SYDNEY HILTON BOMBING

I suspect that this is a good time to remind people about the bombing.

There is a good article at
http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Sydney_Hilton_Bombing_Conspiracy
Which is one of the few that succinctly enumerates the evidence.

I would appreciate people providing additional links to this page to increase its Google rating.

Gadfly, Well, unlike you I've read the legislation in its draft form.
Ask me the question when you've done the same and while you're at it read up on some criminal law legislation applicable to this nation as well as international laws that protect the civil and political rights of us all.

John Tomlinson has obviously read the draft legislation and constucted his views upon its intentions and content.

Moreover, he obviously relies on a much more balanced approach in his appraisal than listening to Howard and Ruddock and reading the Murdoch newspapers which I assume is all you have done.

And by the way, I have had relatives killed by actions of a state agency. Terrorism and its definition is relative to who you think a terrorist is in this nation and elsewhere.

Rainier,
You are being very presumptious when you say I have not read the draft legislation ---- I HAVE READ IT THOROUGHLY.

For any others following this thread the original draft is available at www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/media_Release1551.html.

I do not, and did not, say that I considered the draft legislation to be perfect; indeed it's a long way from perfect with many clauses which will only be clarified after High Court challenges. BUT, it is a necessary and intelligent step towards protecting Australians from a new category of murderer within Australia. Current Federal or State laws do not provide protection against this category.

You did not respond to my question as to what alternative form of legislation you would put forward if you were in a position to so do.
It seems that your attitude would be 'do nothing'.

Further, in a lame response to my second question ( in which I asked would your answer to 1] be different if someone dear to you was muredered by a terrorist), you reply by saying " (you) have relatives killed by action of a state authority".
What on earth does THAT mean.

I think the main point of my namesake's article is to try and get a sense of proportion into the debate.

While there is undoubtedly some danger from terrorists to Australia, the level is not considered that high, as I understand it. So how far should we go in restricting civil liberties for a relatively low-level threat?

The other element in the equation is the effectiveness of the measures. The cases that are put forward to justify them (we have a terrorist associate in custody who knows details of a planned attack, and we want to detain him/her without charge or place a restriction order) are very hypothetical and do not seem to have occurred anywhere in the world in actuality.

History tells us that it is dangerous to give arbitrary powers to governments - it is much more certain that they will abuse them and victimise innocent people, than that they will successfully prevent terrorist attacks.

I have been hoping for a chance to agree with Terje, and sneeky pete, this is it, I wholeheartedly agree with you posts, and congatulate you both on a job well done, I have nothing to add to what you blokes have already said.