Indictable/Summarily: if less than 10 years may be summarily treated see

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/legis/cth/consol%5fact/ca191482/s4j.html?query=indictable+offences

I think it has to be indictable with a 5-ten year jail term.

I agree that the media coverage and the statements being made by police and politicians have been extremely prejudicial. The only comment that I would have, however, is that the High Court’s interpretation of Section 80 is so narrow as to be virtually meaningless - meaning that there is no guarantee that these guys will actually get a jury trial. Does anyone know whether or not it has been classified as an “indictable offence”?

Even if it has, the defendants can still elect to be tried by magistrate/judge alone, thus circumventing the whole prejudicial media thing… Judges and magistrates tend to believe that they are immune from being influenced in such a manner.

“Jack? Do not attempt to post a comment like that here again or your IP will be banned, there is no correspondence entered into on this.”

Hopefully that’s better.

This despite Howard saying -

John Howard, who was accused by some last week of exaggerating the terrorist threat, said the emergency law passed by parliament last week had helped facilitate the arrests.

“We were advised that the change would strengthen the capacity of the authorities to respond to the situation that had been identified, and it is the view of the two police commissioners and the Victorian Premier that that is precisely what happened,” the Prime Minister said.

Are the laws actually in effect yet? They’ve gone through parliament, but Act would still require Royal Assent and come into effect on a day to be proclaimed (I could hvae blinked and missed that bit).

It certainly couldn’t have been, as some have argued, a panic reaction to Howard’s having blown the whistle and spooked the terrorists (Lefty at 8:11 pm yesterday). It would have been impossible for the police to respond so quickly in such a massive way.

BTW, that was a bit harsh on Jack, Phil. Banned forever for just one comment?

Jack? Do not attempt to post here again or your IP will be banned, there is no correspondence entered into on this.

Now on a serious note and as Peter has said I’ll ask you to pull back a bit and tread very carefully in this thread from now on, please for the sake of good argument and humour let’s refocus dude, or I’ll just stop the thread entirely.

In March 2004 in an intervew with Jana Wendt, he was asked as to whether a Madrid-type bombing could happen in Australia. He said: “The reality is, if this turns out to be Islamic extremists responsible for the bombing in Spain, it’s more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq.”

Observa remarked:

1. Australia’s involvement in Iraq has made us a target for terrorists.

… unreservedly withdrawn by Keelty as he realised the error of his ways. After John Howard called him to “explain”.
Mick: “understood boss!”
Press release:
http://www.afp.gov.au/afp/page/Media/2004/1604MediaStatement.htm

Keelty hands John Howards the last of his dignity:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/03/19/20nat_howardkeelty.jpg

Keelty lost all cred some time ago.

just remember if e ever get fair dinkum terrorists the police and ASIO won’t know about them!

Observa, if that’s the best you can come up with, it means 1) your arguments have been demolished and 2) that you think lefties on this site are all impliedly in breach of the terrorist laws. I think for that almost defamatory statement you need a caution before you are moderated.

Presumably Peter Kemp thinks all these statements of fact are equivalent and reasonable public utterances for any top cop in Oz.

What will really make the whole exercise a farce of comic opera proportions as Paul Norton suggested above, is an appeal court to throw out even the reduced charges on the basis of irretrievable prejudice thanks to the polly’s and the media’s disgraceful ignoring of the presumption of innocence.

What we really need to complement new Nutzi laws, is to hand pick juries in these cases from the eminently qualified commenters on Tim Blair’s blog. That would produce almost Divine(Devine?) Judgement compared to the justice Islamic Nutzis mete out so regularly.

I am vigorously opposed to terrorists. In this country they are not freedom fighters (and that is not to say they are freedom fighters in other countries), they are little more than brainwashed morons:

“All stand,” they were told, but someone said: “He’s not allowed to.”

Abdullah Merhi, a sharp-featured 20-year-old apprentice electrician from Fawkner, leaned forward from the front row of the dock. “Nobody can ask me to stand up but God,” he said.

Yeah, fine, you live here, respect for laws etc. (the RWDB in me awakes) Fuck off.

I have little to no sympathy for these guys. At this stage they have only been charged with “belonging to a terrorist organisation”, the Feds et al. better have more charges than that, or they will be back on the street in months not years.

But I do wish to contrast two Federal Police investigations: This one and the Bali 9.

The Bali 9 were toast before they left Australia. They had all been bugged, investigated, followed and sorted out. When they left Australia, the Federal Police handed the Indonesians a dossier that even they couldn’t fuck up. And, so far, they haven’t. The 9 look like going all the way to the firing squad/Calvary/gallows pole.

Alexander Downer has come out and said that the 9 can’t blame the feds:

Alexander Downer says the AFP has to share information with police forces in the region if Australia is to stop drug smuggling.Mr Downer rejects claims the AFP put Australian lives at risk by giving intelligence to Indonesian police.

“I don’t want to sound too tough in saying this, but I don’t think we should be blaming the Australian Federal Police for Australians at least allegedly getting involved in heroin trafficking,” he said.

In a sense he’s right. They all had free will in this case. They chose to go on this trip. But why didn’t the Feds arrest them before they left? They clearly had enough evidence to support a conspiracy to import charge, and it mean that the Federal Police made the collar and John Howard would have had another moment in the sun. It also would have avoided having the Federal Government have to beg for the life of the 9- as they will and as they have in Van Nguyen’s case. Having to beg third world countries and/or moral superior types with the death penalty for drug trafficking is most unbecoming. It annoys me in the extreme.

The annoyance of state sanctioned murder aside, are the police no longer in the business of crime prevention? What happened to “nip it in the bud?” Is it now about “get them so the charges are the biggest possible?” It would appear that this is the case for the Bali 9. Contrast this with the terror suspects who may not face the full weight of the law as, despite the government telling us that an “attack was imminent”, they may not have enough evidence of the imminent nature of an attack. These terror suspects have been investigated, bugged, tapped, followed, sniffed, probed, investigated probably more than any other crime suspects in Australian history. (Let me just say, I imagine the budget for terror investigations is unlimited). So why arrest them now? Did John Howard force the hand of the law enforcement authorities when he announced that an attack was imminent? Has John Howard actually reduced the sentences these terrorists will face by opening his mouth? It does have a moonbat conspiracy smell about it, but it also makes some sense. It’s not like his government has a perfect record for being quiet when asked to.Kim Beazley on Peter Costello’s gaff (when he leaked info about the meeting he’d had with Alan Greenspan) in 2000:

I was trying to recall when I had last seen him look so uncomfortable. Was it when he verballed Alan Greenspan and single-handedly moved the US bond market?

Costello aside, Howard conspiracies aside, have the Federal Police, ASIO, etc mounted this series of raids too early? Have they gone too early on this case and too late on the Bali 9?

I. Say. Yes.

John Silvester- respected, near-legendary crime reporter (and notably non partisan/lerft wing as no doubt the right will call him as an employee of The Age) says this:

But it was not the media that tipped off the targets. It was the Prime Minister who last Wednesday publicly stated that the Government had received “specific intelligence and police information this week which gives cause for serious concern about a potential terrorist threat”.Mr Howard made his statement after an amendment in the new anti-terrorism laws from “the terrorist act” to “a terrorist act” was rushed into Parliament.Police working on Operation Pandanus, the investigation into a radical Islamic splinter group active in Sydney and Melbourne, immediately identified a “flurry of activity” involving the suspects.They held meetings where they quickly concluded they were the group identified by Mr Howard, telling each other to be ready for imminent raids and to immediately increase counter-surveillance tactics. The police assigned to conduct the raids were livid that they had lost the element of surprise, substantially increasing the risks involved.

The police have, for many, many years tipped off Silvester about goings on inside the force. If he has quotes from the cops about john Howard forcing their hand- then it’s true.

..and that’s all I needed to hear. Howard= fucking idiot.

Links:The Age- How the PM tipped off suspectsThe ABC- Group committed to jihad, court hearsThe ABC- Downer- Bali 9 comments.The Age- Angry young men come and go with intent

Observa, what utter self serving nonsense, the guy is being paid to protect us from harm from home grown or international villains. He made a valid assessment that almost every international relations/security expert in the world with half a brain has also made, including conservative organisations, of what was partially driving or motivating international ‘terrorists’ and you say he had no right to say it because it was ‘political’ .

Where’s the police regulation ”by the numbers Constable Plod, this is political and this is not…this one local guy can be arrested but for political reasons we can’t talk about stopping that one because little Johnny will get mad”

It is not a debate anymore, its fact, and it only may be ‘heated’ because of the criminal minds of Howard and Blair who try to cover their arses and wilfully ignore the fact that INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM WAS AND IS STILL EXACERBATED BY THE ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ.