we should be thankful that we live where we do, under our freedoms that are not really impingned on by the new Anti Terror laws very much (for those of us who have no connection with such movements)

Guaranteeing supply of crucial resources by influencing governments of countries which own them, has been and I think always will be, par for the course' of life. The only morality recognized by most sovereign states it seems is 'survival' with little regard for the 'means' of achieving this.

Quite a sad predicament actually. I'm glad my citizenship so to speak is not 'of' this world, I hope all of us will find that peace which is in the Kingdom of God, through Christ.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 25 September 2005 6:42:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Riposte - Part 1

Mr Ruddock. The time has come for me say to your face that you are very much "a person of interest" in my life. I have you in my eye sir, and I shall keep you in my eye.

I am 58 and grandfather to five beautiful, innocent girls. It is beyond the power of my words to express the love I feel for them. Yet I will tell you sir that their right to their fair share of happiness is no more than that which rightfully belongs to the children of Iraq.

If this is truly a democracy, then I must accept my share of the blame that falls when one's own country is complicit in an illegal invasion, predicated on a pack of lies, on another country which is barely able to fend for it's own children.

We knew. We knew very well that the population of that emasculated country was grossly over-represented by children under 16, didn't we?

Yet we were cheerleaders when Iraq's towns, dwellings and families were smashed in that celebration of violence. Only laser-guided uranium cored ordnance can light the Arabian sky with that peculiar hue that so thrilled us as we watched by our comfortable firesides.

Yes we understand the guilt but no, we do not dream of retribution. We, the common people, are better than that. Only the common people, free of the need to bow to corporate masters and political overlords, can offer the care, love, respect and understanding to others of different ethnicities. Only we can bridge that gap. It's not so great.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Sunday, 25 September 2005 8:53:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Riposte - Part 2

Let's take two steps back from these counter-terrorism laws and ask ourselves (cui bono)..... who benefits?

One doesn't have to be an Oxford scholar, Karl Jung or an Imam to see what these counter-terrorism laws really are. They are the outward expression, the canker, the ulcer that grows from the guilt of so many misdeeds. They are the legislations of frightened, guilty men who don't know how to dismount the dragon.

....because, try as you might, you will never feel safe from the ghosts of the dead, the faces behind the razor wire, the accusing eyes. There is no law so strong, no treasure so large, no office so high, that will ever grant the peace of mind that you seek. The bogeyman will always be at the back of your mind....

Mr Ruddock, you and the rest of the inner cabal are destined to live behind concrete barriers... perhaps forever. Whether those barriers are designed to separate you from Islamists or from the likes of me, only you can say.

But I will tell you this. Me, my children and grandchildren have no need of your imported counter-terrorism laws. We have no need of hidden cameras, political correctness or the mutual distrust that must inevitably ooze through this once great society. Spare us the odium of government spooks and free market "security consultants" (read mercenaries), all of whom will fatten on this sunrise industry, even as our spirit withers.

There was once a time when your colleagues described you as an exceeedingly compassionate man. With that in mind, please let us get on with our silly dreams, no matter the danger. Don't deliberately make us a part of the Great Malfunction.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Sunday, 25 September 2005 8:55:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Ruddock,

Should I admire your courage in signing off personally on an Onlineopinion piece on your proposed new counterterrorism laws? Unless it’s a way of testing the public water, or simply getting hold of opponents’ arguments and identities I doubt whether the pseudonyms preferred by most OLO contributors would stand up for a moment to your department’s technical investigation. It might be a case of “let a thousand flowers bloom” ?

In my own name, I say that I fear and oppose your proposed legislation. I support the current Getup campaign to energise state premiers against it and urge others to do the same – see Getup’s website.

On state terrorism, the sinking of SIEV X on 19 October 2001 and the drowning of 353 innocent asylumseekers mostly women and kids is right up there.

So when will you heed the Senate’s repeated calls for a full powers judicial inquiry into the sinking of SIEV X and the Australian government’s people smuggling disruption program? When will you respond to Senator Faulkner’s September 2002 challenge to your representing Minister in the Senate (Chris Ellison) to come clean about the deaths on SIEV X and the disruption program ? When will you release the names of the SIEV X dead? When will you give us the full truth on what you know about the sinking of SIEV X from the time when you were DIMIA’s Minister? After all, your former department co-directed with AFP (and still does) that same disruption program that remains impenetrable and unaccountable.

Until you begin to come clean on what may have been an act of, at best, serious negligence of the government’s duty to protect human life in operational border protection, and at worst, Australian-instigated state terrorism on Indonesian soil, it is impossible to take seriously anything you say urging us to trust your sense of public responsibility and integrity concerning your proposed anti-terrorism laws. We are justified in not trusting you, Mr Ruddock.
Posted by tony kevin, Sunday, 25 September 2005 10:42:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Latimer

I find the non-sectarian style and content of your argument a welcome change though I don't necessarily agree with it.

Granted the IGIS (who I think is considering the Parkin case) the Ombudsman and other "accountability mechanisms" would usually be too little too late to handle the exercise of many ASIO powers.

By lack of judicial oversight are you objecting to cases where ASIO doesn't need a judge's warrant (to exersise some of its powers) or are you saying ASIO would need to run a court case before it was permitted to act.

For example if a person (say "John Smith" in this case a non-Muslim) were given the opportunity of recourse to a court wouldn't this effectively disable some of ASIO's powers.

Would ASIO need to prove its right at 4am to detain John Smith incommunicado before he can give his accomplices outside the signal to set off a bomb?

Or could the judge and other learned persons "on balance" after due consideration, give ASIO this permission in some cases after the bomb has been detonated?

Seperately is there a risk that politically motivated extremist groups (say they are financed indirectly by Saudi Arabia's aristocracy) may be given the opportunity to sue ASIO after each raid?

With deep pockets (from oil money) these groups can run long court cases against the government. The oil money connection is not incidental as it no doubt indirectly financed the Bali and Jakarta bombings against Australians.

Court cases (and other forms of judicial oversight) may well make many lawyers rich, but, wouldn't they also hamstring many in ASIO from effectively preventing explosions?
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 26 September 2005 12:17:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does anyone feel any safer.
Posted by crocodile, Monday, 26 September 2005 5:19:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We should always be cautious about extending the power of government or its agencies, and if we are to support an extension of ASIO powers we should definitely request automatic mechanisms for the timing and methodology of review.
Posted by Dissenter, Monday, 26 September 2005 5:21:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Ruddock says: "Accountability mechanisms are a central feature of Australia’s terrorism laws ... Watchdogs such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security are there to respond on behalf of individuals if there are any such problems."

Thats all well and good Mr Ruddock as long as thos officers are allowed to let us know when something is going wrong. Its my understanding that even they are not allowed to disclose information about "terrorist incidents". What value is there in having a 'watcher' who can't report?

Another troubling aspect is the refusal of your Government to provide 'sunset' clauses for these provisions. These proposed measures in support of the "war on terrorism" remove very significant freedoms that our nation has fought two worl wars and many other military and diplomatic battles to protect and preserve. Surely you and your government see an end to the war on terror some time! Put in sunset clauses and many of us will be less troubled by your actions. Leave them out and you are starting to look like Pinochet and others of that ilk. After all, its these freedoms and this way of life that make us different from the terrorists - isn't it?

Regards,
Peter
Posted by pja, Monday, 26 September 2005 5:56:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I apologise if I offended you with certain reasoning Boaz, but as was the attempt to point out, it was not personal feeling but a lesson given in the Sermon on the Mount - Love your Enemies - which of course does not mean love your enemies, as we do not need to do with the Middle-East Islamics but at least let us realise as Christians that we should not be in there for some sort of misguided revenge concerning fifteenth century Ottoman invaders.

It was the reason the United Nations was formed Boaz, to try to stop this silly dangerous rot about the way of mankind to be always after plunder. In other words survival of the fittest, which Darwin himself as a Christian, warned that his survival term was meant to be a physical process related mostly to non-human existence. It is felt that Darwin now hoped that the Almighty would be expecting better of an advancing humankind, than to be ever after knocking out another weaker country similar to how most wild life will naturally do away with a weaker adversary.

A portion from a written acount by Charles Darwin:

"The moral nature of man has reached its present standard, partly through the advancement of his reasoning and of the improvement of just public opinions, his sympathies having been rendered more tender through the effects of habit, example, instruction and reflection. The conviction of the existence of an all-seing Deity, has also had - (or should of had) - a potent influence on the advancement of human morality." Taken from "The Mainstream of Civilisation since 1500" Joseph R. Strayer et al - Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 26 September 2005 6:15:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some previous posters have stated that they would feel less threatened by these anti-terror laws if they were to come attached with a sunset clause.

'Terje' wrote that "25 years should be more than enough".

25 years? No thank-you! What kind of clause is it if we have to abide by the respective unjust law(s) for a quarter of a century?

I wouldn't feel safer with a sunset clause of any duration, because the Government of the day could just reinstate whatever aspects of the legislation that it likes.

'Pja' wrote that "Surely you and your government see an end to the war on terror some time."

Dick Cheney (amongst others) has stated that the War on Terror might never end, ”at least not in our lifetime”.

That is the whole point. This ill defined 'War against Terror' is a war that will go on ad infinitum. It cannot be won. No matter what measures we take, what laws we introduce, we are never going to wake up one morning to find that, lo and behold, we have persevered and won the war against terror.

As many people have alluded to, only something like a fundamental change in our (and our allies) foreign policy will have a positive effect on curbing terrorism.
Posted by Knightrider, Monday, 26 September 2005 8:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Ruddock

The action which the government could take to make us safer from terrorist attacks is to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Instead of doing this you plan on giving more powers to the organisation which gave incorrect information about Saddams WMD,s and has now played its part in involving us all in the deaths of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of the definitions of a terrorist is "a man with a bomb who does not have an air force"

Terrorism is terrorism whether it is committed by a suicide bomber or by a cruise missile or a smart bomb.

When will you learn that sending our troops to fight at the side of an allie which kills civilians, tortures people in its prisons, and imprisons others for years without trial does not make any friends for Australia?
What we need is a lot more friends and a lot fewer enemies.
Change the foreign policy Mr Ruddock and make us all safer and with our civil liberties intact.
Posted by Peace, Monday, 26 September 2005 9:26:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1
Here we are an Attorney General referring to “enemy” but not knowing the identity of this “enemy”!
As if this makes sense.
We have, as I discovered when assisting a man against criminal charges facing up to 10 years imprisonment for putting pamphlets in letterboxes while the media was video taping this, that evidence was against this man of terrorist conduct. Excuse me, putting pamphlets in a mailbox? The judge made clear his views; that the charges were an abuse of the legal processes. That was the end of the charges.

Now a days, any alleged criminal is a “terrorist” and any alleged criminal conduct is “terrorism” and this even so nothing occurred. So, the Federal government is going to lock down entire suburbs to catch the would be terrorist, that exist only in the minds of those who fanaticize it, and we have entire communities terrorized by this conduct. Who is the terrorist then?

On Monday 26 September 2005, John Howard finally conceded that the Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to lock up people for 14 days without charge. If he had bothered to read my correspondence to him over the years and my published books he could have been aware of this years ago!

Now we have an Attorney-General who is seeking to lay claim about knowing what to do, yet, when Minister of Immigration he could not even manage then what is constitutionally required, that is that no person can be detained/deported without State court order! Remember the poor woman Vivian Solon? CREDIBILITY?

Any government that sets out to ignore facts and ignores to follow DUE PROCESS OF LAW can hardly lay claim to want to protect the general public.
Remember the claim of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? We were told just to wait so they could locate them. Well years on they still didn’t find those illusive WMD.

We also had that invading Iraq would make the world safer. Well tell that to the dead. Oops, they cannot hear you, as their LIBERTY existed of being liberated from the human race!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 1:22:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

In my view the real terrorist are those using and abusing the legal powers to terrorize a nation, kill civilians and this all upon so called INTELLIGENCE!

Remember the “CHILDREN OVERBOARD”?

Perhaps real terrorist may end up being far less a problem then the very government that in anything plunged this nation into an unconstitutional/illegal war!

Use section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) against yourself and your fellow politicians who were unconstitutionally/illegally invading another sovereign nation and you may perhaps start to earn some credibility wanting to do something about terrorist.

In my view, it is in itself an act of terrorism to abuse and misuse powers to subject the general community to this kind of fear.

Any terrorism we may encounter in my view more likely is due to the unconstitutional/illegal action taken by the Commonwealth of Australia.
To make a safer world you have to commence by yourself.

About 10 years ago, a person gave me the understanding wanting to blow up a gas tanker in the city so that not just himself but a lot of others would die in the process as to make a statement against the government. The fact that he didn’t go ahead with this was no thanks to any government, but because of my ongoing assistance to him to realize that there was another way to resolve matters.
In today’s climate, he would have been labeled a “terrorist” while in reality he was a sole lost who sought justice but had been wrongly denied of it until then.
No kind of terrorist laws possibly would have stopped a man in that situation. What it needed was simply a person to listen to his grievances and some hand lent to him to get on the right track.

I would recommend that as Attorney-General you first study certain constitutional issues relevant to the issues, before trying to tell others what is right or wrong.
All you may achieve now with unconstitutional terrorist laws is that in the end a real terrorist may walk free because of unconstitutional legislation!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 1:25:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How anyone can believe Ruddock is beyond me. For the past ten years the federal government has targeted enemies, Iraqis, Aphganis, asylum seekers, anyone who disagrees with them and now Muslim citizens of Australia.
There is no "terrorist" activity in Australia. Australia under Howard was involved in the illegal, Shock and Awe attack on Iraq, killing innocent people, crimes against humanity. At the Nurenburg Trials, "terrorist" was not part of the language.
Crimes against humanity have been replaced with "terrorist" which is "newspeak" [Orwell]. Israel, America, Australia and England name their enemies as "terrorists" and it has become a useful propaganda tool. We know that truth is hard to find these days and nobody is looking for it, the truth is, if Bin Laden is a "terrorist", then Blair Bush and Howard are "terrorists" and also if Bin Laden is a war criminal, then Bush, Blair and Howard are war criminals.
Bush, Blair and Howard are totally against the International Court for obvious reasons.
No matter what Ruddock or Howard espouse, the truth is that Howard is a war criminal, and as he downsizes democracy in Australia, this will not change the fact. Australians need to ask themselves, why have they handed this bloke power for so long?. Don't forget to look under your bed for a "terrorist".
Posted by Sarah10, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 6:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was under the impression that government advertising had to be clearly acknowledged as such. This is an opinion forum, not a distribution centre for propaganda. It would be interesting to know whether the figurehead of Australia's miserable human rights record is as industrious when it comes to reading feedback as he was when compiling his dangerous piece.
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 8:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to plantagenet:

Your arguments about inability to arrest someone at 4PM, extremist groups succesfully suing ASIO, terrorists making a phone call from gaol to activate bomb and judges waiting to see the bomb go off before they take action -- these belong in a 3rd rate American TV or movie script.

"Thanks to the infidel's human rights, I can ring you from prison without being monitored. I left the detonator with Smith, who was let go by police because it was 4AM and all the judges were sleeping. And get me a good lawyer. We can finance our next attack after we sue ASIO for my arrest. Haa Haa Haa!"

I look foward to your name being listed in the credits.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 10:03:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SARAH10

<<For the past ten years the federal government has targeted enemies, Iraqis, Aphganis, asylum seekers, anyone who disagrees with them and now Muslim citizens of Australia.>>

1/ "ENEMIES" Sarah, from your statment , you seem to have some issue with Australia dealing with its enemies ? (sounds like treason)

2/ "IRAQI'S" Can you be more specific ? Do you mean those insurgents in Iraq who wish to restore the brutality and privilege and Sunni oppression of majority Shia, and minority Kurds or those who have been killed in the efforts to free Iraq of such people like Sadaams sons who would abitrarily look at you, and say "Hmmm she would make a good hump. GET HER FOR ME NOW" and that's it, you would have to live with nightmares of some foul breathed beast who had violated you, for the rest of your life ? (sounds like confusion)

3/ AFGHANIS hmm do you mean the Taliban who would execute you publically in the MCG just because you failed to put a tent over yourself ? Or, the Northern Alliance who assisted the removal of the Talinazi's. (more confusion)

4/ ASSYLUM SEEKERS.. Do you mean those who were eating Macca's in Jakarta the weekend before, in a Muslim country, where they had all the 'assylum' they could ever wish for ? (sounds like some are relations ? )

5/ ANYONE WHO DISAGREES. But wait a minute, lets put you in Iraq, and under Sadaam for a moment. All they have to do is trace your IP address, do some decrypting of Telstra information and viola they have your home address ! Now.. do you see any Asio spooks outside your door ? Because they've had enough time already to find you.
(Arn't you lucky)

6/ MUSLIMS Like the Duhrie bros who want a Caliphate here ?

It might be better, to support your democratically elected government, or.. vote them out at the next election. At least in Australia, you have the opportunity to gather support, sway opinion and do just that.

Thoughts on EastTimur ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 10:51:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah10,

well said.

In the world of politics (personal power masquerading as people power)... words are mere tools in the eternal quest for expansive power. Words, to politicians, essentially have no meaning beyond the context in which they choose to use those words and to wot ever ideological or politcal agenda they are aimed. They all become relative and situational. Two words can have completely different meanings and uses depending on context and agenda. These two words are then carried about by the sheeple who are blissfully unaware of the contradiction, to the point that they accept that contradiction as being consistent. Double think lives and Orwell is smiling from the grave.

The only hope l think that exists for us in the face of such purile obfuscation is a sort of apathy towards political correctness and a distrust of politicians and their spin. Sort of in the vein of the story about the boy who cried wolf. Hopefully these political boyz and grrls will eventually get eaten after we have stoppped beleiving them.
Posted by trade215, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 10:56:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Sarah10: mixing bin Laden with Bush, Howard, UK and Israel altogether is something very Australian as “multiculturalism” and xenophobia are
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 27 September 2005 11:38:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Latimer

Thank you for maturely responding to the issues in my post.

Such scenerios have occured in the past and will in the future. I raised the issues as a way to highlight weaknesses in your arguments.

These are the types of scenerios that the Libs, Nats, ALP, Premiers and clearly most of the Australian public are concerned about.

I respect the opposition to the government's proposals of most posters on this string. However I suggest David that you come from the gut reaction lawyering end of town.

That is, when in doubt about law enforcement operational issues place them before a court, where lawyers can strut their learned stuff and then collect fees (from those who can afford them). This leads to drawn out court cases because law enforcement agencies will also put (defence) lawyers on its payroll for a very long time.

My obviously jaundiced view of lawyering has only been reinforced by your evasive response.

I invite you to try again.

Regards

Plantagenet
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 1:59:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Today (27/9/2005), the COAG Joint Conference has found agreement on some of the the points raised in this article by those cautious of expanded executive government powers.

The PM said "I went through in detail the procedures that will be involved, the safeguards, the judicial review, the right to have lawyers, the rights of appeal and so forth that have always been part of the Commonwealth’s proposals." These were not mentioned in the Attorney-General's article and I can't see an excuse for omission.

It was left to ACT Chief Minister, John Stanhope, to make reference to the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). In addition he said "detainees have the right to contact their family and their employers and where relevant, their consulate." (see http://www.pm.gov.au/news/Interviews/Interview1588.html)

The premiers and the PM, say they are aware of the importance of these issues, so I am less concerned than I was yesterday. Shall we have some robust parliamentary debate, so these statements are made effective in legislation?

Certainly, I will be following this. I hope the media does too.

Plantagenet: your post made me laugh and I felt obliged to share it with the rest of the class. Now, you are adding "such scenerios have occured in the past": ASIO being sued and signals sent by detained prisoners to detonate things. Which movie was that? BTW, your dislike of lawyers: I don't like pumpkin.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 6:41:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks David

I'm happy I gave you a laugh and hope your class gets a chortle. I just KNEW you were a lawyer - but I'll suspend my prejudices.

I'm also happy that the government has made some review/accountability concessions thus averting the "police state" that so many posters in this string feared was just around the corner.

My fevered (yet imaginative) scenerios aside I draw your attention to a real life issue covered in The Australian 27 September 2005 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16732979%255E601,00.html

It begins "AUSTRALIA'S 50,000 police want the federal Government to indemnify them against civil lawsuits accusing officers of "racial profiling" of Muslims under new anti-terror laws."

So whats your opinion on that one?
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 7:55:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah10 & Trade215,

Don't be so lazy; push the critical insight a little farther. Don't stop at what the likes of Pilger or Chomsky (and in NO way Mike Moore!) has revealed to you about Western governments or "capitalism". They irrationally take everything out of context, totally lack perspective. They abuse Orwell! He was writing about them! (and "the spies", the little moral-police like you).
Posted by Skippy, Tuesday, 27 September 2005 9:58:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skippy, what are you on about mate?

"They irrationally take everything out of context, totally lack perspective."

Would you care to enlighten us as to what context we should place things like wars that result in the deaths of countless people, let alone wars that are based on questionable motives (& justifications)? Or am I so naive as to not see the purpose of wanton death and destruction?
Posted by Knightrider, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 11:33:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[1] Response to Plantagenet: I was aware of this Police Federation claim, but don't entirely understand it. Surely, police are not individually liable and furthermore would not and certainly should not engage in racial profiling. As police powers expand, their actions can be more readily be picked up by other laws applying more generally, but as far as I know, police are not asking for an exemption from the Racial Discrimination Act .

Your point was about "extremist groups", which I take to mean groups acting outside the law. If they are targeted based upon evidence or reasonable suspicion, then a claim of false arrest cannot succeed. On the other hand, if police decide to bodysearch every olive-skinned person walking into the grand final stadium, then it wouldn't be an extremist person, but an innocent person who'd have a right to complain and fair enough too. The cases in the US are about this.

Police don't believe in racial profiling. It entirely undermines the trust the public have in law enforcement and importantly doesn't work. Terrorists have long known they must blend in.

[2] Can I have a quick dig at Plerdsus who on 23/9/2005 said "Excellent article, Mr Ruddock ... We are in a state of war against terror ... Actual enemies [and] citizens sympathetic to the enemy can ... be interned ... and if necessary we will kill the lot", with references to World War II.

I have yet to hear anyone so taken in by the phrase "war on terror." The declaration of war on Japan and Germany resulted in the internment of their citizens because Japan and Germany are actual countries with actual citizens. Plerdsus, if you know someone who is a citizen of Terrorism, please inform the authorities. Mr Ruddock appreciates your support.
Posted by David Latimer, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 11:53:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David

Thanks for your reply. Reading todays article in the Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16745766%255E601,00.html I'd say that the police (unions) are seeking greater acknowledgement of the new "burdens" placed on them by the proposed anti-terror laws. Hence they're probably seeking greater resources - which generally comes down to pay increases.

They also seem to wish to be placed more into the intelligence loop. Interesting to see if this will be seen as a departure from traditional (community) policing and a move towards the intelligence/police FBI model.
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 28 September 2005 3:33:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No answer in this discussion on not-so-simple issues as

-an EXTENT of an applauded PREVENTION of terro
-a case of law might apply: it’s very easy to say that one can speak something if criticising government, but.

Hitler started with a similar rhetoric.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 28 September 2005 4:45:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Ruddock,

Hate to be the one bringing focus and pouring cold water.
New anti-terror laws might introduce tighter measures but they are only a small part of the 'prevention' process.

A largely missing piece is to revisit Australian foreign policy in comparison to New Zealand for example who managed to balance clear position on terrorism without being that much of a named target.

A second point is to genuinly engage the Muslims community in a nation building dialogue and a plan. The format that took place in Sydney was not it.

Last, define our military obligations overseas and the decision making process to involve Australians in a war overseas. I was suprised to see Mr Howard maintain the "no decision had been made" then surprise the public when the army was already overseas with the "I did it because it was the right thing".

War decisions affects nations in decades and not in government terms.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 30 September 2005 10:26:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Nation building” is a vogue expression: today London-linked are still on the top, managing the rest with very biological principles, which means that out-of-their-tribe allowed being underlaying nonenties only --- will it still satisfy the growing number of OUTSIDERS, where non-Christians is a significant part of a population present by Muslims?

And this is a visible tip of an iceberg, where so-called “Australian anti-terrorism law” looks rather as a next stick to force a cattle into royal stables than really workable tool in "multicultural" environment especially.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 30 September 2005 12:53:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These new laws are a perfect political solution. They don't cost money so no unpopular increases in taxes and they win votes because the government is seen to be "doing something." It does not matter that the "something" the government is doing is wrong or unconstitutional or won't even work. The government must love all the controversy over the laws because it helps to emphasize the idea that they are "fighting terror." Who cares if it won't work and makes people who hate Australia, hate it more.

Winners are grinners in politics and the coalition has the numbers so they are grinners. They can now develop policies that will keep themselves there. It is not about solving the problem, it is about being seen to be "doing something." It is so elegant a solution that all the State Premiers (Labour Party men) are in complete agreement. Kim Beazley loves the idea as well. So who do we vote for to get rid of these bad laws?

What is a better way to combat terrorism? Do more police work. Get better police. Work with the muslim community. Develop relationships with muslim leadership. Rethink foreign policy. All these are too hard. Better to be able to throw somebody in jail for 14 days without a charge against them. If something bad happens Phillip Ruddock can say "We tried our best." Then we can look forward to 4 weeks in jail with no charges and another win for the current regime at the next election.

What happens if a Muslim political party wants to give their preferences to Labour at the next election? One of the members of the party might say that Australia's involvement in the Iraq war is wrong. Two weeks before the next election just throw a couple dozen of the party organisers in jail without charge. That would limit the vote for the muslim party, therefore limiting the preferences for Labour and keeping the Liberals in office.

I hope and pray that there are better ways to fight terrorists than throwing civil rights at them.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 30 September 2005 2:52:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My thoughts are with victims, families and friends of the latest Bali bombings.

With heavy heart.
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Sunday, 2 October 2005 5:21:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the lord Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavlka,

What children overboard thing? You mean when those ungrateful middle-class Pakistanis/Iraqis threw feaces at our well intentioned navy? And how, considering history, it was a common tactic used by
some baot people to threaten to throw their children in the water so as to blackmail the Navy into bringing them ashore?

In regards to the terrorist being Western Governments. I agree that it is a horrible thing that the whole world isn't as enlightened as Europe now is. Europe has been through war and learned much from it, one thing is not to trust the emerging powers of nations such as China, the Middle-East etc. It would really be a good thing to bring decent work conditions to the world's poor but while China continues to use hundreds of millions of slaves to build their empire the civilised world unfortunately has to, yes, stoop to their level occasionally in order to make ends meet, sometimes out of greed, sure.
One thing you need to get clear : exploitation is a worldwide phenonemon stretching back in time forever. If you look carefully you will notice that exploitation of the poor and the weak to a disgusting level still only really occurs in all non-western nations. In the middle-east, asia, Africa, the gap between rich and poor is enormous, and the west is in a dispicable position of having to do business with murderers and tyrants because there are no other options in some countries. And if wanting to force stability onto an important market, such as oil in the mid-east, is a crime, I agree in as much that it is criminal not to re-institute colonialism so that once and for all the third world can be civilised with a "benevolent" dictator. Yes, benevolent. If you find yourself laughing, take a look at Japan. If the US or the West were so evil, then why would they have let Japan become so successful?
Posted by Matthew S, Thursday, 6 October 2005 3:34:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We will not resolve the worlds problems, where we ourselves have ample of problems to address. Who are we to try to dictate our brand of democracy which often itself is nothing but tyranny!
As for people having allegedly thrown feaces, well while I do not approve of any such alleged conduct, one must consider the desperate conditions they were in.
And, when one considers what is going on within the armed forces, and by soldiers not even desperate to find a homeland, then if feaces throwing was anything to go by then the armed forces would be numerous times far worse of by its own conduct.

Look at Vivian Solon and how neither Ruddock or Amanda are willing to be a “responsible Minister”!
What kind of democratic process do we have if they are themselves flaunting constitutional provisions?

I for one knows and understand what bring people to contemplate suicide/murder, and while I have always disapproved of this, I am too well aware that to fight terrorism is to fight the cause of terrorism, and that is often the injustice done or perceived to be done.
Regretfully, too many Australians rather sacrifice their liberty for the sake of the unknown or the political propaganda of the major political parties, then to realize that to relinquish ones rights is to give in to the brand of terrorism political parties use upon electors.

Only a fool could justify an unconstitutional war for the sake of allegedly making the world a safer place.
Once a government itself ignores the rule of law then how can it blame terrorist for doing the same.
Bali is terrible, but when we as a nation demonstrate to use “SHOCK AND AWE” to terrorize innocent Iraqi’s then we can expect nothing less but others learn from this to use this kind of terrorism in kind.
I spend decades of my valuable time (unpaid) to get people to accept that to resort to violence is not the way to go, only to find that the Australian government itself instigate violence, to the extend of mass murder!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Friday, 7 October 2005 1:50:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Those who suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order" - John Lindsay

"Freedom comes from human beings, rather than from laws and institutions" - Clarence Darrow

Phil,

What a croc mate. You are handing to the people of Australia, a beautiful wrapped present with paper of sweetened incense. Inside this present, is a book telling the people that they must hold loyalty to the Commonwealth Government of Australia. In this case, the Howard Government.

Phil, I hold no loyalties to any liberalist government. I am a Libertarian Nationalist which means that the government must hold loyalty to the people. Not the other way around.

This piece of dictatorship spells out that were I to walk down a street in a peaceful protest against the government of the day, I can technically be swooped on by your secret police. This is a laugh at freedom and liberty. We went to war along with the father and grandfather of John Howard. You lot are rubbing their faces into the stench of rotting corpses created by past wars.

I have a question for you Phillip. Were someone to go into a website of a group such as; NAZI, S11 etc and argued for the case of the need for change in Social Order, would that person be able to get taken by your secret police? I reckon they will be.

Look at how Pauline Hanson and David Etteridge were illegally trialled and imprisoned by the corrupted old guard(Coalition and ALP). Under these laws, I would expect them to disappear...POOF!

You lot use fear and intimidation as well as abusing the naivety of the average Australian. Your government of so called Christian values disgusts me.
Posted by Spider, Tuesday, 25 October 2005 10:49:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not when its your civil and human rights been violated -

http://users.cjb.net/freedom1/asio.doc
Posted by Freedom4all, Thursday, 22 December 2005 5:02:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Right is that one who has more rights (in Australia: more privileges).
Full stop.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 23 December 2005 12:29:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy