All the lefties are defending our weak kneed courts.The left merely uses Muslim Facism to tear asunder the present status quo,since it satisfies their thirst for power no matter what the consequences.

This guilt ridden self flagelation by the West is nothing more than slow suicide that see a new world order of bereft of democracy and the freedoms we now take for granted.

Mirko, your position is so incompetent it is beyond belief. The issue is whether a confession induced by repeated threats of torture and by a promise of a safe return to Australia is to be believed--and whether its truth is beyond reasonable doubt. Is that so complicated and so odd that you cannot understand it? Of course the confession is useless.

The first requirement of an academic is intellectual honesty. The second is to do the work necessary to get things right.

The courts decision to dismiss the Australian, Jack Thomas' case is absolutely correct, the worst thing that can happen to Australian law is an acceptance of confessions made under duress.

It is true that Bagaric has argued in favour of torture on previous articles - thus proving he is no better than the jihadists, terrorists or despots.

I hope that Jack Thomas will be trialed - fairly. Just as I hope that David Hicks will be tried - fairly.

Jack seemed like a good bloke, but remember that so do alot of serial killers, death row inmates and rapists.

If he gets set free, so should Hicksy

Realist, your logic amounts to this:

1. A lot of serial killers, death row inmates and rapists seemed like good blokes.
2. 'Jack' seems like a good bloke.
3. Therefore 'Jack' must be guilty.

And then you produce the simplistic 'tu quoque' extension: If 'Jack' gets set free, so should 'Hicksy' - implication 'Hicksy' is guilty too. Does 'Hicksy' seem like a good bloke too?

What do you think of the logic of this syllogism?
1. A lot of posters on On Line Opinion are illogical.
2. Realist is a poster on On Line Opinion.
3. Therefore Realist is illogical.

No too flash is it? Could I recommend a couple of books:

Susan Stebbing, "Thinking to Some Purpose" and Stuart Chase, "Guides to Straight Thinking: with thirteen common fallacies".

I am not a lawyer but have always felt uncomfortable with the new anti terrorist law. Did we not have adequate laws to deal with this situation already?

If JT ia a dangerous person then perhaps it is the police who are at fault. No doubt the court considered the evidence and made a careful decision. If there is a need for a change in the way courts operate is this not a job for government? Judges must act within the law as it is at the time of the alledged offence, retrospective law is an abomination.

I worry that JT is now being judged by armchair courts thanks in no small part to a Government that has saved its skin on the War on Terror and a public that laps up sensation.

I am equally sceptical both of those who judge him guilty and those who judge him not guilty on the basis of newspaper articles. I have no reason to question the existance of a nasty anti freedom religious group who have done harm (suicide bombings and the like) and may be plotting world domination but on the other hand the reaction must be reasoned.

I also question those who support a silly conspiracy theory that Western Governments and agencies are all running a hidden agenda against the common people (whoever they may be).

No doubt JT is now being watched by police in case he commits an act that could harm us. And that is as it should be.