With the latest news on America's treatment of Guantanamo detainees, prisoner abuse and politcal interference, it is time that the Rudd Government addressed the fact that much of the advice it receives on both domestic and international anti-terrorism measures is fruit from a poisoned tree.
The Prime Minister's failure to either rise above the politics of fear or rid the public service of the principal supporters of such fear will result in retention of legislation which breaches international law and erases the common law rights of Australian citizens.
Federal Labor would do well to remember that, like a person who divorced their spouse, Australian voters having got rid of one government may fairly quickly rid themselves of another when next at the polling booth.
Mr. Rudd, we've broken the political marriage taboo - lift your game or pack your bag.
No-one's willing to tolerate an ersatz Howard Government, except diehard Liberal Party followers and those in the anti-terrorism 'industry'.
News.com.au yesterday.
AUSTRALIAN man David Hicks should never have been charged with terror offences, according to Guantanamo Bay's former chief prosecutor.
Colonel Moe Davis, who oversaw the prosecution of Hicks, quit the war court last year.
He testified overnight that evidence for the war crimes tribunals was obtained through prisoner abuse, and political appointees and higher-ranking officers pushed prosecutors to file charges before trial rules were even written.
Col Davis was giving evidence at a pre-trial hearing for Osama bin Laden's driver, Yemeni prisoner Salim Hamdan, in a courtroom at the remote Guantanamo naval base in Cuba.
Since the US began sending foreign captives to Guantanamo in 2002, only one case has been resolved - that of Hicks.
Tony Kevin writing in New Matilda has it right.
But are sections of the Australian foreign policy and national security bureaucracies still living, by force of habit, in a world mainly defined by fear? How much of the worldview so well analysed in Lawrence's lectures still lingers in Canberra? And do Labor Ministers have any idea how to re-jig their departmental executives' way of thinking towards the new direction Rudd is taking as Prime Minister?
It's a little like turning the Titanic around. If there is not a great deal of deliberate hard steering from the bridge, the ship will stay comfortably on its old course.
Take, for example, a recent speech by the Minister for Immigration, Senator Chris Evans. In an otherwise humanitarian speech, sensitive to the human rights of persons caught up in migration and refugee determination issues, he said this on border security:
It's a little like turning the Titanic around. If there is not a great deal of deliberate hard steering from the bridge, the ship will stay comfortably on its old course.
Take, for example, a recent speech by the Minister for Immigration, Senator Chris Evans. In an otherwise humanitarian speech, sensitive to the human rights of persons caught up in migration and refugee determination issues, he said this on border security:
"The Government is committed to strong border security, tough anti-people smuggling measures and the orderly processing of migration to our country... This Government will continue to look at ways to prevent, deter and enforce compliance to preserve the integrity of Australia's migration program, while treating individuals humanely."
Did Evans really understand what he was saying, or did he just uncritically accept a departmental draft? Does he understand that under Howard, terms like "strong border security" and "tough anti-people-smuggling measures" were policy cover under which the AFP and Immigration mounted questionable covert people smuggling disruption operations in Indonesia? Under which Defence intercepted boats and was in no hurry to rescue people at risk of drowning on crippled, sinking vessels?
Did Evans really understand what he was saying, or did he just uncritically accept a departmental draft? Does he understand that under Howard, terms like "strong border security" and "tough anti-people-smuggling measures" were policy cover under which the AFP and Immigration mounted questionable covert people smuggling disruption operations in Indonesia? Under which Defence intercepted boats and was in no hurry to rescue people at risk of drowning on crippled, sinking vessels?
No comments:
Post a Comment