[pugsville]

The Abbot Government seems to rushing through a new set of terror laws, with wide ranging powers for the security services, the requirement for people to prove themselves innocent in some cases, the security services to get blanket immunities from prosecution for breaking the law. Fairly wide range of changes. The Details are not clear, apparently the only people consulted and ticked off on this before it gets to parliament is the security services.

The Recent Terror Raids, just seem a bit to convenient, all thats been released is Security Service/Government press release /propaganda that there was this awful local threat, and the Government just conveniently has this legislation ready to go. The Government *IS* working with the security services in a very seamless way, the press releases have been very much so and th is legislation has been approved by the security services.

Why do we need these new "terror" laws.

[Harmattan]

Why do we need these new "terror" laws.

We don't, just as we do not need the NSA's mass surveillance, just as we did not need to invade Iraq, just as we do not need the ISDS. It's called democracy and rule of the law they say.

[OllytheBrit]

The Abbot Government seems to rushing through a new set of terror laws, with wide ranging powers for the security services, the requirement for people to prove themselves innocent in some cases, the security services to get blanket immunities from prosecution for breaking the law. Fairly wide range of changes. The Details are not clear, apparently the only people consulted and ticked off on this before it gets to parliament is the security services.

The Recent Terror Raids, just seem a bit to convenient, all thats been released is Security Service/Government press release /propaganda that there was this awful local threat, and the Government just conveniently has this legislation ready to go. The Government *IS* working with the security services in a very seamless way, the press releases have been very much so and th is legislation has been approved by the security services.

Why do we need these new "terror" laws.

When we've seen a few 'Westgate shopping mall attacks' in towns and cities around the world you'll find out. We ain't seen nothin' yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westgate_s ... all_attack

[Bounce]

I find these laws particularly worrying. I mean, how much of I post now will be stored? Will any of this ever surface?

Media Watch did a good piece on this, and the WSWS did a good article on Labor's feigned concern for Australian's privacy. It's not a great time to be an Australian.

[Ozzie]

The Abbot Government seems to rushing through a new set of terror laws, with wide ranging powers for the security services, the requirement for people to prove themselves innocent in some cases, the security services to get blanket immunities from prosecution for breaking the law. Fairly wide range of changes. The Details are not clear, apparently the only people consulted and ticked off on this before it gets to parliament is the security services.

The Recent Terror Raids, just seem a bit to convenient, all thats been released is Security Service/Government press release /propaganda that there was this awful local threat, and the Government just conveniently has this legislation ready to go. The Government *IS* working with the security services in a very seamless way, the press releases have been very much so and th is legislation has been approved by the security services.

Why do we need these new "terror" laws.

The terror raids occurred because the intelligence agency already knew what was going on, but did not act. They have been aware of home grown terrorism for far longer than what has been reported, but kept it all hush. Now that shit has really started hitting the fan, the information is getting reported.

In a way, it is a tactic used so people don't have as much outrage when these terror laws are being implemented. They most likely had them already drawn up, ready to go. You'd have to be naïve to think otherwise.

Why do we need them?

Because the leftards of the country have been complacent and defended the rights of terrorist-inclined people in our country, who have in turn taken advantage of the leftard philosophy and have used it for their own gains. Now the whole country must have their privacies invaded because security and intelligence have failed. They were probably too intimidated to speak out or else face the wrath of the mighty politically correct.

[Bounce]

You've managed to provide a situation that proves itself - well done.

How do you know it was hushed up? How would 'lefttard'ism prevent true terror threats being exposed?

You blame the left for the reduction of your privacies, yet to actually remove terrorism the State requires absolute power. Ergo, it isn't a situation of the left removing your privacies, it is a situation in which they defended them. Oh, also, it is now 'politically correct' to support storing meta data? Because that one pmissed me