Nice old mudfight in Australia, Larry, over the government's right to declare any organisation to be a "terrorist organisation." A very unsatisfactory definition was to be used.

Fortunately, it was hit on the head, as was the proposition that the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt be waived for "terrorists".

I must admit to some curiosity (and this applies to both Australia and the US) about older established "terrorist" organisations. The IRA have fund raising fronts in both countries, but as far as I can see there has been no action taken against them. This is despite their coming very clearly under the provisions of the panic legislation.

Does this mean that if action against some group is going to lose votes for the government, it doesn't matter if they are terrorists? At the same time, persecuting your friend might win a few votes (it won't lose any - I bet all her friends voted against Bush anyway!), then she's fair game.