I thought the Greens were Left Wing - maybe I'm thinking of Germany, or maybe it's a different party.
I don't get this paragraph - I'm thinking of our posse comitatus law: "Even if police are unable to quell domestic crises, the legislation should say that troops cannot be deployed without a call from the State government and must not be used against unarmed protesters. Removing such safeguards sees Australia take a giant step towards the Americanisation of our domestic security operations".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0008/16/features/features6.html
New martial law comes armed and dangerous
Proposed powers for the military mean troops could be mobilised against ordinary civilians with orders to shoot to kill, writes Bob Brown.
IN THE lead-up to the Sydney Olympics and the World Economic Forum in Melbourne, the Howard Government, with Labor support, has passed a bill in the House of Representatives which will allow the military sweeping new powers to become involved in civilian affairs.
The Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 authorises the Prime Minister to call out the armed services where "domestic violence" is occurring or is "likely to occur". This eliminates the provisions of the Constitution and the 1903 Defence Act which require a request from a State government before such intervention can occur.
The term domestic violence is undefined. Many, if not most, legitimate peaceful protests and political demonstrations can be perceived as involving the likelihood of "domestic violence". The bill states that troops do not have the power to "stop or restrict any lawful protest", but almost all protests can be declared unlawful simply by withdrawing the necessary permission.
The gamut of this power should be measured against laws introduced in Queensland by the former premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen which made any assembly of more than three citizens illegal. And it would have enabled the then prime minister Malcolm Fraser to heed the call of a Liberal backbencher in 1982 for the Army to be brought in against thousands of peaceful protesters at Tasmania's Franklin River blockade.
Imagine what might have happened if this bill had been in place during the Vietnam moratorium marches in Sydney. It could have opened the way for armed suppression of demonstrators, even against the wishes of State Parliament. This bill will inevitably raise the temptation for military intervention in civil protests in the future.
State and Territory police forces are equipped and trained to deal with civilian protests. Military forces are not. That is why several States - NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania - have voiced opposition to the bill. The Director-General of the NSW Cabinet Office, Roger Wilkins, has observed that the legislation "leaves open the possibility of conflict between State police and Commonwealth defence forces, which should obviously be avoided at all costs".
Even if police are unable to quell domestic crises, the legislation should say that troops cannot be deployed without a call from the State government and must not be used against unarmed protesters. Removing such safeguards sees Australia take a giant step towards the Americanisation of our domestic security operations.
The bill provides for the military, once deployed, to have a range of powers not normally available to police. Soldiers without previous experience would be empowered to search premises without a warrant and detain people without explanation. They would also be allowed to shoot to kill.
There are important safeguards built into police training for handling difficult protest or even terrorist situations. But the guide has been that the State police are there to maintain the domestic peace and the Commonwealth military to defend Australia from foreign aggression.
In Brisbane on Sunday the Defence Minister, John Moore, said that the Olympics Games were the main reason this legislation was required. This bill should have a sunset clause so that it ceases to exist after the Games. There has always been the proviso that a State could request the help of the armed services. Even so, the Commonwealth has been expressly prohibited from using the emergency and reserve forces against strikers. The Labor prime minister Ben Chifley used troops to load coal during the miners' strike of 1949 and Bob Hawke used the RAAF during the pilots' dispute of 1989.
But armed Australian servicemen and women have never directly confronted strikers. This legislation opens up that possibility, even where a State government is opposed.
It is a little-known aspect of Australian history that between Federation in 1901 and 1928, Queensland, WA, Tasmania and South Australia requested military intervention from the Commonwealth to suppress domestic upheavals where violence was feared. On every occasion the prime minister refused.
It is a sign of the changing balance of power and responsibilities in Australia (and around the globe) that the States are now a necessary check on any misdirected impulse of a prime minister to call in the troops against fellow Australians. That check must be left in place.
Senator Bob Brown is the leader of the Australian Greens.
Copyright © 2000. The Sydney Morning Herald
-- 30 --
I decided to dig around, and found this interesting snippet at: http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/library/weekly/aa091399.htm
"Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' 18 U.S.C. 1385.
Obviously, the original 1878 Act did not mention the Air Force. Note that the Act does not apply to the the Navy, the Marine Corps, or the Coast Guard. Department of Defense policy and regulations subject the Navy and the Marine Corps to the same posse comitatus restrictions imposed on the Army and Air Force. The Coast Guard is authorized by law to enforce various federal laws, and can and does routinely make arrests and otherwise enforce the civil law.
Current Posse Comitatus Act Issues
One thing to keep in mind is the difference between the National Guard, the Reserves, and Regular forces. The National Guard is a state entity, albeit federally funded in large part. The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) does not apply to the National Guard when acting as a state organization. A governor can use the National Guard to control riots. However, if the National Guard is
"federalized" - called into federal service - the PCA would apply. The Reserve and Regular components of the armed forces are always federal and are always subject to the PCA and implementing regulations."
------------------
"The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside
the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light." (Romans 13:12)
[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited August 16, 2000).]
I don't get this paragraph - I'm thinking of our posse comitatus law: "Even if police are unable to quell domestic crises, the legislation should say that troops cannot be deployed without a call from the State government and must not be used against unarmed protesters. Removing such safeguards sees Australia take a giant step towards the Americanisation of our domestic security operations".
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0008/16/features/features6.html
New martial law comes armed and dangerous
Proposed powers for the military mean troops could be mobilised against ordinary civilians with orders to shoot to kill, writes Bob Brown.
IN THE lead-up to the Sydney Olympics and the World Economic Forum in Melbourne, the Howard Government, with Labor support, has passed a bill in the House of Representatives which will allow the military sweeping new powers to become involved in civilian affairs.
The Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2000 authorises the Prime Minister to call out the armed services where "domestic violence" is occurring or is "likely to occur". This eliminates the provisions of the Constitution and the 1903 Defence Act which require a request from a State government before such intervention can occur.
The term domestic violence is undefined. Many, if not most, legitimate peaceful protests and political demonstrations can be perceived as involving the likelihood of "domestic violence". The bill states that troops do not have the power to "stop or restrict any lawful protest", but almost all protests can be declared unlawful simply by withdrawing the necessary permission.
The gamut of this power should be measured against laws introduced in Queensland by the former premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen which made any assembly of more than three citizens illegal. And it would have enabled the then prime minister Malcolm Fraser to heed the call of a Liberal backbencher in 1982 for the Army to be brought in against thousands of peaceful protesters at Tasmania's Franklin River blockade.
Imagine what might have happened if this bill had been in place during the Vietnam moratorium marches in Sydney. It could have opened the way for armed suppression of demonstrators, even against the wishes of State Parliament. This bill will inevitably raise the temptation for military intervention in civil protests in the future.
State and Territory police forces are equipped and trained to deal with civilian protests. Military forces are not. That is why several States - NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania - have voiced opposition to the bill. The Director-General of the NSW Cabinet Office, Roger Wilkins, has observed that the legislation "leaves open the possibility of conflict between State police and Commonwealth defence forces, which should obviously be avoided at all costs".
Even if police are unable to quell domestic crises, the legislation should say that troops cannot be deployed without a call from the State government and must not be used against unarmed protesters. Removing such safeguards sees Australia take a giant step towards the Americanisation of our domestic security operations.
The bill provides for the military, once deployed, to have a range of powers not normally available to police. Soldiers without previous experience would be empowered to search premises without a warrant and detain people without explanation. They would also be allowed to shoot to kill.
There are important safeguards built into police training for handling difficult protest or even terrorist situations. But the guide has been that the State police are there to maintain the domestic peace and the Commonwealth military to defend Australia from foreign aggression.
In Brisbane on Sunday the Defence Minister, John Moore, said that the Olympics Games were the main reason this legislation was required. This bill should have a sunset clause so that it ceases to exist after the Games. There has always been the proviso that a State could request the help of the armed services. Even so, the Commonwealth has been expressly prohibited from using the emergency and reserve forces against strikers. The Labor prime minister Ben Chifley used troops to load coal during the miners' strike of 1949 and Bob Hawke used the RAAF during the pilots' dispute of 1989.
But armed Australian servicemen and women have never directly confronted strikers. This legislation opens up that possibility, even where a State government is opposed.
It is a little-known aspect of Australian history that between Federation in 1901 and 1928, Queensland, WA, Tasmania and South Australia requested military intervention from the Commonwealth to suppress domestic upheavals where violence was feared. On every occasion the prime minister refused.
It is a sign of the changing balance of power and responsibilities in Australia (and around the globe) that the States are now a necessary check on any misdirected impulse of a prime minister to call in the troops against fellow Australians. That check must be left in place.
Senator Bob Brown is the leader of the Australian Greens.
Copyright © 2000. The Sydney Morning Herald
-- 30 --
I decided to dig around, and found this interesting snippet at: http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/library/weekly/aa091399.htm
"Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
'Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.' 18 U.S.C. 1385.
Obviously, the original 1878 Act did not mention the Air Force. Note that the Act does not apply to the the Navy, the Marine Corps, or the Coast Guard. Department of Defense policy and regulations subject the Navy and the Marine Corps to the same posse comitatus restrictions imposed on the Army and Air Force. The Coast Guard is authorized by law to enforce various federal laws, and can and does routinely make arrests and otherwise enforce the civil law.
Current Posse Comitatus Act Issues
One thing to keep in mind is the difference between the National Guard, the Reserves, and Regular forces. The National Guard is a state entity, albeit federally funded in large part. The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) does not apply to the National Guard when acting as a state organization. A governor can use the National Guard to control riots. However, if the National Guard is
"federalized" - called into federal service - the PCA would apply. The Reserve and Regular components of the armed forces are always federal and are always subject to the PCA and implementing regulations."
------------------
"The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside
the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light." (Romans 13:12)
[This message has been edited by Oatka (edited August 16, 2000).]