Part 1

My letter to Bracks (personal details supplied):

Dear Mr Bracks

It would be an understatement to say that I am disappointed with the outcome of the Premier's summit on security issues. The uncritical manner in which the proposals were adopted leaves me feeling bleak. What have you undone?

Thanks to the efforts of the ACT Chief Minister, we can at least see what lays in store for us in our brave new Australia. Islamicists be blowed, it is people like myself and others who made the effort to put you in office, who can be targeted by this odious legislation.

While still able, I will offer this opinion of the Federal Government's motives (cui bono) for the proposed bill:

The occupation of Iraq is faltering - we are losing. The Bush Administration is reeling from the blows of the Fitzgerald enquiry (although they may yet have a couple of "terrorist" diversions up their sleeve). In the circumstances, it is only a matter of time before our Prime Minister and his Attorney General will be called to account for what they have wrought.

Needed - a firewall which embodies the power to dictate what is, and is not, permissible public discourse.

Premier, this "wooden horse", offered as terror legislation, can curtail your right to free speech as much as my own. Please think about that.

Part 2 (letter to Bracks)

In conclusion, please consider these suggestions for amendments to the
Criminal Code, which ought to be applied retrospectively:

1. No Australian Prime Minister, nor his inner cabal, may enjoin,
assist or otherwise encourage the invasion of another sovereign
nation where:

a) the justifications given are a pack of lies.

b) no regard is given to the will of the public.

c) the invaded country is already crippled by sanctions.

d) 50% of the invaded are under-age.

e) mass killing of the indigenes is the likely outcome.

2. No Australian Prime Minister, nor his inner cabal, may take their
country to war in order to facilitate:

a) propping up a faltering global economy.

b) garnering access to diminishing oil energy.

c) perceived favourable terms for a USFTA, railway tracks, local weapons manufacture or any other commercial gain.

3. No Australian Prime Minister, nor his inner cabal, may take their
country to war with an ally who manufactures and uses weapons of mass destruction.

4. No Australian Prime Minister shall compromise the value of one innocent life in pursuit of personal power, longevity, awards, friendships, fame, peer approval, nor even a tin badge.

5. Any Australian Prime Minister and members of his inner cabal who
act in a manner contrary to the above laws shall be deemed to be War
Criminals. They shall be removed from office and by the terms of
their own rules, detained without recourse to legal council. Proper
officers from DIMIA shall remove them to a suitable facility in
Australia's exclusion zone.

6. Any Attorney General who seeks to exclude his own, or his Prime
Minister's actions from proper public scrutiny, by the introduction
of mischievous, unnecessary or hasty laws, shall be deemed to be
unfit to hold office and be removed forthwith, in utter disgrace.

Spot on Chris Shaw, You have nailed it.

A very well thought out article Rod. I agree completely. My view is that our political leaders know and agree with you privately, but would never publicly admit it.
Unfortunately, we live in a political culture of self-preservation. Getting elected and then re-elected is the chief motivation behind politics. It’s a career. The best scenario for them is to have a population that is fearful of a terrorist strike, and then give the impression of doing something about it. I don’t believe they actually want a terrorist atrocity to occur - but it suits them that the threat exists. This is the reason why so much energy is directed towards preventing the actual attack, and not enough time exploring the root causes of terrorism. As long as the threat exists, the easier it is to enact these kinds of laws. Maintaining power is the name of the game. These laws will make it easier to curtail all forms of threat to their power, not just the terrorist threat

I agree with Rod that we should all be concerned about the terrorism legislation. What is really scary is that once the new laws are in place we will be stuck with them. Yes, there is a sunset clause of 10 years but what does that mean? If we are not subject to any serious terrorist attacks in that 10 years that will "prove" the laws were a success and should continue. If we do have a serious attack that will "prove" we need even tougher laws. Heads I win, tails you lose - either way, in 10 years time the government of the day (whatever flavour) will argue for an extension. The only hope will be if minor (leftish) parties have control of the Senate.

Reading these posts is like admiring an over hanging snow drift and waiting for the avalanche; I know I bang on a bit about this but 4 posts all at odds with the current paranoia surrounding terrorism.

I suspect the usual suspects will be consulting CNN, or Fox News for their ammunition to howl down the civil libertarians - but I must be carefull not to write anything that will ferment "ill will" least I court another knock on the door from the Australian Federal Police for a 14 dayts leave of absence.

Sadly we are a risk averse society. We pay the price through over government, defensive and subsequently expensive medicine the list goes on..... Until such time as we inculcate these risks into our daily lives - like driving, the odds of being assualted, falling off a cliff, being robbed, murdered - all much more likely than being the victim of a bomb thrower - we will be victim to the over reaction those of a really nervous dispostion.

Previous posters have correctly allluded to the imperitive of power; these guys who have it want more of it. The chances of these laws being repealled - ever - is highly unlikely.

A visionary opposition could exploit these acts of stupidity; the states could stand firm on civil liberties. A savvy electorate could demond both the aforesaid ( I have never used that word before ). Can't see it happening though - this is how paranoid we are - see Pt 2

Pt 2:
In Tassie, in Queenstown; a lazy spot of maybe 2500 souls at a public meeting about economic rejuvenation in the wake of a mine closing in the region - everything was talked about bar the subject at hand ; how the water had deteriorated since the councils amalgamated and all that other parochial crap - then some one asked the mayor and a visiitng politician; what about the airport nearby; A strip of flat land (rare in those parts)not much better than a goat track was essentially unused and was now rarely manned;

A good citizen said it must be patrolled! it is a security risk! He went on to add - How come we asked agog! it poses little risk and while we're on it risk from what? TERRORISTS was the earnest reply - highly unlikely we replied - "Try telling that to the poor souls in Bali" was the sombre retort - so there it is. The far west coast of Tasmania; Australias soft underbelly - in fact I think Senator Abets was in the room; look out Tassie you might be excised from our borders as the next landing point for a bunch of bombers flying in after extensive training in thre ACT or a boat load terrorists masquerading as refugees.

That is a measure of the depth of stupid anxiety this government has engedered in some.

These laws have gotten way out of hand.

All old hat Rod

The polls you quote were, no doubt, the call in if you have a problem type.

Madrid - bang! London - bang! Some bloke in a scarf says Melbourne is next.

Takes more responsibility than a Christian Collective to govern.

Politicians represent and should protect. If they didn't support stronger laws they would be failing in their duty.

If bombs go off in Melbourne or Sydney and politicians haven't drafted more effective laws or supported them, their electorates would be very dissappointed.

Some in their electorates may be dead.

Stick to the Bible meetings.

We may have different beliefs but duty of care takes many forms.

There may be some justification for terrorism laws if they could be shown to achieve their purpose of preventing terrorism. Common sense would indicate that they are unlikely to prevent acts of terrorism and make it more likely for these acts to occur.

Terrorism can only be prevented by detecting it before it happens. The most likely way detection will occur is if a friend or relative notifies authorities that someone is thinking of performing such an act. Will draconian laws make it more likely or less likely for friends and relatives to approach the authorities when they only have suspicions? Obviously less likely. Who is going to dob in someone they care about on suspicion when it is certain to punish them even though they may be innocent. How much better to work cooperatively with those who may be able to help and work to stop such acts.

Yes Fickle

Over the last few days I've become steadily disenchanted with the proposed laws.

The atmosphere of fear that they have created (blanket advertising etc) makes is less likely that a friend/relative of a potential bomber will be comfortable talking to the authorities.

I'm coming to the conclusion that greater utilisation of existing laws (their are around 30 security Acts) where appropriate and increased funding for the security agencies (already announced) is the way to go.

It seems the proposed laws where largely launched and calculated to drive a wedge in the ALP - seperating the leadership (Beazely from the left) and the Labor Premiers from their support base. Howard is the prince of wedge politics and Bush his King in that regard).

King John had the conditions of the Magna Carta forced on him about 900 years ago because he liked to lock people up without evidence.
I wonder if we are going to repeat history.

This is more a question than a comment:

Initially it was mentioned that one of the proposed "anti-terrorism" measures is to make immigrants wait an extra year for Australian citizenship (3 years instead of 2). I did not hear about it again - anyone knows what happened with it?

Anyway, why should people who have nothing to do with terrorism, not even Moslems or potential suspects in any way, and some who may even be victims of terrorism themsleves, suffer unduly?

The latest news is that Indonesian fishing boats are not only taking fish, trochus, shark fin out of Australian waters but they are possibly smuggling drugs, guns, people.
Our vast coastline is impossible to patrol without an equally vast coast watch.
I read somewhere that the US are going to be kicked out of one of their big naval bases in Japan or the islands, cannot remember where but maybe we could offer them a suitable harbour in our north to build another base.
We have plenty of space and their navy patrols could be very useful.

If there is a terrorist attack in Australia, Mr. Benson and his cronies will be the first to crawl into a funk hole and whinge "Why didn't the Government prevent it?"