Feeling threatened

Who determines if something poses a security threat? The government. Which is to say, the politicians in control of the government. Not Parliament. Not the courts. The pollies in charge.

Who determines if something poses a political threat? Same folks.

Who undermines genuine security threats by trying to hide political threats behind the skirts of national security? The press? Protesters? Nope, same folks.

Who do we go to if we question the decision that something is a security threat? (Come on... can't you see the pattern here yet?) That's right -- the pollies. The same folks.

The funny thing is, I heard Peter Debnam, the leader of the (opposition) Liberal Party in NSW, yesterday on Kath McKenzie's show yesterday (http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/my-mcabc.html), earnestly saying, without the slightest sense of irony, that the Labor Government of NSW repeatedly refused to publicly release reports on the (poor, unsafe?) condition of the state rail infrastructure, hiding behind the claim of national security. (See, http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,16745134-5001022,00.html.)

He's from the same party whose national leader refused to give any reason why Scott Parkin was deemed such a threat to national security that he was deported (http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/theyve-lost-their-marbles.html). Isn't that rich?

When is this little light of mine going to shine, I wanta let it shine, on that decision making process so we can feel secure our security is at stake and not some politician's?