We are *so* screwed, aren't we?
Nov. 7th, 2005 02:25 pmIt's good to know that we're being looked after.
Of course, this article, at theStalinist apparatchik hopelessly Left-biased ABC, mysteriously fails to mention the big thing about this legislation: that the main difference between what is proposed and what we've got is not the 'shoot-to-kill' powers, or that the army can be called out in extremis, but the circumstances under which the army can be put on the streets. Under current laws, the government requires intelligence of a specific threat. Under the new laws, they don't. It is the equivalent of the desperately important change of the word 'the' to 'a' last week. It means that the government doesn't need any actual evidence that there is any risk, and that martial law could thus be declared with the same ease that Iraq was declared to be guilty of having WMDs that, in fact, it did not. I went looking for The Age's predictably pinko anti-American polemic on this topic, but all there was was this:
But at least they kinda mention the relevant bit ... most of the way through an article that I missed several times over, because of an unhelpful -- arguably even misleading -- headline.
When Mim heard about this proposition last night, she went a little pale, and said that it is increasingly looking like Howard and his pet zombie are doing nothing less than legislating a military dictatorship/police state.
With all the best intentions, of course.
My two thoughts were:
'Trust me!' says ratbastard Johnny, 'My guarantee is my record!'
Yes, John (Children overboard -- The Tampa --The Pacific Solution -- WMDs -- 'Never, ever GST' -- '"Non-core" promise') it sure is.
Govt to arm military with shoot-to-kill powers
Soldiers with shoot-to-kill powers could patrol Australian streets to help fight terrorism under laws being proposed by the Federal Government.
...
Under the changes, the military would operate under 'rules of engagement' that include a shoot-to-kill provision.
Of course, this article, at the
Existing laws were "very limited" in dealing with a terrorist threat from the sea or air, Senator Hill said. He also said the use of Australian Defence Force Reserves was "very restrictive".
"The idea is if there is an event which is beyond the capability of the civil authority, the police, to handle … we want to be able to use the ADF flexibly and effectively to protect the lives of Australian people."
The Age believes that under the changes troops could be deployed if there was a potential terrorist threat rather than a specific threat.
But at least they kinda mention the relevant bit ... most of the way through an article that I missed several times over, because of an unhelpful -- arguably even misleading -- headline.
When Mim heard about this proposition last night, she went a little pale, and said that it is increasingly looking like Howard and his pet zombie are doing nothing less than legislating a military dictatorship/police state.
With all the best intentions, of course.
My two thoughts were:
- Wow, they're really putting a lot of effort into this IR smokescreen, aren't they!, and
- I wonder what the Australian Kristallnacht would look like.
'Trust me!' says ratbastard Johnny, 'My guarantee is my record!'
Yes, John (Children overboard -- The Tampa --The Pacific Solution -- WMDs -- 'Never, ever GST' -- '"Non-core" promise') it sure is.