Fewer than 200 Australians killed at the hands of terrorists? Well, hell. Let’s forget about defending ourselves and preventing others from being killed. Let’s not worry about all the other innocent non-Australians murdered by terrorists – particularly the large share of the terrorists’ (aka ‘militants’) victims in Iraq.

More than twice as many (than terror victims) ‘killed’ in Australian police custody? Is the very strange John Tomlinson suggesting that police in Australia actually kill prisoners? If he is, he should be required to provide the evidence.

The Government is also responsible for domestic violence. What sort of kook is this man?

I think that Howards new anti-terrorism laws are a real threat to liberty. I agree with the author that spooks don't mind generating a crisis to gain more of what they want (resources and powers). However so do the progressives that they have supposedly stifled. The whole notion of democratic government has become a game to see whos liberty can be most readily trampled and how quickly taxpayers dollars can be most quickly spent.

The ALP has failed to impress. Beazley actually prides himself on having a tougher set of ideas with which to compromise due process and remove limits on the executive wing. And without good opposition we are unlikely to get better government.

Liberty is the new dirty word. Security trumps Freedom it seems, as we all sign up to live in cage where it will be nice and safe

I agree with John.

Who do we think we are, or what is it about us that makes any one think any terrorist really is that interested in blowing us up - ooooh they depise our way of life! they resent our prosperity! they are offended by our values! they will stop at nothing to see us all burn! nope. I dont think so.

People are perfectly justified thinking those thoughts but we flatter ourselves to assume that any one really gives an airborn act of sexual intercourse about us.

The senseless loss of life is always sad - although there are many here who readily cheer for various persons to be snuffed out - but the response to this terorrist scare is disproportionate to the risk of further attacks for Australians here and over seas.

But our jelly backed pollies fearing they 'd be blamed for in action - not prosecuted or suffer any penalty but merely seen as inept (if they aint already) and be turfed out of office - as much as any body they have promoted a sense of fear and dread;

The proposed ammendments to the sedition laws will make it a high risk proposition indeed to persist with the kind of candour seen in some of these posts if it is at odds with government action - the wording is loose and open to misinterpretation by the weak and fearful; some of the posts here could also be interpreted as inciting ill will, exposing the average punter to further risks of prosecution for thinking out loud. I have read countless articles by "opinion writers" that could incite ill will - both from a conservative and a leftist perspective -

These are dangerous times and the danger dont come from the terrorists all that often.

Ring Ring Ring; Oh Mr Keelty from the AFP. Yes it is I sneekeepete. What another 14 days! how come! sedition??!! But I might loose my job under these new IR changes; What? learn to be flexible you say; oh alright. You guys semm to have all the right answers.

Leigh,

You said: "The Government is also responsible for domestic violence. What sort of kook is this man?"

John is clearly not suggesting that the government is responsible for domestic violence. His argument is that fighting the criminal offence of domestic violence should be given a higher priority by the government. He said: "We need to ask why then is domestic violence not given a greater priority than Ruddock’s home detention for people suspected by Mister Plod of being likely to carry out an act of political violence."

I see this happening more and more - people misrepresenting someone elses argument in such a way as to make it sound farcical, and then attacking the imagined argument of their own creation.

If you are the Leigh of House of Wheels fame, I expect better. :-)

Borofkin.

I could imagine this article being written by someone like Michael Foote – past leader of the UK labour party.

It has all the hallmarks of the blithering incompetent who is well read in all the problems, can expound at length on the issues but lacks the creativity or skill to come up with solutions.

Simply making observations of fact like “We do know that in 2001/2 there were 386,946 breaching orders issued by Centrelink.”

And projecting that onto a question

“We don’t know how many unemployed Australians breached by social security are made homeless or commit suicide each year.”

Is the sort of lame and puerile drivel which works well in primary school playgrounds but is discarded by the time someone has grown sufficiently to attend secondary school.

Quite honestly, I do not care and I am not responsible for the unknown numbers of weak willed and spineless individuals who “top” themselves because they cannot meet the social obligations which accompany their acceptance of public welfare.

Likewise, having experienced the tyranny of terrorist bombs in London, I have a more circumspect view of the need and benefit of security. I recognise bad people do bad things and bad people need to be stopped before they do them. The fatuous, asinine and cynical assumption that “it has not happened, thus it will not happen here” is as misguided as allowing illegal aliens to arrive on our shores and letting them mix freely in this relatively peaceful society.

Such foolhardy “magnanimity” of spirit might well work when singing along to “L'Internationale” but the notion is as dated as the song and seriously “out of tune” with contemporary values.

The pendulum has swung, the “left” is just a rotting corpse. Putrefying as the memory of socialism and the other political aberrations of the 19th and 20th century sink into ignominy and disrepute. The world has grown up, “trade” is what helps prevent wars. Nations will think twice before they destroy their commercial opportunities

Far more worrying to me is the fact that "they" know of perhaps 800 suspected would be terrorists are in this country and "they" let them stay here instead of rounding them up and shipping them out.
No one can keep an eye on anyone all the time so this festering danger could blow at any time.
So why give them time? Why give them the opportunity?
And who gave them the opportunity in the first place?