Daggett, we share a high level of disgust over Howard’s high immigration policies and various other policies of his government. Yes this government deserves condemnation on some things. But that shouldn’t be used as an excuse to condemn them or think the absolute worst over any little step that they might make that we disagree with.

As I said last time; “The Australian Government’s efforts to deal with the prospects of terrorism amount to an extremely difficult balancing act”.

So let’s be very careful about seeing it in a balanced manner and not just automatically thinking the worst.

Where would we be if we completely mistrusted our government? Do you really think so poorly of them as to think that they could be pursuing a policy direction that “could be used to imprison at will almost any individual that this government feels threatened by”. Don’t you think this is taking it just a bit too far?

Hi Sylvia,

Terrorism is bad and we should all be alert.

Whats worse, in my view, is to live day and night thinking of it and fearing it. There are those who exploited it to create an industry of fear.

I was on a business trip in the US watching FoxNews when I noticed something interesting: in the bottom of the TV screen next to the weather pannel, there was a new pannel labelled 'terror alert'. So an average american is supposed to look out for weather forecast and also see if the terro is 'high, low, or medium'! Who knows, maybe soon there will be a 'terror' tab on mobile phones pocket news and pay $$ to download or per sms.

Peace,

The problem with government powers is not so much that the Government sets out to abuse them, but that abuse happens without intent.

If you're convinced, even on totally irrational grounds, that a person is some sort of threat, and you have the power to do something that will mitigate the threat, then there's a clear incentive to use that power. It can be done with the best will in the world, but still be an abuse of the power, and the subject of the use can find themselves in a very unpleasant situation through no fault of their own.

Where there is a proper judicial review of the use of powers, the probability of abuse is lowered because the facts get examined by someone who has no prior investment in a particular decision being right.

What happens when a government is convinced that the opposition will do serious harm to the country if they get into office? Such a government may start to feel justified in using any powers they have to limit the opposition's electoral chances.

So even if we trust the government not to set out to oppress us, we still risk being subject to their poor judgement if we give them powers that are not subject to review.

The Government seems to have invested so much in the idea that terrorism is bad that it cannot recognise the possibility that people suspected of terrorism might be innocent, and that the risks associated with terrorism suspects can be managed without treating suspects as if they're guilty from day one.

If the Government gets its way, Dr Haneef will spend more time in gaol on remand that he's likely to get by way of punishment even if he's found guilty. Whatever the legal niceties, he's being punished for being suspected of being a terrorist. That's already an abuse of power, so we don't have to speculate on whether the government would abuse its powers.

Sharkfin - in a somewhat cavalier manner you say "When these acts of terrorism stop then these laws will be scraped. There will simply be no need for them. Western democracies will never tolerate these laws once the threat of terrorism is over."

What complete and utter garbage. Terrorism has always existed - what is terrorism aside from action against civilians/government for political purposes?
How then, can this threat ever "be over?"
It can't. There is no possible way, the threat of terrorism can ever be removed.
The problem with your argument, is that it justifies a constant tightening of civil liberties.
At what point has it gone too far? Are you seriously suggesting that the government will always use these provisions responsibly? At what point do you say enough is enough?

Charlee - you haven't paid attention to the disclaimers in the opening post. Nobody is trying to say the deaths weren't horrific or trying to minimise the nastiness.
But as it stands, you can't express doubt as to the threat of terrorism to society without the discussion being hijacked with emotive expressions such as the one you just put forth.

Communicat: "It is easy to write letters and criticise but where's the evidence?"

That's what people are asking about Haneef, but it's in the opposite direction to the manner you have suggested.
Magistrate Jacqui Payne's decision was made on hearing both sides (defence and prosecution). The government's decision to ignore our judicial system (and remember, the core element of all western civilisation is the concept that government figures can't interfere in the judicial process) was based solely on arguments from the prosecution.

Haneef is being jailed because he gave someone a sim card.

Bazz - democracy works because, theoretically, the public voices their opinions and their representatives hear their wishes. By this logic, people should express their views more, not less.

Daggett, yes we are still friends. You are able to converse what I feel and much better than I am able.

Ludwig, this current governments lies are not just concerning this matter. It seems before each election Mr Howard is able to somehow bring about fear to the people of this country.. eg the children thrown overboard, the reasons for invading Iraq ie WMDs, many other leis, and now this. How long does he expect us to be so gullible to continue to believe all if nay that he says. I see a real pattern and my hope is that we continue to see this pattern until we are rid of this despot!!

Glendabeth

I would like to know a little more about Haneef and his cousins. Who is paying his legal bills during his confinement? I thought he was leaving Australia on a one-way ticket to India while owing rent and other bad debts. He may not be a terrorist but it is obvious where his sympathies would lay. Did he use his cousin’s name while applying for work or did his cousins use his without his permission?