Seven bullets to the head should be enough to stop any terrorist
Even someone who is not a terrorist
John Howard's new terror laws include a free shoot-to-kill provision, we are now told. "The president of the NSW Law Society, John McIntyre, said the provision, still in a draft form, would take away an individual's "fundamental freedoms". (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/shoot-to-kill-provisions-open-to-abuse/2005/10/20/1129401348810.html)
Yep, it sure took away Jean Charles de Menezes' fundamental freedoms. "The electrician looked "relaxed and normal" on the [London] Underground platform, the family said, before armed officers fired at least seven bullets into his head and shoulders at point blank range." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1803519,00.html) Since Howard doesn't particularly like to say "sorry", do you suppose he'd at least utter a "oops"?
Howard explained the necessity for the provision as follows, "If this doesn't get passed there will still be the common law provisions that will apply. The difficulty will be is that the police will be less certain as to what their legal position is and that is not necessarily a fair thing for the police force and it's not necessarily a just outcome for the public." (SMH, id.) Having a shoot-to-kill policy in London sure gave the police the certainty they needed to cut down Mr de Menezes.
"Instead of wide-ranging discussion the Government has sought to nobble the field in secret and to prevent debate," [former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser] said in a speech at the State Library of Victoria last night. "The laws should be opposed because they provide arbitrary power which would be dependent on trust, a trust that has not been earnt." Mr Fraser questioned whether the new powers in the draft legislation would be effective in the fight against terrorism, and said they should not be employed in a democracy.
"These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature with lack of judicial oversight should not exist in any democratic country," he said.
"Mr Fraser is also critical of the Labor Party for going along with the underlying assumptions of the new powers, which are that "we cannot fight terrorism and adhere to the basic principles of justice and democracy" and that "certain people are outside the law and do not deserve justice". (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/debate-stifled-on-undemocratic-laws-expm/2005/10/19/1129401317128.html)
Image found at http://www.scifistation.com/images/warner_images/target_practice.jpg
John Howard's new terror laws include a free shoot-to-kill provision, we are now told. "The president of the NSW Law Society, John McIntyre, said the provision, still in a draft form, would take away an individual's "fundamental freedoms". (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/shoot-to-kill-provisions-open-to-abuse/2005/10/20/1129401348810.html)
Yep, it sure took away Jean Charles de Menezes' fundamental freedoms. "The electrician looked "relaxed and normal" on the [London] Underground platform, the family said, before armed officers fired at least seven bullets into his head and shoulders at point blank range." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1803519,00.html) Since Howard doesn't particularly like to say "sorry", do you suppose he'd at least utter a "oops"?
Howard explained the necessity for the provision as follows, "If this doesn't get passed there will still be the common law provisions that will apply. The difficulty will be is that the police will be less certain as to what their legal position is and that is not necessarily a fair thing for the police force and it's not necessarily a just outcome for the public." (SMH, id.) Having a shoot-to-kill policy in London sure gave the police the certainty they needed to cut down Mr de Menezes.
"Instead of wide-ranging discussion the Government has sought to nobble the field in secret and to prevent debate," [former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser] said in a speech at the State Library of Victoria last night. "The laws should be opposed because they provide arbitrary power which would be dependent on trust, a trust that has not been earnt." Mr Fraser questioned whether the new powers in the draft legislation would be effective in the fight against terrorism, and said they should not be employed in a democracy.
"These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature with lack of judicial oversight should not exist in any democratic country," he said.
"Mr Fraser is also critical of the Labor Party for going along with the underlying assumptions of the new powers, which are that "we cannot fight terrorism and adhere to the basic principles of justice and democracy" and that "certain people are outside the law and do not deserve justice". (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/debate-stifled-on-undemocratic-laws-expm/2005/10/19/1129401317128.html)
Image found at http://www.scifistation.com/images/warner_images/target_practice.jpg
Labels: Collateral damage, Terror and other frightening things
posted by Guambat Stew at Thursday, October 20, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home