Friday, March 24, 2006
...and Israeli Arseholes
The Power of Saying No
by Jeff Halper
23 March 2006
As the new Hamas government is sworn into power in the Palestinian Authority, we might ask: What would bring a people, the most secular of Arab populations with little history of religious fundamentalism, to vote Hamas? Mere protest at Fatah ineffectualness in negotiations and internal corruption doesn't go far enough. While warning Hamas that their vote did not constitute a mandate for imposing an Iran-like theocracy on Palestine, the Palestinians took the only option left to a powerless people when all other avenues of redress have been closed to them: non-cooperation.
Gandhi put it best: "How can one be compelled to accept slavery? I simply refuse to do the master's bidding. He may torture me, break my bones to atoms and even kill me. He will then have my dead body, not my obedience. Ultimately, therefore, it is I who am the victor and not he, for he has failed in getting me to do what he wanted done. Non-cooperation is directed not against ... the Governors, but against the system they administer. The roots of non-cooperation lie not in hatred but in justice."
Non-cooperation, perhaps the most powerful means of non-violent resistance, arises in situations when the oppressed have no other avenues to achieve their freedom and their rights. Since it is the international community, the US, Israel and, yes, Fatah, who have closed all avenues of redress to the Palestinians, they carry the "blame" for the rise of Hamas. It is to them that the message of the Palestinian electorate is aimed: "To hell with all of you!"
To hell with the international community that closed off Palestinians' appeal to international law and human rights conventions. Had only the Fourth Geneva Convention been applied, Israel could never have constructed its Occupation in the first place. International law defines an occupation as a temporary military situation that can only be resolved through negotiations. Therefore an Occupying Power such as Israel is prohibited from taking any unilateral action that makes its control permanent. Besides its military bases, every single element of Israel's Occupation is patently illegal: settlements and the construction of a massive system of Israel-only highways that link the West Bank settlements to Israel proper; the extension of Israel's legal and planning system into occupied Palestinian areas; the plunder of Palestinian water and other resources for Israeli use; house demolitions and the expropriation of Palestinian lands; the intentional impoverishment of the local population; military attacks on civilian populations — to name but a few. Even when Israel's construction of the "Separation Barrier" was ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice in the Hague and its ruling ratified by the General Assembly, nothing was done to stop it.
To hell with the United States that closed off negotiations as an avenue for redressing Palestinian rights and for enabling Israel to make its Occupation permanent. At the very start of the Oslo "peace process," at Israel's urging, the US reclassified the Palestinian areas from "occupied" to "disputed," thus removing international law as the basis of negotiations and pulling the rug out from under the Palestinians. Had international law been respected, the Occupation would have ended under the weight of its own illegality. But once power became the only basis of negotiations, Israel easily overwhelmed the Palestinians. Until today Palestinians have nothing to look for in negotiations. With the Americans supporting Israeli unilateralism, with the US veto neutralizing the UN as an effective avenue of redress, and with European passivity, they have been cut adrift.
To hell with Israel that has closed off even the possibility of a viable Palestinian state by expanding into Palestinian areas. The world ignored the Palestinians' "generous offer" to Israel: recognition within the 1967 borders in return for a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories. Or in other words, an Israel on 78% of historic Palestine with the Palestinians — today a majority in the country — accepting a state only on 22%. Israel is now posed, with American support and international complicity, to make its Occupation permanent and reduce the Palestinians to a prison-state truncated into five "cantons" all controlled by Israel. No borders, no freedom of movement, no water, no viable economy, no Jerusalem, no possibility of offering a hopeful future to the traumatized, brutalized, undereducated, unskilled, impoverished Palestinian youth.
And to hell with Fatah that, in addition to enabling corruption, did not effectively pursue the Palestinians' national agenda of self-determination. The Palestinian Authority ran its affairs removed from the people, failing to provide material and moral support to victims of Israeli attacks and policies of house demolitions. Most Palestinians did not vote Hamas (only 44% did), so the door was not closed on Fatah which, most Palestinians seem to hope, will learn its lesson from this setback.
Indeed, the vote for Hamas was not a closing of the door at all, but a rational, intentional and powerful statement of non-cooperation in a political process that is only leading to Palestinian imprisonment. Hamas, if anything, stands for steadfastness, sumud, the refusal to submit. This conflict is too destabilizing to the entire global system to let fester, the Palestinians are saying. You can all impose upon us an apartheid system, blame us for the violence while ignoring Israeli State Terror, pursue your programs of American Empire or your notions of a "clash of civilizations," we the Palestinians will not submit. We will not cooperate. We will not play your rigged game. In the end, for all your power, you will come to us to sue for peace. And then we will be ready for a just peace that respects the rights of all the peoples of the region, including the Israelis. But you will not beat us.
As an Israeli Jew who sees how the Occupation has eroded the moral foundations of my society and, indeed, my entire people, and as a resident of Israel-Palestine who knows that my fate is intricately intertwined with that of the Palestinians, I pray that such an end will come sooner rather than later.
Jeff Halper is the coordinator of The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
by Jeff Halper
23 March 2006
As the new Hamas government is sworn into power in the Palestinian Authority, we might ask: What would bring a people, the most secular of Arab populations with little history of religious fundamentalism, to vote Hamas? Mere protest at Fatah ineffectualness in negotiations and internal corruption doesn't go far enough. While warning Hamas that their vote did not constitute a mandate for imposing an Iran-like theocracy on Palestine, the Palestinians took the only option left to a powerless people when all other avenues of redress have been closed to them: non-cooperation.
Gandhi put it best: "How can one be compelled to accept slavery? I simply refuse to do the master's bidding. He may torture me, break my bones to atoms and even kill me. He will then have my dead body, not my obedience. Ultimately, therefore, it is I who am the victor and not he, for he has failed in getting me to do what he wanted done. Non-cooperation is directed not against ... the Governors, but against the system they administer. The roots of non-cooperation lie not in hatred but in justice."
Non-cooperation, perhaps the most powerful means of non-violent resistance, arises in situations when the oppressed have no other avenues to achieve their freedom and their rights. Since it is the international community, the US, Israel and, yes, Fatah, who have closed all avenues of redress to the Palestinians, they carry the "blame" for the rise of Hamas. It is to them that the message of the Palestinian electorate is aimed: "To hell with all of you!"
To hell with the international community that closed off Palestinians' appeal to international law and human rights conventions. Had only the Fourth Geneva Convention been applied, Israel could never have constructed its Occupation in the first place. International law defines an occupation as a temporary military situation that can only be resolved through negotiations. Therefore an Occupying Power such as Israel is prohibited from taking any unilateral action that makes its control permanent. Besides its military bases, every single element of Israel's Occupation is patently illegal: settlements and the construction of a massive system of Israel-only highways that link the West Bank settlements to Israel proper; the extension of Israel's legal and planning system into occupied Palestinian areas; the plunder of Palestinian water and other resources for Israeli use; house demolitions and the expropriation of Palestinian lands; the intentional impoverishment of the local population; military attacks on civilian populations — to name but a few. Even when Israel's construction of the "Separation Barrier" was ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice in the Hague and its ruling ratified by the General Assembly, nothing was done to stop it.
To hell with the United States that closed off negotiations as an avenue for redressing Palestinian rights and for enabling Israel to make its Occupation permanent. At the very start of the Oslo "peace process," at Israel's urging, the US reclassified the Palestinian areas from "occupied" to "disputed," thus removing international law as the basis of negotiations and pulling the rug out from under the Palestinians. Had international law been respected, the Occupation would have ended under the weight of its own illegality. But once power became the only basis of negotiations, Israel easily overwhelmed the Palestinians. Until today Palestinians have nothing to look for in negotiations. With the Americans supporting Israeli unilateralism, with the US veto neutralizing the UN as an effective avenue of redress, and with European passivity, they have been cut adrift.
To hell with Israel that has closed off even the possibility of a viable Palestinian state by expanding into Palestinian areas. The world ignored the Palestinians' "generous offer" to Israel: recognition within the 1967 borders in return for a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories. Or in other words, an Israel on 78% of historic Palestine with the Palestinians — today a majority in the country — accepting a state only on 22%. Israel is now posed, with American support and international complicity, to make its Occupation permanent and reduce the Palestinians to a prison-state truncated into five "cantons" all controlled by Israel. No borders, no freedom of movement, no water, no viable economy, no Jerusalem, no possibility of offering a hopeful future to the traumatized, brutalized, undereducated, unskilled, impoverished Palestinian youth.
And to hell with Fatah that, in addition to enabling corruption, did not effectively pursue the Palestinians' national agenda of self-determination. The Palestinian Authority ran its affairs removed from the people, failing to provide material and moral support to victims of Israeli attacks and policies of house demolitions. Most Palestinians did not vote Hamas (only 44% did), so the door was not closed on Fatah which, most Palestinians seem to hope, will learn its lesson from this setback.
Indeed, the vote for Hamas was not a closing of the door at all, but a rational, intentional and powerful statement of non-cooperation in a political process that is only leading to Palestinian imprisonment. Hamas, if anything, stands for steadfastness, sumud, the refusal to submit. This conflict is too destabilizing to the entire global system to let fester, the Palestinians are saying. You can all impose upon us an apartheid system, blame us for the violence while ignoring Israeli State Terror, pursue your programs of American Empire or your notions of a "clash of civilizations," we the Palestinians will not submit. We will not cooperate. We will not play your rigged game. In the end, for all your power, you will come to us to sue for peace. And then we will be ready for a just peace that respects the rights of all the peoples of the region, including the Israelis. But you will not beat us.
As an Israeli Jew who sees how the Occupation has eroded the moral foundations of my society and, indeed, my entire people, and as a resident of Israel-Palestine who knows that my fate is intricately intertwined with that of the Palestinians, I pray that such an end will come sooner rather than later.
Jeff Halper is the coordinator of The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
US Arseholes
US Troops Investigated Over Iraqi Massacres
by Patrick Cockburn
The Independent UK
23 March 2006
The US military is investigating two incidents in which American soldiers killed at least 26 Iraqi civilians and then claimed that they were either guerrillas or had died in cross fire.
The growing evidence of retaliatory killings of unarmed Iraqi families, often including children, by US soldiers seemingly bent on punishing Iraqis after an attack, will spark comparisons with the massacre of Vietnamese villagers at My Lai in 1968.
US troops have been notorious among Iraqis for their willingness to shoot any Iraqi they see in the aftermath of an insurgent attack. But it is only now that convincing and detailed information is becoming available about the killings.
In the most recent incident, in the town of Ishaqi north of Baghdad last week, Iraqi police said that US troops had shot 11 people, including five children, in their home. The local police chief, Colonel Farouq Hussein, said that all the dead had been shot in the head, according to autopsies. "It's a clear and perfect crime," he said. In an incident in the town of Haditha in western Iraq on 19 November last year, US soldiers went on a rampage in a village after a bomb attack and killed at least 15 civilians, according to witnesses and local officials cited by Time magazine in an investigation.
The US military first claimed a roadside bomb had killed a US Marine, Miguel Tarrazas, along with 15 Iraqi civilians caught in the blast. Later, a military statement said "gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire" and in returning fire the Marines killed eight insurgents.
But after Time presented the US military with what Iraqis said had happened, an official investigation found that 15 of the civilians had been deliberately killed by US soldiers.
The bomb attack on the US Humvee took place at 7.15am. Eman Waleed, a nine-year-old child, lived in a house 150 yards from the explosion. "We heard a big noise that woke us all up," she recalled later. "Then we did what we always do when there's an explosion: my father goes in to his room with the Koran and prays the family will be spared harm."
The Marines claim they heard shots coming from the direction of Waleed's house. They burst in to the house and Eman heard shots from her father's room. They then entered the living room, where the rest of the family was gathered. She said, "I couldn't see their faces very well — only their guns sticking in to the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny."
The US soldiers started shooting into the corner of the room where Eman and her eight-year-old brother, Abdul Rahman, were cowering. The other adults in the room tried to protect the two children with their bodies and were all shot dead. Eman and her brother were both wounded.
"We were lying there, bleeding and it hurt so much. Afterwards some Iraqi soldiers came. They carried us in their arms. I was crying, shouting, 'why did you do this to our family?' And one Iraqi soldier tells me, 'we didn't do it. The Americans did it'."
The Marines' explanation is that they heard the sound of a Kalashnikov being readied to shoot and had then fired their weapons. The Marines say they were fired at from a second house, where they broke down a door, threw in a grenade and opened fire. The eight who died in the second house included the owner, his wife, the owner's sister, a two-year-old son and three young daughters.
In a third house the Marines searched four young men were shot dead. A military investigation decided these were insurgent fighters, along with four others killed in the street.
The Marines later delivered 24 bodies to a hospital in Haditha, claiming they had been killed by shrapnel from a bomb. Dr. Wahid, the director of the hospital, said, "It was obvious to us there were no organs slashed by shrapnel. The bullet wounds were very apparent. Most of the victims were shot in the head and chest — from close range."
A US military investigation decided the deaths were "collateral damage". Relatives were paid $2,500 for each of the dead.
by Patrick Cockburn
The Independent UK
23 March 2006
The US military is investigating two incidents in which American soldiers killed at least 26 Iraqi civilians and then claimed that they were either guerrillas or had died in cross fire.
The growing evidence of retaliatory killings of unarmed Iraqi families, often including children, by US soldiers seemingly bent on punishing Iraqis after an attack, will spark comparisons with the massacre of Vietnamese villagers at My Lai in 1968.
US troops have been notorious among Iraqis for their willingness to shoot any Iraqi they see in the aftermath of an insurgent attack. But it is only now that convincing and detailed information is becoming available about the killings.
In the most recent incident, in the town of Ishaqi north of Baghdad last week, Iraqi police said that US troops had shot 11 people, including five children, in their home. The local police chief, Colonel Farouq Hussein, said that all the dead had been shot in the head, according to autopsies. "It's a clear and perfect crime," he said. In an incident in the town of Haditha in western Iraq on 19 November last year, US soldiers went on a rampage in a village after a bomb attack and killed at least 15 civilians, according to witnesses and local officials cited by Time magazine in an investigation.
The US military first claimed a roadside bomb had killed a US Marine, Miguel Tarrazas, along with 15 Iraqi civilians caught in the blast. Later, a military statement said "gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire" and in returning fire the Marines killed eight insurgents.
But after Time presented the US military with what Iraqis said had happened, an official investigation found that 15 of the civilians had been deliberately killed by US soldiers.
The bomb attack on the US Humvee took place at 7.15am. Eman Waleed, a nine-year-old child, lived in a house 150 yards from the explosion. "We heard a big noise that woke us all up," she recalled later. "Then we did what we always do when there's an explosion: my father goes in to his room with the Koran and prays the family will be spared harm."
The Marines claim they heard shots coming from the direction of Waleed's house. They burst in to the house and Eman heard shots from her father's room. They then entered the living room, where the rest of the family was gathered. She said, "I couldn't see their faces very well — only their guns sticking in to the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny."
The US soldiers started shooting into the corner of the room where Eman and her eight-year-old brother, Abdul Rahman, were cowering. The other adults in the room tried to protect the two children with their bodies and were all shot dead. Eman and her brother were both wounded.
"We were lying there, bleeding and it hurt so much. Afterwards some Iraqi soldiers came. They carried us in their arms. I was crying, shouting, 'why did you do this to our family?' And one Iraqi soldier tells me, 'we didn't do it. The Americans did it'."
The Marines' explanation is that they heard the sound of a Kalashnikov being readied to shoot and had then fired their weapons. The Marines say they were fired at from a second house, where they broke down a door, threw in a grenade and opened fire. The eight who died in the second house included the owner, his wife, the owner's sister, a two-year-old son and three young daughters.
In a third house the Marines searched four young men were shot dead. A military investigation decided these were insurgent fighters, along with four others killed in the street.
The Marines later delivered 24 bodies to a hospital in Haditha, claiming they had been killed by shrapnel from a bomb. Dr. Wahid, the director of the hospital, said, "It was obvious to us there were no organs slashed by shrapnel. The bullet wounds were very apparent. Most of the victims were shot in the head and chest — from close range."
A US military investigation decided the deaths were "collateral damage". Relatives were paid $2,500 for each of the dead.
Democracy vs Terrorism
When Terrorism Outlaws Democracy
by Wanda Fish
On September 27, 2005, Australian democracy surrendered to terrorism. On that day, a coalition of willing federal and state leaders agreed to anti-terrorism legislation that will enable police persecution of the Muslim community and threaten dissidents with imprisonment. In a country without a Bill of Rights, the prospect of more draconian Terror Laws delivers ultimate control through fear. Australia, with its history of penal colonies, racism and detention centres, is now set to become a police state.
When Prime Minister Howard announced that he would meet with the State premiers about the need for harsher counter-terrorism measures, Labor state leaders were critical of the proposal and called the proposed laws ‘totalitarian’. The secret briefing, given by ASIO, the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation, had the desired impact. Within two hours, the Premiers had agreed to surrender our democratic rights to fight a subjective noun, terrorism. Assuming the state leaders were bribed with the promise of increased funding for their police forces, all Premiers agreed enthusiastically to use their own police to search, control, and detain ‘terror suspects’. The agreement gave John Howard the ability to circumvent the Australian constitution and enable detention of citizens for up two weeks without charge. ASIO’s reach into the community multiplies by 30 when state police began to operate as secret police. Australians, who have lost basic rights in the closed-door meeting, are expected to ‘trust’ that the Howard Government is protecting them from an invisible enemy in the American war on terror. The one concession gained by state leaders was a ten-year sunset clause on the new Terror Laws. This means citizens will only have a decade of surveillance, control orders, preventative detention, and thought police.
The new ‘regime’ of tougher laws that John Howard presented has alarmed Australian Muslims, journalists, peace activists, and dissidents who fear they will be victimized by ASIO raids and ‘fishing expeditions’. Protestors may be subjected to more police harassment, surveillance, and detention without charge. It will become a crime to ‘incite’ violence against the community, or against Australia’s forces overseas who fight in an unpopular war. It will also be a crime to communicate messages that ‘support’ Australia’s enemies’. The new crimes carry seven-year prison terms. Moreover the laws shift from a presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt. Writers and activists will have to prove that their articles or speeches did not ‘incite violence. Understandably, civil libertarians, constitutional lawyers, Muslims, journalists, and anti-war campaigners are worried.
With the devil in the detail, it is important to be both alert and alarmed about John Howard’s and the State Premiers’ twelve-step plan to totalitarianism:
1. Control orders: ‘People who pose a terrorist risk’ will have year-long control orders placed on them. Tracking devices, travel restrictions, and ‘association restrictions’ are included. While the Government has argued that similar control orders already exist with Apprehended Violence Orders (AVO), legal critics have pointed out that the new terror control orders are significantly more restrictive and can be imposed with no public accountability because of secrecy restrictions that hide ASIO’s activities from public scrutiny.
2. Preventative detention: ‘Suspects’ can be detained for up to two weeks without charge. This step by-passes the judicial system and would have been unconstitutional if enforced by the Australian Federal Police. State police will be able to detain ‘suspects’ who might have information or might be intending to commit a terrorist act. Less than 2,000 Federal Police will no longer limit ASIO’s invasiveness. The intelligence organisation will be able to use 45,000 police from the states and territories to detain suspects for up to two weeks without charge. This extraordinary power runs the risk of being used in criminal cases and the harassment of activists and protest leaders.
3. Notice to produce: The AFP may request and obtain virtually any information on any citizen under the banner of ‘national security’.
4. Access to passenger information: Provide access to airline passenger information for ASIO and the AFP. If John Howard follows the American example, Australians can expect ‘no-fly’ lists that will be used to disrupt the activities and restrict travel options for known activists and dissidents.
5. Extensive stop, search and question powers: Federal police will have the power to stop, search and question any citizen whom they believe ‘might have just committed, might be committing, or might be about to commit a terrorism offence’. The subjective judgment of police will determine what someone might be thinking of doing. The loose definition of terrorism makes this particular power easy to abuse.
6. Extending search and interrogation powers to state police at transport hubs: People at bus stops, taxi ranks, railway stations, and airports can and will be subjected to random searches and the subjective judgment of police.
7. ASIO warrants regime: ASIO search warrants will be extended from 28 days to three months, while mail and delivery service warrants extend from 90 days to six months. Moreover, ASIO will be able to remove and keep anything they take from premises that have been searched ‘for as long as needed’ for purposes of security. Organisations opposing the Government on issues such as industrial relations or student rights are aware of the potential for this power to be used to spy on them, disrupt activity and remove records. Lawyers have argued that the extended warrants enable ASIO to go on ‘fishing expeditions’ that will see innocent Australians being watched.
8. Create new offences: The existing sedition offence will be scrapped, and replaced with the broader, new crime of ‘inciting violence against the community’. Journalists and internet writers who ‘communicate inciting messages directed against Australia’s forces overseas and groups who ‘support Australia’s enemies’ could face up to seven years in prison. The new warrants regime combined with ASIO’s unfettered access to private emails, computer searches, on-line forums, may impact on cyber-journalism’s resolve to report the truth.
9. Strengthen offences for financing terrorism or providing false or misleading information under an ASIO questioning warrant. The right to remain silent is removed, and anyone refusing to answer questions can be imprisoned. Former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, publicly opposed this regime when he spoke at a symposium addressing global leaderships and ethics, ‘The legislation is contrary to the Rule of Law. It is contrary to Due Process, to Habeas Corpus, to the basic rights which we have come to understand are central to a free and open society.’ Lawyers have also asked what ‘strengthens’ means in relation to financing terrorism, given that under the Criminal Code this offence already incurs life imprisonment.
10. Criteria for listing terrorist organizations will be extended. Organisations that ‘advocate terrorism’ can be banned. Community lawyers, policy workers, advocates and legal academics have argued that ‘the extension of the unprecedented powers to ban terrorist organisations …poses the danger that many organisations that publicly support independence movements like Fretilin and the ANC will be vulnerable to proscription.’ The potential for this list to grow to include organizations that oppose the Government is self-evident.
11. Citizenship: The Government will extend the waiting period for citizenship from two to three years and will refuse citizenship on ‘security grounds’. As a critical electorate and organizations such as Amnesty International draw unwanted attention to the Government’s inhumane treatment of refugees, the Immigration Department will be able to make secret decisions based on ‘national security’. The recent case of Scott Parkin demonstrated how joint exercises between ASIO and the Department of Immigration can quickly and legally expel dissidents or unwanted refugees. The only explanation that needs to be given is ‘for reasons of national security’.
12. Terrorist financing: More invasive processes to ensure that charities are not used to fund ‘terrorist organisations’ will be extended to institutions and couriers involved in the process. What ASIO will deem to be a terrorist organisation is as open-ended as the definition of terrorism itself. Similar legislation in the UK has already resulted in legitimate Iraqi orphanage charities being banned and having their funds seized.
by Wanda Fish
On September 27, 2005, Australian democracy surrendered to terrorism. On that day, a coalition of willing federal and state leaders agreed to anti-terrorism legislation that will enable police persecution of the Muslim community and threaten dissidents with imprisonment. In a country without a Bill of Rights, the prospect of more draconian Terror Laws delivers ultimate control through fear. Australia, with its history of penal colonies, racism and detention centres, is now set to become a police state.
When Prime Minister Howard announced that he would meet with the State premiers about the need for harsher counter-terrorism measures, Labor state leaders were critical of the proposal and called the proposed laws ‘totalitarian’. The secret briefing, given by ASIO, the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation, had the desired impact. Within two hours, the Premiers had agreed to surrender our democratic rights to fight a subjective noun, terrorism. Assuming the state leaders were bribed with the promise of increased funding for their police forces, all Premiers agreed enthusiastically to use their own police to search, control, and detain ‘terror suspects’. The agreement gave John Howard the ability to circumvent the Australian constitution and enable detention of citizens for up two weeks without charge. ASIO’s reach into the community multiplies by 30 when state police began to operate as secret police. Australians, who have lost basic rights in the closed-door meeting, are expected to ‘trust’ that the Howard Government is protecting them from an invisible enemy in the American war on terror. The one concession gained by state leaders was a ten-year sunset clause on the new Terror Laws. This means citizens will only have a decade of surveillance, control orders, preventative detention, and thought police.
The new ‘regime’ of tougher laws that John Howard presented has alarmed Australian Muslims, journalists, peace activists, and dissidents who fear they will be victimized by ASIO raids and ‘fishing expeditions’. Protestors may be subjected to more police harassment, surveillance, and detention without charge. It will become a crime to ‘incite’ violence against the community, or against Australia’s forces overseas who fight in an unpopular war. It will also be a crime to communicate messages that ‘support’ Australia’s enemies’. The new crimes carry seven-year prison terms. Moreover the laws shift from a presumption of innocence to presumption of guilt. Writers and activists will have to prove that their articles or speeches did not ‘incite violence. Understandably, civil libertarians, constitutional lawyers, Muslims, journalists, and anti-war campaigners are worried.
With the devil in the detail, it is important to be both alert and alarmed about John Howard’s and the State Premiers’ twelve-step plan to totalitarianism:
1. Control orders: ‘People who pose a terrorist risk’ will have year-long control orders placed on them. Tracking devices, travel restrictions, and ‘association restrictions’ are included. While the Government has argued that similar control orders already exist with Apprehended Violence Orders (AVO), legal critics have pointed out that the new terror control orders are significantly more restrictive and can be imposed with no public accountability because of secrecy restrictions that hide ASIO’s activities from public scrutiny.
2. Preventative detention: ‘Suspects’ can be detained for up to two weeks without charge. This step by-passes the judicial system and would have been unconstitutional if enforced by the Australian Federal Police. State police will be able to detain ‘suspects’ who might have information or might be intending to commit a terrorist act. Less than 2,000 Federal Police will no longer limit ASIO’s invasiveness. The intelligence organisation will be able to use 45,000 police from the states and territories to detain suspects for up to two weeks without charge. This extraordinary power runs the risk of being used in criminal cases and the harassment of activists and protest leaders.
3. Notice to produce: The AFP may request and obtain virtually any information on any citizen under the banner of ‘national security’.
4. Access to passenger information: Provide access to airline passenger information for ASIO and the AFP. If John Howard follows the American example, Australians can expect ‘no-fly’ lists that will be used to disrupt the activities and restrict travel options for known activists and dissidents.
5. Extensive stop, search and question powers: Federal police will have the power to stop, search and question any citizen whom they believe ‘might have just committed, might be committing, or might be about to commit a terrorism offence’. The subjective judgment of police will determine what someone might be thinking of doing. The loose definition of terrorism makes this particular power easy to abuse.
6. Extending search and interrogation powers to state police at transport hubs: People at bus stops, taxi ranks, railway stations, and airports can and will be subjected to random searches and the subjective judgment of police.
7. ASIO warrants regime: ASIO search warrants will be extended from 28 days to three months, while mail and delivery service warrants extend from 90 days to six months. Moreover, ASIO will be able to remove and keep anything they take from premises that have been searched ‘for as long as needed’ for purposes of security. Organisations opposing the Government on issues such as industrial relations or student rights are aware of the potential for this power to be used to spy on them, disrupt activity and remove records. Lawyers have argued that the extended warrants enable ASIO to go on ‘fishing expeditions’ that will see innocent Australians being watched.
8. Create new offences: The existing sedition offence will be scrapped, and replaced with the broader, new crime of ‘inciting violence against the community’. Journalists and internet writers who ‘communicate inciting messages directed against Australia’s forces overseas and groups who ‘support Australia’s enemies’ could face up to seven years in prison. The new warrants regime combined with ASIO’s unfettered access to private emails, computer searches, on-line forums, may impact on cyber-journalism’s resolve to report the truth.
9. Strengthen offences for financing terrorism or providing false or misleading information under an ASIO questioning warrant. The right to remain silent is removed, and anyone refusing to answer questions can be imprisoned. Former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, publicly opposed this regime when he spoke at a symposium addressing global leaderships and ethics, ‘The legislation is contrary to the Rule of Law. It is contrary to Due Process, to Habeas Corpus, to the basic rights which we have come to understand are central to a free and open society.’ Lawyers have also asked what ‘strengthens’ means in relation to financing terrorism, given that under the Criminal Code this offence already incurs life imprisonment.
10. Criteria for listing terrorist organizations will be extended. Organisations that ‘advocate terrorism’ can be banned. Community lawyers, policy workers, advocates and legal academics have argued that ‘the extension of the unprecedented powers to ban terrorist organisations …poses the danger that many organisations that publicly support independence movements like Fretilin and the ANC will be vulnerable to proscription.’ The potential for this list to grow to include organizations that oppose the Government is self-evident.
11. Citizenship: The Government will extend the waiting period for citizenship from two to three years and will refuse citizenship on ‘security grounds’. As a critical electorate and organizations such as Amnesty International draw unwanted attention to the Government’s inhumane treatment of refugees, the Immigration Department will be able to make secret decisions based on ‘national security’. The recent case of Scott Parkin demonstrated how joint exercises between ASIO and the Department of Immigration can quickly and legally expel dissidents or unwanted refugees. The only explanation that needs to be given is ‘for reasons of national security’.
12. Terrorist financing: More invasive processes to ensure that charities are not used to fund ‘terrorist organisations’ will be extended to institutions and couriers involved in the process. What ASIO will deem to be a terrorist organisation is as open-ended as the definition of terrorism itself. Similar legislation in the UK has already resulted in legitimate Iraqi orphanage charities being banned and having their funds seized.
