[url="http://www.news.com.au/national-news/our-diggers-could-be-seen-as-terrorists/story-fncynjr2-1226642439779"]News - AU[/url]
[img]http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2013/04/25/1226629/618604-australian-troops.jpg[/img]
[quote]AUSTRALIA'S armed forces needs to be protected from any risk of being charged with terrorism, an expert committee has recommended.
The committee's review of Australia's counter-terrorism legislation says the present definition of a terrorist act theoretically encompassed Australian forces in authorised military operations abroad.
"Such a situation is clearly undesirable," the review tabled in parliament on Tuesday said.
[b]"The committee considers that conduct done in the course of ... a person's service in any capacity with the Australian armed forces should be exempted from the definition of terrorism."[/b]
[/quote]
"No u"
So if I join the Australian army then firebomb the recruiting office they can't count it as terrorism?
Nice.
The fuck is this shit, Australia?
Australia is not the one country I would really expect this from.
So any war crimes we commit that could be seen as terrorism, we're not held responsible for that?
Oh boy, isn't the media going to love this little gem
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;40644406]So any war crimes we commit that could be seen as terrorism, we're not held responsible for that?
Oh boy, isn't the media going to love this little gem[/QUOTE]
For some reason, I doubt this will be highly reported.
wow this is like the first time i've truly questioned the sanity of the country I live in
Didn't someone before say the definition of terrorism is vague enough to mean almost any hostile act?
The U.S. has something similar, basically if one of their personnel gets tried for war crimes at the Hague/ICC in the Netherlands, the US is authorized to invade the Netherlands to free them.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act[/url]
[quote]The stated purpose of the amendment was "to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party."
It authorizes the President to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”. This has led to the nickname The Hague Invasion Act,[3][4] since such freeing of US citizens by force might only be possible through an invasion of The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of several international criminal courts and the seat of the Dutch government.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;40645318]The U.S. has something similar, basically if one of their personnel gets tried for war crimes at the Hague/ICC in the Netherlands, the US is authorized to invade the Netherlands to free them.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act[/url][/QUOTE]
I doubt this would ever see the light of day, even given circumstances that would call for this invasion. The US is not going to jeopardize more than a century of accumulated goodwill/friendship with the EU over something so trivial and highly skewed.
What kind of expert committee says this stuff?
[QUOTE=killerteacup;40645148]wow this is like the first time i've truly questioned the sanity of the country I live in[/QUOTE]
Fucking please, stop overreacting. You and the rest of facepunch.
This does not mean they cannot be charged with war crimes. This means potentially that soldiers can't be charged with [B]terrorism[/B] in the course of conduct in their service.
I.E it probably is specifically rendered with SOF personnel operating overseas in mind.
When any government does anything bad, why does someone also post "what the fuck [country name]" as if to offhandedly indict the entire country and all of its citizens
[QUOTE=smurfy;40645908]When any government does anything bad, why does someone also post "what the fuck [country name]" as if to offhandedly indict the entire country and all of its citizens[/QUOTE]
Because writing "what the fuck [country name]" is faster & easier than writing "what the fuck government of [country]", whilst still perfectly getting the point across.
This is basic preservation of sovereignty & valid-statehood on the part of any government. Global Courts will not have any validity before a recognized, sovereign global system of governance is put in place, until then the validity & power of the UN is limited by the amount of sovereignty its most powerful members are willing to give it.
terrorism is for poor brown people.
if relatively rich white people do terrorism, then it's just patriotism and defending your country.
Would this mean that diggers cannot be charged for crimes like these?
[URL="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/afghan-child-deaths-report-kept-under-wraps-20120211-1symp.html"]Afghan child deaths report kept under wraps[/URL]
Or this doesnt fall under terrorism?
Looking at the original use of terrorism vs today's use is hilarious.
[QUOTE=Ereunity;40644211]So if I join the Australian army then firebomb the recruiting office they can't count it as terrorism?
Nice.[/QUOTE]
look at this part - service done in any capacity with the Australian armed forces. You bombing the recruiting office is a personal act, not a state sanctioned act.
[QUOTE=C47;40648382]Would this mean that diggers cannot be charged for crimes like these?
[URL="[URL]http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/afghan-child-deaths-report-kept-under-wraps-20120211-1symp.html"]Afghan[/URL] child deaths report kept under wraps[/URL]
Or this doesnt fall under terrorism?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the wording of australian law in the first place. Though I doubt this would be terrorism.
Apparently our soldiers think they won't do anything bad, so they shouldn't be on the 'we will do bad things' list. Ennnnnh I don't think this will work well.
surely the US have something very similar already in place?
or maybe that shits covered in their counter-terrorism legislation already.
[QUOTE=Fort83;40652255]Back in the aftermath of the Norway massacre, was Anders ever labelled as a terrorist in the US media? Or just a murderer.[/QUOTE]
Both. Fox went as far to say that there's a high possibility that he's an Arab Muslim disguised as a white man, because clearly there's higher chance of an Arab disguising as a white man and committing terrorism, then just a white man doing it.
[QUOTE=Fort83;40652255]Back in the aftermath of the Norway massacre, was Anders ever labelled as a terrorist in the US media? Or just a murderer.[/QUOTE]
Well in Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark so was he labelled a terrorist.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;40652722]Both. [B]Fox went as far to say that there's a high possibility that he's an Arab Muslim disguised as a white man[/B], because clearly there's higher chance of an Arab disguising as a white man and committing terrorism, then just a white man doing it.[/QUOTE]
Do you have a source for that? Even for fox that is ridiculous.
Australia has like 50 0000 karma points to spend left because they have all those fucking spiders
[QUOTE=proch;40656055]Australia has like 50 0000 karma points to spend left because they have all those fucking spiders[/QUOTE]
They're not spending them wisely.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;40652722]Both. Fox went as far to say that there's a high possibility that he's an Arab Muslim disguised as a white man, because clearly there's higher chance of an Arab disguising as a white man and committing terrorism, then just a white man doing it.[/QUOTE]No way, Fox seriously tried to say that he was an Arab in disguise? Who in their right mind would jump to that conclusion?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.