So the police can secretly search your home now. No worries :drunk:

[Smiling Buddha]

In plain clothes, no less.

POLICE will be given the power to secretly search the homes of terror suspects, and radical preachers who encourage others to engage in extremist acts could be jailed for up to five years, as part of sweeping new terror laws to be introduced in parliament next week.

A day after NSW police used preventive detention orders — the most controversial of the terror laws created during the Howard years — for the first time, The Weekend Australian can reveal fresh details about the suite of powers soon to be available to police.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...spects-advocates/story-fnpdbcmu-1227064755861

Guys, if you can't see what is going on here, then please do yourself a favour and open your eyes.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Yeah but if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

 

[Floor Pie]

Some posters have said that the Labor party destroyed Australia. And we needed the Coalition to fix it.
Does that mean if you don't vote for the Coalition, you are a terrorist?

I'm not going to risk it!

I think Abbott and Brandis are the greatest thing this country has ever had! And I will do whatever I can to keep them in power!


#asio

 

[Gough]

I don't agree with the law but let's not pretend this doesn't happen already. It would be nice to see the government putting the money and effort into a genuine threat like climate change rather than the vibe of a terror threat in Australia though. I was interested to note that only one if those taken into custody as a result of this week's raids remains in custody? Budget, what budget?

 

[benchwarmer5]

These people are more dangerous then any terrorist group

 

[evo]

It has ever been thus.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

It would be nice to see the government putting the money and effort into a genuine threat like climate change rather than the vibe of a terror threat in Australia though.

 

[ClokesShankedIt]

POLICE will be given the power to secretly search the homes of terror suspects,

Terror suspects my arse. If you don't believe that they'll be using these laws for whatever they like in 5 years then you are a complete muppet

 

[Power Raid]

I don't agree with the law but let's not pretend this doesn't happen already. It would be nice to see the government putting the money and effort into a genuine threat like climate change rather than the vibe of a terror threat in Australia though. I was interested to note that only one if those taken into custody as a result of this week's raids remains in custody? Budget, what budget?

thanks for the smile.

I needed a pick up after today's game

 

[Norwegian Blue]

I feel safer knowing that the police can search the OPs home.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

They already could, you dunce.

 

[Norwegian Blue]

They already could, you dunce.

But now they can do it secretly. When you're out the back changing tinfoil hats or something.

 

[Borry]

Big government is not your friend.

 

[Richard Pryor]

This is stupid. If I see a bunch of plainclothes guys breaking into a house I'm calling the police, ruining their investigation in the process.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Terror suspects my arse. If you don't believe that they'll be using these laws for whatever they like in 5 years then you are a complete muppet

Just look at the rapid scope creep on the internet surveillance thing.

On Wednesday, Mr Abbott said the government's plan to make telecommunications companies store users' metadata for two years could be used to fight ''general'' crimes and not just in terror cases.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...al-crime-tony-abbott-says-20140806-3d78h.html

'Slippery slope' is a valid thing here. If secretly searching the homes of terrorist suspects is okay, then surely pedophile suspects should also be secretly searched? Well, may as well add suspected drug dealers to the list. And why not drug users? We don't want stolen goods to get hidden while we're waiting for a warrant, and if there's evidence of jaywalking the government has a right to know about it!

 

[scon]

I've destroyed all jaywalking images.

 

[Richard Pryor]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...rge-brandis-says/story-fnpdbcmu-1227065467960

“It is a gap in the capacity of the police and the intel agencies to monitor people about whom there is a serious level of concern, but (where) there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute.”

So now evidence is optional if the government really doesn't like you.

They dress this up by throwing the word terrorism in there, but just imagine they're talking about another despicable crime and saying that the police need the right to violate your rights as a citizen even when there isn't enough evidence to prosecute you.

If you ask me, that gap where your a suspect but there's no evidence, is where the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is supposed to come into play. But I guess if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Now I'm not going full nutjob and saying the government will try this, but are they not technically attempting to pre-emptively legalise Watergate?

 

[Little Big John]

Pretty clever really. If you can break into a target's house to install key logging malware before they suspect they're under surveillance, you would presumably be able to avoid intruding on legal privilege.

Problem solved, NSW Police.

 

[benchwarmer5]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...rge-brandis-says/story-fnpdbcmu-1227065467960



So now evidence is optional if the government really doesn't like you.

They dress this up by throwing the word terrorism in there, but just imagine they're talking about another despicable crime and saying that the police need the right to violate your rights as a citizen even when there isn't enough evidence to prosecute you.

If you ask me, that gap where your a suspect but there's no evidence, is where the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is supposed to come into play. But I guess if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Now I'm not going full nutjob and saying the government will try this, but are they not technically attempting to pre-emptively legalise Watergate?

The word terrorism in itself can be used loosely and not really definitive in anyway
Have a look at of what law enforcement define it as in the US

"Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law"
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

 

[Play by Numbers]

Yeah but if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

I assume this post was tongue in cheek.

 

[Play by Numbers]

The word terrorism in itself can be used loosely and not really definitive in anyway
Have a look at of what law enforcement define it as in the US

"Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law"
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Brandis wanted to broaden the definition still further.

 

[Floor Pie]

Brandis wanted to broaden the definition still further.

*Ethnics...

 

[Theseventhhamster]

I assume this post was tongue in cheek.

Never can tell, one of our tea party guys has said similar.

 

[medusala]

It has ever been thus.

Yep. Amusing to see the plastic libertarians getting outraged over this in between calling opponents of 18c racist.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

*Ethnics...

*Whoever and whatever the * we want.