I have a pig dog, with a genetic condition, which manifests as distinctly unsociable and threatening behavior toward all strangers; and who was incarcerated for an unspecified time as a consequence of being also a houdini dog and escaping from the compound he was confined in and threatening small children, old folk and a terrified neighborhood!

A nervous nellie policeman with a gun wants to put him down.

Now while he's at home hooch is as gentle as a playful kitten, an act to inspire misplaced confidence?

That then allows the cunning beast to once again take a walk in the park, escape the handler. share his flawed genetic material with several resident female dogs, savage small innocent children and their protective mothers and worse?

I see that policeman draw his gun and plead for the life of my dog, who is useful in containing a feral pig population and in so doing, has saved my bacon (sorry about the pun) on several occasions, so I don't see the wild incorrigible recidivist, just a animal, who has RIGHTS!

In the case of terrorists and their intentions, the comparison makes my savage beast look positively benign.

However, and to be fair, I would give these folk a chance for liberty, and wherever they can find a host country not called Australia, who wants them!?

And that liberty would be conditional on the detainee being able to pass a lie detector test, utilizing space age, double barrelled technology, failing that, permenant exile beckons! A now uninhabited Devil's Island/Sahara becomes a possibility?

As long as we have folk who literally force their unwanted presence, evil ideology/intentions and incurable mad dog culture on the rest of us, they need to be at the very least, humanely confined?

Perhaps, along with all the bleeding heart dogooders, who invariably do more harm than good, who would release them among us!
Alan B.

A well written article to which I subcribe 110%. At what point in the near future do we see the appearance of the Islamic creasent crudely drawn on the front doors of Australian Muslims...this has to stop!

>At what point do we see crudely drawn crescents on Australian Muslim doors?<

Never ever D D! Given they are Australians who identify as Australians and an Australian ethos!?

Your suggestion is a nonsense that would force our Muslim brothers to join the mad dog brigade, as opposed to rooting out the occasional miscreant? And or, turning them around before any harm is down to them or others!

One notes that the folk who more than anyone started this furore, were the folk who flew hijacked planes into the twin towers.

Given reports are to be believed, they presented at border control, clean shaven, smiling and affable, with impeccable documents, and not all were Muslim, but included a christian element with a PHD?

Would that we could have deployed space age lie detection technology that could have stopped them at the border!

Then having completely and factually, exposed their murderous intentions, locked them up and thrown away the key?

I'm sure many American families, which included significant completely innocent American muslims, who would then and to this day, be still going about their normal daily lives and occupations?

Would be ever so grateful, instead of been prematurely terminated with even less regret than you or I might have in swatting a bothersome fly?

That's what needs to stop, along with the ritual beheadings, the crucifixions, burial while still alive, sexual slavery and other stone age barbarity along with the unconscionable radicalization of our youth!
Alan B.

Terrorism is NOT a " 'supposed ' global offence. It's a global offence, no ifs or buts. What a silly thing to say. As for what Comrade Barnes is supposed to have said: pure rubbish, as usual. And of course terrorism is a special case! It is not a crime. It is vile terror perpetrated for religious reasons by religious maniacs.

If we had any sense, we would be executing these creeps,so mere incarceration for life is is very soft indeed.

All of my current questions, concerns and opinions of Islam are best reflected with this video.
http://youtu.be/-YpJjRzQDIM

Armchair critic, thanks for posting a link to that video, pretty much sums it all up. Good one!

We already have these kind of laws for some violent/sex offenders who pose a ongoing risk to public safety. As long as they're being administered by the courts, I see no problem with extending them to terrorists.

Toni Lavis Quote "As long as they're being administered by the courts,"

In a perfect world I would agree but we don't have that now and what will happen in the future is anyone guess.

Even judges often make decisions according to public opinion.
Also do you trust the public servants who decide whether to prosecute or not?

Just look at the crimes of Hillary Clinton or the crimes committed by the big banks they were given a pass by the Attorney general.

Ttbn nailed it spot on: «And of course terrorism is a special case! It is not a crime.»

You cannot have it both ways: criminals are judged and sentenced while enemy-combatants should not suffer any judgement, but instead be held in dignity as P.O.W's rather than as criminals, for as long as necessary to protect the people from their attacks.

Is this proposed law just another example of treating the symptom, and ignoring the cause.

It is a well known fact that the majority of terrorists, if not all, are Muslims, so step one should always be to stop importing Muslims. After all, its not our fault their so called leaders have no control.

Once this is done, you then start to work on those who are here, and like it or not, they are all threats because no one can be sure which way they will turn if called upon to choose.

The reality is that certain groups are not meant to mix with mainstream citizens, and until we come to this realization, little will change.

Mr Kampmark,

"Supposed global madness" ? "Supposed" ? What, all those bombings are figments of Hollywood's imagination, all trumped-up ? What the hell planet are you on ?

The Islamo-fascists have declared war on the West. Isn't that so ? They take delight in breaching every Geneva Convention. They bomb hospitals, market-places, bus-station, wherever innocent people may be in numbers. Utterly gutless trash.

So perhaps not P.O.W.s, but war criminals. As such, they should be imprisoned for the duration, and beyond, depending on the severity of their crimes against humanity. As for their supporters, if proven to be such, they should be imprisoned for the duration of the war on their 'heroes' - in this case, until Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Nigeria etc. are completely liberated from their fascism.

Joe

I think our whole response to crime & terrorism is all wrong.

I am not interested in punishment, just in getting those likely to offend off the streets.

I am not interested in the life history of offenders, just in putting them where they can not offend again. Where the behaviour is induced by drugs or drink rather than a mitigating thing, I believe the offender is more likely to offend again, because they can not stop the use of substances. These should receive longer sentences, not shorter.

Religious ratbags are unlikely to ever change, so should really be put down. Failing this sensible treatment, they should be locked up permanently. Even very old ratbags can wear a suicide vest.

The same should go for criminals & idiots. When a kid kills someone with a stolen car, they are unlikely to become a useful citizen, ever. Two years for such offences is ridiculous. They have effectively committed murder, & the time off the street should reflect their future likely behaviour.

Parole board members should have to serve the same sentence as those they let out who reoffend. Only this way will they think about the likelihood of re-offense to the innocent public, rather than some bleeding heart garbage for the offender. This should also apply to bleeding heart judges who give suspended sentences.

"Even judges often make decisions according to public opinion."

Philip S this is incorrect and thus misleading about Australia's judicial system,

"Under Australia’s Constitution, our judiciary is independent from the other arms of government. The separation of powers doctrine means that in interpreting and applying the law, judicial officers act independently and without interference from the parliament or the executive. The constitutional guarantees of tenure and remuneration assist in securing judicial independence."
> https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/Courts/Pages/default.aspx

Judges in Australia have to issue detailed statements called "Judgements" in finalising a matter. These can be examined by both sides in the case once they are handed down and potentially challenged in a higher court.

Some of the judgements handed down by the Federal court can be read online here > http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/publications/judgments/latest

The exception to that would be matters in the High court. Their is no High court of appeal, the decisions are final.

I thin that Australia is such a amazing place. I love australian people who are so nice and respetful.

Dear MJ,

You are right: Australia is an amazing place and the Australian people nice and respectful - so why, oh why, do we deserve to be punished, obstructed and abused by the rule of the Australian state and its government?

Hi MJ1994,

As you rightly suggest, " .... Australian people .... are so nice and respectful."

Yes, and many of us feel completely free to express ourselves, even at the risk of ruffling a few feathers.

Just because people have differing opinions, doesn't necessarily mean that they want to behead each other, or throw each other off high roofs/rooves.

Everybody has, or should have, that right to express their opinions. It doesn't mean that their opinion is correct or even remotely accurate, and every opinion can be rightly derided for its idiocy. One's opinion may be thoughtful and perceptive, or complete rubbish: opinions are not equal, but everybody's right to express them is - and everybody else has the right to analyse and criticise them.

I hope that they're teaching something like that in the unis. Fat chance.

Joe

The terrorist Fifth Columnists are not merely expressing an opinion, they have gone to war against Australia. They have a name for it - jihad. They wanted this war, we didn't. There are international rules governing prisoners of war, and they have no right to release until the war is over. Even then they can be arrested and tried for war crimes, as their predecessors were at Nuremberg. Let the mongrels show that their war is definitely over before even CONSIDERING release.

Spot-on, Jules !

Prisoners of war fighting for the government of..of.. President Mahommed in Saudi Arabia ? maybe the government of the half acre opium field near Naqil Afghanistan? How will you know when the Oz Muslim's Arabian department of defence surrenders?

Nick,

The caliphate of the Islamic State, under al-Baghdadi. At one time, when it declared war on the US, Britain, France and Australia, it controlled as much territory as the Iraqi government. It declared war on us. Anybody fighting for it who is captured is a POW, for the duration of the Islamo-fascist war launches by ISIS.

Do you have a problem with that ?

When will we know that they have surrendered ? They probably won't so the various forces against them, including those against whom they have declared war, will need to keep fighting until they are obliterated.

Then the longer 'war' of Islamism will continue under another name and with different tactics, perhaps using a sort of Gramscian 'march through the institutions' of the West. In other words, a softly-softly approach, gradually inserting Shari'a into Western society. Islamisation 'by peaceful means', aided by the opportunist 'Left'. Wait and see.

Joe

The rag-heads were messing with planes and sky-scrapers before ISIS / Obama -Clinton. Not all terror actions are ordered by the Caliphate.
Logically the prison-until-peace rule is as nuts as they are. Are you a secret Muslim?

Nick,

I didn't say they were. Islam has thrown up a multitude of bat-crazy ideologies of world domination for nearly fourteen hundred years now. Even now, we are aware of Wahhabism, al Qa'ida, ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, various Mahdi movements, Sennusism, Taliban, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and god knows how many others.

The 'POW prison until an end to hostilities' rule is part of the Geneva Convention. Eminently sensible, nothing nuts about it at all.

And Islam, as a religion of world domination, will continue to throw up (in both senses) ideologies of Islamist brutality until we're both long gone. Aided, I suggest, by mealy-mouthed fools on the 'Left'. [I apologise if 'mealy-mouthed' offends.] [Or 'Left'.]

Joe