Government seeks jail for nonviolent peace protestors

I wrote a piece on this blog last year about four Australian peace protestors being put on trial for entering the Pine Gap intelligence facility as part of a nonviolent protest (which I note attracted a much larger than usual number of comments from readers). Even though many people have been charged over the years with basic trespass offences as part of protests at Pine Gap, this time the federal government chose to charge them for unlawfully entering a prohibited area under the cold war era Defence (Special Undertakings) Act of 1952 – the first people ever to be charged under this law.

The trial of this group has been going on in Alice Springs for the last two weeks. Read this website for commentary on the trial process from the defendants and their supporters. Today the jury returned a verdict of guilty. It appears they had little other choice, given the full admissions by the four protestors and no defence being available to them under the law.

Sentencing occurs tomorrow (Friday) around midday. As no one has ever been charged before under this Act, there is no precedent for sentencing, but the offences allow sentences of up to seven years. The Judge noted that many other protestors who had been found guilt of trespass in the past had received fines. However, the prosecution, under direction from the Australian government, urged the Judge to give a jail sentence to the protestors.

I suppose the government will try to tell us they are protecting us from terrorism by urging a Court to give a jail sentence to peace protestors who are obviously nonviolent and were completely open about their intent and actions.

It is interesting to contrast the guilty verdict in this trial, where the four defendants simply entered the facility and in some cases took photograps of themselves, with trials of similar nonviolent peace protests elsewhere.

Last month in the UK two British peace activists charged with conspiring to cause criminal damage at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire on 18 March 2003 when they tried to safely disable US B52 bombers to prevent them from bombing Iraq received a unanimous not guilty verdict after two trials. This site has plenty of details.

Last year in Ireland, five protestors who entered the Shannon airforce base near Dublin in 2003 and disabled a US warplane which was refuelling on its way to Iraq were all found not guilty after three trials.

UPDATE: The judge decided to impose a sentence of fines for the four people totalling $3250.

UPDATE II – 22 Feb, 2008. A full bench of the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the convictions, ruling there had been a miscarraige of justice in the original trial.

Like & share:


  1. Yes!Pine Gap has worried me for years and years,and really anything to do with it has to be highly suspect as far as Australian citizens rights are concerned.I notice in the website you put up the lawyers for the various government departments..and the easily acceptable opinion of one as being patronising..shades of Ruddock too I dont have to suspect..where would we be without these QCs !?I will try not to let my anger spill over,because the manifestation of a stronger charge against Christians seems somewhat strange given in my memory Maoists and other varieties of the Left have been strung up by cowardly Government.I also noticed visiting the ABC site enriched uranium,done behind the back of that government in power.Whose facilities were they using,and was it with taxpayer supported salaries and facilities!? They should be given the court treatment as a matter of course,rather than a matter of political debate. Seeing a Pakistani person was also selling knowledge and has been considered a criminal.These scientists acted outside the constraints of their employment where secrecy provisions existed.These people as scientists acted with a contempt of a democratically elected justification is warranted.They have confessed to stir us up..I am ready!?

  2. The jury in this trial had all the power of any jury in Australia. They had, and all juries have, the power to make any decision irrespective of how the defendant pleads, what evidence is presented or how the judge may direct. Perhaps someone should tell our juries this rather than the nonsense that appears on government websites about this issue. The power in juries is, after all, the power of the people.

  3. i think well intende left need to get their act together. should ‘peace’ protesters who access secret sites, as opposed to sacred site, be punished?

    well, in this case i would not punish.

    however, i defend the right of the gov to have secrets that are within boundaries set by our high courts – i HATE the idea of ANY gov having the right to do what ever they like, via say security agencies such as cia/kgb/asio etc…, without some sort of checks & balances.

    so, protesters should stick to FAIR process & keep their protests within a general frame work of fair protest.

    these people give the left a bad name under a banner of justice – this is fluff often paraded by hysterical greenies & other people with FUZZ for brains.

    it is about time that the left got its act together, u extreme acts are NOT working, nor will they ever work.

    i have no problem with secrets at pine gap or any other security installation in oz AS LONG AS OZ HAS COMPLETE ACCESS TO ALL INFO & ACTIONS TAKEN @ THE INSTALLATION.

  4. Is post at number three what is happening to Australians!? My masculinity isnt served by a whole lot of overpaid lawyers protecting secrets,whilst the boundary fence isnt.The SMH has an article on what is happening for the APEC conference,and another on Houston our top military man. I do not want to judge anyones character,until it is necessary and factual.I have my own sense of cowardice to worry about rather than those who would claim without proper analysis, allowing secrets of government- is like being open-minded.

  5. As a “constitutionalist” I have a justified concern that the trial the 4 Defendants were subjected to was not a FAIR and PROPER trial, this I can state without even knowing the details of the trial.
    Some years ago, I was called up for jury duty, and was directed with other to watch a video setting out the rights and duties of a juror in a trial. Afterwards I spoke to the organiser and explained that there was an omission to advise the jurors that they can apply NULLIFICATION, as this is embedded in the Constitution. Juries had the right to nullify commonwealth law if they held it so desirable. That is why any citizen accused of breach of Commonwealth law must have the case heard before a State Court!
    Well, I was subsequently excused from jury duty and never again called up.

    What we have is that judges conceal from jurors their right to find a person NOT GUILTY even so the Defendant in every way is considered GUILTY where the jurors hold it to be unreasonable to hand down a conviction. Indeed, magistrates do so time and again, but generally where some rich bloke is speeding 180 kilometres as the poor guy exceeding the limit by 3 kilometres will be harshly dealt with.

    I do not support the breach of law by anyone but accept that at times the law can be an a.. and can be unreasonable and then in the circumstances the accused may be excused for having been in breach of law.

    Where we have a Federal Government supposingly acting on behalf of the people then there ought to be no secrets in that regard.
    While the issue of national security may be justified if there was an attempt to cause damage to any installation that could then jeopardise the safety and well being of the general community, however if this was not the aim of the protesters, but their issue was to expose what they perceived a wrongdoing then the jurors should have been allowed to apply JURY NULLIFICATION.

  6. Just that judges conceal from jurors that right and so from onset the Defendants are denied a FAIR and PROPER trial.

    If just judges were more aware as to the constitutional framework providing for NULLIFICATION we might just get a fairer system.
    Jurors who are denied their right of NULLIFICATION cannot be blamed then for being forced to hand down a GUILTY finding!
    I would welcome any Senator who would take up this cause of NULLIFICATION being embedded in the constitution as part of the legal processes in regard of any person accused of breach of Commonwealth law.
    And, why was the trial held in the Northern Territory in the first place I wonder? For so far constitutionally the trial should be held in the State where the offenders reside, where possible.

  7. I want to know when these “peace activists” will be travelling to Iran to protest its development of nuclear weapons.

    I suspect the answer is “never”.

    They are not, and never have been, peace activists. They are egotists who simply hate the democratic countries of the world, and use the very freedoms afforded them to attack those countries. You will never find one of these hypocrites protesting against the violence of an oppressive regime.

    They are cowards and vandals, and should be treated as such by the courts.

  8. Pingback: Jury Experiences
  9. I thought the protestors were protesting against Pine Gap and then found themselves being prosecuted by a whole bevy of interests,thus leaving open the question how many legal prosecuting interests can sit and judge others on the basis of being inside a restricted area. Australians were protesting..other matters obviously exist besides what the Dr. has to say. Evil Pundit is surely a person who can judge character,the bravery he expresses,like mine in word form, means… he is surely the most honorable person to react with words, we have ever seen in Australia!?! And everyone believes that Evil Pundit!? Everyone! Now how is your military career spanning out!?

  10. Hi Andrew and gang,

    I’m back home at last and processing the trial which took an intense 12 days of hearings.

    We were four unrepresented peaceniks, and at different times the Crown and the Commonwealth had nine lawyers in Court whose principle job was to limit what was allowed to be said.

    Public Interest Immunity for purposes of national security meant nothing could be said about the functions of Pine Gap. Parliamentary Privilege meant nothing could be said about anything said in Parliament. (Not even answers to questions on notice)

    Our defences were attacked three times unsuccessfully before they were finally knocked out.

    The senior Australian official at Pine Gap, Mike Burgess, attended Court all day for the full 12 days.

    I guess you can say we got their attention. When we couldn’t call our expert witness (Prof Richard Tanter), we put on a mock Court so he give his evidence to the public. Pine Gap collects intelligence for war-fighting in Iraq, in real time, and distributes it via the military equivalent of the internet. US Commanders do with it as they will.

    Check out SIPRNET for the way intelligence is used

  11. You’re a true champion! I wish I had the guts to take a stand on the things I believed in. It’s people like you and Ruth Russell that really help make the world a better place in the long run.

  12. We all exercise one way or another our democratic right to protest. I may not always agree with what people are protesting about but recognise there is a time and place when this might be needed. Without it Governments can severely abuse their powers unchecked.
    Sure, I am not a person who goes about protesting, as I rather use my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series to do s, however we are all different and so I recognise the different manner of protest.
    Andrew in his way uses the blog to cast his protest against certain matters by presenting to us what he deems unfair/inappropriate and/or whatever.
    Usually when someone protest it may harm another, in some form of another.
    When you are the person being harmed, being it due to a traffic stoppage or otherwise you usually will complain but the harm of a traffic stoppage might be considerable less important then the long term harm that might flow if the protesters had not protested and something went on unchecked.
    People protested in the millions against the armed invasion into Iraq, while I did not participate as such I lodged with the High Court of Australia for writs against the Federal Government only to have the judges refusing it to proceed! As such, the Court rather then to appropriately deal with the matters upon their MERITS rather sought to shield the Federal Government for its unconstitutional conduct. Still, I do not go onto streets to protest but rather exposes this in my books presenting all the material.
    I do however recognise that many would not desire to follow this path and rather use the body count to make up numbers to protest. At times it work and often it doesn’t.
    At times John Howard makes clear that he does regardless what the people desire, so to say, as he knows better and other times he plays the game that the people oppose something and so he listen to them. Well more likely because politically it suits him better.
    Let the Courts ultimately decide if a protest is acceptable or not.

  13. I caught some of the interview with another of the protesters on ABC’s The National Interest today, neither the transcript or audio have been posted yet.

    My interest was aroused by the to and fro with Peter Meares relating to democratic norms and accountability. Chalmers Johnson argues there is a stark choice: Empire or democracy. By Empire he means the network of US bases around the world in excess of seven hundred installations of various kinds.

    We would be foolish to think that the Empire respects Australian democracy, which puts the Governments response to this protest in a more sinister light, but one consistent with their other behavior, such as support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and in all probability a nuclear attack on Iran, although as far I know, there have been no denials about the latter.

  14. What disappoints me about the Dr. above is his willingness to describe his own actions as somewhat emphatically different,with a higher or more pronounced reasoning to anyone that may for example,stop or slow the traffic..a higher calling if you like.Well if he states what he has stated here that is in his stop is class action suits…. employing Slater and Gordon. I am not willing to let this man consider himself some sort of leader until he has success with what he considers is a higher moment of reasoning.As a person who has stood in front of a parliament house with a large Police presence and a peaceful protest ensuing with Bill Hayden a fine man addressing the crowd,the other problem with the Dr. prescription for the ills that beset the land,even at protests, is a development that,by court ruling,doesnt express the Good Will of the protestors. At the demonstration I was involved in mentioned, and, other peaceful ones,the Police were so happy they were Peaceful.And I know why. They really do know how these things can end up.A protest way out in the Northern Territory with some pre-planning and prior warning can not honestly be considered a protest like the one I mentioned where, to see the Police happy was a win in itself.Personally I cannot accept his implied characterisations of others and himself as having great intellectual rigor.Up until recently I have heard Police say the right to protest was basically O.K.,what the protestors in the Northern Territory did was extend such inside a property border with warning signs,and you dont have to consider yourself fair minded, to avail a sense of the protest being, the legitimacy of the property and its purpose.Therein lies the rub ,for those who think that only these type of protest can achieve a distinct change for the good.

  15. EP, you are a piece of work. Name the last time a peace protestor dropped bombs on people or blew up their homes, their churches, their mosques or their synagogues?

    Give us a break from your bile please.

    Iran is not breaking the law no matter how often people bleat about them so why would anyone be going there? Are we at war at Iran and haven’t been told yet?

    Thankfully the people got small fines and had to help repair the fence but to charge them under a 1950 act that has never been used before in the name of Philip Ruddock’s raving paranoia takes things just a wee bit too far.

    Also since when did parliamentary debate become taboo in court cases – the government use it all the time and the courts use it all the time to interpret the law. What sort of precious lunacy is this now?

  16. Bryan – you shouild put in a desperate call to the good Dr and Mr Constitutioanist, to be your defence team. That is of ocurse if you actually wnat to be defended whcih probalby isnt the case.

  17. the ‘right’ to protest does not exist.

    the government allows you to protest when they feel it doesn’t inconvenience them. when it does, they attempt to dissuade protest with various levels of sanction, from light fines to incarceration without trial.

    what you do have is the possibility of protest. this possibility is being eroded by sedition laws, and on a deeper level, by the sort of mind control that orwell called doublethink and newspeak. a society that calls australia a democracy is rather more than halfway to ‘leash-trained’.

  18. Hi Bryan and crew. Great work! I went to Pine Gap to the women’s meet in 1983 at the prompting of my inner voice. My colleague founder of Move for Peace, and I, had received a vision simultaneously about the future of Pine Gap. This was my first action as a peace activist so halfway there, buzzing along on the bus from Brisbane, I inquired within. “What the heck am I doing on this bus?” My answer… “This cavalcade is of Me whether they know it or not.” I believe we are all divinely guided and out of injustice, justice is born. Which is what is happening right now. Courage to you all on the road. Peace.

  19. I’m still waiting to hear when these “peace protesters” are going to protest against Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

  20. How do you know they are not protesting Iran’s nuclear weapons program (assuming there is one)?

    There are many things to protest in the world and many ways in which to do so.

    And if they hate democracy so much, why do you think they are still in Australia. Perhaps they are undermining our extremely fragile system of government which has only lasted … a few hundred years now.

  21. Philip Travers to clarify, perhaps you misconceived what I stated. I hold it that people have a right to protest in what they belief in but ultimately there has to be an umpire and this ought to be the Courts. Regardless of it ills it is the best system we have at the moment.
    If the Court (preferable judge and jury) were to adjudicate that the protest was in its view reasonable, even so technically unlawful (as there are to many draconic laws existing) then so be it.
    Protesters must be aware that they cannot disrupt other peoples lives willy nilly without an appropriate punishment if they are deemed to have wrongly acted, where as protesters found to have acted in the interest of the general public (regardless if it was unlawful as a technical breach of the legislation) are let off.
    Someone has to adjudicate protesters if it goes out of hand, while protesters who might be a mere annoyance (say temporary traffic stoppage) should be allowed to cast their democratic views.
    We all pursue our beliefs in our own ways, and while I do not feel the urge to add to a body count of a protest march, I did not in any way seek to denounce those protesting. My way, and many others, are different.
    Currently, the Federal Government seeks to clamp down on journalistic freedom to refrain from mentioning their informers identity. I rather support the journalist to do so then having a judge having to make a decision bound by law to force the journalist to reveal the identity. More then likely the Federal Governments real intention is to discover the identity of a wissleblower then any real concern otherwise. The wissleblower in his/her way is a protester!
    Like Andrew Wilkes was, a man I respect for this.
    Without protesters we would be even more worse off then we already are!
    Look at the SIEV X -and the people who drowned- and not enough protest about this, at least I use this on every letterhead to expose it. My way to keep alive my kind of protest about this human tragedy!

  22. I’m still waiting to hear when these “peace protesters” are going to protest against Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

    There isn’t one. Iran is enriching uranium for domestic purposes. It is thought that they would be 10 years away from producing nuclear weapons, if in fact, they even wish to do so.

    How come it’s OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons and not others anyway? Shouldn’t other countries under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, be nuclear free – India, Pakistan and Israel, for example. What pressure is put upon those countries to disarm?

  23. I’m asking what they’re doing to protest Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

    All I get in return is abuse, denial and attempts to change the subject. I can only conclude that this is because the so-called peace protesters are not doing anything about Iran’s nuclear armament development.

    This is because they are not really peace protesters. What they are is Australia-haters and America-haters. They only protest our military, not that of ourt enemies.

    This is not peace protest — it is taking sides in a conflict. They have chosen to side with totalitarianism and terrorism against democracy and freedom.

  24. EP. I did not abuse you, change the subject or deny anything.

    You seem certain that they aren’t doing something of which you have no proof that:
    a) the program exists
    b) that these people aren’t protesting.

    Unless you know them or what they’re doing better, I’d suggest you make more constructive arguments.

  25. Muzz, I know they’re not protesting Iran’s nuclear weapons program because I’ve been asking in this thread, and have received no positive answer.

    As for what Iran is doing, Google is your friend. I’m not going to rehash that whole issue here. It’s just one example of hypocrisy.

    These people aren’t protesting against Iran’s conventional weapons either, nor those of Hamas or the genocidalists in Sudan. They only protest against democracies, and only when they are sure of their personal safety.

    Not idealists or pacifists, but cowards and egotists.

  26. EP
    I am sure we can all sleep at night knowing that you as: a) a staunch defender of the rights of democratic governments and b) not a coward nor egotist will be protesting in Iran for all of us. Thank you!

  27. i must admit, most of the time EP seems to make rash generalizations, without facts that can be either rejected or confirmed.

    still, for the most pART, i defend the RIGHT of ep to make the statements that he/she does.

    is iran building a ‘bomb’? probably, due to the fact that the usa, & by implicit consent other states, have made direct threats against iran & against the theocracy that dominates daily life.

    could iran be a democracy? is it best for them, the government, to have ‘free & fair elections’?

    democracy is an ideal, NOT attained by any state, world wide. thus, before u start throwing the idea of democracy around, u had better find a state where democracy exists in practice?

    this web-site has some of the features of democracy & also show HOW easy it is for democracy to be subverted. if there are difs in info, data or dominant ideas that serve as axioms for u mode of REASON, then debate could keep going on with out any end.

    debate shapes our views of the world IFF we listen; it would appear that we listen in a selective or biased way.

    i think maybe that ep is either acting as the devils advocate [i.e., taking opposite views for ‘sport’], OR has a hidden set of axioms that drive ep’s views as given.

    there does not appear to be ANY doubt in the views of ep, thus debate is of NO VALUE to this web-site i.e., a lot like a religous fundamentalist – there is simply no value in debate between people who KNOW their view is TRUTH & people whose views are subject to doubt. this state of affairs is often the product of attachment to a given set of views stated in the past; academics do this sort of thing all the time; esp’ in the social sciences & to a lesser extent in the physical sciences.

    the key issue in the physical sciences is that once a theory becomes dominant, there is a mountain of tech fluff that must be demolished BEFORE any new model can get a toe-hold i.e., physical sciences, such as physics, become very much like a ‘religion’

  28. I do see your general disdain of all things expert or academic Dctor but generally no matter how hard you might wish for an aletrnative path to truth if you drop a bowling ball above your toe its going to be sore – howver granted you are onyl sore becasue you know your sore.

  29. Actually EP, google isn’t my friend – not since I learned that they (and Yahoo) assisted Chinese authorities track down dissidents.

    My single protest of not using a single search engine might not be much in my way of protest – but I do what I can where I am.

  30. I personally have no respect for peace protestors interfering with machinery or weapons, or being in places they know they have to stay out of.

    I think they should all go to jail for the protection of national security, and to deter others from engaging in similar acts of treason.

    It seems our government has more common sense in this regard than the British or Irish.

  31. doctor victor kacala:

    Then when are you going to help to demolish the mountain of “tech fluff” that has been heaped on the myth of “man made” global warming???

    In this instance, I think EP’s opinions are based on a set of LAWS, not a set of VIEWS.

    His questions about Iran are quite valid, maybe even important.

    We seem to be living in an era where people think their individual views/actions ought to outweigh and override the laws/safety of the country/state.

    I don’t agree with the idea of “legalised individualism” which seems to pervade our society these days – turning a blind eye to wrongdoing, and sticking up for the wrong people.

  32. Well i for one really believe in the voltaire principle of supporting the right of others to protest even when you disagree with them.
    However i also expect intellectual honesty in those who may not share my views.
    Something i do not see a lot of i must say.
    Regarding Pine Gap i see it as i have always seen it, a us installation with enormous intelligence gathering potential for this nation
    to share.
    Frankly if we ourselves now have the technological capability to duplicate it then we would do ourselves no harm in building our own, to ensure complete access if nothing else.
    Regarding protests my caveat is that protests should be conducted in a lawful manner.
    Break this rule and i support conviction and punishment.
    Break this rule over an installation that is essential to australias defence, and i would be happy to long gaol sentances and a flogging or two if it was done deliberatly and not accidentally.
    You may think this is harsh but, i remember well
    the 1960s and 1970s and the ease with which the enemies of this country manipulated the gullible of our nation to act in the best interests of our enemies, and in a manner that was clearly treasonous, and against the best interests of Australia.
    Those times proved that you cannot assume reason, goodwill, common sense or even an understanding of the real issues amongst those who protest, this includes issues of any sort but particuarly those surrounding defence,
    where the kgb and its chinese equivalent still have enormous influence amongst a particular segement of our society.
    Accordingly to deny this “Fifth Column” another easy victory i support harsh punishment for those who breach the rules regarding defence protests.
    Not because i disagree with them (though i often do)
    But because without harsh penalties they will
    rapidly and reguarly breach their lawful boundaries, and by doing so become “a cause celeb” and swell in number simply because of the “Bandwagon Effect”.
    More to follow

  33. As stated above i have never seen a peace protest issue which would ever result in peace.
    If god forbid they were successful.
    In fact peace movements in the west have always been working to advantage the enemies of our and other western nations,against us, even if many of their members were too ignorent to realise they were simply being used.
    If you doubt this there are now many comprehensive studies published on the penetration funding and control exercised by the soviets and other warsaw pact countries on the intellectual left and various peace movements, and their use of these movements as pawns in order to try to advantage themselves militarially in the cold war, based on stasi and kgb documents released after the wall came down.
    The war by the way is not over it has simply exchanged one major player for another.
    Its currently on low simmer but watch what happens after the Bejing olympics.
    How many would consider painting the opera house red if the result was a hundred lash flogging ?
    It is harsh but failure to set firm guidelines results in total loss of control and this has dire political consequences.
    Better the guilty suffer.
    Including the loss of winnable wars.
    Consider this, how many peace protesters are more than happy to break any civil law you care to name even treason on a regular basis.
    But scream blue murder if the authorities breach even minor laws in their treatment of them.
    we allow such double standards at our long term
    Lawful dissent is our right and must be encouraged, even if i disagree with you, i will always try to see your side of things.
    I am after all not always right, and i do not
    always have all the facts.

    But all too often since the 1960s what we see is not genuine dissent, with a rational backing of personal analysis , real personal research on the issue and an underlying intellectual process.
    Its usually sophistry or someone elses propaganda designed to advantage this nations enemies against us.

  34. let me give u a quote that puts the above in a proper social context – this is more about science rather than engineers who do stuff i.e., make stuff that works.

    it is very hard to ‘kill’ a dominant set of ideas: see “the Prince” by the master blaster from the past.

    This is a quote from Bryan Magee, “Popper”, 1978, Fortune:

    p41 “The point has been made that at any given time the over-whelming majority of scientists are not trying to overthrow the prevailing orthodoxy at all but are working happily in it.”

    this is the issue for social & physical sciences, especially social sciences such as psychO, sociology, economics AND so on…

    it is extremely hard in the social sciences to prove some thing is fluff using fluff as a substitute; physical sciences do have at least some hope of dis-prove by an alternative that has evidence using physical evidence, that may be in fact ‘invented’.

    thus, in large measure, social sciences can neither be proved or dis-proved AND so nothing ever changes e.g., psyho-analysis in psyh is one of the biggest cons ever perpetrated on the human species [an HUGE disaster in the area of education]. Getting education gurus to admit they ‘got it wrong’ is a near impossible task, given that many build their social status, power base and income on this drivel.

    so, since pollies have kids & are not often pysho people, then pollies will take decisive action to save THEIR kids, and so other kids also. in fact, there are large numbers of lawyers [not every one’s cup of coffee or tea] who slide and slip through the alleys of polly power systems, at all levels.

    now i wonder, would these people actually get their act together?

    yes, they have an OVER-whelming REASON :=: THEIR kids and as an after-think, every one else’s kids.

  35. To all who support the peace movement ideals in austraila.
    Consider this, the peace movement in a practical sense (whilst quietly mouthing platitudes about bilateral actions)has always demanded various levels of unilateral disarmerment in this country, usually by supporting actions and policys that would deny the US the advantages they recieve in our bilateral military political relationship.
    Now consider if you will since the 1950s, which overseas countries these unilateral actions would benifit.
    How many of them are real functioning democracies ?, and how many are our friends ? and how many enemies ? (or potentially so under the enemy of my friend, is my enemy principle)
    I think you will find that an honest appraisal(conducted with some basic knowledge of international affairs)
    would reveal that the benificiaries are almost
    always our enemies.
    The reason for that, is that they are setting the agenda for you to use,
    weather you realise it or not.
    I bet that most peace protesters know nothing of chinas huge current investment in hi tech weaponry, or there purchase of second hand strike aircraft from russia speficially to be able to carry out nuclear or conventional strikes against second line island chains to use their terminology.
    That means australia if you had not realised.
    They are rapidly building a capability to project military power overseas and we are not just talking Taiwan here.
    They bought an unfinished russian carrier some years ago to use officially as a floating casino at Macau, of course it simply sat for a few years in a naval dockyard in china and is now being completed and fitted out as an aircraft carrier of which will operate su27/30/33 fighter bombers which are vastly better in almost every respect to even the f18f superhornets which we will recieve prior to the f35.
    China is building a huge military force with up to date equipment,i believe in the hope that it can absorb Taiwan ( a real democracy as opposed to china)

  36. many academics are closed into a small circle of people with whom they associate – of course, this is also true of other groups such as teachers.

    i am very familiar with the route to guru status in academia; editors of journals promote views that are consistent with their own guru status. one a ‘theory’ or paradigm gets well-entrenched it is almost impossible to get any real innovation.

    it can take a LONG time to become labelled an expert in any area of academia – it is also a VERY political process, with all the flaws of any polly process.

    i have already demolished the tech fluff on two web-sites – i have tested modules of my systems in the public domain [via three treasury management systems that were stolen, such as ZERO].

    in fact, i often hear rantings by academics who do NOT want to admit that all those years were for zero – including math & physics tech heads.

    of course, i challenged any & all ‘expert’ in a PRIVATE & then PUBLIC way.

    why not attach what i have in the public domain?

    my email is

    are u up to the task?

    i do NOT care how many phds u got or how many in your team – u will get carved up.

    in a simple & direct way, IN PUBLIC.

    want to bet?

  37. doctor victor kacala:

    You certainly are a confident man, but I’m very much in agreement with most of your thoughts in posts #35 and #37.

    Peter Jones, post #36:

    Bravo again, for some common sense!

  38. coral, in order for gurus to listen, they need a little humbe pie. i have no such problem, as i have a truck load, that i am happy to share with a guru or three of any cut.

    einstein comes in for some savage criticism by myself, in a clear and decisive fashion.

    am i confident? yes. i am confident i am wrong & right.

    confident is not the same thing as arrogant:

    arrogant people do NOT listen to any one EXCEPT other gurus i.e., i have to ‘out-guru’ the guru[s]. i am very critical of academics [NOT all].

    one hero for me is gian carlo-rota, a math tech who worked with the greatest intuitive genius of the 20th century [it was s. ulam who did the basic calc’s for the a-bomb].

    rota wrote two books that i read with great interest on ‘science’ & mind & the future: see “discrete thoughts” & in-discrete thought”, these books are a great insight into a really exceptional mind.

    wrt ulam, i make reference to his ‘optimal line segments’ story in my global system of justice teck spec’. i am not worried that any one will steal this stuff because i know HOW i found it could be used on the buffon-laplace global grid of justice.

    first PUNCH wins in IP, and i am acutely aware of the role that PATENTS play in the hegemony of global corps [whom i hate with a passion – i think of them as global merchants of genocide, via false claims of “rights” over ideas & systems that they steal from their creators].

Comments are closed.