The world is coming down on Bush and everyone who supported his maniacal war:
Howard at end of credibility line on Iraq
By Margo Kingston
March 16, 2004
Why won't John Howard admit that our participation in the invasion of Iraq increased the risk that Australia will be targetted for a terrorist attack?
Pretty simple really. If he admits the obvious, as the AFP chief Mick Keelty did, then he's back to square one in explaining his decision to go to war (see Terrorist attack on Australia inevitable, warns FBI expert).
We know that intelligence agencies advised that invading Iraq would INCREASE the risk of terrorism in general. We know that there were no WMDs, so Howard's stated reason for war - that it would reduce the terrorist risk - is wrong, and we also know that Howard was not relying on the intelligence service's objective assessment of the Iraq risk, but, like Bush and Blair, decided to invade then looked for evidence to convince the UN it was justified (see the Parliamentary Committee WMD report) .
We also know that the Iraq invasion and occupation split the world and damaged co-operation in controlling terrorism, and that the war could drag on indefinitely, sucking energy from the United States defence force and adding people to terrorist ranks.
Surely, we're reaching endgame on Howard's credibility on security. Surely few of us trust him to tell us the truth any more.
That's how I explain the sudden rush for even more terrorism laws - now to include socialising with suspected terrorists - crushing even more civil liberties. The idea is to force Labor to oppose some of the more extreme measures, and thus blame Labor if an attack occurs. Basic stuff.
The NSW government's announcement that it would extend its already draconian terror laws is based on a different calculation. The Carr government is now so discredited and rancid that any way to divert attention from its disgraceful management of our hospitals, schools and public transport is a relief. On past performance the State Liberals will back any extension of anti-terror laws. Carr's justification - that existing laws weren't designed to deal with "murder planned on such a vast scale" as Madrid - is ludicrous. He passed his laws after Bali!
Overlaying the decisions by the NSW and federal governments is the calculation that they want to be SEEN to be responding to Spain, and this way there's no real financial investment required. If you wanted to defend us against terrorism at home, you'd be training drivers of chemical trucks how to react to a hijacking, you'd be securing ALL our airports, and you'd be widely encouraging participation by the public. But that requires money and it also requires TRUST.
Do we trust the federal and state governments? No.
I set out the premium on trust between citizens and government in today's world in reporting Carr's new anti-terror laws in 2002, and suggested that the use of Carr's extraordinary new police powers be overseen by an Australian trusted by all of us, like Sir William Deane. But no, the police minister oversees everything, and he doesn't even need to report to Parliament. My reports included Costa: Police watchdog, Protecting our safety AND our liberty and Democracy's watchdogs blind to the danger
On the federal front trust is even more important, so people feel safe in coming forward to give information about their suspicions, particularly people from minority communities. Locking people up for 'consorting' will REDUCE trust and REDUCE cooperation
smh.com.au |
