A new low
It is perhaps fortunate that my New Years Resolutions did not include "Enough with the left wing rants on your blog already" because such a resolution could never hope to survive in the face of Philip Ruddock's latest efforts. It's also fortunate that I did not resolve to stop blogging whilst wearing only a sarong, but that's another story.
The Attorney General wrote a truly amazing article for the Sunday Age last week, which included the following breathtaking pearls of wisdom:
I should address the argument that Mr Hicks could have been charged with offences under Australian law. The best legal minds at the Government's disposal remain adamant that is not the case. That decision is more complicated than simply identifying a criminal offence. The likelihood of success, available defences, the facts in question and the rules of evidence in Australian courts must all be considered.
The Australian Federal Police considered offences existing in 2001, including offences set out in the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. The AFP asked the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to consider all available evidence regarding Mr Hicks' alleged involvement with the Kosovo Liberation Army, Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaeda/Taliban forces. The DPP advised that prosecution was not available.
Previously, the government had argued that David Hicks could not be charged under Australian law. THIS MEANS HE DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME AS FAR AS AUSTRALIA IS CONCERNED WHY IS HE IN CUSTODY. It appears that the government now says, even more despicably, that it's not that they had nothing to charge him with its just that they did not think they were likely to win. THIS MEANS THE ISSUE IS NOT SOME OVERSIGHT OR TECHNICAL FLAW IN THE DRAFTING OF LEGISLATION BUT THERE IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING TO PROSECUTE DAVID HICKS WHY THE HELL IS THIS MAN STILLIN CUSTODY IT HAS BEEN FIVE YEARS YOU IDIOTS.
In the same article, Mr Ruddock insists that David Hicks will get a fair trial because there will be a presumption of innocence. Seriously.
So, an Australian citizen breaks no laws and could not be proisecuted in this country ancd our government actually thinks this is an argument in favour of him being detained without a trial for years on end in hellishly bad conditions. In the legal profession, this type of reasoning is technically known as "insane troll logic".
As a general rule, I find that when just trying to figure out how someone could intellectually hold a particularly view makes my head hurt so much that I want to plung it into a swimming pool full of jelly just to distract myself from the pain, it is just possible that the person promoiting that view is engaged in a subtle combination of spin and hoping that everyone who reads the article in question is a complete idiot.
As of today, David Hicks has been in Guantanamo Bay for five whole years. It is time to tell our government that enough is enough. They have failed in their most basic duty to look after an Australian citizen and they are not fit to govern. Vote these idiots out.
The Attorney General wrote a truly amazing article for the Sunday Age last week, which included the following breathtaking pearls of wisdom:
I should address the argument that Mr Hicks could have been charged with offences under Australian law. The best legal minds at the Government's disposal remain adamant that is not the case. That decision is more complicated than simply identifying a criminal offence. The likelihood of success, available defences, the facts in question and the rules of evidence in Australian courts must all be considered.
The Australian Federal Police considered offences existing in 2001, including offences set out in the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. The AFP asked the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to consider all available evidence regarding Mr Hicks' alleged involvement with the Kosovo Liberation Army, Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaeda/Taliban forces. The DPP advised that prosecution was not available.
Previously, the government had argued that David Hicks could not be charged under Australian law. THIS MEANS HE DID NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME AS FAR AS AUSTRALIA IS CONCERNED WHY IS HE IN CUSTODY. It appears that the government now says, even more despicably, that it's not that they had nothing to charge him with its just that they did not think they were likely to win. THIS MEANS THE ISSUE IS NOT SOME OVERSIGHT OR TECHNICAL FLAW IN THE DRAFTING OF LEGISLATION BUT THERE IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING TO PROSECUTE DAVID HICKS WHY THE HELL IS THIS MAN STILLIN CUSTODY IT HAS BEEN FIVE YEARS YOU IDIOTS.
In the same article, Mr Ruddock insists that David Hicks will get a fair trial because there will be a presumption of innocence. Seriously.
So, an Australian citizen breaks no laws and could not be proisecuted in this country ancd our government actually thinks this is an argument in favour of him being detained without a trial for years on end in hellishly bad conditions. In the legal profession, this type of reasoning is technically known as "insane troll logic".
As a general rule, I find that when just trying to figure out how someone could intellectually hold a particularly view makes my head hurt so much that I want to plung it into a swimming pool full of jelly just to distract myself from the pain, it is just possible that the person promoiting that view is engaged in a subtle combination of spin and hoping that everyone who reads the article in question is a complete idiot.
As of today, David Hicks has been in Guantanamo Bay for five whole years. It is time to tell our government that enough is enough. They have failed in their most basic duty to look after an Australian citizen and they are not fit to govern. Vote these idiots out.
posted by I'm not Craig at 6:20 AM
5 Comments:
Our govt should be held accountable for neglecting David Hick's rights. And if he ever does come home, I hope he sues the pants off Howard and Ruddock.
http://www.amnesty.org.au/Act_now/action_centre/hrs-int/email_the_pm
Meva/INCraig,
There will be some reason THAT is illegal - if there's one thing the Federal Government loves it's thinking up new laws to screw us out of our rights.
INCraig,
I think Ruddock's point is that because he can't be charged under Australian law that he SHOULD be charged under US law. There is a breathtaking gap of logic in this also however, not the least of which is that he wasn't arrested ON US SOIL.
And also: that's like saying that when I went to NZ and wore red socks, I couldn't be charged in NZ for wearing red socks, nor in Australia, but Bhutan has a law against red socks so some one there made a citizens arrest and now I'm in the Bhutan equivalent of Gitmo with no help from the Australian government.
It's a crock, pure and simple.
Meva
The image of Howard and Ruddock without pants is not a pleasing one. At all.
Gigglewick
Yes, anything that may involve Howard, Ruddock and no pants should be illegal. I'll draft the legislation myself, so long as I can call it the Eeewww Nasty (Put Some Clothes On) Act 2007.
This may have the pleasing side effect of keeping Paris Hilton out of the country.
Interesting and pleasing comments from you, INC.
Whilst Amnesty International are not meant to campign on behalf of a person from their own country (helps them maintain a objective approach), I note that Meva's link to the site is indeed Australian. I dread the idea that I may find myself in a location supporting a cause that has nothing to do with my home country, winding up a prisoner and finding myself in a legal black hole with my own government refusing to offer me assistance, let alone assist the government holding me to legitimise their actions. I doubt I would survive in Hicks position. There are many reasons to vote for an alternative to the current regime at the next election - this is only one, but it's a real doozy. There but for the grace of God. And I guess what we've all just written could be classed as subversion.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home