| Submit your comments on this article |
| Down Under |
| A.S.I.O Wants More Power To Combat Terrorism |
| 2005-05-19 |
| AUSTRALIA'S top spy has called for the removal of a sunset clause on tough questioning and detention powers. ASIO chief Dennis Richardson told a parliamentary inquiry today the continuing threat of terrorism against Australia and Australian interests overseas warranted removing the sunset clause. The powers are currently the subject of a sunset clause which requires they be regularly reviewed by parliament. "We propose that the questioning and detention powers become a permanent part of the suite of counter-terrorism laws enacted by the parliament over the past three years or so," Mr Richardson told the inquiry. Mr Richardson said Australia needed strong and balanced anti-terror laws to respond to the threat and the fact that they had not been in place until recently meant many terrorists had avoided court. "Laws must be in place before terrorists strike as it is virtually impossible to play legislative catch up after an actual attack or after an identified threat has emerged," he said. "Indeed that is one of the reasons but by no means the only reason why the great majority of people in this country who have trained with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups will never be held to legal account for their actions." Mr Richardson said the sunset clause should be lifted because of the nature of the terrorist threat, the quality of existing laws to protect civil rights and the ability of parliament to change the laws if needed. He said if Australia avoided a terror attack or planned attack this year it would be the first time that had occurred in six years. "In each of the five years between 2000 and 2004 inclusive there was either a disrupted, an aborted or an actual attack involving Australia or Australian interests abroad," Mr Richardson said. In 2000, Jack Roche - now in jail in Western Australia - planned attacks on the Israel embassy in Canberra and the Israel consulate in Sydney. In 2001 security forces disrupted a planned attack on western interests in Singapore, including the Australian High Commission. The Bali bombing occurred in 2002, followed by the disruption of a plan by Willie Brigitte to carry out an attack on Australian soil in 2003 and the Jakarta embassy bombing in 2004. "It is a long term generational threat," Mr Richardson said. "It will have its ups and downs, we will go through periods where not much from the outside appears to be happening. "We will go through extended periods without attacks. "However, given the nature of the philosophy and ideology that drives al-Qaeda and associated groups, given the continued attraction by small groups of people globally to that ideology, given the capacity for people to continue to be trained, it is inevitable that we will have - looking out - further attacks." Mr Richardson, who is soon to take up the position of Australian Ambassador to Washington, said all of the laws to tackle terrorism had been carefully considered by parliament and the public, and not rushed. |
| Posted by:Spavirt Pheng6042 |
| #2 what Ptah said. |
| Posted by: Gregorii Spembolov 2005-05-19 12:46 |
| #1 For once, I have to disagree with a, doubtless worthy and tireless, fighter against terrorism. One of the Pillars of Western Civilization identified by Dr. Hanson is civilian review. It takes many forms, such as elected officials reviewing the military and police forces, as well as voters reviewing the performance of their elected officials. There is nothing inherently wrong or fatal in requiring a periodic REVIEW of these power4s. What would be fatal would be a REMOVAL of these powers based on liberal delusions that the THREAT requiring that these powers be granted has evaporated, and so they are no longer necessary. The war on terror is unlike a real war, since we, the citizenry, would be able to judge for ourselves that the war is over based on criteria that can be easily verified (has the enemy signed the surrender? Have all their combatants turned over their arms? Do we have their wartime leadership in custody?). Not so with the war on terror, making voter review difficult to perform. Here's my beef: We are familiar with the blind distrust leftists have of Western civilization governments, and their blind naivete and blind TRUST of NON-Western or Western Leftist advocates. They may merit our blind distrust, but that would be a mistake. It would be an equally large mistake to blindly TRUST our governments, officials, police, armed forces, whatever to the point that we don't want to take the time to perform a proper review of what they do. I am not calling for trust or mistrust: I am calling for an INFORMED, not BLIND, trust and mistrust. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and based on previous performance, the best advice Comes from the Gipper: "Trust but verify". Assume good intentions and good behavior until proven otherwise, but DO make the effort to perform a review! |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-05-19 10:42 |