early 13c., from Anglo-French treson, from Old French traison (11c.; Modern French trahison), from Latin traditionem (nominative traditio) “a handing over, delivery, surrender” (see tradition). Old French form influenced by the verb trair “betray.” In old English law, high treason is violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state; distinguished from petit treason, treason against a subject, such as murder of a master by his servant.
Category: War and Defence
The following interview on 2GB indirectly makes a pretty strong case for the head of the Australian War Memorial Brendan Nelson to resign.
Looks like the War Memorial is run by the pro-ALP anti-God brigade.
THE Australian War Memorial has abandoned a proposal to remove the words “known unto God” from the Tomb of the Australian Unknown Soldier after the personal intervention of Tony Abbott. The memorial’s governing council decided at its meeting in August to replace two inscriptions on the tomb at the Canberra memorial with words from a speech by Paul Keating.
Seriously, the entire council should be sacked, including none other than Australia’s leading anti-Christian bigot Peter Fitzsimons and the rank fool Brendan Nelson. I’m not certain the council can be trusted to run the AWM now that it has been revealed that they place Paul Keating above God.
To replace an inscription chosen by men and women who lived and fought in the Great War with the words of a living political figure, however, and a controversial one at that, is a frightening act of hubris that politicises our most sacred memorial…
I think this example is symbolic of how the tax-payer funded political left want to replace religious belief, the Constitution and the Monarchy with their own heroes.
I find it amazing that Rudd is considering leaving the election campaign to go to the G20 conference to talk about Syria. Maybe he realises that he is going to lose the election and so might as well have one final overseas junket?
In any case, I don’t think launching a few missiles into Syria is going to stop anyone from using chemical weapons. Let’s face it, Syria is on the other side of the planet; we have no connection whatsoever to Syria; our Navy does not have long range cruise missiles and we are not about to send over a squadron of Hornets with their JASSMs. So from Australia’s perspective, as horrible as the situation is, Syria is basically a non-issue. There is nothing we can or are prepared to do other than talk.
I’ve never seen a Tony Abbott post receive so many ‘likes’ so quickly.
Is the apparent type of indiscriminate surveillance undertaken by the USA (presumably Australia as well) of its own law abiding citizens right? Seems to me that the same arguments made against WikiLeaks could be made against the N – S – A.
In the fanatically puritanical view of WikiLeaks, no one and no organization should have anything to hide. It is scarcely worth arguing against such a childish view of life…….
The dissolution of the distinction between the private and public spheres was one of the great aims of totalitarianism. Opening and reading other people’s e-mails is not different in principle from opening and reading other people’s letters. In effect, WikiLeaks has assumed the role of censor to the world, a role that requires an astonishing moral grandiosity and arrogance to have assumed. Even if some evils are exposed by it, or some necessary truths aired, the end does not justify the means.
Video here for more argument.
Even if you are against Snowden, do you really want a government contractor / official like Snowden going through your private details?
A pattern of cover up
Up to 35 CIA operatives were working in the city during the attack last September on the US consulate that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, according to CNN.
Apparently they were running guns, or something….
Interesting analysis on Snowden
If you want to understand the difference between the two kinds of ‘conservatives,’ take a look at the debate over Edward Snowden, a contract employee at the US National Security Agency…..Mr Snowden has exposed the kind of secret surveillance on American citizens which the US Constitution forbids. The man is a hero. The ones who ought to be facing prosecution in all this are the members of the administration who are running the illegal surveillance. The one who ought to be facing impeachment is President Obama for sanctioning the snooping, which is in contravention of the fourth amendment to the Constitution which he swore to uphold.
………….The fourth amendment of the ten first amendments known as the Bill of Rights says: ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’
What this means is that there is a requirement for search warrants when any public authority wants to search individuals or their houses, or to seize any property in connection with an investigation. No law-makers have the right to over-ride this constitutional protection: the US Senate and House of Representatives are not the House of Commons.
It is not Edward Snowden who……..‘disdains allegiance to the rule of national law.’ It is President Obama and his top security officials.
Former Chief of Navy Chris Ritchie speaking last week to the ABC’s Tony Eastley about turning the boats back:
it’s a legitimate Navy operation. It’s something that Navy’s have done over centuries. And in that sense, if the government gives a direction to do it, then Navy people will do it and they’ll do it well.
TONY EASTLEY: Why did the practice stop when it did?
CHIRS RITCHIE: No more boats came.
TONY EASTLEY: None at all?
CHIRS RITCHIE: None at all. None at all.
TONY EASTLEY: If that same model of returning boats was to be re-instituted today, do you think it would still work?
CHIRS RITCHIE: If the conditions were replicated, it could still work.
I don’t think anyone in the press picked up on this, let alone the morning ‘news’ programmes.
Following Abbott’s Islamic apologetic comments – from just today. This may be going out on a limb, but I don’t think Tony Abbott is the real deal. I know he wants to avoid controversy in the lead up to the election, but how can anyone explain away his weak comments on Islam? He seems desperate to appease ABC-types. Remember how Abbott threw Cory Bernardi under the bus?
Palestine has been offered state hood four times – never by any Middle East country – and has rejected the offer every time. Palestine has also refused to recognise Israel’s right to exist.
So it is not entirely clear why the ALP would choose for Australia to abstain from a vote on granting Palestine ‘non-member observer state’ status at the UN. Australia has never done so before. Clearly the far left are now running the ALP.
WSJ, Alan Dershowitz :
Rather than condemn this pervasive violence, the U.N. has done everything in its power to reward it, including devoting special agencies entirely to Palestinians and their cause. Meanwhile, the U.N. and the international community have given the cold shoulder to Tibetans, Kurds and other stateless groups that have not used terrorism as their primary means of achieving recognition and statehood.
Yet the case for Palestinian statehood is far weaker because the Palestinians have been offered statehood on numerous occasions—1938, 1948, 2001 and 2007. On each occasion the Palestinian leadership has rejected the offer, choosing the gun and the bomb instead.
Hundreds of rockets fired into Israel in 2012, and counting.
All major Israeli political parties support a two-state solution and have done so for a long time. Hamas do not and you may as well add the ALP to that list as well.