The western world should get itself off oil and then continue Israel's wall around the whole muslim world. After being cut off for a few decades they will come around to our way of thinking just as the soviets did. It is truly amusing that left whingers say we need to accept Hamas, but somehow this acceptance includes talking to them and giving aid. I don't have a problem with accepting that the palestinians are made up of a majority of terrorists as evidenced by them electing terrorists. I don't see how this translates into us having to deal with them AND haveing to support them with aid etc. Let them see the consequences of their democratic decision adn then see if they make the same choice when they realise that without the west they cannot eat, and would not have been able to eat for the past ten years.

As for gitmo, I am glad I am not making the decision, I would be torn between succumbing to reason and boosting the threat or sheilding the country. It basically is either a moral question (which says close) or a national security question (which says keep it open). Unfortunately politicians are not elected for their morals, and are not expected to follow them. If you want morals, you bleeding left whingers, you should not be arguing against them on all other issues. Looks like gtmo will remain in the realm of national security, so it will stay open.

Ted Lappin you failed to answer a simple question ,I asked you and your Mates to call on God to come down to earth,to prove you are not using his name to make exuses for the deaths of tens of millions of people over the last two thousand years, God to come down to earth, its not going to happen, God never promised the Jews the land of Palestine, we need to bring this chapter of religious history to an end, I say Call on God to speak on your behalf, make a time and a place for this ceromony of authenticity to happen, people who use God to promote hatred and greed are the worst kind of human being, if you dont feel like becoming a fool you will do nothing, not many people are laughing in the Middle East,Islam came about because slaves were deprived of taking part in religious celebrations,
Ted you also ignored my reference to WMDs all Arab/Muslim Nations live under the threat of a Nuclear Attack, 200 nuclear weapons are some threat, Israel is the villain, Palestine is the victim, so stop writing propaganda, get God to say he/she is on your side, I cant wait for your exuse to be posted, because that is what you do best make exuses , mangotree,

mangotreeone1:Call on your god to put the cruellers on the others and show us that your god is the one. You couldn't so how do you expect Ted to do so. Remember it's the blue pills on wednesdays. numbat

Ted Lapkin,
my first post was an attempt at satire- you are right, there is no philosophical rigor in this approach.

In my next post, I mention judicial and police systems, and argue I should be able to act freely otherwise I’m in a dictatorship.

These points may have lead you to believe I was “in essence, … arguing that jihadist terrorism should be treated as a criminal justice issue rather than a national security problem”, although I was not; I also think open democratic political (and judicial and police) systems should apply to our behaviour in war.

Apart from a quote from Napoleon (and Robert Jackson), you seem to be arguing that allowing governments to act without such systems saves lives (and property?).

I’m not sure whose lives you’re concerned with, but by claiming total lives saved increases by ignoring democratic processes in the treatment of others in “war”, how would it be wrong for militant Islamic groups to capture westerners as prisoners of war, without charge or evidence?
They can use the exact same claim (it seems unlikely captured teachers and nurses are their military enemies, but under these rules, they don’t have to prove that)

I understand we are not beheading prisoners, and comparisons between the activities of the U.S.A/Australia and those of Muslim extremist militant groups are exaggerated, but what is the philosophical base for this difference? Is it just that we couldn’t get away with it? Or that beheading doesn’t yet act as a deterrent?

If “US federal law prohibits torture as defined by the UN Convention”, why is Guantanamo Bay not open to scrutiny? Even if you blame individual soldiers for the prisoner abuse scandals, aren’t open processes the best way to prevent this sort of torture?

If “the prospect of being tried before a military commission disheartens even a single potential Al-Qaida recruit”, where are the trials?

Additionally, why does the logic of your argument extend only to war?

If it would save lives, why shouldn’t the government arrest without trial and charge here as well?

HAMLET – On the question of culpability for the Middle East conflict, let me quote from one of my previous opinion pieces (Herald Sun 27/2/06):

“spurning opportunities for peace is a long established Palestinian pastime. It is hard to imagine a better deal for peace than the one offered in 1937 by the British Peel Commission. Yet, the Arabs refused to accept this plan that would have given them 85 per cent of Palestine.

“Why? Because the proposal also encompassed the establishment of a small Jewish state in the remaining 15 per cent of the country. Ten years later, the Palestinian Arabs brought catastrophe upon their heads by opting for war instead of a 50/50 compromise, triggering Israel's war of independence. And in early 2001, an overture by US President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak would have established a viable Palestinian state.

But, once again, Yasser Arafat rebuffed what was on offer: national sovereignty throughout 97 per cent 'of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Each time the Palestinians have decided to shoot rather than talk has brought about a reduction in the slice of the pie that is offered to them in later negotiations. It appears that repeatedly trying to annihilate someone isn't much of an incentive for reciprocal generosity.”

MANGO – I ignored your challenge to invoke divine intervention because it is asinine. I do, however, find it interesting that you are blaming the Jews for the “deaths of tens of millions of people over the last two thousand years.” I think you’ve been reading a bit too much of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, because you seem to buy into the conspiracy theory that the Jews really run the world

WIBBLE – you ask where are the Guantanamo trials? They are currently on hold because the lawyers for bin Laden’s bodyguard have appealed his detention to the Supreme Court. I recently wrote a piece for the “Australian” that arguing that the Hicks legal team is engaged in a bit of cynical manoeuvring of its own:

“The earliest the final Hamdan ruling is likely to be handed down is April 2006. Yet when the Supreme Court announced its intention to review the case, lawyers for the Australian detainee filed a request for an adjournment until that judgment is issued. In other words, his legal team voluntarily sought to postpone Hicks's military commission trial by several months.

“But in legal terms such a gambit was unnecessary. If the Supreme Court declares military commissions to be illegal in the Hamdan case, then the same principle will apply to all Guantanamo detainees. And if the court upholds military commission process, then the fate of Hamdan won't make the slightest difference to Hicks. ??Thus the only plausible reason why the Hicks legal team is playing for time is so they can have their cake in the courtroom while eating it in the public relations arena. Because they realise the evidence against their client is overwhelming, they understand that political pressure to short-circuit the trial is his only chance to escape a serious prison sentence.”
Gitmo is open to scrutiny. The ICRC has been making regular visits to Camp Delta, et al, since detainees first arrived there."

And no, I don’t think that standards of conventional criminal jurisprudence are appropriately applied to wartime cases that arise out of illegal battlefield conduct by a terrorist enemy. My argument “extends” only to war because armed conflict poses a threat that is much greater in scope than conventional criminal activity. Mafiosi are out to make a profit, and mass casualty terrorism isn’t good for business. AQ, by contrast, is out to kill as many innocent infidels as possible.

Different caliber of threat – different caliber of measures required to defend against that threat.