More Comments

Good luck guys! I've got a major
geographical - I cannot get there
from here! Is it for real?

Watch out for bullets in the back.
(shoot to kill is now OK)

"We ordered them to run, and they
just sat there, your worship.
What could we do? We had to shoot
them to preserve our freedoms."

Here is a chance for ASIO to catch all you terrorist-lovers in the one spot.

Good on ya for organising it!

Digger

Cranbourne

The so-called "constitution" is a meaningless document rushed through at the insistence of the U.S.A. because they are desperate for signs of "progress". Unfortunately, as I have said before, few Iraqis outside the Yank's Green Zone have read it. What's more, looks like the Shiites overdid the usual ballot stuffing! All it's doing is pissing everyone off!

"In Australia, any of us can be detained merely because authorities believe we might know something that we don't even know we know." - Malcolm Fraser Oct 2005

A betrayal of trust and liberty

A betrayal of trust and liberty
October 20, 2005
The Government and Opposition assume we cannot fight terrorism while adhering to principles of democracy and justice. Their folly is a grave threat to our freedom, writes Malcolm Fraser.

TODAY'S world is preoccupied with terrorism. How we in democracies respond is critical to the maintenance of our own values and to the ideals of liberty. There is a danger that Islam, which is essentially a peaceful religion, will be blamed for the actions of terrorists and that we will be increasingly divided by religion and race.

We need to understand that terrorism is as old as the human race. The Crusaders from Britain who fought against Islam in the Middle Ages; the Spanish Inquisition; the IRA and the Protestant militias in Ireland all practised terrorism; all were fundamentalist in their beliefs. The Chechens wanting independence are terrorists. People in some parts of the Philippines who want independence, were once called communists, then freedom fighters and now terrorists. The Basques in Spain; the Belgians in the Congo; the Portuguese and Spaniards in Central and South America; the Red Army and the Red Brigades in Germany and Italy in the late '70s and early '80s were all terrorists.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Many believe the war in Iraq has provided a new motivation for terrorists, to end the occupation of an Islamic country by an infidel army. To understand that there are different causes of terrorism is not to condone but is essential if we wish to overcome and end terrorism.

Because civilisation as we know it was so nearly destroyed during the Second World War, leaders of all major states believed they must strive and work to achieve a better world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was agreed in 1948. In the years since, protocols and conventions established under it were designed to build a law-based world. The International Criminal Court finally came into force on July 1, 2002. It is more than unfortunate that our response to terrorism has reversed much of that progress and leaders in too many countries do not seem to understand that that is happening.

These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight, should not exist in any democratic country.

The ASIO legislation of 2002 underlines Australia's official indifference to "due process" and to what until recently would have been regarded as universally accepted Rule of Law. We're the only democratic nation, I am advised, to legislate for the detention of people whom the authorities do not suspect of any wrongdoing or even wrong thought.

In Australia, any of us can be detained merely because authorities believe we might know something that we don't even know we know. The authorities do not have to believe we are guilty of any crime, or are planning any crime, or have consorted with any suspicious persons. How could such a law be drafted by the Government and supported by the Labor opposition?

You can be detained for one week but then on a new warrant, another and another and another week. Unless it is approved in the original warrant - and why would ASIO do that? - you are not allowed to contact your wife, your husband, your child, your mother, your father and, of course, not a lawyer.

If you don't answer ASIO's questions satisfactorily, you can be charged and subject to five years in jail. But the law is reasonable, it goes on to say that if you don't know anything, then it's not an offence not to tell ASIO anything. But you have to prove you didn't know anything and so the "onus of proof" is reversed.

You can be asked to produce a paper and if you don't, you also go to jail on prosecution for five years but the law goes on to say, being fair-minded again, if you don't have such a paper, it's not an offence not to produce it but you have to prove that you didn't have it. How do you prove you do not have something that you do not even know exists. Again, "onus of proof" is reversed.

If a journalist heard that you had been detained and sought to report it, he would go to jail for five years. If a detained person were released and talked to anyone about his or her experiences, subject to prosecution, five years in jail.

This seems to be a law for secret behaviour by authorities, for making somebody disappear. It is a law that one would expect in tyrannical countries and not in Australia. Do we do nothing about it because we believe it will not apply to ourselves? Do we believe it is only going to apply to people of a different religion who look a bit different?

United States authorities and others have, time and again, denigrated those in Guantanamo Bay. We have been told they are the worst of the worst, that they are terrible people, that they do not deserve the normal protection of the law.

People who make such comments clearly do not understand or believe in the Rule of Law as it has evolved through the ages. They have taken such views because they believe those in Guantanamo Bay and others are not "people" like ourselves. In a different day and a different time, but within the memories of many, we have heard those words before.

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the presumption that all people should have access to "due process" in a properly constituted legal system is no longer valid in Australia. It is not reasonable just to blame the Government alone for such laws. The Labor Party approved such laws. As a consequence of the Government and the Opposition basically agreeing, Australian law already provides for the abolition of "due process", of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. All this is already law.

Australian law, or lack of it, has already failed many individuals and groups. Among these we can include: Aborigines; people held in the Department of Immigration detention centres; an Australian citizen deported; Australian citizens wrongly held in detention centres without medical attention; a US citizen deported without "due process" and an Australian citizen being tried before a military tribunal. By the detention of the innocent, by the questioning of people known to be innocent by the authorities, by the right confirmed by the High Court with a majority of four to three, to keep a failed asylum seeker in jail for the term of his natural life, if he could not be returned to his land of origin.

Authorities in Australia already have the capacity for the exercise of extreme and arbitrary power without adequate judicial safeguards. Much of this involves the gravest failure of administrative and ministerial responsibilities. As shown in the Palmer and Comrie reports, the Department of Immigration has been at the centre of much of it. Two ministers have been in charge, neither minister is responsible. As far as one can tell, nobody has been held accountable. The people involved appear not to have mattered to the administration or to the Government.

Australia now has new proposals in front of it providing even greater power to the police and to the Government. Attention should, in particular, be turned to those provisions that allow for "preventive detention" and the use of "control orders" to arrest and to limit and monitor the activities of individuals. No cogent case has been made for the expansion of these powers, except a general one that it is necessary to fight terrorism. It would be reasonable to ask why, it would be reasonable to expect a considered answer. Do we really believe these powers will be effective in the fight against terrorism, or do we believe that the powers themselves are likely to lead to a sense of grievance and of alienation? These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight, should not exist in any democratic country. If one says that they will not be abused, I do not agree. If arbitrary power exists it will be abused.

All this has happened in a country which has not experienced a significant terrorist incident for many years. What would be our Government's reaction if this great city were tied up and disorganised by terrorist attacks similar to those which recently occurred in London?

The Government is really saying on these issues, trust us, but no part of the history of the Coalition's invasion and occupation of Iraq gives any member of that coalition the right to say on these issues: "Trust us." We were told there were weapons of mass destruction. There weren't.

More recently published British cabinet papers have made it clear that President George Bush had made the decision to go to war seven or eight months before the American people were told.

More particularly, after the Tampa, after the children overboard, the experience and treatment of asylum seekers, the abandonment of Guantanamo prisoner David Hicks, all suggest that any right to trust has been long destroyed. Concerning the Tampa and children overboard, the Government knew they were playing to the more fearful and conservative elements in the Australian community and with great success. The Government also knows in relation to terrorism that the public is concerned, even fearful and can be made more fearful.

It may be brilliant politics but will such laws make Australia secure? By its actions, the Government has long abandoned and lost the middle ground. The rule of law and "due process" has been set aside.

These new proposals should be opposed. No strong case has been made that they will be effective in the fight against terrorism. There are no real safeguards. There is no adequate judicial review.

The laws should be opposed because the process itself is seriously flawed. Instead of wide-ranging discussion the Government has sought to nobble the field in secret and to prevent debate.

The Government and the Labor Party have both assumed that we cannot fight terrorism and adhere to the basic principles of justice and democracy. They have assumed that certain people are outside the law and do not deserve justice. They are saying "Trust us" when they have given us every reason not to trust them on peace and war and on security for our people.

If we stand silent in the face of discrimination and in violation of the basic principles of humanity, then we betray our own principles and our way of life. I regret that many believe they must throw basic rights overboard to defend those same rights. Such views are wrong and will make it harder to overcome terrorism.

Malcolm Fraser was prime minister from 1975 to 1983. This is part of the Stephen Murray-Smith memorial lecture last night at the State Library of Victoria.

You lefties and your crazed conspiarcy theories. All because of your hatred for America and it's freedoms it has given the world.

Patriot

Anyone with even slight knowledge of the dirty activities of the Indonesian military in Aceh, Ambon, West Papua and East Timor (etc, etc) have always understood the connection with the phoney "war-on-terrorism". Successive Aussie governments are compliit in covering up this link... And on and on it goes!

Man, that's as true today as it ever was.

Bring him to Oz.
He can remove 10kilos of ugly fat
from the top of our leader too.

What uncanny power does
this little creep have?
Or is it that most Aussies
are so pathetic that they
suck-up to the Alpha-suckhole?

You would need to be totally
nutless to crawl to a putrid,
senile, sociopathic old maggot,
with his shrivelled nuts like
dried raisins!

Only a moron would expect any
real character in the type of
slime that rises to the top
of Aussie politics.

I have mentioned this already.
(see my FLU FUCKS FOOLS article)
But it may be unfair to the little
non-core loony if some REAL
problems interfere with his
"WAR OF TERROR" games.

Forget Iraq. Forget "terrorism". Avian flu will kill me and you.

But his lower lip is his foreskin! The old adage: Big men have big pricks, little men are all prick.

Remember: Hitler was VOTED into office. The Germans sold their souls to the devil then, ("Save us, Adolf, from the nasty old Jews and Bolsheviks!) just as the Americans, the British, and Awe-stralians have sold theirs now... History repeats... and the best/worst is yet to come... the only question remaining will be: which side are you on?

The Rodent's "logic" goes like this: to protect our enviable "way of life" and "freedom" we must sacrifice that freedom and ditch our way of life...

The Oz Prime Malignancy says that
shit-eating is very much underrated.

Just as true now as it ever was!

I think it's worth all the "terror"
just to see Howard stick his lower
lip out as he tries to put on a
"stern" look. I wonder how he'd like
me to grab it with a pair of pliers
and pull it over his head like a
fucking foreskin?

Fuck! That old WW3 stuff sounds hot!
Do we get to fuck the daughters first?
Not sure that I fancy Howard's daughter.

I'm still waiting for Johnny to go
a few rounds in the ring with Saddam.
Let's get some use out of these cunts!
(my money's on Saddam)

Do not forget:
Governments have an interest in
helping "terrorism" along.
Check out how Indonesian military
gets some useful pocket money
from Aussies by using the fake
"war on terror".
(SBS-TV "Dateline" program
"Inside Indonesia's War on Terror")

Yes, and it says so much about the Labor "opposition".

It's true, Howard IS a vile, vindictive creep... but what does it say about our nation when he has been re-elected so often? It is truly sickening to contemplate.

It seems those dimwits at the New York Times have finally caught up with XenoxNews.com

We said Syria was the new Cambodia months ago and I'm sure we copyrighted this comparison.

See you in court you bastards!

The little non-core lunatic could introduce
the little prince to the Dark Lord.

The first act will be filthy, as will the last.
BTW, where do journalists get the idea
that Howard has made most Ostrichlians
wonderfully wealthy?

44 is the number of the Suckhole.
Verily, I say unto you, John Howard is a cunt!

Now , you know I have never resorted to dishonesty on this site. Indeed I have waded into a swamp with you limp wristed, tree hugging, latte sipping lefty "intellectual" types with only the honorable intention of trying to inform you on what is really happening in the world.

So you know that I am being truthful when I state that the above statement is not from me.

Thank you,

Patriot
The Real Deal.

I thank you for your insights sir,
but did you notice that John Howard
is a cunt?

Whatever the "Aussie diggers" are fighting for in Iraq, it obviously is not parliamentary democracy. The Howard government is using it's Senate majority to silence debate, stifle criticism, and erode the very freedoms we are purportedly battling "terrorism" to uphold.

I didn't vote for the mother fucker!

Mr Chato Sir, you seditious document charging the Australian Commonwealth Government of providing funds and taxpayer monies to the terrorist organization known as the Indonesian Government through their auspices of the Indonesian military, is infamy, and defamy. This defamation of our leader in charge of the pack, august Prime Minister Howard is irresponsible, unreasonable, unkind, unfair, unstatutorial, incoherent, wrong, bad, deficient, without reason or rhyme. You Mr Chato Sir, are very much so in the same mold as those who preach, teach, purvey, and in any other way as can be perceived by those in high office, by those in power, by those who by reason of their good characters, by those with landed estates and marked investments in property and development: terrorism. Yes, Mr Chato Sir, you are as good as a gonner now, that the sedition laws have been passed in the Parliment of Australia and the Commonwealth and for that matter the very good subjects of blue blooded characters and any place that they should choose to reside; and as for you Chato, there will be no cover found, no place to hide, no place to run, as a terrorist prophet leader inculcating the young, spurious, dangerous, inventive minds of muslim readers, and any who would become a muslim, and any that should become muslim; with thoughts and deceptions of very abnormal and abhorent thoughts against the good health and well being of Prime Minister John Howard, and the country therefore of which he has command, and at his very approval you could find yourself locked away, under the ground, in a holding cell for many years to come, behind grates, behind bars, kept at bay, locked up for good, to keep you out of trouble, to stop you from causing any more mischief by posting materials that accuse government and the commonwealth of states of Australia from providing funds, monies, taxpayer support for the terrorist outfit (as you put it in your post) also known as the Indonesian Goverment, and who's work (as you placed in your post - it is as much of your work, as your dissemination of it) through the Indonesian military as left 100's of Australians, hurt, injured, disabled, dead. You Mr Chato Sir are the lowest lying dog in the land, you perfidious deceptor, you malignant mailer, to terrible treasonous terrorist providing and provoking muslim leaders, followers, martyrs, prophets, mohammadans with more materials necessary for them to act against the personal health, strength, wellbeing and in every other way the physical safety of august Prime Minister Marshall Master Johnathan Winstonian Howard. You are dreadful in your betrayal of this country Mr Chato Sir, and by the powers invested in the authority to put into custody those who would not fit well and proper into Australian society as found by the good services of John W. Howard and his ministerial colleagues and beneficiaries; you could well find yourself locked up and put away, and delivered into barren, dark, damp, underground chambers whereby you could be questioned for long periods of time about your other unnecessary and though debasing activities that go against the good, the very very good, of our country and those who serve it. Sedition! Sedition! Sedition! I count you out, I hold you to count, you Chato are no better than any backpacking bomb making muslim active and activity, beaming with squirming spite suicidal monkey-man with belligerant thoughts on his mind about causing grevious bodily harm to those who are only acting as tourists in foreign found lands. Your attempt to paint the Indonesian Government as terrorist sponsors, and their military as terrorist providers (with high grade explosive, military explosive charges) and through sponsorship the Australian Government and through office that of Prime Minister J.W. Howard causing the death, injury, displacement, infanticide, wheelchair bound crippling, bodily impairment, disablement of Australian citizens is abhorent to the highest degree. You Sir Chato, Sir, are less than a man, and more of a monkey, with your typing skills, and your emailing, and reposting of articles that you have purloined from foreign and suspicious parties and characters. I hold you responsible for you accusations. I hold your actionable for your debasing, denoucements of the good character and the fit and proper authority of august champion of all causes good and proper and fitting in the Commonwealth of countries, and the united Nations that of which character being Prime Minister John Westminister Howard and his party of loyal and fine upstanding ministers of the Crown (of thorns). By your leave, Sir, I shall take, and see you hung by a yardarm, and whatever army ard lanyard we can find. John Winston Howard is a military man, and Prime Minister, and knows how to defend the sanctity and provide for the sovereignty of our happy as you go, lucky as apples in the barrel country. Leave well enough alone and don't post here no more as you upset the unquestioning fools that take pots shots at the prime minister sitting duck. By your leave!

Did any of you left-wing intellectuals
notice that Howard is a cunt?

Maybe not, but John Howard is.
Give the Germans whatever they want,
but just keep that fucking pinkelwurst
as far away as possible.

Did anyone notice that John Howard is a cunt?

For some strange reason my will
to disagree has evaporated!
An adjective may be in order.
I suggest FILTHY (for a start).

John Howard is a CUNT

John Howard is a CUNT

John Howard is a CUNT

John Howard is a CUNT

War results in death. If it means a few Aussie diggers die in Iraq, then they have died for a just cause, protecting the black gold for George. Patriot

This is the sort of reply I would expect from Howard or Bush. If someone opposes the war in Iraq, then they must be terrorists. All you right-wingers (Fascists/Nazis) think alike. Anyway, you didn't answer my question: If you are a patriot, why are YOU not in Iraq fighting the terrorists? If you are too old (or too cowardly), send your sons. There is nothing more patriotic than having your sons butchered in war for their country.

Just good ole USA style cookin':
Spicy Anthrax with fried Ricin.

Thanks.

Poppycock. whats this guys name? Leibovitz?

Who would trust someone with a name like that.

The Iraqi resistance are the Terrorists. Don't you understand?

They must be eradicated so freedom can reign in the Middle east.

howard's got a hell of a lot of blood dripping from those evil old hands of his. long live the iraqi resistance.

Can't see a thing wrong with that!

Evil exists, as a certain deranged U.S. President has often proclaimed. In Australia, that evil has a name: John W Howard PM.

The terror never relents!
My poor little daughter tearfully
asks me, "When will the bad man stop?
Please make him stop daddy!"

And I try to explain how the spineless,
greedy dullards of this cuntry have,
in a fit of insanity given our freedoms
away to a filthy little non-core lunatic
who will not stop until nature stops his
evil little clock.

Good on yer, Digger.
Get down to the RSL with yer
ANZAC mates and sip a few beers
and be thankful that I don't get
your kids in my classes!
I would open their poor little
eyes a tad...