Untangling the laws of terror Opinion Editorial | Spokesperson Scott Ludlam Wednesday 19th August 2009, 1:36pm in Peace & Security Terrorism Laws It’s rare to hear the phrase “war on terror” these days — it has been seemingly purged from the official lexicon as the superficial certainty of the Bush/Howard years gives way to darker and more ambiguous terrain.
“war on freedom terror”

- Image via Wikipedia

- Image via Wikipedia
Australia is still a nation at war: one and a half thousand troops on the ground in Afghanistan, backing NATO’s installation of a brittle democracy in a violent failed state where the distinctions between friend and terrorist change by the day.
“war on freedom terror”
But something is going on at home as well: a determined, coordinated expansion of the internal security estate that is permanently blurring the boundaries between institutions of defence, intelligence and policing.
“war on freedom terror”
Some of the thinking is laid bare in the most recent defence white paper: a highly militarised Australia stepping up to meet the threats of nameless Asian aggressors, while an expanded web of domestic security agencies wage an unseen war against the enemy within.
“war on freedom terror”
The forthcoming counter-terrorism white paper will no doubt provide a discrete glimpse into the workings of this secret war on terror that no longer has a name.
“war on freedom terror”
But we have some flesh on the bones already.
We know that spy agency ASIO will have doubled in size over four years and has a half-billion dollar headquarters under construction next to the defence complex in Canberra.
“war on freedom terror”
We know that Australians are, per capita, 23 times more likely to have their phone calls intercepted than United States citizens.
“war on freedom terror”
We know that a tight feedback loop of mutual self interest binds Ministers, law enforcement agencies and favoured media outlets who somehow manage to have photographers and journalists in place as raids are occurring, or in a recent celebrated example have the story rolling off the presses before the doors have even been kicked in.
The most telling sign of the Rudd Government’s intentions are that every word of the Howard Government’s complex and unwieldy terror laws are still in place, nearly four years after they were forced through the Senate in one fevered afternoon.
“war on freedom terror”
It has taken two years to get a look at the Governments’ proposed “reforms”, which arrived last week in the form of a 400 page discussion paper that looks very much as though it was rushed out the door in time to catch the aftershocks of the raids in Melbourne.
The debate since then has had a peculiarly unfocused character. The Australian editorialised that the Attorney General was softening the laws. The Fairfax media reported that the laws were being toughened up.
The Coalition accuses the Government of being “soft on terror” and “draconian” at the same time. In reality, the laws are being refined, tuned, the sharp edges knocked off and the subtle underpinnings embedded more deeply in the legal architecture that guides the work of the intelligence and law enforcement communities.
The Australian Federal Police will be able to declare an emergency and then enter premises without a warrant and conduct searches essentially free of judicial oversight. Terror offences will quietly expand to encompass racial violence and “psychological harm”.
The provisions in the Crimes Act that were used to detain Dr Mohammed Haneef for 11 days while the Government frantically worked out whether to prosecute or deport him will remain, although suspects will only be allowed to be held and interrogated without charge for an eight day week. The Government has said that this is about “achieving the right balance between strong laws that protect our safety whilst preserving the democratic rights that protect our freedoms.”
“war on freedom terror“
It is here that the argument rests most uneasily. If these “strong laws” really were protecting our safety, they would be hard to argue with.
“war on freedom terror“
The Australian Greens is a party founded on nonviolence. We condemn acts and threats of politically motivated violence without reservation.
“war on freedom terror“

- Image via Wikipedia

- Image via Wikipedia
The question is whether the continued ratcheting up of the security state actually makes us safer, or whether we should be looking elsewhere for the kind of “security” that seems so fragile in this complicated age.
“war on freedom terror“
Because they operate behind a firewall of operational secrecy, the Australian public has very little idea to what degree the rapidly proliferating acronym soup of intelligence, defence and law enforcement agencies are actually making us safer.
“war on freedom terror“
When mistakes do spill into the public domain — as they did with Dr Haneef, Izhar Ul-Haque or Jack Thomas, they shake public confidence not just in the agencies concerned but in the whole assumption that larger and better resourced secret police are the key to a secure Australia.
“war on your rights terror“
No doubt these agencies are staffed with talented and motivated individuals, some of them doing dangerous work to pre-empt violent crimes, their only reward the absence of some half-formed horror.
“war on your rights terror“
But this is no reason for centuries of hard-fought legal protections drawn up to protect each of us from abuse of state power to be so casually eroded.
“war on your rights terror“
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fa4d5afe-5574-4b58-b7c4-aa9c26ac771e)

2 responses to “Australian anti terror campaign increasingly anti freedom – Senator Scott Ludlum Greens WA”
Eric Carwardine
May 11th, 2010 at 12:47
G’day, folks
This is absolutely priceless!
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/841.html
Eric
Eric Carwardine
August 19th, 2009 at 19:32
G’day, folks
” … a determined, coordinated expansion of the internal security estate that is permanently blurring the boundaries between institutions of defence, intelligence and policing.”
To paraphrase a statement by Maggie Thatcher:
“I have nothing whatever to fear from the [external] Russians. The ones I am really concerned about are the [internal] voters who live in the same suburb as me. They can do me real harm.”
I am sure that hundreds of thousands of Rwandans, murdered by their neighbours, would have sombrely agreed.
It always has been, and always will be, the “enemy within” who causes the greatest grief. From the infiltration by Burgess, Philby, and MacLean to the Columbine school shootings our greatest distrust and suspicion will be directed at those closest to us. From Caesar’s assassin to the Mau Mau houseboy, from East Germany’s “Stasi” to Perth’s “dob-in” campaigns, the destroyer has never been far from the destroyed.
So we should hardly be surprised when “terror” finds fertile ground in our obsession with competition and a legal system addicted to adversion.
Eric Carwardine, in Perth, Western Australia
1 Trackbacks / Pingbacks
Australian anti terror campaign increasingly anti freedom … | Global Security Blog August 19th, 2009 at 21:39
[...] the original here: Australian anti terror campaign increasingly anti freedom … Tags: holocaust, israel, laws, occupied, opinion, opinion-editorial, peace, rights-situation, [...]