It's a good idea if they still pose a threat.

We can't have terrorists on our streets.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 5:26am:



So the purpose of jailing isn't rehabilitation, it's revenge.
And the slippery slope continues. It's now indefinite detention for rapists also.
What about motor bike club members ... what about aboriginals ... surely they all will reoffend ?

Wait until they want indefinite detention for their own citizens..... not joking... we are on the way there already...

Oops - sorry - I thought you were talking about refugees...

There have been several disturbing moves in legislation in recent years, starting in the early 1990's with the 'domestic violence' issue, with its automatic finding of guilt and its criminalisation of people on complaint....... at that time I associated that move with the POTA laws (Prevention of Terrorism Act) in Britain, which stipulated that a person's contacts and movement could be circumscribed and limited, even though they had not been convicted of any genuine offence.  Furthermore, a breach of such restrictions lead to a criminal conviction - this is precisely the style of legalised abuse of law set in place here by our respective governments (I will take this opportunity to thank our learned member, Longie, for opening up argument on these issues earlier), to cater to the victim industry surrounding inter-personal relationship complaints.

Another part of such legislation was that a person suspected of an act of terrorism could be held longer than the statutory 24 hours without charge... up to 72 I think it was.

We have also seen that in some cases a government will apply a regulatory extension of detention on a person who has completed sentence for a convicted offence.. such as paedophiles and rapists etc... none of whom garner much in the way of public sympathy.  This is a deliberate undermining by regulation of the rights of the courts - who despite their blatant hypocrisy, wrongful leaning against accused persons, and blithe acceptance of nonsense as evidence, remain our only barrier to an overwhelming dictatorship of government and its arms of law enforcement.

There are similarities here to the 'commission' into domestic violence, which took in masses of anecdotal evidence from remote Aboriginal communities rife with abuse and alcoholism etc, and then extrapolated the findings of that 'study' to the entire community, thus automatically creating of any person alleged to have committed some wrong a person subject to legal intervention, regardless of facts and evidence, and thus creating an environment of 'conviction on accusation'.

The problem with this, even though nobody has sympathy for rapists, abusers and paedophiles etc, is that such actions must always be seen as the thin edge of the wedge in a calculated attack on Civil and Legal Rights here and now... and in reality has been for nearly twenty five years here in Australia.

Now where's Longie to tell me I'm wrong? 

EVERY post on legal issues has your wanking on endlessly.....

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 8:49am:


The same cabinet that wants to out manoeuvre the far right minor parties and use this as a tool to whack over Labor's head, soon to be claiming they are weak on terror. The same tactic they used on Labor concerning refugees who come by boats.

And as for judicial oversight, you mean the high court judges chosen by the government?

issuevoter wrote on Jul 25^th, 2016 at 8:26am: