Neil James, Yes it will !

Succinct Aramis !.

These laws apply to everybody; Extreme terrorists certainly do not walk around advertising the fact.

Add to that the fact that our intelligence service is not that sharp and we will all be exposed to dumb law apllied by dumb people.

THe great irony is, once these laws are implemented, we will probably be subject of an act of terror on our soil; all the bed wetters will then come out from under the sheets with a chorus of " we told you so" - all this would prove is that these types of laws are in effective in assymetrical conflict.

The most we can do is resource our sad spooks with more human resources to allow them to get up to speed and do more of what they do now - enahced powers of arrest, detention and the application of ultimate force will do nothing to enhance their knowledge.

A few random comments, mainly against the proposed laws this time.

Neil's comments about moderate application of the laws and historical context are something that have been missing in "oh what a new shock" debate.

Yet Neil's tone "Unfounded allegations that the new measures are unjustified should stop." is somewhat Teutonic and makes me uneasy. If Neil's tone is indicative of how anti-terrorists forces see their role (regarding these proposed laws and in society) then perhaps backers of these laws should think again.

I'm also uneasy that I'm not a legislative expert in this field. Instead I rely on gut feeling. I've read the proposed legislation in "Stanhope's release" but not existing legislation (running to 30 or more Acts).

I don't have a feeling for the effect subtle legal drafting will have on the way politicians, judges and ASIO will apply these laws in the field. I've heard that the sedition/incitement proposal is less draconian than the existing law but do not have the wording and intent of the law background to assess this.

Sneeky may be generalising too exorbitantly when he doubts the quality of the intelligence agencies. However his point about providing them more funding so they can better use existing laws rather than bringing in laws (calculated to drive a wedge in ALP) seems like commonsense.

So basically I'm all at sea on this issue and Neil's line has some truths but leaves me cold.

There are differences in the Japanese threat of invasion during WW2 and the threat of terrorist strike in this present day.
There are also similarities. We are being threatened by aliens, just as we were then . We are at war just as we were then.
And the civil libertarians could almost be regarded as fifth columnists as they try to dismantle the security laws.
After a bombing outrage with its loss of Australian life, they go very quiet, no voice raised in anger at the death and misery caused, but after a while, out they come from their lairs screaming at the unfairness and racism of laws designed to protect us from further terrorist strikes.
During WW2 such people were interned.

Dear Mickijo.

You seem to be living in the small, dark, cell of your own making.

None of the the security intelligence types I worked with made such extreme comments.

One always has to consider the role of a security service in a democracy and rightwing extremists who think they can ally themselves to a duty of care function are off the track.

I think you all should read through these laws, you will find some very disturbing things within them, irrelevant as to what side you support.

Are you aware that if you encourage ill feeling against Prime Minister John Howard, it will be illegal under the new federal anti-terrorist laws. This means anyone.

What that may mean is that those of us putting posts on threads, saying that john Howard is a liar, fraud or can't be trusted, may be charged with sedition. Is this freedom of speech or democracy.

All the blind followers of the ruling fools, may just have to put up with having their mouths sealed, unless you support all proposals put forward. Any dissent may be seen as ill feeling towards the elite.

No more open newspapers, lots of political editing and total suppression of truth. What does that relate to, the public being ill informed, no open government, no dissent nor questioning, no say in what happens. The worst case scenario will give those in power the right to determine who will vote, as voting for any other than the current prime minister may be deemed as encouraging ill feelings towards him.

Sounds far out and ridiculous, but the possibility is real and we all know how politicians view possibilities that will increase their power and control, no matter who it effects. If it is to their advantage, they don't care who it effects or the consquences.