Would someone please point out to Con that we already have EFFECTIVE anti-terror laws. Hopefully, when the new laws are passed, Con will be locked up, where he will be safe from the terrorist bombs.

point d'appui? What's wrong with point of support? marivaudage? could be read as light hearted gallantries - I would not read any of the assertion of the civil liberterains as at all light heated, in fact most of them seem unduly earnest and I can not underestimate the importance of being earnest in this debate. It is arrogance of the highest order to assume the opponents of these laws do not take their mission seriously or the matter of terrorism just because they adopt a different approach

Con goes on, and on and on but take this bit for example - The human condition is one of irredeemable imperfection. But despite this grim fact the evolution of human nature has not stopped at the aemoebic stage. ? What does that mean? the imperfect does not or should not evolve?

George says in 2000 words what the average punter could say in ten - this is twice now that I have read him - and leaves himself open to pedantry.

However he makes the point that the response should be commensurate to the threat - the claim is correct and buried somewhere deep in the text of this last piece - he has failed miserably however to equate the level of the current threat with the new laws.

I say that notwithstanding the recent raids - that have followed an investigation of some length and have been largely based on the old legislation - and I say that before the new sedition laws are enacted which pretty much put the kybosh on most forms of dissent or comment.

Normally these articles are edited - in fact the editors name often appers as a footer; the absence of such a declaration here makes me wonder.

Dear Con

You paint a fantasy world of straw men who do not see things your odd way.

Your whole argument assumes that we are in a state of war (not true) with Muslim terrorists (none of whom have bombed anything in Australia).

You ignore the fact that the recent arrests were based on existing laws and NOT based on the proposed laws necessary to fight the war in your mind.

Howard did not choose to expedite the proposed laws through Parliament last week (with the exception of "a" instead of "the") because obviously he did not see them as essential to the largest counter-terrorism operation since the Hilton bombing of 1978.

You forget that after the much higher threat scenario, immediately following 9/11, Howard did not seek to pass the laws he now proposes.

Your two tiered proposal for different types of terrorists as well as your veiled suggestion of the death penalty appears arbitrary and unworkable.

You are not a visionary (unlike your nickname Themistocles) working in a legal or organisational vacuum. As has been said Australia has a complex and demonstrably effective (the recent arrests) counter terrorism capability.

If you require more information (I can see you do) I suggest you consult the National Security website http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/ which inter alia lists the 31 existing and comprehensive laws pertaining to this issue.

I'd get over your obvious fixation with European military history, both ancient and modern, because its off the track (if not the planet).

Con,

I seek nothing more than a guarantee that the new laws will only apply to terrorists. At the present time it appears that the new legislation will be a federal version of the anti-protest legislation introduced by Beserk-Paddymelon in the 1980's to cope with the enormous protests caused by the SEQEB dispute. This legislation could be used to outlaw essentially all political and union protest, with the added proviso that the army could be used if the problem were adjudged to be beyond the capacity of police to deal with effectively.

I suggest that my view of these laws is vindicated, rather than refuted by the arrests yesterday (being that reasonable cause had to have existed before the surveillance / tapping warrants were issued, and the search warrants were therefore available under the pre-existing laws).

Terrorism offences are hardly necessary when apparently (allegedly) evidence exists that the accused' had agreed to commit mass murder, and were engaged in preperatory acts in order to attain this objective. I presume that they would be capable of being charged with 'conspiracy', being that the agreement is the actus reus of the offence, which is complete upon agreement being reached.

Please feel free to provide the guarantee I request (nb No Mr Howards record will not suffice).

Con seeks to justify the restrictions on our civil liberties because we are at war. Sorry, I must have missed that declaration of war. When was it made and just who are we at war with? How will we know when the war is over so we can get back to normal?
There have been no deaths in Australia due to terrorist bombs in more than 30 years, if indeed those deaths can be attibuted to terrorists. If there were to be any deaths in the current climate it would be a relatively small number - certainly far fewer than those killed every year by car accidents, workplace accidents and deaths due to smoking and drinking. On the other hand the loss of freedom due to the anti-terrorist laws affects every one of us.
If we want to be serious about those things which really put us at risk of dying there are many more areas to worry about than terrorist bombs.
By the way, when is John Howard going to admit that our continuing involvement with the illegal occupation of Iraq increases the risk that we will get terrorist action in Australia and against Australians overseas?

If the current anti-terrorist laws were effective, surely the nay-sayers would have been complaining about them from the minute they were enacted.

I'm with Con. Civil libertarians use the fear-mongering they attibute to others to maintain what little relevance they have in a democratic society.

The trouble for them is, that if they were responsible for the security of Australia instead of being full-time critics, the people whose rights they are so concerned with would happily blow them away with the rest of us.