It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australia: leaked "Anti-Terrorism" Bill shows plans for a draconian police-state

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by UFObeliever
1. The law proposed in Australia and many laws in the United States such as the Patriot Act I and II are supposively put in to stop the boggie man(terroist) yet both are very against what America was made for and their definition of a terroist is changed under these laws so they could be used against normal citizens.

Was america created under the threat of terrorists?
Countries change, so do laws.
Also, who defines what a terrorist is? The dictionary? The dictionary is racist for crying out loud.


2. All great empires fell and I fear America is on the downward spiral. Laws are being passed that give the federal government enormous amounts of power then what they are suppose to have. Similiar to the ones that brought Hitler into power.

Yet again all going back to this "oh hitler" idea, frankly no chance, the country isnt that undstable enough to try anything near like hitler done.
Ps; America has no empire.


3. Why they would want these powers is to suspect.

You dont want powers for our security services to do the job asked of them?


4. I am not sure if you are saying these quotes are fake or what but search them and you will get many sites.

I am saying its all fair and good to qoute a famous person, how about thinking for yourself and makeing your own one up.


5. Don't control anything? These are the most powerful agencies in America. They control almost everything. I don't believe much of the corporate sponsered media. I take it with a grain of salt.

They "control" what they can influence.
The miltiary only acts because of its intel, the police only act on the intel it recieves and only if it threatens the people.


6. All talk?? This isn't joe somebody saying he will do something then he doesn't. This is the most powerful force in the world(US government). I don't consider it "all talk."

Powerful at what though?
I am a powerful force with a rifle compared to my class mates but that doesnt make me invincible.
Governments are quite easy to take down if your fighting them.


1. You live in Scotland so it won't mean much to you but here in America the constitution is the law of the land and the Partriot Act I and II basically throw it out the window. This bill proposed in Austrailia is no different and should be overturned if the government is actually a representive of the people. The government got a new definition of terroist in the Patriot Act and it is very broad to include everyday citizens.

2. America is the richest, has the most technonlogy, has the strongest military, and politicions that don't give a # about the people. Yes I do think they have the capability.

3. This does not "secure" us it just takes away freedoms. "Securing" us would be blocking the boarders not giving more power to the federal government.

4. Ill add another... "Those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for the promise of a little temporary security, deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin

5. Homeland security is there to keep us in a state of fear with their color coded terror alert. BATF is there to let people know who has the power with their killing of innocents at Waco and Ruby Ridge. CIA is the most controversal agency of all with many of their agents coming out and admitting drug laundering, killing are president, and killing innocents all across the world.

6. I wouldn't consider a taking down of the American government a easy task.




posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFObeliever
1. You live in Scotland so it won't mean much to you but here in America the constitution is the law of the land and the Partriot Act I and II basically throw it out the window.

In who's opinion though, I know of the constitution and the patriot acts, I've visited the country many times.



This bill proposed in Austrailia is no different and should be overturned if the government is actually a representive of the people. The government got a new definition of terroist in the Patriot Act and it is very broad to include everyday citizens.

But who defines what a terrorist is?
Everyones opinion is diffrent.


2. America is the richest, has the most technonlogy, has the strongest military, and politicions that don't give a # about the people. Yes I do think they have the capability.

And do you believe the military would commit those acts and not use thier right to disobey unlawful orders?


3. This does not "secure" us it just takes away freedoms. "Securing" us would be blocking the boarders not giving more power to the federal government.

But then who blocks the borders?


4. Ill add another... "Those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for the promise of a little temporary security, deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin

Doesnt bother me, I only respect people that earn it.


5. Homeland security is there to keep us in a state of fear with their color coded terror alert. BATF is there to let people know who has the power with their killing of innocents at Waco and Ruby Ridge. CIA is the most controversal agency of all with many of their agents coming out and admitting drug laundering, killing are president, and killing innocents all across the world.

These agencies only have soo many people and soo much influence, thier main control is via media and what the public knows.
Thats why they have authority over regular units , because they lack the manpower.


6. I wouldn't consider a taking down of the American government a easy task.

How not?
Any government can fall ethier by bullet, bomb, missile, jet or by the media.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by UFObeliever
1. You live in Scotland so it won't mean much to you but here in America the constitution is the law of the land and the Partriot Act I and II basically throw it out the window.

In who's opinion though, I know of the constitution and the patriot acts, I've visited the country many times.



This bill proposed in Austrailia is no different and should be overturned if the government is actually a representive of the people. The government got a new definition of terroist in the Patriot Act and it is very broad to include everyday citizens.

But who defines what a terrorist is?
Everyones opinion is diffrent.


2. America is the richest, has the most technonlogy, has the strongest military, and politicions that don't give a # about the people. Yes I do think they have the capability.

And do you believe the military would commit those acts and not use thier right to disobey unlawful orders?


3. This does not "secure" us it just takes away freedoms. "Securing" us would be blocking the boarders not giving more power to the federal government.

But then who blocks the borders?


4. Ill add another... "Those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for the promise of a little temporary security, deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin

Doesnt bother me, I only respect people that earn it.


5. Homeland security is there to keep us in a state of fear with their color coded terror alert. BATF is there to let people know who has the power with their killing of innocents at Waco and Ruby Ridge. CIA is the most controversal agency of all with many of their agents coming out and admitting drug laundering, killing are president, and killing innocents all across the world.

These agencies only have soo many people and soo much influence, thier main control is via media and what the public knows.
Thats why they have authority over regular units , because they lack the manpower.


6. I wouldn't consider a taking down of the American government a easy task.

How not?
Any government can fall ethier by bullet, bomb, missile, jet or by the media.


1. Who's opinion? It's an fact not an opinion.

2. I do believe a large majority would. It wouldn't be the military alone. Paid mercenaries(blackwater), police, NG, and UN forces would enfore it.

3. The National Gaurd can block the boarders and people would have no problem with it.

4. If Ben Franklin doesn't earn your respect I am not sure who would.

5. They lack the man power but the military, police, and other forces combined do not.

6. Civilians do not have bombs, missle, jets, or media. Federal government has those.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
According to ABC News, the new anti-terror bill will be law by Christmas.

Also, it seems that the draft which was leaked was just the first draft of the Bill, the final draft of the anti-terror bill is being kept under tight wraps.

An interesting quote from the ABC News article:



Opposition leader Kim Beazley said on Sunday he wanted to strengthen the new law to ban incitement to violence on religious or racial grounds. Howard rejected this.


abcnews.go.com...

Doesn't shine too nice a light on Howard's intentions does it?



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Main provisions of the bill cover;
tough control orders and
preventative detention and
give authorities the right to shoot-to-kill while in pursuit of ''suspected'' terrorists.


PM Howard says:

"People will still be able to lampoon me in cartoons, will still be able to have plays attacking the government, they'll still be able to attack the government's policies on anything, and there's no way these sedition laws in any way will curtail legitimate free speech," he said.

Opposition leader Kim Beazley said on Sunday he wanted to strengthen the new law to ban incitement to violence on religious or racial grounds. Howard rejected this.

source: link above in metallicabrainz post



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by UFObeliever
1. Who's opinion? It's an fact not an opinion.

Its not a fact, its an opinion.


2. I do believe a large majority would. It wouldn't be the military alone. Paid mercenaries(blackwater), police, NG, and UN forces would enfore it.

Ok, what part of my post was this about?


3. The National Gaurd can block the boarders and people would have no problem with it.

But who co-ordinates the guards?
Do the states themselves fund the guards? If so then what happens if the less wealthy states couldnt afford everything that is needed?


4. If Ben Franklin doesn't earn your respect I am not sure who would.

Corporal Thomas Hunter, JFK.


5. They lack the man power but the military, police, and other forces combined do not.

Yes and the police, military and"other forces" combined do not believe in the same thing, which is why they need to control the media and information flow.


6. Civilians do not have bombs, missle, jets, or media. Federal government has those.

Federal governments dont have these, the armed forcse do but not the government.
The armed forces and normal services cant be involved in politics.
Civilians have acess to all of the above, dont believe me? Fair enough, I know atleast 3 people on this board alone that could probably have acess to 3 or more of the above.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
w.a.s.p. what has your repeated bleatings got to do with Austalia's anti terror laws? Have you read the draft, have you read the other threads relating to this subject. Get on topic, maybe try another method beside's the quote and refute, static hegemonic worldview. Who died and made you the cheer squad for bad government decisions....



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Computer hackers have shut down the website ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope used to release a draft of the proposed anti-terrorism laws.



Mr Stanhope said he did not know who was behind the incident but hoped it was not a deliberate attempt to deny public access of the document.


www.smh.com.au...

Is anyone else noticing a pattern here? The USA, Britain and Australia all passing these terror bills, scaring us so they can take away our freedoms... looks like all three countries are run by a bunch of facist nazis. Just think what life will be like in these countries 10 years from now, or after another 9/11 type incident?



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by fingapointa
w.a.s.p. what has your repeated bleatings got to do with Austalia's anti terror laws?

Nothing, they have to do with a police state and those who enforce the laws.


Have you read the draft, have you read the other threads relating to this subject.

Yeah I did, hell it was MBS that brought its attention to me with her podcasts (nice piece of work BTW.)
[quot]
Get on topic, maybe try another method beside's the quote and refute, static hegemonic worldview. Who died and made you the cheer squad for bad government decisions....

Pot calling kettle black?
Yes I have gone offtopic but IMO it was needed.
BTW, call it a bad decsion if you want but answer me this; What other option do we have?



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by metallicabrainz
Is anyone else noticing a pattern here? The USA, Britain and Australia all passing these terror bills, scaring us so they can take away our freedoms... looks like all three countries are run by a bunch of facist nazis. Just think what life will be like in these countries 10 years from now, or after another 9/11 type incident?

Yet again, "what else can we do?"
Do we give the police what they need to hunt down terrorists?



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
are there any updates on all this or am I just lost and can't find it?



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
The government has enough to do what is needed to catch terroists. It's suppose to be America, Australia, Britain, not a repeat Germany by putting fear into others that the boogey man(terroist) might get them. They had the intelligence to catch the 9/11 terroists and the 7/7 terroists they chose not to. I guess it pointless trying to make a case when some one puts their blind faith into the government.



posted on Nov, 4 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I just wanted to note a few things here to the guy who is supporting this bill (without any reference to how this bill may benefit the people, not just the law enforcment).

1) if the military is not allowed to enforce a politacal view... then what are they doing in IRAQ? Why does the defense minister sit next to the president? Why can only a president call us to war?

2) if people honestly believe that the government will be hindered by morals, than remember that the you can't spell the word believe without the word lie. (i will leave this one open to you to figure out)

3) if the government is supposed to be for the people, than why is the media and governemnt run/owned by large corporations. for instance, i think i pay more in taxes than they do. Most of the music on the radio is only popular because its what you hear. for instance, kids know cuss words, and even if you kept them from it, wouldn't you be the one responsible for not allowing them a true perception of the world around them? In certain countries you cannot access certain website for the gov has fear of an outside political view. This is not what i want for my child or the future of america. however some people may want to live that way. i would rather have my privacy and be able to protect my self, than worry about someone spying on me 24hrs. there are certain things people just don't need to know.

4) if you refuse to have an open mind about the material presented in this forum that is fine, but don't start pushing your beliefes as fact upon the rest of us. Your hopes are another story however.

5) i wish yo luck in your life as i do everyone. we are all blinded at one time or another. this still does not cover up the fact that data can be manipulated to show what ever results you want (of course there is always a catch). so being open to all ideas is the best way to go about life. for instance when you posted about morals not allowing the gov to ake over, well what if morals were not enough. do you know the answer to this question, or would you stick by your answer even in the end with a different outcome. would you be the guy that said "well, if they would have just gone by their morals, we would all be alright". i hope not for all our sake. I hope that one day we can all see the truth and and stop blaming everone else. after all its everone's fault we are in this state (including mine). however i am proud to say it is in no way due to ignorance. I could live with such actions based on lack of knowledge, but denying what that water is wet or that the world is flat never proves it.

**rant over**

sorry for the long post



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join