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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.