Problem is Australia is in a defacto state of war against Australians who fight for IS in Iraq and cross border Syria.

Since when did Australia have to have court cases for enemy soldiers at the battle front of have court cases for prisoners of war?

Kuranda, the clause of the Magna Carta that you cited invalidates your argument. Didn't you read it before posting your article?

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, EXCEPT BY the lawful judgement of his equals or by THE LAW OF THE LAND."

The Magna Carta itself "turned the law on it's head", Kuranda Seyit. Perhaps we need another "baronial revolt" to make people like yourself realise that we are now at war with Islam, and the old laws which made perfect sense within a socially cohesive society need to change to reflect the new reality that a large section of the "Australian" population wishes to destroy the very civilisation which they chose to immigrate to.

The concept that dual nationals who fight for a foreign state at war with Australia can be stripped of their Australian citizenship has been in force since 1947. It is a perfectly sensible law which everybody outside of the legal profession, academia, and Islam supports. The only difference that Tony Abbot is proposing is that the wording be changed to conform to the new reality of private armies within unrecognised states who clearly state their hostility to Australia and all that we stand for.

Of course that fool Obama pretends that we are not at war with Islam. How many times do we hear that same refrain every time some Muslim chops off somebody's head while screaming "Allah akbar!" If they were screaming "Heil Hitler!" you would probably get it straight away.

The official, written instructions of the German Nazi Party in 1935 was to exclude Jews from the economy and to encourage them to leave Germany forever. Oddly enough, many German Jews refused to believe that the Nazis were really that hostile to them and Goebbels himself bemoaned the slow pace of Jewish migration out of Germany. Hitler himself even supported the idea of a Jewish state in "Palestine" to get rid of the Jews.

Today, it is infidels like Kuranda Seyit who can't get it through their heads that although they do not want to be at war with Islam, Islam most definitely wants to be at war with Kuranda Seyit. Like the Jews in Germany, you had better figure out who's side you are on, girlie. And also that no law is absolute, every law has evolved to reflect the realities of the time.

LEGO, you don't stand for any of the things that I regard as fundamentally Australian.

You're simply a hateful fear-monger too cowardly to even use your own name to spout your vile.

Whatever you have to say about this or any other subject should be seen as a good guide to how not to think about that subject.

JKJ, the author's point was that the law of the land is being reset to reduce the role of the judiciary - the body that provides the "judgement of his equals" - and that as a result the intent of the Magna Carta, which was to reduce arbitrariness in the application of the law by ameliorating the power of the monarch, is being undermined.

What is the surprise, the Judiciary decided it could get into Policy by being "Progressive" and making law. Well the Government can get into Law by excluding the biased Judiciary.

Lefties are sowing what they reap.

Thanks for providing an excellent summation of the reason that the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers came to be regarded as indispensable, cackle.

Funny how the toughest talkers are all crowded into the coward's castle of anonymity...