A letter to Mr Ruddock...

Intro for my non-Australian readers: Currently, here in Australia, our government is trying to rush a bill through parliament, largely undebated if it can get its way, which would give our security agencies powers which the Gestapo would have smiled benignly upon...

In response to the arrest and deportation of U.S. peace activist Scott Parkin, I sent a letter to our Federal Attorney-General.

He, Philip Ruddock, sent me a reply which I considered to be utterly inadequate, a quality which I suspect the AG is quite familiar with...

Here is my follow-up letter to Mr Ruddock:

============

26 October, 2005.

Attorney-General
The Right Honourable Philip Ruddock, MP

Dear Sir,

Re: Your (unreferenced) letter dated 14 October, 2005, relating to the unwarranted removal from Australia of (innocent till PROVEN guilty) peace activist Scott Parkin.

I wish to follow up on comments which you made (especially in the light of the current draft anti-terrorism legislation awaiting debate [sic] in the Senate). I'm very serious about this, because as it stands, being a peace activist myself, I am one of the people who, I fear, will be another of the people illegally detained under your New World Order.

For your information, I am a "blogger" (an internet-based social commentator with attitude), and a Vietnam Veteran who has returned his medals to Mr Howard in absolute disgust at his government's decision to join the Coalition of the Oil Swilling in their war crimes against the people of Iraq. My blog's URL, should you wish to acquaint yourself with its contents (and I think you might well learn something from doing so), is http://diogenes999.blogspot.com.

So, Mr Ruddock, these are my as yet unresolved issues with your letter:

You said ASIO had assessed Parkin to be a "risk to Australia's national security", implying that they did so because they felt he was promoting "politically motivated violence, including violent political protest activity."

So far so good...

Then you say, virtually, "but, na na nanana, they (ASIO) don't have to tell you or anyone else the facts upon which they based their assessment". I find this utterly unacceptable and deplorable. You are virtually saying that the Government does not have to explain itself to the people for the actions it takes. What hubris is this?

But you go even further into the realm of Orwellian doublespeak: You tell me that Parkin could "test the lawfulness of the decisions that have been made", whilst stating that there is no "legal requirement to provide (the information on which the assessment was made) to the subject of the assessment". Excuse me Mr Australia's Most Senior Attorney, is this not like saying "you may try to defend yourself against the charges, but we will not disclose any details about the evidence on which these charges are based."???? Please tell me exactly when we moved away from the Westminster legal system and how this was ratified by any government in Australia.

In 1968 I went to Vietnam on the orders of a Liberal Government (not unlike the present one), at the behest of the contrivances orchestrated by the U.S. government (not unlike the present one), to defend our "freedom and democracy". I believed those lying bastards way back then because I did not know any better way back then, but I sure as heck know a thing or two these days, Mr Ruddock !!!

Mr Ruddock, as one of those poor schmucks you and your ilk are so "reluctantly" wont to dispatch to all corners of the globe to do the killing and the dying for your Big Business buddies (I notice that few sons or daughters of politicians ever get sent to do this dirty work), PLEASE EXPLAIN !


(my name)
Vietnam Veteran
Fighter for Freedom
Fighter for Democracy
Witness to War Crimes
Australian Citizen Disgusted With The Current Regime (D'oh, that's you and your mates, Phil...)

==========================

I'll post his (or his lackey's) reply when I get it.
.