• suspects to wear tracking devices for up to a year.
• police able to hold suspects for 48 hours without charge during a terrorist incident.
• AFP (Australian Federal Police) to gain stop, question and search powers.
• 12-month wait for citizenship grows to three years.
• leaving bags unattended at airports and inciting violence to become offences.
• ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) search warrants to remain active for three years.

Of course these laws apply only during terror alerts or following an attack. The point of course is to minimise any chances of repeated attacks.

This regime has outraged Islamic leaders whom, only last month, attended a Muslim summit to condemn terrorist activity. The Islamic leaders are now convinced that any good achieved in the summit have been undoned by the counter-terrorist regime. Federation of Islamic Councils president Ameer Ali said that this action will only antagonise and alienate moderates.

So where do you draw a line between national security and human rights? Is tracking someone who is "suspected" to be a terrorist violating their rights? Would implimenting these laws help or only make people even angrier? Is it really fair to the "suspects". After all they could be innocent. And even terrorist are humans. Well you know what I mean. So do you think it's right to be able to control people so tightly? Okay picture this, a bomb goes off and you just happened to be there. Then when the police come after you, you panic and start to run. When they catch you, you obviously seem like a suspect. You deny. They can't seem to find any evidence so they have to keep you in custody. Then when the time is up, they have no choice but to let you go but to keep risk minimised so they tag you. How would you feel? Okay it's a little far fetched but hey it could happen in an extreme situation...

So is it the right decision?!

Labels: P.O.V.