NEWS: U.S Peace Activist Arrested In Australia - Threat to National Security

Ummm...simtek 22.
You are indeed an angry little boy...think for yourself man...

I have, my rant was on the subject at hand, peace activists. Yours, on the other hand, was way off subject. What does religion have to do with this subject? A better place for you comments would have been in the Religion Conspiracy section.

BTW - How many "peace activists" have you encountered while in military uniform?

Yes, I'm angry. And I have the right to be.

Jeremiah25:

Thanks for that info.

For those that don't know it - it is ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE to block the normal operations of business in Australia.

End of story.

BTW subz:

Can you please provide proof that Australia is run by criminals?

My guess is that you can't.

From the comments posted on this thread, it's obvious many people have absolutely NO IDEA about Australian culture and how we operate.

I even read about how someone said that "Australian's will roll over"...LOL - what a JOKE! Get a life whoever said that - you obviously don't know many Australians.


Cheers

JS

umm...jumpspace......

we are Australian.......


and yeah Australia could well be run by criminals, they just haven't been caught and charged yet.

and Jumpspace...we all have lives and are alive enough to express our opinion.

Originally posted by jumpspace
Get a life whoever said that - you obviously don't know many Australians.

LMFAO!!

Originally posted by jumpspace
BTW subz:

Can you please provide proof that Australia is run by criminals?

We supported the Iraq war didnt we? Do you really need any more proof? Look up the legality of invading a sovereign nation without the approval of the United Nations.

Originally posted by jumpspace
My guess is that you can't.

You guessed wrong.

Originally posted by jumpspace
From the comments posted on this thread, it's obvious many people have absolutely NO IDEA about Australian culture and how we operate.

Thats so ironic and indicative of the veracity of your whole post. I know for starters that Mayet and Wecomeinpeace are both Australian. I myself have lived in Melbourne since I was 6 years old. Oh dear, missed the mark there havent you?

Originally posted by jumpspace
I even read about how someone said that "Australian's will roll over"...LOL - what a JOKE! Get a life whoever said that - you obviously don't know many Australians.

Why would that be an incorrect assumption? Can you see Ray Martin inciting people to rise up against the governments plans to curb civil liberties? Civil liberties that thousands and thousands of Australian men died to protect? Why should Australia be any different to the United States and Britain?

To quote Padme, "you assume to much"

[edit on 11/9/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
I know for starters that Mayet and Wecomeinpeace are both Australian. I myself have lived in Melbourne since I was 6 years old. Oh dear, missed the mark there havent you?

You can add mulberryblueshimmer to the list of Aussies in this thread who are concerned about the recent direction that anti-terrorism has been taking in Australia.

Subz and others:

Maybe I did "jump the gun" on this one, but I am sick and tired of people hearing a "snippet" of info from the "very credible" media industry who aren't even concerned about facts - only stories...and then to read a damning response, only to find out "oh, well maybe they were right in their decision".

Everyone knows that the media are interested in stories and not facts, yet some of us still believe them 100% no questions asked...

It amazes me!

Regarding your responses subz:

>>Can you please provide proof that Australia is run by criminals?

>We supported the Iraq war didnt we? Do you really need any more proof? Look up the legality of invading a sovereign nation without the approval of the United Nations.

Well, I was actually wanting you to provide proof. Since you gave a "possible" snippet, maybe you could go further and make it proof by providing:

1) A link to this UN "law"
2) Proof that we abide by that law
3) Proceedings whereby we were found guilty

Good luck

>>My guess is that you can't.
>You guessed wrong.

I still maintain that I have guessed right as you still need to come up with proof of crimilality.

>From the comments posted on this thread, it's obvious many people have absolutely NO IDEA about Australian culture and how we operate.
>>Thats so ironic and indicative of the veracity of your whole post. I know for starters that Mayet and Wecomeinpeace are both Australian. I myself have lived in Melbourne since I was 6 years old. Oh dear, missed the mark there havent you?

Probably not really. Just because you live in Australia, it doesn't mean you know about the culture. There are many premutations here subz - both for and against you/me. For your info., I am 6th gen.

>I even read about how someone said that "Australian's will roll over"...LOL - what a JOKE! Get a life whoever said that - you obviously don't know many Australians.
>>Why would that be an incorrect assumption?

It's based on the people I know...and most of the people I know would definitely not "roll over"...and believe me, I know a lot of people in some very powerful positions. I can't say the same for your friends and acquaintance's as I personally do not know them - though I'm not saying they would.

>Can you see Ray Martin inciting people to rise up against the governments plans to curb civil liberties?

LOL...Ray martin is a pu$$y. He reads from a tele-prompter, stories that are provided to him.

>Civil liberties that thousands and thousands of Australian men died to protect?

? Have any been thrown in the bin lately - I'm not sure what you're saying here - sorry.

>Why should Australia be any different to the United States and Britain?

Although Americans and Australians speak the same language, we are different in many ways. Only three weeks ago I attended a meeting on this very subject.

Cheers


JS

[edited to make sure people know rm is a pu$$y]

[edit on 11-9-2005 by jumpspace]

wecomeinpeace (and others):

Yes, it's very sad as to the direction the "terrorism"/fear tract in oz.

Nothing I have heard yet has pi$$ed me off enough for me to take direct action...though I do have phone and pen ready if that does occur.

Cheers

JS

Originally posted by jumpspace
Maybe I did "jump the gun" on this one, but I am sick and tired of people hearing a "snippet" of info from the "very credible" media industry who aren't even concerned about facts - only stories...and then to read a damning response, only to find out "oh, well maybe they were right in their decision".

I respect any one who can admit they were wrong

Originally posted by jumpspace
Well, I was actually wanting you to provide proof. Since you gave a "possible" snippet, maybe you could go further and make it proof by providing:

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

BBC News: Iraq Illegal Says Annan

Originally posted by jumpspace
1) A link to this UN "law"

Take your pick, the UN charter is full of references to maintaining international peace and peaceful resolutions to conflicts.

UN Charter Chapter 1
Article 2.
2. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

3. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

UN Charter Chapter 5
Article 24
1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

UN Charter Chapter 6
Article 33
1 The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

2 The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

UN Charter Chapter 7
Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

UN Charter Chapter 7
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee

UN Charter Chapter 7
Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.

UN Charter Chapter 7
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

UN Charter

UN Member states
Australia -- (1 Nov. 1945)

List of Member states

Originally posted by jumpspace
2) Proof that we abide by that law

Thats pretty hard to do when my whole argument is that Australia did NOT abide by those laws. If you mean to ask for proof that Australia is actually legally bound to the UN charter, well, you can see for yourself what membership to the United Nations entails. i.e. compliance with the UN charter.

Originally posted by jumpspace
3) Proceedings whereby we were found guilty

Whats that got to do with anything? The UN Secretary General himself said the Iraq war was illegal and ran contrary to the UN charter. What more do you want?

Originally posted by jumpspace
Good luck

I think we all need "good luck"

Originally posted by jumpspace
I still maintain that I have guessed right as you still need to come up with proof of crimilality.

See above

Originally posted by jumpspace
Probably not really. Just because you live in Australia, it doesn't mean you know about the culture. There are many premutations here subz - both for and against you/me. For your info., I am 6th gen.

You arent going to get into eugenics with me are you? Your argument here holds no water and thats about the gist of it really.

Originally posted by jumpspace
It's based on the people I know...and most of the people I know would definitely not "roll over"...and believe me, I know a lot of people in some very powerful positions. I can't say the same for your friends and acquaintance's as I personally do not know them - though I'm not saying they would.

When we see the Australian people rise up and demand that the government leaves our civil rights unabridged and uncontravened I will eat my words and be proud to live in a country such as that. Until that day I think its fair to assume that what WCIP said is true. We will accept it and that will be it.

Originally posted by jumpspace
LOL...Ray martin is a pu$$y. He reads from a tele-prompter, stories that are provided to him.

He's also indicative of the influential TV personalities the majority of Australians listen to.

Originally posted by jumpspace
? Have any been thrown in the bin lately - I'm not sure what you're saying here - sorry.

Yeah remember the right to trial? How about the right not to be locked up without charge? How about the right to privacy?

Originally posted by jumpspace
Although Americans and Australians speak the same language, we are different in many ways. Only three weeks ago I attended a meeting on this very subject.

Whats that got to do with anything? Australia is part of the "coalition of the willing" but thousands of us demonstrated against the war and it changed nothing, just like Americans and the Brits. Only time will tell but history and precedent is squarely backing the probability that Australians will accept these new anti-terror laws.

[edit on 11/9/05 by subz]

Originally posted by jumpspace
wecomeinpeace (and others):

Yes, it's very sad as to the direction the "terrorism"/fear tract in oz.

Nothing I have heard yet has pi$$ed me off enough for me to take direct action...though I do have phone and pen ready if that does occur.

I understand what you're saying, and I seriously hope that we are being too paranoid and this is simply a one-off incident. And it would be easy to dismiss it as such before we even begin to discuss it, if it weren't for the lessons of history, the current global state of affairs, and the disconcerting imitation of the Bush regime by the Liberal government. Everyone's alarm has a trigger of varying sensitivity, but remember a fire starts with a single match; which analogy applies both to oppression, and to it's resistance.

You might want to join in this thread where we have a more generalized discussion going regarding the introduction of more powerful anti-terrorism laws:
Australia Introduces Tough New Counter-Terrorism Laws

www.abc.net.au...

A prominent lawyer has questioned whether the Federal Government has abused its powers by planning to deport an American peace activist.

Scott Parkin has been in Australia since June.

He was arrested in Melbourne on Saturday after his visa was revoked when an assessment showed he posed a threat to Australia's national security.

Human rights lawyer Julian Burnside QC says he wants to know why it took so long for authorities to act if indeed Mr Parkin is a security threat.

"They've got the right but the question is whether that right has been exercised in a way that provides sufficient protection for ordinary citizens of Australia," he said.

Greens Senator Bob Brown has described Mr Parkin's detention and probable deportation as an abuse of ASIO's powers.

"We're not a police state," Senator Brown said.

"ASIO's emergency powers, which have gone through the Parliament opposed by the Greens, were meant to be for terrorists, not for people who are campaigning against the misdeeds of the US administration or its associates."

and here's me thinking that we were a police state.

He has been arres by the [size=+2]Fascis !

(Fascis == Big Money Humans)

www.abc.net.au...

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says he has sought a briefing on the reasons for the proposed deportation of the American peace activist.

Scott Parkin has been in Australia since June and was arrested in Melbourne on Saturday after his visa was revoked when an assessment showed he posed a threat to Australia's national security.

Mr Beazley says a history as a peace activist alone is not reason enough to be excluded from the country.

"The Government has said there are additional security concerns in relation to that person and we are not aware of those," he said.

"We are seeking to have ourselves made aware of those."

Human rights lawyer Julian Burnside QC says he wants to know why it took so long for authorities to act if indeed Mr Parkin is a security threat.

www.news.com.au...

DETAINED US activist Scott Parkin is spending his last few hours in Australia in solitary confinement as the Government prepares to deport him.
Mr Parkin – who was set to give an activism workshop when detained in Melbourne on Saturday – has had his six-month visitor's visa cancelled and is being held by the Department of Immigration on the grounds he is a potential risk to national security.

His lawyer Julian Burnside, QC, yesterday said he would consent to his deportation, but would try to force the Government to reveal why he was a threat to Australia's security.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has refused to discuss why Mr Parkin is considered a security risk in Australia, telling Southern Cross Radio today he was not able to speculate on the assessment made by "competent authorities".

Greens Senator Bob Brown yesterday said there was no evidence to suggest Mr Parkin was a security threat, while about 40 activists protested his deportation outside the Australian Federal Police (AFP) headquarters in Melbourne yesterday afternoon.

Greenpeace spokesman Dan Cass said Mr Parkin's supporters in the US had begun protesting.

He said that early today, local time, there was already a small gathering outside the Australian embassy in Washington.

www.news.com.au...

Mr Ruddock said the 36-year-old history teacher had not been accused of a crime and his "political activities were not relevant to the decision".

"The reason he's in custody is because his visa has been cancelled. The reason his visa has been cancelled is because he's received an adverse security assessment," Mr Ruddock said.

"ASIO is responsible for protecting the Australian community from all forms of politically motivated violence, including violent protest activity, and they've made an assessment in relation to those matters."

Mr Ruddock said Mr Parkin had arrived in Australia on a valid visa.

Advertisement:
"It's certainly the case that ASIO did not issue an adverse security assessment at the time of his (visa) application," Mr Ruddock said.

"The assessment has to be made upon matters relating to politically motivated violence, including violent protest activity," he said.

Mr Ruddock said ASIO had made an evidence-based, objective decision.

"The Australian community expects to be protected from politically motivated violence."

He denied the matter was aimed at testing the Australian public's reaction to tough anti-terror detention laws.

Mr Parkin's friend and fellow activist Ian Murray said Mr Parkin had never espoused violent political action.

"Scott believes in people power and non-violent direct action," Mr Murray said on ABC radio.

"There's a big difference between people power and non-violence and terrorism and it seems like Mr Ruddock and the agencies under his control can't seem to make that distinction."

He said the Melbourne activism workshop that Mr Parkin was about to facilitate when detained on Saturday was focused on sharing lessons from the American peace movement.

So this guy has to pay for his removal of his own freedom. -->
This can not be true - Is this county going a bit too far?
This is not only a insult against him, but if you look closer to this matter, it is a insult against the australian people. I'm ashamed of certain goverment figures here down under.
The good thing about the whole story is that it came out into the public and is a real eye opener on what we have to expect in the future of this becomming "nazi like" country.
Down Under is looking to go Down Under.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by frozen_snowman]

I seem to remember another peace activist who was arrested as a threat to national security---I think his name was Jesus

Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida
I seem to remember another peace activist who was arrested as a threat to national security---I think his name was Jesus

I wish I'd said that.

Sorry but.............

Luke.12
[51] Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

But i can hear some people that read this and think, SEE!! i told ya that Jesus fella was a trouble maker lol


This American guy, i`d still like to know what he supported and opossed

[edit on 17-9-2005 by gps777]