Whooaa.

Con is certainly waxing Churchillian in his last to 2 paras.

He pits the straw man (demonstrably incorrect over Bali) Evans against the "Iron Statesmen and Iron Ladies". I suppose Tony Blair will have to join the Conservatives straight away!

His central thesis is "In such measures, due legal process, i.e. the presumption of innocence, beyond reasonable doubt, and so on, is totally inadequate to deal with a fanatical enemy who would use weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, once they were in its possession, against Western societies."

Well if the proposed laws will solve the nuclear security problem why weren't they proposed and passed immediately after 9/11.

Con is wrong. The proposed laws would not stop the terrorist enemy he so fears - one that is capable of constructing and delivering a nuclear bomb. This is in the bin Laden arena. That is nuclear bombs on jets - no need to crash them into buildings or to endanger a terrorist operation by setting foot in Australia.

Cons fears are, therefore, more in the area of what the Airforce and external intelligence services are meant to counter, not ASIO and not the proposed legislation.

The proposed laws are a direct reponse to the London bombings - people who walk, carrying bombs. And in regard to that, the existing laws have been underutilised and until recently, when the Government recognised the problem, ASIO has been underfunded to handle this threat.

What worries me is when politicians bignote themselves by talking tough.

The implications of the proposed laws for liberty, freedom of speech and alienation in the Moslem community are frightening and have nothing to do with nuclear terrorism. The government is taking advantage of Federal Labor's loss of power in the Senate to ram through the laws.

Nobody wants to create a situation where alienated young men start hatching bomb plots. Sadly a tragic outcome will not damage the Coalition's future electoral prospects and legitimacy to govern, quite the opposite.

The criticism of Gareth Evans is spot on. But I would not refer to Mr. Evans as a “thoughtful person”, though. I recall him in his role as a left-wing politician promising to bring about a “coffee-coloured Australia”, and the fact he made the faux pas he did in relation to his terrorist statements disqualifies him as a thoughtful person. And, we most certainly do not need to fight terrorists with one hand behind our backs. Mr. Evans never had to deal with anything very hard, and he needs to catch up with the times.

For real thoughtfulness and telling it the way it should be, the author of this article gets top marks.

“Only leaders that are endowed with prescience, prudence and determination have the right to hold the rudder of leadership in their firm hands and pass the necessary and harsh anti-terror laws that can save western civilisation from the maelstrom of fanatical terrorism. Only Iron Statesmen and Iron Ladies are cast in this role.”, he writes. And, sadly, we don’t have those leaders at the present time.

Perhaps Con George-Kotzabasis could put his retirement to use in that area.

Con, (Con George-Katzabasis)

I read your article, but with some difficulty because you are extravagant in demonstrating your literary capability.

After wading through all that you wrote I find your perceptions to be generally realistic-- you write about the real world which we face-- a world where actions to fit the time must take priority over ideology, but without dismissing ideology as an essential part of social evolution.

I suggest that any readers/contributors to this forum do "wade through" your article.

Further, I suggest that you rewrite the article in language which the normal Aussie will find 'inviting to read', and to provide that article to the general media, for the benefit of Australia.

regards Gadfly

I disagree mate.

The same people who told us about the children overboard, about Iraqs WMDs and so on are now asking for extra powers. The group who oversaw a public service that managed to deport a citizen or two.

They need to improve their accuracy first.

"Only leaders that are endowed with prescience, prudence and determination have the right to hold the rudder of leadership in their firm hands"

... and only those capable of showing reasonable doubt in their elected representatives should be allowed to vote.

I find myself in agreement with gadfly - the language of George does not lend itself to an easy read and any message runs the risk of being lost in the rising tide of big and bigger words.

I can not accept his assertion that lawyers and academics et al are unconscious of the imperative lessonsof histroy - that they have a different perspective on the same matter does not imply any degree of unconsciousness - just a different take.

And while I would disagree that we should reject these laws simply on the basis that they are a departue from our culture, I still can not support them in their current form and still argue they are unnecessary.

The threat has been and is over stated - if the imperative lessons of history tell us anything they tell us the reponse to these atrocities is in no way propostioanl to the threat they offer or the carnage they have delivered -

I still press the point if you assess the threats do date on the basis of likely hood and consequences our responses universally are disporportionate with the real risk. I would stop short of saying they are a diversion but they certainly divert resources to an area of questionable need.

Equally his closing paragraph baptising this period as being a time of peril and hazard is certainly over dramatic - I am kicking myself for failing to recall the Australian academic heading up the study but the most authoratative assesment of the dangers posed by international armed conflict measures these times as relatively peaceful compared to earlier decades - and the loss of life attributed to terrorism, not withstanding the fact there is no international agreement as to what constitutes terrorism - has scarcely troubleed the scorekeeper

Georges contribution is best used as an example of how not to try to convey a message in the written word than as a reasoned analysis of the terrorist issue as it confronts Australia.

This terrorist issue has been blow out of all proportion. Why should political violence be treated any different to any other violent criminal act? Every year thousand of men and women are killed and injured in violent acts often with plenty of warning that it was going to happen. Why can’t there be preventative laws governing those crimes?.

Do people really believe that the current crop of political violence is any real threat to our civilization? The is no Germany or Japan we are facing here, it’s a loose small collection of religious fanatics with most of their violence directed at their own people.

As a atheist I must respond to the authors “And the Islamo-fascist movement is, by far, more dangerous than any secular fascist movement, as its existence is decreed by God hmself, in the eyes of these zealots.”
This really is a sill comment, secular movements have shown a willingness to use violence to get their ends with the same level of zeal as sectarian movements.

The defeat of terrorism in all it’s forms is to treat as simple crime not to legitimize it by declaring war on it. Political violence is an attack on the rule of law if you suspend that law in order to fight it then the terrorist have already won.