Australia's most significant terrorism trial ended Monday in Melbourne with six convictions in a conspiracy to assassinate the prime minister and attack sporting events. Four other men were acquitted.
In an editorial, The Australian argues that the verdicts prove new terror laws there work and that critics who condemned them as unfair to minority groups or otherwise threatened civil liberties have been proven wrong:
"Greg Barns, who defended Ezzit Raad, pointed to ‘a world of difference between preparing to act and acting, and merely thinking and talking'. Such cavalier thinking beggars belief. Every week, criminals go to jail for such crimes such as conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to commit fraud, without actually murdering or defrauding anyone. In such cases, it is the evidence of intention that matters.
Pushed to its logical conclusion, Mr Barns's argument implies that anti-terror laws should not be invoked until terrorist acts are unleashed."