Aaron

I think you are overstating the problem. We remain a voting democracy, and one CRITICAL point.....

=The Jews during Hitlers reign were not:

-blowing themselves and hundreds of citizens up all over the world in suicide bombings.
-Telling everyone from the Prime Minister down that their religion is superior to all others and stay away from them.
-Demanding special laws specially for them.
-Mercilessly attacking and mutilating the genitals of grandmothers and infants with old razor blades in the name of Judaism as the Muslims have been doing in the name of Islam to Christians in Ambon and Maloku(Indonesia)

No.. the Jews were content to just enjoy their synagogues and make money.

Consider this:

The group arrested yesterday and today,
-were planning bombings.
-Had and/or were seeking stockpiles of explosive chemicals
-Were driven by ideology.

Some have applied for BAIL... now lets assume they actually have some explosives 'ready'.... and they are suddenly freed KNOWING they will only have a short time to carry out their murderious plan..... what are they likely to do ?

So, a law which gives the possibility of short term detention without trial is quite justified on these grounds.

If the government went over the top, we have elections coming up....
Its ludicrious to think they will incarcerate Kim Beazly for 'being too radical' :)
Now Bob Brown...hmm thats a different story.....

these muslims should be stripped of citizenship - born here or not, it doesnt matter where you are born, if you want to commit genocide against christain and jewish and all other non-muslim Australians -

I was born in China, but i am of white English parents who travelled into China from Hong Kong - and i was born on the holiday in China.

-I do not look Chinese or Asian
-I do not speak Chinese
-I have no Chinese culture
-I do not call myself Chinese

can anyone here reasonably say I am Chinese... my point is, stop saying, 'oh they were born in Australia, they are Australian'... it is such an unreasonable argument.

take away their citizenship and send them to where they are so proud to be from... namely, Lebabnon, Syria, Iran, or wherever else!

Our ancestors built this country, we made "Australain", its an ideal, not a piece of land we have the right to deport anyone whos loyalty does not lie with this country, citizenship or not!

Aron,

The term anti-Semitism has historically referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and this was the only use of this word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice toward other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."

Australia is a supporter of Israel, and not 'anti-semetic'. If you are talking about anti-Arab, then refer to the above - you f..cken idiot!!

Plantaganet,

My “basic argument” is that terrorists should be dealt with in a timely and appropriate matter for the sake of us all, including you. I have absolutely no interest in the “rights” of terrorists.

Obviously, I disagree with you on what is right and what is wrong, but I would be interested to know why you exhibit contempt for the will of the majority when majority rule is clearly the mainstay of a democracy. Majority thinking is clearly behind the proposed anti-terror legislation. The Leader of the Opposition supports the legislation, as do the Labor State Premiers, with only the extremist ACT Premier doubtful (and now irrelevant).

You and, let’s be generous, say 30% of Australians, don’t “accept” the law. That is your right. But you have to learn to live with majority opinion. We all do. If you know a better way of doing things, I’m sure we would all like to hear about it.

Re: capital punishment. The Death Penalty Abolition Act was passed in 1973, and I don’t remember the pro and con figures. I do remember being sickened when Robert Ryan was hanged in 1967. I was a guileless 24 year old then, still innocent about people.

Incidentally, in August 2003, when asked by Newspoll whether or not the death penalty should be reintroduced in Australia for terrorists, 56% of respondents said, yes. After the first Bali bombing, 51% said yes to the same question, 31% said no, and 25% had no opinion.

Minority opinion is healthy. But people trying to attract attention by saying things like: 1 in 4 people think such and such or, a significant minority of 25% are opposed to such and such – meaning the majority of people do not agree with them - is amusing, to say the least.

Gary, I'm ditrustful about one's intellectual credentials when one uses scarecrows to make or boost his argument. This is what you are doing by describing these laws as "more appropriate to the USSR, Nazi Germany...than to liberal democracy". If you need these 'scarecrow stilts' to uphold your argument, then the latter must be rationally very poor.

And, indeed, it is. While you claim that terrorism is a real threat and say, "I fear it's only a matter of time before something worse... will happen", you fear to tread on the sequences of your own proposal. This is a characteristic of 'nipple-fed' intellectuals who avoid to deal with the real issue, the great threat that terrorism poses against the West, and divert their energy - whatever that energy on stilts happens to be - on the purported attack of the counter-terror laws against liberties.

Also, your one-sidedness impoverishes further your argument, when you lament that "how much more likely...is that innocents will be detained...on mistaken suspicions", and that "the police will seek orders...based on intelligence", and you amusingly ask, "what if the intelligence is wrong"? But the greater likelihood is that under these laws and this imperfect intelligence more culptits will be apprehended than your abstract exaggerated number of innocents. And what other resources governments have other than these less than perfect intelligence services, on whose information they have to take urgent decisions?

Gary, you seem to be a partisan of the syndrome of the Left, which while it vociferously and vehemently denounces the capitalist system, it has nothing better to put in its place, after the collapse of its misplaced and displaced utopia, communism, but its 'wet dreams'.

Do you remember the "boy" (GARY)who was afraid to cry wolf, in view of the arrests that occurred yesterday

Leigh

You can have a relatively secure environment without overly oppressive laws. Noting that at the other end of the spectrum (Israel) stronger security laws appear justified.

However much Howard has “rattled the Muslim cage” (in Iraq) we haven’t had deaths by terrorism in Australia since 1978 (Hilton bombing) and that wasn’t due to Muslims.

Taking your points in turn:

I agree on dealing with terrorists in “a timely and appropriate manner” – the government was able to rely on existing laws (and last weeks amendment) to successfully (it appears) mount the operations over the last 48 hours. The Government obviously saw it as unnecessary to expedite the other anti terror law proposals through Parliament to mount these operations. This raises question about how essential these anti terror proposals are.

Clearly the 30 or so existing anti terrorism Acts are being used. Also ASIO’s budget has been sharply increased to use existing laws more fully.

Your assumption that terrorists carry some sought of “open season” label on them defies the rule of law. No bombings have occurred so can anyone easily group these (generally) Muslim Australian youths with “successful” terrorists who have murdered people.

It’s a fundamental tenant of a democracy that people can hold minority views especially when proposed laws are being discussed and formulated. The fact that the majorities of very small samples of Australians supported the proposed laws does not mean that critics are bound to agree with the proposals.

Once/if these laws come into force I will be bound to abide by them (Leigh this is the concept of having a voice but still being law abiding)..