OZ Army: Shoot to Kill

[Catherine Driscoll]

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?
>
>Tom