Terrorist Threat Propaganda
How did I guess that the "potential terrorist threat" announced by the Australian government last week was all a load of hogwash? As soon as the threat was declared I was immediately wary of Howards motives – my personal PROPAGANDA alert system was sounding desperately at 120 decibels in my head. There was no accident in his announcement … the clues were all in the timing and the details provided … it most certainly was not a warning for our protection – my god, no specifics were released bar "various potential targets in Melbourne and Sydney were filmed by suspected terrorist groups". Well then … which ones?!? Will I be safe when I want to go shopping? How many public places do you plan on staying away from until this "threat" has passed? And hey, when will it have passed anyway? pfft … regardless, the general terrorism threat level remained unchanged. It is so obvious that this was an extremely calculated move by the government to garner immediate favour, of opposition politians and the public, for its new counter-terrorism legislation which Howard had hoped to have passed through parliment on Melbourne Cup day.
To Howards dismay several Senators had insisted on further discussion (and ammendments) on the proposed bill (of which they werent even allowed to view the entire documents) before they were to make any final decision. For these new laws to be implemented quickly and without contest, required desperate measures by Howard. It was essential to instill further fear and desperation in the public eye and in politicians who were sitting on the fence – and I honestly believe many Aussies have fallen for it. Yes, I understand that in this case he simply wanted one word in the current bill to be altered from "the" to "a". Like a jury in court being asked to disregard a statement that may wrongfully bias their opinion, the Australian people will likely remember this "threat" when asked if they want new anti-terrorism legislation passed promptly and without question … they will put little thought into the imposition on our civil liberties or whether it contradicts the Australian constitution. This move has "softened the blow" … made the necessity of the new laws easier to accept. But even the change of one word can have serious consequences – just think about it – why else would they have needed to rush this "minor" amendment through? I know you are asking how the change of one word can be so serious … quite simply, "the" requires legal prosecuters to isolate a specific terrorist action (right down to where, why and how the event would take place) while "a" is ambiguous. The new wording is all emcompassing – now suspicion, but no specifics, is all the proof required for an arrest and charge.
According to many liberal politians, the announcement hadnt jeopardised any investigation – this is of course debatable, almost laughable – how stupid do they think people are? (Well Yes, I will concur, from my experience a wide majority of people are pretty fuking dumb and apathetic) … Anyway, with even the little tit-bits of information that was provided, dont you think these potential terrorists would have been alerted immediately?!? Lets take a quick look at just some of the info provided … Theyd been questioned in June 05, they were from Melbourne, and had filmed potential targets last year … just those morsels alone would have easily alerted the suspects, prompting them to pack up and move on to a new address. Strangely, it was as though the announcement was precisely detailed to warn them specifically – makes me think there was absolutely no new intelligence of a "specific terror threat" at all … that it was all fabrication … an ulterior motive was put in play through the media.
Ruddock’s admission yesterday that arrests were not expected, simply confirms my original suspicions that the whole debacle of urgency was premeditated bullshit by the government. I put off writing this very same post last week – I tried to put faith in Howards foresight which I believe has been fairly accurate on occasion (for example, the Tampa fiasco) … but now I know for certain that my ‘propaganda’ alarm had been sounding for good reason … strange how quickly the new laws have been passed by parliment. SMH reported on the Features of New Anti-Terrorism Laws last week.
I dont really see how these new laws are going to make much difference anyway. Police are often just as apathetic as the Australian public, preferring to raid homes for bongs or fine little old ladies for jay-walking. When it comes down to the nitty gritty, previous laws were sufficient for persuing and prosecuting any real dangers from terrorism, but its nature seemingly makes it too difficult to do so while ensuring our civil rights in the meantime – police cannot perceive any other methods of intervention … put simply, they dont know any better. The new laws give police more avenues and excuses to carry-out & justify wrongful or pedantic harrassment and arrests while the real dangerous criminals will continue to walk free. Reminds me of our local dog-catcher who was too scared to impound the meanacing Alsatian or Rottweiler roaming threateningly about the streets, but would always target the same old stupid and harmless Cocker Spaniel & Pekingese. Also, police are often used as a tool in neighbourhood squabbles – anonymous hotlines are an easy avenue for utilising police powers against someone who is simply not popular within the local community – thing is, I think the police actually enjoy being used this way … we’ve just handed them another boon.