Then ask yourselves why it is that we are returning to these types of laws. What is happening in the wider world that makes these kinds of laws acceptable to the bulk of society yet again. Instead of simply getting agitated and wailing about it, look at what is happening, look at what is putting the most incredibly tyrannical lawmakers in power, yet again.
Look at Pakistan, right at the moment. We are being asked to believe that, despite a long history of cross-border artillery fire (from the Pakistani Military) and cross-border safe havens for 'insurgents', that the Pakistani military was an innocent bystander to a firefight involving the Afghan and US Armies. That their failure to provide timely information as to the whereabouts of their forces was inadvertent (not deliberate) and that their troops were MISTAKEN for the bad guys that were firing on the ISAF troops. I call bullshit, someone on the ground had the wit to call in CAS who tagged the Pakistani troops, making it kind of hard to deny they were in the area. Pakistan has a long history of such behaviour, the most blatant example would be the
Kargil War in which they invaded India and engaged in open warfare for weeks, awarding combat medals to troops whilst denying that they even existed.
People still wonder why we are suddenly pro-India? Why the US Military is engaging in high level discussions with the Indian Government? Why they are involved in a massive round of 'firsts' - the first exercises between US troops and Indian troops, the first exercises between US and Indian Combat Aircraft, the first US-Indian Naval Exercises, etc.? Why the French Government is trying to sell the Indian Government latest generation Combat Aircraft, by touting the Nuclear Delivery Capability of the same, quite openly? Why is the US Government moving to shore up support in the Indian Ocean, courting Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, Singapore? Why is the UK doing the same? For that matter, why is the Pakistani Military Junta making all the decisions, like shifting air defence weapons to the Afghan Border, like shifting/dispersing their Nuclear Weapons, like ramping up the hysteria? Where is the President of Pakistan, who is reportedly ill, or not in the Country, or combinations of the same (this in a Nuclear State with a long history of Military Coups)?
Now, have another good hard look at the situation in our own Countries. How many Pakistani's have moved to our Countries? We are all but at war with Pakistan, what is expected? Based upon what happened in Mumbai, New Delhi, etc. I'd strongly suspect there are quite a few people being watched and that there is legitimate reason for concern. That said, even in WWII there was a distinct difference between the treatment of foreign nationals and citizens in this Country, although there were some extremely interesting Court Cases (Pidoto stands out).
As for Military Bases, there are some I'll admit, the bulk are badly deteriorated and run down, but they do 'exist'. The improvements and capacity extensions at the major bases in Northern Australia is a marked change. I'd be very surprised if the majority of Australians have noticed that the size of our full-time army has increased dramatically over the last decade (still woefully small, but a marked improvement all the same). The changes in the ADF since then have been fairly significant, they had to be, the capacity of the ADF to operate in Timor was piss-poor. Then again the numbers awarded various service medals demonstrate some rather startling statistics, there have been over 250K Australian Defence Medals awarded (last time I looked) which means that there is a quarter of a million Australians with at least 4 years service. There have been 60K awards of the Australian Active Service Medal for conflicts since 1975, which effectively means since 1991 (with the majority being for the last 10 years). So there about a quarter of the people with the ADM have seen Active Service and several times the number in the Regular Army at the present (or any) time. That is >1% of our population, with immediate families and extended families, that is going to be approaching 10% with a reason to feel contempt for a single group of people. Then you have all those people with a family history in the ADF and all of a sudden you start to see why war and conflict start to bring about political change. Add to that the shattering of the left-wing vote by 'Green' politics (not enough to change outcomes directly, just enough to weaken the ones who could & looking at history, the ones who have).
But the changes within our Society are even more interesting, after Cronulla the 'gangs' from Western Sydney ran rampant and apparently (according to the NSW Premier) 'declared war' on Australia. I noticed (and may have participated) in making it known what was likely to happen if they didn't pull their heads in sharpish. It is really fucking simple, most of the families involved decamped from Palestine immediately after
Dier Yassin, going to Lebanon. They then upped sticks from Lebanon after
Sabra & Shattila. In both cases they had been heavily involved in the skirmishes that led to these events, in effect causing them to occur. So it isn't real fucking difficult to work out how to induce them to leave our fair shores with the minimal amount of fuss (albeit with some sincere nastiness) was it? Amusing how quickly heads were pulled in after those warnings were put out... Then again, it is well established how easily as few as one hundred people with a plan can get that group to fuck off and find greener pastures.
That said, I have grave misgivings about the pricks who are likely to end up in power as a result. I've similarly got little to no time for profiteers and other lowlives. But war is rapidly becoming inevitable and at a scale not seen for half a century (if not considerably higher). But facts are facts and have to be faced, it is not much more than a larger repeat of the shitfight that followed Cronulla, to the Muslim world we are unwilling to fight, unwilling to stand up for our own and as such easy targets (the same as happens in schoolyards). While I have good reason to be nervous of martial law,
appeasement does not work in the face of aggression.
The apologists for these scum, I have no time for, they have no interest in doing anything for their 'adopted' Country, except to bleed it dry and turn it into the same middle-eastern shithole they were too scared to live in. What they want, they can get, just push hard enough, insh'allah. Nor do I have any interest in living under Sharia law (which there was yet another attempt to introduce in this Country recently). Gutless pricks allowed these scum into our Country and they are breeding far more rapidly than us, so at some point war is the only alternative to the imposition of sharia law. I'm a LONG way from alone when I say that will happen over my twitching lifeless body. What we have here is a fault line like existed in the 70's, when a largish part of the Community split along the lines "Better Dead than Red"/"Better Red than Dead".
I personally believe that the ongoing crimes against humanity, decency and basic rights (the right to education, the right to information, the right to choose whether or not to believe in god and how) perpetrated in the name of Islam on a daily basis, the imposition of unjust and outrageous penalties for minor infractions of religious law, etc. mean that no thinking person could possibly regard with anything but horror the concept of it being imposed on citizens of this Country. I long ago made an oath to defend this Country, that doesn't mean I believe everything done by the executive or other branches of government is right or even defensible, my oath is to defend the Crown in right of Australia (unless and until the Crown is replaced by a republic anyway). Speaking of the intolerance of our laws at present, makes me wonder if you truly comprehend the terror imposed by the alternatives.
You speak of Geneva/Hague Conventions, yet our enemies make no attempt to comply with them in their application to properly uniformed and identifiable combatants, they also make no attempt to protect their own civilians from the consequences of their own actions and the properly directed, lawful and measured responses of their opponents. When Hamas/Hezb'allah/Taliban/etc. are supposedly entitled to recognition as 'armies' (as would be required if their 'soldiers' are to be treated as legitimate combatants under Hague/Geneva Conventions), why aren't they subject to the same requirements? I have long regarded this dichotomy with distaste, it feels very antiquated and a hangover from Empire, if they are equal then they are equal, there is no "white man's burden" to shoulder. Our enemies, both internal and external, should be treated strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Rules of Land Warfare, the various Conventions, etc. with the impartial application of both the benefits and obligations thereunder (I suggest you take a good hard look at history and see precisely what is allowed by the same, for example Hiroshima & Nagasaki are defensible, as are the firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, Nuremburg and Cologne).
While one side is 'entitled' (according to the media and gutless wankers) to carry out war crimes, while the other side is hampered by restrictive rules of engagement, certain results are inevitable. One such result, is that the societies on one side of the equation have to enact restrictions upon what is permissable in order to safeguard themselves and their citizens. This means that the citizens accept the need for the same, unfortunately, means that life in those nations becomes more and more restricted as the government is given license to control more and more of every day life. Where the two sides mentioned above differ is in their view as to how to prevent/stop this. One side is quite prepared to shoulder the task of removing the cause of the problem, in the knowledge that while their society is not perfect it is worth fighting to protect. The other, from a disinclination to accept that conflict is part of the human condition and some nagging doubt about the worthiness of their own society (strangely without regard for the palatability of the alternative), maintains that anything is better than fighting, even abject surrender. Boiled down to its essence, the two sides to this argument differ in their willingness/unwillingness to either conflict/surrender.
PS just a quick point a non-uniformed, irregular enemy combatant taken into custody has no rights whatsoever under the Hague & Geneva Conventions, the Rules of Land Warfare or any other law. They are subject to imprisonment and execution and are outside the law of the Country in which they are caught. It is called Treason mate.
