I refer to the letter by Aizuddin Danian, 'ISA for stability' (June 27). The writer states that the ISA is necessary to maintain stability within the country and points to examples of other democratic countries such as the USA that he claims use similar laws to detain suspected criminals without trial.

With all due respect, the writer's historical facts are completely manipulated. His examples are factually incomplete and he makes absurd comparisons. We cannot compare the US Drug Enforcement Agency's war on drug lords in Central America to the Malaysian police arresting Malaysian citizens protesting for their rights.

His reference to Spain is also factually incomplete. The Spanish attack members of the separatist Basque movement on sight, but once they surrender they are tried in regular courts. We're not talking about protesters here - these people carry guns and fight back.

As for his comparison of Iran-Contra to the ISA, your facts were correct but he left out the full story. A few years after the incident, congressional hearings and investigations found it to be illegal. Reagan himself could have been impeached if he was healthy enough to stand trial.

When will Malaysia do the same to its leaders who backed the imprisonment under the ISA of Malaysians who were never proven guilty?

Aizuddin stated, "A democratic nation doesn't necessarily mean that its law enforcement and security agencies do not have the power to detain suspected criminals without charge."

I beg to differ. This is exactly what a democracy means.

For the US, the reality is that in most cases the American criminal justice system presents formal charges to a suspect within 48 hours of his arrest. Possible exceptions would be people arrested by the military or illegal immigrants. The government will not hold someone without trial for an extended period of time. They want a trial because in the US you are innocent until proven guilty and an individual cannot be locked up without trial.

Even the infamous Chicago gangster Al Capone, suspected of murder and racketeering, could not be arrested by the government for a long period of time because they had no evidence to bring him to court. Ultimately he was tried on tax evasion. This system of having to prove someone guilty in court before arrest may seem illogical to Malaysians who support the ISA; but in reality it possess a lot of inherent wisdom.

If a law similar to the ISA was active in the US, imagine where the nation would be now.

Martin Luther King Jr would have been arrested and imprisoned on bogus charges before he could organise equal rights for African Americans.

The reporters who uncovered the Watergate scandal and created the expos that ultimately lead to the impeachment of Richard Nixon would have been arrested and jailed.

The newspaper which published the Watergate expos would have lost its 'licence' and been forced to shut down.

With a law like the ISA, a corrupt government can conveniently decide who is innocent and who is guilty on the basis of protecting itself.

The fact is, political leaders are imperfect and checks and measures need to be in place to ensure that the public is able to hold leaders accountable.

The US founding fathers were wise enough to ensure freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and term limits on their presidents to ensure that the country never fell prey to corrupt leaders. And when it did - as in the case of Nixon, these checks and measures allowed the dirt to come to surface.

Malaysia has no freedom of press, no term limits on its leaders and this combined with the ISA create a very dangerous situation for the future of the country.

Malaysia's neighbours have fallen prey to the likes of Estrada and Suharto. A law like the ISA will only serve to protect a similarly corrupt political system if it occurs within our borders.

Finally, protests are not a bad thing as long as they are peaceful and propagate a relevant political message, serving to educate the public and lead to positive change. Protests, in more cases than not, led to significant improvements in society and standards of living.

The French Revolution, Gandhi's Salt March, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the street demonstrations in Belgrade that helped overthrow Milosevic and countless other examples of protests were all events that overthrew corrupt systems and ultimately improved people's lives. None of these would have been possible if the governments of that time had a law like the ISA.

Malaysia's leaders who back the ISA should pay heed to George W Bush's recent quote during his tour of Europe: "History has thought us that only freedom gets the highest service from every citizen; citizens who can publish, citizens who can worship, citizens who can organise for themselves, without fear of intimidation and with the full protection of the law."

The right to protest and criticise government is fundamental to a democracy. It is no coincidence that countries with the highest standards of living for their citizens are also the countries with the most transparent government and best human rights records.

The ISA is morally and politically wrong and needs to be abolished.