My proposition is that "Jihad" Jack Thomas has only himself and his legal team to blame if his volunteered comments to the ABC's Four Corners program are ultimately used to convict him. Some civil libertarians are reported as being appalled that Four Corners aired the interview. I am appalled that anyone believes the ABC should sit on new information that is germane to a curreent criminal trial until after the outcome is set in stone (beyond further appeal). The ABC should have immediately brought Thomas' comments to the attention of the authorities. Such action may have averted the subsequent appeal against the admissability of certain evidence and the impending re-trial.
The conclusion that Four Corner's actions will dicourage whistle blowers is hard to sustain. Thomas' on-air confessions cannot be characterised as an expose on the conduct of the Austalian Federal Police. The legitimacy of some AFP evidence was successfully appealed and resulted in the original conviction being overturned. The latter outcome confirmed the integrity of our judicial system in insisting that evidence was inadmissible even if there was a slight risk of it having being gathered by coersion. The extensive reporting of the initial trial and the subsequent appeal confirmed the freedom rightly afforded to the press in Australia.
If al-Qa'ida had its way civil liberties would be non existant. I have every confidance that Mr Thomas will continue to enjoy the full protection of our robust judicial system and our free press. If ultimately found guilty Mr Thomas will deserve a stiff penalty. Any penalty needs to be harsh enough to discourage anyone dedicated to the abolition of our liberties by violent means. Unfortunately the stiffest of penalties will be ineffective against those so self indulgent that they are willing to be suicide bombers.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say Logical, I don't think your dismissal of suicide bombers as 'self-indulgent'is appropriate, any more than some claims (mainly by the Israeli Government) that they are 'cowards'.
It could easily be argued that people have the stongest belief that their actions are right if they are prepared to willingly kill themselves for their 'cause'.
Some of us westerners feel comfortable in dismissing those actions as a result of psychological control but we are quick to applaude our own war heroes who willingly sacrifice their lives in the name of God and country.

Freeranger's response has opened up an area of debate that is unrelated to my original theme.
My description of suicide bombers as being self indulgent is however a proposition that I am willing to forcefully defend.
Being a suicide bomber is self indulgent because the participant expects to be better off after his/her demise than before i.e. heaven with accoutrements is better than life on earth. The cost of pursuing your cause is not oblivion but a guaranteed first-class afterlife. To expect totally innocent civilian bystanders to be a necessary component of your entry price is self indulgence in spades.
The counter argument that not all civilian bystanders are innocent does not wash. Some civilians may be guilty of directly or indirectly supporting the actions of governments or alternate religions that the suicide bomber rails against. Some however does not equate with all. I doubt that even the majority of the Austalians killed in the Bali bombing could be characterised as remotely threatening the bombers pursuit of his/her religion.
The suicide bomber does not feel unease about the fate of genuinely innocent bystanders. Even existing adherents to his/her religion are considered acceptable collateral damage because they will be judged by God and accorded an appropriate afterlife. Bad luck about such innocents' surviving loved ones or that the victim may have intended to continue leading his her previously "pure" life.
The suicide bombers sole intent is to frighten adherents of all competing philosophies into adhering to his/her version of the truth. In my opinion such arrogance is repugnant and cannot be justified on the basis of any stocktake of the sins ( past/present, real/imagined) of your competitors in the world of ideas

Freeranger says "It could easily be argued that people have the strongest belief that their actions are right if they are prepared and willing to kill themselves for their 'cause'". Death can only be invoked as evidence of commitment to a cause when "total" death actually occurs. The suicide bomber does not equate the physical destruction of their body with their death. The exercise is one of being rewarded by moving to a higher place. Only when you regard death as "total" i.e. no afterlife can you support the proposition that being willing to die is unequivocal evidence of commitment to the cause.Lack of evidence of commitment is of course not proof of a lack of commitment.The difficulty with suicide bombers is in determining whether defence of their religion or the prospect of reward in the afterlife is the dominating influence.
As a committed civil libertarian I object to any movement that requires the sacrifice of individuals who follow a different star and are willing to let you follow yours.
Tolerance stops at the point of being obliged to accept intolerance as becoming integral to your own behaviour.
Freeranger expresses concern that "Some of us westerners feel comfortable with dismissing those actions (suicide bombing) as a result of psychological control but we are quick to applaud our own war heroes who willingly sacrifice their lives in the name of God and country". The above arguments indicate why I would regard brain-washing as a polite out for the irrational, unacceptable,outrageous and unjustifiable behaviour of all suicide bombers.
Freeranger is confused if he believes most dead war heroes set out with the intent of dying or that they acted out of a religious conviction, with or without, a belief in an afterlife. Our war heroes have no doubt been duped on occassion and acted with legitimate moral force on other occasions. The Geneva Convention has guided the terms of engagement that are taught to our military. Suicide bombers often deliberately select non-combatant targets. They do not seek to minimise so called collateral damage.

Ok Logical, you say 'The Geneva Convention has guided the terms of engagement that are taught to our military. Suicide bombers often deliberately select non-combatant targets. They do not seek to minimise so called collateral damage.'
I hadn't noticed the US taking much notice of the Geneva Convention. And never forget that the US is still the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons (AND deliberately against civilian populations)

Freeranger. Your resonse implies that I am being hypocritical in mentioning the Geneva convention without drawing attention to how numerous states, including the USA, have broken the convention. My posting did not excuse or condone any nation breaking the Geneva convention.
The notion that differences can only be settled by killing your opposition and creating fear to cower the general populace into submission is abhorrent to me. Far better to avoid wars than invent rules to make them more "civilised". Nevertheless an intent to abide by those rules of engagement is, from the point of view of the civilian population, better than nothing. Drawing attention to the fundamental difference berween intending to abide by rules of engagement and throwing those rules to the wind is not an exercise in hypocricy.
My argument remains consistant because I abhore collateral damage and explicitely oppose the prime targetting of civilians by both sides. To remain consistant you need to apply your disdain for US actions that have impinged on civilians to the actions of suicide bombers who regard it as acceptable to select purely civilian targets, market places, commuter trains etc.
You have failed to address yourself to the body of my argument about why it is reasonable to descibe suicide bombers, who are offered the prospect of heaven for their grisly work, as being self indulgent.
Please state explicitely whether or not you hold the actions of such suicide bombers to be justifiable. My answer is an unequivocal NO. Nor do I seek to justify or downplay their murderous deeds by alluding to the errors of their opponents.