Skip to main content

Counter-Terrorism laws [continued]

One can't help be concerned about the proposed so-called counter-terrorism laws. The Government isn't even prepared to put them "out there" for scrutiny and discussion. Why not? Debate in the Parliament will doubtlessly be cut to the barest time [will the Opposition even take a stand?] and all Coalition members will simply say yea to everything. How comforting to know that not one Coalition member has the wit or intelligence [or should that be guts?] to challenge what is afoot here. Read the ever-wonderful Richard Carlton in the SMH today [below] on his take on the proposed legislation. People MUST become motivated to object - long and loudly!

"INCREASINGLY under the Howard Government, the bureaucracy is a law unto itself. The Immigration Department was clearly out of control, drunk with power, inflamed by the dog-whistle xenophobia of "we will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come".

The Commonwealth Ombudsman revealed this week that one poor wretch might have been wrongfully held in immigration detention for seven years, another for as long as six years, and another dozen or so for as long as three years.

All this under the ministerial supervision of the whited sepulchre, Philip Ruddock, who, as Attorney-General, will now be in charge of banging terrorist "suspects" away, indefinitely, without trial.

Ruddock and the Government have learnt one thing, however. This time around, secrecy will be enforced by such savage penalties - a maximum of five years' jail - that no wrongful detention will ever be uncovered by the media or anyone else. The sop of judicial oversight is a hollow farce."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more