David Latimer

I find the non-sectarian style and content of your argument a welcome change though I don't necessarily agree with it.

Granted the IGIS (who I think is considering the Parkin case) the Ombudsman and other "accountability mechanisms" would usually be too little too late to handle the exercise of many ASIO powers.

By lack of judicial oversight are you objecting to cases where ASIO doesn't need a judge's warrant (to exersise some of its powers) or are you saying ASIO would need to run a court case before it was permitted to act.

For example if a person (say "John Smith" in this case a non-Muslim) were given the opportunity of recourse to a court wouldn't this effectively disable some of ASIO's powers.

Would ASIO need to prove its right at 4am to detain John Smith incommunicado before he can give his accomplices outside the signal to set off a bomb?

Or could the judge and other learned persons "on balance" after due consideration, give ASIO this permission in some cases after the bomb has been detonated?

Seperately is there a risk that politically motivated extremist groups (say they are financed indirectly by Saudi Arabia's aristocracy) may be given the opportunity to sue ASIO after each raid?

With deep pockets (from oil money) these groups can run long court cases against the government. The oil money connection is not incidental as it no doubt indirectly financed the Bali and Jakarta bombings against Australians.

Court cases (and other forms of judicial oversight) may well make many lawyers rich, but, wouldn't they also hamstring many in ASIO from effectively preventing explosions?

Does anyone feel any safer.

We should always be cautious about extending the power of government or its agencies, and if we are to support an extension of ASIO powers we should definitely request automatic mechanisms for the timing and methodology of review.

Mr Ruddock says: "Accountability mechanisms are a central feature of Australia’s terrorism laws ... Watchdogs such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security are there to respond on behalf of individuals if there are any such problems."

Thats all well and good Mr Ruddock as long as thos officers are allowed to let us know when something is going wrong. Its my understanding that even they are not allowed to disclose information about "terrorist incidents". What value is there in having a 'watcher' who can't report?

Another troubling aspect is the refusal of your Government to provide 'sunset' clauses for these provisions. These proposed measures in support of the "war on terrorism" remove very significant freedoms that our nation has fought two worl wars and many other military and diplomatic battles to protect and preserve. Surely you and your government see an end to the war on terror some time! Put in sunset clauses and many of us will be less troubled by your actions. Leave them out and you are starting to look like Pinochet and others of that ilk. After all, its these freedoms and this way of life that make us different from the terrorists - isn't it?

Regards,
Peter

I apologise if I offended you with certain reasoning Boaz, but as was the attempt to point out, it was not personal feeling but a lesson given in the Sermon on the Mount - Love your Enemies - which of course does not mean love your enemies, as we do not need to do with the Middle-East Islamics but at least let us realise as Christians that we should not be in there for some sort of misguided revenge concerning fifteenth century Ottoman invaders.

It was the reason the United Nations was formed Boaz, to try to stop this silly dangerous rot about the way of mankind to be always after plunder. In other words survival of the fittest, which Darwin himself as a Christian, warned that his survival term was meant to be a physical process related mostly to non-human existence. It is felt that Darwin now hoped that the Almighty would be expecting better of an advancing humankind, than to be ever after knocking out another weaker country similar to how most wild life will naturally do away with a weaker adversary.

A portion from a written acount by Charles Darwin:

"The moral nature of man has reached its present standard, partly through the advancement of his reasoning and of the improvement of just public opinions, his sympathies having been rendered more tender through the effects of habit, example, instruction and reflection. The conviction of the existence of an all-seing Deity, has also had - (or should of had) - a potent influence on the advancement of human morality." Taken from "The Mainstream of Civilisation since 1500" Joseph R. Strayer et al - Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Some previous posters have stated that they would feel less threatened by these anti-terror laws if they were to come attached with a sunset clause.

'Terje' wrote that "25 years should be more than enough".

25 years? No thank-you! What kind of clause is it if we have to abide by the respective unjust law(s) for a quarter of a century?

I wouldn't feel safer with a sunset clause of any duration, because the Government of the day could just reinstate whatever aspects of the legislation that it likes.

'Pja' wrote that "Surely you and your government see an end to the war on terror some time."

Dick Cheney (amongst others) has stated that the War on Terror might never end, ”at least not in our lifetime”.

That is the whole point. This ill defined 'War against Terror' is a war that will go on ad infinitum. It cannot be won. No matter what measures we take, what laws we introduce, we are never going to wake up one morning to find that, lo and behold, we have persevered and won the war against terror.

As many people have alluded to, only something like a fundamental change in our (and our allies) foreign policy will have a positive effect on curbing terrorism.