Talk:Arrests made in Australia after 'anti-terror' raids

Number of arrests

There is currently confusion as to the number of arrests. ABC Online is reporting 16 people, and one of the SMH articles is reporting 17 in one part of the article and 15 in another part. - Borofkin 01:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems almost like the passage of the new 'anti-terror' law was pointedly used for these raids. I wonder at the timing. Perhaps simpler headline, Arrests made in Australian 'Anti-terror' raids -Edbrown05 02:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a little bit of confusion regading the anti-terror legislation. The government has proposed broad changes which have been discussed over the last month or so, and are yet to be implemented. However, some very small emergency legislative changes were rushed through parliament last week in response to a specific threat. These raids appear to be related to that specific threat, i.e. they were waiting for the "emergency legislation" before conducting the raids. So you are right, it is no coincidence. - Borofkin 02:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that, I was indeed confused. -Edbrown05 02:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

Nixon said that the raids were the result of a long-term operation. When queried, she confirmed that the anti-terror legislation rushed through Parliament last week was related to today's raids. "Some of that is related to that amendment that occurred," she said.

The prior sentence to the quote says something logically different from the actual quote, and provides the assumed inference that the legislation was passed *because* they needed these raids to happen. --RossKoepke

Where is the logical problem? There has been a long term investigation, the police and/or government decided that before moving ahead with arrests and charges, they needed some new legislation. The legislation was passed, and the raids went ahead. - Borofkin 03:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting story. Probably worth keeping an eye on the situation in the medium term. At first glance it has parallels with the application of similar emergency laws in the UK. A year or so ago we had some very high-profile 'demonstrative' arrests based on 'sweeping powers' laws, and they caused a big stir in the media (and raised a lot of fears) but never actually came to anything.Rcameronw 21:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Splitting into sections

It appears that the situation in Sydney and Melbourne are quite different, so I've split them into different sections. - Borofkin 05:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

doesnt apply to wiki?

"An application will be made by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution this afternoon to suppress the details of the allegations."

Look if we were able to get details nothing could stop us from publishing the news could it? from my understanding of the new laws they shouldnt apply to us?.(thats if their was even a way)thoughts? god id love to taste my civil Liberties. really more or less a long shot :( (god i would run around melbourne poster Legitimately the url) and then the feeling of absolution mmmmmm absolution ooo and if it could be timed with the union marches on next tuesday. ok ima dreaming in a rant again --Whywhywhy 08:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea to who it applies. At worst it would apply to Australian Wikinews contributors, however no-one is doing original reporting at this point, we are just sourcing mainstream media. - Borofkin 23:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It would apply to news media in Australia, but as Borofkin said, we are just sourcing mainstream media, not writing our own news. It you can't provide a source, don't write it. Rolanddeschain 23:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

illustration

There's a good courtroom illustration (of the nine Melbourne suspects) that could be used here (under fair use) but I've not a clue how to go about it, so if somebody would like to add it feel free. Rolanddeschain 23:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Socialist Alliance statement

Somebody created this as its own article which it is not so it will be deleted so i have posted it in here if anyone wants to add quotes to the main article from it.

Socialist Alliance statement

In the week in which PM John Howard's support as preferred prime minister dropped to a three-year low, the arrest of 17 people in Sydney and Melbourne on November 7-8, allegedly for planning a terrorist attack, was exceedingly fortunate timing for the federal government.

The overnight escalation of the "anti-terror" fear-mongering campaign that the government and media have perpetrated since September 11, 2001, will be a convenient diversion from the government's new industrial relations laws, opposed by the overwhelming majority of people in Australia. Any doubt that the raids were politically stage-managed should be dispelled by the fact that the police invited sections of the mass media to join them.

Forty-eight hours after the arrests, the details of the charges against the 17 remain undisclosed. However, this has not stopped the media and politicians, Coalition and Labor alike, proceeding to charge, try and convict them - whether or not they are guilty of any illegal activities. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty has been thrown out the window in the so-called war on terror. The chances of these 17 men now getting a fair trial is now almost nil.

The Socialist Alliance condemns all terrorist acts. The targeting of innocent civilians is horrendous and unjustifiable. But there is a fundamental difference between discussing political and religious beliefs, suicide bombings or even how to make a bomb, and actually carrying out a terrorist act.

That difference - between thought and action - has been obliterated in the new terror laws that the Howard government, with full Labor Party backing, is rushing through parliament. These laws, which criminalise dissenting ideas, annul the right to silence and remove legal "due process" from public view, are a violation of basic human rights. If we are to continue to call Australia a democracy, they must be resisted.

The Socialist Alliance joins with all those who refuse to be intimidated and silenced by the government's "anti-terror" propaganda and laws.

We will continue to speak out for the immediate withdrawal of all Australian military personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Australian government's participation in the inhumane and illegal war on the Iraqi people, and its wholehearted support for imperialism's war of terror, is creating more, not less terrorism.

We will continue to defend the right of all people to full freedom of speech and association, and oppose the banning of any organisation by the Australian government.

We will continue to campaign for the repeal of all federal anti-terror laws, and demand that the federal ALP opposition reverse its shameful support for Howard's police-state laws, and that all state Labor governments repeal the anti-terror laws they have passed in recent years.

And we will continue to condemn ASIO-police raids on the homes of innocent Muslims and stand in solidarity with the victims of these attacks. The huge sums of public money being spent on these terror raids should instead be spent on a public education campaign against racism towards the Middle Eastern and Muslim communities.

[The Socialist Alliance is helping to establish an emergency response network of all those who want to help defend individuals or organisations under attack from the new police-state laws. To sign on to the network, email National_Office@socialist-alliance.org, or visit www.Socialist-Alliance.org ]--Whywhywhy 05:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It's probably time to start on a new article if we are going to keep reporting on this issue. Something like "Suspected terrorists appear in court", or "Scuffle outside courthouse as suspected terrorists appear" or somesuch. - Borofkin 05:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree, considering it's something that will develop over time. Rolanddeschain 00:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)