Is this legal

[Mickyj]

s within that time. And one more thing, the laws make it illegal to discuss any of it with ANYONE, meaning it would be illegal and prosecutable if you chose to tell, for example, your wife why you've really been missing the past few days.

I know of specific cases where these 'anti-terrorism' laws have been used in situations unrelated to terrorism.

And me telling the world on the net would make it illegal as well. But they only mentioned bugging the phones .funny the only thing I have said on the phone in the last 6 to 8 weeks is "I wont be in to work today I'm sick".I rarely talk on the phone the calls are normally for the wife .

Mind u they probably think I am guilty of something rocking up with an AU Falcon instead of my old 96 falcon .

[Q.]

"we know who did it, if you own up to it, we can help you.. otherwise.."

Funny enough If I had done it I knew people when I grew up that could have done what the police are saying is being done with the product.

And no I would never do that type of s***t .

You working in a pseudoephedrine factory or something?

[FattyLumpkin]

Next time you use the phone, start the conversation with "Danny Boy to Broadsword" or similar.

[nuggety goodness]

Next time you use the phone, start the conversation with "Danny Boy to Broadsword" or similar.

....operation Siphon complete....

[Mickyj]

"we know who did it, if you own up to it, we can help you.. otherwise.."

Funny enough If I had done it I knew people when I grew up that could have done what the police are saying is being done with the product.

And no I would never do that type of s***t .

You working in a pseudoephedrine factory or something?

Now wouldn't that be a fun job

[Q.]

"we know who did it, if you own up to it, we can help you.. otherwise.."

Funny enough If I had done it I knew people when I grew up that could have done what the police are saying is being done with the product.

And no I would never do that type of s***t .

You working in a pseudoephedrine factory or something?

Now wouldn't that be a fun job

Well if I go with my line of thinking here then it is not unreasonable to assume they are using sedition laws to track the suspected criminal behaviour.

[Mickyj]

"we know who did it, if you own up to it, we can help you.. otherwise.."

Funny enough If I had done it I knew people when I grew up that could have done what the police are saying is being done with the product.

And no I would never do that type of s***t .

You working in a pseudoephedrine factory or something?

Now wouldn't that be a fun job

Well if I go with my line of thinking here then it is not unreasonable to assume they are using sedition laws to track the suspected criminal behaviour.

I think your correct and they caught the one person silly enough to do a criminal act ie steal stock that can be changed into other things .that of course are sold to silly people to use in their recreational time .

Hopefully u can read between the lines
And no I can not get free samples

[Squawk]

Just came across this thread....

FYI my understanding is that Police can make an application to the Court to undertake telephone intercepts if they can demonstrate that the information they have (ie the investigation) would be enhanced by the use of intercepts. A general warrant carried by police (and not all police) does not allow them to authorise telephone intercepts.

Bottom line Micky is that whatever your workmates were in to, if telephone intercepts were being used it was serious. Having said that, police would not divulge to your employer that they were using telephone intercepts so I think your bosses are stretching the truth somewhat there - maybe to create a bit of fear around the place.

And Quichey, I think you're barking up a very small tree by suggesting that laws introduced for terrorism/sedition are being employed for investigations unrelated to such activity. That is a very serious allegation and if you have any information to corroborate that, then put it up to the relevant authorities or otherwise don't go around around saying crap like that. If you do so, you're just perpetuating a fear campaign based on heresay.

[Q.]

I don't feel comfortable in revealing information about certain cases on here, but I have every right to question the intentions of ambiguous sedition laws concocted under the guise of a conceptually flawed 'war on terror' (it is hilarious that you would then accuse me of perpetuating a 'fear campaign').

[Squawk]

I don't feel comfortable in revealing information about certain cases on here, but I have every right to question the intentions of ambiguous sedition laws concocted under the guise of a conceptually flawed 'war on terror' (it is hilarious that you would then accuse me of perpetuating a 'fear campaign').

Well you have made an extraordinary allegation that

I know of specific cases where these 'anti-terrorism' laws have been used in situations unrelated to terrorism. ).

Do you know what the process is to get a control order? A preventative detention order? Do you know what the extent of the current threat against Australia is, or only what the media "reports"? Do you know how many investigations have been conducted and how many "plans" have been prevented/disrupted? I'm gonna guess that the answer to all these questions is no.

So, unless you are an acquaintance of Ihsan Al-Haque (in which case the investigation was related to alleged terrorism), then you have all but publicly admitted that you have knowledge of one or more instances (and I'm assuming here that you are suggesting that proper legislative processes have been circumvented), one or more persons has been detained and questioned improperly. If that is so, then that is an extraordinary allegation to make and having said you wont discuss certain cases on here (fair enough), you should bring them to the attention of the appropriate authorities for investigation.

Otherwise, you along with every other citizen in this democracy have the right to question legislation as and when it is proposed and passed. In this case, it has bi-lateral support and with the exception of the al-haque case and apparently your own knowledge, there is no evidence to suggest that these laws have been improperly used. To make an off-the-cuff comment that states that they are being improperly used is where you are using fear to advance an otherwise flawed argument - and that argument is different from simply expressing an opinion that the laws might be used improperly when you assert that in fact they have been but fail to do anything about it.

[Q.]

Yes I'm saying that persons have been detained and questioned via sedition laws for non-terrorism related offenses.

The laws also provide police with immunity. They also prevent the accused of publically discussing the case. They virtually leave the accused with zero rights.

You obviously believe there is complete transparency applied to the relevant institutions here. I disagree.

As for doing something about it. There is still large public opposition to the laws and there is a groundswell of support for the equivalent of a Human Rights Bill to provide protection for citizens.

[Squawk]

Yes I'm saying that persons have been detained and questioned via sedition laws for non-terrorism related offenses.

Three things:

a) if so, then no one can be penalised for complaining about it
b) was a control order or preventative detention order issued?
b) what type of offence was the "real" investigation related to if it wasn't terrorism?

And finally, What about you doing something about it if you know of a real example of a "breach"?

[Q.]

It pertains to federal investigations into manufacture of an uncommon tryptamine by persons on the Central Coast about three years ago.

I cannot tell you if control orders etc. were issued, I cannot remember.

And what exactly would you like me to do about it? At the time I had been merely corresponding with person/s interested in the case and who take great interest in protection of civil liberties.

[Squawk]

My point is, that unless you are privy to the facts around the whole investigation, you cant know enough to go making sweeping statements that allege serious wrongdoing as you have. You have heard one party's story only, and they wouldn't be privy to all the elements of the investigation.

What about when the authorities get it right - and these laws do prevent atrocities from being committed? eg Operation Pendennis in NSW and Vic?

You can have your opinion, but please make sure sure you are familiar with the basics before you make sweeping statements of that nature. Check out the definitions of a terrorist act in the Criminal Code, understand the processes of applying for preventative detention and control orders and the regulations around them, read the ASIO Act and understand how regulated that organisation is. Read the Clarke Inquiry, read the al-Haque transcript, and ask yourself - if your family was blown up because the laws didn't do enough to prevent it - would you want to make sure the laws were satisfactory to prevent something like that even if, on occasion, they meant that a few people had to endure their application to rule them in or out of an investigation?

Finally, the so-called 'war on terror' is not the reason for these laws. That pertains to a 'war' that is not defined by the boundaries of any one country and is defined by a radical global movement that seeks the establishment of an Islamist caliphate. These laws are for the likes of incidents/potential incidents in this country - eg Jack Roche.

[Q.]

Well, I believe I was privy to enough of the facts to make the statements. I still stand by them.

You obviously want or have to believe that these laws have suddenly been necessary for our 'protection', but they are ambiguous enough to apply beyond the stated intended purposes, which is why there has always been opposition to them. My point being that with Operation Pendennis being so successful without the laws, then there is no need to introduce them. Worse is that they have the scope to apply to situations of general dissent, mass protest or critical lobbies that may 'threaten order and good government of the Commonwealth'. But I suppose that is argument for a whole other topic.

[Psyber]

I'm bothered by any law that seems to say that once you are finally released you can't tell anyone, even your family, and can't lodge a complaint about your treatment and seek compensation if it was unfounded.
I'm bothered by anyone being detained in a situation where they cannot get adequate independent representation while detained..
And I do not trust our authorities to be strictly honourable in applying these powers.
In a democracy all powers must be subject to scrutiny. otherwise the enemies of our society have already succeeded in its destruction..