“Home grown terroism” and the 2010 white paper.

So krudd played the fear card the other day, perhaps in a cynical attempt to distract from Peter Garrett’s problems.  He drew attention to evils of home grown (wait, thats the other post isn’t it, oops) … I mean home grown terrorism.

I dunno if he’s referring to bikies or darkies, tho being a darkie with a beard, I’m certainly sus on what he’s saying.  It was in the context of the Counter-Terrorism Whitepaper 2010:  Securing Australia – Protecting our Community, released in Feb 2010.

I downloaded the white paper and am having a look at it.

The Government has taken and will continue to take all necessary measures to combat terrorism and those
who plan or perpetrate such acts. This White Paper reiterates the Government’s commitment to provide the
necessary resources to Australia’s law enforcement, intelligence, security and border protection agencies to enable
them to operate effectively. At the same time, we have also taken steps to ensure that Australia’s response to
terrorism does not inadvertently undermine the principles that we seek to uphold.
No government can guarantee that Australians will be free from the threat of terrorist attack.
But this Government can guarantee that we will take all necessary and practical measures to combat the threat.
This White Paper forms part of the Government’s national security reform agenda. It is a further step in
delivering a safer, more secure Australia.

Thats from the PMs Forward, page i of the report.  I’m going to have a good look at the report and it might take a few posts.  I found the interview on Lateline last night to be confused and unenlightening.

But before I do, just some thoughts on that bit of his rave.

  • I’d like to know what “all necessary measures are” and how they defined as necessary?
  • I’d like to know effective operation is in the context of ASIO, the Federal police and the like.

Given it can’t actually guarantee our safety … well he didn’t actually say that did he?  Tho its true.  The government can’t.  He did say no govt can guarantee we’ll be safe from the threat of attack.  The threat of attack isn’t an actual attack tho is it?

Its a threat.  So what is this actual threat?  Hopefully the paper will enlighten us.  Then we can examine the actual responses of government.

The first responsibility of government is the protection of Australia, Australians and Australian interests. –Executive Summary, p ii

Ok what are Australian interests?

Are they just things like infrastructure, assets and the like.    Physical stuff and the economies needs, or are they more than that.

Is a healthy free society one of Australia’s interests?  Perhaps its most important one?  I think so.

Given that, how does this paper, and our whole “war on terror” stack up?

That’ll do it for now.  I want to read it a couple of times before I start going on about it.  I’ll be reading it with this question in mind tho.

Is the threat to Australian interests greater from terrorism, or does a greater threat come from an increasingly powerful, increasingly secretive “security” organisation?

Advertisements

~ by jules on February 24, 2010.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: