Monday 23rd of December 2024
Home » content

Terrorism, Guantanamo Bay, The Law

John Richardson has been sending me some great stuff about Guantanamo Bay and related issues.

With regard to the future I am very concerned with the direction of International Law, and concerned that the US are promoting international lawlessness on the basis that they can win any Darwinian struggle that might occur.

John has given us some great material with which to consider this quandary. And I am left considering the question, Do we as citizens have a responsibility to insist that our governments obey the law?

First here's a letter John didn't get to the Herald on time.

Justice Kirby’s common-sense remarks warning against the dangers of exaggerating terrorism come as a welcome breath of fresh air & balance in this hyperbole driven debate [‘Threat of terrorism overblown, says Kirby’, Herald, March 22].

By marketing fear, loathing & suspicion at every opportunity, our political leaders & their ambitious servants create conditions that encourage us to accept a diminution of our rights & freedoms in exchange for “being safer

Darwinian struggle

What happened to Cornelia Rau, and the position the Gitmo inmates are in, lead to profoundly disturbing thoughts about banality becoming the next growth industry.

Someone in another place wrote today about the time when he went off his scone, and a stranger picked him up and got him into care.

Another person, out of her mind, is abused. Her involuntary nakedness, instead of being an opportunity to exercise discretion and decency, becomes a focus for inhumanity. There are frightful photos and images of nakedness being used as a tool of oppression in the living past. Yet, Nicole Kidman and her ilk exploit nakedness, oh, because they like to show off their bodies and they get paid a bundle. In fact, I bet someone is writing a script for her to do the movie. We have got a real problem in our permissiveness, and it's becoming easier to understand traditional cultural views on 'cover'.

We cannot leave these supreme questions of humanity and morality to be sorted out by the market. I wish we could hear a lot more from our philosophers, like Raimond Gaita.

Citizens responsibilities

Hamish, of course we have the responsibility to act, at the minimum to discourage our governments from acting illegally. For me, the problem is that we live in an age of lies and obfuscation. It seems to be nigh on impossible to get at the facts of any situation - so that you can act on what you know, rather than on what you suspect.

It seems that governments are no longer accountable to the people (seen a Minister take responsibility for anything in the last few years?) and they are quite happy to lie and deceive. We get the occasional extremely brave whistleblower who is then attacked with the full forces of government power.

I feel responsible. I need the truth to act. But how we get to the truth seems to be a major barrier to effective action.

Citizen Responsibility - Any Suggestions?

Absolutely we have a responsibility to hold our government accountable, but how? Letter writing makes our views known, but ultimately is not something that will hold them accountable, and the opposition seem reluctant to stand up for us.

I've often wondered if there is any sort of law/process in place that gives citizens the power to hold their government accountable? No doubt if there is it's well hidden! Does anyone know the answer?

Terrorism, Guantanamo Bay, The Law

Hi Roseanne, it seems to me that we need transparency from government: reject the hoary old chestnut of confidentiality / secrecy "in the public interest" - an oxymoron.

The only way to achieve transparency is to force accountability on our politicians & the only way that I think that can happen is to overcome public apathy through our individual & collective activism - & not expect that it will happen overnight.

The need for transparency

Hi John, I wonder if the change in politicians is part of our move towards lifetime careers (which might be changing again). It seems that the people politics now attracts are those who are attracted by the power and influence and much less by a desire to serve their country and their people.

Perhaps we should have limited terms for pollies, so that they never see their role as one for life. Would it motivate them to make greater changes in shorter timeframes, and accept responsibility when they get it wrong? Our recent governments seem to believe that taking away our security of tenure will somehow make us better employees!

Tenure

Hey Roseanne, what an excellent observation you make. Particularly in relation to our various governments need to casualise the workers so that Australia is "competetive". Beatifully put and I clap loudly!

I had been thinking along the lines of a maximum of two terms for any political party but your thought is a much more achievable target.

Hamish, please note Roseanne's comments for any action plans if you would.

Re: The need for Transparency

Could it be Roseanne that it is not the pollies who are the sickness which afflicts this nation but rather that they are merely the visible symptoms of that sickness?

The average voter seems to want more of what of the Howard government dishes out (lies, deceit, arrogance, contempt). Why else would they keep voting for them?

A friend of mine from Europe, a world traveller, is of the opinion that Australia is currently the most conservative nation on earth.

There are times when I think he may be right!

Who's to blame?

John Holland, since the election I have noticed this debate flare regularly about who to blame: the voter or the politician.

Democracy is more than a group of politicians and a horde of voters. The failure of democracy is in the institutions in between. I refer to institutions of accountability, courts, education and media outlets, the Public Service. In particular the information institutions - the education system and the media - have failed us, and without them the democracy is hollow.

As Margo revealed in Not Happy John!, rogues like Howard take their opportunity to chip away at the very institutions and conventions of parliament. This is very dangerous territory indeed. We may blame Howard now, or we may blame the electorate for allowing it, but it lays the foundation for further roguery from unknown politicians in the future. Who do we blame then?

We must look out for our institutions.

Which is one reason I'm attracted to the sort of idea proposed by Roseanne and seconded by Pegasus. It's a proposal to (campaign to) bolster our actual institutions of democracy and accountability.

But I am concerned about how realistic a campaign it would be, and interested in any more concrete campaign plans.

What to do about our democracy

Hamish, John et al,

As you can see it is quite some time since I joined in this discussion. Life and work, unfortunately, will get in the way of passion. I'm not new to having a thought or two about both the individual's and the state's role in making our democracy work for us, but I am new to the thought of taking any kind of direct action (other than at the ballot box!). One of my problems is that I am OK at ideas but really poor at action (might just be lack of experience).

Perhaps that single galvanising issue has not come to us yet, and that is why we aren't coming up with specific action plans as a group. Perhaps it is our own newness as a group, and the questions many of us still have about how we will operate, that is holding us back.

But, even though I am poor at action, I am going to start using email to express my concern to members and senators about the proposed changes to media cross-ownership laws. It is one thing I can do about an issue that I think threatens our democracy. And I am not going to wait for it to happen before I let them know my views. A small step, but at least it is one I can take. Perhaps what we need is simply a large number of small steps.

Re: Who's to blame?

Point taken Hamish, particularly in regard to the media.

I live in North Qld and our area is serviced(?) by two Murdoch Newslimited newspapers. One (The Townsville Daily Bulletin) supposedly reports local, national and international news. It is near on impossible to have a letter to the editor published which is openly critical of the federal government in this newspaper.

In fact I believe this newspaper also actively "filters" out news items. An example is when the Rod Barton revelations emerged. In spite of the fact that this issue was big news everywhere, not a single word appeared in the "Bully". I have pointed this out to the Editor (along with a number of other glaring examples) but have been totally ignored.

I keep chipping away however. Perhaps the old "water on stone" method might eventually work!

Biased Media

Hey John, there's no question about the censorship that exists in most media organisations. I tested this out at one stage by writing an email to a Brisbane radio station criticising the overseas travel of both Labor and Nationals.

They read out the bit about Labor as it was funny and derogatory but made no mention of the comments I made about the Nationals which were in the same vein.

Try that with your papers. Send them two letters, one supporting each party. Put one in your name and have someone else agree to put their name on it. Pick a hot topic local to your area and see who gets published.

I also try picking up which TV stations cover certain items I might have heard on the various ABC stations during the day. It quickly becomes obvious who is not reported on or their actions downplayed etc. That's assuming we didn't already know.

Try talkback. They also filter by asking what you want to talk about. If you do get on and change topics your phone will apparently have suddenly disconnected according to the announcer.

Yes, I know, I should get a life!

Thank whoever's God you believe in for the internet.