<< HEIST ABANDONED ~ MAIN ~ BOYD CODDINGTON >>
EVIL CONSIDERED
It’s root causes time in the Victorian Supreme Court:
The jury in Australia’s largest terrorism case has been asked to consider the “evil” America has done, as a court judges 12 Melbourne men accused of plotting to commit “violent jihad”.
Opening the defence case today, lawyer Remy van de Wiel, QC, told the jury America had suffered an enormous blow to its pride as a result of the September 11 World Trade Center attack.
Mr Van de Wiel described the attacks as “evil and shocking”.
“But don’t forget, America has done many evil things too,” Mr van de Wiel told the court.
He also told the Victorian Supreme Court jury to be cautious about forming the opinion that Osama bin Laden, who it has heard was a hero to the leader of the Melbourne group, was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
“To say this was all orchestrated by Osama bin Laden is also very silly,” he said.
“He has never claimed responsibility.”
We’ll be hearing about “controlled demolitions” and Jews being warned to stay away from the WTC before this case is done. Further from van de Weasel’s address:
If you think about movies and how many of them have an Arab hero, very few portray them in a positive light, the media, commentators, documentaries. I’m not saying they are all deliberately biased but they come from a particular standpoint.
History and the concurrence of events that were happening in the background of those conversations are relevant. There was the conflict in Iraq, the conflict in Chechnya, the conflict in Afghanistan, the Sudan and Ethiopia, all involve Muslims. The media is very rarely sympathetic to them.
This guy’s a riot.
We all know 4,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq but do you ever say to yourself, how many Iraqis have died? Does the media ever tell us?
Better than that - via repetition of bogus bodycounts, the media even tells us about dead Iraqis who aren’t dead.
What we are interested in is what a person who lives in a Muslim ghetto in Melbourne says as a reaction to what’s happening to people he regards as his people.
His people, eh? The chap van de Wipe refers to has lived in Australia for nearly twenty years. Here’s a novel legal angle:
The leader of an alleged Melbourne terrorist cell could not organise a booze-up in a brewery, a defence lawyer told the Supreme Court today.
“But don’t forget, America has done many evil things too,” Mr van de Wiel told the court.
Even accepting this statement is true (just for the sake of argument), how does this excuse alleged armed jihad?
Even jurors in the Peoples Republic of Victoria should be able to see through this sophistry.
Posted by The Mongrel on 2008 02 28 at 01:07 AM • permalinkA novel defence, using both root cause and black ops conspiracy theory to explain criminal acts, thereby apparently admitting the offence. Looks like the Remster got his silk from the same on-line provider as Burnside QC, who I wouldn’t have represent me in a traffic meter matter.
Given the nymber of babbling imbeciles who warm benches in Brackistan however I’d say the defence will be successful.
“But don’t forget, America has done many evil things too,” Mr van de Wiel told the court.
Later, in a neighbouring court, Mr van de Wiel argued that if the victim didn’t want to be raped, she shouldn’t have worn such a short skirt. Then in his next trial, he berated the owners of a burgled house for leaving their curtains open, thus taunting his client with a clear view of their new 50 inch plasma.
Posted by blandwagon on 2008 02 28 at 01:12 AM • permalinkMr van de Wiel described the event as a “little puff of smoke”.
He said Benbrika only accompanied the agent known as SIO 39 because he was naive and ignorant.
“Like any silly male, he wants to see it, so he goes with 39,” he said.
I guess there aren’t many men on the jury.
Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2008 02 28 at 01:16 AM • permalinkWhat we are interested in is what a person who lives in a Muslim ghetto in Melbourne says as a reaction to what’s happening to people he regards as his people.
Let’s go out and gang rape some white slut and then burn some cars??? (But that’s only a guess on my part.)
Posted by andycanuck on 2008 02 28 at 01:20 AM • permalinkThe judge needs to shut this down immediately. If it continues, the courtroom will become a soapbox and an opportunity to preach Anti-Western terrorist ideology.
It would be equivalent to a murderer smearing the character of the victim in court, and then arguing that murder was the only reasonable course of action.Posted by daddy dave on 2008 02 28 at 01:23 AM • permalink‘Tis a noble profession this lawyering shenanigans. If my first born son isn’t able to reach the heights of Glory Hole Boy at the local steamworks, I’d proudly wish this vocation upon him.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 02 28 at 01:24 AM • permalink#5 What we are interested in is what a person who lives in a Muslim ghetto in Melbourne says as a reaction to what’s happening to people he regards as his people.
Well, what I am interested in is what the hell does that sentence mean?
Paco, that governments at all levels have failed us by letting pricks like this in to the country. Come to think if it, they probably shouldn’t have let the terrorist in either.
Piss ups in breweries are actually quite difficult to organise under current OH&S guidelines.
“He was so incompetent he couldn’t organise a ‘Death To Israel’ chant at a peace rally”
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 02 28 at 01:28 AM • permalinkWhat the hell else would one expect from Victoria. Stacked with a Rob Hull’s lefty progressive Western Society hating judiciary. This spiv will probably end up being a judge someday. Along with a NSW Labor import as Police Commissioner (jobs for mates, sounds familiar) it is a wonder they were not sat down and given a cup of tea and a little counselling.
Good question Kae. My jaw was dropping so low at this whole “defence” that I couldn’t frame a coherent response, except possibly for this one:
Defence lawyers are there to provide a voice for the defence, not to provide millions of excuses so as to get them off the offence.
Or am I out-of-date or naive on this one??
Posted by carpefraise on 2008 02 28 at 01:56 AM • permalinkFrom the HeraldSun:
Ms Karapanagiotidis, appearing for accused Fadl Sayadi, said there was a cultural, political and religious context in which the conversations took place ..
Yup. M-hm. Absolutely.
That’s the whole point!!!
Posted by carpefraise on 2008 02 28 at 01:59 AM • permalinkVan der Weasel is admitting his clients’ guilt. If they were innocent why raise mitigating circumstances to justify the actions they weren’t undertaking.
But it will work. Fighting the Great Satan is a legitimate defence in the People’s Democratic Republic of Victoria since rabid leftie Rob Hulls got control of the legal system and the judiciary.
Sorry about all these posts, but THIS statement takes the cake - from a defence lawyer no less…Shane Kent’s lawyer John O’ Sullivan…
“The principal issue is not about the truth of the alleged facts. The key issue is about the meaning of those facts.”
I learn something everyday, I do.
Posted by carpefraise on 2008 02 28 at 02:01 AM • permalinkI wonder if ever in the history of American jurisprudence, anyone has ever used the Australia is evildefense?
Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2008 02 28 at 02:19 AM • permalinkSo the defence says they are innocent.
So let them go.
Maybe then they would like to travel overseas.
There are probably people in other countries who would like to talk to them about a few things.Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 02 28 at 02:25 AM • permalink...the media even tells us about dead Iraqis who aren’t dead.
That’s known as “fake but accurate”, methinks.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 02 28 at 02:32 AM • permalinkThat “ghetto” was a suburb just a few years ago, what could be the “root cause” of its degeneration into a Ghetto full of Islamists?
I blame George Bush!
“..There was the conflict in Iraq, the conflict in Chechnya, the conflict in Afghanistan, the Sudan and Ethiopia, all involve Muslims..”
If the magistrate had a sense of humour at this point hed put on his little black cap and declare them guilty.
After all what is the common factor in all these conflicts?Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 02 28 at 02:36 AM • permalinka person who lives in a Muslim ghetto in Melbourne
As Peter M observes there are no ghettoes in Melbourne, but if there were whose fault would it be? After all the rest of us wouldn’t have forced them to live in a ghetto - and wouldn’t have thought it was a good idea if someone suggested it. So if they are living in a “muslim ghetto” it is entirely by their own choice. (There is some irony in the choice of this word in that ghettoes originally referred to neighbourhoods in which the jews were forced to live - do you reckon the muslims know this?)
#13 Rob W. Yeah. It was a really good idea letting them all in wasn’t it?
Ummm I wouldn’t be to sure on the Judges abilities myself.
Human rights charter cited in bail bid
Oh dear, it will be a cold day in hell before any of these precious lambs sees jail time. Release with millions for the “injustice” coming right up.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 02 28 at 03:53 AM • permalinkI don’t wish to be a wet blanket here, but these matters may be sub judice which may be interpreted as an interference with due process.
Habib: A novel defence, using both root cause and black ops conspiracy theory to explain criminal acts, thereby apparently admitting the offence.
That’s what I thought when I read it. I’d sack this guy as incompetent if I was the client. What a plonker.
Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 02 28 at 04:25 AM • permalink#28
That “ghetto” was a suburb just a few years ago, what could be the “root cause” of its degeneration into a Ghetto full of Islamists?
Lakemba was also just a suburb prior to the 1980s when the Keating Government allowed in planeloads of Lebanese Muslims. The rest is history.
Lakemba is now the electorate of the NSW Premier.
People. PEOPLE! Your outrage is that of people who have not spent much time in court. He is a l.a.w.y.e.r. He is paid, sometimes by people just like you and me, to get a jury, (sometimes people just like you an me but more often old or unemployed people) to find someone “not guilty”. He has an audience of 12, and a single client. He is not there to make sense/comment on morality or ethics/contribute to philosophy/be agreeable/analyse world events, anything, in fact to engage in any other sort of activity would be highly unethical, and nothing he says at work has anything to do with what he as a person actuallly thinks. He is simply there to get a result for his client and that’s all.
Latching onto a barrister’s summing up as an example of how we are going to the dogs is aiming very low indeed.Posted by ooh honey honey on 2008 02 28 at 05:25 AM • permalinkAnywhere this type of Muslim congregates becomes a ghetto, a barren wasteland devoid of logic. Van de wipe is right, thcrew of Islamists are full of Bullshit, evil Bullshit. Van de wipe is one of these scum felchers, who is scraping the barrel with his defence and the type of client he will act for.
He’s a dutchman born and bred
thick in the arm and thick in the head.Steady on. Andrew Bolt is Dutchman; or at least his parents are.
Posted by walterplinge on 2008 02 28 at 06:14 AM • permalinkBringing up the reasons for an alleged crime is approoriate in mitigating the punishment. But what this barrister appears to be seeking is “jury nullification”. It’s improper.
Posted by wronwright on 2008 02 28 at 06:39 AM • permalinkQ. Why don’t sharks eat lawyers?
A. Professional courtesy.
Posted by surfmaster on 2008 02 28 at 07:24 AM • permalinkOT
Congratulations to PACO corp and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/default.stm
E-Day(Eco-twaddle)
Actual Consumption
75709.8 Mw
Usual Consumption
74980.3 Mw729.5 EXTRA Megawatts of Airborne Plantfood Created.
OT. Gangs threaten hotel staff:
GANGS of Middle Eastern youths have threatened to bash staff in popular city and suburban nightclubs.
Adelaide hoteliers say the notorious “Middle East Boys” – or MEB – have said they’d find staff members’ homes to exact a violent revenge after being refused entry to bars and pubs.
Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2008 02 28 at 08:23 AM • permalinkIf this works, Mr. Van de Weasel can give Ron Kanoski a run for his money.
Posted by chunt31854 on 2008 02 28 at 08:26 AM • permalink40. ooh honey honey
“..He is not there to make sense/comment on morality or ethics/contribute to philosophy/be agreeable/analyze world events, anything, in fact to engage in any other sort of activity would be highly unethical, and nothing he says at work has anything to do with what he as a person actually thinks..”
Um he DID in actual fact make commentary on morality, and pretty well all the other issues you raised.
And he’s doing it in order to obtain a mistrial by way of the jury being unduly prejudiced against the defendants. A couple of nods at the wrong time from a juror listening to him will pretty quickly see a retreat to chambers and a new jury formed.
Repeat tactics then obtain the release of the clients due to “undue suffering as they await their finding of innocent..”He’s not being a lawyer defending his client, he’s gaming the system to make it unworkable.
That is unethical behavior.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 02 28 at 08:39 AM • permalinkYou know, it’s comments like these by Andrew Bolt that remind me, “Spot, you’re not in
KansasNorth Carolina anymore…”I repeat: don’t read Tim Blair
I couldn’t possibly comment on some of the stuff on Tim Blair’s blog yesterday, not even with a “hear hear”, and I won’t be running any comments on it, either. I’d better not even link to it for safety’s sake.
What we in Australia call “free speech” is really a pretty pale imitation of America’s version, isn’t it.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 28 at 09:35 AM • permalinkThis is completely off topic but relevant to readers and commenters of this blog. Paco, any comments?
Posted by Not My Problem on 2008 02 28 at 10:10 AM • permalink#64 Bolt has already had one run-in with the judge in this case. (There’s more elsewhere, but I don’t have links handy).
I’d say he’s being cautious.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 28 at 10:32 AM • permalink#64 I’m constantly confused by Australia’s laws regarding what you can and can’t say. Bolt does have a tendency to <snip> bits of comments which have to do with current court cases or which could be construed as “defamatory.” I’ve always assumed maybe it was a “once bitten” kind of thing.
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 28 at 10:38 AM • permalink#64 He was sued by a magistrate over one of his articles, and the judge in the matter Tim’s writing about was the same judge who heard Popovic v Bolt (not the actual citation, but we’re amongst friends here so I don’t care).
According to our friend the Frollicking Mole on this thread (which went slightly off topic), the judge actually overturned the part of the verdict which found Bolt not to be guilty of defamation.
Personally, I don’t think Popovic was entitled to anything more than an apology, if Bolt did indeed get his facts slightly wrong, which is something that would be quite rare for him.
Q. Why don’t sharks eat lawyers?
A. Nausea.
Posted by mythusmage on 2008 02 28 at 10:49 AM • permalink#68: I thought it was because of “professional courtesy”.
#63: Sigh. Looks like the Argentinians are never going to forgive me for selling them those leaky surplus WWI dreadnaughts during the Falklands War. They’ve named this terrible drug after me out of spite. Well, I’ll show ‘em! I’m preparing a letter to be sent to the Argentine Embassy in Washington in which I threaten to flood Argentina with Paco products. Watch their economy tank! Again!
I’d say it’s almost worth it for this “defense” to be successful, just so that there’s official recognition of the notion that Muslims are so weak of character that they simply can’t control themselves in the face of unfavourable events and circumstances. I presume it would be okay to push for racial profiling and the like, afterwards?
Well, if this defense doesn’t work out for them, can they claim Bush Derangement Syndrome as a mitigating factor?
Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 28 at 11:09 AM • permalinkVan de Weil’s brewery line was lame. It’s hard to believe that he had too much delicacy to say, “couldn’t organize a piss up at a brewery.” That line was cited by Google as having been used over 1,050 times. Google gives other examples of shortcomings in organizational ability:
...couldn’t organize a two-car funeral
...couldn’t organize a game of solitaire
...couldn’t organize a trip to Denny’s
...couldn’t organize a party in a phone booth
...couldn’t organize a free kegger
...couldn’t organize a car wash if you spotted them varsity cheerleading, two Hooters franchises, and the statutory version of Traci Lords
...couldn’t organize a sex party in a whorehouse
...couldn’t organize a lemonade stand
...couldn’t organize a broom closet
Stories like this make me angry enough to want to go to law school—just so I can become a judge and sit there on the bench, listening to these people piss and moan about America. Then I’ll look him in the eye, say “You’re admitting he did it.” And when he starts squawking, I’ll repeat the statement, and then throw his pissant client in jail until the Second Coming.
We don’t have nearly enough hanging judges any more. Court has become a sympathy ploy instead of a whodunnit arena, and it’s absolutely ridiculous.
Posted by Tungsten Monk on 2008 02 28 at 11:52 AM • permalinkpaco -
What’s the context of Bolt’s remark? Is he being ironic, or what?
I think he’s being pickwickian, engaging in the same type of fake feud as Jack Benny and Fred Allen.
Posted by wronwright on 2008 02 28 at 12:58 PM • permalink“But don’t forget, America has done many evil things too,” Mr van de Wiel told the court.
Mr. van de Weasel must mean all those evil things such as the aid we send, especially in time of disaster. He must mean all the times that we’ve pulled someone’s bacon out of the fire. Yeah, it must be evil things like that.
Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 02 28 at 01:32 PM • permalink#69,
Before professional courtesy can play a role, lawyers must first become professionals.
Posted by mythusmage on 2008 02 28 at 01:40 PM • permalink“To say this was all orchestrated by Osama bin Laden is also very silly,” he said. “He has never claimed responsibility.”
It’s too bad Mr. van de Weasel can’t pull his Lefty head out of his ass long enough to view the tape bin Laden takes responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Isn’t Mr. Weasel one of the “see no evil…” monkeys?
Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 02 28 at 01:41 PM • permalink#84 Wronwright: Ha! So that’s it. Well, they’ve got a way to go before they reach that level of faux rivalry.
#88 Deborah: I was thinking the same thing. There was a video circulating shortly after the attack showing bin Laden sitting around with his fellow goat molesters, laughing about the whole thing.
#86 Ash: I think you’re right.
#4 Just like a Liberal, blaming the victim and defending the criminal. It’s like the “pro-choice” people who object to war because babies get killed.
Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 02 28 at 02:02 PM • permalink“But don’t forget, America has done many evil things too,” Mr van de Wiel told the court.
And just what are those evil things? Could it be things like fighting wars to prevent greater evils from occurring? Like Communism. Fascism. Imperial conquest. Islamist fundamentalism.
Idiot.
Posted by wronwright on 2008 02 28 at 02:08 PM • permalinkY’all gotta admit, from the socialist utopianists point of view, we have been pretty dang dastardly.
We stopped their fascism, their nazism, their communism, and now we’re picking on their multiculti surrenderism.
From the perspective of the exclusively enemy friendly sorts such as that scumbag running his suck in support of those who want to cut his head off, we have been a pain in their ass for awhile now.
America has done many evil things too
Good grief, how many times to we have to apologise for Punky Brewster and Ewoks: The Battle For Endor? I’m sorry, World! Now get over it.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2008 02 28 at 03:34 PM • permalinkResearch laboratories have replaced rats with lawyers. There are three reasons:
1. There are more lawyers than rats;
2. Lab assistants learn to care about the rats;
3. And there are some things that rats won’t do.Elizabeth
Imperial KeeperPosted by Elizabeth Imperial Keeper on 2008 02 28 at 04:02 PM • permalinkGood grief, how many times to we have to apologise for Punky Brewster…
I used to think poorly of Punky Brewster, too. Then I saw Paget Brewster all grown up on “Criminal Minds”. I have forgiven her for her start in show business.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2008 02 28 at 04:40 PM • permalinkRob Crawford -
I used to think poorly of Punky Brewster, too. Then I saw Paget Brewster all grown up on “Criminal Minds”. I have forgiven her for her start in show business.
wikipedia -
Frye had breast reduction surgery at age 15, reducing the size of her breasts from 38DD to 36C.
I can understand why.
Posted by wronwright on 2008 02 28 at 06:11 PM • permalinkMust be really easy to be a QC these days
Posted by Old school on 2008 02 28 at 09:27 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Lionel Hutz was busy…