****
Theo tin chính qui, từ miệng lưỡi cảnh sát, dựa theo lời kể của "nhân chứng con tin" - vào lúc 2 giờ sáng, sau khi một số con tin lợi dụng tên chủ mưu mỏi mệt ngủ gật, đã tìm cách trốn ra khỏi quán an toàn, tên Monis "nổi điên bắn sảng", Tori Johnson, người quản lý của hiệu cafe Lindt này, đã nhảy vào giựt súng, nhưng bi hắn bắn chết. Bên ngoài cảnh sát vì nghe tiếng súng nổ từ bên trong- và "thấy" Tori Johnson bị ngã gục (!!!!????) , nên ra lệnh biệt đội SWAT "buộc phải tấn công" nhảy vào bắn loạn xạ ... như chúng ta "nghe thấy" trên truyền hình!
(Hostages Run From Sydney Cafe: 2AM )
Kết quả MÔT tên thủ phạm, cũng là CHỦ PHẠM, MONIS bị bắn chết, cùng hai thường dân, một là quản trị của hiệu cà phê này, Tori Johnson- và một nữ luật sư, Katrina Dawson, bạn quen biết của hiệu.Cho đến nay, có nhiều tường thuật khác nhau về diễn biến sự vụ. cũng chưa rõ nữ luật sư Katrina Dawson các nạn nhân khác bị chết và bị thương là do đạn của cảnh sát hay của MONIS. Và theo chính cảnh sát thì họ "tin rằng" bà Katrina Dawson chết vì đạn của tên MONIS, nhưng chỉ nói ỡm ờ không rõ ràng!
Nhưng với Nhân Chủ, những diễn biến "chính qui" đó không quan trọng bằng chi tiết BẤT NHẤT của phía cảnh sát và chính phủ, ngay từ phút đầu tiên cho đến nay, khi vụ Con Tin đã hạ màn.
Điều đáng chú ý nhất là LUẬN ĐIỆU CHO RẰNG KHỦNG BỐ ISIL tấn công "xã hội Úc" đang được bọn chính chính phủ và chính qui VÙI càng nhanh càng tốt, sau khi cũng chính bọn chúng, tên thủ tướng Abbott v,v là kẻ thổi phồng đoan quyết ISIL ngay từ đầu.
Điểm thứ hai, HAI (2) kẻ thủ phạm, hiện nay chỉ còn MỘT, chứ không phải hai- nghĩa là tên kia tự nhiên BIẾN MẤT không ai nhắc đến nữa! Tên này là ai? Biến mất từ khi nào?
Và điểm cuối cùng mới thật sự lý thú,. Vì hơn ai hết, cảnh sát chính phủ Úc, cũng như giới báo chí KHÔNG AI XA LẠ gì với tên MONIS này!
Nhưng họ ngậm miệng để cho tin tức về ISIL lên cao, và sau sự vụ lại chỉ đăng tải có MỘT NỬA SỰ THẬT!
Chúng ta hãy lùi dần về quá khứ.
1- Ngày 13 tháng 12, năm 2013, Monis bị ra toà về tội giết vợ cũ, đem đốt cô vợ ngay ngoài sân. Nhưng không bị án tù gì cả, sau khi hắn "cố gắng" nhận tội trước toà. Báo chí Úc gọi MONIS là "giáo sĩ tự phong" (A SELF-STYLED sheik)... Tại sao vậy? (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/hate-sheik-man-horan-monis-and-girlfriend-amirzh-droudis-granted-bail-on-murder-charges/story-fni0cx12-1226781623998?nk=ba7ac9da6cbeb8c6571a27a4febc5c61) Và Monis cùng bạn gái đang trong thời gian tại ngoại hầu tra về tội sát nhân đốt vợ ngoài trời này.
2- Trước đó vào tháng 6- năm 2013 Giáo sĩ Man Haron Monis bị phạt 300 giờ lao động xã hội vì đã viết thư chống chiến tranh lên án quân đội Úc gửi đến các bà goá "tử sĩ" Úc.. ('Cleric' Man Haron Monis punished for offensive letters written to families of dead Diggers).. Tại sao tên Giáo sĩ này lại biết rõ địa chỉ thư của các gia đình lính Úc? Nhưng vấn đề không nằm ở đây. Vấn đề lá Giáo sĩ Monis đã "vô tình" khích động lòng "căm thù hồi giáo" và khêu gợi cảm kích thánh hoá bọn quân đội Úc theo Mỹ tham chiến tại Afgan-Iraq vi phạm tội ác chiến tranh- đang bị dân Úc biểu tình phản đối lúc đó!
3- Nhưng khi chúng ta lùi xa hơn tí nữa, chúng ta sẽ càng thấy lý thú hơn, và nhiều câu hởi cần được đặt ra nhiều hơn nữa về nhân vật Monis "kỳ dị" này.
Vào tháng giêng , năm 2008, tờ báo "lớn uy tín nhất" nước Úc, tờ The Australian: đăng tải bản tin rằng Cộng Đồng hồi giáo Shia, Ba Tư, kêu gọi cảnh sát liên bang chính phủ Úc hãy điều tra về một Đại Giáo Học Sĩ giả hiệu Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi tức là giáo sĩ Sheik Haron . (The Australian : Call to probe mystery Shia cleric) Nhưng nhà chức trách Úc lửng lơ con cá vàng! Cho đến khi có vụ án giết vợ cũ năm 2013, mới đăng tải "Giáo Sĩ tự phong"!!!Tại sao lại có cớ sự Đại Giáo Học Sĩ (Ayatollah) này" Chúng ta cần biết rằng Giáo Học Vị (Ayatollah = đại giáo học sĩ) là giáo học vị cao nhất trong Hồi giáo Shia, như giáo chủ (Ayatollah Khomeini) Giáo Học Vị này không chỉ có thẩm quyền về "thần học tín lý" mà còn về lãnh vực Đạo đức và chính trị nữa!
Tại sao chuyên NỘI BỘ TÔN GIÁO- giáo vị Shia ở Úc lại phải kêu gào đến cảnh sát liên bang, chính phủ liên bang Úc?
4- Đi lùi xa hơn, ngược lại giòng thời gian hơn chút nữa, sẽ càng lý thú.
Vào tháng giêng năm 2001 giữa không khí chống IRAN (chưa có vụ 911) Bush vừa thắng cử- Iran - Iraq đang là chủ đề chính của thế giới, chương trình Tôn Giáo nổi tiếng The Religion Report của đài truyền hình "lâu đời nhất, uy tín" nhất nước Úc ABC đăng tin và PHỎNG VẤN một ĐẠI GIÁO HỌC SĨ Hồi giáo Shia -Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi, về tình hình Iran và vấn đề tự do tôn giáo tại Úc, cuộc phỏng vấn xảy ra khi Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi đang diển tuồng tự cột chân tay trong căn lều dựng nơi khu biểu tình tại quốc hội tiểu bang NSW để "phản đối, lên án" chính phủ hồi giáo Shia Iran, và xin John Howard can thiệp cho vợ con ông ta được đến Úc. Cuộc phỏng vấn do ký giả Stephen Crittenden của ABC (Australian Broadcasting Coporation) thực hiện tại chỗ.Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi, đến Úc vào năm 1996 diện tị nạn chính trị- Ông cho biết trong thời gian còn ở trong Iran, vẩn thường lui đến làm việc với giới quan chức AN NINH TÌNH BÁO của hính phủ tôn giáo Iran.
David Rutledge: Ayatollah, can you tell me how long have you been resident in Australia?Sau đây là lời nhận xét của "Đại Giáo Sĩ" RẤT MÁT và ĐẸP LÒNG giới chức Úc trong thời gian này, khi kết thúc cuộc phỏng vấn!
Manteghi Boroujerdi: I have been in Australia more than four years.
David Rutledge: And why did you leave Iran?
Manteghi Boroujerdi: Because my life was in danger, and if I would leave Iran maybe few weeks late, maybe I couldn't leave Iran.
David Rutledge: What was your position in the government?
Manteghi Boroujerdi: In Iran, mostly I have been involved with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.
Manteghi Boroujerdi: "Nếu chúng ta giải thích về ý nghĩa của từ "Islamic" (toàn phục thượng đế) như là một xã hội tôn giáo; nếu chúng ta nói xã hội Hồi giáo là một xã hội tôn giáo, và một xã hội mà có sự tương quan với Thượng Đế, và muốn nói thành thật, chúng ta có thể nói Úc, Canada, Anh, Mỹ và nhiều xã hội Tây phương khác, họ là những xã hội tôn giáo. Họ không nhận "chúng tôi rất tôn giáo" nhưng sự thật tinh thần tôn giáo, chúng ta có thể thấy tinh thần tôn giáo trong những xã hội này. Và vài xứ sở bên Trung dông, Á châu, họ nói rằng "chúng tôi là xã hội Hồi giáo"; họ có cái tên là Hồi giáo, nhưng sự thật, họ không phải là xã hội tôn giáo và chính phủ tôn giáo.
Bất cứ khi nào Tôi bước đi trên phố, bất cứ khi nào Tôi đi ra ngoài đường ở Úc, Tôi cảm thấy Tôi ở trong một xã hội thật sự tôn giáo. Tôi không muốn nói là nó hoàn hảo, chúng ta không có một xã hội toàn hão trên địa cầu này, tuy nhiên khi chúng ta so sánh, nếu chúng ta so sánh Úc và Ba Tư và các xứ sở khác ở Trung Đông, chúng ta có thể nói Úc là Thiên Đàng.
Stephen Crittenden: Và chúng ta đang ở địa đàng!
If we explain about the meaning of the word 'Islamic' as a religious society, if we say Islamic society is a religious society, and a society which has a relation with God, and wants to be honest, we can say Australia, Canada, England, USA, so many western countries, they are religious societies. They don't say 'We are religious', but in fact the spirit of religion, we can see the spirit of religion in these societies. And some other countries in the Middle East, in Asia, they say 'We are Islamic' they have a name of Islamic, but in fact they are not religious societies and religious governments.
Whenever I walk in the street, whenever I go out in Australia, I feel I am in a real religious society. I don't want to say it is perfect, we don't have a perfect society on the earth, but when we compare, if we compare Australia with Iran and other countries in the Middle East, we can say it is heaven.
Stephen Crittenden: And we are in paradise.
Quí độc giả còn nhớ tên tội phạm Ahmed Chalabi của Iraq, Âu Mỹ đã dùng làm tay sai để tạo cớ tiến chiếm Iraq năm 2003 chăng? Âu Mỹ đã thổi phồng một tên tội phạm lừa bịp tài chính Ahmed Chalabi lên hàng "chính trị gia, an ninh tình báo" như thế nào; và sau khi xong việc, đã phủi tay với Ahmed Chalabi thế nào chăng?
Manteghi Boroujerdi, một kẻ có quan hệ tình báo tại Iran. Đến Úc năm 1996, được thổi phồng thành Đại giáo học sĩ - mãi đến năm 2008- thời kỳ John Howard và Bush ra đi- nghĩa là 12 năm sau vị Đại học Sĩ này mới "bị" yêu cầu điều tra vì người Úc gốc Hồi Ba tư không hề biết vị Đại giáo học sĩ này của họ!!! Và phải 12 năm cho đến khi kẻ "đỡ đầu" là Howard ra đi mới có "người "chất vấn.
Và sau những vụ "lôi thôi" nổi tiếng - ngày 15-12- 2014 khi hắn xông vào cafe Lindt.. cảnh sát, báo chí, chính phủ v.v đều "nhẵn mặt" Manteghi Boroujerdi, nhưng không hề hé môi, cứ vờ là ISIL. Và hầu như "cố tính" buộc hắn, Monis phải "hung hăng" giết người, khi những YÊU CẦU CỦA HẮN thật sự là vớ vỉn - như:
1- thông báo cho Úc biết là ISIL đang tấn công nước Úc,
2- xin đem lá cờ ISIL đến cho hắn vì hắn đem theo và treo cờ không đúng! Chỉ là khẩu hiệu tôn vinh Alah treo ở bất cứ đền thời Hồi nào mà thôi!
3-Đòi nói chuyện qua điện thoại với Tony Abbott-
Tất cả những yều cầu này không tổn hại gì hết - quá dễ dàng đáp ứng - để cứu con tin- nhưng nhất định không đáp ứng???
Lạ lùng, là hắn có vẻ bị "say thuốc" hành xử bất nhất và ngật ngưởng, cho đến nỗi hắn rất lơ là không chủ định gì rõ rệt- cửa rả ngõ ngách không đóng thả lỏng đến nỗi nhiều người đã thay nhau trốn thoát thoải mái ra ngoài mà hắn vẫn "không hay biết"- cho đến khi chỉ còn một ít người bên trong - và bỗng dưng Monis "nổi khùng" bắn súng, và bọn SWAT ập vào VỘI VÃ bắn lung tung giữa 2giờ sáng!!!
Tuỳ quí độc giả tham khảo thêm và có nhận định riêng. Chúng Tôi xin khoá sổ vụ này. Vì biết chắc, bọn chính phủ và đám đĩ điếm báo chí chính quí sẽ còn "tiếp tục kéo dài" với nhiếu chi tiết vớ vẩn không cần thiết khác, để biện minh cho hành động vội vã xông vào bắn bừa bãi và bắn chết Monis vừa qua, cũng như chính đáng hoá cho hành xử bạo lực của cảnh sát.
nkptc
Quí vị có thể tham khảo toàn bộ nguồi dẫn "lịch sử" của "đại giáo sĩ" shia Monis, dưới đây:
=====================
NGUỒN DẪN THAM KHẢO:
BẢN TÍN 01:
A SELF-STYLED sheik accused of colluding with his girlfriend to murder his ex-wife tried to plead guilty in court yesterday - to stealing a breakfast pack in prison.
- The Daily Telegraph
- December 13, 2013
During a lengthy and at times bizarre bail application Man Horan Monis, 49, interrupted the bail hearing of him and his co-accused, Amirzh Droudis, 34, who is charged with murder, to tell the court he wanted to plead guilty.
*****
Victim: Noleen Hayson Pal, right.
He asked to be brought up from the cells at Penrith Local Court to "plead guilty to a crime I've committed".
Mr Monis' lawyer Manny Conditsis told the court his client's outburst was to plead guilty to stealing a breakfast pack in Silverwater Jail - which he hadn't been charged over - not to the charges before the court.
Prosecutor Brian Royce said Monis' claims the Iranian Secret Police and ASIO were trying to frame him for the murder was "fanciful".
Magistrate Daryl Pearce said all theories needed to be examined, adding the prosecution case was weak. He granted bail as a "simple matter of fairness".
The court heard Ms Hayson Pal had pleaded with her murderer to stop.
The Crown's chief witness, who allegedly watched the attack unfold through his peep hole, opened his door to ask "what are doing?" when he saw Ms Hayson Pal having fluid poured on her and set alight only to be told to "go back inside" by a woman wearing a "black cape" and a headscarf that didn't obscure her face.
The court heard Monis and Ms Hayson Pal had been involved an "acrimonious" custody dispute.
Mr Royce told the court Monis went to "extreme and elaborate lengths" to create an alibi while Ms Droudis committed the "brutal" murder.
Mr Royce said Monis deliberately filmed a clock, while asking for the time, at a Penrith pool before the murder and faked a car crash outside Penrith Police station after which he claimed he had chest pains and was taken to Nepean Hospital. He said Monis made no attempts to contact his ex-wife after the accident.
Mr Conditsis said outside court the magistrate "made a courageous decision" granting bail. "It is important to note that he assessed the Crown case as weak. Mr Monis and Ms Droudis will strenuously fight these charges," he said.
The pair will reappear in court on January 22.
==========
BẢN TIN 02
'Cleric' Man Haron Monis punished for offensive letters written to families of dead Diggers
- AAP
- September 06, 2013
*** Sheik Man Haron Monis has been sentenced to community service for sending offensive letters to widows of diggers killed in Afghanistan. Picture: Stephen Cooper Source: The Daily Telegraph
A SELF-styled Muslim cleric has been sentenced to 300 hours of community service for penning "grossly offensive" letters to families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Man Haron Monis, also known as Sheik Haron, was also placed on a two-year good behaviour bond.So too was his co-accused and partner, 34-year-old Amirah Droudis, who pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting him.
In sentencing the pair at Sydney's District Court, Judge Mark Marien said Monis had sent a host of “grossly offensive” letters to the grieving families of seven soldiers killed in Afghanistan between 2007 and 2009.
He also wrote to the family of a trade official killed in a bombing in Indonesia.
In some of the correspondence, soldiers were likened to murderers, while in others Monis said they were going to hell.
In a DVD sent to the widow of one of the soldiers, Lance Corporal Jason Marks, Droudis says: “We shouldn't be honouring them as we don't honour Hitler's soldiers.”
Some of the other messages, were simply too offensive to repeat, Judge Marien said.
“It is impossible that the offender Monis and Droudis would not have realised that the material being sent to the families was extremely distressing and hurtful,” he said.
The sentencing marks the end of protracted legal proceedings, which included an unsuccessful High Court challenge to the charges.
Speaking outside court Monis, who pleaded guilty to 12 counts of using a postal service to cause offence, said his letters were simply “flowers of advice”.
“Always, I stand behind my beliefs,” he told reporters.
“The High Court has confirmed that if I hand delivered these letters, there wouldn't be any problem.
“Using postal service (sic) made it illegal,” he added later.
AAP
==
BẢN TIN 03
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/call-to-probe-mystery-shia-cleric/story-e6frg8yx-1111115413357
The Australian:
Call to probe mystery Shia cleric
- The Australian
- January 28, 2008
FEDERAL agents have been urged by the nation's senior Shia leader, Kamal Mousselmani, to investigate an Iranian man purporting to be a prominent Islamic cleric.
Sheik Mousselmani told The Australian yesterday the mystery cleric - who has been identified as Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi on his website after appearing under the name Sheik Haron - was not a genuine Shia spiritual leader.He said there were no ayatollahs - supreme Shia scholars - in Australia and none of his fellow spiritual leaders knew who Ayatollah Boroujerdi or Sheik Haron was.
"We don't know him and we have got nothing to do with him," Sheik Mousselmani said. "The federal police should investigate who he is. It should be their responsibility."
Sheik Haron, who insulted the family of an Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan in November, was accused by Muslim leaders of being a fake cleric deliberately stirring anti-Islamic sentiment.
Sheik Mousselmani, head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Australia, which represents the nation's 30,000 Shi'ites, said Sheik Haron's website - Sheik Haron Web - gave him away as an amateur who knew little about Shia Islam.
"From the way he writes his (fatwas or religious edicts), I don't think he is Shia Muslim," Sheik Mousselmani said. "And there are no ayatollahs in Australia.
"We don't follow, we don't support and we don't stand with anyone we don't know. He's not one of us."
Sheik Haron has been identified in a letter on his websites that claims he is of Iranian background and once supported the country's Islamic revolution against US "oppression".
"Ayatollah Boroujerdi was supporting Ayatollah Khomeini (leader of the Iranian Islamic revolution) and the Islamic revolution like many others who were against the oppression of the United States of America, but later the direction of the Islamic revolution changed and it was not what the nation expected it to be," the letter says.
Sheik Haron's website lists a number of letter he has written to officials and ministers, including one to former attorney-general Philip Ruddock and one to federal police commissioner Mick Keelty.
The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils president Ikebal Patel said yesterday the body's investigation into the cleric last month could not find any information on who Sheik Haron is.
"I know the community very well, and this just doesn't make sense," he said. "We couldn't find anything on the man."
==================
BẢN TIN 04
The Religion Report
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionreport/new-cardinals-for-rome-george-bush-muslims-in/3478556
New Cardinals for Rome, George Bush, Muslims in Australia
Pope John Paul II appoints an unprecedented number of new Cardinals; George Bush bans U.S. government funds to international family planning groups involved in abortion; in Victoria, Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam is honoured for his services to multi-faith understanding; while in Sydney we talk to Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi, an Iranian cleric espousing a liberal brand of Islam - dangerously liberal, as his views have led to his wife and two daughters being held hostage in Iran.
Transcript
Hide Stephen Crittenden: If you were expecting to hear John Cleary's familiar voice again this year, he's not here because he's off hosting Late Sunday Night Talk on ABC local radio from 10pm till 2am, that's Sunday evenings.This week on The Religion Report, America lurches to the religious right in the early days of the new presidency.
And we speak to two Muslim clerics living in Australia, one protesting outside the New South Wales parliament, the other just made a member of the Order of Australia.
But first, Pope John Paul has announced the creation of 44 new cardinals in recent weeks, most of whom will be eligible to vote when the time comes to elect his successor. Many of those named are from Latin America.
Well, as this long pontificate draws to its close, it's perhaps not surprising that these announcements have been greeted by a lot of loose talk about the College of Cardinals being stacked. I asked Father Paul Collins whether the College is any more stacked now than it was previously.
Paul Collins: Well the answer to that is Yes and No. Yes, there's a sense in which there's no doubt the Pope is going to choose people who reflect his vision of the church, there's no doubt that you won't get to the point of being an Archbishop today or a Bishop in a very large diocese, and they're the type of people who are chosen as Cardinals generally speaking, if you're not working in the Vatican, you won't get there unless you do in many ways reflect the agenda that has run right through this papacy. But the thing that people tend to forget when they say that the College of Cardinals has been stacked, they forget that when the Pope dies they're their own men then.
Stephen Crittenden: Well let's look at some of the individual names in this big list, because some of them are quite interesting: there's a Peruvian Cardinal who's a member of Opus Dei, and who's been linked to the regime of disgraced former President Fujimori of Peru.
Paul Collins: Yes, the gentleman's name is Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne. He's a member of Opus Dei, born in 1943, was actually quite a champion basketball player in Peru. But Thorne is the first Opus Dei Cardinal; he had been the Bishop of Ayacucho up in the Andes, and he was the person (I don't know if you can recall, but the Japanese Embassy was occupied by the Shining Path guerrillas about three years ago) and the person that Fujimori, the then President of Peru, used as the link between the Shining Path and his government was Cipriani. So it is quite a coup for Opus Dei in many ways, as I said.
Stephen Crittenden: And also an insight into the way that Opus Dei cuddles up to the leadership, the elites in Third World regimes and Third World countries.
Paul Collins: Well certainly their influence has been very, very considerable on some governments, largely because in fact they work to do this. They have a view that it's the elite that you need to bring to spiritual fulfilment and maturity and theological education, and they certainly have penetrated very strongly in a country like Peru.
Stephen Crittenden: There's some controversy over the appointment of Archbishop Desmond Connell of Dublin, because the Primate of all Ireland, Archbishop Sean Brady of Armagh was passed over.
Paul Collins: Have you ever known the Irish to agree on anything?
Stephen Crittenden: Had Brady done anything to upset the Vatican?
Paul Collins: Well I mean, if you look at the two of them, Brady is a much more progressive person, there's no doubt about that; his background is much more pastoral. Sean Connell's background is that he's a Semitic scholar. He's been a fairly uninspiring Archbishop of Dublin. Mind you, he's in a great tradition of uninspiring Archbishops of Dublin. Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, who was known as The Sphinx, was one of his predecessors, whereas Armagh has tended to have, if you like, more colourful, more pastorally-oriented and much more open Archbishops. Probably that's because most of those Archbishops would have experience as priests and bishops in the north, where of course the position of Catholics is that of a minority rather than a majority, at least in some areas. So Brady I think was seen as a much more open man, whereas Connell is seen very much as a rather uninspiring reactionary.
Stephen Crittenden: We mentioned somebody who was a member of Opus Dei a moment ago; another interesting appointment is Father Avery Dulles, the well-known American priest, someone who has links right to the centre of power in the United States, in fact the son of a former Secretary of State.
Paul Collins: Yes, he doesn't have a vote in the next conclave because he was born in August 1918, so he's well over 80, but Avery Dulles is one of the best-known theologians within the English speaking world certainly. His fine book 'Models of the Church' has had tremendous influence in theological education over the last 20 or 25 years since it's been published. He has another very fine book which came out in the late '80s called 'The Catholicity of the Church', so he's been a theologian of the church if you like, an ecclesiologist, as they're called. He was the son of the United States Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, that makes him of course also the nephew of Alan Dulles, who was the founding administrator of the CIA.
Stephen Crittenden: Paul, is there anything significant in the fact that the original 37 names came out early last week, and then suddenly early this week, there've been another seven names added to the list?
Paul Collins: Well yes, it is unusual. In fact, Stephen, I can't think of an example this century where this has happened. In the case of two of them, they have been Cardinals "in pectore" is the term that's used, or "in pecto" is the Italian.
Stephen Crittenden: Secret Cardinals.
Paul Collins: Secret Cardinals, in the sense that the Pope hasn't announced their names because of dangers to themselves if their names were announced.
Stephen Crittenden: But there are a couple, two in particular, that are very interesting: a black Archbishop from Durban in South Africa, and somebody who's name you wouldn't have thought would have been an afterthought, the President of the German Bishops' Conference, Karl Lehmann of Mainz. I mean, is there a sense that John Paul II is not paying full attention, or that there are political machinations going on in the Vatican that there's a kind of an opposition team who've started to flex their muscles in the last week?
Paul Collins: I can't see that personally. I can't explain to you why there has been this delay. It was said that he was smiling and laughing when he announced these latest five. The reason is simply not obvious to me, and exactly as you say, Stephen, that someone like Karl Lehmann the Bishop of Mainz and the President of the German Bishops' Conference, who certainly would not have won high points for himself in Rome last year when he suggested that the Pope ought to resign (he then went on of course to deny that he had said that). Another person that's here is Johannes Joachim Degenhart, the Archbishop of Paderborn, who from memory I think is a fairly conservative man; he's certainly quite old, I think he's only got about a year or two before he reaches the compulsory retirement age of 75.
Stephen Crittenden: And is described as having made 'public demonstrations of his fidelity to the magisterium of Pope John Paul II.'
Paul Collins: Yes, well we know why he got it. But I have to be honest, I find it very hard to explain why this sudden addition to the list.
Stephen Crittenden: We perhaps should conclude, Paul, by making some mention of Archbishop George Pell of Melbourne, Australia, because I think there was an awful lot of media speculation that his name would appear on this list, and I must add, it's not speculation that came from this program, and not speculation that he, to my knowledge, ever encouraged.
Paul Collins: I think that's absolutely right. I've been saying for a long time that it was most unlikely that Archbishop Pell would be appointed a Cardinal when there were already two voting Cardinals, two Australians as voting Cardinals, Cardinal Cassidy who has just retired from the Roman Courier, he's 75, but he's still got a few years to run before he's 80; and Cardinal Clancy of course, in Sydney, the Archbishop of Sydney.
Stephen Crittenden: So that three Cardinals in a population of 18-million or 19-million is way too much to expect.
Paul Collins: Of course, when there are only 4-million Catholics, that's the first thing. And the second thing is that countries like Brazil, Argentina, Ireland, Bolivia, I mean place after place that are Catholic countries didn't have Cardinals. New York didn't have a Cardinal, the Cardinal Archbishop of New York had died, O'Connor, and he's been replaced by Edward Egan; Washington didn't have a Cardinal Archbishop, so all of this certainly indicated to me that the likelihood of another Australian being appointed was pure wishful thinking. I don't know who's wishful thinking it was, I suspect it came more from conservative elements within Melbourne, perhaps it was a little bit of self-illusion on the part of Melbournites, and being a Melbournite originally, I think I can say that. And it's an illusion that was taken up widely by the Australian media.
Stephen Crittenden: Paul Collins, thank you very much for your time.
Paul Collins: It's a pleasure, Stephen.
Stephen Crittenden: In the United States this week, George Bush has moved to establish what he calls an 'office of faith-based action', to oversee the provision of welfare by charity and church groups. It's becoming apparent that the President has a more conservative social agenda than he displayed during his election campaign. Last week he banned US government funds to international organisations that provide abortion counselling or publicly support abortion. So is the President revealing himself as a religious ideologue, or is he a moderate with a strategic eye to gaining conservative support?
David Rutledge spoke to journalist Steven Waldman, Editor of Belief.net, and asked: How deep do the President's religious convictions really run?
Steven Waldman: Well I think his personal conviction on it runs pretty deep, but his ideological approach to abortion has always been to talk in symbolic terms, more than to take the domestic political positions that would cause controversy. So for instance, he came out against the government spending money in overseas population control things that had abortion in it, but most Americans don't care that much about that.
David Rutledge: So it's just a symbolic gesture, you're saying?
Steven Waldman: Well he would say it's more than a symbolic gesture in the sense that the way he has put it is 'The first thing we have to do is change public opinion rather than laws' and so he would say 'Well the symbolic things are not just symbolic, it's part of a campaign to change public opinion, and that's where we have to start.'
David Rutledge: Is there a more general trend appearing here? Do you think his presidency is going to turn out to be more conservative than we thought?
Steven Waldman: I think we don't know. It's sort of fascinating to watch on any given day, which way he seems to be shifting. I would say his Cabinet is probably more conservative than Ronald Reagan's, but he is approaching most of his conservative views in a very shrewd way. He seems to be on the one hand throwing bones to his conservative supporters, but on the other hand doing some pretty high profile moderate initiatives.
David Rutledge: What about George Bush himself? He doesn't strike you as the overly introspective type; how deep do you think his own religious convictions run?
Steven Waldman: I think his religious convictions run quite deep. I would say in fact his religious convictions probably run deeper than his political convictions. One of the issues that's going to be interesting is to see to what extent his religious convictions influence his political convictions. You know, the initiative that he put out there today, Monday, is an effort to give more government money to religious groups, and this really directly stems from his personal view, from his own life experience, that it is religion that really changes people's lives, not government programs.
David Rutledge: What about the constitutional problems that that would bring up?
Steven Waldman: Well he doesn't seem to be particularly worried about that. There are a lot of people who think that the constitutional issues can be worked through. It's a little bit simplistic to say 'Oh well, they can be worked through,' there really are some pretty strong tensions there, but it's quite a popular notion here right now, the idea that more government money should be going to religious groups.
David Rutledge: Why is that?
Steven Waldman: Well I think part of it is a general scepticism on the part of America which has been brewing for the last 20 or 30 years, that government bureaucracies don't work very well, and religious social programs tend to be more effective.
David Rutledge: With the abortion issue, how far do you think he is actually prepared to go? There are appointments to the Supreme Court coming up; is the President going to try and overturn Rowe versus Wade?
Steven Waldman: I think he won't try to overturn Rowe v Wade in terms of proceeding with a constitutional amendment and a lawsuit. I think he will try to put pro-life justices on the court, and do it that way. To me, the most interesting case on abortion for Bush is going to be the RU46, the so-called first option pill, or the abortion pill, depending on which side you're coming from. This is the pill that was marketed in France, and which enables women to essentially induce abortions through a pill. And this has been a big target of opposition among the anti-abortion forces in America. During the campaign, Bush astonished and disappointed the pro-life forces by saying he would not do anything to overturn, to block the access to the abortion pill, and I suspect that he will go back on that, that he will shift his position on that and he will try to do a little bit in the way of trying to restrict access. But that's the one where I think the battle is going to be fought over.
David Rutledge: It was widely reported last week that in a presidential message read out to the March for Life protesters, the President said that he wanted to work towards a 'culture of life', he wanted to affirm that every person at every stage of life is created equal in God's image, and yet of course we know that as Governor of Texas he presided over a number of criminal executions. Does he perceive any major contradiction there?
Steven Waldman: He does not, because of the word 'innocent'. He'd say that abortion is an assault on innocent life and the death penalty is not an assault on innocent life. Obviously not everyone agrees with him on that, including the Catholic Church, which views those positions as inconsistent. But no, he doesn't seem bothered by that.
David Rutledge: What pressure is coming from the Catholic Church on this issue? For example the Catholic Bishops seem to be reluctant to take this issue up in any big way. Is there any sort of groundswell of action developing on the church front?
Steven Waldman: Yes I think the religious groups are a lot like every other political player in the beginning of a new administration. They're sort of waiting to see what happens a little bit, they're waiting to see what this new President is going to do, what kind of authority he has, who his allies are going to be, so everyone is taking a pretty cautious approach now. But by 'everyone' I mean in the establishment religion area. Certainly the Catholic Church has been anti-death penalty and certainly the church has been anti-abortion. I don't see them so far kind of rubbing Bush's nose in what they would view as a contradiction on his part.
Stephen Crittenden: Steven Waldman of Belief.net
This last Australia Day weekend was a significant one for Australian Muslims.
One of Australia's most senior Islamic clerics, Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam of Thomastown in Victoria, was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his services to multiculturalism, the Muslim community and multi-faith understanding.
Sheikh Fehmi arrived in Australia way back in 1951, and it's probably fair to say he's one of the few Muslim clerics in Australia who has shown any sustained interest in inter-religious dialogue.
I asked him to reflect on the particular problems he has sought to address in these last 50 years.
Fehmi Naji: Well, Number 1, I was like a father to the whole community here, and trying to help the community in every field, being immigration, education, sponsorship, personal family matters, marriage, divorce, funerals, name it, I'm there with them all the time. We have established a lot of work here. In 1957 we built the first mosque and Islamic centre in Melbourne in the area of Preston. Nowadays in and around Melbourne you find around 35 Islamic centres have taken place, and nearly seven high schools as well.
Stephen Crittenden: Muslim migrants to Australia obviously come from a very wide range of ethnic backgrounds, although we tend to forget that. You know, we have Malaysians and Indonesians on one hand, Turks, Lebanese on the other; is one of the problems when they arrive in a country like Australia, that those different communities are very isolated from each other, and that Malaysian or Indonesian Muslims don't have very much to do, say, with Lebanese Muslims? I mean for example, there's a perception, and I don't know whether you think it's a fair perception, that Muslim migrants in Australia have been very slow to take up the cause of those refugees who are locked up in the Woomera Detention Centre for example. Is that fair, or unfair?
Fehmi Naji: It is unfair, because we have done a lot of work for them. When these refugees come from the Detention Centre in Woomera to Melbourne, we work day and night with the Councils, we work with the Immigration Department, we work with the churches altogether, and we help those refugees in a very wide way. So a lot of work has been done, and if somebody did nothing, I don't know.
Stephen Crittenden: I wonder whether you think over time, say in the last ten years or so, do you actually detect a change in attitude amongst ordinary Australians towards, say, the Palestinians, that perhaps compared with 10 or 15 years ago, there's now much more sympathy with the plight of Palestinians in the conflict in Israel.
Fehmi Naji: 100-percent, that's quite true, quite true indeed, and people start to realise that the plight and the Palestinians are the underdog and Palestinians are not having a fair go, and all this sort of thing; they can see it now, on TV and the news and the media, most of the time, are reporting things which they never reported before.
Stephen Crittenden: On the other hand, is there a perception do you think, a correct perception perhaps, that Islam is a violent religion, is that one of the big problems that you have to constantly tackle in the Australian media?
Fehmi Naji: Yes. I remember the old time, in the '50s and '60s, because I've been here since 1951, and at that time the media was very harsh indeed, to talk about things which are not 100% right.
Stephen Crittenden: But nonetheless, I mean is there an element of truth in that idea? You know, you only have to look to what's going on in a place like Ambon in Indonesia.
Fehmi Naji: It is very unfortunate, but sometimes you don't get the exact truth, between you and me.
Stephen Crittenden: It must be very difficult for you.
Fehmi Naji: You see, I mean who is who, who is starting first, who is doing harm to the other first, who started it all, all this sort of thing we don't know. We cannot defend Muslims' acts all the time, because Islam is one thing and Muslim is another thing, and sometimes Muslims can be good people, bad people, middle between the good and bad and so on, the same as anybody else.
Stephen Crittenden: So it's not all black and white.
Fehmi Naji: Not all black and white, definitely.
Stephen Crittenden: As a serious religious man, have you found it difficult at times to deal with the kind of liberal, secular values of the wider Australian community that you're living in?
Fehmi Naji: Yes. This I admit, that we do not agree with the extreme freedom which is taking place around us.
Stephen Crittenden: But it must make it very difficult when on the other hand, you also want to encourage Muslim migrants to intermingle with Australians.
Fehmi Naji: Yes. We say there's no harm in intermingling with Australians at all, we love to do that, but we don't want to grow into the way that we lose our principles and our basis of religion, no, we still want to keep that, come what may, under all circumstances. For instance, I have a mate who works in a factory or in an office or anywhere else, and he has a habit every night on his way home to pass the hotel and drink beer, but I don't have to do that.
Stephen Crittenden: Can I just ask you finally whether you think there are any positive ways in which Australian Muslims are being changed by living in Australia?
Fehmi Naji: When I say the word 'change', changed to a degree. For instance, to celebrate Australia Day, there are many Muslims who share with that celebration.
Stephen Crittenden: Surely, but I mean for example, when Irish Catholics came to Australia in the 19th century, now 100 years later, they're very Australian Catholics. Do you think there is going to be a way in which we see the development of an Australian kind of brand of Islam?
Fehmi Naji: Well, exactly. I'll give you one example: to me, with my family, I have my children, all of them in Australia, and all reared here and gone to school here, gone to universities here, and they are working with Australians here, and they are 100% Australian, good Muslim Australians.
Stephen Crittenden: But an Australian Catholic may think very differently and worship very differently from an Irish Catholic. Now do you think that the same may happen with Muslims in Australia?
Fehmi Naji: Well you just said before that the Catholics came here 100 years ago; we have been here less than 50 years, the majority, maybe some of them have 10 or 20 or 30, so when they reach the 100, maybe they will be different, for sure.
Stephen Crittenden: We'll have to wait and see.
Fehmi Naji: If we're still around.
Stephen Crittenden: And congratulations to Sheikh Fehmi Naji El-Imam.
People in Sydney walking past the State Parliament buildings on Macquarie Street in recent weeks might have noticed a tall Muslim cleric who has taken up residence in a tent on the footpath outside. He is Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi, a liberal cleric who fled Iran four years ago after being very critical of the Iranian regime. Ayatollah Boroujerdi's wife and two daughters are now under house arrest in Iran, and he's hoping the Howard government will put pressure on the regime there to let his family join him here in Australia.
David Rutledge spoke to him this week.
David Rutledge: Ayatollah, can you tell me how long have you been resident in Australia?
Manteghi Boroujerdi: I have been in Australia more than four years.
David Rutledge: And why did you leave Iran?
Manteghi Boroujerdi: Because my life was in danger, and if I would leave Iran maybe few weeks late, maybe I couldn't leave Iran.
David Rutledge: What was your position in the government?
Manteghi Boroujerdi: In Iran, mostly I have been involved with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.
David Rutledge: Your family is back in Iran and they're not allowed to join you, is this correct?
Manteghi Boroujerdi: Yes, more than four years I have not seen my family, and the Iranian regime doesn't let them come out. In fact I can say they are hostage; as a hostage the Iranian regime wants to make me silent, because I have some secret information about government, and about their terrorist operations in the war. I sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and somebody on behalf of Mr Kofi Anan sent the answer, and they want to do something. I have hope and always I pray and ask God to solve my problem.
David Rutledge: What would happen to you if you went back to Iran?
Manteghi Boroujerdi: I would be executed.
David Rutledge: So now you're here, outside the State Houses of Parliament on Macquarie Street; how long have you been here for?
Manteghi Boroujerdi: This the 19th day I am in this protest, and chaining myself, my hand and my leg, to this Parliament. I want first of all to show to people of Australia that the Iranian regime is against human rights, and I am gathering some signatures in this petition. I have more than 1,000 signatures, Australian people are really nice and kind people, and I want to send this petition to Mr John Howard to ask the Prime Minister to ask the Iranian regime to free my family, because the Iranian regime has a good economic relation with Australia, so I think if the Prime Minister asks the Iranian regime to free my family, they will do.
David Rutledge: In Australia, the Iranian government is usually referred to as an 'Islamic' government; do you think this is a true representation of the Iranian government, are they truly Islamic?
Manteghi Boroujerdi: If we explain about the meaning of the word 'Islamic' as a religious society, if we say Islamic society is a religious society, and a society which has a relation with God, and wants to be honest, we can say Australia, Canada, England, USA, so many western countries, they are religious societies. They don't say 'We are religious', but in fact the spirit of religion, we can see the spirit of religion in these societies. And some other countries in the Middle East, in Asia, they say 'We are Islamic' they have a name of Islamic, but in fact they are not religious societies and religious governments.
Whenever I walk in the street, whenever I go out in Australia, I feel I am in a real religious society. I don't want to say it is perfect, we don't have a perfect society on the earth, but when we compare, if we compare Australia with Iran and other countries in the Middle East, we can say it is heaven.
Stephen Crittenden: And we are in paradise.
That's all this week. Thanks to John Diamond and our new producer, David Rutledge
===
Martin Place: Một thủ đoạn tuyên truyền thất bại ?
\
Why Did They Torture?
They knew it wasn’t effective in getting the truth
by Justin Raimondo, December 19, 2014
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on how the US government tortured detainees at Guantanamo and at secret "black sites" all over the world has focused on how they did it: rectal feeding, hanging detainees by their arms, "stress positions," beatings, etc. The prurience of this focus is fairly obvious, and typical of decadent societies in general – which is not to say that the details of "how" are irrelevant. They underscore the moral bankruptcy of the regime that permitted these practices. Yet this preoccupation with the sordid details tends to overlook the "why" of it – the key to understanding what the neocons in control of the national security apparatus during the Bush years were really after.They say they were after al-Qaeda’s alleged plans to carry out further strikes on the US homeland and American facilities abroad, but there is evidence in the report that their purpose was much more specific. Major Charles Burney, a psychiatrist who served at the Guantanamo Bay facility, told the committee that "a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq." That Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon posed a seemingly insoluble problem for the interrogators: however, the failure to produce results did not impress higher-ups in Washington. The torturers were told to get rougher: As Burney testified: "There was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."
The administration had already decided, early on, to attack Iraq: all that was needed was "proof" of Saddam Hussein’s connection to the 9/11 attacks – and they didn’t care how they got it. In a 2009 interview with the McClatchy news agency, a former highly-placed former US intelligence officer said:
"[F]or most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld were also demanding proof of the links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. … There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people to push harder."
As Patrick Cockburn points out in the Independent, detainees were subjected to the worst torture "in the run-up to the war in 2003, suggesting that rather than preventing further action by al-Qaeda, the US administration was intent on justifying the invasion of Iraq. One prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, who was wrongly thought to be an al-Qaeda leader by his interrogators, was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. The first questions asked of the latter after he was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, were all about Iraq and not about forthcoming al-Qaeda attacks, according to The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan." The book also relates how Cheney’s office wanted to waterboard a top Iraqi official to get him to "verify" the alleged Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.
While all this was happening in the underground torture chambers, up above ground the neocons were torturing the truth with fabricated "evidence" of Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction." Remember the Niger uranium papers – crude forgeries – used by President George W. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech to back up the claim that Iraq was seeking to procure fissionable material to make a nuke? Then there was the tall tale about an Iraqi intelligence officer who had supposedly met 9/11 hijacker Mohmmed Atta at an airport in Prague. Ahmed Chalabi and his fellow "heroes in error" provided a constant stream of ersatz "intelligence" that invariably wound up on the front page of the New York Times. All of it was utter nonsense, as we pointed out here at the time – and to this day we don’t know how much of it originated in the desperate attempts by detainees to end the pain being inflicted on them by Cheney’s dungeon-masters.
Yet there are strong hints of it in the Senate report, specifically in footnote 857, which tells us:
"Ibn Shaykh al-Libi reported while in [Egyptian] custody that Iraq was supporting al-Qa’ida and providing assistance with chemical and biological weapons. Some of this information was cited by Secretary Powell in his speech at the United Nations, and was used as a justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Ibn Shaykh al-Libi recanted the claim after he was rendered to CIA custody on February [redacted], 2003, claiming that he had been tortured by the [redacted], and only told them what he assessed they wanted to hear. For more more details, see Volume III."
We’ll never get to read Volume III – at least, not until the Revolution – thanks to Senate Intelligence Committee chair Diane Feinstein, who supported the war and is no doubt protecting her own ample behind by hiding from the public how easily Cheney and the neocons deceived her. Her decision to keep secret the actual Senate report – as opposed to the released summary – is justified by invoking all the usual "national security" reasons, but perhaps political security has more to do with it.
This is the real secret that the released portions of the Senate torture report only hint at: the Cheney administration gulled Congress into supporting the Iraq war with "evidence" based on coerced confessions tortured out of detainees who told interrogators what they wanted to hear. Key members of Congress may not have known the details of "enhanced interrogation" techniques, but they surely didn’t look too closely because they knew in general terms what as going on – and were thus complicit not only in these crimes but in their own deception.
We are told by the pollsters that Americans don’t care about torture, and that only us rarefied types are raising moral objections to a practice for which the US government prosecuted Japanese war criminals. And the polls may be right, although it all depends on how the question is asked – but what if the question were posed as follows?:
"Do you approve or disapprove of US government officials using torture on detainees in order to justify a war based on a lie?"
Why did they torture? The Cheneyites claim they wanted information on a follow-up attack to 9/11 they were sure was coming, but the logic of this falls apart under the most cursory examination. After all, the recipient of torture is certain to say whatever he (or she) thinks the torturers want to hear – just to make the pain stop. Some within the CIA protested and no doubt brought up this very point – one the policymakers at the top knew full well. They knew torture was ineffective in getting at the truth – but it wasn’t truth they were after. They who wove a web of lies to entangle us in the Iraqi spider’s web – where we are caught to this day – were convinced they had created their own truth. As Ron Susskind recalled his conversation with a top Bush White House aide:
"The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ … ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’"
Torture was part and parcel of the reality-creation project the neocons carried out in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. It fueled the machinery of deception set up in the bowels of the Pentagon to bamboozle the nation and the world about the real nature of America’s post-9/11 agenda.
"We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality" – out of the blood and anguished screams of the tortured.
A scheduling note: This will be my last column until Monday, December 29 – yes, even Antiwar.com columnists get a Christmas break! However, we are on call 24/7, so if anything Big happens, I’ll be at my post. And I may just contribute a few blog items along the way. At any rate, I’ll be seeing you on the 29th – with my prognostications for the New Year. Until then, have a good Christmas...
===
NGUỒN THAM KHẢO THÊM:
=
Australia – Descending into Darkness (Draconian Laws, Police State, Surveillance and more)
Prime Minister, Tony Abbott and ASIO Director-General, David Irvine. Photo: Canberra Times
In the following feature piece, Ethan Nash takes an in-depth look at all three stages of anti-terror legislation, and analyses how media and government authorities have manipulated public perception and capitalised on pre-conceived fears to pass Draconian-type laws, erode our personal freedoms in unprecedented fashion, and set the catalyst for an Orwellian society to subtlety expand within our very backyard.
Nineteen Eighty Four by George Orwell: We have all read the book, all seen the dystopic future that awaits any country overcome by the evil of tyranny – trapped in an unforgiving cycle of enslavement. Increasingly – indeed, day-by-day – an eerie resemblance of suppression and manipulation is evident in the world today: Spying, police, war, television, legislation and education are all driving factors in making this a reality. For years, I have always referred back to the United States as a precedent when anything threatened our rights over here
I think it is important to point out that I have been trained as a journalist; thoroughly, to always remain objective, black and white and removed of personal opinion and emotion. Indeed, with most content on this website, I believe I have adhered to these standards. However, in this case – my moral standpoint as a sovereign human being has taken over and compelled me to write this vital feature piece. Not only to protect my independence as a journalist, but to protect the freedoms and rights of each and every Australian citizen who will be affected by the increasing expansion of laws designed to systematically chip away at our fundamental freedoms.
For those that have followed TOTT News for a while now, I am sure you are aware of the extensive coverage we have provided when it comes to intelligence operations and civil liberties in Australia. In fact, it hasn’t been very long since TOTT News published the article, ‘Erosion of Privacy in Australia – Basic facts you need to know‘. Concerning, however, is the fact that in only a few short months have passed – the landscape of Draconian horrors has completely surpassed most points covered in the original article at the time of publishing.
I have spent the last two weeks reading over the new legislative amendment that has passed the House of Representatives, as well as the two amendments that will be passing Parliament by the end of the year. I would be lying if I told you chills didn’t run down my spine; my stomach sick with each passing line. We are in trouble folks – and, whilst I still have the freedom to do so – I’d like to take an in-depth look at all three amendments that threaten the very foundation of our free country.
OVERVIEW (TERRORISM, THE MEDIA AND FEAR)
Before speaking on the legislation itself, I’d like to take a look at the circumstances and events that have transpired over the last month to justify the introduction of such heinous laws into our society, and the expansion of police and surveillance operations abroad.
ISIS was formed during the ‘civil’ wars of Syria and Libya, as the United States and Western allies trained, funded and allowed the extremists to expand in the region to take down the democratically elected governments in the region.
A quick observation of the last two weeks will tell any rationally-thinking individual that things have expanded faster than most have ever seen before. It was just over 4 weeks ago – the beginning of September – and ASIO were seriously considering raising the terrorism threat to high in the wake of supposed ‘beheading’ videos that had emerged online. Just under a week later, they were successful in their justification to do just that – and the threat has been raised to ‘likely’.
Despite this, Prime Minister Tony Abbott says the Government has “no specific intelligence” of a plot to mount a terrorist attack. (I’d like everyone to keep this in mind whilst reading the rest of this article).
So, with no direct evidence of any plot in the making to attack Australian shores, surely there is absolutely no reason to panic or take concise, direct action against ISIS by limiting our freedoms for national security, right?? Wrong!
TIMELINE OF ‘TERROR’ (FEAR, POLICE EXPANSION AND NEW POWERS)
Almost immediately after the terrorism threat was raised to high, a calculated effort of fear-induced manipulation and political trickery began a snowball effect that has dominated our lives for the past month in Australia:
- September 9th – ASIO seriously considering raising Australia’s terror threat level to high
- September 10th – Logan Islamic center raided by Australian Federal Police
- September 13th – Australian terrorism threat is raised to high by ASIO
- September 14th – Abbott to deploy forces to the Middle East
- September 15th – Brisbane train station bins closed as terrorism threat is raised
- September 16th – Secret Victorian search powers extended to ‘fight terrorism’
- September 17th – Biggest counter-terrorism raid in Australian history: Sydney and Brisbane targeted
- September 19th – Abbott there is “chatter” talking of targeting “government people” and “Parliament”
- September 19th - Terror raids: Attack feared within days, Tony Abbott says
- September 20th – AFP used extraordinary powers to detain people without charge
- September 21st – Spy organisation scouring social media for ‘extremist’ threats
- September 22nd – Australia seeks broad anti-terror powers after foiled beheading plot
- September 22nd – Islamic State followers urged to attack Australians by any means possible
- September 22nd – Tony Abbott warns balance between freedom and security may shift
- September 23rd – Terror suspect shot dead after two police officers stabbed
- September 23rd – Second wave of anti-terrorism legislation introduced to Senate
- September 24th – Terrorism fears will see more armed police and ‘pat-downs’ in Queensland
- September 26th – First anti-terrorism legislation passes the Senate, 42-12
- September 30th – Joint police anti-terrorism raids launched in Melbourne
- October 1st – First anti-terrorism legislation passes the House of Representatives
- October 3rd – Australian fighter jets will join the US-led campaign against Islamic State targets in Iraq
Why are we supposed to believe that ”chatter” is a logical response to increased security at Parliament House?? Why are the media not telling us about how 14 of 15 individuals raided were released with no charge?? Why are we supposed to be afraid that “anyone with an iPhone, a knife and a victim” can be a terrorist, Mr. Abbott?? Why do we have to shift the balance between freedom and security for?? Are our authorities not capable of doing their job??
Why are we supposed to believe a government and media collective that LIED to us about WMDs in Iraq??
How are we, as Australians, allowing a police and surveillance state to be completely rolled out based on a rubbish political spin??
TERRORISM STATISTICS:
Fear is a powerful emotion. When people are afraid, they react. Impact of danger on emotions and the distortive effect of fear on subjective beliefs and individual choices can have a lasting effect on a person. Not surprisingly, sociologists have come to identify our mediated knowledge of high-consequence risks as a major source of contemporary anxiety.
THE MEDIA:
Despite the overwhelming evidence used to add perspective countering the induced-notion of fear of ISIS in Australia, the media and political establishment will have you believe that a terrorist is around every corner, forcing the public to respond based on emotion – rather than of rational thinking. TOTT News has carefully demonstrated how the media uses fear to manipulate public opinion in our 2013 article entitled, ‘Analysing Mass Media: Fear & Manipulation‘.
Now, if all of this wasn’t enough, Treasurer Joe Hockey is taking these events and subsequently focusing the punishment on to the Australian public. After it was estimated to cost $500 million per year to conduct the latest ‘mission’ in Iraq, and after giving a $630 million boost to intelligence organisations to protect us from the boogeyman – now it has been announced that further budget cuts will have to be made to pay for both security and defence purposes.
Indeed, it is not hard to see how the entire landscape of Australia has quickly shifted based solely upon hearsay threats and loosely-justified pieces of poorly constructed evidence. The utter manipulation of public opinion to serve an agenda-based declaration to commit once again in Iraq, coupled with the systematic erosion of our freedoms domestically have been supported out of fear, rather than rational thinking.
As a result of this onslaught of propaganda, a triple threat of legislative pieces are currently in the process of passing through our Parliament in the name of ‘national security’. Let’s take a look at just what these amendments entail, and analyse whether or not the politicians in Canberra are genuinely concerned about protecting us from these supposed external and domestic threats.
NATIONAL SECURITY LEGISLATION – FIRST BILL
The first Bill passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday after overwhelmingly passing through the Senate floor the prior Thursday (42-12 vote). Through this, the ASIO Act and the IS Act have now both been amended to include a rapid-expansion of powers for Australian intelligence organisations:
The National Security Legislation Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2014 amends the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (the ASIO Act) and the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (the IS Act) to implement the Government’s response to recommendations in Chapter 4 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s (PJCIS) Report of the Inquiry into Potential Reforms of Australia’s National Security Legislation (tabled in June 2013) relating to reforms of the legislation governing the Australian Intelligence Community.This has set an unimaginable precedent for the suppression of free speech in Australia, spying capabilities and expanded immunity of accountability for intelligence agencies conducting specific operations. Here is what the Bill contains:
- It allows ASIO to longer be capped on the number of devices they can monitor under a single warrant, as previously was the case with such operations in Australia. This has raised major concerns, especially with the broadened scope of monitoring a computer under any particular operation. For the purpose of a computer-access warrant, a ‘computer’ is now defined as a ‘network’ – which can allow ASIO to monitor the entire Australian internet with a single warrant.
- It allows Australian intelligence organisations and other third parties associates the ability to define a selective activity as a ‘Special Intelligence Operation’. In doing so, any operation that is conducted under the guide of an SIO definition, allows the organisation to be exempt from civil and criminal liability in the process of conducting them. This is a broad and dangerous term, because not only is it at the discretion of the Attorney General to approve and define an SIO – it also spans to any contractors, associates, black project workers and many more.
- Furthermore, it introduces five-year penalties for journalists and whistleblowers (potentially ten-years if it ‘hurts the safety or security of the public’) for the disclosure of information about Special Intelligence Operations. This is a major concern, because it has the potential to eliminate national security reporting in this country.
Despite the concern, there was no concerted campaign, no unified push by the media to stop this bill, which dramatically expands the powers of intelligence agencies whilst creating new offences for disclosing information about their operations. The Bill overwhelmingly passed the Senate and House of Representatives – with only a hand-full of politicians raising their concerns over the threat it causes to the very fabric of our free and open society.
PREEMPTIVE DETENTION – SECOND BILL
No doubt, the passing of The National Security Amendment (No.1) Bill 2014 is a dark step in Australian history, and one every single individual in Australia should be deeply concerned about. However, whilst many remain oblivious to the legislation or in utter shock of it being passed overwhelmingly in the respective levels of Parliament – this is only just the beginning in a cycle of amendments to come.
On the 24th of September, Attorney-General George Brandis introduced the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill to the Senate, which is currently being referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review.
This second Bill is focused on individuals who either travel to or from conflict zones that are suspected in partaking in hostile activities, or people who support or plan terrorist/hostile activities domestically at home. It is an expansion to the 2005 Howard-era preventive detention and control order regimes, which are seen as highly controversial because they allow people to be subject to police restrictions or detention without charge and with limited judicial oversight.
Preventive detention orders allow a person to be detained without charge for up to 14 days. Control orders can restrict a person’s freedom of movement or their associations for much longer. The new amendments seeks to make it easier for officers to allow both preventive detention and control orders, whilst expanding on some of the penalties associated with the original legislation.
Some of the key points include:
- Retaining the current regime of control orders and preventive detention orders, which were due to expire next year.
- The Bill introduces the offence ‘advocating terrorism’. A person commits an offence if they intentionally counsel, promote, encourage or urge the doing of a terrorist Act or the commission of a terrorism offence. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
- Broadening the range of circumstances where control orders can be sought, including restricting the movement or associations people who have been involved in foreign incursions and return to Australia.
- Enforcing a “12-hour curfew” period for control orders that can force people to stay in a given location for a maximum of 12 hours in every 24 hours.
- Making it easier for police to apply for a preventive detention order or interim control order by lowering the threshold for their state of mind from a “belief” to a “suspicion”.
- Allowing preventive detention orders to be made verbally or electronically in urgent circumstances, and even to be made subject to a person when their full name is not known.
- An area will be declared where the Foreign Affairs Minister is satisfied that a terrorist organisation listed under the Criminal Code is engaging in a hostile activity in a particular area of the foreign country. The new offence will enable the prosecution of people who intentionally enter an area in a foreign State where they know, or should know, that the Australian Government has determined that terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activities.
This is troubling to some who feel the amendment could potentially lead to a greater erosion of our freedoms; freedoms to support world views alternative to the official narrative or pre-conceived notion of public programming. Indeed, as with most legislative texts, the broadened language constructs do allow potential loopholes to be abused – and, with the new ability to arrest individuals easier and easier – the concerns are certainly justified.
DATA RETENTION – 3RD BILL
For those that have followed TOTT News for a number of years now, you will understand that we have followed the ‘Data Retention’ proposals from their inception in mid-2012 until now. For a long time, it seems as though the proposals were likely to be resurrected after originally being rejected by the Parliamentary Committee examining the reforms – and, as expected – and now back are set to be introduced later in the year.
As previously covered on this website, the new Bills set will seek to introduce a mandatory data retention scheme, where telecommunications and internet providers will be required to retain personal data for two years. Australia already allows warrantless access to this type of data, which has raised serious concerns about protecting journalists and has been grossly misused throughout the years – as over 250,000 requests were made in 2012 without justification.
The retention of metadata is troubling to some due to the extremely easy nature of obtaining the information, and the concern of how such data is being shared and used in Australia and abroad. It was revealed during the Edward Snowden leaks in 2012 that Australia is part of the ‘Five Eyes Alliance‘ (a relationship Abbott defends) – including Australia, the United States, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Through this, intelligence agencies gather and share information about citizens across an international collaborative network.
The first disclosure of Australian involvement in US global surveillance identified four facilities in the country that contribute to a key American intelligence collection program: The US-Australian Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap near Alice Springs and three Australian Signals Directorate facilities: the Shoal Bay Receiving Station near Darwin, the Australian Defence Satellite Communications Facility at Geraldton and the Naval Communications Station HMAS Harman outside Canberra. These facilities, among others, contribute to the NSA’s collection program codenamed X-Keyscore.
Furthermore, it was also revealed that the Australian government has been building another state-of-the art, secret data storage facility just outside Canberra to enable intelligence agencies to deal with a “data deluge” siphoned from the internet and global telecommunications networks.
Many civil liberties groups, organisations and individuals around the country have voiced their concern over the warrantless collection of our metadata by government agencies, and say this new series of amendments are an even darker step in a world of covert information gathering in Australia. The Australian Greens have launched a campaign to #StopDataRetention, and below is a video of Greens Senator Scott Ludlam voicing his opinion on the new legislation recently tabled in the Senate:
Note: TOTT News is not politically affiliated with or endorsing the Greens Party with this post.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————FINAL WORDS:
In the end, fear and anger are the ultimate reductivists. When we feel afraid of becoming victims of evil, it becomes difficult to look beyond what it is that threatens us. It is human nature to want to protect the loved ones around us, and when danger arises, people want to know about. The media and government talking heads have capitalised on this, using auditory queues, linguistic patterns, and segment cliffhangers in their programming – in order to entice people to stay attentive and afraid.
Through this, the media will use any means necessary to make sure that such a goal is regularly fulfilled – even if it means giving an inaccurate representation of the truth. The media’s willingness to sensationalise topics continues to produce a discourse of fear, while the pervasive communication generates an expectation that danger and risk is a central feature of everyday life. Through this, people will no longer react out of rational thinking a logic analysis.
Australia is now at a cross-roads; we are staring down the cold eyes of tyranny and enslavement. Our rights and freedoms are systematically being taken away with each passing day, and soon, the free country that we once knew and loved will be replaced by a creeping state of Orwellian qualities. We are in control of our destiny; we have the power to stop this. One can make the conscious decision to stand up and fight for what little freedom we have left, or sit back and wait for the inevitable fate that awaits us.
Stand up, Australia – before it’s too late.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
RELATED ARTICLES:
Remember WMD? Just labelling something ‘terrorism’ isn’t enough: http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/08/19/remember-wmd-just-labelling-something-terrorism-isnt-enough/
Australia’s Prime Minister gives a master class in exploiting terrorism fears to seize new powers: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/22/australias-prime-minister-gives-master-class-exploiting-terrorism-fears-seize-new-powers/
Erosion of Privacy in Australia – Basic facts you need to know: http://tottnews.com/2014/01/23/erosion-of-privacy-in-australia-basic-facts-you-need-to-know
Brandis rebuffs questions on surveillance laws…again!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy_UXPy2Q5o
National security laws ‘strike at the heart of press freedom': http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/30/national-security-laws-strike-at-the-heart-of-press-freedom
Counter-terrorism raids – five unanswered questions: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/22/counter-terrorism-raids-leave-some-serious-questions-unanswered
Analysing Mass Media – Fear and Manipulation: http://tottnews.com/2013/08/04/analysing-mass-media-fear-and-manipulation-part-1/
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
FOR MORE TOTT NEWS, PLEASE FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK OR SUBSCRIBE TO THE WEBSITE!
SUBSCRIBE TO THE BRAND NEW TOTT NEWS YOUTUBE CHANNEL HERE!
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————
TOTT News
Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.
Share on facebook29.2K Share on twitter251 Share on linkedin1 Share on reddit0 Share on google_plusone_share Share on email More Sharing Services
The rate at which we're learning things about the Lindt Cafe fire-fight is among the slowest in modern history.
We don't know yet whose bullets, or stun grenades, killed Katrina Dawson. We don't know yet whose weaponry wounded four others. We don't know the others' names.
We don't know why there were so many shots fired; and whether, in the dark, they knew who they were shooting at. We don't know why this has not been revealed.
We don't know why the police forebade the hostages to give any detailed media interviews. We don't know why the prime minister refused them help when two of them begged for it. We don't know why a Muslim cleric was not allowed to talk to the 'terrorist', as has happened in similar situations, hundreds of times, thousands of times across the world.
We don't know much about anything. And we can only surmise an enormous cover-up is taking place.
Kate McClymont is nowhere to be seen. Somehow this case, involving Liberals, does not interest her in the way the Craig Thomson case did. Somehow she finds in it nothing to care about.
A plausible scenario is that both Man Haron Monis and Tori Johnson were alive when the cops came blam-blamming in, and both dead a second later and Katrina Dawson gravely wounded. Another is that Johnson was dead, and the 'cross-fire' of police bullets, in startling numbers, wounded Dawson and four others. If Monis's weapon wounded six people, we would have known of it and the survivors would have been on television by now.
Or there may be some other explanation.
Were there helmet-cameras, as there were in the raid on the home of Osama Bin Laden? What has happened to that videotape, if any? What has happened to the footage shown on Russian television, and nowhere else?
Why have the witnesses been told they can't speak? Even John O'Brien, who left the premises eleven hours before?
It is almost certainly something to do with the prime minister's refusal to help the hostages out and thus let five of them, the women, probably, out of there. It is a massive cover-up, probably, of the Abbott cowardice, last seen when he cuddled koalas with Vladimir Putin. Or it may be something else.
It would be good if we knew something soon.
11 Comments on “Australia – Descending into Darkness (Draconian Laws, Police State, Surveillance and more)”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks