10,000 protest against mining outside Parliament
by staff report via stan 2012-04-30 21:30:22

Up to 10,000 people from across the state are staging a noisy rally outside NSW Parliament today, calling for tougher restrictions on coal and coal seam gas mining [Fracking.]

The Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner was shouted at and booed as he tried to reassure the angry crowd the state government would protect agricultural land.

A broad coalition of farmers, rural residents, environmentalists and other activists marched on the Parliament at lunchtime today, banging drums and chanting "country and city united we stand, protect our water, protect our land".

President of the NSW Farmers Association Fiona Simpson told the crowd her group felt betrayed by the state government's proposed guidelines for balancing mining and farming interests, saying it was not what they were promised before the election.

"The draft policy falls far short of what we agreed on, and what the community was promised," she said.

The crowd includes members of the Country Women's Association, officially joining a march for the first time in the organisation's 90-year history.

"This is much more than tea and scones," said president Elaine Armstrong.

Rural and regional residents came from across the state, including the Hunter, Illawarra, Northern Rivers, Central West.

Muswellbrook mayor Martin Rush called on National MPs to "stand tall" and listen to their rural constituents.

"If that means entering into a dispute with your Coalition partners then that is what you ought to do," he said.

Mr Stoner, leader of the NSW Nationals, was last to address the rally and was booed throughout.

"The government is listening to each and every one of you," he said.

As he tried to speak over the melee, Mr Stoner engaged in a short verbal stoush with an angry protester at the front of the stage.

"Shut your mouth mate," he said to more booing.

Other MPs from the Coalition, Labor and the Greens were present at the rally.

AAP reports: Ms Simson accused the government of trying to discredit the diverse group of protesters and said it was far too big an issue to play politics.

"I am not sure what Macquarie Street was thinking they would see out their windows and into this crowd," Ms Simson said.

"But I am telling you what I see is mothers and fathers and women and men and families and country people and city people - all have put their differences aside to come today to rally to protect our land and our water."

Cattle and wheat farmer Victoria Hamilton said her livelihood would be ruined if coal seam gas mining was allowed near her farm in Wee Waa.

"Our son is fifth generation, 30 years old and wants a future," she told AAP.

"If this comes on to our place we won't have a future."

Natrisha Parish - a wheat and barley farmer from Liverpool Plains, in the north-western slopes of NSW - said the state government's draft plan would leave nothing sacred from coal seam gas mining.

She said she feared for the future and health of her two teenage children, who also marched in protest.

"It's very concerning for future generations and for our water, food and our security," Ms Parish said.

© 2012 Fairfax Media
http://tinyurl.com/724vu2q

glad you read it, Barack
by sysadmin 2012-05-01 06:45:55

And to confirm; Drone strikes over sovereign air space are ILLEGAL and furthermore such an imprecise strike weapon -- MISSILES -- carries with it 'collateral damage/civilian death tolls by consequence.

Imagine if you will, a tight family photo group of you and your family -- sniper cross-hairs converge between YOUR stinking eyes -- that is a precision strike by a skilled operator; it takes you out alone from a tight group. That is LEGAL warfare -- sloppy imprecise Drone missile strikes are CRIMINAL by nature, you traitorous, child killing bastard.

Now ask your fifth rate security agencies to figure how we knew you read the above piece -- you criminal piece of dog shit!

This is Oz talking, cocksucker, suck on that!

Admission of US Drone Strikes Does Nothing to Justify Program’s Legality
by staff report via stan 2012-05-01 07:19:05

President Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, gave a speech in Washington on Monday in which he admitted publicly that the US does, in fact, carry out lethal drone airstrikes in foreign nations with which the United States is not at war. Despite that the drone program has long been an 'open secret,' it was the first formal, public admission made by the administration that the program exists.

Human rights groups, however, were not impressed, as Brennan argued that the clandestine program -- which has killed hundreds of innocent civilians over the last decade -- was "legal", "ethical" and "wise".

“Mr. Brennan supplies legal conclusions, not legal analysis," argued ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer. "We continue to believe that the administration should release the Justice Department memos underlying the program – particularly the memo that authorizes the extrajudicial killing of American terrorism suspects. And the administration should release the evidence it relied on to conclude that an American citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, could be killed without charge, trial, or judicial process of any kind.”

* * *

Inter Press Service: US Government Admits to Drone Attacks

The speech, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, marks the first official public discussion of the U.S.'s highly secretive drones programme. Overseen by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the programme has been stepped up significantly under President Barack Obama.

Brennan's presentation comes amidst a barrage of events marking the one-year anniversary of the death of Osama bin Laden, with President Obama making much of the event as the 2012 presidential campaign heats up. According to Brennan, "President Obama has instructed us to be more open with the American people about … using remotely piloted aircraft."

However, that newfound openness has not included an explanation of how potential drone targets are vetted.

Brennan defended the programme in part because, he said, it targets only those individuals who are known to pose a "significant threat" to the United States and constitute a "legitimate … lawful target".

But he refused to elaborate on how that process of scrutiny takes place. "How we identify an individual naturally involves intelligence sources and methods, which I will not discuss," Brennan said in prepared remarks.

That type of secrecy, say observers, leaves in the dark one of the most central issues at stake in the U.S. drone programme.

"Unfortunately, John Brennan's speech today did little to assure us that the U.S. is only targeting those individuals that are directly participating in hostilities against the United States, perform a continuous combat function with Al Qaeda or its affiliates that are targeting us, or pose an imminent threat of harm to the United States," Daphne Eviatar, a lawyer and researcher with Human Rights First, told IPS.

"Those are the legal requirements for any targeted killing in this context. Brennan, like others in the administration before him, said that the United States is following international law without explaining how it decides whether the individuals or groups of people targeted meet the legal requirements."

On Sunday, Brennan had already made waves by admitting publicly that civilian deaths are an inevitable part of counterterrorism operations. That issue strikes at the heart of much of the criticism that has built up against the U.S. use of armed unmanned aerial vehicles over the past half-decade.

"For a long time, the narrative was that drones were only killing militants," Shazad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer, told an international conference on drone warfare that took place in Washington over the weekend.

In Waziristan, in western Pakistan, he reported, "more than 3,000 people have been killed in 300 drone strikes." Given the lack of independent monitoring, it is unclear what percentage of those people were civilians.

* * *

ACLU National Security Experts Warn Drone Program is Unlawful and Dangerous

In a speech this afternoon at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, John Brennan insisted the targeted strikes are a “wise choice” and “legal” and within the boundaries of international law. However, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said Brennan’s statement did not go far in explaining how the program passed constitutional muster.

“This is an important statement – first because it includes an unambiguous acknowledgement of the targeted killing program and second because it includes the administration’s clearest explanation thus far of the program’s purported legal basis.” Jaffer said.

“But Mr. Brennan supplies legal conclusions, not legal analysis. We continue to believe that the administration should release the Justice Department memos underlying the program – particularly the memo that authorizes the extrajudicial killing of American terrorism suspects. And the administration should release the evidence it relied on to conclude that an American citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, could be killed without charge, trial, or judicial process of any kind.”

Brennan maintained the Obama administration was committed to transparency when it came to deciding who would be subject to lethal drone strikes. But Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, said the program is both unconstitutional and overly broad.

“We continue to believe, based on the information available, that the program itself is not just unlawful but dangerous. This statement makes clear that the administration is treating legal restrictions on the use of force as questions of preference. Moreover, it is dangerous to characterize the entire planet as a battlefield,” Shamsi said.

“It is dangerous to give the President the authority to order the extrajudicial killing of any person – including any American – he believes to be a terrorist. The administration insists that the program is closely supervised, but to propose that a secret deliberation that takes place entirely within the executive branch constitutes ‘due process’ is to strip the Fifth Amendment of its essential meaning.”