Presumption Of Innocence

[Gra]

Hi C

My birth date is the 6th August and yes, every year I remember the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was recently some work done on the recollections of the victims and makes for horrible and compelling viewing. http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=av&q=hiroshima&recipe=all&start=2&scope=all

Was it a terrorist act to drop a bomb on a city and kill 140,000 people? Was it a terrorist act to send the tanks into Tiannamen Square or massacre the men and boys of Srebeniza? Yes. Was it a terrorist act to storm Normandy or Gallipoli? Was it a terrorist act to send subs into Pearl Harbour and bomb the US fleet. No.

When soldiers fight soldiers its war, reprehensible, low down mean dirty old war. When civilian populations are randomly targetted its terrorism. I could get pedantic and claim that a lot of communication is terrorising civilian populations, eg tax department warnings, but that devalues the impact of the word.

But here is the rub, its a word that describes an emotion. It has been co-opted in the cause of political control. To create a war on an emotion!! wallys,

ps God told the shrub to invade Iraq. Poor god, she gets blamed for so much....

Sebastiaan

Allied bombing of Dresden, is that the same thing? Discuss (fight you buggers fight)

[silentC]

Speaking of words and emotions, it's funny the way terrific is now accepted to mean the opposite of horrific, don't you think?

[boban]

The very fact that civilians are victims of war does not make the act that killed them, 'a terrorist act', in a situation where they are collateral damage, so to speak. It sounds awful, I know.

How is that civilian categorized when he or she goes to work in a munitions factory or even a factory that supplies food to the armed forces. How is the same person categorized if they support the war in question.

I think the problem is the fact that war is no longer fought by two armies facing each other in a open field. Times have changed. Modern warfare is fought in areas surrounded by civilians. Identifying combatants is now also a problem, like in Vietnam. You don't know who the enemy is. The rules again, do seem to be followed by all involved.

Now honestly, why do we pretend that war is civilized and fought in accordance with rules? I think you can go back centuries and find examples of "unsportmanlike" behaviour on the battle fields and beyond. Who are we kidding.

Terrorism works, like it or not.

[Sebastiaan56]

Allied bombing of Dresden, is that the same thing? Discuss (fight you buggers fight)

I'll bite, certainly was one of the greatest acts of vandalism in that war, almost as bad as building an army base on top of the ruins of Babylon. Was it terrorism, yes, it targetted civilians. So was the Mongol slaughter of the population of Peking, the Crusades were pretty suss, as was Cromwell's invasion of Ireland.

Sebastiaan

Just the facts ma'm........

[echnidna]

this argument will go on forever. I doubt that at any time will everyone sit down and say; :... Hmmm... good outcome, nice bit of legislature that.."

However i feel what is more important is punishing the CORRECTLY CONVICTED terrorist. Here is what I propose :

Dependant on the religion of the terrorist substitute:

Red Meat on Fridays,
Pork,
Shellfish,
Misc,
OR whatever is banned by the particular flavour of the religious nonsense of choice...Completely drape your convicted in his/her (non)prefered foodstuff.
Empty a magazine of 7.62 into thier chest and head.
Send them to meet thier god in the forbidden foodstuff and collect thier reward.

Dont laugh, im serious. if they all knew this was thier earthly prize/punishment perhaps the religious/noncensical fevour would not be so pronounced....

Back in the olden times (ww2 or ww1 era) An American general did something like that and it instantly cured problems with fanatical terrorists.

[Geoff Dean]

I've got no problem with the way he was treated and I can tell you I have no sympathy for this government. His detention only differs from others in that he can be held without charge for a little longer than others. Big deal. It's not the G Bay type of detention.

As to his visa, well I see it as a privilege not an entitlement. If there is any doubt about him or even his family, why on earth should we be taking the risk.

Too me, the system has worked very well thus far. We are not dealing with people who play by the rules (which does not mean our government shouldn't) so the rules/laws need to evolve with the situation with which we are now faced. That my friends is a fact of life.

BTW- I have no view on whether Haneef is a terrorist or not. I don't know as I don't have enough information to make an informed decision. Nor does anybody else posting their opinion.

I agree. Its not as if he has been beaten, tortured etc. He lost his freedom while the authorities tried to put together a case against him. His name and integrity may have been unfairly impugned, blame the media for most of that.

Not the nicest thing that could happen to anyone, and I certainly wouldn't like it to happen to myself or any of my family
however
what would all the bleeding hearts be saying if nothing was done, if they let him go and he then was part of a terrorist organisation that did commit an act of terrorism that targeted innocent people.

(I am not for one second suggesting that he is a terrorist or has links to any terrorist organisation)

Would the bleeding hearts feel any different if it was a member of their family that was killed because of a terrorist act?

I feel comfortable that due process has taken place, after all it has been decided that there was insufficient evidence to take it to court, or procure a conviction.

Remember a lot more guilty people are found not guilty than innocent people are convicted.

[Daddles]

I the Crusades were pretty suss, as was Cromwell's invasion of Ireland..

Suss? Mate, they were flamin' appalling. It's no wonder the moslem world decided the christians were a pack of psychos. Mind you, that has no relation with the current tension between the two religions (anyone who carries a grudge for that long is enough of a psycho to be irrelevant). Cromwell was a prize loon himself - the horrors inflicted by his lot are right up there with anyone carrying backpack bombs.

The problem with moslem extremists is that they have found new ways to do what we and others have been doing all along, and that they are the current flavour of loony. I don't think any civilisation has much to be proud of when you go looking for the killers and the extremists.

The challenge we face is not to destroy the moslem extremists, but to stop the christian extremists from over reacting in return. We live in volatile times, but that's no excuse to let our side boil over. Remember, the hardest part of any fight is knowing when to step back.

Richard

[Sebastiaan56]

The challenge we face is not to destroy the moslem extremists, but to stop the christian extremists from over reacting in return. We live in volatile times, but that's no excuse to let our side boil over. Remember, the hardest part of any fight is knowing when to step back.
Richard


I agree Grasshopper. "Note the bamboo, it bends in the breeze but is never broken". There is unfortunately some part of human nature that allows us the most appalling behaviour to ourselves, our planet and our co inhabitants. I think that is what religions attempt to address but get diverted along the way.

To reciprocate the violence of modern extremism makes us one of them,

Sebastiaan

[Sturdee]

The challenge we face is not to destroy the moslem extremists, but to stop the christian extremists from over reacting in return.
Richard


That is not the problem as all religions are fanatical. What you call the extremists (in both muslim and christian religions) are actually the true believers and the so called moderates have lost part of their faith.

Hence there will never be a solution to the age old problem between Islam and Christianity as both seek to convert each other to their version of the true religion.

All we can do is be vigilant and adopt Zeds solution when we catch one of the terrorists.


Peter.

[Zed]

I hope that none of them rent a nice french, american or russian bomb to "proof" the unbelieving scum on the the side out of existance so they can use the land to build a temple in which they can priase thier own god of choice.

[dazzler]

Start Quote
Hey MH

Do you let him leave?. What if he was part of a cell here? Are there other members ready to attack here? Has he left a device (car bomb?) here that is ready to go?.

Of course you would have to interview him (as they did) if he was suspected of being part of a terrorist cell:rolleyes:. However, it became obviously apparent to us anti-Howard supporters that this was a botched job as time went by. Like the main evidence against him was it was supposedly his sim card that would be used to detinate the bomb. But it wasn't and they (the investigators) knew of that early in the peace but of course they didn't want to look stupid in their case so they spent time tying to discredit the poor guy. Do you remember that one of the ivestigators wrote details on some paper but tried to hang it on the poor doctor:((.

Hard questions. How would you deal with it. (MH leaves it to others but whines on the way :rolleyes:). Poor old Dazzler (who comes across as being a racist) is disappointed that his beloved Howard will be on his way after the next election. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pass the poison chalice over to Costello as soon as it gets through his thick head that it will lose in a landslide. Remember Dazzler as a citizen of this country I have equall as yours. You were just fortunate to have been born here.

Let him go and hope nothing happens. Let india deal with it?. Please show the text where I said he "should not have been interviewed".

End Quote


Sorry MH just found this, didnt mean to seem rude. For some reason your post wouldnt quote properly so I have block copied it. Your qoute is above.

How do you interview him :? . He is about to get on a plane to india. There is no right to interview him, he is free to leave, unless he is either arrested or detained. There was nothing about his sim card being used or planned to be used to detonate a car bomb. There was no main evidence. Just circumstantial evidence that he was questioned about.
The investigator made a mistake during the interview by referring to a photocopy of a page of his notebook that had writing on it. The dr stated it wasnt his so the D/S went and checked, came back and corrected it on tape.

FYI, frequently an interviewer will place an exhibit (say the notebook) in a sealed bag to show the suspect, and hand a photocopy of the document in question to the suspect so they can refer to it. They will often write on the police copy questions and lines of inquiry to prompt them during a lengthy interview.

Now you have to read this bit slowly, cause its important. The charges were dropped because it is not clear whether or not the alleged suspects in the UK belonged to a declared terrorist group. If the group is linked to a declared terrorist group then they will most probably reinstate the charge. It had nothing to do with the location the sim was found. This is why the charge was "recklessly" which removes the intent componant of the higher charge. IMO it would be a long bow to get up on anyway. Just another example of the media misreporting the facts.


Now to the more serious bits;


1. Please explain how I come across as racist, what comment can you point to that is racist or implies racism on my part?


1a. Perhaps others on the board can point to it so that I can apoligise to everyone. :)


2. Where have I suggested or intimated that I love Howard. What comment can you point to that shows this?


3. How does the fact that I was born here have any bearing on what I have said?


4. Once again, if you were the investigator, what would you have done at the airport given the concerns that had been raised about him? Concerns great enough for a pass alert to have been granted under the conditions explained earlier.

cheers


dazzler (who grew up being called "wogboy" in a small country town by our indigenous people :rolleyes: )

[MurrayD99]

What, is no-one gong to argue? Come on!! Hiroshima was a terroist act: discuss.

:p


Eh? Come again? After Okinawa, who was going to pursue a land war when there was something available that might expedite a surrender? You being provocative Mr C? For the record, Gen LeMay reckoned if the war had gone the other way he might have had a war crimes problem but he was referring to the fire bombing strategy, not the nukes.

[silentC]

Not at all. What I am doing is demonstrating how the word 'terrorism' has been associated with a particular view or impression of what is constituted by the word when in fact it has a wider definition.

People associate terrorism with religious fundamentalists. Terrorism is any act that uses terror (or fear) to promote a political cause. Dropping a nuclear bomb to wipe out an entire city could have no other purpose than to demonstrate to the Japanese government what the capabilities of the US were and to shock or frighten them into surrendering - which is excatly what happened.

When it is drawn up in legislation, the extra criteria that the act must be illegal or not committed by a legitimate government to be considered terrorist has been added to protect the military. Otherwise they might be hoist by their own petard.

Once again, I'm not arguing whether or not the bombing was necessary, I'm arguing that terrorism is a broader term than people seem to believe and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

[MurrayD99]

I'm in the middle of Niall Ferguson's book - War of the World. Many, many cases of genocide/cleansing that I had no memory or awareness of. By and large these all would be classed as terrorism. When I was growing up the "proper" terrorists were the likes of the Mau Mau. Of course the current religious problems go back to the crusades, very nasty & reciprocated and seemingly not capable of resolution....

[dazzler]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=282533


GO DAZZLER, GO DAZZLER


GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DAZZLER :2tsup:







.

[echnidna]

go Dazzler, Go Dazzler

:2tsup: :2tsup:

[MurrayD99]

Exactly Dazzler. QED.

[echnidna]

I reckon anyone detained under this legislation should not have any right to seek compensation if charges are not laid and/or upheld.

Why chance feeding a terrorist organisation with money

[bitingmidge]

So there you all go again, believing what's written in the press at face value.

When the full script is available, I'll (well I won't 'cause I couldn't be bothered) draw a conclusion.

Yesterday (before this release) that well known Australian High Court Equivalent, Good Morning Australia, had a poll and nearly 70% of respondants thought Haneef shouldn't get his visa back. Well they wouldn't have dialed in if they hadn't had access to the whole 20,000 pages of evidence I'm sure, so they must be right.

So... does anyone think there might be a correlation between a popular poll, a politician's stance, and an edited snippet from an internet conversation?

Cheers,

P
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[bitingmidge]

we should be ashamed of our govt's actions.


Terrorism works, like it or not.

Yes, I would have thought so too. :D :D :D

the government can't be trusted to administer justice.

Silent C, what does a terrorist look like?"

(Man was born to hunt and kill)

I'm wondering if I'll have any of you to talk to tomorrow after this conversation's been intercepted??

P
:rolleyes:

[Gra]

looks like I will still be here...... then again all they would do with me is send me to the loony bin

[bitingmidge]

go for using the masses to subvert the govt

Nuh! Gra's gone too!

P
:D :D :D

[Doctor Phil]

Ya all know what the problem is people?....

So dont do it......

Also, be nice to ya Mom and ya Pa.

[dazzler]

Hi Dr Phil

:D

[Honorary Bloke]

I have been following this thread with great interest as it inexorably moved from the general (legal system basis) to the specific (Dr. Haneef) and as much as it pains me (:D :D ) I do believe Dazzler has the right of it so far. The man was detained under suspicion and released when the evidence did not support the detention. That's how the system works.

[dazzler]

Thanks Bloke :)

The media is going ape over here at the moment which is amusing.:p

The media, through its manipulation, confuse the hell out of everybody with what is a fairly simple situation.

The simple state is that occasionally there is sufficient intelligence/rumours/circumstantial evidence surrounding someone that the investigators need time to sort out what the hell is going on and whether or not there is a serious/imminent threat to the public.

The presumption of innocence (this threads title :) ) is and always remains with the accused however the media immediately tag the person in detention as being guilty. It always peeves me when you hear the police stating after an arrest that "they have busted a large drug ring" etc because it suggests guilt.

What makes me laugh is all the concern over these laws when our taxation laws have compellability within them. Get called in for a tax audit and you have no right to silence and commit an offence if you dont answer truthfully when questioned. And no one says a word about it :rolleyes: and we're talking money not bodies.

The National Crime Authority can compel witnesses to answer questions but still no-one whines. :rolleyes: Beats me.

The sad thing is if you ask the knockers of the legislation where there was suspicion of a possible, imminent "terrorist act" and the investigators dont have enough to arrest the offender just what alternative they would employ to stop it. The fact is without the legislation there is nothing you can do. Unless someone has another answer.

The legislation buys time while quarinteening the suspect.

cheers

dazzler

[Waldo]

G'day,

I'm going to wade in here and add my 2¢, after all why the hell not?

As I see it, if some boofhead get's the attention of the AFP for terrorism, then there must be fair grounds for them to investigate. Why say sorry? Stuff that. Let him back in? :no:

What also gets my anger up is the bleeding hearts Civil Lib mob (not saying anyone contributing here is one at all) get on the news and carry on with their hoohah that someone suspected of terrorism should walk free regardless. ! :o But that's another rant.

:U :bye:

[Sebastiaan56]

I refer the learned assembly to the interview on the 7:30 report and the revelation that all of the disclosures by the minister were already on the public record. Nothing new by the minister. Edited from transcripts to prove his case and leaves out counterbalancing recorded converstions. A court of law threw it out. The Minister doesnt have to be fair, he has to use his own judgement. If he is biased, bad luck to the victim.

As previously stated, another Children Overboard. Lies half truth and spin. Personally I think the row between Scotland Yard and the AFP is much more fun.

The government shouldnt have been so hard on the media, the media are getting there own back.

Now lets see what the government scanners will make of this post!

Sebastiaan

[Sebastiaan56]

What also gets my anger up is the bleeding hearts Civil Lib mob (not saying anyone contributing here is one at all) get on the news and carry on with their hoohah that someone suspected of terrorism should walk free regardless.


Sorry Waldo but suspician is just that. It is not a fact. If we run our legal system on suspicion then we approach the 1984 scenario. Post modernism gone mad.

Sebastiaan

(bleeding hearts liberal, believes in truth, not mob rule)

[Gra]

Sorry Waldo but suspician is just that. It is not a fact. If we run our legal system on suspicion then we approach the 1984 scenario. Post modernism gone mad.

Sebastiaan

(bleeding hearts liberal, believes in truth, not mob rule)

Further to the above.. See this in the age today

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bill-to-let-police-search-homes-bug-phones/2007/07/31/1185647903672.html

that is scary. If it is true it might get me off my !@#$ to write a letter to my local member again.

[bitingmidge]

Gra,

Let me take you back a little:

Was I the only long haired student in the late 60's/early70's who lived with a bunch of other students who were "obviously suspicious types"?

I lived in a house with between five and seven others, and it was not an uncommon event for us to be literally hauled out of bed an paraded in the front yard at 2 o'clock in the morning while our place was "searched" for evidence of draft dodgers. I thought it was the Federal Police, but since they've only been in existence for a few years apparently, I'm really quite confused, they wore blue (or was it khaki? It was always dark!). All I know is when I walk barefoot at night on cold wet grass I get flashbacks!

No one in our house was a draft dodger, three had actually deferred until after completing their degrees, the rest of us were waiting for our number to be called, but because we looked like terrorists, we were treated accordingly. Heaven knows what the press vultures would make of it today.

If they found a Penthouse magazine (banned in Qld in those days) charges were threatened and the "evidence" taken, but nothing ever happened. We suspected for a time they timed the raids so they could get the latest issue.

I once witnessed a hit-run accident and reported it at Police headquarters. I was taken into a room and questioned about my record (I didn't have one), including the number of times I'd been caught drink driving. I don't drink, so thought that was a no-brainer, but the polite officer advised me that the offence was "alcohol or a drug". Now since I didn't do drugs either, it was all I could do not to get just a tad stroppy, but since I looked like a "duck"....(admittedly I may have known a few "ducks" as well!)

Times haven't changed.

It's just deja vu again.

In the meanwhile Good Morning Australia's poll has 84% reckoning he shouldn't be given his visa back, so that settles it I guess!

Harrummphhhf!!

P
:(

[Gra]

Gra,

Let me take you back a little:

Was I the only long haired student in the late 60's/early70's who lived with a bunch of other students who were "obviously suspicious types"?

I lived in a house with between five and seven others, and it was not an uncommon event for us to be literally hauled out of bed an paraded in the front yard at 2 o'clock in the morning while our place was "searched" for evidence of draft dodgers. I thought it was the Federal Police, but since they've only been in existence for a few years apparently, I'm really quite confused, they wore blue (or was it khaki? It was always dark!). All I know is when I walk barefoot at night on cold wet grass I get flashbacks!

No one in our house was a draft dodger, three had actually deferred until after completing their degrees, the rest of us were waiting for our number to be called, but because we looked like terrorists, we were treated accordingly. Heaven knows what the press vultures would make of it today.

If they found a Penthouse magazine (banned in Qld in those days) charges were threatened and the "evidence" taken, but nothing ever happened. We suspected for a time they timed the raids so they could get the latest issue.

Times haven't changed.

In the meanwhile Good Morning Australia's poll has 84% reckoning he shouldn't be given his visa back, so that settles it I guess!

Harrummphhhf!!

P
:(

Exactly my point, it shouldn't have happened to you, in fact you would now days have a case of harassments against them. Do we want the police to legally have the ability to do this. I certainly don't. As the old saying goes "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

As for giving his Visa back, I reserve my judgment until ALL of the evidence is released, we are only getting the bits that they want to release. Most things taken out of context can be made to look bad by a spin Dr. Take this thread as has been shown above everyone who has participated could have what they have said taken out of context and have it used against them..

[Sebastiaan56]

Gra,

No point in writing to mine, she's quitting at the next election, I think I might re instate my claim of Aus becoming a fascist state (sorry Midge). Im sure there are still photos of me in ASIO files for attending a meeting after Whitlam was illegally sacked. Add a couple of posts and..... well I am a suspicious character arent I? :wink:

I can be surveyed with out anyone except the secret police knowing, siezed and held with no notification to my family, probably rendered, slandered by pollies under priviledge, crucified by the media, etc etc. Ya gotta love the lowest common denominator politics that keeps bidding up law and order. :((

Midge, I missed out on the draft by one year, Im sure they still have my photo from the moratrium marches as well. :D

Sebastiaan

[dazzler]

Further to the above.. See this in the age today

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bill-to-let-police-search-homes-bug-phones/2007/07/31/1185647903672.html

that is scary. If it is true it might get me off my !@#$ to write a letter to my local member again.


Yep, that is crap.

There are occasions where speed to get the information is paramount and perhaps there should be an interim approval where approval can be granted by those nominated but it should be brought before a magistrate within 24 or 48 hours as it is going to be tested in the courts later anyway:? .

It also allows laziness and a shotgun approach to investigations to creeep in .

not needed :rolleyes:

[Zed]

. Take this thread as has been shown above everyone who has participated could have what they have said taken out of context and have it used against them..


how could you take out of context my original post ? pretty black and white to me... lol!!!

[Waldo]

If we run our legal system on suspicion then we approach the 1984 scenario.(bleeding hearts liberal, believes in truth, not mob rule)

G'day Sebastian,

And what would the outcry be if a terrorist got through the net and succeeded?

AFP, "Sorry Australia, we knew about him and his plot, but the Civil Libs won out, we had evidence but we had to release him" Frak that!

I'm only referring to alledged or suspected persons involved in terrorism, nothing beyond that.

[Gra]

how could you take out of context my original post ? pretty black and white to me... lol!!!

alright monkeyboy... you get thrown into jail just because:U:U:U

[silentC]

I think this is an example of utilitarianism versus human rights. Utilitarianism strives for the best result on the whole for society, so under that philosophy locking up a potentially innocent person based on suspicion alone is acceptable because the end result might be that you save many people from death and suffering. This argument also applies to the bombing of Hiroshima. On the other hand, the human rights movement insists that the basic rights of humans take precedence over everything else.

I think that people sway towards one viewpoint or the other based on their level of empathy. Governments pretty much have to focus on the common good, and while individual members might have varying levels of empathy, I think they generally lean towards the utilitarian approach.

This type of philosophical question keeps some people in a job for life. Is there a right or wrong answer? There are probably answers that are patently wrong (locking up everyone who 'looks like a terrorist' - preventing anyone from a middle eastern background from entering Australia etc). But are some answers more right than others? Should we sacrifice the freedoms of some individuals for the sake of the common good, or should we protect their rights at the risk of them going on to wreak havoc?

Glad I don't have to decide.

[Zed]

what do you bleeding heart liberals want ? do you want a couple of hundered people at circular quay to be blown up before the govt gets tough ???? dont u realise that the terrorist/crims alway has the impetus and the law enforcement alwyas has to play catch up ? Thats why all these laws are created after the fact. even then i betcha they dont help stop things happening coz lets face it some bastard will always work out how to build a bomb, but the law may help clean up the mess afterwards!!!

sure the govt get it wrong - at least they have the right intention... fark!!!! get a grip!

[Gra]

what do you bleeding heart liberals want ? do you want a couple of hundered people at circular quay to be blown up before the govt gets tough ???? dont u realise that the terrorist/crims alway has the impetus and the law enforcement alwyas has to play catch up ? Thats why all these laws are created after the fact. even then i betcha they dont help stop things happening coz lets face it some bastard will always work out how to build a bomb, but the law may help clean up the mess afterwards!!!

sure the govt get it wrong - at least they have the right intention... fark!!!! get a grip!

Zed, not sure if you are posting in relation to my post this morning, but I dont like the idea as it bypasses the checks and balances. yes the law has to perform its task, but it also requires checks and balances in place to stop it going to far.

[dazzler]

A court of law threw it out.

The DPP withdrew the charges - only court appearance was a bail hearing :)

Lies half truth and spin.

Yep, there all around us :D

Sebastiaan

[echnidna]

and by making the legal processes public
terrorists are better advised about their own planning needs.

[Gra]

and by making the legal processes public
terrorists are better advised about their own planning needs.

By making them private allows for those in charge to abuse the process to their ends, remember we have no legal freedom of speech in this country (Yeah alright they already do)

[zenwood]

Apparently the number of Americans killed by the flu in 2001 was 12 times the number killed by terrorists. In most years, peanut allergies have caused about the same number of deaths as terrorists.

I take it from such statistics as these that the various new laws, powers, fears, etc., that have arisen are non-rational responses to minuscule risks. Presumably this is just what the terrorists want: to trigger jihad with the west based on---what?---emotional knee-jerks.

[TEEJAY]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by TEEJAY http://mt0.woodworkforums.com/images/button2/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?p=553829#post553829)
(Man was born to hunt and kill)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


I'm wondering if I'll have any of you to talk to tomorrow after this conversation's been intercepted??

P
:rolleyes:


Haven't killed anything more than a redgum and a couple of feral pigs in the past 48 hours too - twitch twitch

:D

[Zed]

not a valid point Zen, we have pharamcutical companies, medicine, health plans and hospitals etc.. to cope with medical issues.. or do you propose it would be a kneejerk to remove them too ?

how miniscule will it be when your kid gets blown to smithereens or dies of a peanut allergy ?

[Sebastiaan56]

I'm only referring to alledged or suspected persons involved in terrorism, nothing beyond that.

Understand that Waldo, what happens when they get it wrong? Further, now that the government has a "dob in a terrorist" hot line, anyone can allege anything about anyone. Seems a bit too free for all for me, particularly as the minister has power to act on his whim. Also supposes that the Govt has its citizens interest as its priority. You may have noticed that our mob has an election to election timeframe, little people dont matter in the getting re elected game. Goes for both sides, Im not letting either "L" party off. See how well they treat the disabled, the elderly, students, minor voting blocks.

I do not advocate letting terrorists off, no one wants to see the country blown up and suicide bombing is a crime against humanity, full stop. Just test the evidence, dont lock people up on a whim. The current behaviour reminds me very strongly of the stuff my Russian friends tell me about life before glasnost. Not as extreme yet but the rhetoric and the legal structure are being installed and I dont trust our pollies to act on our behalf.

And Zed, how many people die of cigarette related disease every year? Sanctioned by the government because it raises so much tax. I think Zen is right. The response is not proportional, if they were fair dinkum what would they do to the mob that kills thousands each year by smoking? Ever been there and watched a smoker die of lung cancer? Ever had an alcoholic friend ruin their life? Ever seen someone gamble away their kids food money? All good tax revenue and no proportional response in sight.

I dont know where the balance is, I know that our freedoms are being actively eroded and I dont like it. The response needs to be more intelligent and balanced and not based on populist politics. A centuries old principle of law is being chucked out to help an "L" party get elected,

Im with "C"....... glad I dont have to decide.

Sebastiaan

[dazzler]

and by making the legal processes public
terrorists are better advised about their own planning needs.

A gold star to our spiny friend.....:2tsup:

[Gra]

A gold star to our spiny friend.....:2tsup:

further to my comments earlier. Justice not only needs to be done, it needs to be SEEN to be done......

Secrecy harms the process

[Gingermick]

how miniscule will it be when your kid gets blown to smithereens or dies of a peanut allergy ?

We can't make laws based on emotive responses.
And I think religion is the root of all evil. :D

[echnidna]

The Magna Carta established the rights of englishmen and by extension all dominions, including Australia and USA.

But it did not establish legal rights for foreigners.

So should we have laws for Australians and another code entirely for foreigners, especially those who intend harm or mischief/

[bitingmidge]

what do you bleeding heart liberals want ? do you want a couple of hundered people at circular quay to be blown up before the govt gets tough ???? \!
Only if they are members of the press, or people who participate in Good Morning Australia Phone polls.

P
'

[bitingmidge]

and by making the legal processes public
terrorists are better advised about their own planning needs.

If I haven't said that already, then I meant to!

Kill reporters!

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

[Sebastiaan56]

So should we have laws for Australians and another code entirely for foreigners, especially those who intend harm or mischief/

Unfortunately the British experience appears to be that terrorists have been home grown. Once again, how do you divine an intention? Im not up to that one....

Sebastiaan

[bitingmidge]

Unfortunately the British experience appears to be that terrorists have been home grown. Once again, how do you divine an intention? Im not up to that one....

Yeah, but they all looked foreign and that's the main thing! :D

Chasers did a loverly thing on photographing "secure" sites. Dressed as an American tourist they were all but welcomed in for a meal, in an outfit so overtly Moslem it was funny, complete with obviously fake beard, they weren't allowed within cooee of anywhere carrying a camera.

It's easy to spot a terrorist!!

P
:D

[Sturdee]

And Zed, how many people die of cigarette related disease every year? Sanctioned by the government because it raises so much tax. I think Zen is right. The response is not proportional, if they were fair dinkum what would they do to the mob that kills thousands each year by smoking? Ever been there and watched a smoker die of lung cancer? Ever had an alcoholic friend ruin their life? Ever seen someone gamble away their kids food money? All good tax revenue and no proportional response in sight.


Sebastiaan

Irrevelent to the issue at hand.

As to the tax take according to my doctor the cost to the community for smoking related illnesses is about 10 times more than the tax take on tobacco. The reason it is not banned is that prohibition doesn't work.

BTW he also refuses to bulk bill anyone who smokes. He reckons that if they can afford to pay for smoking they should also be able to pay for their health care.


Peter.

[zelk]

BTW he also refuses to bulk bill anyone who smokes. He reckons that if they can afford to pay for smoking they should also be able to pay for their health care.


Peter.

Lucky that nasal cancer from woodwork is not a huge issue:D
Zelk

[Sebastiaan56]

Irrevelent to the issue at hand.

As to the tax take according to my doctor the cost to the community for smoking related illnesses is about 10 times more than the tax take on tobacco. The reason it is not banned is that prohibition doesn't work.

BTW he also refuses to bulk bill anyone who smokes. He reckons that if they can afford to pay for smoking they should also be able to pay for their health care.


Peter.

Hi Peter,

Relevant in that the response is not proportional to the threat. If terrorism is a societal cost (which it must be) then the reponse should be proportional to the cost. Same as smoking etc. Im trying to highlight the blatant hypocrisy in the situation which is why the presumption of innocence is so readily discarded so that the "L's" can court our vote.

We know prohibition doesnt work but it still appears to be a large proportion of our pollies activities. Prohibition on terrorism doesnt work either,

Sebastiaan

[Sturdee]

Hi Peter,

Relevant in that the response is not proportional to the threat. If terrorism is a societal cost (which it must be) then the reponse should be proportional to the cost.
Sebastiaan

Fair enough Sebastiaan.


But society considers some crimes and threats to its wellbeing greater than others. Hence those crimes and threats are treated different from others.

For instance, if you have an accident and stop and render assistance the punishment is minimal but make it a hit and run and the book is rightly thrown at you.

If you defraud a company with clever and creative accounting you are treated much more leniently than if you go and rob a bank.

Similarly with terrorrism. The laws, by its very nature, need to be more restrictive to fight that crime against our society. Sometimes we get it wrong but hopefully most of the time we get it right.

However there may be a need for appointing a permanent royal commissioner to review and oversee the fight against terrorrism with regular reports direct to parliament.


Peter.

[Waldo]

G'day,

I fully agree with Peter. :aro-u:

:2tsup:

[dazzler]

Secrecy harms the process

How :? :)

[Gingermick]

Makes it harder for the busy bodies :doh:

[dazzler]

Unfortunately the British experience appears to be that terrorists have been home grown. Once again, how do you divine an intention? Im not up to that one....

Sebastiaan

Acts in preparation. Police V Edwards Case Law.

About a man, a horse, a box and a distinct lack of pants .......I kid you not :p

[Gra]

How :? :)

If people dont trust the process they wont follow the process, and secrecy breeds distrust and can also breed fear

[dazzler]

Start Quote
Hey MH

Do you let him leave?. What if he was part of a cell here? Are there other members ready to attack here? Has he left a device (car bomb?) here that is ready to go?.

Of course you would have to interview him (as they did) if he was suspected of being part of a terrorist cell:rolleyes:. However, it became obviously apparent to us anti-Howard supporters that this was a botched job as time went by. Like the main evidence against him was it was supposedly his sim card that would be used to detinate the bomb. But it wasn't and they (the investigators) knew of that early in the peace but of course they didn't want to look stupid in their case so they spent time tying to discredit the poor guy. Do you remember that one of the ivestigators wrote details on some paper but tried to hang it on the poor doctor:((.

Hard questions. How would you deal with it. (MH leaves it to others but whines on the way :rolleyes:). Poor old Dazzler (who comes across as being a racist) is disappointed that his beloved Howard will be on his way after the next election. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pass the poison chalice over to Costello as soon as it gets through his thick head that it will lose in a landslide. Remember Dazzler as a citizen of this country I have equall as yours. You were just fortunate to have been born here.

Let him go and hope nothing happens. Let india deal with it?. Please show the text where I said he "should not have been interviewed".

End Quote


Sorry MH just found this, didnt mean to seem rude. For some reason your post wouldnt quote properly so I have block copied it. Your qoute is above.

How do you interview him :? . He is about to get on a plane to india. There is no right to interview him, he is free to leave, unless he is either arrested or detained. There was nothing about his sim card being used or planned to be used to detonate a car bomb. There was no main evidence. Just circumstantial evidence that he was questioned about.
The investigator made a mistake during the interview by referring to a photocopy of a page of his notebook that had writing on it. The dr stated it wasnt his so the D/S went and checked, came back and corrected it on tape.

FYI, frequently an interviewer will place an exhibit (say the notebook) in a sealed bag to show the suspect, and hand a photocopy of the document in question to the suspect so they can refer to it. They will often write on the police copy questions and lines of inquiry to prompt them during a lengthy interview.

Now you have to read this bit slowly, cause its important. The charges were dropped because it is not clear whether or not the alleged suspects in the UK belonged to a declared terrorist group. If the group is linked to a declared terrorist group then they will most probably reinstate the charge. It had nothing to do with the location the sim was found. This is why the charge was "recklessly" which removes the intent componant of the higher charge. IMO it would be a long bow to get up on anyway. Just another example of the media misreporting the facts.


Now to the more serious bits;


1. Please explain how I come across as racist, what comment can you point to that is racist or implies racism on my part?


1a. Perhaps others on the board can point to it so that I can apoligise to everyone. :)


2. Where have I suggested or intimated that I love Howard. What comment can you point to that shows this?


3. How does the fact that I was born here have any bearing on what I have said?


4. Once again, if you were the investigator, what would you have done at the airport given the concerns that had been raised about him? Concerns great enough for a pass alert to have been granted under the conditions explained earlier.

cheers


dazzler (who grew up being called "wogboy" in a small country town by our indigenous people :rolleyes: )

Here Metal Head, Metal Head, Metal Head.


Here Metal Head.


Where is he :? .

Here Metal Head:)

[Sebastiaan56]

But society considers some crimes and threats to its wellbeing greater than others. Hence those crimes and threats are treated different from others.

and,

Similarly with terrorrism. The laws, by its very nature, need to be more restrictive to fight that crime against our society. Sometimes we get it wrong but hopefully most of the time we get it right.

However there may be a need for appointing a permanent royal commissioner to review and oversee the fight against terrorrism with regular reports direct to parliament.


Peter.


Hi Peter/Interested parties,

I thought I would apply a risk assessment of the type beloved by corporate Risk Management types. This one is good enough http://www.energyinst.org.uk/heartsandminds/docs/ram.pdf Probability is very low, severity is major to high with multiple injuries. Important point is that the threat is not extreme. Now Im sure that this is not how the military would approach it as the injuries would be civilian, but in a former corporate life with risk management responsibilities I would have had a ton of trouble if there was more than planning at a senior level undertaken. ie we wouldnt have trained the workforce in specifics of the plan, only management and various site security teams. The bulk of the response would be left to Corporate Communications and the Emergency Services.

Looks a bit like the real planning Ive seen by the Govt. Seems quite reasonable and logical. The issue is the spin, unfortunately the whole lot is now politicised and subject to the usual law and order bidding wars. The way we approach prosecution (the subject of the thread) is the casualty of these bidding wars.

Agree about a Commissioner, though he would need to have a lot of patience and wisdom. If of course there ever was an attack, the Govt would have neatly passed the buck, sounding safer all the time isnt it :wink:, to be a pollie that is....

Sebastiaan

[dazzler]

Fear is a funny thing.

There was a coronersl report/study came out a few years ago from the US on risk of death or causes of death in the US.

The one I chuckled at was the "abducted and murdered child" occurances, which the western media is obsessed with, was six times less likely to occur than being struck by lightning :oo: .

"Today on Oprah, LIGHTNING.....THE HIDDEN KILLER......IS YOUR CHILD SAFE..."

:p

[bitingmidge]

On that, more Americans have drowned in the bath than have been killed by terrorists.

Will someone write to Oprah about that?

P
:D

[silentC]

So what d'ya think? Is the Howard government manipulating the xenophobia and prejudice of the average person to further the party's political agenda? Or are they simply xenophobic and prejudiced themselves? Or both?

[Gingermick]

Please explain?

[silentC]

Are they pretending that terrorism is a bigger threat than it seems to be because they want us to be afraid, and therefore easier to control, or because they are actually afraid of terrorists?

How's that Pauline? :wink:

[Gra]

Are they pretending that terrorism is a bigger threat than it seems to be because they want us to be afraid, and therefore easier to control, or because they are actually afraid of terrorists?


Yes.....

[dazzler]

Is there a threat of terrorism to australia?.

Well there is one man in gaol on a 21 year stretch for planning such an act.

There are two bunches of men on remand in Sydney or Melbourne of which the courts agree there is a case to be heard.

There is a female on remand in sydney on similar charges where the courts have determined there is a case to be heard.

There are some on remand in Melbourne for supporting the Tamil Tigers which is a terrorist group.

So yes there is a threat. The threat is small statistically.

The "war on terror" is politically driven. However I dont think these laws are politically driven but made in response to a perception (rightly or wrongly) that there is a need to detain someone in "special" circumstances.

Would still love somone to offer an alternative to our recent dr friends situation. :roll:

cheers


dazzler

Now wheres Metal Head....here metal head:p

[bitingmidge]

Are they pretending that terrorism is a bigger threat than it seems to be because they want us to be afraid, and therefore easier to control, or because they are actually afraid of terrorists?
No. They understand that the press is a bigger threat than terrorism, and they are afraid of the press.

Put simply, they get better press from what they are doing rather than taking the risk that I may have concealed a burning car in my belt when last I flew. That's the only reason I can think of for them wanting to xray it.

I read a thesis a year or two ago, written by a PhD person somewhere in the US, as part of his Doctorate in studying the impact of things, which put forward the proposition that INCITING FEAR OF TERRORISM should be illegal.

The thesis argued that many of the "window dressing" security measures, (when was the last time a nail file or even a pocket knife was used in a plane hijacking?) did nothing other than to incite fear of terrorism, giving terrorists a small victory in their campaign.

If you want to see real terror at work, check out the stats on the number of American's killed by law enforcement officers, compared to terrorists!

Cheers,

P (still plugging censorship!)
:D

[dazzler]

If you want to see real terror at work, check out the stats on the number of American's killed by law enforcement officers, compared to terrorists!

Cheers,

P (still plugging censorship!)
:D


Yes, but they were all bad :D :p .

[Grunt]

I think the governments love Terrorism as it is a way of controlling the population, gives the people something to hate and keeps governments in power as it did with our current government.

Did anyone see the SBS (BBC) series the Power of Nightmares?


The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, is a BBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC) documentary film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film) series, written and produced by Adam Curtis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis). The series consists of three one-hour films, consisting mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis's narration, which were first broadcast in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) in late 2004 and have been subsequently aired in multiple countries and shown in several film festivals, including the 2005 Cannes Film Festival (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannes_Film_Festival).
The films compare the rise of the American Neo-Conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Conservative) movement and the radical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_terrorism) Islamist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism) movement, making comparisons on their origins and suggesting a strong connection between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda), is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries — and particularly American Neo-Conservatives — in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian) ideologies.
The Power of Nightmares has been praised by film critics in both Britain and the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States). Its message and content have also been the subject of various critiques and criticisms from conservatives and progressives.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares)

You can view it on YouTube. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Power+of+nightmares&search=Search)

[Gingermick]

How's that Pauline? :wink:

Condescension almost deserving of a reddie :D:oo::D

I'm not xenophobic, I'm Xenaphobic. Its a condition which leads me to get irate in the face of awful telly shows.

[bitingmidge]

Shouldn't xenophones be discussed in the Musical Instrument forum?

P
:?

[Big Shed]

Shouldn't xenophones be discussed in the Musical Instrument forum?

P
:?

He's a politician (http://www.xen.net.au/) in SA!!!:D

[Grunt]

Shouldn't xenophones be discussed in the Musical Instrument forum?

P
:?

Yes but I wish you wouldn't harp on about it.


:D

[Gra]

Yes but I wish you wouldn't harp on about it.


:D

You playing a differnt tune now??:q

[Gra]

found this and it seemed apropriate.

[dazzler]

found this and it seemed apropriate.



:D

[silentC]

Is there a threat of terrorism to australia?
I don't think anyone really doubts that, do they? Given all the stuff that has gone on elsewhere in the world, why would we think we are any 'safer' from it here?

It's more a question of whether the response is proportional to the risk. When you think about the number of situations in which the police's 'hands are tied' why this particular cause to 'free them up'? What other situations are there in which someone can be taken into custody on suspicion that they intend to commit a crime, or might know someone who intends to commit a crime?

[Gingermick]

Well then the system would just be completely overwhelmed. Just think, they could abandon sniffer dogs outsides raves and just arrest everyone on suspicion of wanting to take expensive waste of money ecstasy

[SPIRIT]

One mans terrorist is aonther ones freedom fighter:oo:

[Sebastiaan56]

The "war on terror" is politically driven. However I dont think these laws are politically driven but made in response to a perception (rightly or wrongly) that there is a need to detain someone in "special" circumstances.

Would still love somone to offer an alternative to our recent dr friends situation.


Hi Dazzler,

Metal Head may have moved on, I havent. Some coments on our Dr's situation. The moment the media got hold of it, well, we know what happens with perceptions of innocence etc. Big mistake that one, makes it difficult for those of us who are not in possession of all the facts, including the media. But the alternative, called rendition, is much worse. There has been a book published by one of the lawyers defending Guantanamo suspects, here is how I found out about it. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2007/1997840.htm Even Pinochet or Stalin would have been proud of the place.

Perhaps another way it could have been handled. Get a court order based on reasonable suspicion to conduct the monitoring. Monitor every breath the guy makes. Corroborate the evidence from Scotland Yard while watching him. He had a one way ticket to India, big deal, one way is often the cheapest way to fly. He had a good job in Aus and probably would have returned, tell the Indian authorities and send a spy after him. Then, when there is proof, throw the book at him. Holding him to gather the information to prosecute must put insane pressure on those gathering the evidence, particularly if they have been indoctrinated the way those poor military geeks at Guantanamo have. The DPP dropped it, how profoundly embarrasing for the whole system.

Now, would you trust Indian military?, I dunno either, having spent some time there, I got the impression that most people were for sale.

I think and independent process is needed before the arrest. The whole thing smells of knee jerk by well meaning professionals.

My concern has been and remains the freedoms that I have enjoyed. The freedom to argue about this stuff, probe and come to a considered opinion (try this converstion on a Chinese website). The presumption that I am innocent in the face of a paranoid political environment. The freedom to ask radical Muslims (or any radical other for that matter) to explain their views without being painted as an associate. I think we have it good, I want to keep it that way,

My two bob's (again)

Sebastiaan

[dazzler]

Hi Sebastian

I agree with that. Truly Ruly :D .

Except the worry that his departure (rapid and maybe legit) could be because he has completed his acts in preparation and is trying to get out before it occurs. A long bow to draw of course.

The big difference that I had found as an investigator was the change in focus from "who did what" to "What if?". A major shift in thinking from response to proactive.

Anyways I have enjoyed the debate and thankful we can have it in this great country. What was disappointing was being slagged that I sounded like a racist and was a "howard lover" when anyone who has followed the threads over the past couple of years, particularly in orange room, would be aware of my negative views on Iraq and the stupidly named "war on Terror" :rolleyes: :(( .

cheers

dazzler

[bitingmidge]

What was disappointing was being slagged that I sounded like a racist and was a "howard lover"
and being a howard lover is the unkindest cut of all!

Don't worry Dazzler, you're with 46% of the population, and probably come election time, 50.000001%.

Of course now our Mr Beattie's distracted him, who knows what the terrorists are up to!

:D :D :D
P

[silentC]

I love John Howard too. He was great in Sea Change!