Is The Age really saying this alleged jihadist must be freed? I'm not sure the "it's-all-right-then" attitude of the Age reporter is warranted: Interpol have made a stunning withdrawal of murder and firearms charges against the Egyptian asylum seeker held in detention and hounded by the federal Coalition as a ""convicted Jihadist terrorist"." The French-based headquarters for the international police issued the withdrawal of the charges to its ""red notice"" against Sayed Ahmed Abdellatif in a statement on Friday morning. Interpol said its bureau in Cario had asked the red notice ""be changed to remove any charges relating to premeditated murder, destruction of property, and possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives without a permit"." ""The remaining offences listed on the current valid Red Notice for Mr Abdel Latif are for membership of an illegally-formed extremist organization and forging travel documents for the organization's members."..." The opposition last week seized on revelations that he was wanted by Interpol yet held in a low-security detention facility near Adelaide to claim the Gillard government had a lax attitude to national security. That strident criticism is now bound to be questioned. What exactly is the argument here? That our authorities were right to overlook an Interpol alert on a boat person on the grounds that maybe some of the charges might one day be withdrawn anyway? That authorities shouldn't worry about him because Interpol now says he's just an alleged member of a terrorist-linked group who allegedly forged travel documents for its members? And why is the Opposition in the gun for "hounding" this man, when it's the Government that has since locked him up in heavier security? The premise of this piece seems driven by an agenda that doesn't include national security.