OZ Army: Shoot to Kill

Catherine Driscoll catherine.driscoll at adelaide.edu.au
Wed Aug 23 19:50:21 PDT 2000

I understand this to have been framed directly in relation to the threat of terrorism at the olympics. I recall that they have phrased this as the threat of 'domestic violence' -- which I find additionally disturbing. But the whole thing is a terrifying proposition, also made worse by complaints from the police that the army shouldn't be allowed this 'right' because they have performed badly in simulated contexts involving civilians. Apparently they kill lots of the wrong ones. If in fact they are much worse than the police in this regard we can only imagine it must off the scale bad performance. Also, while it is clearly addressed to the olympic scenario there is no so-called 'sunset clause'. We're stuck with it forever (or whatever the political equivalent of forever is). Embarrassingly I'm not sure if this legislation has been passed yet, but I discerned a depressing absence of violent objections to it amongst the opposition parties/members. This vague and general sense is the best I can do. Hopefully others can do better but I've been out of the country a lot lately. Catherine

At 16:16 23/08/00 -0400, you wrote:
>On the union hard-head list we have been talking about a Shoot to Kill
>order given to the Australian Army recently. This order was given in
>relation to labor disputes and civil disturbances.
>Anyone want to enlighten us in the USA about this order?
>How often is the regular Australian Army used for this type of stuff?

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list