By Secret 8 November 05
There have been a series of counter-terrorism raids in New South Wales and Victoria.
New South Wales Police Commissioner Moroney says more than 400 police officers have been involved in raids on 15 homes in south-western Sydney.
He says they have arrested six men alleged to be planning a terrorist attack in Australia.
"They're currently being interviewed by police and my expectation is that they will appear in Sydney courts this morning," he said.
So what is to show for it? Based on what evidence? I know it's a secret!
Nine arrests have been made in raids in Melbourne.
Commissioner Moroney says a terrorist attack has been foiled.
"I am satisfied that we have disrupted what I would regard as the final stages of a terrorist attack or the launch of a terrorist attack in Australia," he said.
Are you satisfied truthseeker? Well I'm not this is just another public relations exercise that no one can prove. But trust us we know best?
When I see evidence that's when I will believe Maroney the phony.
Related:
By Just Us 8 November 05
A man shot by police in fishing raids this morning is in a satisfactory condition after undergoing surgery at Liverpool Hospital in Sydney's south-west.
The man is believed to be in his 20s.
He was one of seven men arrested in the Sydney raids overnight.
Police say he was shot in the neck by officers at Green Valley after first firing on police.
The man is under police guard in hospital.
His injury is not life threatening.
New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma has told Parliament the shooting is under investigation?
"An independent critical investigation team has been formed to investigate the circumstances of this incident," he said.
"In doing their duty many of these officers put their own lives at risk.
But there is no such thing as an independent investigation team in NSW because police investigate themselves and cannot be relied upon ever.
The incident at Green Valley only confirms the direct danger these officers present to the community at large.
At this time my friends do not trust the police or your government.
Related:
By Wanda Fish 8 November 05
Wanda Fish calls on constitutional and civil libertarian lawyers to mount a case against Federal and State Governments for conspiring to overturn basic constitutional rights with the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005. These proposed laws break internationally recognised treaties on human rights, overturn the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence, and seriously threaten free speech and protest.
Open Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee
From an alarmed and alert journalist
Subject: Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005,
(1) Schedule 7, Sedition
(2) Constitutionality and State Legislation
I respectfully request the Senate Committee to consider my submission and include this submission in the Government record, as per my constitutional rights as an Australian citizen.
The duty of the Australian Government to safeguard the freedom and safety of Australian citizens is seriously compromised by this Bill, that has been described publicly as 'draconian' by State Premiers, members of the Government's party, legal experts, and journalists such as myself. Overall, the Bill removes basic democratic rights that the Government claims to protect in the 'war on terror'.
The Anti-Terrorism Bill in its current form directly contravenes several articles in the United National 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng) specifically articles 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, and 19. Should the Senate pass the Bill in its current form, Australia will be breaking its signed convention to these universally recognised international laws. In summary, the Terror Laws remove the following human rights: the right to be judged under the law as anyone else, the right to proper arrest and charge, the right to a lawyer, the right to a fair and public hearing, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to privacy, to right to move about freely in our country, the right to express anti-war views without fear of punishment or censure, and the right to mobilise support for protecting these rights.
While I am opposed to all major sections of the Bill that bypasses our judicial system and reverts the important democratic principle of 'presumption of innocence', I draw your attention to two specific issues of major concern:
(1) the expansion of sedition offences and
(2) the dubious constitutionality of using State based legislation and emergency services to over-ride important protections in the federal Constitution.
I am a peace activist who has publicly opposed the war and supported the plight of Iraqis who have suffered under the American-led invastion and occupation of their country. According to the proposed laws of sedition, I could be charged with 'supporting the enemy', even though Australia never officially declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan, but instead joined the Bush administration in a declaration of war on a subjective noun, terrorism. The impact and potential effect of the sedition laws will be to curtail investigative journalism that exposes the corruption and economic motivation of an ill-defined 'war' with invisible 'enemies'.
I am also an active volunteer with Amnesty International and note that even within the Bill's exception referring to humanitarian work, you still place the evidentiary burden on the defendant. This is a travesty of the basic principle of presuming innocence in a fair democracy, and places undue pressure on all volunteers and workers for humanitarian rights and equality.
The Bill also directly contradicts the Government's report 'Australia's National Framework for Human Rights: National Action Plan', published only a few months ago with a foreword by Prime Minister John Howard in which he claimed, 'Australia has a good human rights record. We enjoy a strong democratic tradition, a transparent and independent judicial system and a free press.' I submit that the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 overturns those rights. I will also be submitting a formal complain to the United Nations, and pointing out that the Australian Government is currently passing legislation that directly contravenes several treaties.
In the course of my research and consultation with legal experts about this Bill, I have read several notable legal opinions that claim the Bill in its current form is unconstitutional. The Prime Minister admitted this when he said publicly following the COAG conference that he required four of the Premiers to support the Bill and agree to pass state legislation so that certain aspects of the Bill could be enforced by State emergency services. The Prime Minister of Australia has a duty to uphold and safeguard the Australian constitution.
I submit that the Prime Minister, the Government Ministry, the Opposition Leader, and the State Premiers who support the laws are by their actions in supporting this Bill conspiring to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwalth of Australia, and should therefore be charged with sedition under the new laws.
As a concerned citizen who respects and obeys the Consitutional laws and our judiciary system, I pledge to protect and uphold my democratic rights. I therefore in good conscience will not honor or obey laws that I believe overturn basic democratic rights, agreed international human rights, and the freedom to speak out and mobilise action against a Government that is conspiring to remove those rights.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission, and be assured that I am not alone in these views or in my determination to uphold democracy.
Wanda Fish
Reference:
Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, Schedule 7, Sedition,
Urging a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities 15
(8) A person commits an offence if (a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct; and 1
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist, by any means whatever, an organisation or country; and (c) the organisation or country is engaged in armed hostilities 20
against the Australian Defence Force.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
Defence
(9) Subsections (7) and (8) do not apply to engagement in conduct by way of, or for the purposes of, the provision of aid of a humanitarian nature.
Note 1: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in 27 subsection (9).
http://www.eftel.com/~cleverfish
Related:
By Misha posted 8 November 05
When the 2002 ASIO bill was introduced to the Federal Parliament, it was analysed and debated for 12 months, sometimes by more than one parliamentary committee, leading to crucial changes and bipartisan support.
At the time, the Prime Minister declared that "through the great parliamentary process that this country has I believe we have got the balance right".
Since winning control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, John Howard has abandoned that "great parliamentary process", gagged debate, and skewed the balance dangerously awry.
Given that Australia is the only Westminster democracy without a Bill of Rights or the constitutional protection of free speech, the new legislation is ripe with the dangerous potential for the suppression of opinion.
With its unprecedented powers of secret arrest and detention without trial, the retrospective aspect of control orders, and extended definitions of sedition, the Federal Government's extraordinary new counter-terrorism legislation threatens our way of life no less than terrorism.
It has been noted that, had they existed at the time, the Government's new sedition laws would have criminalized support for the Vietnamese in the 1960s, for Nelson Mandela and the ANC in the 1970s, and for Xanana Gusmao and the East Timorese in the 1980s.
The recent report on Immigration Department bungles, cover-ups & cruelties (for which the Attorney-General - as former Minister for Immigration - and his replacement Amanda Vanstone - should by rights have been sacked) exposes the dangers inherent in further draconian legislation. Neither Mr Ruddock, as Attorney General, nor the Howard government as a whole, can be trusted with new laws of sedition, secret arrest and detention without charge or trial.
ASIO itself is infamous for its domestic stuff-ups (ref. the Bilal Daye scandal: victim of a botched ASIO raid, who recently received a financial settlement from ASIO to avoid an embarrassing court hearing).
The Howard Government's proclivity for secrecy, its record of deception, and its attempts to limit the availability of the draft anti-terrorism legislation and limit wider discussion does not encourage confidence in its ability to apply these laws "in good faith".
Related:
