improve visibility for military operations

destruction of essential enemy food supplies.

Attacking civilian food sources is a war crime.

See the problem? And even if I concede all of this, it doesn't get someone closer to the original claims being made, it's just a whataboutism based on a lazy bastardization of the word terrorism.

I don't recall him saying he was an Iraqi, I just know he's a lying campist shill dirtying up the discourse with slopulist slogans and conspiratorial brainrot like they all do. Whether American interventionism is good or not isn't at issue here, it's about whether it's terrorism.

Whatever circumstance of his upbringing have led him to these asinine positions aren't important, I just know that these talking points are destructive nonsense and inevitably function to sweep for actual terrorists who target civilians openly and explicitly like ISIS.

Sounds like a tautology, like the reform can only happen when the economic conditions necessitate it, like no shit.

Also even the article explains that Joe Hockey's tenure saw stupid deficits, so he can shut the fuck up for the rest of time.

Nobody likes to trash populism more than me, but blaming it for increasing spending when you used it to cut taxes is insane.

Conversations about national deficits are always like this, no one wants to talk about taxes so they ratchet down while we juggle spending a million different ways. We need a government brave enough to tell voters to get fucked and raise the tax rate to cover what they want to spend and not be apologetic about it.

If the market continues to trend downwards then illegal trade will fall as well until it's below pre-excise levels.

If the market plateaus with the illegal market still above pre-excise levels then I'd agree they should remove the excise and call the policy a failure... Well, maybe, you might be able to argue some marginal increase is worth a massive decrease in smoking, not 4x, but maybe 1.1-1.3x.

Iraq and Saudi Arabia don't do public executions these days, and none of them besides the US live stream them. Apparently they're the first country to ever do it.

The real problem is the reasons some of these countries condemn people to death, regardless of the barbarism they engage in while carrying it out.

The US's actions are only notable because they are held to a higher standard, rightly so.

It is kinda weird how the arguments for this can sound like neocons arguing for the war on drugs.

The difference is the policy is working, with smoking continuing to trend down consistently.

Opt-out is pussy shit. Why do they care about being disruptive to an industry that is destroying the minds of everyone on the planet?

It's not "simply" anything. Ofc if you assume police are just lazy that makes sense, but if you acknowledge that law enforcement is operating at capacity it's clear they don't benefit from more reports. They will need to sacrifice more hours sifting through more reports, many of which may be lower quality or even false because of the perverse incentives. Rest assured every store in the country will quickly accrue many reports against it, and police will spend more time investigating innocent stores than guilty ones.

Children are represented by their parents who advocate for them.

Old people need to advocate for themselves.

A poll test is anti-democratic as hell, and a step towards authoritarianism.

God damn, why is a legal firm paying journalists to write slop like this on their website? Half of it is a political rant with no relevance.

The only relevant point is this: should police require an additional warrant before applying for a DEAO?

Arguably no, not if they already have the device. The warrant is only really needed to gain access to the device and grant legal authority to search for it. If you have both of those already through lawful seizure after witnessing a crime take place the warrant doesn't provide you any additional powers.

A DEAO still needs to be signed off on by an authorised officer of the judiciary, and the cop applying for it can be charged with perjury if they lie on the application. The evidence is also very likely to be thrown out.

The point is NSW warrants aren't a meaningful check on power, and this loser Paul Gregoire is just jerking off by framing it as such.

Fair, and I'd go one step further by saying the "neo-Nazi" market share is something Facebook doesn't want to miss out on.

That said they'd probably ban these guys if enough people complained about it. Or maybe not seeing as Mark Zuckerberg has decided to kiss Trump's ring...

However, the Coalition points to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures that show tobacco consumption increased by roughly 30 per cent between 2022 and 2025.

This is ofc a lie, as any words that spill from the dysgenic swill holes these freaks speak from often are. The ABS is speaking of nicotine consumption, including vapes, etc, not what the reader probably thinks when they hear "tobacco". I hope this Jake Revell guy is quoting them directly and not peddling this himself.

While sales of illegal cigarettes and nicotine products have declined dramatically, wastewater analysis shows that overall nicotine consumption is surging.

Pretty sure this is a spelling mistake and they meant legal cigarettes, because it makes no sense. It's also misleading, if my understanding is correct the waste water tests showed total cigarette use is down, but by cross referencing the sales of legal cigarettes with this data it showed illegal use was up. Also I think this is conflating cigarettes and other nicotine products when it says "surging"... but it says nicotine products have declined... Which isn't true? Idk this sentence is a mess.

The argument is the DEAO is basically a warrant anyway, it needs to be signed off on by the same authorised officers (magistrates, registrars, etc).

All a warrant does is grant the legal authority to go looking for the device. If a cop sees you filming a murder on your phone and arrests you they can already seize your device without a warrant. So a warrant wouldn't grant any more authority than the cop already has at that time.

The Greens stance on it is as admirable as it’s always been. That the rest of the world can’t hold the same standard isn’t on them.

Putting a policy in a vacuum is the worst possible way govern, and I hope this forever demonstrates why the Greens should never be allowed near the levers of power. Their brand of pacifism is identical to Trump's: willfully ignorant of the downstream effects and motivated by anything but the material conditions of the victims.

supporting a President who backs Ukraines enemy

This is transparently guilt by association and nothing more. Our sovereign decision to support Ukraine has nothing to do with appeasing America. By your own logic we should be doing the opposite if it was relevant.

Learn to read. I never made a claim about Israel.

Based. King.

What is?

The article is deliberately a lot of things imo, none of them good. It's not written by a lawyer btw, important to note that.

The point about the warrant is the only thing that matters here, and I'd argue it's meaningless when we are talking about lawful seizure.

A warrant provides you with the legal authority to search for the device, inside a private residence for example. When a cop witnesses a crime and sees that a device is relevant to that crime they can seize it without a warrant. In that case the idea of getting a warrant is superfluous and only a thing because the DEAO law explicitly says so.

They will still need to apply for the DEAO from the same kind of judicial officer that would sign their warrants to get into it.

Wtf kind of Russian bot defends liberal democracy? The Russian bots all sound exactly like you, ahistoric anti-west trolls. You're literally glazing Saddam Hussein just to be able to hate America more.

"They benefitted briefly" look how far you've fallen. I thought it was all about the money and oil? All that rhetoric smashed against the rocks of reality. A worthless analysis abandoned at the slightest pushback.

I guess that brief benefit was the reason they spent years and trillions of dollars in the region distributing aid, building civilian infrustrature, and propping up the Iraqi government, all so they're adversaries in the region could benefit more than them. How selfless.

I absolutely got my facts right, Clinton didn't plan to invade the country but he sure as hell made it his policy to make Saddam an enemy and work towards regime change in Iraq.

You realise you can track my bowel movements from my comments right? That's how much I care about you.