|
As long as they had warrants, compensate for damages, and had a reasonable fear that the occupants may have used force, what's wrong? They weren't beaten, "terrorised" or told to change their religion or to pledge on the flag or anything equally stupid were they? I may have a problem with refusing non citizens certain inaliable political rights such as free speech, but citizens saying they shouldn't have the executive apply the law equally to them, considering their identifying characteristic makes them questionable (Islamic and beleived to have links with JI's leader) is unreasonable to the most purpositivist civil libertarian. The new terror laws, even in their watered down form suck. The Government need not water down our rights if they can hunt down the culprits, examine the causes of the Blai bombing and do their best to prevent similar events.
| 
