or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| now we are persecuting terrorists? |
paraclete |
08/28/06 |
Curfew order for Jack Thomas
August 28, 2006 - 7:22PM
The Federal Government tonight defended the move to impose Australia's first control order on freed terror suspect Jack Thomas, saying the community needs to be protected.
The control order, the first granted under tough new anti-terror laws, was slapped on Mr Thomas this morning as he holidayed with his family in Victoria's South Gippsland, forcing him to quickly return to Melbourne.
Mr Thomas has been a free man since August 18, when the Victorian Court of Appeal quashed convictions for receiving funds from al-Qaeda and holding a false passport, and overturned a five-year jail sentence.
Mr Thomas, 33, was neither present nor represented when the Federal Magistrates Court in Canberra yesterday granted the control order, requested by federal police with the approval of Attorney General Philip Ruddock.
The court said because Mr Thomas had trained with al-Qaeda, the interim order was "reasonably necessary" to protect the public and prevent a terrorist act.
Under the order, the Melbourne father-of-three is confined to his house between midnight and 5am, must report to police three days a week, is banned from leaving Australia without permission, and is restricted in what phones he can use.
Mr Thomas is also banned from any contact with members of banned terrorist groups.
Jack Thomas' lawyer Rob Stary said his client would challenge the order at a directions hearing set down for later this week.
"We will be challenging it. We will be vigorously challenging it," Mr Stary said.
But if confirmed at a hearing due on Friday, the order will be in force for 12 months.
Jack Thomas' brother Les Thomas said the order amounted to the continuing persecution of his brother by the government and was nothing more than a political stunt.
"We just didn't expect them to stoop this low," he said.
"Obviously, the decision to quash my brother's convictions and make him a free man were a setback to the Australian Federal Police and the attorney-general's office, whose claims of Jack being some kind of terrorist sleeper were thrown out by a jury," Mr Thomas told AAP.
"There have been assorted claims made throughout the trial that have been proven to be false, yet the government is trying to save face in this case and score propaganda points.
"Fear is extraordinarily high in the community and people are frightened for all kinds of reasons.
"We are going to stand by Jack throughout this as we always have and see it through." |
Clarification/Follow-up by MicroGlyphics on 08/28/06 12:48 pm:
I am generally suspicious when the terms "reasonable" or "necessary" are used. When they are used together, I am especially suspicious.
What qualifies as reasonable, and by whose resoning? What is the context of necessary? These terms are vague and beg further definition and elaboration.
Moreover, it is not incorrect to assume "the community needs to be protected" and "to protect the public." What is missing is from what these communities and public need to be protected. I suggest the failed governments of this new world order are more dangerous than any single individual.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/28/06 3:31 pm:
MicroGlyphics,
>>>I am generally suspicious <<<
You should have stopped that sentence right there.
>>>What qualifies as reasonable, and by whose resoning?<<<
While I admit that the standard of "reasonable" might sometimes be argued, I think that we can all agree that protecting the people of your country from terrorists and those associated with terrorists can be considered "reasonable" by any sane standards, don't you?
>>>What is the context of necessary?<<<
Necessary in this context can be defined as anything that is needed by the government to do the job of protecting civillians from terrorists.
>>>I suggest the failed governments of this new world order are more dangerous than any single individual. <<<
More dangerous to whom? To the Australian people? I doubt that. I haven't seen the Aussie government putting people in jail for no reason, beheading pisoners, raping women as an abject lesson in religious values, etc. I would certainly say that the terrorists DO fall into that category. And as such, the Aussie government (and the "failed governments of the new world order") is CLEARLY not as much of a threat to world peace and stability that the terrorists are.
Are you saying that they are dangerous to the terrorists, and those who espouse the same philosophies as the terrorists? I hope so.
Sorry, but your arguments don't hold up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Even your phrase of "failed governments of the new world order" sounds too cheesy for anyone to take seriously. Does anyone outside of the Kremlin and Che Gueverra actually use that phrase in real life?
Elliot
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
