looks like I will still be here...... then again all they would do with me is send me to the loony bin
Printable View
looks like I will still be here...... then again all they would do with me is send me to the loony bin
Nuh! Gra's gone too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
P
:D :D :D
Ya all know what the problem is people?....
So dont do it......
Also, be nice to ya Mom and ya Pa.
Hi Dr Phil
:D
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.
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
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:
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldo
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 todayQuote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...647903672.html
that is scary. If it is true it might get me off my !@#$ to write a letter to my local member again.
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
:(
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
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..
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
how could you take out of context my original post ? pretty black and white to me... lol!!!
G'day Sebastian,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
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.
alright monkeyboy... you get thrown into jail just because:U:U:UQuote:
Originally Posted by Zed
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by echnidna
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.
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...2/viewpost.gif
(Man was born to hunt and kill)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Haven't killed anything more than a redgum and a couple of feral pigs in the past 48 hours too - twitch twitch
:D
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 ?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldo
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
A gold star to our spiny friend.....:2tsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by echnidna
further to my comments earlier. Justice not only needs to be done, it needs to be SEEN to be done......Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
Secrecy harms the process
We can't make laws based on emotive responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed
And I think religion is the root of all evil. :D
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/
Only if they are members of the press, or people who participate in Good Morning Australia Phone polls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed
P
'
If I haven't said that already, then I meant to!Quote:
Originally Posted by echnidna
Kill reporters!
Cheers,
P
:D :D :D
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by echnidna
Sebastiaan
Yeah, but they all looked foreign and that's the main thing! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
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
Irrevelent to the issue at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
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.
Lucky that nasal cancer from woodwork is not a huge issue:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Zelk
Hi Peter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
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
Fair enough Sebastiaan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56
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.
G'day,
I fully agree with Peter. :aro-u:
:2tsup: