http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/07/27/im-so-sorry-my-wife-has-made-a-mistake/

Are any RWDBs out there concerned that our Government’s primary interest in national security questions seems to be the politics of it?

Outraged when they cant get a wedge out of it - but when it gets down to actual policing - all over the shop, rushed, incompetent, and a complete laughing stock.

“Oh yeah, that guy with the SIM card…”

This man’s life is ruined well before anyone has shown or proven that he’s done anything wrong.

and I second the Burnside article.

(an angry) michael D

Nowadays Lib backbenchers are muttering audibly about driving a stake through Ratty’s heart.

What if they gave a wedge, and no-one came?

Just hold your noses, boys, dont break ranks, keep cool, dead bat and keep marching till election day.
…
Then reform the laws.

Which is exactly what the electorate thought would happen in 2001.

http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/07/attack-on-rule-of-law.html

Wilkinson, who I mentioned in the OP, cites the near breakdown of the police in Ulster as an example of how policing (and intelligence gathering) become difficult without public support. It is an extreme example but serves as a point.

Related to this, the ANU’s Clive Williams has argued that one historical factor in limiting terrorist attacks in Australia has been the government allowing certain groups to operate openly. Not driving suspect organizations underground has made it easier for law enforcement and other agencies keep tabs on such groups.

Of course there are many elements to a successful counterterrorism strategy. However, I do think it is obvious that marginalizing groups through a perceived partisan approach to law enforcement is a counter productive to the cause as a whole.

I would have thought the point of the wedge was to force the Labor Party into disagreeing with Government’s position, a la Tampa in 2001

Well you thought wrong. It is only in YOUR head that a wedge exists. If the Opposition is not capable of having a coherent position on such an important threat as Islamism, it does not deserve to win government.

Fortunately, as I said, Labor overwhelmingly realizes the reality of the Muslim menace. Opposing these people is the right thing to do.

I’m hoping what Ken L is hoping:

You know to a rank amateur like me, calling a Senior Counsel’s behaviour ‘highly unethical’ sounds remarkably like defamation … unless of course it was unethical, in which case I expect the nation’s first law officer to bring the appropriate proceedings before the Bar Council at an early date.

And if he doesn’t, I hope Stephen Keim sues and we see the Corpse Who Walks making an abject public apology.

He’s not a loose cannon, nor a radical - he’s a bar traditionalist in many ways, and has been an acting judge.

They wont be able to smear him.

He’s called their bluff, and they’ve got nothing to counter with, since theyve been leaking from the same document like rusty sieves for political effect all week.

More broadly, these guys are too interested in the politics of national security to be in charge of it.

The various Red Armies never put their poliltcal commissars on watch for a reason.

They werent any good at it.

http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/07/18/theres-lawyers-and-theres-lawyers/

Just hold your noses, boys, dont break ranks, keep cool, dead bat and keep marching till election day.

They’re getting desperate, they stink of fear, like herded rodents before a slaughter - keep smiling, nodding, and take these cynical lowlife coalition shitstains to the fucking cleaners in November.

Then reform the laws.

And remember, folks, in Saddam’s Iraq, unreviewable administrative detention trumped judicial determination too.

And three cheers for Keim. He’s a brave man.

The only way this can happen is if Labor does not have a position on these issues OR they are in agreement with the government.

I would have thought the point of the wedge was to force the Labor Party into disagreeing with Government’s position, a la Tampa in 2001. Anything less than full agreement with whatever is being done to Haneef is soft on terrorism etc etc. I can see why everyone in the Liberal/National parties would acquiesce quietly to any excursions into the moral hinterland - the way the polls are looking, anything with the slightest chance of turning their fortunes around would necessarily require full support. Labor may split on the issue though.

Unless Labor give it at least qualified support, they may open themselves to political attacks if there are any terrorist events between now and the election.

I would encourage those who have an interest in the actual topic to read the leaked transcript of the interview with the unfortunate doctor.

Why The GG thought that it was OK to include e-mail addresses and phone numbers beggers belief, but I suppose it’s consistent with just about every other aspect of this sorry affair.