Imagine the roles are reversed.....
Imagine you are being accused of something you did not do.
Imagine you are arrested,beaten,tortured and jailed for 3 years
Imagine how you would feel if everyone condemned you without trial.
Imagine that !!
Maracas

MARACAS
or.. imagine he IS given a trial, found guilty and setenced to a kazillion years in jail or executed.
I think he got off pretty good given the background.

Democracy and the rule of law still has something about "presumed innocent", fortunately.
During the Spanish Inquistion, it was assumed that if you were innocent, God would not let you suffer torture. Fortunately, views on human rights are a little further developed these days. Or are they?
However, it is possible do act upon intent. Law enforcement or Intelligence/ the Military has done that before.
Of course, evidence of intent needs to be a little better than the WMD stuff that was used prior to the American led Coalition of the Willing going into Iraq. No wonder the Americans do not like the International Criminal Court, any more than politicians like investigative journalism or Freedom of Information Acts.

Then again, confused people like Rau get locked up in solitary, but potential terrorist just get interviewed if I understand the PM right. Go figure.

The tragedy of this discourse is that Ted Larkin is as much a fundamentalist as those (like Habib) who he hopes to permanently silence through the tools of fascism and arbitrary government. Taking a quick look at his bio, Ted has strong military credentials, having served with distinction in the Israeli Army, strong political affiliations, acting as a Republican political lobbyist before acting as communications director for Rick Lazio in the 2000 senate election. Ted frequently speaks on behalf of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, an intensely partisan Zionist association.

His history screams extreme partisanism, with a zealous disregard for notions of reasoned argumentation. Preferring vitriol and emotive fervour to analytic discourse. Most striking in the above article is his blatant mischaracterisation of the legal profession, the legal system and the rule of law.

"Moreover, when the rules of the barrister are misapplied to the realm of the bombardier, real injury can result."

I think that when Ted refers to the 'rule of the barrister' his is, in fact, referring to, preciously, statutory rules of procedural fairness and, generally, constitutional conceptions of judicial review of executive action. Although he make no effort to define, with any precision, the legal rules that he believes should not be applied to terrorists Ted sees no obstacle in denouncing the futility of their operation during peacetime.

I can, as any reasonable, legally educated, reader could, only conclude that Ted's fractured attempt to characterise the legal system as an inappropriate forum through which to 'deal' with radical Islam is motivated by ignorance of the legal institution, and, at base, a misconception of constitutionalism and democracy.

The most disturbing incident of this fundamental misconception is that it if Ted does not understand what democracy is, then for what is he arguing, so emotionally, to safeguard? All his history can suggest is blind nationalism, which is in no way diluted by humanitarianism.

Perhaps Ted is not the most instructive, nor the most qualified, critic of the appropriateness of judicial responses to citizens charged with terrorist offences.