Arjay, I agree with you that it is not very difficult to be a terrorist. If someone wants to execute an attack, there is nothing you, the government or I can do about it. This is precisely why the new laws will have a very minimal effect on terrorism prevention. The only rational way to deal with the threat of terrorism is to understand the source of hate. Robert Pape has shown in ‘Dying To Win’ (as untutored mind pointed out) that the motivation of terrorists is to coerce a foreign occupier to remove their troops from areas they consider to be their homeland. The evidence in the book is difficult to refute. Pape limited his research to suicide bombers, but the principle is the same. If our politicians were serious about preventing terrorism, they have to acknowledge the fact that the current terrorist threat is largely self-made. If we choose to ignore these facts and let our elected leaders continue this cycle of violence, then we truly are living in a fool’s paradise.

Two weeks' detention or a year's house arrest without charge? And now the Qld police want the power to enter licensed premises and private homes with sniffer dogs, without a warrant.

The fascists and terrorists have just about won... Australia isn't turning into a 'fortress' - rather, it's resuming its former status as a penal colony.

Is it terror or the government? We do not know we are not told enough, merely there is a threat and this is hyped to enable laws such as these. My belief is hyped up for political purposes, in line with the view of a unipolar world with America fulfilling it’s destiny, one proclaimed from at least before 1960 (Barraclough Contemporary History 64 reprinted 1987) in which control of oil has featured since Truman’s time.
Readers would know that first Britain and France then America thought the Middle East their playground, appointing or engineering to power their choice. The red line of oil featured strongly as Britain and the US competed for control of oil. The Middle East states were manipulated. Iraq was supported then Iraq and Iran, but before that in the name of oil the Prime Minister of Iran was deposed replaced by the Shah courtesy the US and Britain. His rule was brutal as brutal as Saddam but he supported the West.
The US maneuvered Saudi Arabia, a dictatorship to its purposes, Egypt, the Lebanon and on and on. Sometimes the excuse was Russia, often as facile as those were for Granada, at others Israel and her needs. And on and on and we wonder why they rebel, almost every subjugated country in history has rebelled often by terrorist tactics, though terrorism has no accepted definition. Anything we don’t like then it is terrorist good for home consumption.
Howard still insists that there is no relation between such and our invasion and history of interference. He would for he sees a world of, not compromise and dispute resolution but old style force as rule.
Australia as a democracy needs only some to accept what is going on and he has his support, maintain fear and malleability follows from enough people. We are probably no better read, I wont; say educated for that is merely the three R’s or knowledgeable of foreign affairs than the average American.
Write down the chronology of the period and the explanations of cause.

George Williams is quite tame in his questioning and criticism of the need for these laws. The "Terror Laws", aptly named by the media, actually impregnate our own legal system with a new brand of terrorism that threatens us more than a couple of fuzzy viedos that always seemed to be "released" at the right time for John Howard's agenda. The Howard Liberal Government, with the help of Labor Premiers, has actually legislated terrorism and expanded ASIO's powers from 1400 agents to 45,000 police. We can expect to see more racial profiling and the convenient use of these undemocratic powers applied to cases where judicial laws should apply. Unfortunately the politics of fear has returned a victory for the "terrorists", that is if they exist at all in this country.

It's clear that ordinary Australians (i.e. everyone) are the terrorists in the eyes of the government, which is why they need to crack down on us. They have already proven themselves to be liars and traitors, with all the nonsense stories about weapons of mass destruction, Iraq and Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, etc.

The only thing governments fear is the people. They are terrified of popular uprising against them, and any and all excuses will be used to roll out laws that affect the people rather than terrorists.

How does threatening legitimate political dissent protect us from terrorists who haven't struck here (aside from ASIO that is with their Hilton Hotel bombing in 1978)?

They want laws to detain people for no reason. How will detaining people when there's no clear evidence of them being terrorists help us?

Other posters have pointed out that the deportation of the US peace activist is a great example and warning about what these phoney anti-terrorist laws will be used for. We ignore the quiet, steady creeping of government totalitarianism at our peril.

ConspiracyTheory and The Fish

I agree that Australia's involvement in the unnecessary occupation of Iraq (and to a lesser degree Afghanistan) continues to be the major reason that Australia is under terrorist threat. That said its unlikely that our current government (or an ALP government) will withdraw these troops in the foreseeable future.

So basically where stuck with the threat -just like Spain was before the Madrid bombing.

What interests me about so many of the OLO posts is the deep paranoia about ASIO.

Just the word ASIO scares people. Its like a police car behind you in traffic.

Every country in the word has some sort of internal security and intelligence arm and having studied intelligence agencies for the last 25 years ours is one of the most mild and accountable. It is not the KGB, CIA or FBI. ASIO are basically police who deal with politically motivated violence.

ASIO is made accountable in a number of ways:
- chiefly through the risk of public embarassment
- the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security
- the Ombudsman
- the Judiciary (judges, courts, Royal Commissions)
- and Parliament (including the opposition and current Government)
- and also the press who put it under the microscope when it stuffs up.

The government has not yet rolled out the draft legislation arising from the anti-terror laws proposals. The accountabilty package that accompanies it will no doubt be arcane to people who are worried but it'll be there.

Turning to George's article my major problem with it is where he says "the law can be justified where it is shown that it will help to meet the threat ... This need for justification and accommodation lies at the heart of law-making"

There's no way anyone can prove what might happen in the future.

The terrorist attacks in New York and Madrid where both unexpected and its obvious there was insufficcient security legislation, organisation and procedures to prevent them.

Its also a weak argument that you can't stop terrorist bombings in Australia. Its on the record that ASIO has prevented bombings in the past.