Samina Malik worked airside at Heathrow airport. In her spare time she watched videos of Muslim "brothers" in Iraq beheading kafirs and writing poems about Jihad. She described herself as a "Stranger Awaiting Martyrdom."

She also called herself the "Lyrical terrorist." In one of her poems she wrote, "The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom, the need to go increases second by second."

See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/08/npoet108.xml

When reading about Malik I'm reminded of the behaviour of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the weeks preceding the Columbine shooting.

Samina Malik was convicted under one of Britain's anti-terrorist laws. She was given a nine month suspended sentence.

So far we know, Malik did not commit any overt act of terrorism. Nor, on the evidence presented, was she conspiring with anyone to do so.

Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) thinks Malik was convicted of "thought crime."

See:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2007/12/dont_even_think_about_it.html

Leaving aside the fact that a defence of free speech from anyone associated with the MCB is rank hypocrisy, I find myself in agreement with Bunglawala. Malik was arrested for "thought crime."

What are our options when confronted with the likes of Malik?

(1) We can keep her under surveillance.

(2) We can take pre-emptive action before she commits a violent act. This is, in effect, what the Brits did.

(3) We can wait for her to commit an overt act and then arrest her.

IN TV land (1) may be feasible. In the real world the resources do not exist for keeping sickos like Malik under surveillance

Option (2) risks us becoming a police state in which no one is safe.

I think (3) is actually the least unpalatable option. In the long run it is less dangerous than (2)

But the price of option (3) could be civilian casualties.

Of course I would not like to be a Muslim in Britain if someone like Malik actually carried out one of her sick fantasies. Suppose she had videoed herself beheading someone and placed it on youtube?

She was actively inciting genocide of non believers.Is this against our laws?I think that there has to be a distinction made between people who say things casually and those whose intent is clear and ongoing.If enough evidence is gathered and the intent is clear,yes then she should be charged.

Dear Steve,

What are our options when confronted with someone like Malik?
Well, as you've seen from all the adds that state, "If you suspect anything / or anyone acting suspiciously...report them."

We have anti-terrorist laws in place in this country. Let the law deal with someone like Malik.

It did so in the UK - She was charged, and hopefully got enough of a scare that she won't pursue it any further. Writing poetry and thinking of herself as a martyr she thought was 'cool.' But when faced with the reality of her action - well, as I said, let's hope that being put on trial was enough to bring her back to reality.

Do neither of you, Foxy & Arjay, see any danger in laws that criminalise thought?

Do neither of you worry about us becoming a police state?

Perhaps giving the state Stasi-like powers poses a greater danger than the likes of Samina Malik

Dear Steve,

Stasi, Gestapo, KGB, MI5, FBI, CIA, ASIO, They all were/are pretty frightening - of course. Some more than others. But what is just as
scary to me - are the London bombings, the Bali bombings, the Twin-Towers in New York and the list goes on...

I don't want us to live in a George Orwell "Big Brother" world. No normal person would. However, when we know that there are certain small groups out there that are bent on not only killing themselves but taking victims with them and when evidence casts suspicion on a given person - I would rather have that matter looked into. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Our terrorism laws don't infringe on civil liberties and human rights
(otherwise both parties wouldn't have agreed to pass them in parliament.)

And Malik, in the UK - was given a fair trial - and received a suspended sentence. So what's your problem?

Steven

'thought' crimes are already in place. 'Grooming' children on the net is a crime,and nothing is actually 'done' its all about thought.

Downloading child pornography is a 'crime'.. but no child is hurt or touched. Again...its a 'thought' crime.

It is patently rediculous to suggest that either grooming or downloading are unrelated to the 'thought' they are simply the early outworking of the end game.

Obviously, with terrorism, the level of 'intent' is the hardest part to determine.

-Grooming.. 'intent'
-Downloading Porn.. may or may not involve 'intent' to hurt a child.

Downloading beheading videos and relishing them... + seeing oneself as a 'martyr' ? well if there is any less 'intent' there than in the other exemples.... I cannot see where.

Dear Foxy ...you suggested that the 'shock' of being arrested might have sufficiently shaken her up and brought her back to reality?

Having visted the committal hearing in Melbourne of the 13 arrested alledged terror suspects, I assure you, there is not the slightest hint of 'back to reality' on any of their faces, except one, who's brother I chatted with in the court.

You really need to explore some of the ranting, preaching, sloguns, 'grooming' (in a terrorist context) and moulding which goes on in the world of radical Islam. "We love death more than you love life" kind of thing.
Here is some info for your perusal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKt7J1U1Cs8

Watch....and learn.