Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton demonstrates his incompetence yet again

During the less than one term he served as Australian prime minister Liberal MP for Warringah Tony Abbott rushed through amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 in 2015.

Given that the Minister for Home Affairs and Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton has used these amendments to strip Australian citizenship from twelve individuals, the most recent being the revocation of citizenship of a Melbourne-born man currently gaoled in Turkey which now leaves him stateless1 and, as the minister has referenced the Citizenship Loss Board in his decision making perhaps it is time to recall the sketchy details known about this board.

The Guardian, 22 July 2018:

The identity of officials on one of the most powerful government boards in Australia – which has the effective power to strip Australians of citizenship – has been revealed for the first time.

A freedom of information request by Guardian Australia for minutes of the Citizenship Loss Board’s first meeting in February shows the panel is made up of senior departmental secretaries from across government. The secretariat of the committee is Hamish Hansford, an assistant secretary of the immigration department. 

He previously served as the national manager of the intelligence branch of the Australian Crime Commission.

The department of the prime minister’s counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Greg Moriarty, is also on the board, as are Gary Quinlan, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Katherine Jones, from the Attorney-General’s Department, and Christopher Dawson from the Australian Crime Commission.

The immigration department has by far has the largest number of representatives with five officers: Rachel Noble, Michael Manthorpe, Maria Fernandez, Michael Outram and Pip De Veau.

The Australian federal police and defence department’s members are unknown. Both declined to participate in the February meeting for undisclosed reasons.

The Australian Security Intelligence Service (Asis) and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) each have a member. Neither officer is named, listed only as a “representative”.

The Citizenship Loss Board has the de facto power to strip dual nationals of their citizenship under the federal government’s legislation introduced last year.

Although the law was touted as an anti-terrorism tool, it left open the possibility that people who damaged commonwealth property or even national security whistleblowers could have their citizenship revoked. Legal experts have argued it could create a tier of second-class citizenship.

Although the Citizenship Loss Board appears to be the effective arbiter of this exceptional power, there is no reference to it in the legislation. None of its members are parliamentarians or members of the judiciary. It operates in a legal vacuum. Its recommendations go to the immigration minister with no clear legal mandate.

In theory the board does not have the express power to revoke citizenship. The laws were built to withstand judicial scrutiny, describing the key mechanism to remove citizenship as one of “revocation by conduct” – the argument is that if the law is “self-executing” this could head off judicial review.

The board’s official role is to consider cases where an individual’s behaviour meets the criteria to have citizenship revoked under the law.

This mechanism has been described by University of New South Wales dean of law George Williams as a “legal fiction”. He has previously outlined concerns about the board and the basis for its power. [my yellow highlighting]

Footnote

1. Eligibility requirements for Fijian citizenship which this individual does not currently meet.

http://www.immigration.gov.fj/travel-requirements/fiji-citizenship, retrieved 3 January 2018:

Citizenship by registration covers six categories of individuals:

The first category covers children born outside the Fiji islands on or after 10th April 2009 if at the date of the child’s birth either of the child's parents was a citizen – section 8(1) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.

The second category covers children under 18 years of age of a foreign nationality that are adopted by Fiji Citizens – section 8 (2) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.

The third category covers children who were under the age of 18 when either parent became a Fiji citizen – Section 8(3) of the Citizenship Decree 2009.

The fourth category covers persons who would have qualified under the previous three categories but they have reached the age of 18 years. These applicants cannot be granted citizenship unless they have been lawfully present in Fiji for a total of three (3) of the five (5) years immediately before the application – Section 8(5) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.

The fifth category provides for former adult Fiji citizens who wish to regain their Fiji citizenship. With the introduction of the multiple citizenship policy former citizens wishing to regain their Fiji citizenship need NOT renounce their other citizenship – Section 8(6) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.

The sixth category provides for spouses of Fiji citizens. Applicants must have been lawfully present in Fiji for a total period of three of the five years immediately before the application – Section 8(7) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009. (refer to below checklist for fees and other requirement).

Fijian Government position:

"Neil Prakash has not been or is a Fijian citizen. For a child of a Fiji citizen born overseas, the parent has to apply for citizenship for the child to become a Fiji citizen. The department has searched the immigration system and confirms that he has not entered the country nor applied for citizenship since birth." [Head of Fiji's Immigration Department, Nemani Vuniwaqa, quoted in ABC News, 2 January 2018]

Abbott's march to the sea about to wreak havoc on Australian society

For Australian nationals, we are examining suspending some of the privileges of citizenship for individuals involved in terrorism.

Those could include restricting the ability to leave or return to Australia, and access to consular services overseas, as well as access to welfare payments.

[Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, National Security Statement, 23 February 2015]

Read this quote carefully. Think about it long and hard. Because Tony Abbott is talking about you. The Australian citizens descended from circa 60,000 years of blood connection with country, the heirs of those convicts and soldiers who stumbled off British ships onto Botany Bay soil in 1788, all the people at the end of a 227 year long migration stream who were born in this country and call it home.

What Tony Abbott is describing is a deliberate move to curtail your existing human and political rights under common law and the Australian Constitution.

Don’t for one moment comfort yourself with the thought that only violent terrorists, those plotting terrorism and supporters of terrorists will be subject to whatever legislation he cloaks this move with.

Coalition Governments have abused their powers in the past.

Abbott comes from the same political party which:

attempted to confiscate the passport of the wife of a Lieut. Governor & Chief Justice of NSW;

treated members of one legal political party as criminals and traitors in the 1950s;

fined or gaoled conscientious objectors in the 1960s & early 1970s;
in the 1960's began tapping the phone of a teenage Australian-born citizen, whose family first arrived in Terra Australis in 1788 and who had broken no domestic or international laws, at the behest of a foreign power that was alleged to have committed war crimes;

from 1955 to 1970 refused to register the children of an Australian national (whose family had been in the country since 1854) as Australian citizens on the basis of their parents' political beliefs; and 

on 3 November 2014 made it legal for the Australian Federal Police to enter and search our homes by stealth and if or when we eventually find out silences our objections with the threat of 2 years imprisonment.

This is not an exhaustive list of Coalition government abuses over the years.

Abbott's march to the sea in his ideological war on the populace may be as devastating for Australia as General Sherman’s was for those members of the American civilian population unfortunate enough to be in his path in 1864.

Psst! Do you swap family pics with Al Qaeda?

Who needs stand-up comics and old knock-knock jokes when we all have the US legislature within mouse click reach. I kid you not this is US Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence Chairman Pat Meehan seeing Twitter, Facebook and Blogger villains everywhere last week:

“However, use of social media isn’t confined to terrorists. It is also a criminal issue and represents an entirely new operating space, both for individuals sharing pictures with friends and family and terrorists, criminals, and other bad actors.”

* Mad bomber lighting up on Google Images

Watching the watchers in Australia

A 2008 US Embassy cable published by Wikileaks on 29 August 2011 states:

¶3. (C) Scott explained that Australia's Movement Alert List (MAL) has been updated to include not only those persons banned from entering or transiting Australian territory, but also all persons subject to asset freezing or whose travel is subject to reporting. 

An application for a visa by any person on the Movement Alert List triggered an alert to DFAT and/or other agencies responsible for taking action on the specific case. 

The system was as an effective mechanism to screen and prevent travel to Australia by persons of proliferation concern or who were subject to a travel ban, according to Scott. 

This included refusal of visas to Iranians on a regular basis.

According to the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship Movement Alert List fact sheet on 10 August 2010:

As at end of July 2010 there were approximately 630 000 identities of interest listed on MAL.

People may be listed on MAL when they have serious criminal records. Other people listed include those whose presence in Australia may constitute a risk to the Australian community and people who may not enter Australia as they are subject to exclusion periods prescribed by migration legislation. This can occur for a number of reasons, including health concerns, debts owed to the Commonwealth or other adverse immigration records.

About 1.8 million documents of concern are also recorded on MAL. These include reported lost, stolen or fraudulently altered travel documents.

Details of identities of concern are recorded on MAL as a result of the department's liaison with security, law enforcement agencies, other Australian Government departments and immigration officers in Australia and overseas.

If there is a MAL match a decision on entry is taken by the department in consultation with any other relevant agency.

Now aside from what seems like an incredible number of people being on the Australian Government’s watch and/or no fly data base, it would appear that if one owes a “debt to the Commonwealth” then the no fly provisions will possibly be activated.

Which may be of some concern to those Australians with large unpaid tax bills, those owing money due to cash transfer overpayments or having significant outstanding costs awarded against them in favour of a federal government agency; who probably were not expecting the Tax Office, Centrelink or the Attorney-General to be contributing to the Movement Alert List and now find their names side by side with those of suspected Al Qaeda sympathizers.

Given that Australian citizens already residing in the country are being placed on this list and, a second 2010 US Embassy cable indicates that information on these citizens when officially passed on to the US Government will possibly result in those named (after assessment by the Visas Viper committee) being placed on American no fly and/or selectee lists, one has to wonder exactly how many government departments are contributing names to the Australian Movement Alert List.

Last puzzled word on the state of Australian sedition law in 2010

Remember the Anti‑Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 (weakly amended in 2006 in order to protect mainstream media and professional journalists) which contained new draconian sedition law introduced by the Howard Government which virtually made every blogger, letter to the editor writer, whistleblower and protester potentially vulnerable to political charges of sedition and/or treason in certain circumstances? Were you one of those outraged by its provisions?

Recall the 2006 Australian Law Reform Commission Inquiry which in Fighting Words: A Review of Sedition Laws in Australia (ALRC Report 104) recommended conservative changes (including the removal of Schedule 7–Sedition) which would ease the more punitive effects of this legislation and, the fact that in 2008 the Rudd Federal Government formally supported 25 of these recommendations and two others in principal?

Can you bring to mind this undertaking made in the Australian Parliament:

Review of Security, Counter-Terrorism and Sedition Laws
Mr Ciobo (Moncrieff) asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 24 February 2009: When does the Government plan to introduce legislation to: (a) establish the statutory office of National Security Legislation Monitor; and (b) implement the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's review of sedition laws.
Mr McClelland (Barton) (Attorney-General) —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) As I announced on 23 December 2008, as part of the Government's comprehensive response to the reviews of Australia's security and counter-terrorism laws, the Government is progressing legislation to establish the statutory office of the National Security Legislation Monitor as a matter of priority. The legislation is being developed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department. (b) As I announced on 23 December 2008, as part of the Government's comprehensive response to the reviews of Australia's security and counter-terrorism laws, the Government will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission with respect to the federal sedition laws. The Government is planning to release exposure draft legislation in the first half of 2009. This will provide an opportunity for public input prior to the introduction of any legislation into Parliament.

Well the exposure draft was published in 2009 and, the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (finally introduced in September 2010) which allegedly intends that Schedule 1 contains proposed amendments to the treason and sedition offences in Division 80 of the Criminal Code in response to recommendations from various reviews apparently does not really remove those wide sedition provisions across the board. Instead they have been rebadged as treason.

Indeed, under the current Australian Attorney-General this bill will expand the existing sedition offences (to be renamed offences that 'urge violence') to also cover urging force or violence on the basis of 'ethnic' or 'national' origin and it will also add to Part 5.1 (Treason and Sedition ) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 so that an Australian citizen, resident, corporation or accepted refugee can be imprisoned for life if found to have materially assisted another person considered to be taking part in an undeclared war which the Commonwealth in its turn considers itself to be party to.

While Senator Ludlam's private members bill Anti‑Terrorism Laws Reform Bill 2009 which (among other matters) actually proposes to remove rather than rebadge the offence of sedition, after a Senate Inquiry has morphed into the Anti-Terrorism Laws Reform Bill 2010 and now idles during the parliamentary silly season holidays.

I seem to recall that in the second half of 2007 the Australian Labor Party began to tell the electorate that it would remove those constraints on free speech and freedom of association which could be implied from Howard's draconian legislative measures.

I don't know about the rest of Australia, but I am ending 2010 confused as to the actual state of play, highly suspicious of the political process and, never quite sure if I'm being seditious or not - either verbally, in writing, waving a placard or making a donation to a charity with international programs.

Australian airport security. It sounds a lot more civilized, but....

The mainsteam media and blogosphere is full of stories about intrusive, embarrassing and sometimes downright abusive body searches of airline passengers at international airports overseas.
Underwear and breast prosthetic ordered to be removed during separate searches, urostomy bag dislodged during rough 'patdown', small child 'groped', working mother ordered to submit pumped breast milk to irradiation by x-ray as supposed security measure - the list goes on and on.
However the question remains, are security measures that much better in Australia when your granny with a metal pin in her hip has to be subjected to a "frisk" body search or worse?
On balance Australians probably fare better going though national airports, but I wonder how long that advantage may last.
See Australian Government airport security screening video.

Security Screening Video - Transcript [DOC: 25 KB]

With all these over-the-top rights to intrude into the personal sphere (across the world and it seems this nation) government employees and officious agents of government policy are fast becoming little bullies with big mouths who don't like to be crossed.
As an example - recently I was told of one North Coast Area Health Service employee who gratuitously and without permission divulged medical information about a constituent to a staff member of a local MP.

State sanctioned assassination: and you thought the world was scary enough as it is..........

Ever since the 11 September 2001 terrorists attacks in the United States of America started a global hysteria and two unlawful wars, the minds of Australian legislators and the legislation they enact have been quietly converging towards a point where they march in tandem with repressive excesses found in American law.

So this latest example of how insane the US Federal Administration has become is disturbing in the lead it gives Australian politicians of all political persuasions:

But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

The legal arguments can be found at Scribd in Alaulaqi v Obama Complaint* and at FireDogLake in NASSER AL-AULAQI, on his own behalf and as next ) friend acting on behalf of ANWAR AL-AULAQI v. BARACK H. OBAMA, President of the United States; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense; and LEON E. PANETTA, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency**:

* 4. Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. The summary use of force is lawful in these narrow circumstances only because the imminence of the threat makes judicial process infeasible. A targeted killing policy under which individuals are added to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and remain on these lists for months at a time plainly goes beyond the use of lethal force as a last resort to address imminent threats, and accordingly goes beyond what the Constitution and international law permit.
5. The government's refusal to disclose the standard by which it determines to target U.S. citizens for death independently violates the Constitution: U.S. citizens have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their own government. Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of what may cause them to be put to death by the state.
6. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that the Constitution and international law prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings outside of armed conflict except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury; and an injunction prohibiting the targeted killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi outside this narrow context. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring the government to disclose the standards under which it determines whether U.S. citizens can be targeted for death.

** This case is a paradigmatic example of one in which no part of the case can be litigated on the merits without immediately and irreparably risking disclosure of highly sensitive and classified national security information. The purpose of this lawsuit is to adjudicate the existence and lawfulness of alleged targeting decisions and to compel the disclosure of any "secret criteria" used to make those alleged determinations. Plaintiff's complaint alleges (i) that the United States has carried out "targeted killings" outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, Compl. ¶ 13, (ii) and has specifically targeted Anwar al-Aulaqi, Compl. ¶¶ 19-21, and, in particular, (iii) that Anwar al-Aulaqi is allegedly subject to the use of lethal force "without regard to whether, at the time lethal force will be used, he presents a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life, or whether there are reasonable means short of lethal force that could be used to address any such threat." Compl. ¶ 23. At every turn, litigation of plaintiff's claims would risk or require the disclosure of highly sensitive and properly protected information to respond to allegations regarding purported secret operations and decision criteria. Even if some aspect of the underlying facts at issue had previously been officially disclosed, the Government's privilege assertions demonstrate that properly protected state secrets would remain intertwined in every step of the case, starting with an adjudication of the threshold issue of plaintiff's standing (i.e., whether or not there is an alleged "target list" which includes plaintiff's son, and whether he is being subjected to the threat of lethal force absent an imminent threat or a reasonable alternative to force), and the inherent risk of disclosures that would harm national security should be apparent from the outset.

The now retired Hon. Justice Michael Kirby's early words of caution have largely gone unheeded by successive federal and states attorneys-general in this country and, there is no guarantee that a Gillard Government would be anymore respectful of the human rights of citizen's than the Obama Government in America.

AUSTRALIAN LAW - AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, 11 October 2001:

It is impossible for Australian lawyers to collect in Canberra and to proceed in these next few days as if nothing has happened. It is impossible for us to see our Constitution as if it speaks only to Australia and Australians. It speaks of us to the world. It is impossible to pretend that the comfortable topics of the legal profession have the same priority as this moment. It is necessary for us to reflect upon the moment. But to do so keeping our priorities and viewing recent events in the context which our Constitution, our institutions, our law and our tradition of human rights demands that we take.....
In the course of a century, we, the lawyers of Australia, have made many errors. We have sometimes scorned those who, appearing for themselves, could not reach justice. We have gone along with unjust laws and procedures. We have been instruments of discrimination and it is still there in our books. We have not done enough for law reform. We have often been just too busy to repair every injustice. Yet in some critical moments, lawyers have upheld the best values of our pluralist democracy. In the future, we must keep it thus. To preserve liberty, we must preserve the rule of law. That is our justification and our challenge.

About that war in Afghanistan.......

Photograph of Afghan war orphans from Flickr gallery

Remember when the media was full of concerns raised about the legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan and whether Australia should even be part of Operation Enduring Freedom or the War on Terror?

That debate appeared to die away over the years - now media and politicians barely mention the war except in terms of troop deployments or casualties. While as an election issue it is a non-event so far this year.

However, many ordinary Australians still hold to their views if the Essential Report on 21 June 2010 is any indication:

61% of respondents think Australia should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, 24% think we should keep the same number and 7% think we should increase numbers. Support for withdrawal of troops has increased by 11% since this question was asked in March last year.
There was majority support for withdrawal of troops across all demographic groups and voter types. 55% of Liberal/National voters, 61% of Labor voters and 75% of Greens voters support withdrawal of Australia’s troops.

Click on image to enlarge

FBI current terrorist watchlist too big and riddled with errors

From THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION'S TERRORIST WATCHLIST NOMINATION PRACTICES, May 2009:

The federal government's consolidated terrorist watchlist was created in March 2004 by merging previously separate watchlists that were once maintained by different agencies throughout the federal government.1 The watchlist is managed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), through its supervision of the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). The watchlist is used by frontline screening personnel at U.S. points of entry and by federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials.2 The watchlist serves as a critical tool for these screening and law enforcement personnel by notifying the user of possible encounters with known or suspected terrorists and by providing instruction on how to respond to the encounter. Each day the watchlist is updated with new or revised biographical information on known or suspected terrorists gathered by U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. Within the FBI, submitting the name of a known or suspected terrorist to the consolidated terrorist watchlist is referred to as a watchlist nomination. In general, individuals who are subjects of ongoing FBI counterterrorism investigations are nominated for inclusion on the watchlist, including persons who are being preliminarily investigated to determine whether they have links to terrorism. In certain circumstances, FBI policy also allows for the nomination of an individual for whom the FBI does not have an open terrorism investigation. Since the establishment of the watchlist in 2004, the FBI has nominated or processed the nominations for more than 68,000 known or suspected terrorist identities.3 As of December 31, 2008, the consolidated terrorist watchlist contained more than 1.1 million known or suspected terrorist identities.4........... In total, more than 62,000 watchlist records have been created using the FBI's processes for nominating individuals who are not being investigated for terrorism. Additionally, we found almost 24,000 FBI watchlist records that were based on an FBI investigation but not sourced to a current terrorism case classification. Many such watchlist records that we reviewed were based on cases that had been closed years ago and should have been removed at that time. [My highlighting]

If one bothers to read this U.S. Dept. of Justice audit it quickly becomes obvious that this terrorist name/profile list is not being accurately updated and is riddled with errors, including in some instances the names of dead people.

And so many pooh-poohed when the ACLU first pointed out problems with the list and set up its Terror Watch List Counter.

I can't help but wonder if the Rudd Government were to introduce a national mandatory ISP-level Internet filtering scheme, would we see the Australian Communications and Media Authority/Censorship Board list of banned URLs increase with similar rapidity (although it would be hoped with a more modest total) as those born-again flying monkeys the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy appears to favour pile on complaints about their pet hates?

Australia's draconian sedition laws and the Australian Press Council

Last Tuesday the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs held a hearing as part its Inquiry into the Anti-Terrorism Laws Reform Bill 2009.

This private members bill seeks to undo some of the harm done to freedom of speech by Howard Government anti-terrorism legislation, which was subsequently supported by a Rudd Government which has failed to address concerns since it came to office and virtually ignored the Australian Law Reform Commission report and recommendations to date.

Here is an extract from the Australian Press Council's submission to the inquiry:

Executive Summary

Consistent with its long held position that sedition laws are an impediment to freedom of expression and have the potential to have a 'chilling effect', the Australian Press Council support the removal of sedition offences in s80.2 of the Criminal Code Act in their entirety.

In view of the lack of precision in the definition of a "thing" in s101.4 of the Criminal Code Act, the Council is concerned that journalists could be exposed to being charged with a serious offence should they inadvertently come into possession of material in the course undertaking their role. The current provision is unsafe and the Council supports that proposal in the Bill that the section be repealed.

Where it is practical to do so, the Council supports the proposed amendments to Division 102 of the Criminal Code Act that would bring the processes for proscribing a terrorist organisation in line with the requirements of administrative law. By ensuring publicity, public consultation,consideration of submissions by an independent advisory committee, notice and a right of appeal the proposed amendments increase transparency, public and media scrutiny and enhance the public right to know.

The Council supports proposed amendments to s102.7 of the Criminal Code Act to ensure that providing support to a terrorist organisation cannot be construed to apply merely to the publication of view favourable to a proscribed organisation.

Consistent with its earlier submissions, the Council express its concerns that this Division 3 Part III of the ASIO Act poses a threat to freedom of speech and has the potential to obstruct the ability of the media to ensure that government agencies are held to public account and that the questioning and detention practices of ASIO do not go beyond what is necessary to facilitate the investigation and prevention of terrorism.

Consistent with its earlier submissions, the Council holds the view that the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act is a threat to freedom of the press and it potentially oppressive. The Council supports repeal of this legislation as proposed in the Bill.

Full PDF copy of Australian Press Council submission

List of submissions to the inquiry

Have your say on Australia's anti-terrorism laws before 25th September 2009

Australian Greens MPs have written to Attorney-General Robert McClelland about the Rudd Government's intention to expand Australia's anti-terrorism laws:

Dear Attorney-General,

I welcome the opportunity to comment on proposed changes to Australia's anti-terrorism legislation in a public consultation process.

I am concerned, that detailed changes to our laws are being proposed before the government has provided the promised White Paper on terrorism, or before the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws has begun their work.

I am particularly concerned about the proposal that the Australian Federal Police be permitted to enter premises without a warrant under emergency circumstances that are not clearly defined.

While Dr. Haneef Aside would have benefited from a 7 day cap on being held without a charge, I am concerned that there has been no demonstrated need for the proposed 7 day preventative detention period, and that setting such a maximum could be a licence to use it.

I am not convinced that the proposed redefinition of the act of terrorism is an improvement,, rather the proposal significantly widens the offence. You have departed significantly from the proposals put forward by the Sheller Committee. Your changes will make the legislation more complex, and simultaneously uncertain. Some legal practitioners have suggested that it will be unworkable.

I do not support the strengthening of the National Security Information Act, which allows for closed court proceedings, effectively locking lawyers out of the room, and for some evidence to be closed to the accused and their legal representatives. It also requires security clearances for lawyers which threatens the right to a fair trial and limits the pool of lawyers permitted to act in cases. Your proposed changes would contravene the separation of powers established by chapter three of the Constitution.

As Australia played an active role in establishing the terms of the so-called war on terror, Australia has a role in reformulating what a legitimate response to terrorism should look like. This import role cannot be undermined by unconsidered, ineffective reform.

The Greens also have an online petition which can be signed before 25 September 2009:

The Greens have been calling for review of our anti-terrorism laws since well before the Rudd government was elected. Rammed through our Parliament in 2005, the Howard-Ruddock anti-terrorism laws demand urgent review and overhaul rather than strengthening, because of how seriously they undermine our human and civil rights.

If you would like to sign this petition go here.

U.S. citizen and Islam convert Abdullah al-Kidd gets his day in court

U.S. President Barack Obama may wish it otherwise, but where government is slow or unwilling to address the former Bush administration's constitutional abuses then the courts are obviously prepared take on this challenge if people are willing to apply.
The quotes below are from a U.S. Court of Appeals opinion in Abdullah al-Kidd v John Ashcroft (former US Attorney General), filed 4th September 2009.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge:

According to the allegations of his first amended complaint, Plaintiff-Appellee Abdullah al-Kidd (al-Kidd), a United States citizen and a married man with two children, was arrested at a Dulles International Airport ticket counter. He was handcuffed, taken to the airport's police substation, and interrogated. Over the next sixteen days, he was confined in high security cells lit twenty-four hours a day in Virginia, Oklahoma, and then Idaho, during which he was strip searched on multiple occasions. Each time he was transferred to a different facility, al-Kidd was handcuffed and shackled about his wrists, legs, and waist. He was eventually released from custody by court order, on the conditions that he live with his wife and in-laws in Nevada, limit his travel to Nevada and three other states, surrender his travel documents, regularly report to a probation officer, and consent to home visits throughout the period of supervision. By the time al-Kidd's confinement and supervision ended, fifteen months after his arrest, al-Kidd had been fired from his job as an employee of a government contractor because he was denied a security clearance due to his arrest, and had separated from his wife. He has been unable to obtain steady employment since his arrest. Al-Kidd was not arrested and detained because he had allegedly committed a crime. He alleges that he was arrested and confined because former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft (Ashcroft), subordinates operating under policies promulgated by Ashcroft, and others within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), unlawfully used the federal material witness statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144, to investigate or preemptively detain him. Ashcroft asserts that he is entitled to absolute and qualified immunity against al-Kidd's claims. We hold that on the facts pled Ashcroft is not protected by either form of immunity, and we affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the district court. (my emphasis)

In its conclusion the court quoted Blackstone:

"To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."

WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 131-32 (1765)

'Keystone' Keelty goes out on the heels of yet another bungle

AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty must wonder why his last day as head of the Aussie federal police will not be remembered for praises sung in his honour, but instead for the fact that a national security breach became very public and his force was placed in the position of trying to deny that it had a surveillance plane with heat seeking technology.
It seems no-one in the AFP thought to tell Vic police that this small plane was a s-e-c-r-e-t.
Just another blunder to remind us all of the many which occurred under his watch.
Over to you, Tony Negus....

The Herald Sun has all the laughs here.

Eco-Terrorism: and I should be surprised because?

This week eco-terrorism became the subject of an The Australian piece.

Lauren Wilson June 16, 2009

A THREAT of attack by an eco-terrorism group is being taken seriously by Victorian police and the Brumby government.

State Energy Minister Peter Batchelor said a menacing letter left at the home of a power station manager was a dramatic escalation of environmental activism.

The radical Earth Liberation Front yesterday refused to back down from threats against Hazelwood power station chief Graeme York and his family. A US spokesman for the group told AAP Mr York "should consider himself lucky" to have received a hand-delivered warning. And Victorian Police Commissioner Simon Overland said the letter was being investigated by special intelligence detectives. Although the ELF has not been prominent in Australia, it is responsible for a series of fire-bomb attacks on industrial property and equipment in Europe and the US. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation proscribed the group in 2002 as a serious terror threat.

The letter to Mr York, dropped in the mailbox of his Melbourne home, declared: "You are responsible for the dirtiest power station in Australia and the most polluting in the industrialised world.

"We hold you personally accountable for this assault against our earth. The irreplaceable and precious eco-systems of this earth are worth much more than your manicured lawn, expensive car and opulent suburban house.

"Your property will not remain safe so long as Hazelwood continues to pollute at such an inexcusable level, swallow millions of litres of fresh water every hour and cough out hydrochloric and nitrogen acids in return."

While I unequivocally condemn threats of violence, I am hardly surprised that such threats are beginning to surface.

With so much at stake and so little being done by governments and industry to address climate change, the only thing that surprises me is that it has taken this long for resentment to find an Australian focus.

Ben McNeil recently writing in New Matilda looked at the disconnect between climate change science and the political process during the Howard years and observes; It seems for many years the Australian government reflected a broad and dangerous public misconception about combating climate change: that is it has nothing to do with Australia's long-term economic prosperity or national security.

Perhaps the Rudd Government should reconsider its limited stance on climate change impacts mitigation and factor in the possibility that home-grown political protest may take a violent turn when faced with weak government responses to the urgent need to address long term water/food supply security and resource hungry/polluting industries.

And they say that comparisons with Viet Nam are false......

Afghanistan this week.

BBC NEWS - "The US defence secretary has asked the country's commander in Afghanistan to step down, saying the battle against the Taleban needs "new thinking".
Robert Gates confirmed Gen David McKiernan would effectively be sacked less than a year after taking command.
He will be replaced by Gen Stanley McChrystal, who is seen as having a better understanding of the conflict.
The change comes as the US boosts troops numbers in Afghanistan and prepares for a change in strategy.
Gen McKiernan's time as US commander in Afghanistan has coincided with a surge in violence.
His successor currently serves as the director of US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was previously a director of special operations forces."

TELEGRAPH UK - "They do come in and out of Afghanistan," Gen Petraeus told CNN. "But al Qaeda – precise al Qaeda, if you will – is not based per se in Afghanistan. Although its elements and certainly its affiliates... certainly do have enclaves and sanctuaries in certain parts of Eastern Afghanistan."

CHINA VIEW - "The joint Afghan and U.S. team who are investigating civilian causalities in eastern Afghan province of Farah, would also look into the using of chemical weapons, a spokesperson of United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said Monday.
"On the specific issue of chemical weapons, we are aware of that reports and certainly it would be something that referring to. Joint investigation team will look into the possible report taking place in the province," Haleem Siddique told a questioner in a weekly press briefing.
Siddique noted that the safety and welfare of Afghan civilians must come first during the planning and implementation of any military operation.
According to Afghan officials, over 147 civilians have been killed in an airstrike by international troops in eastern Farah province of Afghanistan while U.S. military said that the number is exaggerated."

THE AGE - "IF THE war in Afghanistan is to be won, the battle for Afghan hearts and minds must first be won. The surest way to lose that battle is to discount the lives of Afghan civilians killed in military operations against the Taliban, whose alliance with al-Qaeda provoked the invasion that ended their rule. Indeed, in Iraq, insurgents' disregard for civilian lives backfired as local forces that had been opposed to foreign troops turned against al-Qaeda and its allies. In Afghanistan, however, the US and its allies are losing support because of the civilian toll they have caused.
Civilian deaths are highly damaging in themselves, but when foreign forces fail to apologise properly and provide redress, the backlash is potentially disastrous. That is why a cover-up of the findings of an Australian military investigation into the killing and maiming of Afghan civilians in Oruzgan province in July 2006 is of immense concern.
On the whole, Australian forces appear to have acknowledged such deaths with full apologies and compensation. By contrast, the US military has at times seemed downright careless about the civilian toll in air strikes. Human Rights Watch estimated last year that air strikes had killed at least 1633 civilians from 2006 to 2007, and allied forces had killed another 828 civilians by the end of last year."

THE CANADIAN PRESS - The first contingents of an additional 21,000 U.S. combat troops and trainers have begun to hit the ground in Afghanistan in a surge expected to continue throughout the summer.
The overwhelming combat might of the U.S. is reshaping the way NATO conducts the bitter counter-insurgency war. Analysts and some opposition politicians have expressed fears that American military policies and doctrines, such as the use of air strikes, will be forced on allies.

Senator Conroy's Internet filtering gets another bad review

According to IT News last Thursday:

Cross "fighting terrorism" off the list of reasons Senator Stephen Conroy wants to introduce mandatory ISP-level Internet Filtering.

A new report penned by Tim Stevens and Dr Peter Neumann for the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) assesses the pros and cons of various types of Internet Filtering and finds them ineffective in the fight against terror.

"Most governments have focused on technical solutions, believing that removing or blocking radicalising material on the internet will solve the problem," the report states.

"Yet, this report shows that any strategy that relies on reducing the availability of content alone is bound to be crude, expensive and counterproductive."

The report went into some detail around the ineffective nature of most types of Internet Filtering.

IP filtering, in which the IP address of a questionable site is blocked, suffers from misfiring, the report said.

"Problems with this method of filtering arise because some web hosts - each with a single IP address - provide a variety of services or host many websites with different domain names, which means that all these acceptable services and sites will be blocked as well. While cheap and easy to implement, its propensity for 'over-blocking' makes IP filtering a very crude method of interdicting banned material."

In describing the role of the Internet, this report identifies what the Rudd Government (and government generally) probably fears most about cyberspace:

It has dramatically reduced the cost of communication, making the exchange and dissemination of information virtually free.

• It has enabled unlimited access to much of the world's knowledge and begun to organise it in systematic fashion.

• It has made it easier to find people and create networks among like-minded individuals, across great distances and beyond national borders.

Reporters Without Borders is also less than impressed with the Rudd-Conroy censorship plan and in its 12 March 2009 document Internet Enemies has placed Australia on the group's watch list.

Are anti-terrorism laws beginning to quietly unravel?

Perhaps countries like Australia, who post-9/11 rushed headlong into drafting draconian anti-terrorism legislation, will now think again about the troublesome law created and the impact this has on the health of individuals, well being of families and justice within society.

The European Commission of Human Rights issued this media release last Thursday concerning the application of 11 individuals (six of Algerian nationality; four respectively, of French, Jordanian, Moroccan and Tunisian nationality; and, one, born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan, being stateless).

Although compensation mentioned is relatively small, it represents another step in addressing the issue of bad law.

The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment¹ in the case of A. and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 3455/05).

The case concerned the applicants' complaints that they were detained in high security conditions under a statutory scheme which permitted the indefinite detention of non-nationals certified by the Secretary of State as suspected of involvement in terrorism.

The Court held unanimously that there had been:

· no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of all the applicants, except the Moroccan applicant whose complaints under these articles were declared inadmissible;

· a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention in respect of all the applicants, except the Moroccan and French applicants who had elected to leave the United Kingdom, since it could not be said that the applicants were detained with a view to deportation and since, as the House of Lords had found, the derogating measures which permitted their indefinite detention on suspicion of terrorism discriminated unjustifiably between nationals and non-nationals;

· a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided by a court) in respect of two of the Algerian applicants, the stateless and Tunisian applicants, because they had not been able effectively to challenge the allegations against them; and,

· a violation of Article 5 § 5 in respect of all the applicants, except the Moroccan and French applicants, on account of the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the above violations.

The Court made awards under Article 41 (just satisfaction) which were substantially lower than those which it had made in past cases of unlawful detention, in view of the fact that the detention scheme was devised in the face of a public emergency and as an attempt to reconcile the need to protect the United Kingdom public against terrorism with the obligation not to send the applicants back to countries where they faced a real risk of ill-treatment. The Court therefore awarded, to the six Algerian applicants 3,400 euros (EUR), EUR 3,900, EUR 3,800, EUR 3,400, EUR 2,500 and EUR 1,700, respectively; to the stateless and Tunisian applicants EUR 3,900, each; and to the Jordanian applicant, EUR 2,800. The applicants were jointly awarded EUR 60,000 for legal costs. (The judgment is available in English and French.)

Full copy of summary here.

"The Age" gets taken for a ride and creates serious michief along the way

On Saturday 7 February 2009 when Victoria was beginning to reel under the impact of the worst natural disaster in modern Australian history, The Age in Melbourne ran an article which baldly stated: AUSTRALIA has been singled out as a target for "forest jihad" by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror.

The group calling for this jihad is supposedly currently active and going by the name Al-Ikhlas Islamic Network and it allegedly posts on the Internet, presumably on a forum website hosted out of Malaysia and written in three or possibly four languages.

The earliest mention of this supposed forest fire jihad that I can find comes from WorldNetDaily in 2003, when it also mentioned: "Australian security authorities are aware of reports that al-Qaida has considered starting bushfires in the U.S. as a form of terrorist attack," said a spokeswoman Australian Attorney General Daryl Williams. "Arson attacks are just one of a wide range of scenarios which have been considered as part of our investigations into al-Qaida's ability to conduct attacks in Australia."

Specific mention of a jihad website occurred in April 2004 when it was reported that: Meanwhile, there is evidence terrorism was behind other wildfires in Europe and Australia last summer.

According to the wingnuts, so far this 'group' appears to be responsible for forest fires in France, Greece, Italy, Australia and the U.S.

It supposedly has a six-point plan which included: setting of fires in the forests – "especially those that provide the American market with the raw materials for the wood and paper and byproducts industries";

The entire forest fire jihad plot was rehashed in January 2008 when WorldTribune ran with it again .

Now there are only 18 terrorist groups officially listed on the Australian Attorney-General's departmental website and none of these are this supposed extremist group.

Indeed if you look for this group on the world wide web it is has a remarkably low profile.
So low in fact that it is only ever mentioned by secondary sources.
It seems to be nothing more than a blustering website, which is sometimes not even online.
A situation which should have alerted The Age reporter to the fact that he might have been building with straw and, that this Internet forum was unlikely to be a group nor a credible threat.

The supposed threat reads more like a post 9/11 urban myth and The Age looks as though it was attempting a potentially divisive, hurtful and downright dangerous beat up.

Snapshot is of The Age article as displayed 10.02.09