Tshering22
ELITE MEMBER
Even the opposition went with him to pass this bill in a rare act of solidarity on terror related matters.
Liberals have this sympathy for terrorism. Look how vehemently they support ISIS.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Even the opposition went with him to pass this bill in a rare act of solidarity on terror related matters.
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au
For people who can read plain English, it is there.
Previously, police could only shoot suspects as a last resort.
Now, they can shoot the suspect even if they don't resist arrest.
I expect ASIO would act professionally, but I am still concerned about the loopholes opened up.
In other words, it's open season to shoot and kill anyone who looks Middle Eastern.
Why are you comparing it with ISIS? They are on a different page. Anyway it seems like the terrorists have achieved their first goal, to spread terror. This is not the solution to stop terrorism, this will create more hate, it won't workSo how many Middle Eastern looking folks have the Aussies killed yet? On the other hand ISIS hunts down anyone suspected of being Shia, Kurd, Christian or Yazidi. Australia will do what's right to protect itself from freelance terrorists.
Why are you comparing it with ISIS? They are on a different page. Anyway it seems like the terrorists have achieved their first goal, to spread terror. This is not the solution to stop terrorism, this will create more hate, it won't work
New anti-terror laws will gag hate preachers and give ASIO agents licence to kill in self defence
So police can kill in self defence under new legislation. Well i don't see a problem with that. Police have have a right to defend themselves against muslim terrorists. I don't know why you see that as a problem
So how many Middle Eastern looking folks have the Aussies killed yet? On the other hand ISIS hunts down anyone suspected of being Shia, Kurd, Christian or Yazidi. Australia will do what's right to protect itself from freelance terrorists.
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au
For people who can read plain English, it is there.
Previously, police could only shoot suspects as a last resort.
Now, they can shoot the suspect even if they don't resist arrest.
I expect ASIO would act professionally, but I am still concerned about the loopholes opened up.
Under new laws, Australia’s spooks will also retain legal immunity if they kill or cause grievous bodily harm to terrorism suspects to protect the lives of bystanders or themselves.
Existing laws contain provisions for the use of force in extreme circumstances, only permissible when the officer has reasonable grounds to conclude it “is necessary to protect life or prevent serious injuries’’.
.
Enough of your lies.
Your post completely disproves your argument.
This very first line proves that immunity applies only if terrorist/suspect is shot/harmed in self defence or in order to protect innocent bystander , not a right to hunt muslims indiscriminately on street.
If a agent kill a suspect, he has to prove probable cause like presence of a weapon or explosive to gain immunity from lawsuits. This is SoP all around the world, and it is standard practice of US police to gun down any armed person who does not surrender when called upon to do so.
This part is self explanatory. Note Keywords : Extreme circumstances; Self defence; and protecting innocent civilians.
Yet another Indian who can't read English.
The restriction of "extreme circumstances" and "no other option" is removed under the new laws, relaxing the use of lethal force.
Nothing in the wording talks about immediate self-defence. It only talks about preventing harm to others. A terrorism suspect, by definition, is suspected of planning harm to others. The law gives authorities the right to kill someone who is suspected of planning harm to others.
Once again, I suggest you read what is actually written.
Under new laws, Australia’s spooks will also retain legal immunity if they kill or cause grievous bodily harm to terrorism suspects to protect the lives of bystanders or themselves.
u were in a intelligence agency,,,hmmI am part of an intelligence agency of Pakistan. The amount of information that we collect, although extremely important for official purposes, is scary to the point where we are more aware of the person then perhaps his/her family members! But there are certain checks and balances to ensure that we do not abuse our access to that information. And trust me, when we go after some one it is because we have solid evidence of his/her involvement in terrorism.
However, as per recent experience through the media, we are all aware of the crackdown that recently happened in Sydney by agencies. All the suspects that were picked up, as per their highest level of intelligence, proved to be innocents and were released. But what about the ordeal that those individuals and their families has to bear? Why make these stupid draconian laws that tear the fabric of society of which I was a part of about 8 years ago? Australia is 'INSIGNIFICANT' on the world map to Islamic radicals, why paint a big red bulls eye on it for no reason????
Abbot has managed to scare the shit out of an entire country with no evidence placed before the public of a valid threat. He is trying to turn the non existent threat from ISIS into a political tool. Scare the people so they see you as a saviour. Just like an xxxhole needs a bigger xxxhole in order to look good.
This is most stupid explanation of self defence and harm that i have ever read, but then you are trying to make excuse for you terrorist brothers.
Individual self defence is always immediate self defence , and i am only stating this to humor you as there is no concept of immediate and temporally distant self defence. No one could claim self defence to be anything but immediate, unless one is confident of proving himself to be a psychic in court. In order to claim self defence, you need to prove that there is a cause-belle for that defence which would mean that victim of shootout would have to be armed, if not willing to use. In " extreme circumstance " and " no other option " interpretation, a policemen could shoot only if terrorist draws, not carry.
Similar is the case with "harm". In order to potentially harm someone, you must have capacity to harm.To cause harm to bystanders, a terrorist must have a weapon or explosive ( at least a boxcutter ) on his person.
The removal of " extreme circumstances " and " no other option " clause just means that once an officer ,who has shot a terrorist/suspect, has established that his life or life of anyone else was in danger,he does not have to exhaustively prove that there was no other way to resolve that situation. This is how American law works.
And finally; stop lying ,and stop raping English language and logic. You own link states that an officer would have a right to kill a suspect if and only if his or someone else's life is in danger/
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au
This combined with legal principle that any controversy would be resolved to the disadvantage of draftee means that there is no chance of this law becoming a " License to kill ".
You are inventing new loony concept like " immediate self defence " because this law would throttle you Jihadi imam brothers and you are trying to defend them.
So how many Middle Eastern looking folks have the Aussies killed yet?