Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
It would appear you have a particular agenda, not openly identified, by your attempt at undermining the present issue of national security. We have declared war on international terrorists and such groups are identified so it is those who are sympathisers and adherents to the practises and beliefs of these groups who will be watched and checked. Our liberal open door policy has leaked persons into Australia who threaten our society, it is these who are of interest who might find themselves imprisoned.

Philo wrote:

"We have declared war on international terrorists and such groups are identified so it is those who are sympathisers and adherents to the practises and beliefs of these groups who will be watched and checked."

There is a problem with this statement. War is, by definition, particularly when a declaration is involved, between at least two states, or at least between a minimum of two political entities, functioning as 'states'.

It is for this reason that war was never declared between the US and North Vietnam, it was called a counter-insurgency operation.

War was never declared in Korea in the early 1950s, it may have felt like war, tasted like war, sounded like war, looked like war, but, it was not 'war'.

What ‘political entity’, functioning in a state-like manner, are we ‘at war’ with?

The last time that I heard any declaration of war was made by Australia was September 1939. And therefore Australia's conduct at that time was according to the laws of war. This included the internment of enemy aliens and the attribution of prisoner of war status on captured combatants.

If the west were 'at war' then David Hicks would be a prisoner of war, accorded the rights of a prisoner of war. But he hasn't been, he has been classified as an "enemy combatant", therefore the state holding him is either breaking the rules of war, or not in a state of declared war after all.

Australia and some other self-proclaimed champion states are actually involved in an international police action against terrorist groups, in which sovereign governments have been overthrown, because we did not like them, without war being declared, against the principles that our government has committed itself to in the United Nations. These actions are being carried out on this basis deliberately, so that the rules of war cannot be applied and individuals held responsible. The 11th of September attack is seen not as an act of war, but a criminal act of terrorism, so why do you say we have declared war?

Philo,

You seem to ignore that “security” does not come about with police being able to detain anyone and keep them in secret for 2 weeks or even 12 months irrespective that they may have nothing to do with any terrorist issue.
As Mick Keelty, Australian Federal Police on Lateline 31-10-2005 makes clear anyone who cannot give a satisfactory explanation could be detained. Satisfactory explanation to whom?
Today the concept of “terrorism” in your view may be someone bombing a place, but to the police it can be anyone who may be committing a crime or anyone they “THINK” who might be committing a crime. Like the person shot not once but 7 times in the head in London!

Our constitution does not permit arbitrary detention as it requires a “JUDICIAL DETERMINATION” and this is by due process of law in a State Court.
The best way to protect ourselves is to ensure that the law enforcement authorities are operating within constitutional and other legal powers! The moment you allow any law enforcement agency to deny people their “CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS” then you are not a bit securing the general public rather endanger it.

I for one have no problems with law enforcement authorities to use laws appropriately, I do however have a problem with laws that are unconstitutional to be used as to purport the law enforcement agencies can use those powers.
If in the end, some innocent person is killed by a law enforcement officer and then it is found that indeed the legislation was unconstitutional then do you really think that John Howard and his cronies will take responsibility?
It is like the putting people in detention! Since 2001, I made clear I support people to be deported if they are in breach of Australian law, and have never stated otherwise, but I deplore the unconstitutional manner refugees/asylum seekers/overstayers/detainees are detained in an unconstitutional manner!
My issue is that if it is unconstitutional it can’t be accepted.
Our best security is to ensure we conduct matter in a constitutional/legal manner!

There is a war going on, a new different type of war. Islam is out to enslave the world. Muslims are unhappy and sick, and they want you to be also. This is a new type of war, because we live in a new type of world. Communication technology, immigration, economic globalization and the doctrine of “multiculturalism” have provided the basic ingredients – all of which are part of the normal pattern of change and are somewhat benign. However, add a very violent and intolerant religion and the mixture will explode.

Consider the news. Riots in France, as we speak (under-reported because the media doesn’t want to blame Islam). Consider the Copts in Egypt. Iran wants to kill 4 million people. Look at the bombings in India. Most of all consider the beheading of 3 Christian girls in Indonesia. What do these events have in common? Who can it be?

How dare Irf complain? How dare they blame others for any small, sensible reactions to their hate and violence.

Irf doesn’t want to be inconvenience at airports because of his “strange” Muslim name? Well, tens of millions of non-Muslims are inconvenienced every day in airports, public buildings and even in their children’s schools because of people that pray and worship to Allaah and his wretched prophet.

Why didn’t he say that if a terrorist attack occurred, it probably would be caused by those same people with “strange” names. Is a little honesty too much to ask? Does Irf think not hurting his feelings is more important than people taking some precautions to protect their lives and families?

So we have lawyers and activists here playing word games about rights and laws, saying we have to “listen” to the terrorists. Perhaps Mr. Schorel-Hlavka would care to explain his position to the parents of the three girls in Indonesia. I sure they would greatly appreciate the finer points of his arguments, especially about the “otherwise perfect citizens” that murdered their daughters. How disgusting!

Riots? terror? war? Folks, it will get worse, much worse. You haven’t seen nothing yet.

John AKA Kactuz

Kaktuz,

"One ring to rule them all"
"Lord of the rings"
"The Book of Daniels"

Above references are fantasy stories rather than self fulfilling prophecies.

People like you are those who can't survive without an enemy.

"tell me Lord when to release the nukes on communists, Muslims, Chinese, japanese, etc" is not a prayer but a self-inflicted paranoia that requires immediate medical help.

I find it ironic that all those anti-Islamic posters on this Forum and the Islamic extremists want the same thing.

Both groups want people who are not of the same beliefs as themselves off what they see as their territory.

Islamic extremists want Westerners and Christians out of what they see as Islamic lands. The Bali bombers want to limit contact with what they see as the decadent 'Christian' west in Indonesia. The more moderate Islamics in Indonesia see this as a crime, which of course it is.

Meanwhile, those who hate Islam want people of that faith removed, or repressed, in the West, with the ultimate goal the deportation of Moslems back to Islamic lands. Sounds like a certain European country's 1931-1934 plan for Madagascar.

Or the imposition of Western values, such as democracy, onto ME countries.

Democracy can work in Islamic counties, Indonesia and Iran are examples. Unfortunately, Iran's form of democracy doesn't suit the USA.

Both sides are have carried out extreme violence to get their point across.

It is unfortunate for both sides that their wishes and desires are not going to be met, and the more one side pushes, the harder the other side will get its its resolve There will be a lot of resolve hardening, and not much justice.