Yes you can go to gaol for what you’re thinking
Terrorism laws - - Posted on February, 14 at 8:27 am by Ken L
Many people are seriously concerned about the new laws passed during the Howard years in the name of fighting the dreadful wave of terrorist atrocities that has made living in Australia such a constant nightmare. The latest prosecution only confirms those concerns.
Twelve people are being prosecuted for the offence of, well, looking like they might be up to something. Or at least thinking of it. They had lots of stuff that no right-thinking Aussie would own, like ‘”the terror manual” “the white resistance manual” and “the car bomb recognition guide”‘. They were thinking of making terrorist attacks on a railway station … or maybe a football ground (doesn’t sound like their plans had got to a very advanced stage). Worst of all, they had copies of speeches by Osama bin Laden!
All this might indicate that these were very nasty individuals who seriously intended to carry out a terrorist act. It may equally indicate that they are a bunch of nutters who liked to play let’s-pretend and who would never have hurt a fly.
Moreover, we’re told that:
The court also heard Benbrika asked an undercover police officer if he could get 500 kilograms of ammonium nitrate, a fertiliser than can be used to make explosives.
The Court was told Benbrika watched the officer test the detonation of 500 grams of the material at Mt Disappointment.
There is a suggestion of entrapment here, one that reflects an apparently increasing willingness by the legal system to condone situations where undercover police officers participate in dubious activities to gather evidence. The obvious problem, of course, is that police officers in that role may well cause or even encourage people to engage in behaviour that they would otherwise not have. Being able to stage-manage the crime must be a great way to get an impressive clear-up rate.
It’s not an open and shut argument by any means and nobody wants to allow maniacs freedom to blow people up. The problem is that we can’t come to an informed opinion about the extent of the threat because Howard’s mob never disclosed much information, and the material they did release was frequently shown to be a pack of self-serving lies. Russ has foreshadowed a wide-ranging inquiry into national security. I hope it’s conducted in public and that we finally get some reliable evidence about the extent to which terrorist threats justify overturning centuries of well-established common law principles.
Posted in Terrorism laws |
February 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Russ? He may be minister for everything but I’m sure he’s long since karked it.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Well, that’s the problem with common law, it isn’t just centuries of well-established legislation, it’s also the court judgments handed down, interpreting those laws over the years. Under present common law “circumstances”, it’d probably only be entrapment if the undercover officer offered the explosives without any previous interest shown by the defendant in obtaining it. Nevertheless, the new “anti-terror” laws are an abuse.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:27 am
What “suggestion of entrapment”? Drawing that from the mere mention of an undercover officer is unsupportable.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:51 am
You are also implying things will be different under Labor, they wont be, if the law isnt changed,even if, the court is open.Personally,I think, a much larger entrapment proceeded all this,and not one A.S.I.O. or other agent is involved accept directly Diplomats to the U.S.A. ,because if they were honest people,they would of suggested by now,even in Howards last moments as P.M. that the evidence is in that 9/11 was staged managed and all that followed is a singular set of predetermined lies and cover-ups,so then these people charged could then be seen as willing to be part of that deceit in a dangerous way,or victims of passion exceeding the understanding that is obvious in our community,about the Bush era.Its the ex A.S.I.O. agent Richardson who bludging away as a Diplomat, has essentially disallowed these people to not be active,in a way that could overcome the strangeness of relationships with countries,if the prosecution cannot amply convince a potential jury.Otherwise we will have the same problem with the honesty of process,with the Martin Bryant case.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Common-law justice at work.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Ken, you must have access to a sensational crystal ball.
Lets just wait and see how the trial pans out before we elevate Benbrika to the status of an unjustly accused victim-of-the-system.
While I agree that Howard’s anti-terror laws are obnoxious, I somehow doubt that at the end of it, Benbrika will end-up being the new David Hicks.
Maybe I’ll be eating my words once we see the evidence and what the jury does with it, but that’s for the future: Once we all know what Mr B has been up-to and can make a proper assessment of the case against him.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
If the arrogant Mick Keystone and his bumbling kopz have anything to do with it, we can rest easily now that it will be a total frame-up and cock-up.
If unsure, consult Dr Haneef.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Do you love the terrorists more than you hate our freedoms?
February 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Well, lets just wait and see what comes out in court.
But the thing that appalls me so far is that soemone can be in remand for two years before they even get their day in court. And that this is apparently not all that unusual makes it more, not less, appalling.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Amanda the suggestion of entrapment lies in the fact that the undercover officer appears to have actively encouraged the accused men in whatever mischief they were contemplating, by demonstrating to them how to use ammonium nitrate as an explosive.
Philip I did not mean to imply that things will be better under Labor. By and large Labor didn’t raise any objection to the raft of new laws introduced by Howard and OMG-did-the-corpse-that-walks-stop-and-nobody-noticed? Ruddock. At best, a proper inquiry might put a stop to the reflexive calls for new, ‘tougher’ laws every time someone gets acquitted or released for lack of evidence.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Does that meet the legal definition of entrapment, which presumably has a meaning in law other than “was there at the time and did some stuff”? I have no idea. Do you?
Running commentary on newspaper reports of complicated trials is a mug’s game, mate.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Yes I do, since you ask.
However as implied by the first sentence, the post was intended to draw attention to the offensive nature of the relevant law. The facts of this particular case are convenient illustrations of how unsatisfactory that law is. If these 12 people are found guilty, does that validate the law under which they have been charged? That would be a peculiarly circular piece of reasoning.
BTW Mick Keelty enthusiastically endorses the sentiment that commentary on trials is a mug’s game and that we should all STFU until the legal processes have been exhausted. Unfortunately as DD notes, these men have already been locked up for two years and their trial is expected to go for another year or so. After that there may well be various applications for further orders, appeals and so on. I guess people can refrain from comment while that process wends its dreary way through the legal system if they want but it doesn’t seem to me to foster a fair, informed system of justice … mate.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Yes I do, since you ask.
Can you share?