I'm still not satisfied.

For those who missed it, here's the links to Tuesday's Lateline interview with Prof McCoy:

Realplayer:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200606/r90598_269855.ram

WinMedia:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200606/r90598_269857.asx

Watch this well, and tell me you're not more proud of Hicksie than any soccer or football player - more proud of him than any vain leg-spinner or dead cricket icon.

Try to suppress the urge to jump up and yell, "Go Hicksie! You'll do me for a mate!"

Then imagine the kamp kommondants describing the suicides as "assymetric warfare" or as cleverly orchestrated public relations stunts (one of the dead was only 21 years old). Then imagine what a Rocky Horror Show the whole Guantanamo thing has been from the start, daubing everyone and everything it touches with s**t.

There are still Australians who think Guantanamo is a necessary evil. In Auschwitz there were quite a few inmates who thought themselves a cut above the others, so they volunteered to shepherd the rest of the condemned in order to prolongue their own existence. How like those "special" people are our own politicians, our own pragmatic intelligenzia who feel the urge to compromise YOUR freedom, while allowing a little more for themselves.

If Hicksie makes it home with his mind intact - watch out!

There will be a certain slack-gobbed aristocrat who'll be picking the pooh from his fishnets.

"Go Hicksie - you little bewdy!

If only Mirko could get locked up for being Mirko. Just for a week mind you. If we discover that he is not really called Mirko we would let him go.

Good stuff Pericles. In 243 words, you demonstrated what narrow-minded, short-sighted stupidity this 1163 word article is.

“Common good”

A term mentioned 4 times in an article which is only opinion piece backed with nothing but presumptions. Presumptions that the laws couldn’t possibly lead to the further breakdown of basic freedoms; Presumptions that our democracy is “unbreakable”.

The term “common good” could be used to argue AGAINST the author as well. I could argue that not setting a precedence for destroying the freedoms of future generations; all for the short-term security of individuals (to put it in a similar context as the author), is not for the “common good” either.

Where is the author’s proof that the laws won’t be taken further? At least give us an historical example. Don’t just spew terms like “idealist”, “hyperbole” and “rights-worshipping” either. That’s weak and baseless.

“Give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile” – Something that the author doesn’t seem to think applies to our government…Ahhh, that’s right - our “robust” democracy!

Mr Bagaric, you’re foolish if you think our democracy is THAT strong. Ever heard of the electronic voting system? Obviously not. Try a Google search. It’s pretty much screwed America’s voting system and is well on the way to corroding their democracy.

The biggest oversight in your baseless article was pointing out the counter-productiveness of sedition laws, then failing to notice the possibility that the government may have “modernised” them to start the ball rolling on the deterioration civil rights. Remember the whole put a frog in boiling water thing?

Are you sure you’re a Professor in Law? Maybe it's the whole "Those who can't do, teach" thing?

As Pericles pointed out, politicians don’t see past their retirement. And here we have some no-brainers puffing their chests with pride with hand-on-heart at the mere thought of these laws.

We still haven’t had one post on this thread agreeing with Mr Bagaric that hasn’t contained dopey catchphrases like “bleeding-heart”, ”idealist”, “chattering classes” and “reactionary”. It just goes to show that their arguments have no merit - just like the author’s.

Pride and Pragmatism

It's funny really. I thought that the golden thread of English justice was the presumption of innocence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v._DPP How naive of me to think that old-fashioned notions like habeas corpus, the rule of law and separation of the powers had any place in the scary new world order.

How nice of Mirko to inform us that idealism has no place in government. Nor apparently do "shallow notions of individual rights". But Mirko believe pride is apparently a legitimate determinant for government policy. Pride and pragmatism.

Still what can we expect anything from the man who believes that state-sanctioned torture might be appropriate http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/A-case-for-torture/2005/05/16/1116095904947.html

Neocon? More like neo-Medieval.

Coach, When ever we enter the road we expose ourselves to a risk of being killed. We reduce the risk by having sensible road rules, road signs, traffic lights and safety standards in cars. Yet 1000 or so killed per year is deemed an acceptable risk and we don't see a need for radical changes in the road rules, just tweeking around the edges really.

Every time we step out of the house we also expose ourselves to a risk of being blown up by terrorists. A much smaller risk, except for those living in Indonesia. The government has proposed new laws to reduce the risk, a noble purpose but virtually everyone thinks the laws are way out of proportion to the risk they address. Kind of like forcing cars to have a gent with a red flag walking in front of it.

Pericles, spot on. There have been royal commsions into the police force of every state in the last 20 years. It would be very naive to trust the authorities with our data. These systems are not safe, witness the frequent reports of massive credit card datatheft in US. Nor is DIMMIA a shining light in handling peoples identity.

Finally who is to say the department controlling the database won't be privatised in the future.

Mr Man - You are shifting the burden of proof. It is in fact up to you to prove the laws will be used further.

How many times have they been used so far? Which freedoms of future generations have been destroyed?

You then rely on more conspiracy theories, frighteningly popular with your lot, followed by an ad hominem attack. What evidence do you have that our civil rights are being eroded?

I would argue the use of conspiracy theories by yourself and Chris Shaw, and the deluded, hypothetical fictions of Narcissist with no real-world examples are far worse than 'dopey catchphrases'.