If you really want to know what living under bondage is like I suggest you visit a country where women are mot allowed to show any flesh let alone have a paid job. A little inconvenience at the airport is not much of a price to pay for our freedom. All parties have and will always play the political game but to mimimise the threat of terroism is an ignorance I would rather do without.

Yeah, sorry for my typically non-native-Anglo-Australian stupidity, but hardly a forum participant understands why an Arab-Australian was jailed for 20 years for attempt to buy explosives (is it illegal locally?) as a Muslim convert, a native Anglo-Australian was charged and then in a few months acquainted for undertaking training and being paid by Al-Qaeda under the same law?

And he is not only one in Australia being trained in Afghan-Pakistani camps but one surely having met Osama personally.

Probably, any legislation reflects internal demand for as well as any judgment well based on the timing considerations undertaking upon.

I read the article as simply pointing out that these measures are restricting our freedoms - the author makes the point that this is to protect our lives, which is important.

He doesn't actually say anywhere that this shouldn't be done at all, he is just calling for 'less government spin' which I happen to think is laudable.

You can't deny that these measures restrict our freedoms in some ways - the real debate here is how far should we be willing to go in order to protect ourselves from terrorism, and how real is the terrorist threat.

I for one, believe that there is a very real threat, but it is being exaggerated for political gain. You can't blame the politicians too much, it's how our system is designed. We can only hope there are some votes in portraying a more accurate picture of the global situation.

Over to you...

It's a problem determining freedoms with perceived threats, it must get to the stage when there's only fear and restriction. Even a totalitarian state won't stop attacks, just create more terrorists from difference persuasions using other methods.

Its our approach we need to change, by using deterrents having the most effect. Don't lock those up who train for or plan terrorist attacks, deport them and their families to their ancestral, or country of their belief. If they carry out an attack, try, kill them and deport their entire families. We don't need the cost of locking up these people for 20 years, they already have growing ghetto's in jails.

Really smart, lock them all up together and create an active government funded terror cell. If they're a threat, throw them out. It wouldn't be long before people would have to choose between their religion, ancestral country, or here.

To do this we must disassociate ourselves from what's happening in other parts of the world. Then warn all ideologies that this is a free country, and it will remain free, by deporting all who try to impose their religious culture on us.

If we don't make a stand and show to live here, you must be free from controlling ideology and it's aims, or we don't want or need you. The continuing reduction for freedoms, will only inflame people and not increase our safety or better our lives.

People will say but you can't punish the families, if you jail them their families will seek revenge. That's the nature of god.

The point at issue is not whether we need extra laws, itself, debatable, but whether the Governments of the day are using terror as an excuse for excessive laws to their own benefit at the polls. Granted warnings of the danger of driving, smoking, eating too much, exercising too little are frequently given and presumably like terrorism the economic and electoral consequences are more than Governments are prepared to tolerate.

In the UK there have been to August 608 arrests resulting in 99 charges and 15convictions. In USA in the five years since 9/11 Syracuse University 6472 individuals have been referred to prosecutors. 64% were not proceeded with 9% were dismissed 27% convicted with a much smaller percentage receiving severe sentences indicated presumably more serious behaviour. In Canada of those arrested in Toronto the majority were released and so on round the world. We await the latest UK arrest results.
We note a curious relationship between terrorist events and Governments needing diversions from some current trouble. The Hollywood type drama is also noted Tanks ringing Heathrow.

Possibilities.
1 The terrorists have good lawyer, denied in Australia until the trial.
2 Obtaining evidence is so difficult that most cases collapse. The excuse for much of Australia’s new laws and powers. The terrorists acts so frequent and damaging as to warrant invasion of hard fought liberties. Presumably health care will shortly be denied smokers, drivers, sportsmen and so on .
3 The definition of terrorism is so imprecise and the powers so wide that the above result.
The police under Government order harass and arrests those who are different even those presumably recorded as facetiously suggesting blowing somebody or something up for surveillance has wide intrusive power. Said to be necessary when the consequences of terrorism are so large. 9/11 the base line with bacterial or nuclear presumably the top.
Or
Governments are using the hyped fear and the power it gives to those who promise security. Funny the fear of being sacked is similarly used in new laws.

The over-riding duty of the national government is to do everything in its power to look after the safety of its citizens. That is number 1. In our democracy we have significant personal freedoms. In times of national danger, such as we have with the threat of Terrorism, it may be necessary to diminish some of those freedoms temporarily in order to achieve the degree of safety that is required of the national government. This would be true of a national government of any political persuation.

This article seeks to put personal freedoms first and looking after the safety of its citizens as a secondary consideration. "Get real mate!"