Counter-terrorism laws have swung too far in favour of police power at the expense of civil liberties and should be repealed, according to legal experts and lawyers contributing to a government review of the legislation.

The laws, which were strengthened after the 2005 London bombings, allow terrorist suspects to be held without charge for 48 hours and also give police special powers, including being able to search and seize without a warrant.

But the legal profession's peak body says the laws have gone so far beyond what is necessary that even the introduction of safeguards or other reforms would fail to alleviate its concerns. Provisions for preventative detention and special police powers should be repealed, it says.

Philip Boulten, SC, who presented the Law Council of Australia's submission to the review last night, said those provisions had been rushed through Parliament at a time of heightened anxiety and some had never been used.

''Even at its hottest, we never even got close to the need for preventative detention orders,'' Mr Boulten said.

''They're contrary to the most fundamental principles of our criminal justice system. Without any apparent requirement for them, they are odious.''

A committee led by the retired NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy, QC, is reviewing the legislation, which was passed by the Howard government in 2005 at a speed that raised concerns among lawyers.

George Williams, a constitutional lawyer at the University of NSW, said only a month elapsed between the bill's introduction and legislation being passed, leaving little time for scrutiny by Parliament.

The committee is due to report on the effectiveness of counter-terrorism laws to the Council of Australian Governments by February.

Terrorist Laws 'Go too Far'

elsewhere …..

organised crime ….

American journalist and political commentator Sherwood Ross believes that CIA is the world's foremost criminal organization and that the anti-Iranian sanctions of the United States and its European allies are contrary to the principles of human rights.

"Iran is one of the world's most peaceful nations. It has not made war on a neighbour in modern times. Its crime is oil. The US overthrow of the elected government of Iran in 1953 came about at the behest of the UK, whose British Petroleum antecedent was driven from the country for cheating the Iranians out of their fair share of the proceeds from the sale of oil." he says.

Sherwood Ross is an award-winning journalist who formerly worked for the City News Bureau of Chicago, the Chicago Daily News, and for several wire services. He is the author of "Gruening of Alaska"(Best Books) and several produced plays. He was active in the US civil rights movement and was press coordinator for James Meredith's "March Against Fear" in Mississippi.

What follows is the text of my interview with Sherwood Ross in which we have talked about Islamophobia, the prospect of Iran-US relations, anti-Iranian sanctions of the West, Israel's nuclear program and a couple of other issues.

Kourosh Ziabari: Dear Sherwood; in one of your articles, you pointed out that Muslims constitute some 1 percent of the US population, but they are nearly 13 percent of the victims of religious-based hate crimes. Why are the Islamophobic sentiments so rampant and prevalent in the United States? This anti-Muslim discrimination is taking place while President Obama had promised to revitalize the United States' relations with the Muslims. What do you think in this regard?

Sherwood Ross: It is practically inevitable that some of the thoughtless multitude at the bottom of the education pyramid will embrace the aggression advocated by super-patriotism, which is rampant in the United States. The 9/11 atrocity was pinned on Muslims within hours of the attack (it may well have been an inside job to justify subsequent US wars) and the overwhelmingly negative picture of Muslims painted in the media since then reinforces this anti-Arab stereotype. As for President Obama's promises to do right in the Middle East, they are worthless as day after day he authorizes drone strikes against suspects in Muslim nations. No courts. No judges. These attacks have claimed the lives of perhaps thousands, of innocent civilians. His conduct is an affront to the very principles of justice.

It has also given an expanded role to play for the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency that once employed President Obama. When you reflect that the CIA is the foremost criminal organization in the world, and that it acts in a lawless and reckless manner, and has a history of initiating calamities and resorting to terrorism, you get some idea of the true character of the president.

Kourosh Ziabari: You've surely heard about the release of the anti-Islam movie "Innocence of Muslims," directed by an Israeli-American man called Sam Bacile, and the subsequent republication of offensive cartoons of Prophet Muhammad in the French "Charlie Hebdo" magazine. Who is behind these anti-Islam plots? Why have the Muslims and their sanctities become the target of Western propaganda machinery attacks?

Sherwood Ross: There doesn't need to be any one or any organization behind the plots being hatched. They can truly be the work of isolated dunces who are not related in any way to the US government or the CIA.

Pardon me, but the best strategy for dealing with these cultural affronts is to ignore them. The demonstrations and rioting in reaction to the current movie, like the Danish cartoon before it, only achieve the cravings of their creators for publicity. Muslim and Arab peoples must "consider the source" of these affronts and ignore them utterly. Similarly, all the denunciations of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" achieved was to sell more copies. It is always best to put one's passions aside in these matters and not resort to threats or force.

Kourosh Ziabari: Do you consider the Israeli war threats against Iran a continuation of President Bush's War on Terror initiative? Can we interpret Tel Aviv's hawkish rhetoric on Iran as part of a larger plan to demonize and isolate the Muslim nations which resist the American imperialism? Does the Israeli regime have the capability or legitimacy to launch an attack on Iran?

Sherwood Ross: You are asking three questions here. I can't answer the first two. As for the third question, no, Israel is bound to take its complaint to the United Nations rather than to even threaten Iran, much less attack it. There is no legitimacy here whatever. What there is plenty of is hypocrisy, because Israel reportedly has more than 200+ nuclear weapons and refuses to allow UN inspection yet it threatens Iran, which the UN says has not even one nuclear weapon, with war.

Kourosh Ziabari: The US has just taken the name of Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO) off its list of terrorist organizations. Unquestionably, this decision is an outright declaration of war against Iran and its consequences will gravely affect the already strained relations between Iran and the United States. What's your take on that? How can the United States justify this reconciliation with a terrorist group which is responsible for the lives of thousands of Iranians and Iraqis?

Sherwood Ross: The State Department's terrorist list has a history of being consistently manipulated by the White House to suit whatever aim it is pursuing. Given President Obama's penchant for waging wars without UN permission or Congressional approval, the most glaring error is that Secretary of State Clinton left the USA off the list. According to world public opinion polls, foreigners live in fear the US, the days of President Franklin Roosevelt's genuine "Good Neighbour" policy are long gone.

Kourosh Ziabari: In one of your important articles, you presented a list of the US atrocities and hostilities against the Iranian nation during the past 50 years. Washington's support for the deposed dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, its role in the Iraqi war against Iran which claimed the lives of dozens of innocent Iranians, its shooting down of the civilian aircraft associated with the Iranian Air Flight 655 and killing 290 passengers onboard, its campaign of media propaganda and economic sanctions, etc. What are the reasons for all of these hostilities? Why is the United States so adamantly following an anti-Iranian path and seems reluctant to give up this stance?

Sherwood Ross: Essentially, Iran is one of the world's most peaceful nations.

It has not made war on a neighbour in modern times. Its crime is oil. The US overthrow of the elected government of Iran in 1953 came about at the behest of the UK, whose British Petroleum antecedent was driven from the country for cheating the Iranians out of their fair share of the proceeds from the sale of oil. I believe Iraq was attacked by President G.W. Bush for the same reason.

After the US victory, one of the first new foreign oil companies allowed to do business in Iraq was Hunt Oil of Dallas, Tex., run by an executive who is a close friend of President Bush.

Kourosh Ziabari: What's your viewpoint regarding the US-directed economic sanctions against Iran which include a ban on foodstuff, medicine and humanitarian goods? Don't these sanctions violate the international law and principles of human rights?

Sherwood Ross: Of course they do. The Administration of President Bill Clinton assertedly allowed 500,000 Iraqi children to starve by the sanctions he imposed, a crime against humanity and President Obama is no better. Imposing these sanctions will only embitter the Iranian people and their political and religious leaders, as well as cause needless suffering. The latest Israeli threats, for example, have elicited in the past few days heated responses from the Iranian military.

These harsh words of response will only escalate the tension. I want to repeat here my deep conviction that a non-violent response to Israeli and US threats is the best option for Iran. It will go against the instincts of the military which, understandably, wishes to show its courage and bravery. But even if Iran's military proved its superiority in the opening phases of the conflict, in the long term it would be exhausted by the overwhelming power of the US and its Israeli and NATO allies.

Keep in mind the US spread nuclear fire across Iraq and countless children and adults are suffering to this day from it. Iran needs to adopt a creative, non-violent strategy rather than to respond with force. Do their military leaders really believe a nation with a $7- or $8-billion military budget can successfully oppose a nation with an $800 billion military budget? As a practical matter, Iran cannot win a shooting war, no matter how brave its military may be. The better solution, and the one the world is waiting for, is the non-violent approach advanced by Gandhi to liberate India from the British Empire . So let me elaborate on this critical point.

(1) If Iran, putting aside its pride, were to shut down its nuclear operation, wouldn't this pull the rug out from under the Israelis and the Americans? Iranian political leaders could make this announcement while demanding that Israel in return open up its nuclear facilities to UN inspection. Once the Iranian nuclear facility is closed, and its closure monitored by UN inspectors, Iran would be in a commanding position to demand a nuclear-free region, one in which Israel would have no excuse for possessing a nuclear arsenal. The non-violent approach would give Iran a powerful diplomatic victory and initiative.

(2) Alternately, but not as effectively, Iran could keep its nuclear operations going. If so, it should invite world leaders and religious figures to visit it, perhaps in the company of scientists, to show them that these operations are not being used for military purposes. Iran must think boldly about informing world opinion.

Kourosh Ziabari: In one of your articles, you reviewed Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's book about the expansion of NATO. What's your own viewpoint in this regard? What threats and consequences will the expansion of NATO toward the Eastern bloc entail?

Sherwood Ross: The people of the NATO nations are paying the cost of supporting this archaic military organization when their money could be going to advance humanitarian goals. It is punishing their citizenry financially just as the Pentagon's trillion dollar war machine is punishing to American taxpayers. At present, 53 cents of every dollar collected in taxes in America goes to feed the war machine. Nazemroaya's book, published by Clarity Press of Atlanta, Ga., USA, is a must-read for every person who believes in peace. I heartily agree with the author that NATO today represents a clear and present danger to world peace. Its penetration into new territories only expands the U.S. sphere of influence and will result in economic chokeholds on the vital trade routes and energy resources. NATO is also a threat to the United Nations organization itself and should be disbanded if only for that reason.

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist

CIA Is The Foremost Criminal Organisation In The World