Tongue in check

Back in the olden days when Saddam ran Iraq, a lot of Iraqis ran away to Australia, and now call Australia home. It is not inconceivable that some of them may still consider Iraq a home, too. And whilst they may not have had fond feelings for Saddam, it may be that they do not have fond feelings for the occupation forces now controlling the country, either.

And in no way need they be considered Al-qaeda sympathisers or terrorists merely because they support a free, un-occupied Iraq.

But if they were to say anything that supported an indigenous "insurgent" effort to expel foreign occupiers, they can easily find themselves up against the "terror" laws of John Howard.

It could play out like this: One guy says to his workmate, "you know, I have to admit that I hope those guys kick those American's out of Iraq because, you know, mate, it ain't right that they invaded Iraq the way they did. I don't like bin Laden, didn't like Saddam, but I don't like George Bush, either. I think I'm going to send my cousin in Iraq a couple of hundred dollars; he says he's thinking about helping those guys get the Americans out."

His "mate" is alert and alarmed and notifies authorities. The authorities consider this a case of, in John Howard's words, "very dangerous and difficult and threatening circumstances". They want to find out more, so they take the guy into custody and detain him, without charge, without warrant.

The following quoted items, and Howard's words above, are from http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/terrorist-laws-to-lock-up-objectors/2005/10/14/1128796712300.html:

"Last month the states agreed to allow extensions of up to 14 days for detentions when a terrorist act is believed imminent." [A terrorist act includes financing insurgent forces, so his statement he might send funds to a cousin who might support the insurgents is at least arguably an imminent terrorist act.] "The suspect must then be released if no terrorist act occurs." [When; how would you know? What's to stop the authorities from picking him right back up since he was prevented from performing the act while in custody and now that he's free the imminent act could occur?]

"Detentions are secret but suspects are allowed to contact a family member or employers to say they are safe but, "not able to be contacted for the time being". [So, let's say this guy disappears and no one from work or anywhere else knows where he is. His wife and family is distraught. He is allowed his call and tells his wife, "I'm in detention and you will not be able to contact me for the time being."]

Bingo; he's done the crime. "If they disclose the detention they can be jailed for up to five years [for the simple act of disclosing they're in detention, regardless of whether the things they're being detained for are "legitimate"]."

"Under the bill, the Government can apply to a court for control orders on terrorist suspects who have not been charged. These orders include house arrest, preventing them using the telephone or internet and restricting their social contacts and work opportunities. Suspects can also be fitted with tracking devices. The suspect's lawyer can be shown the control order but not necessarily the evidence or reasons behind it. The orders can last up to 12 months and can then be renewed any number of times."

The SMH separately reported: "The Law Society of NSW said the federal government's rush to pass the draft laws through parliament is a misuse of power. "It's of grave concern that such important legislation which intrudes on individual rights is not given adequate time for public consultation and parliamentary debate," Law Society of NSW president John McIntyre said.
"The government's lip-service to basic parliamentary procedure means that potential flaws in the proposed counter-terrorism legislation are likely to go undetected and could be an unnecessary erosion of the fundamental principles of the rule of law." http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Antiterror-proposals-revealed/2005/10/14/1128796701861.html

Actually, it is a bit generous to even say the government paid any "lip-serve to basic parliamentary procedure." As Alan Ramsay explained, "What the Government is doing is killing any meaningful scrutiny of its proposed anti-terrorism measures, in alliance with state police forces .... The Government has not released the legislation. Parliament has adjourned for a fortnight. It resumes sitting on Monday, October 31. The new anti-terrorism bill will go before the House that week. What Hill was signalling on Thursday was a Senate inquiry - including a written report - restricted to, at most, eight days or, effectively, three days only. Hill made a three-minute speech in support of his announcement, offered his "regret" that there had been "very little consultation", then quickly left the chamber ...." http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/snide-sidestep-on-the-fast-way-home/2005/10/14/1128796703813.html

This is a government which is becoming corrupted by its absolute power. As my wife was saying last night, "I like John Howard. I've liked him. He seemed like such a nice guy. But this is very scary."