Didn't say that, Arjay.

>>Time and time again Pericles you fail to confront the evidence.Accordin to you; Sedition Laws are not a problem because they have not been enacted for 50 yrs<<

I was merely making a factual observation. Clearly, these laws are last-resort stuff, when all else has failed, so tend not to come out of the closet a great deal. Which is as it should be.

>>Well now Howard has beafed them up with the expansion of the wars looming in the Middle East and Central Asia,they will have huge impacts on our rights and freedoms.<<

They may have been "beafed up", as you quaintly put it. But even with five years of their new "beafiness", they still haven't snared anyone. And quite frankly, given the way courts operate, I can't see the difference between four and seven years being particularly significant, in the grand scheme of things.

It would only be noteworthy, if the Howard government had been encouraged to suddenly become beafy at the behest of the coming New World Order, and were acting on instructions from the cabal of international banksters...

But that's what you actually believe to be true, isn't it?

Sad.

Tis sad that you Pericles do not have the courage to confront the truth.Live by the lie and you and your prodigy will perish by it.

KH,

I like the possibilities of those conditions. They would discomfort a few.

What if an individual were to pretend to possess information that would inspire australia to go to war? ...and for that information to be later found to not only be false, but known to be probably false (and certainly not decisive), by the individual at the time?

Is "sedition" a sufficient word?

Rusty

Nice try, Rusty Catheter.

>>What if an individual were to pretend to possess information that would inspire australia to go to war? ...and for that information to be later found to not only be false, but known to be probably false (and certainly not decisive), by the individual at the time?<<

But you know as well as I do that sedition is only for people *not* in government. When governments, or Prime Ministers who mislead governments, indulge in such practices, it is called "the ends justifying the means"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/12/tony-blair-iraq-chilcot-inquiry

"I can apologise for the information [about WMDs] that turned out to be wrong, but I can't, sincerely at least, apologise for removing Saddam. The world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power."

So that's all right, then. Not seditious, expeditious.

Pericles,

I think the exemption for such treachery actually only applies to kings (who choose their own destiny knowing it is paramount) not to those pledged to serve in a democracy. Better information was available and conveniently ignored.

"Expediential" is another word (thanks Dan), and it describes not the vilest (whose commitment is genuine), but merely those willing to take dishonest personal advantage of misfortunes beyond their control, rather than admit their state of ignorance at the time. Coat-tail-riders are not the type to command in a storm.

Rusty