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.