I want to see Howard turfed out but not because I think he has lied, at any time.

I’d be very careful about labelling anything Howard has said to do with children overboard or the Iraq War as lies.

What are the lies regarding the subject of this thread Glendabeth?

SILLE

You obviously have not read the transcript of his interview with police.

What debts? Where did you read this fiction. If you read the transcript he was payibg off a debt he had in England.

There is a saying; "If a pollies lips are moving they are lying" but
in reality it is not as bad as that.

There are are a number of accepted lies in the community.

It was not Labour that withdrew the troops from Vietman but the then
Liberal PM Billy McMahon.

The GG sacked Whitlam because the Gov was arranging illegal loans.
It is forgotten by those who want to forget that the people elected
in a landslide a Liberal government one month later.

The illegals did not throw their children into the water.
They scuttled the boat under them. Some parents then threw their
children into the water so they would not go down with the boat.
However, the result was the same. At least some of the parents must
have been aware the boat was being scuttled.

So if Howard had said "They scuttled the boat under the children"
He would have been telling the truth.

What dodgy definition of terrorism are the relying on anyhow, it will be something dreamed up on their behalf so that they can protect themselves for the rest of us who have had a gut full of the offensive vile conduct of the ruling elite who honestly believe that they were born to rule.
As for Howard, Ruddock, they were made personally aware of the unlawful use of tax file numbers for the specific purposes of identification by a certain Govt agency (not police or security), both claimed they would look into it but to date the offences continue causing the suicide of hundreds of non-custodial parents and theft of $millions of personal property. Regardless of their positions of status and their alleged power they should be charged and put before properly constituted courts, not the Supreme TRIBUNALS in persona designata jurisdiction but who would know what I am talking about anyway.
Their spies in Australian News Paper are fully aware of this term as they removed these words from my post on their site.
It appears that they do not want the truth out about our fictitious legal system that was used to jail the so called terrorist Doctor.
There are plenty of offences defined in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 that cover the conduct of these criminals that purport to govern and protect us. This is a typical example of the blatant dishonesty of all of the police, state and federal, and politicians involved in this scam. I hope this doctor sues for millions and it should come out of the pockets of the people involved in pursuing this garbage. I hope the doctor's legal representatives now go up to the Qld Supreme Court, not the Supreme TRIBUNAL persona designata jurisdiction, and have the bail and charges revoked completely. False and misleading affidavits - they do this every day of the week but it only come to light when its a high-profile case. The locals have to suffer this level of fraud every day of the week but the media will not publish anything about it.

Peace,

Maybe we'll see premium rate SMS numbers that you can use to vote the terror level up, or down.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,
This is the most inane question I have yet seen on OLO. I might as well say ‘is RAPE so bad’. I mean it mostly only does mental damage. I bet if there were a serial rapist on the loose you would be demanding every policeman this side of the equator take action.( By the way I think rape is a vicious crime that deserves serious punishment)

You said”But dead is dead. It doesn't matter whether you die as part of a group, or on your own. Your surviving relatives will still grieve”

So what you are saying is intent is irrelevant? Someone who rapes and murders a child is no more or less culpable than some idiot teen that, whilst driving carelessly, kills a pedestrian? What about a doctor who, through aggressive treatment loses his patient?

You said “Is it really worth compromising our liberty for the sake of reducing the already very low incidence of terrorism even further?”

How many peoples liberty has suffered under the new terrorist laws? I mean, if a measure of something’s importance is based upon how many people have been affected, then the terror laws are totally inconsequential. The number of people inconvenienced can probably be counted on one hand. Yet you are making a very big issue out of it.

What you demonstrate is that a group or acts importance should be assessed on the potential for damage and not by how few are affected. I think you’ll find the same logic is behind anti terror laws. Whilst thus far we have been spared the brunt of the terrorist’s atrocities, the problem is that their potential to do damage is huge. These people have shown that they want to kill as many people as they possibly can. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that these people might release biological warfare agents, or detonate a dirty bomb. I think that would constitute a bad day for many