Redneck:

What right-wing rednecks like you don't to realise (unlike the "do-gooder, bleeding heart, pinko, lefties" you seem to dislike realise) is that fundamentally you cannot take the civil liberties of a nation away - no matter what the threat. It's that simple.

On pure principal, I personally would rather die young in a terrorist attack while living in a free country then live-out the rest of my life in a country where I can be arrested because I spoke-out against the wrong-doings of my country's leader. Hang on - aren't they the principals we're fighting for in Iraq. Well, they are now since excuse A (WMD) failed?

But more to the point, what these "trendy lefties" understand (unlike you) is that the only reason these breaches of civil rights have become "necessary" is because western countries (particularly America) want something that the poorer countries have and then invade, killing their innocent and using the excuse of "spreading democracy" to get it: -

Iraq: Oil;
Afghanistan: To build a gas pipeline through the country that the Taliban wouldn't allow;
Palestine/Israel: One of the world's largest oil ports.

The list goes on.

And THAT is why they're fighting back. Anyone who falls for the "They're against our freedom" line has to be the most stupid person on Earth. Sane or insane - who would be against freedom?

Remember, it was Howard who got our country into this mess and it's now the perfect excuse for his twisted government to push through one of their core, right-wing ideologies of destroying civil rights; in order to (ultimately) gain complete control. Right-wingism, in its extremes, is fascism. And a government in total control of parliament becomes extreme.

And I don't want to hear any of this sh*t about the apparent, imminent terror threat either. Blind Freddy could have seen what a farce that was. It came strait from the handbook of "Sir" Robert Menzies (the world-wide communism threat), Hitler (the Jewish threat) and the incompetent George W Bush (the WMD threat).

Why attack us? With these "anti-terror laws", they've already won!

...Oh, and Leigh, prevention is better that cure. The best anti-terror legislation would be to adjust our foreign policy. In other words: Leave other countries alone so that their militants don't start hitting back.

And Knightrider, Why should WE get out! If you don't value your civil rights then YOU get out!

I'd suggest Nigeria or Sudan. With little to no oil, you can guarantee you'll never be "liberated".

Online Opinion

“If the world is to be spared what future historians may call the Century of Terror, we must chart a perilous course between the Scylla of American imperial arrogance and the Charybdis of Islamic religous fanaticism. ” From “Google”.

It seems with our current world problem, the Kantian proof is emerging that not one personage nor one nation, will ever be suitable to manage the world as it is today. The Great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, based his theory on human nature, proven so much by his disappointment with Napoleon, who as a young general after the terrors and trials of the French Revolution, made a pledge that it was his role to carry the proleriat banner of Equality Fidelity and Fraternity throughout the world where needed.

But as we already know, Napoleon broke the Enlightenment rules and declared himself Emperor over not only France but all the land he had conquered in the name of Liberty.

As a devout Christian and moral philosopher who had backed the Enlightenment, Kant should have possibly not been surprised that Napoleon’s successes had gone to his head. Napoleon did pay the penalty as many other self-appointed leaders have done, like Hitler. But so can democratically elected leaders get themselves in trouble like Richard Nixon, as Bush seems to be in similar trouble, though possibly bearing the brunt possibly on behalf of a few of his compatriots like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. There is also the worry about the Bush Republicans appointing their own head of the US Judiciary - which smells like an attempt to protect against the second White House impeachment in less than fifty years.

Part Two

Indeed, political philosophers do point out that a major weakness in our Western democracies is for the party in power to be allowed to appoint a new member of the Judiciary.

Surely these political shenanigans emanating from today’s White House could not only be proving Kant’s axiom that not one person can be trusted as one nation run by one personage cannot be trusted - but also the leader of a modern democracy cannot be trusted, something Kant had not been associated with.

Surely the answer, then, must be Kant’s Federation of Nations with a joint or equal commissary, or similar, fitting today’s conditions, part of which could entail the United Nation’s own permanent nuclear armanent as suggested during the Korean War the

. There has been a worry that little nations have had too much to say, and that a member of a small nation like Kofi Annan should never have been in charge. Yet surely with all the lessons learnt back to the Ancient Greeks who invented the idea of democracy, that we find a way to manage a United Nations somewhat similar but much more democratic of course, than Kant’s Federation of Nations.

Our WTO is also a part of the UN principle, which sadly is being badly abused by the very nation which purports to be able to run this world in a free and democratic way. But the only freedom there appears to be these days in marketing, is the freedom for the top nation to break WTO rules, especially in blatantly subsidising its grain farmers mainly in exchange for the farmer’s Federal vote to keep the offendors - as we should call them - safe in the White House. Furthermore, by recent record, how can we ever trust such a nation to remain a unipolar symbol we can look up to

First they came for the Arabs
Then they came for the Unionists
Then they come for..... who?

Face it, anti-semetic + anti-union + secret police powers + indefinate detention = FASCISM!

I do not support the terrorists, or their sympathisers, it is simply that they do not have the capacity to destroy our way of life. Unfortunately, laws very similar to these demonstrated that capacity, in one of the most advanced, hospitable countries in Europe in the 1930's. the laws were aimed at providing the government of the Weimar republic with the necessary power to prevent communists taking over all, or part of germany. The laws were effective for a period, but resulted in the complete disintergration of german society and the second world war. In the end however these laws led to the very communists, at which they were aimed, taking over the majority of germany within 10 years. think about it.

Also as a jew, I have very little patience with any form of anti-semitism, the way the arabs are depicted now, is essentially the same way jews have been depicted prior to every pogrom and geneocidal act in the last 1000 years. Yes, they are different, however they are still human beings, treat others as you expect to be treated.

redneck, maybe you could check with some of your US based namesakes about governments removing freedoms. Image these powers in the hands of left wing extremists if you think this is only an issue for the left wing to be concerned about.

I'm kind of struck by how similar the tone of a lot of this stuff is to issues in family law
- a perception that a certain type of problem is exclusively caused by one group (regardless of the facts).
- a willingness to see allow all individuals in that group to suffer regardless of their guilt or innocence.
- the removal of viable checks and balances to stop abuse of the stystem.
- secrecy provisions which make it difficult for individuals impacted by this stuff to adequately present their plight.
- etc

As a nation we are already seemingly willing to accept unreasonable harm to individuals if it satisfies some kind of catch cry. The wedge is just getting driven in a bit further.

R0bert