I would like to quote MD Mahmud in his/her letter 'One-sided argument against ISA' (July 18), in which he/she says "The principles are western-centric and ignores the concerns of developing states which are often faced with problems of subversion, religious extremists, coup plotters and advocates of anarchy and revolution."

Are we supposed to support the ISA because the West is against it? And is the principle of ISA and how it is used today inherently Eastern?

Let's look at all this objectively:

The US also has a similar law to the ISA, which is called the Secret Evidence Act, where they can detain anyone without trial if they pose a 'national security' threat. Opponents of this act say that it is being used against minorities, to which the State Department of the 'great' US of A replied something like "...The fact that most of the detainees are Arab or of Muslim background is merely a coincidence..."

As for the ISA, it was enacted with the help of our colonial masters the British, who wanted to combat the communist. The Official Secrets Act, OSA, too, was modelled after a similar act in the 'Great' Britain.

So who are the extremists? Let's cut all these intellectual jargon and get to the matter at hand: Is ISA right or wrong? And if it is right, who should have the power to decide who and what is 'national security'? Or should we also leave this to the politicians?