Terror Plan Foiled Down Under...

[wesw]

what Jim said...

[Sue U]

Whoa...

A lot of what you've said in this discussion is way out on the Rand Paul/Bernie Sanders fringe on this; even from an American perspective...

Really? It may actually be you who is far out on the national security-state fringe. Please identify exactly which of my following statements you find to be "way out" and why; use examples where appropriate; show your work. You may use a calculator if necessary.

In a free society, the police wouldn't be tapping your phones. If they were, it could only be by warrant issued by a judicial authority, who has to be convinced that there is actually likely to be some evidence of a genuine crime in those calls.

If the police have legitimately gotten information that an actual crime is afoot, then certainly it would be proper to investigate it.

[A]ctual crime is different from thought crime, and thinking about doing bad things, talking about doing bad things, and listening to someone talk about doing bad things is not (or, in a free society, should not be) an actual crime. Some concrete action to commit the crime, and a reasonable likelihood that if not for intervention the crime would in fact be committed, should be prerequisites to any arrest, let alone a criminal charge.

"Criminal conspiracy" ... [g]enerally ... requires some "overt act" in furtherance of the commission of an actual crime.

ETA:

Also too:

People are far too ready to sacrifice their civil liberties for sham security, and to cede their power to those providing it.

[Lord Jim]

Ahh, yeah...

The first thing I notice about your response to my post, is that you don't dispute a single thing I said about the effect your approach would have in the examples I gave...(can't say I blame you; there's a good reason for that...)

As for the quotes you cherry picked from your earlier posts, I am happy to take them each in turn:

In a free society, the police wouldn't be tapping your phones. If they were, it could only be by warrant issued by a judicial authority, who has to be convinced that there is actually likely to be some evidence of a genuine crime in those calls.

Completely misstates the existing programs and how they work, so this is basically a strawman. If you believe the existing programs have been abused, please provide specific examples backing up that claim.

If the police have legitimately gotten information that an actual crime is afoot, then certainly it would be proper to investigate it.

How would you define "legitimately"? Under existing laws we already have safeguards built in that I find satisfactory. (Of course under existing law criminal conspiracy is an "actual crime"; you apparently don't think it should be.)

Actual crime is different from thought crime, and thinking about doing bad things, talking about doing bad things, and listening to someone talk about doing bad things is not (or, in a free society, should not be) an actual crime.

First:

Who has said anything about criminalizing "thinking about doing bad things"? Another strawman.

As for:

"talking about doing bad things, and listening to someone talk about doing bad things"

Whether or not that "talking" and "listening" about "doing bad things" rises to the level of criminal conspiracy is something that is determined on a case-by-case basis. Does the "talking" and "listening" constitute a serious plan, or is it just hot-headed bloviating? Sometimes it's obvious. When it's not, that's what we have investigations for.

Some concrete action to commit the crime, and a reasonable likelihood that if not for intervention the crime would in fact be committed, should be prerequisites to any arrest, let alone a criminal charge.

Well since engaging in a criminal conspiracy is in and of itself a "concrete action", I don't see a problem here. Again, this is what we have investigations for.

People are far too ready to sacrifice their civil liberties for sham security, and to cede their power to those providing it.

Well, the first part of this: "sacrifice their civil liberties" is hopelessly vague; no civil liberty, (just like no Constitutional right) is absolute. If it were, organized society would be impossible.

What (if any) compromises on absolute unfettered civil liberties do you feel are acceptable, in the interest of providing for the safety of the public from criminal and terrorist attacks?

I also take issue with your use of the word "sham"....

Numerous terrorist plots have been foiled in the US and abroad by the use of the laws and procedures in place. What evidence do you have to back up your claim that the security being provided is somehow a "sham"?

Now, those are my replies to the quotes that you provided. Here are a couple of more things you said earlier in this thread that you didn't mention that I'd also like to comment on:

"Criminal conspiracy" is a dangerous concept precisely because it is so vague and potentially overreaching. Generally, it requires some "overt act" in furtherance of the commission of an actual crime. In my opinion, in a free society it is a charge that should be employed most sparingly by the state and viewed with the utmost suspicion by the judiciary and the people.

Could you please provide an example, (real or hypothetical) of a "sparing" use of criminal conspiracy that you would consider acceptable. Also please provide an example of the "legitimate" way that in your view the authorities would learn about it, and what they would "legitimately" do to thwart it.

In this case, there seems to be precious little else to warrant the arrests -- other than the need for convenient boogeymen to frighten the general public and stifle any opposition to the "war on terror" that justifies the ever-increasing police power of the emerging national security state.

Wow, that's quite a charge...

That the Australian government has deliberately manufactured a non-existent terrorist plot in order to further the creation of a police state...(Tony Abbott must be a real life Francis Urquhart...)

I can't imagine that you'd make an accusation that grave without any evidence to back it up, so if you could please provide a link to the evidence for this charge, I'd really appreciate it. (I'll thank you in advance)

[Lord Jim]

In this case, there seems to be precious little else to warrant the arrests -- other than the need for convenient boogeymen to frighten the general public and stifle any opposition to the "war on terror" that justifies the ever-increasing police power of the emerging national security state.

Well, whadda ya know...

Here's somebody who agrees with you:

In order to psychologically program the world and set the precedent for ISIS-related terror attack in Southeast Asia, a CIA-spawned hoax was created on September 12, 2014, when Australia inexplicably elevated its terrorism threat level. Predictably, five days later on September 17, 2014, Australian leaders warned of impending ISIS-related terror attacks. Coincidentally, the next day, September 18, 2014, an Australian terror raid allegedly foiled multiple ISIS beheading plots

http://truthernews.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... sia-again/

[Gob]

Federal Speaker Bronwyn Bishop and the President of the Senate Stephen Parry have ordered a lockdown of the ministerial wing of Parliament House and a ban on unaccompanied passes on Sunday night, saying it is "effective immediately".

The move comes as Australian Federal Police officers replaced unarmed public servants who provided internal security on Friday after Prime Minister Tony Abbott said Parliament House had been identified as a potential terror target through "chatter" intercepted by security agencies.

The Department of Parliamentary Services issued a memo from the presiding officers saying the new arrangements were a continuation of these changes after the national terrorism alert level was raised to high by Mr Abbott on September 12 after a warning from ASIO chief David Irvine.

The new announcement placing ministers' offices in lockdown was made via an internal note to all staff working at the House.

"Other than Members and Senators, only Ministerial Staff or those with both photographic passes and conducting business in the Ministerial Wing may access the area," the memo said.

Also, under the new arrangements, all visitors have to be escorted at all times and there will be no unaccompanied passes.

"All visitors must be escorted at all times. No pass holder can sign in more than 10 visitors at any time and they must accompany the people they have signed in," reads the memo.

Previously, some visitors were able to gain access to the building without being signed in and accompanied by a building staff member.

The instructions also call for visitors "wherever possible" to be directed to the public entrance.

Some traffic access to the building has also been cut off, particularly around the ministerial wing.

"The ministerial slip road access is also closed and advice will be provided directly to those officers who will be affected about alternative," the memo reads.

The communique also flags increased checks on passes in the building. "All pass holders are reminded to clearly display their pass whenever in the precinct and this will be checked," it said



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z3DzmYExZE

[Lord Jim]

[Sue U]

Ahh, yeah...

The first thing I notice about your response to my post, is that you don't dispute a single thing I said about the effect your approach would have in the examples I gave...(can't say I blame you; there's a good reason for that...)

Yes, the "good reason" is that your examples are ridiculous and do not at all reflect what I actually said.

As for the quotes you cherry picked from your earlier posts, I am happy to take them each in turn:

In a free society, the police wouldn't be tapping your phones. If they were, it could only be by warrant issued by a judicial authority, who has to be convinced that there is actually likely to be some evidence of a genuine crime in those calls.

Completely misstates the existing programs and how they work, so this is basically a strawman. If you believe the existing programs have been abused, please provide specific examples backing up that claim.

First, Jim, where did I say anything in this thread about "existing programs" or criticize their operation? I do have criticisms and concerns concerning government surveillance -- mostly the same ones that Judge Leon expressed in detail in Klayman v. Obama -- so I suppose that puts both me and the federal district court "far outside the mainstream" of thinking on these issues? And for the record, I predicted the government's metadata collection program would be upheld on existing legal principles -- the exact same principles I set out in my post above. So if anyone is raising strawman arguments, it is you. The fact is, my statement quoted above -- about the need for a warrant and a particularized articulable suspicion -- is a bedrock principle of American constitutional and criminal law. The fact that you fail to recognize it is your problem.

If the police have legitimately gotten information that an actual crime is afoot, then certainly it would be proper to investigate it.

How would you define "legitimately"? Under existing laws we already have safeguards built in that I find satisfactory. (Of course under existing law criminal conspiracy is an "actual crime"; you apparently don't think it should be.)

I do not need to --and am certainly not about to -- define every conceivable method of legitimate police investigation. But warrantless searches without probable cause -- including wiretaps and similar forms of mass communications surveillance -- are not among them.

Actual crime is different from thought crime, and thinking about doing bad things, talking about doing bad things, and listening to someone talk about doing bad things is not (or, in a free society, should not be) an actual crime.

First:

Who has said anything about criminalizing "thinking about doing bad things"? Another strawman.

As for:

"talking about doing bad things, and listening to someone talk about doing bad things"

Whether or not that "talking" and "listening" about "doing bad things" rises to the level of criminal conspiracy is something that is determined on a case-by-case basis. Does the "talking" and "listening" constitute a serious plan, or is it just hot-headed bloviating? Sometimes it's obvious. When it's not, that's what we have investigations for.

You are confusing "investigation" with "arrest and criminal charge" as well as the order in which they should properly occur, at least if you're not living in a police state. But supporting a charge of criminal conspiracy does in fact require something substantially more than either thinking, talking about or listening to the details of a plot -- at least under American law. Anything less would in fact effectively criminalize thoughts alone.

Some concrete action to commit the crime, and a reasonable likelihood that if not for intervention the crime would in fact be committed, should be prerequisites to any arrest, let alone a criminal charge.

Well since engaging in a criminal conspiracy is in and of itself a "concrete action", I don't see a problem here. Again, this is what we have investigations for.

You are simply -- how shall I put this? -- wrong. As a general rule, criminal conspiracy requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt both mens rea (culpable thought/"guilty mind") and actus rea (culpable act), in the context of circumstances that demonstrate intent to commit the object offense. Mere agreement --the "thinking and talking about doing bad things" part, is not enough; an additional overt act in furtherance of the crime is necessary to be guilty of anything. See, e.g., California Penal Code section 184 and Texas Penal Code 4-15.02. And again, investigations and evidence sufficient to support the charges are supposed to come before an arrest. When someone is arrested, the police should be able to point to at least some sufficient evidence that, if proved, justifies the arrest.

I don't have time today to get into the rest of your post today (I've been traveling and have a lot of work to catch up on). But maybe tomorrow.

[Lord Jim]

Yes, the "good reason" is that your examples are ridiculous and do not at all reflect what I actually said.

On the contrary, they represent a completely logical deduction from the statements you have made. If they're "ridiculous" please feel free to explain specifically how your position would not result in the situations I posited. It certainly isn't self evident, based on what you've said.

I do not need to --and am certainly not about to -- define every conceivable method of legitimate police investigation.

Which of course, I never asked you to do. I asked for just a single example; here again is what I asked:

Could you please provide an example, (real or hypothetical) of a "sparing" use of criminal conspiracy that you would consider acceptable. Also please provide an example of the "legitimate" way that in your view the authorities would learn about it, and what they would "legitimately" do to thwart it.

(Nor am I asking for a list of all the things you wouldn't support, which I'll stipulate it is quite lengthy.)

You are confusing "investigation" with "arrest and criminal charge" as well as the order in which they should properly occur,

Apparently you are somewhat confused. In the case in the OP while a number of people were detained for questioning (which you obviously found to be outrageous) thus far only one has been criminally charged. Detaining people for questioning is a legitimate investigative tool.

It would be nice if when you do address my post again, you provided some actual answers to the questions I asked and responses to the examples I gave...

If all you have in mind is more deflection, you might as well save yourself the keystrokes...

[Guinevere]

I don't see deflection, I see someone taking the time to carefully explain the actual state of the law and you, LJ, refusing to be educated.

I was going to post the same section from the Cal. penal code. Do read it. And actually, read the wiki entry on "conspiracy." It's not a bad summary. (I've also been traveling/am swamped and making links on my phone is a pita)

[Lord Jim]

And I see a person refusing to answer simple and straight forward questions; questions that logically arise from their own statements, so I guess that's what makes horse races...

I'd really appreciate it if she would "educate" me as to what exactly she would find an acceptable use of criminal conspiracy, and how the views she stated wouldn't result in the scenarios I hypothesized...

[Big RR]

Well Jim, the key to that would be making the evidence public and trying the supposed conspirators in a public trial rather than just having them disappear into the bureaucracy of custody. Absent that, there is good reason to suspect the government's saying "Look how well we protected you from this dire threat, but we can't say anything much about it" based on past lies. And as for tactics, the administration and others have sought to label as traitors or worse anyone who even leaks some information about the tactics employed in information gathering, so there is reason to question how legal the tactics are.

[Gob]

An 18-year-old man who had made threats against Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been shot dead in Melbourne, reports say.

The man had been under surveillance as a "person of interest", and was being investigated over claims of terrorism, the ABC broadcaster said.

Two police officers were reportedly stabbed by the man before he was shot.

They have both been taken to hospital and one is reported to be in a critical but stable condition.

The incident happened when the man arrived at a police station in the Endeavour Hills suburb of Melbourne on Tuesday evening.

He had been asked to attend an interview there, ABC reports.

According to Sky News Australia, the man was brandishing a flag of the Islamic State (IS) militant group.

A police statement said that an Australian Federal Police officer and a Victoria state police officer - part of a joint counter-terrorism team - met the teenager outside the station. It was then that the violence erupted.

The Melbourne Age quoted onlookers as saying that the man had been shouting insults at Mr Abbott and the Australian government in general in the moments before he was shot.

Sources quoted by The Australian said that he was a "known extremist" who was intercepted by two teams of police. The paper said it is believed that he had recently had his passport cancelled.

The incident has occurred amid heightened tensions due to major counter-terrorism raids last week in Sydney and Brisbane.

[Lord Jim]

Two police officers were reportedly stabbed by the man before he was shot.

They have both been taken to hospital and one is reported to be in a critical but stable condition.

Based on the past lies of governments, I don't believe a word of that...

[BoSoxGal]

Yeah, LJ, I get that you're being sarcastic . . . BUT, governments HAVE lied in this war on terror - the evidence of that is incontrovertible.

It must be nice to have such faith in authority - but as an attorney who has practiced both on behalf of defendants AND on behalf of the State - I know that the government does lie, and the only thing standing between the government's awesome power and the individual is DUE PROCESS. There is nothing wrong or unpatriotic about expecting to see DUE PROCESS adhered to.

[Lord Jim]

BUT, governments HAVE lied in this war on terror - the evidence of that is incontrovertible.

Really...

Could you please provide examples, along with links to this "incontrovertible" proof?

I've never seen what you're talking about...

I assume you're not talking about charges that Bush deliberately lied about there being WMD in Iraq, since I know that no proof of this has ever been produced, (despite numerous claims) so I'd really like to see what it is that you're referring to...

It must be nice to have such faith in authority -

Well now wait a second, if I had great faith in government, I'd be a Democrat...

I'm just not paranoid enough to believe that the government is constantly lying about everything and to act with the presumption that it's lying unless some proof is produced that it isn't....I don't simply assume dastardly and nefarious intent...

It's that "innocent till proven guilty" thing...

I believe even the government is entitled to it....

[Big RR]

Proven lies jim? what about the Jessica Lynch propaganda and how badly she was treated by her captives, denied medical aid, etc. Great propaganda, but untrue, at least according to her. that's just the first one that springs to mind.

And as for innocent until proven guilty, that works for a court, but a prosecutor will generally not try a case unless (s)he thinks the person is guilty; likewise a grand jury won't indict unless it believes the person is guilty. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt necessarily, not guilty by admissible evidence, but still guilty.

You can believe the government's stories and say they have never been proven wrong, but when you have the machinery of the US government to cover things up, and when persons leaking any evidence of such wrongdoing are branded traitors and hounded, arrested and detained without charge, etc., you can't really expect that such proof will be forthcoming.. I'll be the first to concede that there is probably not enough proof to prove the contention beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is enough to raise my skepticism.

Throughout history governments have lied to their people, and the more power the government gets, the greater the lies. Why do you think this is any different?

[rubato]

How many people have been released after conviction for murder and sentenced to death or life imprisonment? How many who have had half their lives stolen? How many were convicted by manufactured evidence or police perjury? What was that story about a homeowner murdered in a police raid inspired by asset seizures? How many times have police depts. been caught in systematic corruption?

Induction is is beyond the powers of some.


yrs,
rubato