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 ?

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.

To Sarah10: mixing bin Laden with Bush, Howard, UK and Israel altogether is something very Australian as “multiculturalism” and xenophobia are

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

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.

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?