But everyone appears to be in on it, especially the neighbours. Maybe the authorities have in their arsenal Men in Black style Neuralyzers that wipe the memories of any witnesses.
After the arrests, the NSW police commish had this to say on Labor’s desperate attempt to focus our attention on IR.
“We believe … that we’ve disrupted a large scale operation which, had it been allowed to go through to fruition, we certainly believe would have been catastrophic,” Mr Moroney said.
But in all seriousness, isn’t this stuff supposed to be all hush hush? Now it seems like everyone is blabbing the details of these arrests and the whole thing has been turned into a tabloid television special event. Just where are those five year prison terms when you need them? But then again maybe they have been waived just for this special occasion….no agendas, really. I suppose the PM and Minister Ruddock had to produce something to justify the surprise railroading of the ‘just one little word’ amendment.
Elsewhere: The irreplaceable Tim at Surfdom, Guy at WSAcaucus, The photo narrative stylings of Ms Fits, and Mr Lefty finds something shiny laying around on the ground.
Update [by MB]: More commentary from John Quiggin, and LP bloggers Kate and Cristy.
Update three: No doubt still damp from another session of heavy bedwetting over at Pajamas Media, Tim Blair takes time out to selectively quote a variety of the most excellent blogs in Australia, thank you Tim!
If this site alows me to comment serious terrorists don’t advertise their presence.
These turkeys were raided last year and went on ahead regardless.
More boofheads than dangerous
What is disgraceful is Bracks and Iemma, to the extent they claim a terrorist plot has been foiled, have pronounced the suspects guilty and thereby have prejudiced the defendant’s jury trial. Its called sub-judice after suspects are charged with a crime to comment on guilt or otherwise, prejudicially.
The presumption of innocence trherefore has just been thoroughly fucking trashed. The defence lawyers will have a strong case to submit that any jury will be prejudiced with this, making it extraordinarily difficult now to secure a fair trial, but then as I suspect that may not be the objective.
It is entirely possible that the PM’s big emergency legislation media blitz, has forced the hand of the authorities requiring them to make the arrests now.
Here’s Christine Nixon of the Victoria Police interviewed on AM.
TONY EASTLEY: Was it the amendments under, the new amendments passed through Parliament that allowed you to conduct these arrests now?
CHRISTINE NIXON: Some of it is related to that ammendment, the minor ammendment that occurred.
TONY EASTLEY: This is the ammendment of ‘a’ terrorist act, rather than ‘the’ terrorist act?
CHRISTINE NIXON: That was part of it, but this is a long-term operation. We’ve been involved in this operation with the Australian Federal Police, with the New South Wales Police, with ASIO, with the Australian, sorry, the New South Wales Crime Commission for much of that 16 months. And so we’ve been looking to understand what these people were planning, to see how they were going about their work and so it’s a long-term — it isn’t just something that happened last week.
TONY EASTLEY: So you could have carried these arrests out without those amendments?
CHRISTINE NIXON: We believe that we were moving to a point where we had sufficient evidence to charge these people with a range of offences.
Nice evasive answer from Commissioner Nixon, but no achnowledgement that the legislation change was actually necessary. Perhaps the reports of ASIO and the Police being annoyed at the Howard publicity barrage are true. Perhaps the Police would have liked to run this operation according to their own timetable.
It’s outrageous that today’s raids and arrests were widely reported as “possibly preventing a London- or Madrid-style bombing” (with requisite cuts to blown up public transport). This surely amounts to contempt of court. How can those suspects get a fair trial now?
I agree Rex. Re the “the” and “a” in the definition of membership :
(Sect 102.1 Definition)
“terrorist organisation” means:
(a) an organisation that is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not the [ now 'a'] terrorist act occurs); or…..
Everywhere else in the EXISTING legislation, to the best of my examination, they already used the words ” ‘a’ terrorist act”
I think what has also happened is that the NSW and Vic governments see a lot of political mileage in this to justify the rollover to Canberra, which raises a legitimate question as to whether they influenced the decision to act now.
I was thinking what Rex was thinking. Ruddock over the weekend was implying that arrests may not be immiment. I took it as “Ooops. We let the cat out of the bag to soon” moment. Howard put the operation in doubt, Ruddock trying to cover up the goof, police are forced to act.
Be interested to know if anyone will be able to tell us how the new ant-terror legislation would have helped this operation. Things seem to be working well at the moment without them.
Does this, then, mean “a” as in “any”?
It seems state police are being managed precisely as the military were managed with Tampa.
And another thing. If–as you speculate–the police’s hand was forced, then what’s to say that if these suspects ARE guilty, the police may have really stuffed up by not having the time to gather sufficient evidence?
Something else that’s getting my goat. Who invited the media along to shoot infrared-style helicopter footage of running suspects? Oh, but then, like the Jack Thomas case, the government will apply for a closed court after its own media stunts have finished.
I wouldnt be surprised the cops have gone in 3 months earlier than planned because of Howard’s public gasbagging.
Weathergirl ”Does this, then, mean “a” as in “any”?” I don’t mean to be patronising, but go to the top of the class.
One ‘a’ was what the Senate was recalled for, that some bright spark realised that using the word ‘the’ in the definition implied the prosecution would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a specific planned terrorist attack instead of a more nebulous ‘a’ terrorist attack= general fuzzy idea of attacking someone, sometime down the track not so specified.
Re the police, the old story, like the military: ”ours is not to reason why…”
PK, are you a lawyer? (If so, I have a related question)
What’s the question WG?
Well. Yesterday (Monday 7th) a supreme court judge (Cummins) here in Melbourne made a landmark decision in Australian criminal law history. But reporters present were asked by the judge not to report on the details. It scarcely rated a mention in today’s news. All that was reported was that a trial for Jack Thomas would go ahead. I was there, as were perhaps 6 reporters and as many Thomas supporters, and I’m wondering if there is any way details of the decision could be reported without being subject to contempt. It wasn’t a closed court. Reporters were simply asked by the judge not to report details of the decision. I don’t know if this is binding–it seemed simply a request, not a ruling. Is compliance to this request simply professional code or is it binding? I’ve asked LE and he thinks not, but he’s not certain.
Without devulging the details of the decision, it concerned whether or not to accept evidence of a statement extracted [censored censored censored] by AFP in a Pakistani military [censored] with no legal [censored]. (This is all on public record—see http://www.justice4jack.com — another reason I don’t think it’s subjudice contempt ) The prosecution’s case rests almost solely on this evidence. I fear the decision sets an alarming and dangerous precedent in the current political climate. And it is a landmark decision. I think it is in the public interest to know of it. Would describing it be contempt?
Come on guys. There’s no conspiracy in this whatsoever and if you heard Keelty on the 7.30 Report you’d have to agree. Furthermore there is no significant political advantage here for the Howard govt, as the State Premiers and the Opposition have been at one on this right from the beginning. I told you the Premiers were never going to leave any legislative stone unturned to protect their punters, no matter what the chattering classes said. That’s because the latter have no responsibility whatsoever, attached to their blatherings. The current arrests are a result of some long term policing and the DPP asking for a definitional change in the current law, to clear up any legal out, on the cases at hand. Keelty intimated as much. Let’s face it, there are a small number of crazy Muslim bastards running about the place and the spooks and courts need to keep them off the streets, most importantly for the benefit of all Muslims here. Bakr and Co are dangerous loons and Sydney and Melbourne chattering classes need to bear that in mind. In Adelaide I could afford to chatter about civil rights for Muslim loonies, because they aint gunna blow up me and mine with juicier eastern state targets around.
Weathergirl – “Who invited the media along to shoot infrared-style helicopter footage of running suspects?”
That’s Police footage given to the media.
You have an interesting interpretation of contempt of court.
If these arrests weren’t made in order to prevent terrorist attacks, then why else would they be made, apart from any conspiracy theories?
So, we need all these special laws to deal with a small bunch of crazy loons when long term policing can do the job? Now that’s crazy.
Secondly, political advantage is there, because the PM get’s to wag the dog using the War on Crazy Loons in order to distract us from IR.
Labor agrees with this in an effort to remove any wedge and possibility of fighting the Govt on it’s fave territory of national security so they can focus on IR, so far it’s game set and match to the Govt…….IR is off the front pages and crazy bearded loons are front centre.
Observa, cut the crap about us arguing for conspiracy, we’re just nutting out the obviously naked political strategy and advantage being played out.
And really, what makes Adeladian’s so special that they get to keep their civil rights and Sydneysiders don’t? Last time I looked at the papers it appears that Adelaide will soon have a loon problem of it’s own.
Yeah, Razor, Der. Police media unit footage given to the mainstream media. Why, do you suppose? In the public interest, you reckon?
And who would you expect to represent the 15 Muslim terrorist suspects rounded up today? Yes, it’s none other than our old mate Rob Stary. If your name’s Jihad Jack, then Rob Stary is definitely a name you need to remember. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17176555-29277,00.html
Observa – THE LEFT don’t claim there is not a threat from terrorism or that there shouldn’t be a proportionate response.
John Quiggin puts a measured position with which I agree.
Jihad Jack is simply a name dreamed up by no-brainer tabloids and shock-jocks, and parrotted by, well… Thomas never called himself this.
WG it seems to me that anything on the public record cannot be restricted from a judge’s direction. Having said that, I must say that having read the article you linked, and I don’t have the Victorian legislation at hand but the NSW Evidence Act 1995 (practically the same as Commonwealth legislation under which the charges would be laid and the Vic court is exercising Federal jurisdiction as I understand it ) is Section 84
(1) ”Evidence of an admission is not admissable unless the court is satisfied that the admission, and the making of the admission were not influenced by
(a) violent, oppressive, inhuman, or degrading conduct whether towards the person who made the admission or towards another person; or
(b) a threat of conduct of that kind.”
(2) paraphrasing, where the defendant has raised the issue of a or b.
Without the exact words the judge used, public advice would be a no no, however it appears your judge has decided the evidence can be admitted because ‘the court is satisfied” …”not influenced” from which I make a reasonable assumption he/she is ASHAMED of that decision which is why the gag is being tried. I can see appeals from this until the cows come home.
Send me more via Mark if you wish, that’s not ‘reporting’, and I can elaborate more.
PK, you’re a gem. I’ve emailed Mark. Thank you.
Observa: ”ThereÄôs no conspiracy in this whatsoever and if you heard Keelty on the 7.30 Report youÄôd have to agree.”
What happened when Keelty told us of a connection between war in Iraq and terrorism? Got a phone call from whose office to change his story mmm ?
Howard or Ruddock let him make his own mind up on certain things? NFW!
Shorter Observer: ”They are obviously guilty you honour, I have that on the authority of Commissioner Keelty.”
Can the lawyers among us offer an opinion on the likelihood that the prejudicial comments of various Premiers, police officers, media outlets, letter writers, etc., would cumulatively constitute a good case for a Court of Appeal to quash any convictions which may result from these arrests?
And its not just old Warren now complaining about Howard stuffing it all up for political cover:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/how-pm-tipped-off-suspects/2005/11/08/1131407639657.html
A word of praise is in order for Tracy Grimshaw. On this morning’s Today program she invited viewers to SMS their thoughts on the arrests, and stated that they would be read out later in the program – provided they were legal and not prejudicial, as “these [arrested] men have legal rights which must be respected”. The Courier-Mail, the Australian and numerous letter writers to those papers have no such scruples. My consumer boycott of the Murdoch press has been vindicated.
Paul N, did you notice on lateline last night that Ruddock has been the ONLY person to date using correct language, ”alleged” qualifying charges/activity of the accused.
I think these guys chances of a fair trial is practically zero since the media has already pronounced them guilty. How could any (constitutional section 80) jury not be seriously affected by the media, and what other gems of evidence which emerge in the near future and at trial will not be blasted all over the place confirming ‘guilt’?
Does anyone really think the media will shut up even during the trial ? The public interest indeed—for a public lynching and pollies both State and federal level screeching how clever they are to put up even more draconian legislation which is totally irrelevant to the laws these suspects will/have been charged with breaching.
When you read about the evidence gathered, there’s not a lot, is there? A video of some landmarks. A putative following of some of the teachings of some dodgy people…
Here’s something for observa:
http://theage.com.au/news/national/delay-sought-on-terror-trial/2005/11/09/1131407668562.html
Delay sought on terror trial
The lawyer for the nine men arrested in yesterday’s terror raids says he will apply for a delay of the trial of terror suspect Jack Thomas, scheduled for Monday. Rob Stary, acting for Thomas, said media coverage of the raids was likely to prejudice the trial of the Werribee man, who was arrested in Pakistan in 2003 and is charged with supporting and accepting money from al-Qaeda.
Thomas’ trial was unrelated to yesterday’s arrests.
“What happened when Keelty told us of a connection between war in Iraq and terrorism? Got a phone call from whose office to change his story mmm ?”
Peter, Keelty was stepping outside his job role here and the politician’s were right in warning him off before he got himself into a political minefield. That’s a position no top cop or PS wants to find himself in. Keelty took the advice fairly well and has been mindful ever since.
The minefield he was about to step into was the heated political debate as to which of ET, Afganistan, Iraq, they just hate all infidels, etc, etc, was/is a cause of terrorism against Australians and to what extent individual factors/causes were/are more or less significant. You plump for Iraq. OK that’s fine, but it’s not fine for a top cop to get involved in that political argument. Think about it. What if he came out and said he thought Muslim immigration needed to be curtailed to prevent terrorism. You’d understand the point quick smart then. His job is to get the bad guys, albeit he should be free to give his private political opinions fearlessly behind closed doors to his political masters.
”Keelty was stepping outside his job role here and the politicianÄôs were right in warning him off before he got himself into a political minefield.”
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.
Originally on my own blog, but I’ll post here as well, apologoes:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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
Yeah Phil, some of us have noticed the draconian measures necessary to preserve life, limb and safety from the leftist loons and the Islamic Nutzis. Many would say it’s no coincidence at all really.
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.
Thomasr, I think you are correct on all counts. The fucking idiot could not resist his political genetic-runt imperative to use wedge tactics plus the need to create a smokescreen for the industrial relations legislation. Too clever by half.
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.
We can all make statements of fact about a policeman’s lot such as-
1. Australia’s involvement in Iraq has made us a target for terrorists.
2. Muslim immigration has increased our threat from terrorism.
3. Without aboriginals in our society, crime and prison rates would be significantly lower and the community safer.
4. The threat of terrorism in Australia, when we analyse the statements of Islamists, is a complex interplay of factors, including our military intervention in places like ET, Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as our past immigration policy and simply the fact that most of us are not followers of Islam but infidels in their eyes.
Presumably Peter Kemp thinks all these statements of fact are equivalent and reasonable public utterances for any top cop in Oz.
”some of us have noticed the draconian measures necessary to preserve life, limb and safety from the leftist loons”
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.
I am pleased that islamic nutters who were raided last year and preaumably neither read last weels OZ or watch last sundays Insiders program are arrested.
just remember if e ever get fair dinkum terrorists the police and ASIO won’t know about them!
I was referring to the usual suspects that Phil referenced, namely the feral rentacrowd, lefty loons, that will require a lockdown of Adelaide for the visit of a US dignitary as per usual these days Peter.
Oh and far be it from me to suggest that anyone here at LP would even dream of supporting the relatively innocuous, but ill-mannered and ignorant outburst of a Bob Brown to a visiting US President, let alone supporting such WTO ferals and the like. I’m sure we’re all much too sophisticated and civilised for that here.
Observa remarked:
… 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.
Naaah, nice try Observa, I was referring to Rumsfeld and pals. The ‘rent a crowd’ as you so quaintly refer to them are just exercising their rights of peaceful protest and democratic opposition.
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.
I have deleted a comment by Jack due to it’s offensive nature.
Jack? Do not attempt to post here again or your IP will be banned, there is no correspondence entered into on this.
I don’t see how the amendment could have had had anything more than a marginal effect on these arrests. An operation of this kind would have needed weeks if not months to set up: search and arrest warrants, co-ordination between the AFP and the state plice services, huge logistics issues to resolve.
This despite Howard saying -
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?
Rob: I just checked, and the provisions came into effect on the day after the Bill received Royal Assent. I can’t find the actual date, but it’s a safe bet that if the Senate was called in to rubber-stamp the changes at short notice, so was the G-G.
Ok Rob, just for you I’ll rephrase my comment.
“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.
Peter Kemp: “I think these guys chances of a fair trial is practically zero since the media has already pronounced them guilty. How could any (constitutional section 80) jury not be seriously affected by the media, and what other gems of evidence which emerge in the near future and at trial will not be blasted all over the place confirming ‘guiltÄô?”
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.
Cristy, the longer the media keep this up, I think a non jury trial is probably a better bet in the circumstances. That still does not absolve the sub-judice offenders.
I think it has to be indictable with a 5-ten year jail term.
Cristy
Indictable Commonwealth 1 year or more.
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
Sorry, Phil, I wasn’t having a go.
Something very odd going here. I wrote, ‘Sorry, Phil, I wasn’t having a go’ and the comment seems to float in and out of the LP ether like a phantasm.