So on a day we are to see a massive piece of legislation on IR tabled in parliament we now have the PM announce that he has received specific information about a credible terrorist threat to Australia. As they say, timing is everything.
Australian intelligence authorities have received specific information about a terrorist threat in Australia, according to Prime Minister John Howard. Speaking in Canberra, Mr Howard said, “The Government has received specific intelligence and police information this week which gives cause for serious concern about a potential terrorist threat. As a result Mr Howard said part of the new anti-terror laws would be introduced to parliament today. He said the Senate would also be recalled tomorrow to debate the bill.
But yet this information is not so serious as to raise our threat level. As Aldo Borgu of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute points out.
Mr Borgu said the Government might be overstating the home-grown threat of terrorism, given that it did not today increase the official threat level from “medium”.
So, after backing down on tabling the national security legislation on Cup day and promising more time for debate, we see that the original timetable for some amendments to this legislation is still largely on track and the pressure to pass some aspects is now even greater, it begs the question as to why is it so important for this to occur in early November 2005. But also important is how convenient is it that we now have a terror alert to distract many of us from the Govt’s dodgy IR maneuverings in parliament?
It’ll be interesting to see which story gets the lead and big play tonight on the six-o-clock news.
Me, at 12.42 pm:
Your prize, sir.
The laws need to be in place by Christmas so the Government can slap that border-integrity busting, bulky coat-wearing, bearded, Turkish guy with a control order before he goes on his traditional December 25 break-and-enter spree and infects the alert-and-almost-alarmed populace with notions of generosity, peace and love.
I hope there’s no pork on that plate, CL.
It’s worked a treat though. Noone’s talking about IR except for the ABC.
If this is a trick it’s game set and match to Mr Howard.
However in the interest of safety we should be taking this seriously, the security issues are far more important than our self interest in the IR reforms.
A prize? Me!! You shouldn’t have. Hmmmm, I like a nice meat tray, but where is the cheese CL? I’d like to thank the academy, mum, dad, and all my other co-conspiritors in the vast left wing hegemony.
I still have to ask? How convienient and timely that this has occured on this day, and how interessting that this is being used to push through a technical rewording that would broaden the definition of a threat today?
The link
Maybe you can tell us, the PM won’t. No conspiracy, just asking.
Really TSSK? I would contend they are one and the same, what price a roof over your head and food on your table? Will alleged jihadists/terrorists take that away from us? Have they in other countries beset by terrorism most of which is home grown?
I would contend that the security of a well paying and secure job with a full set of rights to association and real choice does more to prevent any homegrown threat to our ‘way of life’.
That must be a record of some sort — recalling the Senate to change one word.
It seems they have a specific group or individual in mind, preparing to commit a terrorist attack, but they don’t know what specific form the attack could take. I would expect arrests soon after the amendment was passed.
This is a clear example of how changing the law can make enforcement more effective.
If it’s a matter of changing one word, I don’t see why they couldn’t have arrested the people, validated the arrests retrospectively through a rider to the new legislation, and avoided a public circus – which is bound to raise people’s fears (or is that the intent?)…
Anyone remember the vitally urgent Tampa legislation that snared the Beazer in knots the first time around?
I’m afraid “just trust us” from a government with such a mendacious record of political stunts and deceptions doesn’t play well.
Nope, sorry Mark. Restrospectivity is not good.
Legislation can’t work retrospectively in that way, Mark. It’s an established principle of our system.
The two Robs agree. Woohoo!
Fair enough, Robs! But I’d be happier if exactly why it’s so urgent to change “a” to “the” was spelled out – there would be no need to reveal the circumstances – but reasons for legislation seem to be something the government no longer deigns to reveal.
The Howard government has historically proven more trustworthy than its critics, who manufacture claims of mendacity when there has been none.
The Opposition has been given details of the specific threat, and agreed to pass the short amendment. Be careful with that paranoia, or you’ll end up seeing black helicopters everywhere, like Tony Kevin.
Hehe, thanks EP, best gag Ive heard in weeks.
Only you could use trustworthy and Howard Government in the same sentence.
Magic stuff.
By the way, lest anyone accuse Aldo Borgu of being a leftie shill, I knew him well at uni – when he was a member of the National Party.
I wouldn’t call you that, Naomi! This debate is – amongst more important things, of course – interesting. Fair bit of right wing dissent on Tim Blair’s thread discussion on this. Classy comeback, Phil – as always.
Well I think it’s a good thing we can address mysterious terror threats just by changing one word in a piece of legislation.
Clearly time to set up a Department of Homeland Grammar.
This announcment brought to you by the same crew that brought you “Children Overboard” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Aye, call me cynical but ever since I saw the (snigger) Iraqi Drones of Death and the (chuckle) Tankers of Terror just can’t get that national security mojo happening.
EP: the problem is that when the government complains about security, it has about as much credibility as you do when you complain about your sperm being stolen.
The ultimate upshot is that one day we Australians will wake up and discover all our sperm has been nicked. I’m sure you’ll feel vindicated then.
Hmm, call me odd, but I’m not actually scared of the fact that between 6 and 8 constantly surveilled potential murderers roam the land. That’s just a normal day in the world – bar the constant surveillance bit.
Or that some dubiously timed, non-threat-level-raising thing might happen if are articles are too definite. Nothing I can do about it.
If we had a statesman as leader, he might urge courage upon the fearful.
Instead, we have on opportunist, who urges fear upon the voter.
I can almost feel a cringe of fear rippling through the populi. OBL must be laughing at us – this is precisely what he and Al-Qaeda want; this and the crazy headless chook politics of paranoia were getting. There are, indeed, two side in this ‘war’: Al Qaeda and their useful fools aka Huntington Conservatives, who both seek to promote a clash of civilisations.
And, those who oppose them.
I belong to the latter camp.
Actually it vindicates the State Premiers’ and Beazley’s original stance on this issue. If they had ignored or dismissed the original security briefings, what would the critics be saying now? There never was any wedge on this. Howard simply called the premiers together to share his concern over the security briefings he had received and they all agreed broadly on what was required. What would the critics be saying if he didn’t share that responsibility with them? Despite supporting different political parties, these leaders do work in our interest first and foremost. Some policies are self selecting in this regard, despite all the reservations expressed here and elsewhere, which I have no doubt they all considered. Sari Nightclub outcomes on Australian soil are not something they can ignore. Again Howard has shown a clean pair of astute heels to the chattering classes. That’s why he’s the best PM in our lifetime. Howard and the Diva at the same time eh? Something to tell the grandkids.
May be this isn’t even related to an islamist terror threats. Could it be something related to these threats made in Melbourne’s Tamil community by the banned LTTE?
If it is, not-raising the threat level would be reasonable wouldn’t it? Just saying.
Very Freudian/autoerotic, Bill. Sperm: The Ultimate Upshot.
It’s a funny thing, Lefty. Western liberals are saying it’s not a ‘clash of civilisations’ thing. All the Islamists are saying it is. Who to believe?
Id keep quite about supporting him with the grandkids. He’ll just be “that loser who did nothing about global warming” by that point.
Go the Diva instead.
Ok, that’s seriously interesting ivap, and of course it’s worth mentioning that the Tigers were one of the first, if not the first group to use suicide bombings in it’s current context.
The Tigers can and should be considered terrorists if they do commit a violent act within our borders on migrants/refugees or any group, at home in Sri Lanka, they may be regarded in a different light.
Rermember the recent bombing and killing of the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister? An Australian citizen was arrested as a result.
Here is the link
Or like wise scroll down the R/H sidebar of this 2website fo a list of reports on the individual involved.
The dates match, Howard has said he learned about the threat about two weeks ago, the man has been held for one month now.
Some of us see Islamist as a subset Rob.
Rob: Oh, I believe the terrorists, of course. After all, what possible motivation could they have for lying to us?
You get a glimpse of why they want the extra powers in this report here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17115218-23109,00.html
“All the Islamists” …. I guess you mean Al-Qaeda, Rob? Because Iraqi Nationalist Islamists, eg, aren’t saying it, they’re just saying occupiers out of *this* Islamic country -in fact, the two wings of the insurgency appear lately to be shooting each other in some areas of Iraq. Good article in the Age last Saturday about same, and some of the doctrinal and strategic differences behind the division.
observa, I think this is the article you cite…
… is the kind of detail we need to assess whether these control orders are operationally necessary. I can see the police’s point in this case.
I realise you’re being sarcastic, Bill, but yes, you’d be right if you weren’t. We should be listening to what they are actually saying, not what we think they ought to be saying.
I note that Kelty said on SBS World News tonight that the terror threat from within Australia was very real. Remember when the Commish was a liberal hero for publicly linking Iraq to possible attacks within this country?
Well, nice to see some actual discussion of situations – though I fail to see why under their current powers, people couldn’t be kept under surveillance while the ASIO whizzkids decrypt a code – the comparison to feet of paper is meaningless. This blog is probably twenty bound volumes but just as there are search engines, there are also algorithms to de-encrypt codes.
Anyway, a refreshing change from clashes of civilisations.
Rob – have you read Huntingdon?
His thesis doesn’t bear close scrutiny, as Fukuyama among others have pointed out vigorously.
And the political use to which it’s been put is just contemptible.
While the left prefers to talk about practical situations, and safeguards for both liberty and security, the right indulges in grand narratives and fantasies of civilisational doom.
Whatever.
How exactly, in your mind, is there a clash of civilisations at work? And what is the relationship between this and the proposed laws?
I think you mean Keelty, C.L. Unless Bill has had a surprising government preferment.
Who’s not saying the terror threat is real? I think it is, but it’s probably not proportionate to the measures proposed allegedly to contain it.
And yes, Lefty, I mean Al Qaida and its affiliates, inspirants and aspirants. You’re right that the other Iraqi insurgents, repellent as they are, have to be seen in a different light.
Bill Kelty in charge of the AFP! Ee-gads – every copper in the force would be unemployed in a month.
* Sneaking suspicion that Mark actually wants that clash of civilisations discussion after all. Mmm? *
Meanwhile, the Paris intifada enters its seventh day…
A search engine is only going to work if you have a specific string to look for (or combinations of such). I’ve asked before – why won’t existing laws work? In this scenario, I can see that the police would need time to sift through a huge number of computer files, and at the same time could not afford to let the person from whom it was confiscated go free until they had completed the task. That is, the person could go home, ring a dozen associates, tell them the plan was compromised, etc., etc.
I’m beginning to see that this legislation may in fact be necessary for effective policing.
I accept the example too, Rob – its an useful one of the lengthy intelligence work needed. What I dont accept – and the case yet to be made – is why surveillance suddenly doesnt work (stock in trade); and second, why a detention period can’t be made subject to judicial review (for example, an judicial assessment that there must at least be SOME evidence to support it). I note that all other ‘administrative’ acts in our society are currently subject to judicial review (well, except detention centres, of course). Judges are sensible people – their job is to balance society’s rights to protection with individual rights. Taking them out of the loop will cause problems.
Lefty, I agree there should be a judicial review to validate the order – even if post-operatively. Something to say it had been necessary (or not) to issue the control order. And if it turns out on review that it had not been necessary, the police and issuing authority should be held to account, and the detainee compensated in an appropriate way for the loss of his/her human rights.
Yes, precisely, Lefty E, if the person was just allowed to “go home” and not kept under surveillance it would be outrageous.
C.L., I wouldn’t mind debating the clash of civilisations sometime if we could do so in a sensible way. I’ll dig out Huntingdon maybe. I just wish:
Point 1. It wouldn’t intrude into every single thread about terrorism laws – as Ruddock emphasised on Lateline, he was not prepared to say this potential threat as the PM was careful to say was Islamist and there are other groups in the community who are problematic – for instance, there have been thwarted attempts by Tamil Tiger sympathisers, I believe, to attack the Sri Lankan embassy.
Point 2. If people would specify what they think they mean by “clash of civilisations” rather than just invoke it as a mantra.
As I asked Rob above (with no answer):
Yes, but – such a person might be under surveillance and subject to telephone interception. This can’t actually stop them doing things, only provide information to the surveilling authorities about what they have done. If the person tips off terrorists to get out of town, it’s going to be too late for the police to catch them (the terrorists), even if the person gets arrested afterwards for tipping them off.
I can see the point of this legislation after all.
Well, in my scenario, the person was a terrorist. Because that’s what’s being talked about with reference to this piece of legislation, Rob – at least if I understood Ruddock correctly – not vague threats or conspiracy. So in that case, physical surveillance could apprehend the person if they appear likely to commit an act. If it’s people conspiring, they’re better off using electronic surveillance and other means of detecting who the terrorists are than detention and interrogation, I’d have thought.
Andrew Bartlett makes a good point for civilisational clashists in this post.
Indeed Mark – surveillance and criminal law, provided the former is adequately resourced, should be able to meet any security threat. In fact, I suspect the only situation that combination wont be able to deal with are those we just dont know anything about. Again – it all goes back to intelligence. This is the first order question…
And Rob – yes, judicial review is always post-facto, being a ‘review’… That should at least be the base line in this debate, IMHO.
I think the point that arises from the case obeserva linked to is that the police won’t know, until they’ve sifted the disk, whether the person is a terrorist, or has information about terrorist activities, or not.
Suppose an encrypted disk was seized during a search at an airport – a search prompted by some kind of suspicious behaviour, or because the person’s passport looked dodgy, or whatever reason they might have to suspect the person of terrorist connections. Not enough for a formal charge, but enough for a suspicion. Is it unreasonable for the police to have time to decrypt the disk and analyse its contents whilst holding the person under a control order – always on the proviso that they must satisfy the relevant authorities that such action is necessary to prevent the imminent occurrence of a terrorist act?
I’m starting to think it is not.
Its pretty hard to escape undetected from Australia Rob. Ive thought the same as Mark – surveillance is actually critical for catching people you dont yet suspect. If detention is too preemptive, you might miss them altogether. That could be disastrous.
And equally, suspect 1 disappearing for two weeks might tip off (unknown, at large) suspects 2&3 ?
Mark, my point was not that I agree with Huntingdon, but that Islamists do – and with not the body of theory he marshalls, but the simple concept of ‘the clash of civilisations’ itself. Of course they see it as having a different outcome.
Unhappily, the link I would have posted in support of that has now gone subscription only. Been happening a lot lately.
So what implications does that have, Rob?
Lefty, just extending my scenario a little bit. Say this guy is detained, and the disk confiscated, but he’s not held under a control order, so has to be let go. Say the AFP follow him down the highway from Tullamarine because they’re pretty suspicious. He turns off and makes a phone call from a public call box, or hops into an Internet cafe. He could be telling anyone anything, but there’s nothing the AFP can do. It’s not an offence to make a phone call or dial up the Internet. So he tells his friends, unbeknownst to the AFP – who don’t have an interceptioin warrant on the relevant facility, because they didn’t know he was going to use it – ‘They’ve got the disk, it’ll take them 48 hours to break it, bring the activity forward, bomb target X in 2 hours instead of next Wednesday’.
Now, a control order would prevent that happening.
How would you ever know that a terror cell member didn’t have some low-tech flowerpot in the window signal that acted as a warning (or a ‘go to plan B’, or ‘execute plan A now’) to co-conspirators? Why are we making high-tech assumptions about their plans, communications and methods? The assumption here is that surveillance can detect anything. These people are aware of what they would need to do to communicate instructions or messages, even if under watch. Granted, that also means if one of them is snatched up indefinitely, the assumption would have to be that other cell members would be aware of that person’s absence. A further assumption would be that the authorities are aware that cell-members are aware and would therefore be reluctant to go ahead with detentions unless absolutely necessary.
Mark, if you read Tim Blair’s thread on this you’ll see that ‘the right’ is veering towards libertarian suspicion of the government’s legislation. The left still seems to resent admitting there’s a terrorist threat at all – I fail to see the practicality of that.
Yes, fair point, C.L.
Ok, I’ll have a quick read, now, C.L.
Can’t for the life of me see why you can’t just follow the mob when they go off with their backpacks. The flowerpot seems quite contrived. If they don’t know they’re under surveillance (as would be the case if they haven’t been prematurely hauled in) a text message or a phone call’s much more likely.
Maybe I’m reading the wrong thread, C.L., but I’m not seeing too much libertarian anti-Government sentiment expressed so far.
Here’s our good friend Mark L, Canberra.
These two comments don’t quite qualify as libertarian, I’m afraid.
Here’s one, though.
But the deport them all theme seems most in evidence.
And C.L., Lefty E and I have both emphasised that there is a terrorist threat, but that these measures are disproportionate to it, possibly counter-productive and dangerous for our liberties. I fully support pragmatic action with safeguards through due process of law.
I’d like you to acknowledge that, please, and substantiate your generalisations about THE LEFT.
Can’t for the life of me see why you can’t just follow the mob when they go off with their backpacks.
Que?
It would never matter if they knew they were under surveillance. The presumption would surely have to be that they had a security system that would alert them to an associate’s detention or release from detention. If we’re aware of these things as mere threado-pundits, I think terrorists might be aware of the advantages of going low-tech. The flowerpot worked for Woodward and Deep Throat.
C.L. – what they’ve rented the house across the street or are suspiciously loitering so they can see the flowerpot at the appropriate time?
Wouldn’t present much of a policing challenge!
By the way, some of the comments I linked to on the tim thread are the reason why I read tim himself but rarely the threads – it’s just depressing, really.
We have few interlocutors left at this hour – due to the evils of daylight saving!
Rob, the thing about intelligence based leads, I would have thought, is that the person wont (normally) know they’re under surveillance until/unless you arrest / detain. Which gives the authorites a great advantage, and is probably going to be the real source of any real breakthroughs.
WHile I have to accept your scenario is at least possible – really, that sort of “staring into the crowds, looking for something” policing is going to turn up very little except a lot of pissed off people. Its, IMHO, a kind of go-nowhere, too-late in the piece route anyway.
Any really serious operation, to follow your example, would surely have some check in on arrival signal. No signal = Ive been detained. Its all too risky. A lot of our exisitng legal processes have actually been formed in a dialogue with good policing practice. gatheing evidence isnt jst some legal nicety: its effective policing of criminal links.
That’s also the point I’ve been trying to make, Lefty E, though I’m tired and have some sort of bug that’s making my head cloudy, so perhaps I haven’t made it well.
Our kneejerk response in this country appears to be detention and incarceration, even if these are not the most appropriate pragmatic measures.
I think you’re trivialising the point, Mark. The flowerpot symbolises any number of communicative strategies that may exist. The challenge may be low-tech, not high. If the authorities only have one terror suspect but suspect others, the assumption would have to be that the released suspect could send a pre-arranged warning to his associates without the Spooks so much as blinking an eyelid.
No signal = Ive been detained.
Precisely, LE. Isn’t it therefore likely that ASIO will actually not race around detaining people like drunken Beria boys?
Tired too Mark. Its even later here!
to bed….
Hey, it’s not late at all in the NT.
Lefty, when I was looking for an AFP reason for the new laws I wandered over to the AFP web site. Found a speech there from Mike Keelty which pointed out that criminals and terrorists are very well aware of exactly what the police and the security services are empowered to do, and, armed with that knowledge, take appropriate counter-measures – including exploting loopholes in the law.
So I’m not sure about your point about suspects not knowing what the police are, for example, surveilling them. If I were a terrorist, I would make it my business to know exactly what powers the local police could deploy against me, and how I might evade them.
A must-read by Francis Fukuyama in today’s WSJ:
A Year of Living Dangerously: Remember Theo van Gogh, and shudder:
Turns out FF is a non-Huntingdonian mugged by reality.
I am an avid reader of Samuel Huntington, and own two of his books. What I note about many people who purport to speak on his theory is that very few of them have actually read The Clash of Civilizations and do not really know what his thesis says, nor exactly how it might be applicable to the international system right now; essentially, that the general balance of power will be demarcated on civilisational rather than ideological grounds, which is a function of the end of bipolarism and the rise of non-Western civilisations; and that this has direct implications for sub-systems, local balances of power, and interactions along civilisational faultlines. Essentially, Huntington is saving realist IR theory from complete irrelevance.
And given that Huntington’s general explanations, as well as quite a few specific ones, bear far more resemblance to reality than any of Fukuyama’s offerings, and his explanations for the instability within the Islamic world (firstly, the lack of an Islamic “core state”, secondly, the simultaneous demographic rise and economic decline of Islam, and thirdly, the West’s pretensions to universalism and intervention) taken together are more insightful, when incorporated within Huntington’s model, than anything proffered by his critics. I challenge anyone to read his chapter on the “Dynamics of Faultline Wars” for this very reason.
His conclusion, which could dismay some people, is that “Western intervention in the affairs of other civilizations is probably the single most dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict in a multicivilizational world”, precisely because it encourages others, across all civilizations, to bandwagon against Westerners on civilizational grounds. This is precisely what is happening.
The neurotic civilisational “bandwagon” against Westerners is hardly related exclusively, or even preponderently, to recent events. It has been a discernible political and cultural phenomenon for decades – both in the contrived demonology of tyrants and in the West’s own bastions of arts and letters. Islamist intervention in the affairs of other civilizations has probably been “the single most dangerous source of instability and potential global conflict” in our multicivilizational world.
It is precisely the conceit of Western liberals that refuses to attribute to Islamists what they imagine to be too geo-politically grandiose for such a ragged army of paradigm exploders. Nothing less than than the United States must be afforded the status of First Cause of the Clash.
Osama bin Laden turned an avowed, non state-building isolationist into a regime changer. His foot-soldiers, because their extremism violates principles increasingly regarded as universal, invite civilisational intervention and – eventually – defeat. Fukuyama’s most famous thesis was essentially correct, even though the enemies of liberal democracy don’t realise it yet. His WSJ piece argues two things, IMO: that Muslims need to be respectfully inducted into life as it’s lived in the West and that their assaults on our civilisation should no longer be tolerated.
He should have added that the ‘our’ in our civilisation increasingly refers not to the West alone but to universalist values whose moral force and superiority are being demonstrated daily by Islamists themselves. We’re winning and they’re helping (thank you Iran) – the exact opposite of the propaganda being vomited by the Western commentariat’s lock-step Lord Haw Haws.
You’ll be pleased to know that at the same time Howard is telling the Australian people that the sky is falling and he needs to stomp civil liberties to stop it, his officials are reassuring other countries that everything is just fine, and that Australia is not under imminent threat of attack.
I think people’s cynicism is entirely justified.
no-one yet has asserted how this legislation will facilitate the arrest and then gaoling of terorists.
If this legislation is so vital surely Australia is under imminent threat.
If it isn’t then surely it follows it isn’t vital and urgent.
I won’t call you surely again!!
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck – if its politics its just too convenient.
I’m mainly interested in the word change. Regardless of the threat’s substantive status, whoever’s charged under the reworded law can be prosecuted regardless of the substance of their conspiracy to act. If the law applies irrespective of whether “a” terrorist act occurs, it doesn’t matter then what the suspects themselves were actually planning. This seems overly broad to me, and a potential pitfall for the government.
Was this a political stunt? I think it’s pretty obvious it was, despite the bleating of the likes of Shanahan in the Australian. I’m sure the Government received some terrorism-related intelligence this week, but the timing of the announcement, with a press conference and ‘urgent need’ to rush a trifling bit of legislation through, was pure and carefully planned politics. Operation Suppress IR Coverage…
You can draw some conclusions from Beazley’s comments afterwards. If Bomber isn’t jammed up as close behind Howard as he can possibly get on these sort of matters, then you know something’s amiss. His comments were along the lines of saying he was briefed on the intelligence, and would support the legislation, but others could draw their own conclusions. Sounds fishy to me.
It’s very unlikely that it’ll blow up in Howard’s face, as I’m sure there’s some intelligence behind it. It may be vague or relatively minor, but Howard no doubt felt it was enough to use as the basis for a bit of political theatre. He succeeded as well, as guess what was lead story on the news and plastered all over the front of the papers this morning.
On a related matter:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/hicks-abuse-claims-demand-some-answers/2005/11/03/1130823342729.html