<< COMMENCE THE FORBIDDEN ACTIVITIES ~ MAIN ~ LEUNIG LATEST >>
DEATH AND LIES
Bali Nine ringleader Andrew Chan has been sentenced to death, along with co-ringleader Myuran Sukumaran. Heroin mules Martin Stephens, Michael Czugaj, Renae Lawrence, and Scott Rush will likely die in prison. From the second link:
On the drug runners, Mr Howard said it was beyond him that anyone could be “so stupid”. His voice quavering, he said: “Can I just say to every young Australian, please take notice of this. I even beg them not to take the terrible risk that these young people have done.”
Court appearance photographs here. In other legal news, ex-Gitmo inmate Mamdouh Habib wins the slightest of defamation victories:
The verdict came after Mr Habib sued Nationwide News over articles published in The Daily Telegraph and The Weekend Australian in 2002 and 2005, which he said defamed him ...
The articles damaged Mr Habib’s reputation by suggesting he was a terrorist, a liar, a fund-raiser for terrorist organisations and a follower of al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, [Habib’s barrister Clive] Evatt said.
After deliberating for less than a day, the four-person jury today found only one of those imputations was defamatory.
An article published in The Daily Telegraph in February last year contained the defamatory imputation that Mr Habib had knowingly made some false claims, the jury found.
Outside the court, Mr Habib said he was pleased with the result.
“I’m very happy,” he told reporters.
“I’m here to prove I’m not a terrorist, that’s it, and that’s the main thing to me.”
Too bad, Habib, that the jury didn’t think the same.
Oh dear. Poor Mr Habib and his lawyers.
With that finding from the jury I suspect that the defence will be arguing for contemptuous damages at most, traditionally a farthing, the lowest coin of the realm, which sends the message that, yes, you have made yor point but you have no honour or reputation worthy of our protection, and with that hollow victory you will get no order of costs, so you’ve got to pay your lawyers’ fees out of your own pocket.
And I suspect that the jury will agree with them.
But we shall see.
Mr Howard said it was beyond him that anyone could be “so stupid”.
God, I love hearing this man speak to the press. I wish to hell we had someone with his cajones here in the States.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2006 02 14 at 01:21 PM • permalinkGood on ya, Mr. Howard.
As for Mr. Mamdouh “I ain’t no terrorist!” Habib…..he sounds like the damage control team for Howard Dean.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 02 14 at 01:26 PM • permalinkGood news, too, on the verdicts in Bali. While generally I am opposed to the death penalty I am prepared to make an exception for Chan and Sukumaran. I just hope that, as Indonesia slowly builds its independent legal institutions, someone keeps an eye on the appeal process so that they can’t slip a few (thousand) Dead Presidents into corrupt hands so as to avoid their richly deserved sentences.
Habib must be guilty of everything (and more) of what he was charged with because the ALP has not tried to make political capital out of it. If he had been innocent of anything, the ALP would have been still screaming for Howard’s head.
Posted by LuvDaKartoons on 2006 02 14 at 03:40 PM • permalinkOn the ABC, the red headed aging boy wonder. whose name i can never remember ask a Gov Minister.
How do you reconcile the fact that John Howard approved of Amrozi’s death penalty and is protesting the penalties on the drug smugglers?
The minister could not even respond with an accusation of false moral equivalence like
“How can you compare the planned execution of 200 innocent victims with the smuggling of noxious drugs”
deary me what are the pols coming to?
John -put this guy bacl on the beat!
Tempo
I think ONE dollar wold be appropriate for Habib’s reputation- lets not be mean.
Hicks should get NOTHING as he will surely earn heaps from the ABC and Sydney publishers on his return.Mamdouh Habib: Okay, so I’m a terrorist, a fund raiser for terrorist organisations and a follower of Osama Bin Laden, but I’m not a liar.
That makes me a winner!
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 02 14 at 04:25 PM • permalinkre; the victim indsutry blaming the AFP - doesn’t anyone believe that the Bali 9 were ultimately responsible for their own actions; what’s with the nany-state idea?
Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 02 14 at 06:33 PM • permalinkHey, look I signed up a day or so ago and I’m still waiting for my membership pack of RWDB T-shirt, I (heart symbol) Neocons bumper sticker, selection of injectable liquids designed to bring on an uncontrollable urge to alter the global climate, and a box of Tim Tams.
All that’s happened so far is some guy with “Hi! I’m wronright” tattooed on his forehead keeps knocking on my door telling me I must go with him to “Meet the Master, Rove” and saying someone called Dick wants me to go shooting with him, rather than wronright.
I actually wouldn’t have minded, but he keeps calling during the cricket! What gives?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 02 14 at 07:03 PM • permalinkThakns must go to Indonesia for taking out Australia’s garbage. What a brilliant tactical move by the AFP.
Cue the usual hand-wringers blaming everyone but the perps…....Posted by Rachel Corrie's Flatmate on 2006 02 14 at 07:04 PM • permalinkThanks, as well. pimf
I’d like to think that somewhere in an AFP office, some overworked cops who are used to seeing the deadshits they round up getting off scot-free on some technicality, are exchanging a high-five over this one.Posted by Rachel Corrie's Flatmate on 2006 02 14 at 07:07 PM • permalinkIts often difficult to fully understand what a legal case was about just from snippets from the door of the court.
The Habib case reminds us that even someone with as much notoriety as him, can go before a jury and have them hear his case. They didn’t throw it out altogether. They obviously weighed the evidence carefully and arrived at a rational decision.
I understand however, that in NSW, its the Judge who’ll go on to assess damages. Is that right?
What is amazing is that juries are made up entirely of average people and non-lawyers at that. They do an invaluable service to the proper functioning of our society. In the last 30 years, the role of juries has been steadily diminished by governments of both kinds. Why?
Posted by Bullshit_Mr_Han_man. on 2006 02 14 at 08:31 PM • permalinkOh, by the way FusterCluck, what kind of “technicality” are you referring to? A lack of evidence perhaps? Or do you advocate convicting people without evidence?
It used to be the socialists who wanted to do away with archaic notions such as the rule of law or revise quaint documents like the Magna Carta.
What do you reckon a trial is like in Iran? No technicalities there.
The AFP is not the KGB. They uphold the law and recognise that it applies to them. I’m sure they get no joy from seeing Australians ruining their lives in any part of the world. It is a slur on them to suggest that they would be satisfied or in any way happy with the death penalty for these people.
Posted by Bullshit_Mr_Han_man. on 2006 02 14 at 09:58 PM • permalinkOf course they wouldn’t. They are too professional for that. That wasn’t my point.
I said I would like to think they they would.
You know, to be allowed to take some pride in their achievements.Posted by Rachel Corrie's Flatmate on 2006 02 14 at 10:08 PM • permalink#8. One dollar as damages could be an award of symbolic damages, open to a jury where it finds that the defamation is proved but the harm to reputation is insignificant or were the plaintiff seeks only the jury’s finding in his/her favour as vindication of reputation. In that case the plaintiff gets awarded legal costs, which are frequently many times larger than the damages awarded in defamation cases. The award of symbolic damages used to be either a florin or a pound or some such, but never a farthing, which was reserved for sending a special message to plaintiffs who had earned the jurors’ contempt or derision.
#16. Last I heard of it NSW juries assessed damages, subject to detailed directions from the trial judge and review on appeal. There was a celebrated case in NSW about ten years back where a jury gave an extraordinarily large award of damages in a defamation case, which was appealed all the way to the High Court, which ordered the matter be reheard by a new jury. The second jury, unaware of the damages awarded by the first jury, turned around and awarded as damages twice the amount that the first jury had. I think that after that the parties settled rather than go the appeals route again. The legal costs must have been phenomenal.
I love the dickheads all clamouring for the AFP to be pilloried for not preventing these idiots from leaving the country to carry out their nefarious activities. Imagine the hooting from the civil liberties set if a law enforcement authority in this country prevented the free travel of citizens who aren’t under any charges? Fuckwits.
The only possibility would have been to charge them with conspiracy to import, and to obtain a conviction they would have had to all put their hands up- highly likely.
We have an intel exchange agreement with Indonesia, and if we’d kept them out of the loop we could quite rightly expect that co-operation to end; it’s up to them to let them run as a controlled delivery or to charge and prosecute for the offences committed in their jurisdiction.
I have no sympathy at all for these amateurs- the blame for their situation belongs exclusively to them.
I note there’s not much yammer about Slappelle any more either, now it appears that we uncaring bastards who thought she was guilty (and her family involved as well) look like being right all along.In his entry of 14th Bullshit_Mr_Han_man states “What is amazing is that juries are made up entirely of average people and non-lawyers at that. They do an invaluable service to the proper functioning of our society.” There is an old saying that one swallow doesn’t make a summer and for one jury to come up with a sensible decision in no way makes up for the stupidities of most juries. Many cases could be quoted where the jurors decision is not only moronic but totally immoral. One such case, among so many, here in SA involved a truck driver who collided with a school ‘bus killing the driver and injuring many of the schoolchildren, some seriously. His explanation for his stupidity was that, approaching a cross-road where there was a clear sign to the contrary he “thought he had right of way”. This statement, to me, indicates a good reason to pull his licence but no, a jury for some obscure reason found him not guilty of anything! Pity juries cannot be charged with stupidity but there you are. Of course in the case of our ‘would-be terrorist who isn’t’ I have no doubt that the judge, who by virtue of his office is required to have a degree in senility, will award quite a large sum to this Habib!
Posted by The Hunter on 2006 02 15 at 01:32 AM • permalinkIt seems Mr Han Man has a problem distinguishing between the police and the courts.
If I recall correctly, the police are to enforce the law. That is, they investigate cases, collect evidence and make arrests.
The police do not decide to make an arrest or not based on the possibility the accused might get a death sentence, locked up for life or a slap with a wet lettuce. The sentence to be handed down is up to the COURTS, not the police. The police’s job is to ensure that they present a sufficient case to the courts for the judiciary to (hopefully) rule against the accused.
God help us if police starts making decisions to arrest based on the belief that they are judge jury and executioner !! (Yes, I live in Victoria…...)Posted by Rachel Corrie's Flatmate on 2006 02 15 at 02:08 AM • permalink#23- You’re pretty much on the money there I’m afraid; civil court juries are notorious for handing out idiotic damages, which then have to be appealed at great cost to a higher court where they’re almost inevitably over-ruled.
Frankly, I wouldn’t give my namesake the steam off my shit after a particularly virulent kebab.#12—Hey, look I signed up a day or so ago and I’m still waiting for my membership pack of RWDB T-shirt, I (heart symbol) Neocons bumper sticker, selection of injectable liquids designed to bring on an uncontrollable urge to alter the global climate, and a box of Tim Tams.
(how the hell did I get back on the Welcome Wagon detail?)
Stop Continental Drift,
I have been at your house three times. Each time, you’ve slammed the door in my face. I must tell you I’m beginning to question whether you harbor the “totally enthusiastic desire to join the Evil Death Cult Known as Neoconservatism, regardless of the obstacles, pain, deprivation, or sacrifices required” as clearly outlined in the recruitment brochure.
Each time you’ve slammed that door, I’ve flown back to Ohio only to be met by Commissar of Recruitments, Richard McEnroe, sitting on my front porch, petting my dachsund, and shaking his head no. He then sends me right back to your house. This has happened three fucking times now.
The fourth time is your last. I’m bringing my bazooka with me. If the door gets slammed, the door gets blasted. You’ve been warned.
(By the way, I left the Welcome New Neocon gift package beside your rhododedron bush near your front door).
Posted by wronwright on 2006 02 16 at 09:09 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
“I’m here to prove I’m not a terrorist, that’s it, and that’s the main thing to me”
It’s OK with Mr. Habib that he has been proven to be a certifiable liar. After all, according to Mo Law, it’s alright to lie to the infidels, even about being a terrorist, especially if it’s to an infidel journalist.