A few thoughts about the arrests
I don't have time to put what I'm thinking about this together coherently, but here's a few things.
1. I have no problem with last week's changing of the words from "the attack" to "an attack", because if you stop someone before they make an attack then you can't point to "the attack" they're to be charged with. But the timing of the dramatic parliamentary session was dodgy - intelligence agencies have wanted this for 18 months but instead we have to recall parliament? I'm with Bob Brown, it was a stunt to keep the minds of the masses away from other things. And then, after there was criticism they were just fear mongering, the next thing we know there's dramatic, news-cycle hogging raids? I'm suspicious. I'm alert. In fact, I'm darn alarmed.
Or maybe, it was just a stuff up - they're briefing the PM on the op and have to take the opportunity to again remind him that there's a word standing in the way of arrests.
2. The police and services who caught the people would be the same no matter who the government of the day is. This operation had been underway for years. The same public servants would have done the same thing if we'd kicked Howard out at the last election or the egregious Tampa election before that.
3. If, as NSW Police Commissioner Ken Moroney has suggested, the arrests have disrupted "the final stages of a terrorist attack", that's one thing - that implies planning and preparation, and that means some action has been taken by the accused to justify the arrests. However, if, as has been suggested, some of these people have committed "membership offences", which means their offence is merely being a member of an organisation, I'm not sure what I think about this; the whole idea of banning an organisation seems wrong to me.
It seems like saying this group talks about things that we don't want you to hear. We can't trust you to make the decision for yourself that what they're talking about is not for you. You are an easily-led child and we are here to protect you from yourself, even if that means retarding your development of critical decision-making facilities.
And now some of them are in court and it seems all they actually did was talk rather than act, so it's all very murky.
4. At least the accused are in court - civil courts - and we will get to hear what they were charged with. And they will be able to talk to lawyers and the Red Cross will be able to visit them. They won't be disappeared. They won't be rendered anywhere in a Gulfstream V.
5. Despite John Howard's weaselly-worded gloating, this doesn't justify the new terror laws. It seems from what the police are saying the only relevant issue was the "the/an" amendment from last week, which enabled charges to be laid before anyone had done anything. But I'm not sure why these raids vindicate passing a law that makes it an offense to criticise old Lizzie.
1. I have no problem with last week's changing of the words from "the attack" to "an attack", because if you stop someone before they make an attack then you can't point to "the attack" they're to be charged with. But the timing of the dramatic parliamentary session was dodgy - intelligence agencies have wanted this for 18 months but instead we have to recall parliament? I'm with Bob Brown, it was a stunt to keep the minds of the masses away from other things. And then, after there was criticism they were just fear mongering, the next thing we know there's dramatic, news-cycle hogging raids? I'm suspicious. I'm alert. In fact, I'm darn alarmed.
Or maybe, it was just a stuff up - they're briefing the PM on the op and have to take the opportunity to again remind him that there's a word standing in the way of arrests.
2. The police and services who caught the people would be the same no matter who the government of the day is. This operation had been underway for years. The same public servants would have done the same thing if we'd kicked Howard out at the last election or the egregious Tampa election before that.
3. If, as NSW Police Commissioner Ken Moroney has suggested, the arrests have disrupted "the final stages of a terrorist attack", that's one thing - that implies planning and preparation, and that means some action has been taken by the accused to justify the arrests. However, if, as has been suggested, some of these people have committed "membership offences", which means their offence is merely being a member of an organisation, I'm not sure what I think about this; the whole idea of banning an organisation seems wrong to me.
It seems like saying this group talks about things that we don't want you to hear. We can't trust you to make the decision for yourself that what they're talking about is not for you. You are an easily-led child and we are here to protect you from yourself, even if that means retarding your development of critical decision-making facilities.
And now some of them are in court and it seems all they actually did was talk rather than act, so it's all very murky.
4. At least the accused are in court - civil courts - and we will get to hear what they were charged with. And they will be able to talk to lawyers and the Red Cross will be able to visit them. They won't be disappeared. They won't be rendered anywhere in a Gulfstream V.
5. Despite John Howard's weaselly-worded gloating, this doesn't justify the new terror laws. It seems from what the police are saying the only relevant issue was the "the/an" amendment from last week, which enabled charges to be laid before anyone had done anything. But I'm not sure why these raids vindicate passing a law that makes it an offense to criticise old Lizzie.
posted by Jimbo | 9:30 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home