Somewhat off topic, but it does amuse me that Leigh speaks so disparagingly of the "Chattering Classes". Just exactly what does Leigh thinks he does on this site all day long?

Bravo Mirko,

To be honest, I initially thought this piece was a sarcastic critique of the terror laws; surely there can't be someone that supports the archaic notion of control orders, potentially limitless detention and the suppression of one's individual rights, I thought.

I see now that it was a serious case FOR these laws. (On a tangent, I'm curious as to how often a student of the law would argue for less laws...)

It was interesting, reading this other perspective, where the rights of the many trounce and trample the rights of the individual.

However, one point I would take issue with would be the use of the UK and the USA to defend the introduction of these laws. This seems to stem from the assumption that if Uncle George and Aunty Blair think it's good enough for their dastardly, no-good dissidents, then its ok for ours.

This notion was, as you could imagine, quite relieving, and actually helps to explain the existence of capital punishment in Australia, not to mention Guantanamo II in the Solomons, the office of President in Queensland and the nobility, comfortably ensconced in Canberra.

When will people come back to the realisation that American/British culture is no longer the arbiter of our behaviour, and should perhaps be left out of any debate about Australian laws?

But that’s just this misplaced bleeding heart being facetious.

It was an informative article, and revealing in its discussion of the 'Other Side'.

Gracias.

How can we know whether these laws have been abused or not?

If I had been arrested and eventually released without charge I would not be allowed to tell anybody (except my spouse?) where I had been or what had happened to me. I could have lost my job or my business in that time and have no recompense.

If the implementation of these laws is so secret, how will we know how effective they really are?

Suspected terrorists today but who will it be tomorrow?

Narcissist, that sounds just like Kafka's "the Trial". I'll have to dig it out of the bookshelf.

Terrorism isn't anything new. We didn't have these kind of laws in Europe against the IRA, ETA, Baader-Meinhof, red brigades and grey wolves.

Cars kill many more people everyday than terrorists bombs, yet we don't hear anyone calling for their removal from our roads. I think these laws are way out of proportion to the threat.

Cars kill people but this is called accident. Knives kill too by the way. Some will argue that the tongue is a mighty weapon...

Terrorism is intentional and a godly duty instilled in the heart of every jihadist muslim. The pages of their holy book are full of inspiration directly from Allah (so they believe) with great rewards in the after life for dying in his name. Allahu akbar!

I am not a fan of the new laws either - I view them as a shot in the dark, a weakness of our authorities and their inability to tackle the real problem and cause of terror : islam.

Like the war in Iraq for example it could have been averted if the US had good intelligencia in place and execised better wisdom in removing Sadam and let the muslims finish the job...

I think this sentence says it all for me.

>>You get to bounce back pretty quickly from being placed on a control order or detained for a week or so in a five star Australian jail (even if such orders turn out be unjustified) but victims of bomb blasts almost never recover.<<

How quickly, Mr Bagaric, did Jean Charles de Menezes "bounce back" from the eight bullets pumped into him at Stockwell Tube Station by a bunch of over-excited defenders of freedom?

Once you let the genie out of the bottle, it's a bitch to put back. Once you tell your troops that their role is to stop terrorists by shooting first and asking questions later, you have to ask yourself just who, exactly, is being protected, from whom and by whom?

Once you tell your police that they are entitled to "disappear" people that they don't like the look of, and that they are not required to justify their actions to the public, you have to ask yourself the same question: who is being protected, from whom and by whom?

Unlike other restrictions on individual liberty and freedom (such as ID cards), you can't say "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."

Basically we are being told "trust me" by our politicians.

And quite frankly, I don't trust them to do anything except ensure their own survival, paypacket and pension plan, whatever the expense to the citizenry.