Australia: A battle lost in war on terror

The Australian ^ | August 20, 2006

[knighthawk]

Jack Thomas's freedom is a victory for our enemies

THAT Jack Thomas has had his terrorism conviction quashed by a court will please those who wish to see the law used as a weapon in the service of their ideological objections to the national defence effort in the war on terror. But it is a defeat for common sense and Australia's national security. And al-Qa'ida and its allies will interpret it as showing that Australia is intellectually enervated and incapable of understanding how serious the terror threat is. It is easy to argue that the quashing of Mr Thomas's conviction is a triumph for the rule of law, as if this sometime soldier in the armies of Islamic terrorism had no case to answer under the anti-terror laws in the first place. Easy but wrong. For a start, the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeals was based on the way the Australian Federal Police conducted an interview with Mr Thomas in Pakistan. Because he did not have a lawyer representing him when he spoke, and may have only spoken because he hoped talking would be his ticket home, their honours ruled what he said should not have been used as evidence at his trial.

This ruling may be the blackest of black-letter law, but it does not have anything to do with whether Mr Thomas was innocent of the charges he faced of receiving funds from a terrorist organisation and possession of a false passport. And if the Court of Appeal says what he told the AFP has no legal standing to learn what Mr Thomas was up to, all anybody interested need do is read his interview with terrorism expert Sally Neighbour on ABC TV'S Four Corners. Mr Thomas trained with terrorists in Afghanistan. These were not just the bloody bandits who make that country a misery for its people, but the elite troops of terror. He was based at a camp that Osama bin Laden visited, and Mr Thomas met the terror commander's lieutenants. He says he had no intention of undertaking terrorist attacks, but still trained in the use of automatic weapons and explosives. He says he had no intention of serving as a sleeper in Australia until ordered to attack by al-Qa'ida but he admits taking its money. Mr Thomas can say what he likes, but his admissions to the ABC suggest he has a case to answer under terror offences added to the Commonwealth Criminal Code in 2003.

For Mr Thomas to escape justice for his actions is a moral miscarriage, whatever the legal outcome of his case. And it is one that must not be repeated. The AFP, and the intelligence agencies that are also shackled by the obligation to protect the interests of terror suspects while investigations are under way, must learn from this wretched result. The possibility of the sad, mad and outright bad who aspire to serve the cause of terror walking free because of procedural failings during inquiries cannot be countenanced. Just as important, it is essential that all Australians understand the handicaps we face in protecting ourselves against terror when the deterrent of the law is so easily avoided. Mr Thomas decided whose side he was on in the war on terror years ago and he has, for the moment, at least, escaped punishment for his evil allegiance. The decision of the Court of Appeal cannot come to be seen as making a martyr of Mr Thomas. Nor can we afford misfits with mayhem on their mind to conclude from his acquittal that Australia is not committed to its own defence. Jack Thomas betrayed Australia by travelling to Afghanistan to serve the cause of terror. In avoiding punishment for this evil act, he has done it again.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[Valin]

Bump

[GOPJ]

...al-Qa'ida and its allies will interpret it as showing that Australia is intellectually enervated and incapable of understanding how serious the terror threat is.

BINGO