AFP still evaluating anti-terrorism laws: Keelty

Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Mick Keelty says new anti-terrorism laws which give police more power to tackle home grown terrorism will come into effect next week.

He says the country's law enforcement agencies are still working through the ramifications of the new legislation.

Even though the laws will play no part in charges against men arrested in raids in Sydney and Melbourne last month, Commissioner Keelty says they are essential.

"People who are saying we didn't need the new laws don't understand the circumstances under which we're operating," he said.

"We need the new laws, we need the new laws to provide, as I say, a level of safety and security in this country in a new environment and we will be using the new laws as appropriate and with wide consultation with the agencies concerned."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1529451.htm

Mr Keelty clearly thinks we're incapable of figuring out the possible impact of new laws - or that we don't pay attention to "the circumstances under which [the AFP] are operating". Unless he means that there is a truckload of information that the legal profession is unaware of, something that is so significant - yet so secret - that we as yet have no inkling of it, he might just be being patronising.

It's a little concerning that a law enforcement agency could be in the middle of analysing the ramifications of the laws, yet be quite happy to pronounce that "new laws to provide ... a level of safety and security in this country" -that 'level' being better? higher? chakra-aligned? The only "new environment" I can fathom here is the one created by the new law.

The passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005 of itself does not "provide ... a level of safety and security". The new powers it creates does change the environment we live in because each and everyone of us is now potentially subject to treatment that had previously been deemed illegal and an affront to the Common Law for many, many years (can any of us say hundreds?).

AFP still evaluating anti-terrorism laws: Keelty

Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Mick Keelty says new anti-terrorism laws which give police more power to tackle home grown terrorism will come into effect next week.

He says the country's law enforcement agencies are still working through the ramifications of the new legislation.

Even though the laws will play no part in charges against men arrested in raids in Sydney and Melbourne last month, Commissioner Keelty says they are essential.

"People who are saying we didn't need the new laws don't understand the circumstances under which we're operating," he said.

"We need the new laws, we need the new laws to provide, as I say, a level of safety and security in this country in a new environment and we will be using the new laws as appropriate and with wide consultation with the agencies concerned."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1529451.htm

Mr Keelty clearly thinks we're incapable of figuring out the possible impact of new laws - or that we don't pay attention to "the circumstances under which [the AFP] are operating". Unless he means that there is a truckload of information that the legal profession is unaware of, something that is so significant - yet so secret - that we as yet have no inkling of it, he might just be being patronising.

It's a little concerning that a law enforcement agency could be in the middle of analysing the ramifications of the laws, yet be quite happy to pronounce that "new laws to provide ... a level of safety and security in this country" -that 'level' being better? higher? chakra-aligned? The only "new environment" I can fathom here is the one created by the new law.

The passage of the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005 of itself does not "provide ... a level of safety and security". The new powers it creates does change the environment we live in because each and everyone of us is now potentially subject to treatment that had previously been deemed illegal and an affront to the Common Law for many, many years (can any of us say hundreds?).