The doctrine of pre-emtion is a cancer that is already well established in the body politic. It was introduced and nurtured by the green/left. It is called the precautionary principle and it is already widely abused in the planning, natural resource management, environmental protection fileds. It sounds fine at a philosophical or policy level but in reality, on the ground, it is a very blunt instrument wielded by goons. In its broader sense it goes;

Where there are threats of serious or irreparable harm, the lack of absolute certainty of harm should not be used as an excuse for postponing measures to prevent harm.

The problem for any community in which such a principle is applied is that it is often interpreted as an excuse to act without the need to substantiate the case at all. And it is often applied in respect of minor and entirely repairable harm. People are condemned for what they might do (a thought crime) rather than for what they actually do.

The correct application of the principle requires it to be subordinated to;
1 A thorough examination of all relevant matters, and
2 A thorough investigation of all options to address the issue, and
3 A proportionate and cost effective response.

It is rather ironic that the main opponents of the use of this precautionary principle in the ousting of Sadaam are the very same green/left interests who devised the principle in the first place.

The big question for the Australian community is, given the demonstrated evidence of abuse of civil liberties under the principle that has already been provided under planning and resource management policy and legislation, can we trust the political and administrative elites to apply the principle properly elsewhere?

The lessons of Bundaberg and other Hospitals show that more Australians will be killed by criminally negligent bureaucrats than by bombers. Last count was Qld Health 89, Bombers Nil.

if a handful of people can 'overthrow' a democracy simply by discussing being violent, i wonder how robust that democracy is ...

as for needing laws to enable 'preemptive' action, the laws regarding of conspiracy have been around for a long time. one thing experience has taught us, trying to convict a person of 'considering a criminal act' is that it takes more than merely discussing something to cross the line into a real threat.

changing the law to make it easier to convict doesn't actually deter potential offenders. they tend to assume they won't get caught (for various reasons), and people who are prepared to perpetrate violence are not going to be dissuaded by the possibility of capture.

belief is a powerful motivator. making it easier to jump in early won't change people's beliefs. that can only be achieved by providing an environment where those people can air their grievances and discuss alternatives.

if we were to stop and look at history for a moment, it's not hard to recognise that violence begets violence, and violence comes in many forms. addressing the reasons why some people would choose to commit violence goes a long way to preventing it. adding fear to thier frustrations only catalyses their resolve.

dismissing the opinion of a member of any group is arrogant and insulting. we need to understand the various forms of islam, and reach out to the moslem communities. only through relationships can we hope to understand and address the causes of terrorism. it is also the best way to intervene before violence occurs.

lack of "human intelligence" was a significant factor in the failure of western intelligence regarding iraq. over reliance on technology, or any other source of data, reduces the reliability of conclusions drawn from it.

only by developing trust between authorities and the people can the authorities hope to serve their needs. and lets get this right. police and other authorities are there to serve *our* needs, not the other way around.

Mae

there is only one minor problem with your line of reasoning.

You say

1/ Find their grievances first, so they can discuss them and find alternatives.

2/ You also said "making it easier to jump in early will not change those beliefs.

3/ Then you said Violence begets violence.

4/ a) Understand various forms of Islam
b) Reach out to them.

The problem is as follows:

1/ The major 'grievance' is that Australia is not an "Islamic State"
2/ We discuss it which results in our position being stated as follows:

"We do not have any room whatsoever in Australia for an Islamic state"

They then realize that the only course to attaint their goals is: "violent overthrow of the state"

When they do so, (by gathering bomb making materials) it results in 'violence'.. ie..we raid them and arrest them before they can blow us up.

It is on the basis OF an understanding of Salafism/Wahabism that the actions were taken against a small group rather than the whole Muslim community.

We understood them, then we reached out to them with the long arm of the special operations unit and slapped them in solitary as fast as humanly possible.

Your comments might have had merit if all of the Muslim community was as Fellow Human or Irfan are, but sadly, many are not like that and it behoves us to track their sorry asses down and dump on them with as much force as needed to absolutely CRUSH them.

I was thinking your post emanated from the 'Don't use violence to resolve disputes' school of Dimmitude and national suicide :)

So, I'll make an appointment for you with 'REALIST' for some much needed counselling :) (note smiley)

Well some explained the motives of the left; just think back 30 odd years ago, back in the days when Multiculturalism and Diversity did not exist. Back when people were hard working and discipline existed, so did respect. Some people have forgotten Australia existed long before they were born, we have today: Thanks to our ancestors, not Multi-destructuralism or Socialism. Now idiotic pathological talk about Bush, Blair, Howard world imperialism, Fairdinkum, some people need to get a serious grip on reality, if they do not then someone will.
You aint seen nothing yet: wait for a few more years when everything you see around you today is gone and that has well and truly began. That’s realism not racism.Google that.

Such a peaceful religion, Islam!

I hope everyone in Australia gets a fair trial. These guys included.
But even more so, I hope that Islamic teaching is critiqued - thoroughly.

And I hope we stop repeating ad-nauseum the idea that "all religions" are the same, or basically harmless, or private. Thinking this way, is the illusion, and self-deceptive creed of those who imagine it is possible to just soak in a warm tub of multi-faith, multi-cultural idealism, because we have nice beaches, beer and sunshine.

It is sheer wishful idealism to think that Islam can just be a private, inner, mind-your-own-business Islam.

The average Aussie may just have to sit and answer the questions like: 'What is Islam?' and the question the Prince of Peace puts to us all: 'Who do you say that I am?'

It is a common debating tactic for people who wish to hide their self interest, or to promote a cause which they know is unpopular, to pretend to support a motherhood subject which they then try to indirectly link with their real objective. The key to making this approach work is to studiously avoid openly mentioning your real sympathies and instead wax long and lyrical on the moral merits of your cover argument.

Amjid Mohammad appears to be only concerned with the rights of the accused terrorists to a fair trial. But while claiming it is just awful for the media to pre judge the defendants as terrorists, he then gives his real position away by pre judging President Bush as a terrorist. So prejudging alleged Muslim Jihadi’s as terrorists is bad, but prejudging infidel leaders as terrorists is good. Uh huh.

Now we keep hearing about how “moderate” Muslims are aghast at the behaviour of extremists, and that they do not support them at all. But logically, Mr Mohammad should be very happy that 18 alleged terrorists have been apprehended before they might have committed an outrage which would have greatly increased hostility towards his co religionists. But here he is thinking up silly conspiracy theories which once again portray all Muslims as the victims of Western perfidy.

To summarise, there is nothing in Mr Mohammad’s article which changes my mind about “moderate muslims” being little more than a figment of somebodies imagination. My perception is that Osama and his merry men are heroes to the whole Islamic world, and any son of Islam who imitates Osama is a blessed Jihadi fighting for Islam against the infidels. In my opinion, the reason there are so many articles by Muslims indirectly sneering at Westerners and criticising our efforts to win the War on Terror, is because all Muslims support the terrorists.