<< PROUD PARENT OF A GITMO GRADUATE ~ MAIN ~ LAST-LAP LUNACY >>
CONSISTENT INCONSISTENCY
Kevin Rudd’s foreign policy spokesman speaks his mind:
Four days before the fifth anniversary of the first Bali bombing, which killed 202 people including 88 Australians, Robert McClelland pledged Labor would speak out “consistently” against the death penalty, whether for terrorists or Australian drug smugglers …
In a prepared speech released last night, Mr McClelland criticised the Prime Minister for supporting “the executions of the perpetrators of the Bali bombings, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein …"
McClelland also said a Labor government would object to capital punishment in Asia with “shrewd diplomatic activism”. His shrewd diplomacy wasn’t diplomatic enough for Rudd:
Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has criticised his own foreign affairs spokesman over a speech that indicated Labor’s disapproval of death sentences for the Bali bombers, calling it “insensitive” and saying Labor would never support clemency for terrorists.
No Labor government that he led would ever make any diplomatic intervention in support of any terrorist’s life, he said.
McClelland may have been hung out to dry here. After all, Rudd himself has previously declared:
Australia must, with the Europeans, work through the United Nations to abolish the death penalty universally …
Labor policy, like the Liberal policy, worldwide, is opposed to the death penalty. And whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent.
Consistent, you say? Rudd has also struck this McClelland-like note:
We must conclude that capital punishment is unacceptable in all circumstances and in all jurisdictions.
Except in circumstances which might prove a little embarrassing for Kevin.
(Via Steve W.)
I’ll say this about helpful Kev - the committees and focus groups he asked for the correct response to this question worked very fast. I wasn’t expecting him to have an answer until Friday.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 10 09 at 05:17 AM • permalinkOOOpps I missed the main link from the ALP.
Here.From the Ruddster himself.
“Can I just add this. No-one has produced any credible body of evidence anywhere that the use of the death penalty, whether it is death by hanging, death by firing squad, or death by stoning, in any way acts as a credible deterrent against crime. No-one has produced data which says that in particular states of the United States where they use the death penalty, that the crime rate in that state is any better than a state next door which doesn’t have the death penalty. In terms of deterring crime, the evidence simply doesn’t stack up. And that is before you go on to the argument about it being a cruel and inhuman form of punishment...”Followed by
“It is important that our policy is consistent...”
From the horses
mouthassPosted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 10 09 at 05:22 AM • permalink#3 - “Can I just add this. No-one has produced any credible body of evidence anywhere that the use of the death penalty, whether it is death by hanging, death by firing squad, or death by stoning, in any way acts as a credible deterrent against crime..."
Correct. But it’s a bloody good punishment for sub-human filth.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 10 09 at 05:27 AM • permalinkDead men don’t run criminal organizations from their cells, as live ones do.
Dead men don’t serve as bargaining chips for hostage takers like live ones do.
Dead men have a zero recidivism rate.
Dead men do not harm or kill prison guards.
Dead men do not harm or kill other inmates.
The threat of the death penalty is a hell good bargaining chip for a prosecutor to have in his bag of tricks when men that should be made dead have information or influence that otherwise would be out of reach.
This is not the same people who mock Howard for being the world’s sheriff are they? The same ones who mocked the Liberals saying that Asia won’t deal with them, now telling Asia what they should and shouldn’t be doing?
Isn’t it racist to be singling out Asia? How paternalistic and colonial of them. Oh wait, it’s Labor, so it must be ok.
#7. O’Brien wasn’t even being particularly hard on Rudd and Rudd was flopping around like a flathead. If Red Kezza had applied the blowtorch in the same manner he does to Liberal pollies, I suspect Rudd would have imploded.
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2007 10 09 at 06:00 AM • permalinkRight, here’s the go. Kevin Rudd, the alternative Aust PM was interviewed by Kerry O’Brien, a notable ALP booster who anchors a half-hour current affairs and political commentary show on Australia’s ABC. Throughout the interview, Kerry consistently pressed Kevin to outline his frontbench members, the position on health policy, and what the likely makeup of his government would be. On several occasions, Kerry defended the Govt’s position, and corrected Kevin halfway through his answers.
As I’ve said, looks like the worm has turned, and the press gallery are rattling the skeletons in the ALP closet.
Out with the Department of Foreign Affairs and its diplomats and in with the Department of World Counselling and its social workers. We have McClellan planning to send social workers to counsel Asian nations on the naughtiness of the death penalty and Rudd’s scheme send social workers to counsel the Iran president on the naughtiness of plotting to exterminate Jews.
It is Gareth Evans all over again.
I don’t know if this is so wrong. It’s one thing to be opposed to capital punishment. It’s another thing to want to intervene and take a position with respect to the planned execution of a terrorist. Avoiding the latter doesn’t mean you no longer oppose capital punishment.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 10 09 at 06:12 AM • permalinkMeanwhile, ABC makes up for any ground Kevin might have lost with this super-duper, tip-top headline:
I’m responsible for Afghanistan: Howard
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2007 10 09 at 06:13 AM • permalink#6, egg_
A friend who has worked in health in the NT, WA, and more recently (with a bad outcome) in Qld, wrote to say that everything we might ever have heard about Qld health is true.
Doesn’t surprise me. The trend for years has been to impose managerialism on health care. That is, more and more the bureaucrats took over the hospitals and it seemed more and more necessary that none of them should have actual medical qualifications and know the business. If they did then they might care too much about patient outcomes and spend too much money on that, you know?
Trouble is that when you stop spending money on patient care but, instead, spend it on office accommodations for administrators, and administrative assistants for administrators, then patient outcomes tend to go to crap. And if patient outcomes go to crap, and it’s your fault for making the system all about looking after bureaucrats, then you have to use the bureacrats to hide the bad patient outcomes. So if someone, say a nurse, says, “Hey! This guy is killing an awful lot of patients!” then you do things like say that the nurse has a personality conflict with the guy who is killing all the patients. That way it’s his or her fault and not hospital admin’s fault. Or something.
Up here, a few years ago, we had a guy running RDH who came from Treasury. He seems to have got upset because, around the back, where the road is only two lanes wide, people were parking their cars on the verge. Shit! In the Wet all the verges were getting churned up and compacted, and in the Dry no grass could survive. Terrible!
So he spent a lot of money putting in bollards so everyone had to park on the actual road which, of course, reduced it to one lane. It’s scarey stuff driving on the back roads of RDH. But the grass was saved. Well, as well as grass can be saved when for six months or more of the year there’s no rain.
Geeze! When will this dopey, managerialist experiment in hospital administration end? When will we have people looking after hospitals again who actually care about the people hospitals are supposed to serve and know how the business works?
Transcript and video link 7.30 report.
The transcript should be up soon.
We now have a new nickname:
HARD RUDD
People, watch the video of his raised voice, his waving slamming arm and his I will be HARD on terrorists line and please tell me how it didn’t look rehearsed. Because all I saw was bad acting.
It was just the same when he spoke about the killed soldier - very polished in that fake measured tone. Vomit. Too prat and neat. Howard was a little jolted, a little emotional and came across well, even with my rose coloured lens.
Janice - the problem with hospitals run by bureaucrats is their interest in higher value procedures at the expense of emergency treatment and you get dr death scandals.
Re the policy backflip - and it was a backflip - you cannot be half pregnant. You either oppose the death penalty or you do not. He opposes it ... unless it is political suicide.
And then trying to say Howard et al is guilty of the same inconsistency is so childish.
#3 - Whenever you come across people opposed to the death penalty because it doesn’t act as a deterrent ask them this question:
If the death penalty only applied for murders committed on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays then on what days do you think murders would be most likely to occur?
Posted by Jack Lacton on 2007 10 09 at 07:41 AM • permalinkLucky dip Kevni:
KERRY O’BRIEN: So will Robert McClelland be Foreign Minister in your government?
KEVIN RUDD: Well, I’ve already indicated beyond the three members of our economic team, that is Wayne Swan, Lindsay Tanner and Julia Gillard, respectively as Treasurer, Finance Minister and Minister for Industrial Relations if we’re elected. But as for the rest of the time team, I will select those on the basis of merit come the outcome of the next election. If we are elected to form the next government of Australia. But Mr McClelland will be part of that team.
KERRY O’BRIEN: So what you’re really doing is asking people to vote for you without knowing whether Robert McClelland will be Foreign Minister, whether Nicola Roxon will be your Health Minister, whether Peter Garrett will be your Environment Minister, or Stephen Smith be your Education Minister and so on. So in effect, we don’t know for sure who the bulk of your front bench will be, is that smart politics?
KEVIN RUDD: Our approach is when it comes to the core economic team, that is of critical interest to the Australian people. Mr Howard sought to engage a debate on that in recent weeks. That’s why I confirmed it in advance. Let me flick this into reverse Kerry. Is Mr Howard now detailing to you every member of his cabinet and ministry should he be reflected?
I just love surprises, don’t you?
There’s more to that last line, and so Kerry gave Kev a nudge.
KEVIN RUDD: Our approach is when it comes to the core economic team, that is of critical interest to the Australian people. Mr Howard sought to engage a debate on that in recent weeks. That’s why I confirmed it in advance. Let me flick this into reverse Kerry. Is Mr Howard now detailing to you every member of his cabinet and ministry should he be reflected?
KERRY O’BRIEN: But they’re already acting. We know who they are and we know what their performance has been like. What we don’t know - we’ve seen Nicola Roxon campaigning with you in the last week on health. We don’t know if she’s going to be your Health Minister.
Bet you Rudd wishes he’d had another convenient “blackout’during his soft interview with Kerry.Must admit ,thought eyes were starting to roll at one stage just after Kerry finished introductions.
WAP Mr Rudd.Blame the staff.Blame the Shadow Minister.Blame the dog that chewed up your speech .And of course blame Downer who has forgotten more than you caan hope to know about Foreign Affairs without the benefit od fluent Mandarin
OT Shocking news, for those few remaining readers who insist on liking the work of Tim Blair…
Triumphant after a stint sharpening his skills at the Byron Shire Echo, Tim’s nemesis has returned to make good on an ancient promise.
Mwo ho ha ha!
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 10 09 at 08:59 AM • permalinkWhat follows is not for the squeamish. Please do not read if you think you may be offended .
Death penalty is it ? Perhaps we could start by questioning a basic assumption of the “oh, so compassionate “ left.All human life is precious. Really! Aren’t there about 4 billion people ,( give or take a few hundred million) on our planet. Is it really such a great tragedy when the odd scumbag gets taken off the count?
My wife sat on a jury here that decided the fate of one of the most evil people it’s ever been my misfortune to hear about. This piece of human shit used duct tape to suffocate a young man .Several days later he cut a young women into pieces in front of several witnesses. My poor wife was 5 months pregnant when she had to view the evidence photos.
How many parents want their children to share a society with people like that. Not me ! The Bali bombers and quite a few of gitmos residents fall into the category of “ death is too good for them.” Just my opinion , here in the backward, violent, American south.
The man referred to above got the death penalty in South Carolina.
Sorry again for the graphic account.We must conclude that capital punishment is unacceptable in all circumstances and in all jurisdictions.
I beg to differ. There are some people who are too evil to be allowed to live, for the good of us all. The problem with the death penalty in the United States is that it’s too often applied inconsistently and unfairly. That’s not an indictment of the death penalty itself, but of the uneven laws, and judges and prosecutors who sometimes don’t do their jobs.
It’s precisely because human life is so precious, that the death penalty is a valuable & wholly valid punishment. That’s the nub of it. Through that, the society preserves itself.
It’s duff-headed to insist that life is so precious those that do purposefully take it, & take it cruelly for their gain, sick pleasure or ideology, should be allowed to continue to do so unfettered. It’s like arguing something like Vitamin D should be completely prohibited because too much can kill you.
Posted by stahlblume on 2007 10 09 at 12:01 PM • permalinkI think the alternative to the death penalty should be that those who would have gotten it be sent to live with those who don’t believe in it. Permanently. And those who they live with must be responsible for the future conduct of the potential death penalty candidates.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 10 09 at 01:38 PM • permalinkI hope all those in favour of the death penalty are never falsely convicted of murder.
I am firmly against the death penalty. You cannot hold life sacred, and want another person’s life forfeit. You cannot be half pregnant. You cannot be half christian. You have no right to insist on another’s life be taken. The State has no right to take anyone’s life. I am likewise against abortion.
You speak of deterrant. There are studies going both ways on this. Jack, most murders are committed by persons having a crisis of emotion (eg jilted lover - recent mass murderer example) or under the influence of drugs or alcohol or mental disability. They couldn’t tell you what day of the week it is, let alone year, at that moment. So much for that idea.
Guys, I respect your views, and it seems to be that of a majority (slim). I find life to be the one thing we all hold equally, no matter where we live. Everything else is different. If someone chooses to live unwisely, then they can forfeit their liberty, but only God should have a say on your life.
Margo - Bob Ellis is psychotic. That whole ABC site shows why their programs and news / current affairs is so biased, when their viewers demand it. The abuse levelled at Howard is frightening.
# 38 Got it in one. The death penalty for extreme crimes like the Bali bombers is a punishment, not just a deterrent -it shows clearly that society won’t tolerate these attitudes, not only deeds. The pollies like Rudd squawk about the wrong issue.
Have you noticed any media or pollies referring to the consistent polls these days - which show exactly what the People want on this subject?
The will of the people apparently doesn’t matter to our elite ‘betters’."What I indicated to Robert this morning that his speech last night was insensitive because we are approaching the fifth anniversary of the Bali bombings and for those who have been deeply affected by that personally, it was the wrong time to make the sorts of remarks that he did, particularly in relation to Amrozi."
So really it’s not what was said, it’s just the timing. Hard line? Krudd and his swag of left wing softies has just bought a smile to the Jihadi’s of the region. It will do nothing more than embolden them.
##35. Good thought, BUT.....The PM has no say in what happens legally in the State jurisdictions. Please explain to me how the death penalty could suddenly appear in say NSW when the average sentence for murder is less than 10 years.......???? Continued 10th conviction aggravated drunk drivers are asked humbly by the “judge” if they want to say sorry, for Chrissakes, after having squashed a couple of kids at a school crossing, because losing their licences might cause inconvenience. Unfortunately, the left has put us into a rapid spiral dive into savagery, and I doubt the electoral process can do anything to reverse it.
Cheers(from NZ)
RodCgot eaten somehow while posting 1st time:
#40 peter with all due respect the argument ‘you better hope you’re not falsely convicted’ ignores the fact that everything within the field of human endeavour carries an inherent risk of failure. Yet it is no argument to not attempt to do something, but rather to attempt with all due caution to ensure it is done as properly as is humanly possible. And I agree that is a very good argument to ensure that the level of care taken handing down a death penalty is commensurate with the risk.
You cannot hold life sacred, and want another person’s life forfeit. You cannot be half pregnant. You cannot be half christian. You have no right to insist on another’s life be taken. The State has no right to take anyone’s life.
Maybe I’m half pregnant. I think the sanctity of life is such that you can surely take it to prevent life from being deliberately taken. And that in some cases, some people show such utter & bestial contempt for it, that they forfeit any claim to sanctity themselves. Sanctity of life is a concept that demands reciprocal respect as a shared concept. They have renounced it. The compact is broken, the contract is null & void. Sanctity of life has never been an open-ended blank cheque to be abused.
I’m sure you probably have no trouble with the concept of forfeiting your own life to protect or save others. Either sanctity of life is absolute and no one who ever gave their lives for others was Christian (or pregnant), or sanctity of life cannot have the absolute meaning you read into it.
Posted by stahlblume on 2007 10 10 at 07:21 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Wonder if anyones asked his position on this chap then?