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.