When inference is enough
The eagerness of this country's conservative politicians to exploit news for propaganda is clearly demonstrated by the Attorney-General's pronouncement that the latest video attributed to Al-Qaeda has 'indications are that it is authentic' - despite the fact that the tape "had not been seen by Australian police or political leaders by last night, more than 36 hours after they first became aware of its existence". It is simply not possible to confirm authenticity without viewing the material, and ludicrous to base claims for new laws on what may be a hoax.
Indeed, it is notable that the video was 'handed to US TV network ABC in Pakistan' - as one reporter observes, previously 'similar tapes made by senior al-Qaeda figures have gone through intermediaries to Arabic media outlets'. One competent analysis concluded '...the statements on the tape did not seem to warrant that extra level of security'. It is also commented that it is 'strange that al-Qaeda would use an insignificant member to communicate a major threat when it could have used one of its leaders'. The timing is very convenient indeed, and as the tape is clearly not symmetrical with previous communications, common sense would dictate caution in response - except if one is a politician 'selling' new laws that will diminish civil liberties without preventing terrorism.
Opportunistic use of media interest has become a standard 'weapon' in the information war: Kavkaz reports that a Dr. Muhammad Qasim, the Director of the Tall 'Afar Branch of the Iraqi Red Crescent, gave an 'exclusive statement' to a Mafkarat al-Islam correspondent on Friday alleging more than 170 cases of poisoning 'due to American chemical or poisoned gas bombs' had been brought into hospitals outside Tall 'Afar. Dr. Qasim said that the US occupation forces used the poisoned chemical and gas bombs in Tall 'Afar on Wednesday. The US military has denied the claim, (which was also apparently made in an Al-Zakarwi video just released), and countered with its own allegations of 'threats' from the insurgency to use such weapons. Arab News reports 170 residents of Tal Afar have fallen ill to 'curious poisons', which according to Qassem could result from 'inhaling gases'. Their writer takes the opportunity to draw comparisons over the plight of Iraqi civilians, observing 'the afflicted of New Orleans deemed "refugees" were insulted, while refugees from Tal Afar don't have that luxury.'
However, while Zarkawi's video is accepted by authorities as 'authentic' (as there are 'no known fake videos' of the man), we are told the content of his tape is to be disregarded as untrue. On the other hand, the Al-Qaeda video is given qualification as possibly a hoax (though it 'may be authentic') while at the same time we are told to take the message seriously.
By way of counterpoint to the almost unthinking acceptance by media of government statements regarding terrorism, the ABC's Lateline yesterday presented a 'dissident' interview with John Pilger, an exchange that raises many contentious though timely points. The new wave of anti-terror laws in the UK and Australia ('justified' by examples like dubious Al-Qaeda videos) are to Pilger the 'beginning of a kind of democratic police state': he observes that 'the most basic freedoms always go in a very quiet and insidious way'.
A supporting example is the use of the description 'politically motivated violence' to justify curtailing the civil liberty of protestors in recent times, as if the definition of terrorism includes lawful dissent where allegations of violence can be made - however, under 'national secrecy' provisions of anti-terror laws, the violence is neither substantiated nor described. Inference alone seems to be good enough: hardly the proper rule of law applied fairly.
As Victorian Premier Bracks observed, 'to not have an explanation brings into disrepute the very law which is being applied'. In fact, the relevant agency's own website states that applicable laws:
'...shall not limit the right of persons to engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent and the exercise of that right shall not, by itself, be regarded as prejudicial to security'
Citizens are entitled to jurisprudence rather than being asked to take their government's decisions on trust alone. A Labor spokesperson
points out that in the current case, the detainee would have
'had more [legal] protection if he had been arrested, rather than being detained by the immigration department'. Under the current
Kafkaesque laws, neither the peace activist detained nor his lawyers are entitled to even
know the 'national security' grounds on which the activist, who is publicly committed to non-violence, is being deported, while the Minister is free to make inferences of 'adverse character' judgements through the media. As the detainee's lawyer
makes clear:
'If all Mr Parkin has done to be assessed a security risk is to peacefully protest his opinions, then we are in serious trouble'.
The 'expansive and ill-defined terms "terrorist" and "security threat"' are now, as
feared, being used to stifle protest directed towards social change.
Item posted by AutoEditor at 11:23 am ::
