There has been a strong reaction to this finding, but at the same time, I'm more concerned by the implications of any backlash than I am by this finding.

From the start, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not defending 'jihad' jack, I've no doubt he should have been punished in some way, but we need to keep things in perspective.

Ask yourself - what did he actually do?

He hasn't actually killed anyone. He hasn't raped, nor even thieved.

He has tampered with a passport, and he has clearly gotten involved with dangerous people, and handled money on their behalf.

I can understand the victims of terrorism wanting justice - though as far as I can see, this man was a pawn.
He should have been sentenced, but I question those calling for a long prison sentence.

The function of the courts is to implement the law. If society thinks that confessions should be admitted even when obtained in unacceptable circumstances, then there is a very simple solution: The government can change the law. If the government does that, then the courts will apply the new rules.

It's that simple.

Of course, changing the law so that confessions obtained under duress become admissible would be a politically difficult step.

Don't blame the courts for refusing to do the government's dirty work.

Sylvia.

Shock-jock Bagaric posts his usual mean-spirited, ethics-free mediocrity. For the opposite view see http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-triumph-for-australia-not-a-failure/2006/08/24/1156012673351.html

Terrorism threatens our way of life and our freedom. This includes our right to a fair trial, due process and freedom from torture or duress by the state. What's the point of having democratic processes distorted by governments cowed by callow commentators and mindless media screaming 'Jihad Jack' headlines? We just substitute one form of terrorism with another.

As Alan Atwwod put it in today's Age, "Railing against Appeal Court judges who called it as they saw it in the flawed case against Joseph Thomas is to invoke an ugly kind of journalistic jihad."

I am tiring fast of this wannabe member to the commentariat - I am sure he yearsn to sit alongside Andrew Bolt or David Marr on the ABCs Insiders program.

I also find his logic a bit flawed on 2 counts - firstly he his an advocate of torture - he is on the record as believingit to be OK

- now he may have a few caveats on its application - but thats a bit like the woman who concedes she will have sex with some one for 1 million dollars - but quibbles when he tries to haggle down to a couple of bucks -

He also contends that if the interragator over steps the mark - it is he who shold be punished - no problem - but the information illicited should be considered valid -

If we are fighting a war on terror - at the very least we are fighting for the preservation a society governed under the rule of law - not opinion, or fear or political whim but law - and even if there are anachronistic elements to the exisiting code it is up to us to change them under principles which we have followed since federation - if there is anything we can claim to be an Australian "Value" or a clearly identifiable part of our 'way of life" - excuse me while I puke - it is a commitment to the rule of law.

MB argues for a change - fine change it - but under the laws we have - Jack is a free ma

Sylvia Else is right that security services, including the AFP, only have the option of working within the law.

If the Government (the AFP) wants to bring Jihad Jack (JJ) before the Courts in the hope he might be convicted it has to accept the decision of the judiciary on major points of law.

Several observations:

- Fortunately JJ is likely to be tried again on the basis of the Four Corners interview.

- JJ should bless his luck that he was saved by the AFP officers from further torture and possible death in the Pakistani jail. He may also have been sent to Guantanamo to join hiss buddy David Hicks.

- Given the AFP's helping hand to JJ and that JJ's confession organised by the AFP officers in close communications and agreement with the AFP hierarchy it is ludicrous for Mirko to suggest that the AFP officers should be disciplined. Does Mirko want suspects to be condemned or policemen?

- In addition to JJ being released as a threat to the community the cost of keeping tabs on him would be likely running into $1,000s per day (tax payers money and the resources are better used elsewhere).

BTW I'd say that if Hicks returned from Guantanamo there would be less evidence against him than on JJ under current Australian law - hence the Government has not been overhasty in calling for Hick's return.

aka Spooky Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Mirko, I totally agree with you. This law is a joke. If an officer has acted improperly then they should deal with the officer. But they should still present all evidence collected, together with the manner that it was collected, to the Judge so all the information can be available in the case for the Judge/Jury to make a decision.

I am sure the Judges and people on the Jury are smart enough work out what is right and wrong.