They've lost their marbles

When you first think about potential threats to our national safety, apart from natural disasters, you think about terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, possibly invasion from other countries near or far (history is full of examples; we can't assume anything here). Or you might think of armed insurection from domestic dissidents, like the Eureka stockade uprising, or even the rot of organised crime, like the mafia or drug gangs. It would take you a little while, I'd expect, to go through all your worries before you got to the intrinsic evil of spreading marbles. But, by golly, you'd be a fool to leave that off your list, let me tell you.

While Scott Parkin and his legal team were denied any information as to why he was deported from Australia (http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/sticks-stones-may-break-my-bones-but.html and http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/bad-deportment.html), Murdoch's newshounds seemed to have some kind of inside running on the story, or maybe they were just reporting speculation as fact, or maybe they were just juxtaposing fact and fiction. Whatever, "The Australian newspaper reported that ASIO believed Mr Parkin had been planning to teach local demonstrators tactics including throwing marbles in front of police horses, and freeing protesters from police custody." (http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Ruddock-wants-evidence-of-Parkin-leak/2005/09/22/1126982162596.html)

There are three disturbing aspects to that.

First, how is it that Murdoch's paper knew what the ASIO believed, if indeed they actually did and they weren't just engaged in a little creative jounalism? Even the Attorney General, Mr Philip Ruddock, acknowledged that if ASIO secrets were "leaked" that would constitute (yet another) threat to national security (oh boy, here we go with that one again; where does it end?). "Mr Ruddock said the confidentiality of such security assessments had to be maintained, adding that the implications of such leaks posed a threat to national security and personal safety." (Id.)

But that's really just a red herring. A second and more serious issue remains, does "teaching" protestors something that we've already seen on tv reports of protests elsewhere in the world, such as spreading marbles to make it difficult for mounted police, really constitute a national security risk?! If the law says that, the law is an arse.

Well, I don't know about the law, but the Prime Minister is quite prepared to back any such judgement, evidently. Murdoch's press reports:

"This man is not an Australian citizen. He was here as a foreigner on a visitor's visa," Mr Howard said on ABC Radio today. "We received certain advice that, in accordance with the longstanding practice of not disclosing the contents of security advice, a decision was taken, on advice, to deport him. "I am satisfied on the basis of what I have been told that that was the correct decision. I am satisfied that proper grounds existed for the man's deportation." Mr Howard denied accusations Mr Parkin's deportation was an abuse of his government's power. "Well, I don't accept that. And I respect your view but ... for reasons that are important to Australia's long-term interests and security I'm not going to break from the convention and disclose the security information I have been given," he said." http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16673230-1702,00.html?from=rss

But the really big issue is, what or who defines what resides under the star chamber cone of silence? History shows us that some threats to national security arise from within our own governments. How flimsy does a flimsy excuse have to be before it loses its immunities to sunlight? Is there no limit at all? And how would we ever know?

That's all very spooky to me.

Udate: More perspective here: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1467380.htm