Home Uncategorized Rolling Back the Legislative Tie-in

Rolling Back the Legislative Tie-in

11

LBJ and John Howard

by Mary Maxwell, currently a candidate for the US Senate

As Gumshoe readers know, I have written books about some of the false flags and false terrorist incidents of our time (Port Arthur, Boston Marathon, Sydney siege). I don’t desire to do any more of that “reporting” but only to concentrate on what we can do about it.

From yesterday’s Gumshoe article by Dee McLachlan, “George Brandis [Says] Laws Don’t Go Far Enough”, the question emerges: How can we prevent Parliament from doing what it has been doing? Namely, it has been fulfilling a standard formula: “terrorist incident/ need to prevent more of same/ pass legislation that curtails civil liberties.”

What action should we take right now to make sure that, in this case, the flow-over of UK’s London Bridge episode does not bring about new law in Australia that reduces our privacy of communication?

 

The “What If” Approach

I say let’s just put a “What if” question, to encourage people to see that they are being made fools of. I mean What if we now found, for sure, that the terrorist incidents were staged, with connivance of government and media, in order to scare people and make them give up liberties? What should we then do about the relevant statutes?

Walk through a scenario in which, say, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, is forced under oath to admit that the Lindt Café episode was made to happen and Man Haron Monis was, as it were, a “participating patsy.”  And let’s say the Lindt café incident had led to a specific law such “as “the SAS can override state police if any hostage taker refers to the Islamic religion.”

I will label this is “legislative tie-in.” That is, it was the now-destroyed incident (destroyed in this hypothetical example by Tony Abbott’s “testimony”) that made Parliament enact a law about SAS takeover.

Ask the Question

Pretend Mr Abbott is now at a press conference.  The newsman asks “Mr Abbott, given that it was this false incident that brought about the SAS Takeover Act, do you recommend that Parliament now repeal that Act?”

Or picture former Prime Minister John Howard confessing that he had wittingly participated in falsely blaming Martin Bryant for the Port Arthur massacre, and that his motive was to justify a gun-control law (the “legislative tie-in”).

We ask Howard: Faced with your admission, what should happen in Parliament now? Should you yourself perhaps suggest to Parliament that it immediately roll back the gun-control legislation? After all, if A led to B, and we now see there was never a real “A,” wouldn’t it be logical to expunge “B”?

In the US, one might say to Congress, “Now that it is proven that President Lyndon Johnson ‘cooked up’ the Gulf of Tonkin incident (there was no torpedoing of an American Navy vessel by the Viet Cong), what is your duty toward the many soldiers who were thus sent on an unjustified mission?

 

Hauling Out the Bella Vista Case

As GumshoeNews has described on several occasions, we do know of a DEFINITELY false incident that led to tyrannical law. So the legislative tie-in is now ripe for the plucking. I am referring to the Bella Vista incident.

I’m copying this from pages 112-113 of my Inquest book (2017):

Consider the two Middle Eastern men who attacked a uniformed member of the Australian Navy near Bella Vista, Sydney, at 6.30am on September 25, 2014. The sailor reported his injuries immediately to the King’s Cross Police station. For about 14 hours, those two Middle Eastern men had existence. How do we know? Because the media said so. And because the Australian Senate that very evening voted to pass new anti-terrorist measures, at least partly in response to this new incursion of Muslims onto Oz soil. Days later, “the charges were dropped.” Soon, the government apologized to the Muslim community for this little episode of guilt-by-association. They did not admit however that the assaulters (and probably the assaulted) did not exist. Further down the track, regarding this Bella Vista incident, the police media liaison admitted to Gumshoe editor Dee McLachlan: “We don’t believe it happened.” Amazing, a total fiction. No such sailor. No such Middle Eastern men. Nada.

The Legislative Tie-in

In this case I note that Australia’s attorney general, Senator George Brandis, had put out a press release in July of 2014 foretelling new legislation aimed at Australians participating overseas on behalf of the enemy. (Isn’t that already covered under the crime of treason?)

On September 23, 2014, Brandis announced the bill as follows:

In order to tighten existing laws to combat these threats, the Bill will:

  • create new offences for ‘advocating terrorism’ …
  • broaden the criteria and streamline the process for the listing of terrorist organisations;
  • extend instances in which a control order may be sought; extend the sunsetting provisions of the preventative detention order and control order regime [a control order means a citizen can have his passport removed or his travel restricted]
  • provide certain law enforcement agencies with additional tools needed to investigate, arrest and prosecute those supporting foreign conflicts;
  • … [etc].

… The Government thanks all the stakeholders and acknowledges the Opposition’s constructive and supportive approach towards the implementation of necessary reforms to Australia’s national security legislation.

The law then passed. It is called the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters).  Each MP should now be asked, If there had been no Bella Vista “attack” that day, would you have voted for the new measures?

Naomi Wolf’s Shocking Report of Gitmo

In 2014 journalist Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America, gave a 90-minute presentation to the Liberty Forum in New Hampshire. I had seen a short video clip of that talk, in which she talks about false news. (Recall she said CNN reported a decapitation of a water skier and she made them admit it did not happen.)

However, I had not, until this week, seen other parts of that video, in which she describes her tour of the prison camp run by the US, known as Guantanamo Bay, nicknamed Gitmo. It was used – allegedly – as a detention and interrogation center for Muslim terrorists caught in the Middle East.

One thing Wolf mentioned was that, on top of the open cages in which the men were kept, she saw large rats.  She also saw (though not live) an interrogation set-up in which there was a hook above the prisoner’s head — to hold a hornet’s nest.

For Gumshoe readers interested in the Satanism that we have discussed in regard to Tavistock and Pizzagate, I note that Ms Wolf commented that she saw prisoners on hunger strike being force fed. She said the behaviour of the doctors and nurses, at Gitmo, was not just mean or unethical, it felt – to her – demonic.

Naomi Wolf’s Million-Dollar Offer

Interestingly, Naomi said she was willing to offer any sum of money, “even a million dollars because I know I will never have to pay it out” to a person who could find win the following contest: Find a nation that passed draconian laws against any enemy minority, which did not subsequently get extended to the population in general.

So, Americans, are you ready to be sitting under a hornet’s nest for interrogation?

The US Senate’s Torture Report

By the way, I rather glibly said, in a comment to a news article here in Alabama, that I believe Dianne Feinstein should be kicked out of the US Senate. The reason (which I did not have room to delve into) is that Senator Feinstein is the one who announced the Senate’s report on torture at Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere – and then let it drop into the trash bin.

She had headed the Intelligence Committee that brought forward the report — albeit after a ridiculous delay of several years — on CIA’s use of torture for “enhance interrogation.” No one has ever been charged with a crime for this. Indeed, the 2002 memo signed by Jay Bybee “authorizing” the torture of suspects, seems to have led to his being made a federal appeals judge.

I note that Dee McLachlan is the only Australian news editor to have called for Australian answers to the Feinstein report, on December 13, 2014. (Good heavens, that was 48 hours before the Lindt Café “siege”!)

GumshoeNews appears to be, unfortunately, a voice crying in the wilderness. If you can assist us in reaching a broader audience, please do.

– Mary W Maxwell is hoping to be on the Senate Intelligence Committee if she passes muster at the August 15, 2017 Republican primary, and gets elected on December 12, in Alabama.

 

SHARE

11 COMMENTS

  1. Who may I ask is going to interrogate the real terrorists of Australia, who are able to hide behind a notation of “national security”? Each time representatives of this organisation is queried about certain illegal activities, they give the answer that they can’t answer because it would be a breech of “national security” to do so. I say Bull!

    Is this to say that the Federal Government has power to legally legislate to create a body or department that does not have to answer to the laws of the land?

    In a court of law under oath, or a parliamentary inquiry, nobody should be able to, not answer a question put to them.

    • Dear Mal, as I understand it, legally the monarch in Australia “can do no wrong.” Everybody else is liable.

      It does appear that Brandis arranged for “special operations” to be not-criminal and for those who opened their mouth about it to thus commit a crime. In doing so, Brandis surely committed a crime “against justice.” See Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol 4.

      I agree with you, Mal, that all should be made to answer an inquiry, though on occasion it is permissible for them to do so “in camera.” In that case, the judge in chambers still adjudicates on the basis of that information.

      Recall at the siege Inquest that the coroner offered Officer A a certificate of immunity so he could speak the truth (did he?) and not have his words used against him if he later faces trial — or later faces a civil action, I believe.

      Thank you for your stance, semper eadem.

  2. create new offences for ‘advocating terrorism’ …

    “Someone should blow Brandis up!” ~ Ted Bullpit Fair Dinkum…. bring it! you wont, you’re scared!

    broaden the criteria and streamline the process for the listing of terrorist organisations;

    <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rebranding-of-terrorism-the-us-takes-syrias-al-qaeda-off-terror-watch-lists/5594524"what about delisting them?

    and re gitmo.. david hicks … innocent.. howard.. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQO3pW0DLmI"unrepentant filthy @#$%^!

  3. Our conversations on Gumshoe are focused to salient incidents of a deviant nature and covert operations such as Tavistock, governments, military, Cia and so on are committed to in the name of keeping us safe at a cost of usually freedom and liberty.
    I am now changing our conversation to what I consider has been a act of omission whilst our attention has been diverted to the news by incidents? I am relating to laws being changed and passed which are not apparently news worthy? that is the insidious law changes such as keeping you safe in your home? recently a neighbor reported me to the council for what he considered illegal changes to the building I live in, the result was the demolition of a shed, the investigation now became more intense with aerial photos as evidence and photographs though windows and photographs from several angles by council officers, every room investigated and detailed measurements and plans drawn of every part of the building inside and outside as all part of this investigation and letters signed as investigation officers and surveyors.
    The investigation has now been entering the nineteenth month and has now cost me some 10 thousand dollars or so.
    In the past week I have been given 48 hours to be evicted from my home as the walls are not considered fire rated to comply with the rules, having lived here for the past 25 years having no fires in this time.
    What concerns me to stay here is now going to cost tens of thousands of dollars to comply with the rules, it is not the cost of the work in practical terms, it is the cost of engineering reports and bureaucratic procedure and authoritarian complexity.
    The rules are multiplying at a unprecedented state of state interference with no fundamental rights of the individual as can be seen by the Australian Constitution.
    We now see Kafka at work and the rules are being devised behind public scrutiny similar to what Snowdon is about and Wiki but more insidious, the cost to the younger generation is unaffordable to all except the elite who will be the next oppressive power of the many.
    The problem with the rich is there predominate obsession with money and power, this acts as drug but is not classified as a drug, the cartel operating within this system creates a myopic world view, the creative activity of the brain becomes so limited that those within this prison mind set can no longer see beyond a pedantic regime of self inflicted stupidity of not only the self of them selves but a damaging destructive global operation.
    The rules are being made at such a speed that common sense no longer prevails as a useful guide to show the way but obstinacy becomes a neurotic compulsion of a authority now disconnected.
    The meaningless waste of energy of a society under the auspices of the few, having no vision other than to oppress the many and the many having to obey those in power whom represent a stifling tradition, a incestuous symbol containing a constipated disease that as yet having no known cure.

    • $10,000 ? I hope your not paying lawyers ! If enough people were prepared to represent themselves the entire system would collapse

      • So how many years have you been paying “rates” ( rental-value tax) on a purportedly sub-standard property? Perhaps you could tell the ************* ‘s that you’ve no intention of budging unless every penny+ accumulated interest is paid back.

        Just an idea, there’s bound to be plenty of other options.

    • Holy Daddy! I had no idea of these things.

      “In the past week I have been given 48 hours to be evicted from my home.” Don, surely that is because of what you write at Gumshoe, today’s comment being your best gem so far. I am sorry you are having to pay such a price in harassment.

      I hope Berry gets in touch with Don as she has decades of experience with these Bozos.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion