<< "STOP GLOBL WAMING" ~ MAIN ~ BUT DID THEY PICK UP THE SPARE? >>
DREAM CANDIDATE
The only thing extraordinary about this is that the Greens didn’t approach him first:
The Australian Democrats today took the extraordinary step of saying they would welcome convicted terrorist David Hicks running for the party as a candidate.
UPDATE. According to Crikey reader Christopher Ridings, Hicks is the new Jesus:
Maybe it’s just Easter coming on, but the picture of David Hicks in long hair before a kangaroo court gave me that chilling sense of deja vu. It brought to my mind that quote of the Duke of Bedford in George Bernard Shaw’s classic play, Saint Joan when he asked, “Must a Christ be crucified in every generation for those who have no imagination?”
UPDATE II. “It’s the same old same old from the Right,” complains Mondo. “They appear incapable of grasping the idea that the Left can support Hicks’ rights, but not Hicks the man.”
UPDATE III. Democrat Max Baumann claims Sandra Kanck was misquoted:
Ms Kanck was talking about membership of the Australian Democrats.
Well, that’s just fine then.
The beauty of Puff Davey as a candidate is if he wins, he gets to claim two seats.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 04 04 at 02:23 AM • permalinkI guess if Hamas have no political party in Australia, then the Democrats are the next best thing.
The dems have always been ordinary - now they are just taking that extra step.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 04 04 at 02:26 AM • permalinkAs Chef de l’Armee Democratique du Yatala with Bevan Spencer von Einem as his chief of staff.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2007 04 04 at 02:31 AM • permalinkI would have thought that the Greens have the inside run.
Posted by boxofmatches on 2007 04 04 at 02:43 AM • permalinkHere is Sandra Kanck’s (fucktardus extremus) biography.
Looks like she’s spent her whole life been as useful as a spare dick at a wedding.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 04 04 at 02:48 AM • permalinkFrom her bio the most wonderful sentence I have ever read: “...and has been awarded life membership of the South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society.”
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 04 04 at 02:51 AM • permalinkAnd if Hicks is the new Jesus, does that mean we have to make a chocolate statue of him?
That whole website is a goldmine.
Try this from Bartlett, in respect of farming in Northern Australia:
“South America has had devastating problems associated with the clearing of their rainforests habitats. Australia would suffer a similar fate and you could forget the water boon if it stops raining because of human interference.”
#13, IT
I’ll convince her she’s got something incurable; neurosyphylis, or something. Then you swan in and “incidentally” mention how peacefully someone you knew was euthanized.
But…as cunning and foolproof as that plan is, one can’t help wondering if there’s more to be gained in letting her live.
Will ponder this.
#18 - Dminor
She can live… for now.
I’m am very curious as to what memberhip nights are like at The Voluntary Euthanasia Society.
“Do we have a quorom this week folks?”
(silence)
“Bugger.”
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 04 04 at 03:12 AM • permalinkThis is the sort of person OH&S legislation protects. There are many good and valid reasons why people like Sandy should surf trains and put heads out the windows of buses.
What’s the term for elements of a species that evolve into evolutionary backwaters, wither and then die? Australii Democretinus StupidiaTune in again next week, when the Democrats will make Saddam Hussein a posthumous life member.
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 04 04 at 03:27 AM • permalinkHicks is the new Jesus.
Better re-inforce the cross and double up the nails, boys!
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 04 04 at 03:31 AM • permalinkOh, wait. I see.
The headline reads ‘Hicks as a Democrats’ candidate’. The headline gives the impression that he’s a candidate, although he isn’t really… a Telly reporter obviously asked Kanck a question in a press conference or doorstop or something, and she gave a stupid reply.
It’s a beat up! Very clever!
“Must brain cells be crucified in every generation for those who have no fucking clue.”
/fixed that for you.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 04 04 at 03:58 AM • permalinkChristopher Ridings:
DUKE OF BEDFORD. “Must a Christ be crucified in every generation for those who have no imagination?”
CAUCHON: “Must then a Christ perish in torment in every age to save those that have no imagination?”
Lack of scholarship aside, Ridings’ implication is beyond belief. That the jailing of David Hicks (at best a tourist with a penchant for shooting guns rather than pictures) should serve for Christians as a reminder of Christ’s suffering is an insult. In what, exactly, does Mr Hicks believe? What noble idea has emboldened his heart so that I may look up to him and be reminded of our Lord’s suffering? Would it not be more appropriate to consider people whose persecution for their ideas and actions signified something more noble in the human spirit than the moral turpitude evident in Hicks’ behaviour?
I can see it now: David Hicks taking his place amongst the likes of Armando Valladares, Zhang Xianliang, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Pascal Kabungulu, Paul Rusesabagina, and the thousands of others who daily stand up and suffer for the rights of others.
What a disgrace.
#16
“South America has had devastating problems associated with the clearing of their rainforests habitats. Australia would suffer a similar fate and you could forget the water boon if it stops raining because of human interference.”
Yeah, Pickles, I think they forget what percentage of Australia is, er, Rainforest….
Maw Baumann calling shenanigans - see this response.
According to him (he is second on the ticket for the Dems in SA) convicted criminals can’t stand for Parliament. Kanck was talking about membership in the party.
Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 04 04 at 04:07 AM • permalinkTo think our taxes pay for their superannuation, their perks and lurks, not to mention the country suffers because of some of their self indulgent whims and ideology. I sometimes really do despair at the quality of some our politicians and the political parties they represent. What really pisses me off, is that we are forced to turn up like little collective school children and have our names marked of an attendance sheet at every election, or get fined. Well screw them all, if that rodent Mohammad Dawood even gets a sniff of any tax payer funded parliamentary payola, the nation has already paid enough for that little fat traitor. On the plus side, it could sound a death nell for an already decrepit Democrats, with the Greens to follow.
Sorry - wrong link in #30.
Correct .link
Posted by Villeurbanne on 2007 04 04 at 04:15 AM • permalinkWell if they want to select it would make the Aussie election a source for great humour.
Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on 2007 04 04 at 04:16 AM • permalinkDylan Kissane
Nicely spotted, shennanigans it is….Brooms everyone!!!
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 04 04 at 04:23 AM • permalinkRe the update: What Rights? Cite me chapter and verse in that imaginary “international law” where Dawood had the right to not be stood up against a wall and shot.
Posted by dean martin on 2007 04 04 at 04:59 AM • permalinkAside from some airy fairy declaration that it would just be mean.
Posted by dean martin on 2007 04 04 at 05:02 AM • permalinkDemocrats are dead as Dodo’s.
This Hicks thing therefore comes as no surprise as they shuffle the deck-chairs on the good ship Demtanic.
I am looking forward to the next few stunts the Democrats will pull in the coming months. Perhaps Hugo Chavez will be offered Shadow Spokesman for Minerals and Resources.
#41 Penguin As a war veteran, will David Hicks be allowed to march on Anzac Day?
Only if we do it in his traditional taliban style and have him dangling from a slow moving crane….
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 04 04 at 05:08 AM • permalinkIf he is rejected by the Democrats as a Senate candidate, Hicks could probably find an opening at Fredrick Toben’s “Adelaide Institute”.
Maybe Hicks could assist with the commentary for the ABC coverage of the ANZAC Day march when they get around to the contemporary units;
....aaaah yes, here come 3 Squadron RAAF. These boys operate the F18 Hornet and boy I can tell you, me and my fellow Jihadis were glad we didn’t end up facing their wrath in 2001 and 2002. Now, they may be infidels but they are very effective. For comparison, just having the airforce of the Great Satan screaming overhead day and night made my pants brown.
And next you can see the ex members of SASR in their association coming up. Marching very proudly too. Bastards scare the shit out of me. I still have nightmares they’re coming to get me. Have to look under the bed to get to sleep. The boogyman has nuthin’ on these guys. May they rot in hell…..
It’s all a bit of a beat up really-convicted felons are prohibited from standing for public office however I am sure Our ABC may find a role comentating on the injustice of the GWT.
As with Bilal Philips fromer communist turned Muslim who states that he believes implicitly in obeying Australian laws and does not espouse marriage for 9 year old girls, beheading, stoning and cross amputaion for theft until such time that they have the numbers and then it will only be permitteed on a Friday- so thats alright-right!“It’s the same old same old from the Right,” complains Mondo. “They appear incapable of grasping the idea that the Left can support Hicks’ rights, but not Hicks the man.”
Hmmm. Well, replace “Hicks” with any other criminal, terrorist, or homicidal maniac and let’s see how far that argument goes.
“It’s the same old same old from the Right,” complains the left. “They appear incapable of grasping the idea that the Left can support Heinrich Himmler’s rights, but not Himmler the man.”
Posted by wronwright on 2007 04 04 at 06:13 AM • permalinkHeh. Having a read of Sandra’s bio is an eye-opener.
She worked for 3 years as a primary school teacher, and also worked for a couple of years with the Conservation Council of South Oz.
She’s been in Parliament since 1993, but for someone born in 1950 that still leaves a lot of years unaccounted for.
Wonder what she was doing in between times?
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 04 04 at 06:18 AM • permalinkAs a war veteran, will David Hicks be allowed to march on Anzac Day?
As if the old warriors would let him within coo-ee of the parade.Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 04 04 at 06:21 AM • permalink#54 - She was probably doing the M&Ms;, Nilk. Marijuana and macrame.
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 04 04 at 06:23 AM • permalink#55 I dunno, Swinish. I reckon the old warriors might like to hold him while the young warriors kick the crap out of him.
I’d pay to see that.
#56. Macrame?? NOOOOOOOooooo…..
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 04 04 at 06:33 AM • permalinkPosted the following over at Mr LEfty’s site.
Yes, yes, I know, facts mean nothing to these reactionary ideologues and the effort will simply be wasted on such ignorami.
That is why I posted it here, too.
MarkL
CanberraUmm, Mondo: “...position being put forward by those standing up for Hicks’ rights.”
This is in as his rights under international law and precedent, yes?
Then, as a supporter of international law, you have to agree that he should have been summarily shot on capture.
“In the words of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, they [francs tireurs] “were at once a valuable asset to the armed strength of France and a possible menace to internal order under military discipline.” The societies strenuously and effectively resisted all efforts to bring them under normal military discipline; as a result, the Germans were within the laws of war in executing captured francs-tireurs as irresponsible non-combatants found with arms in their hands. “
Engels (yes, THAT Engels) also noted with approval the drumhead trial and immediate execution of such “irresponsible non-combatants found with arms in their hands”.
See: Legitimate and Illegitimate Modes of Warfare, J. B. Atlay, Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Ser., Vol. 6, No. 1 (1905), pp. 10-21
This situation still pertains, it was tested at Nuremberg where Axis and Allied treatment of franc tireurs was found legal, and again in 1977.
“The survival of the status of “unlawful combatant,” and of the harsh rules applicable to such persons, was again reaffirmed in 1977. At that time, two additional protocols were adopted for the Geneva Conventions of 1949, including Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts and Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. These agreements (to which the United States is not a party) principally sought to provide additional protections for non-combatants, i.e., the civilian population. They did not purport to alter, in any significant manner, the pre-existing rules regarding unlawful combatants.”
From: Unlawful Belligerency and its Implications Under International Law, By: Lee A. Casey, David B. Rivkin, Jr. & Darin R. Bartram*
Now, any nation may exercise such mercy as it sees fit. The USA has been extraordinarily merciful in this regard in not summarily executing Mohammad Dawood on capture, in not treating him as POW (imprisonment until the end of the GWOT or handing him over to the Afghan government), not treating him as a mercenary, but in treating him as a mere criminal, which he is actually not under international law.
What is particularly puzzling about this is that the present crop of islamist franc tireurs operate quite outside the laws of war. Where Allied prisoners have fallen into their hands, they have been either quickly murdered, or tortured to death over an extended period of time.
MarkL
CanberraIf he has not breached Australian law, maybe Dawood is allowed to be a candidate…
Here’s an artists’ impression of Dawood negotiating his position on the Senate ticket with fellow Democrats.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 04 04 at 07:09 AM • permalink#65 i’m no lawyer, but it’s pretty clear to me that Hicks is a traitor under Austrlian law
A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:
....
(d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; or
(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; ...
I don’t understand why he couldn’t be tried here, unless the govt thought he’d come before ‘activist’ judges who’d let the bastard walk.
I have no problem with him having been kept at Gitmo these past five years other than it seems the yanks were too soft with him.
Would have been better all round if his right to rule 303 had been respected.
Posted by eeniemeenie on 2007 04 04 at 07:49 AM • permalinkSpin the arsenic bottle;
Poison darts;
Suicide Scrabble;
I’m only conjecturing here, you understand.Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 04 04 at 07:49 AM • permalinkDavid Hicks - fuck him.
Democrats - didnt gareth do that to cheryl?
Posted by surfmaster on 2007 04 04 at 08:30 AM • permalink“It’s the same old same old from the Left,” complains jlc. “They appear incapable of grasping the idea that someone who declares war on his civilization, his society, his country and his race has no fucking rights at all.”
BTW, common sense tells us that there is no such thing as rights.
Rights is a nutty judeo-christian concept base on doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
As a legal concept, rights are what you (collectively) can negotiate with society.
The whole concept has been hijacked by the left. It now means that anyone except reasonable hard-working honest people can do whatever the fuck they want to.
Posted by Jack from Montreal on 2007 04 04 at 08:42 AM • permalinkThe lobbyists see “rights” as a big stick especially efficacious against those of even vaguely judeo-christian cultural background, and have no concept of the long term damage they are doing to the very concept of “rights”; they assume that no amount of damage to the credibility of the concept of “rights” will ever have any consequences because they either believe that vaguely judeo-christian norms are somehow built-into highly evolved humans, or that the vaguely judeo-christian conservative faction will always retain enough power to continue to enforce “rights” as a social contract derived ultimately from their moral code.
Finally, the lobyist’s elevation of every real or imagined “right” to absolute good, and the non-negotiability of all such “rights” as a complete bundle means they are incapable of encouraging gradual reform in other societies. David Hicks has a right to do whatever he likes, converts from Islam have a right not to be beheaded- equal weight. A woman has the right to not be raped beaten or treated as half-human under the law, and also the right to abortion on demand- equal weight. You can’t just promote the most intuitive, protective, necessary and traditionally acceptable rights and let the rest follow, you have to jam the whole package in sideways….. but without conquest.
#71 Depends who’s volunteering, I guess.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 04 04 at 09:11 AM • permalinkIf only one salutory lesson is learned from this whole debacle about Mo Dawood and the ludicrous nine months “suspended sentence”, it is that next time a Digger (or GI) in a war zone comes across some arsehole in civvies waving a rifle about, shoot the mongrel dead on the spot and leave the carcase for the “caring and sharing” to bury.
Fifty million words, and whole battalions of shit dribbling idiots who support Mo’s “rights” would never have never seen the light of day, and $300K+ of taxpayers money would have been better spent on things like creating clones of Shane Warne.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2007 04 04 at 09:14 AM • permalinkIf Hicksie’s the New Jesus, why isn’t he going to be at Melbournes Federation Square tomorrow, showing his unique talents?
This is one episode where I’d have no problem with him blindly discharging several magazines of AK47 7.62 into the non-believers assembled.
BTW- anyone in Melbourne with not much else to do on your way to work, pop in and ask the ABC flacks when the “Mahommad, You’re A Saucy Boy” contest is to be held- just before Ramadam should be ticketty-boo.
Maybe he can run on the “STOP GLOBL WAMING” platform… you know, stuff the Jews into iceboxes instead of ovens…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 04 04 at 10:33 AM • permalinkThey appear incapable of grasping the idea that the Left can support Hicks’ rights, but not Hicks the man.
The left uses the same logic to insist that everyone who values free speech rally around Larry Flynt.
It’s not a valid syllogism. Hicks is charged with acts of war. Those are on a totally different plane from regular felonies.
You go off to foreign countries and take up arms against your own (which the evidence has him cold on), then you don’t get the presumption of innocence. You’ve waived most of your rights-of-the-accused. In this world, you are lucky to get a trial at all; the Taliban would have put him to death summarily if the tables had been turned.
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2007 04 04 at 10:44 AM • permalinkWow! Anonymouse Lefty certainly ticked off James Waterton.
Hicks be the new Jaysus?
I got the hammer. Who’s bringing the spikes?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 04 04 at 10:04 PM • permalinkIf Senator S Kanck ever got together with NSW Senator Helen Sham Ho…
Oh never mind.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 04 04 at 10:23 PM • permalink#58 - you mean there are people who can’t get into the army? What do they learn during basic training - Breathing 101?
So the Kanck-meister ...sings a capella gospel music in an occasional trio - now that should be a capital offence!
Posted by Hump B Bare on 2007 04 04 at 11:49 PM • permalinkI know.
I’ve been a bad, bad fellow.
But I cannot help it. Applying cluebats to reactionary leftist ideologues is just so…. much…..... fun…..
Besides, Texas Bob looked like he needed a break. He’s been beating up so much on Mondo and Jewwemmy Thearth that his knuckles must be skinned.
Here’s what I threw at ‘em.
MarkL
Canberra
———————————————-
Actually, Jewwemy, I posted this for Mondo. There is a chance that he/she might not actually be a bigoted, reactionary ideologue. But let me Fisk what you laughingly describe as your “argument”:Typical idiocy from you, Mark. (Mark’s a troll from the land of Blair.)
COMMENT: Opens with an ad hominem, a logical fallacy indicating that the writer has nothing to offer.
You’ve got to love a post about “international law” that starts with “In the words of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica…”
Ah yes, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Such a valuable source of modern jurisprudence!COMMENT: HMM? Guess you missed the following:
CItation: Legitimate and Illegitimate Modes of Warfare, J. B. Atlay, Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, New Ser., Vol. 6, No. 1 (1905), pp. 10-21Also see: International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 54 (1960). This commentary also noted that “if resistance movements are to benefit by the Convention, they must respect the four special conditions contained in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) which are identical to those stated in Article 1 of the Hague Regulations.” Id. at 59. The ICRC reaffirmed this in its commentary on the 1977 Protocol I Additional, in describing the state of the law following World War II:
Both during the conflict [Second World War], and thereafter, the law as laid down in The Hague [1907] prevailed. During the conflict resistance fighters were often executed summarily, i.e., without formalities. After the conflict such summary executions were only disclaimed in exceptional cases, and when they were, it was at the price of arguing the illegality of the invasion or occupation. Thus there was no one who maintained that the Hague Regulations of 1907 had lapsed on this point. In this way the four conditions of 1907 were eventually reaffirmed in 1949 in Article 4 of the Third Convention: a responsible commander, a fixed distinctive sign, carrying arms openly, observing the laws and customs of war. The only concession consisted of recognizing the right to continue fighting when under occupation, provided that such guerrilla fighters belonged to a Party to the conflict.
See International Committee of the Red Cross, Commentary on the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) 383 (1987)
The simple fact is that one basic human right is not to be detained indefinitely without a fair trial. Only a thoroughly contemptible partisan hack would argue that this is not a basic human right, and that frankly anyone picked up by the US who isn’t immediately brutally tortured and executed should THANK THEIR LUCKY STARS.
COMMENT: The logical fallacies of argumentum ad populum, secundum quid and dicto simpliciter. Well done. Three means of disqualifying everything you say in one paragraph!
Oh, BTW?
See generally The Prosecutor v. Tadic, (Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction), 41-47 (ICTY 2 Oct. 1995). Past practice suggests that military tribunals, even those used to try lawful combatants accused of war crimes, may be lawfully established in a number of different ways. The IMT at Nuremberg was established through agreement among the Allied Powers, acting in their capacity as the conquerors of Nazi Germany. See The Nurnberg Trial, 6 F.R.D. 69, 107 (1946). The military tribunals established by Britain to try captured Nazis in Europe were based on a Royal Warrant, issued pursuant to King George VI’s prerogative. See Annex I British Law, supra note 27. Those created by Australia, to try war crimes in the Pacific, were based on a statute. See Annex Australian Law, supra note 30, at 94. The military tribunals established by Canada during and after World War II were based first on the King’s prerogative, in the form of Orders in Council, and later upon an act of Parliament. See Annex Canadian Law, supra note 30, at 125. In this case, the President’s November 13 Military Order arguably meets even the most restrictive interpretation of the term “established by law,” requiring a statutory basis. In this regard, the Supreme Court found statutory authority for the establishment of military commissions in sections 12 and 15 of the Articles of War, now codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 818, 821, 904. Quirin, 317 U.S
Texas Bob-
“Jeremy, proven guilty? Hicks said he agreed to plead guilty because prosecutors had enough evidence to convict him. “
Hicks said what he needed to say to get out of that ridiculous situation. It was no more credible than a confession in a Stalinist show trial from the 1930s.COMMENT: Merely the latest lefty meme to avoid facing the reality that he pleaded guilty.
Jeff-
“Soooo… suppose it’s WW2, and you capture a German in battle. So what do you charge him with, illegal germaning? “This isn’t WW2, and anyway you’re not proposing treating Hicks like a POW. In a war you hold the person during the war, and then when it’s over they’re returned (unless they’ve committed war crimes, which Hicks clearly hadn’t).
COMMENT: Sigh, how stunningly little you really know. There is little difference between now and WWII, for war is war, the form might alter, but the concept? Go read Clausewitz: ‘On War’ (Peter Paret’s edition is the best version in the last century or so). Hicks had, actually committed a war crime: that of being a franc tireur, such a serious thing that it is very specifically addressed in a vast body of international law. See above. Don’t you know ANYTHING?
The reason the “war on terror” isn’t a “war” is that there’s no possible victory condition. It can never end, because you can never know when you’ve got “the last terrorist”. It’s like declaring a “war on crime” and just locking up every criminal permanently no matter what they’ve done.
Oh, Jewwemy, have you not read the “Tafsir” of Usamah bin Ladin ? First, read bin Ladin’s long, three-part, formally entitled “Declaration of War” (October 12, 13, and 14, 1996), then look at the actual acts of war (see Walzer’s classic ‘Just and Unjust Wars’ for the definitions you so obviously know nothing about) which have been conducted. These include the deliberate killing of over 100 of your own fellow countrymen. As for the victory conditions, these are as easy to define as those of the “War on Slavery” from 1832 onwards. The victory conditions there were “an end to the practice of slavery throughout the world”. Before you ask, no, we have not yet won the war on slavery, it has only been 175 years, slavery is known to be an institution 6000 years old and the last state to formally abolish legal slavery was Saudi Arabia in (IIRC) 1973. it will never end, and neither it should. By your reckoning, then, should we not bother to fight it? The mere fact that a war will (or perhaps can) never end is no excuse for not fighting it. You may even define your victory conditions as containment (see the Korean War, which is still an active war, merely in armistice), or reduction of the problem (see ‘war on slavery’ and ‘war on crime’) to a level which is found acceptable by some process. Your point here is asinine.
Rob-“Pleading guilty means you admit your guilt; you’ve proven your guilt by your own admission.”
If it’s part of a just process, sure. This wasn’t. Hicks was forced to say whatever was necessary to get out of a kafkaesque nightmare.COMMENT: EXCELLENT! So you must agree, as a lawyer, that the Quirin Case (in the USA), Nuremberg, Tokyo and all the other military tribunal systems found as just process within international and national law (including Australian Law – remember the trials of IJA personnel in 1945 at Morotai?) established beyond doubt that Hicks was subject to JUST PROCESS.
Congratulations, Jewwemy, you just annihilated your own argument.
“What was “retrospective” (I believe here in the US we call them “ex post facto” laws) applies to someone who never followed the Geneva Convention requirements for a lawful combatant -or- a non-combatant not being treated as a lawful combatant?”
What absolute piffle. Firstly, using the Geneva Conventions to justify treating someone contrary to the Geneva Conventions is farcical.COMMENT: Citations, please, oh lawyer, to support your argument – I could do with the laughs. Your position here is in direct opposition to the First and Second Geneva Convention, 1907 Hague Convention and international legal precedent as quoted above, US, British, Canadian and Australian Law as mentioned above. (And you claim NOT to be a reactionary ideologue??)
Secondly, the principle that you can’t commit a crime that doesn’t exist is such a fundamental one in law and justice that it’s staggering you don’t understand it.
By the international law quoted above, Hicks was a franc tireur, an ‘illegal combatant’. You have done nothing to effectively dispute this point and much to reinforce it (thanks, Jewwemy). This places him outside domestic criminal law (there remains a prima facie case of treason, of course, under Australian domestic law and I hope he is prosecuted for that), “such a fundamental [point] in [international] law and justice that it’s staggering you don’t understand it”. That the USA chose a path of remarkable mercy and clemency and chose to treat him as a criminal when they were under absolutely no obligation by international or national law to do so is amazing.
Taking you apart at the seams is fun (if very unchallenging), care for another round?<Note to self: Self, never, EVER use Jewwemy’s world-class hyper-gargantuan legal acumen before a court. Self, you’ll get 50 years in supermax for littering if you do.>
MONDO, stop it, you are killing me…. my sides hurt so much from laughing at this!
Texas Bob: US military tribunals are of the US judicial system. Inferring they are illegitimate is inferring the US judicial system is illegitimate.
COMMENT: He is, of course, correct, because US Military tribunals (and UK, Canadian and Australian ones) are completely legal under international and domestic law, as described above.
Ha ha ha - oh Texas Bob, you’ve actually managed to say the dumbest thing I’ve heard all week.
COMMENT: Reeeeaaaally? Only becuase you know nothing of the facts and reality, and are arguing from emotion and what is ‘feelgood’ for you.
You’ve completely missed the fact that criticism of the Military Tribunals is specifically based on the premise that they lack the fundamental safeguards of the civilian US judicial system.
COMMENT: Which is why the criticism is utter twaddle. You see, they are based on the requirements of the Hague COnvention of 1907, 1st and 2nd Geneva Conventions, Nuremburg and Tokyo trials. SO they are based on INTERNATIONAL law and precedent, not US domestic law and presedent. So the criticism is like criticising a jet airliner because it is not a fish.
Do you get it yet? They’re invalid precicely because they’re different to the US judicial system - not because they’re the same!!
I have to conclude, based on what you’ve written so far, that you have absolutely no grasp of the fundamental issues at stake in this matter.
COMMENT: Aus contraire! it is you who have precisely zero knowledge of the fundamental issues at stake, because you conflate domestic criminal jurisprudescence with international law.
MarkL
CanberraLord, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel….
Yeah, a sad, sad lot. It is apparently true that Sears is a lawyer. But he is the first of teh breed I have ever seen who operates on ego and emotion, while ignoring facts. Facts are a lawyer’s bread-and-butter. For him to just blow them off says something.
I think that it says ‘if in trouble with the law in Victoria - get anyone but Sears’.
Hey, it was fun in a ‘clubbing baby seals’ kind of way. I noticed how Mondo ignored the first post, so as the standard morontaktik is being applied (don’t the Bundeswehr have a way with words?), he self-categorises rather neatly.
None of those clowns have had to sit thru endless LOAC and ROE briefs, eh?
Regards:
MarkL
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
But does Natasha have big enough tits for him?