With respect to Aizuddin Danian's letter, 'ISA for stability' (June 27), I beg to differ with his views in his letter. Black-ops conducted by the CIA have often been a debate in either the US Senate or House.

Many of such 'ops' were made without the knowledge of the Justice or State Department or even the White House. Thus the CIA as an independent executive agency had often exceeded the democratic manner in managing international affairs. No black-ops has ever been made by the CIA against any US citizen in the US or abroad.

Then we come to the question of Basque separatists in Spain. First of all, the Basque is a clear and imminent threat and danger to the Spanish government. Bomb attacks and assassinations were made by them and they openly admitted it. Do we need to go to the court to prove that an offence has been committed by someone who has already admitted to the deed?

Furthermore, the Basque had declared war against the Spanish government thus the killings were made not as an enforcement of the law but due to the war between the Basque separatists (who are clearly armed with weapons and armies) and the Spanish government. Were there any wars fought in courtrooms?

On how to nab smart criminals, the answer is not by arresting them without trial just because it is difficult to prove them guilty, but by having smart law enforcers.

The method of forcing criminals to confess does not work anymore. How can any law enforcer claim that he or she knows of an offence committed by some criminals but is somehow unable to prove them and thus we must allow them to detain and arrest the so-called criminals based on their knowledge and not proof?

If we let our law enforcers to simply arrest without the burden of proving their accusation then anyone can be arrested on the pretext that they have committed a crime (either because the police do not have evidence or that they are not smart as the criminal).

The doctrine "innocent until proven guilty" would be meaningless if we are to justify the writer's "interpretation" of the law.

On the question of whether the six arrested under the ISA had never committed such things they were accused of doing or that the police were being proactive in preventing them from pursuing their purported goals, is one of interest.

For the sake of argument let's just say they did have the intention of overthrowing the government through militant means, and they have all those weapons, then why the hell the police did not charge them in court? The likely answer to this is that the police do not have the purported weapons allegedly in the possession or administration of these ISA detainees. Thus the police had acted arbitrarily.

Threat to national security means not a threat to the safety and tranquility of the government but of the people. Not only our enemies foreign or within are a danger to our national security but also law enforcers acting without restraint or control by the law or the judiciary and the people.

Are we willing to have a police state or a nazi-styled country by forsaking the freedoms and rights of human beings?