Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Emperor Fadeaway]

I know, but until some cases get before a court we don't have much guidance as to what constitutes 'reckless'.

I suspect recklessness goes above merely 'failing to make sure you're not giving money to a terrorist'. There's a parallel with driving - there's breaching your duty of care to other drivers, and there's reckless driving. One's a more X-TREME version of the other I suppose.

Oh give me a break Nick.  The laws are only there to give the authorities greater ability to prosecute people who they are already aware are guilty via observation/intelligence etc.  If you give money to a terrorist and you didn't have a clue, then you won't be prosecuted.  Even if you are actually in breach of the letter of the law.  No need to freak out.

[Nick 2]

Those same laws can be used to make an example of people who don't like the State, are effnik, and are entirely unrelated to terrorists. Like me! Asshole.

[Emperor Fadeaway]

Oh yes, and if they think that one day you might commit a terrorist act, they can lock you up too. A good way to suppress political rivals - used in many a regime, and now we have it.

I guess you're opinion would be more credible if Kevin Rudd got lucked up tomorrow.  Until that happens, you're just talking nonsense.

[thammydigital]

the real intention of the laws creation is that you would be giving away a large sum of money to a dodgy organisation, or that you sign over a cheque directly to a terrorist organisation. on the other hand, technically they can prosecute you if you give one of your mates $10 for lunch and he puts it in a c4 fund, and later he gets caught, not necessarily of commiting a terrorist act, but of planning an act.

nick, yeh the act also states that you can receive max 7 years in jail for anti-sedition(speaking against the crown). so be careful what you say/post about johnny!(although once again it is intended for radical terrorist groups, it can be applied to anyone)

fadeaway, yes i know they have nothing on him because of the date when he was in afghanistan, and as such we both know thats why he's in a military court and not a criminal court

[Emperor Fadeaway]

Those same laws can be used to make an example of people who don't like the State, are effnik, and are entirely unrelated to terrorists. Like me! Asshole.

AHHAHA!  Of course they can be.  But I can assure you that they're only there to prosecute people who deserve to be prosecuted, but could otherwise hide behind some dodgy lack of evidence argument to escape prosecution.  Our legal system was never designed to deal with these sorts of activities, and once it becomes known that it may need to deal with such activities then changes were required.  It doesn't mean that these laws will be used against every citizen simply because they exist, it will be used only for the purposes for which it was intended.  Go have a nice warm glass of milk!

Of course you may well ask, what guarantees do you have.  Well, none.  Just trust me.  

[berny]

Oh give me a break Nick.  The laws are only there to give the authorities greater ability to prosecute people who they are already aware are guilty via observation/intelligence etc.  If you give money to a terrorist and you didn't have a clue, then you won't be prosecuted.  Even if you are actually in breach of the letter of the law.  No need to freak out.

That's a biased assumption. And a nieve one.

Are you critical of any US or Australian anti-terrorism measures/legislation?

[Nick 2]

My worthy fellow I'd trust you but you're not in a position to apply those laws or not as you see fit so there wouldn't be much point in that.

You do have a point though. Why hasn't the govt been locking up its enemies? I would have thought Sheik Al Hilalthingy would have copped a bullshit charge by now.

[Emperor Fadeaway]

That's a biased assumption. And a nieve one.

An assumption, by definition, is biased.  There is no such thing as an unbiased assumption, because if you're assuming something, then you're putting yourself into the situation and pulling something out of your arse that suits you.  So, it will always have your bias on it, will it not?

Are you critical of any US or Australian anti-terrorism measures/legislation?

I don't even believe I'm even aware of every single anti-terror measure or piece of legislation.  I'm in favour of all the one's I am aware of, because I understand the necessity of them, and do not feel my civil liberties are being infringed upon one little bit.

[thammydigital]

My worthy fellow I'd trust you but you're not in a position to apply those laws or not as you see fit so there wouldn't be much point in that.

You do have a point though. Why hasn't the govt been locking up its enemies? I would have thought Sheik Al Hilalthingy would have copped a bullshit charge by now.

they know he poses no real threat. they essential can't prosecute him under the laws anyway because there is legal means to use the concept of intention of the laws creation, and the sheik would be able to argue that the law wasn't created with the implicit intention of preventing him from speaking in the manner he does(even if he is a fuckwit)

[Lord Biscuit©]

My worthy fellow I'd trust you but you're not in a position to apply those laws or not as you see fit so there wouldn't be much point in that.

You do have a point though. Why hasn't the govt been locking up its enemies? I would have thought Sheik Al Hilalthingy would have copped a bullshit charge by now.

While technically they could, it would prove vastly unpopular. The correct 'climate of fear' has to be created to get the population mindset behind such acts.....like they did with the refugees coming to Australia. The govt spent a lot of media effort turning refugees into unpopular entities within Australia, and since then have been able to lock them up a will. The US govt had their work cut out to create a climate of fear to allow them to invade Iraq - and they did it.

[Emperor Fadeaway]

My worthy fellow I'd trust you but you're not in a position to apply those laws or not as you see fit so there wouldn't be much point in that.

I'm just telling you what you should be thinking, that's all.  

You do have a point though. Why hasn't the govt been locking up its enemies? I would have thought Sheik Al Hilalthingy would have copped a bullshit charge by now.

Well yes, if one was to argue in favour of the laws, and against those who claim that the laws are a violation of our human rights and that everyone is going to get locked up without charge or hope of a fair trial and we'll all be executed at dawn and all the rest of the bullshit these weirdos from the left try to spout, then one need only point at our friend the Shiek and his crazy inbred mate Kayser.  They're getting away with their shit-stirring, so I guess the government isn't going to use the laws to lock up anyone who has a different opinion to them, are they?  Proof, pudding, eating and the rest of it.

[Lord Biscuit©]

I guess you're opinion would be more credible if Kevin Rudd got lucked up tomorrow.  Until that happens, you're just talking nonsense.

Goodness me, what has happened to your grammar?!?

The point is, if you're of middle eastern appearance and you are snapping photos of the harbour bridge, you may be detained or at least harassed. It has happened already.

[Fritz]

Goodness me, what has happened to your grammar?!?

The point is, if you're of middle eastern appearance and you are snapping photos of the harbour bridge, you may be detained or at least harassed. It has happened already.

Quite true bickie, but you have not been charged with any offence.

[DiddlySquat]

Let's face the obvious: it is all a political solution.

The poor guy has been detained in terrible conditions for 5 years, effectively without charge.

The US and Oz govts demonised him like crazy then realised that they couldn't prosecute him until they invented a law, which they've now done.

Hicks pleads guilty in order to get out of the terrible situation that he's in, and our govts get to save a little face.

Voila, everyone's happy (this last line is the only bit of sarcasm)

[Fritz]

But Diddly, the Australian Government has no control over this matter. He is being held by a foreign power in a country that is not their own for a crime that is undefined other than supplying materials to a terrorist organisation for which he may or may not have committed.

It is in the hands of the US Military court system. Good lukc trying to shake that one.