I'm sorry, but I find his a most unconvincing, unintelligent and troubling essay! I just don't se Malcolm Turnbull as cast in the same extreme mold as his predecessor!

Albeit the possible prisoner of others of a like minded disposition and obligate to them for his current position? And therefore not his own man? At least not yet?

Even so, his more moderate language seems to be uniting Australians, whereas His predecessor's seemed to be driving them apart, with ultra simplistic wedge politics? Not that I always disagreed with it!
Rhrosty.

I am surprised there is not more countries being attacked by terrorists. I have heard that during the crusades Muslims were attacking coastal Italian towns, raping Italian women. This theory somewhat explains why southern Italian people are seen with darker skin than Northern Italians. Muslims were taking the fight to Europe.

What does the CIA really do? Fictional television programs may say that it is illegal for the CIA to operate in the US. A large CIA building complex exists in the US of A.

My assumption is that the CIA infiltrates and or creates their own terror organisations, attracting want to be terrorists into CIA controlled organisations. Sending trained terrorists into maintain areas to in most instances murder each other. Sounds a reasonable clever idea. Its bad education and the media's job to distract ideas of the above from being realised.

I must say that indefinite detention, perhaps till death, leaves me
very uneasy. What is the legal basis for it ?
Perhps if they are incurably dangerous they could be held on the
grounds of being dangerously insane.
In the case of terrorists that could be true.

Steve 101; the moslems occupied all of Sicily, part of Italy & all of
Spain and occupied Southern France.
They also penetrated up to Czechoslovakia.
Of course in more recent times they were defeated at the gates of
Vienna by Austrian and Polish Armies.
The Koran claims any land previously occupied by moslems, even if
ejected by the locals, remains moslem land forever.

This is why the Arabs claim Israel is an occupier in Palestine.
It is a nonsense of course, the Jews lived in that land some
thousands of years before the invading Arabs arrived.

Binoy is right, the steady unwinding of basic principles of democracy is deeply troubling. We risk destroying western values in the ostensible fight to protect them. It is a fundamental principle that a person should not be punished indefinitely or beyond the terms of their sentence. Similarly troubling is the proposal to strip some dual citizens of their citizenship, effectively creating two classes of citizenship; one irrevocable, the other at government discretion.

Rhosty, Turnbull appears more reasonable and less extreme than Abbott, but his actions are not necessarily matching the image. That’s why Binoy talks of an “Obama-screen placed over a Bush legacy”

Rhian, there is a case to detain idefinitely those that are insane.
I do not think anyone would argue about that.
Now, would you consider someone to be insane if after 30 years in gaol
they still showed an intent to murder infidel citizens ?
If that implies they learnt nothing in those thirty years perhaps they are insane ?

Bazz

I don’t think a person who wants to kill their fellow citizens is necessarily insane, and I don’t think spending 30 years in gaol alters that much. Thieves emerge from gaol and steal again. Drink drivers emerge and drive drunk again. We don’t call them insane.

I would say that the legal system that has produced numerous guilty rapist, terrorist and even murderers off and out on parole has led to this. Sleazy lawyers and weak judges have been able to make heroes out of traitors and defend the indefensible. Judges have been weak and the regressives show they are clueless when it comes to Islam. Wasn't it only yesterday in the UK that some rich sleazy Saudie fell on a teenage girl, penetrated her but was let off. Imagine if it had of been a Catholic priest!

Rhian, then what to do about that terrorist, just let him out and hope
that whoever he attacks is fitter than him and kills him in self defense ?

What about the pedophile, let him out and lock up your daughters ?

What do you do ?

The 'Progressive' State denies its citizens, even the vulnerable, any practical means of defence.

However, offenders are armed as they choose and they also choose their victims and timing. Moreover, offenders have rights, made even stronger by the leftist 'Progressives' aka Fabians aka International Socialists.

The incoming Labor Palaszczuk government in Queensland had as one of very first priorities the emasculation and withdrawal of the highly successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (VLAD) that was strongly supported by the public, business and the police in affected areas such as the Gold Coast.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. He became the leader of post-Apartheid South Africa (and darling of the West).

George Washington was a terrorist (and slave owner). He went on to become the first US president and one of the initiators of the celebrated Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.

So too were Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon. They all went on to lead the State of Israel.

Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams were terrorists and went on to become active participants in the 1998 Peace Agreement.

Oliver Cromwell was a terrorist, but went on to rule England and was a prime mover in eliminating the Divine Right of Kings – which ushered in modern democracy.

Spartacus was a terrorist, but went on to become the hero of various ballets and Hollywood screen epics.

‘Throwing away the key’ only brings short-term results. If the issues of injustice that the terrorists are fighting against are not addressed, then expect many more terrorists to take their place.

Killarney,

'Selective terrorists'?

Still no answer to my question.

What do you do, just let them out & hope ?

Hi Killarney,

Fascinating. There's an article in today's Australian on Fukuyama's 'end of history' thesis, how it has come to dominate political thinking of left and right: basically, the notion that there is only one political dynamic prevailing, that of Western supremacy, democracy and capitalism. And of course, it generates a counter-dynamic which operates on the same assumptions of Western dominance, and (in contrast) its evil power.

But there are other dynamics: the writer of the article mentions Russia, China and IS, operating without the slightest sign of a Western puppeteer's hand up their backsides, each working independently of the West and of each other.

So 'injustices' to the Moslem world ? Yes, that's the justifying narrative, but it also has its own agendas, and a resurgent fundamentalism (in its multiple forms) is one of them.

Popper says somewhere that it is a conceit of Western intellectuals that the West is sooooo all-powerful, sooo evil, that maybe everybody in the west is basically intelligent but wicked. No, he says, think of it the other way around: that most people, governments, States - while of course being self-interested - are not particularly malevolent, but are often stupider than they think. Much pompous chest-beating on the 'left' ignores this reality, in the belief that 'we', as part of the West, are the only forces of initiative, 'we' start every war, 'we' do terrible things, to an otherwise completely innocent, but powerless, and backward world - which is incapable of initiating anything. Even a billion and a half Moslems.

No: Islamist fundamentalism has always had its own dynamic, or dynamics, ever since the Wars of Succession between Umar and Abbas/Ali. And because the Koran is never to be changed, or doubted, infinite possibilities exist to interpret it in the most literal way without in any way reforming it, interpretations depending on one's perceptions and interests. The Moslems are stuck with the Koran. And so we, like it or not, 'powerful' or not, are stuck with it in its most vicious and brutal interpretations.

Joe

Bazz

There are principles underlying our Western justice system that are products of bitter experience. Habeas Corpus, the right to silence, trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt etc. all emerged to defend the individual against abuse of the power of the state.

Indefinite detention offends against two of those principles – proportionality of sentencing (it is effectively applying a life sentence for a crime for which the courts though a lesser sentence was appropriate), and that a criminal’s debt to society is expunged when they have paid their fine or done their time. To abandon these, especially for what some would see as political crimes, threatens all our freedoms.

So yes, once someone’s sentence is completed, they should be released

"So yes, once someone’s sentence is completed, they should be released"

So the authorities should be mindless automatons and disregard serious threats to the public?

There are exceptions and the authorities would be failing in the duty of care entrusted to them by the public if potent risks were not identified and treated. The only reliable, robust treatment (control) available is gaol.

People commit offences in gaol. I suppose that people gaoled for terrorism offences would be likely, at some time during their sentences, to contact, persuade, or incite other people outside of prison to commit offences, and presumably this would be an offence in itself. Hence, additional sentences.

So let people committed for terrorism offences, to use gaol phones to their hearts' content, monitor them of course, and ping anybody who seems to have been influenced - and give extra sentences to those inciting them.

At that rate, they could be in for a looooong time.

As well, move them around, perhaps even inter-state, to disrupt communications between terrorists within gaols. Perhaps build new gaols, in, say, Oodnadatta. It's 42 degrees in Adelaide today.

Joe

Hi Joe

I'd be delighted if terrorists get the maximum penalty for any and every offence they commit. But not for the ones they might commit.

How punitive is this British culture, who even consider punishment as a form of entertainment - and by historical association, the Australian culture too!

What gives anyone a right to punish another in the first place?

Self defence is legitimate - punishment is not, certainly not the punishment of those who either do not consider themselves part of the punishing society, or whom the punishing society is not willing to ever include them. The status of those is equivalent to Prisoners Of War and so they should be treated, not as criminals.

A P.O.W. is not trialled, but detained indefinitely for as long as there is a reasonable risk of them rejoining the enemy ranks in battle. Once either the war is over, or the P.O.W. becomes harmless, they should be released and repatriated. Once a country is found that is willing to take ex-terrorists (or paedophiles for that matter), they should no longer be held in prison, but sent there instead.

Where a criminal poses an ongoing threat and there would be evidence of that, authorities would be failing in the duty of care entrusted to them if they didn't identify and treat that risk.

That may be continuation of their previous offending, which is likely, or a new intent to wreak mayhem.

The authorities must do better than be reactive to crimes after the act. That is made obvious by the illegality of threats and the remedies that may be applied where threats are made. It is the real and convincing nature of the threat posed that is relevant.

Rhian, yes it is those rules that have developed under the British
legal system that I feel must be maintained, yet the illogicality of
letting a known risk out that worries me.
I am not sure that there is a real answer to this.

Yuyutsu said;
What gives anyone a right to punish another in the first place?
That right is given by the person living in the community and
accepting the protection and facilities of that community.
The POW is not a relevant comparison and your idea that no one
should be punished by imprisonment is invalid.
If you choose to live in a community then you obey the rules of that community.
If you do not wish to then find yourself an island and live on it by
yourself. If someone joins you in two or three minutes you will have
rules to live by.
The law is only a continuation of good manners.

Human Rights were invented by a bunch of Virginian slave owners. They have been usurped by the Left as a left wing wish list. Almost anything a lefty wants in their utopian worldview can be classified as a "right." Human Rights has much in common with Islam. Both claim to be above parliament, to be infallible, that their principles need never change, and both have been usurped by a power hungry clique to create a failed utopian vision.

The greatest faults of Human Rights and Islam are their dogmatism and their inability to change. Morality will always change because the world will always change. The founding fathers of the US constitution lived in a time where the right to own a firearm was an sensible thing to do. But if the founding fathers had seen an Armalite rifle, and what it could do in seconds to a schoolyard full of kids, they might have thought again.

Binoy is complaining about the growing use of preventative detention on unconvicted persons. This issue is an extremely important. Because the incarceration of people on the grounds that they may commit an offence is contrary to everything we have long accepted about criminal law in democratic countries. The principle has always been that nobody can be incarcerated without due process.

But times have changed. Thanks to people like Binoy Kampfmark , we have imported people into democratic counties who are extremely dangerous. They are people with religious convictions that are contrary to everything we believe in, and they wish to impose their medieval values on the rest of us through terrorism. They have no fear of death, and they have the knowledge and the means to arm themselves with weapons of unprecedented lethality, and to strike when they choose.

The simplest way to prevent these people from causing catastrophic damage to our people, our laws, and our way of life, was to never allowed them entry into our peaceful society. But since our politicians were too stupid to do that, then we have to rethink our commitment to the ideals that we once cherished.

Dear Bazz,

<<That right is given by the person living in the community and
accepting the protection and facilities of that community.>>

Spot on!

So either when a person does not accept the protection and facilities of that community or when the community itself has no intention to ever again provide them with protection and facilities, their correct status would be like that of a POW. It is OK to detain such a person indefinitely, but in that case they should not be trialled or punished.

Note two important cases when one cannot be said to have accepted the protection and facilities of a community:

1. An enemy who fraudulently claimed their acceptance in order to infiltrate and cause damage to the community.
2. When acceptance of protection and facilities was not offered as a genuine and fair option, but as a condition for entering/residing in a large and mostly undeveloped mass of land, which the community in question immorally considers as its own exclusive "facility".

Yuyutsu

The civil rights of Australian citizens not to be shot or have their arms and legs
Blown off in public places, overrides any rights of the people who seek to carry out these acts.

That fellow who killed Jill Meagher in Sydney had 13 other convictions for rape
And they once more let him out when he had served his time, this time he killed his victim.

It was noted at the time, that in recent decades, there have been over a dozen people killed by people who had been released from prison because of their civil liberties
In having done their time.

While there is a European army in control of this country, you bet your sweet
Bippy it is a European country..
When some of these Johnny come latelys, have lost thousands of their family members.
Fighting an enemy like the Japanese then you may be able to make the claim that they don'T have claim to the land

Why do people overpopulate their own countries causing so much poverty and then think that countries who have the sense not to overpopulate should give their land and resources to them.

Yeah Cherful I was just thinking how wonderful it is for Jill Meagher killer to get more tax payers money to fight his sentence. Go figure.

Dear Cherful,

What stops you from detaining that fellow who killed Jill Meagher?
Have I said anything to the contrary?

Where's the need to trial and punish someone whom you do not consider one of yours anyway? Given that he is a dangerous enemy who wants to kill more people - just lock him up forever, or shoot him for that matter, but don't play the punishment-game!

As for the land, you have no moral right over it. It's obscene and childish for some admirals who never actually planted a tree or built a house to draw a line on the sand saying "from here to here is mine". What you worked for is yours, that value you added to the land, not the land itself and if all you can rely on is empty declarations and the use of threats to kick out others, then that makes you are an unworthy brute.

I have been thinking that what I wrote earlier may not be clear enough because perhaps people fail to understand the difference between punishment and self-defence, as both could superficially look the same to the untrained eye.

Self-defence is all about YOU: You want to be safe, so you take the necessary measures.

Punishment is all about THEM: They are on the wrong and I am going to fix them.

Self-defence falls short of saintly, but is acceptable for ordinary people who value their own life, welfare, family and possessions.

But only the saintly may punish, casting the first stone, who in doing so are completely clean of self-interest and whose only motive is to help the sinner to repair their soul. Punishment is patronising ("me better than you") and hence should be strictly reserved to those who are truly worthy of being our patrons.

We are fighting a guerilla war with self proclaimed Isis supporters,

In times of war, national security takes precedence over civil law.
When peace is restored the laws can then be changed back to suit a society at peace.

Don't blame the law, blame members of the Islamic religion who were
Allowed to come to this country but then decided we should be killed because
We don't share their religion.

They are the ones making it hard for their people here.
They have incurred the mistrust of their fellow Australians.

As I see it, the government is acting in self defence to protect us from these enemy
agents within.

During world war 2, Germans, Italians and Japanese Australians were interred until
The war ended. There was no way to know who might send information to
the enemy intentionally or unintentionally, just by communicating with their families
back in their homeland.

Did the law violate their civil rights? Yes. Was it common sense and self defence in a war time situation. Yes, most definitely.

We are at war.

Chearful raises some valid points.
In fact the internies could not communicate with their relatives in
their home countries. The Red Cross did handle mail for POWs as it
is a trusted organisation but everything was censored.
That was covered by the Geneva convention on war & for POWS.
I do not know if those rules applied to enemy alien who were interned.

I heard an interesting talk on BBC World Radio last night.
The interviewee suggested it was not much use to try and eliminate ISIS
because there are dozens of groups like ISIS with very similar beliefs
who will just expand into the space left by ISIS.
His suggestion is we have to develop a program to take account of this.

That does suggest that we are in for another 1000 years of warfare
with the Islamists.
It brings me back to my suggestion of some months ago that we just
build an electronic wall around the Middle East and let no one in and
no one out. Any moslems outside that want to go in could do so but
none inside could come out or even communicate with the outside world.
Arrangements could be made for ships of each area to use the
Suez & Panama Canals but crews could not go ashore.

I know it is a wild proposal but does anyone else know how to stop
a war that has been going on for 1400 years ?
The Islamists occupied a lot of Europe in the past and they want to
reclaim Europe (and its colonies ?) as Allah has told them it is their duty.