Not as bad as last time

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 05:34 am

The ABC’s Stephen Crittenden has copped a severe counselling following these comments during an interview with the lawyer of David Hicks:

If David Hicks is released, will it in fact be a very dramatic illustration that the only reason he’s been in Guantanamo Bay over these past four years is because of the bloody-mindedness of the Australian Government?

Off to the counselling chamber, Stephen! It’s interesting to compare the ABC’s treatment of Crittenden in this case with their earlier treatment of the presenter when he offered views on the rise of Islam.

Posted by Tim B. on 01/23/2006 at 10:05 AM
    1. Of course, people who train with Laskar-e-Toiba wouldn’t be bloody minded.
      How can you remove a splinter from my eye when there is a log in your own?

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 01 23 at 04:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. Whilst I despise the leftie bandwagon that insists on making a cause celebre of a defacto , if not de jure, traitor, I have to say that I don’t think this particular question (amongst all the egregious editorialisng that the ABC indulges in) warrants the reaction it has received. I wold have taken this , had I been asked, to mean that if he is released by the Americans we might assume that they have deemed realtivley low risk, and if that is the case it might legitimatley be asked whether it is the Australian or American authorities that have prolonged his stay in gitmo.

      Personally, though, my question would have been: “If David Hicks is released and returned to Australia, should I brake if he is crossing the road in front of me?”

      Posted by genwolf on 2006 01 23 at 05:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why are we even caring what Hick’s is up to?

      Last I heard the traitorous bastard had defected to Blighty.

      He is now their problem.

      Hands washed.  Clean.

      Posted by Jay Santos on 2006 01 23 at 05:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. David Hicks…. is he the master criminal terrorist about to blow up the Santos building in Adelaide, and consequently deserving of the anal rape inflicted upon him by the US or a simple bong smoker from Adelaide….. who cares in this New World Order !

      Posted by Barry Bones on 2006 01 23 at 06:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Let’s ask the question “How many ex-gitmo detainees have taken up arms again and been recaptured?”

      David Hicks chose to align with and fight alongside terrorists. I’ll save my sympathy for people more deserving.

      Posted by jpaulg on 2006 01 23 at 07:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. So bring Hicks to trial then if he’s a traitor or chose to fight alongside terrorists. It’s a pretty fundamental notion that people have their day in court… Oh, but I forgot we’re at war. So we just kiss goodbye to centuries of accepted legal and democratic principles that actually serve to distinguish us from the enemy.

      Posted by bongoman on 2006 01 23 at 07:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. ….spot on Bongoman…. oh yeah…. stick an object into his butt as well ! ! !

      Posted by Barry Bones on 2006 01 23 at 07:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. I see Hicks as a POW who should be held for the duration of the conflict in Afghanistan.

      Posted by lingus4 on 2006 01 23 at 09:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. #4 & 7- if he was a bonghead, he’d be floppedd in his Graham Kennedy look-alike dad’s living room blowing cones and watching Oprah- instead he decided to take up arms against his fellow countrymen and their allies; if he’d been doing cones with the Talibs, it would’ve saved us a lot of trouble, as they would have croaked him. Personally, I think he should have been summarily executed as an illegal combatant, failing that, being banged up for a long period with several large hairy perverts will do nicely, thanks very much.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 01 23 at 09:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. Let’s see, these Al Qaeda types are analogous to pirates, since they are making war without any right to do so (not being soldiers of a government or valid rebels against their own government).  Their mode of warfare makes them illegal combatants according to the Fourth Geneva Convention.  The proper venue for trying such people would be a military tribunal (analogous to an admiralty court for pirates).  The traditional punishment for pirates is death by hanging.  Perhaps Hicks would not be so anxious to face trial as some of his apologists think he ought to be.

      Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 01 23 at 10:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. But I’m confused…. wasn’t he Tailiban ? Wasn’t her guarding a tank and captured by the Northern Alliance ?

      The yanks have acknowledged he never shot at one US soldier ! How can anal rape be justification for this ?

      Posted by Barry Bones on 2006 01 23 at 10:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. I don’t happen to think that Hicks should be considered a prisoner of war but if he is, shouldn’t he remain locked up until the end of the conflict in which he was taknig part? The War on Terror could take a while…

      Posted by Villeurbanne on 2006 01 23 at 11:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bazza- you seem to have a fixation on anal rape, and a boner for Hicksie- shouldn’t you two get a room?

      Posted by Habib on 2006 01 24 at 12:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. Wait…. so he needs to be locked up until the War on Terror is over… so does that mean that every drug user should be locked up until the War on Drugs is over…

      PS: Who is the opposition in the war on Terror again ? Is it AlQaeda…. or Jamal Ismalia ? Its not an exactly quantifiable enemy, or is it….

      to Habib – I hope you never suffer from anal rape…. I understand its most unpleasant….

      Posted by Barry Bones on 2006 01 24 at 01:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. Wait…. so he needs to be locked up until the War on Terror is over… so does that mean that every drug user should be locked up until the War on Drugs is over…

      You are just being silly now Bones.

      Once the Afghani Government is able to police its own territory effectively Hicks should be sent back the Afghanistan.

      Posted by lingus4 on 2006 01 24 at 02:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. I mean “sent back to Afghanistan”

      Posted by lingus4 on 2006 01 24 at 02:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. Worse than a case of challifonts?

      Please reveal your unimpeachable source that confirms that Hicksie’s had to partake in the coerced chocolate cha-cha, Boney Boy.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 01 24 at 02:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bongo bones,anal rape seems to take place in any jail environment,not a jail for terrorists.Most guys know that and avoid jail for that very reason.
      Remember that alcohol and drugs are no longer an excuse for criminal activity.
      Do the crime serve the time and can you think of a much more despicable crime than turning against your own country,your own family including your silly father (or was he to get “preferential” treatment) and expect that country to give you aid and assistance.His thoughts might have been harmless enough but his actions were those of a traitor.Grow up.

      Posted by crash on 2006 01 24 at 03:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hicks masterminded the Beslan school massacare and derserves what ever he gets…..or maybe he didnt but there is as much evidence of that as the claims made by barry anal fixation bones. See barry both sides can play the stupid story game.

      Actually I think Hicks went to Kashmir to kill innocent indians….oh shit he did do that actually

      Posted by Astonished on 2006 01 24 at 04:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’m sure Hicks is a psychotic little prick.  That aside, everyone deserves their day in court and 4 years later he remains in isolation without charge.

      If we think such actions are acceptable, then I suspect we’re no better than those we purport to despise.  Crittenden presents as a pompous turd, however, his question was justified.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 01 24 at 06:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. I have banned Mr. Bones. Perhaps now he will have the time to get the psychological counseling he obviously desperately needs, to get over his dreadful prison experience. See, I discipline, but only out of love.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 01 24 at 08:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gustov, (#20)

      You are wrong about charges.
      Hicks (aka Mahomed Dawood, Abu Muslim al- Australii) was charged on 26 August 2004 with conspiracy to attack civilians, aiding the enemy as an unpriveliged belligerent, and attempted murder.

      He has no status as a POW under the Conventions.

      He should have been tried by a military commission years ago, but his defence team have been trying every legal trick at their command to ensure his trial is delayed or abandoned.

      Latest trick is claiming English citizenship.

      Meanwhile, Mahomed Dawoo rots in Gitmo, and all is right with the world.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 01 24 at 09:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. 4 asswipe

      David Hicks…. is he the master criminal terrorist about to blow up the Santos building in Adelaide,

      No this is the one fighting alongside the Taliban to protect civilian-killing AlQaeda pirates from U.S. retaliation, and of course to preserve the traditional, quaint, indigenous, enlightened Taliban-Afghan way of life.

      and consequently deserving of the anal rape inflicted upon him by the US or a simple bong smoker from Adelaide….. who cares in this New World Order !

      US UCMJ doesn’t have an anal rape penalty, so if he wants that I guess he’ll need to persuade somebody to turn him over to the Hague, or release him in your custody, or whatever.  Are you volunteering to forward that petition on his behalf, or what?

      6 other asswipe

      So bring Hicks to trial then if he’s a traitor or chose to fight alongside terrorists. It’s a pretty fundamental notion that people have their day in court…

      Gets my vote.  Of course, there seem to be some complicating jurisdictional issues.  Shall they try him under Afghan law, U.S. law, U.S.Military law, Australian law, “international law” (snort!), or what?

      Oh, but I forgot we’re at war. So we just kiss goodbye to centuries of accepted legal and democratic principles that actually serve to distinguish us from the enemy.

       

      He’s at war too, and his side is losing.  Too bad about how they forgot to issue him a uniform and enlist him in an actual national army.  It’s almost as if the whole Geneva Convention thing didn’t mean shit to them.

      7 first asswipe

      ….spot on Bongoman…. oh yeah…. stick an object into his butt as well ! ! !

      Maybe y’all should just work that out amongst yourselves.

      11 first asswipe again

      But I’m confused…. wasn’t he Tailiban ? Wasn’t her guarding a tank and captured by the Northern Alliance ?

      Maybe.  We’ve pretty much only got his word for it about that.  Would you rather he was tried under Northern Alliance jurisprudence?  No, wait, they don’t exist as a national entity.  Damn.  Taliban’s gone too.  Well, what do you think of his chances in an Afghan court?

      The yanks have acknowledged he never shot at one US soldier !

      Benedict Arnold never shot at one US soldier either … okay bad example.  Arnold got away, just like you’d like this scumbag to get away.  Hm, maybe not such a bad example after all.

      How can anal rape be justification for this ?

       

      You’d have to ask his defense council about that, if that’s the case he’s trying to make.  Sounds improbable, though.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 24 at 11:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. Stupid me

      No this is the one fighting alongside the Taliban to protect civilian-killing AlQaeda pirates from U.S. retaliation, and of course to preserve the traditional, quaint, indigenous, enlightened Taliban-Afghan way of life.

      Woops, wrong scumbag.  Sorry folks.  I had him mixed up with Johnny Walker Ratboy Lindh.  sigh.  Oh well, I see from scrolling farther down that the scintillating Mr Bones isn’t going to have any clever answers for my impertinent questions anyway.  Pity.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 24 at 11:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. Thanks for administering the discipline, Stoop.

      Posted by cosmo on 2006 01 24 at 12:50 PM • permalink

 

    1. O/T but related:  John Walker Lindh’s father has been testifying before Congress in an effort to get his poor, misunderstood son released from prison.  He’s a good boy, after all, just misguided. [/stifle gag reflex]

      I hope Johnny rots in prison for the rest of his miserable life.  And I hope the same thing for your boy Hicks.  They made a conscious decision to take up arms against their own, so boohoo if they now have to face the consequences.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 01 24 at 01:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. Cosmo 25
      Um, you’re welcome, I guess, but as it turns out, I was spanking an empty chair.  Sigh.  The real thanks must go to Cruella, who did the right thing in curb-kicking that bony pesky repetitive repetitive boring moron aside.  And while I don’t really need to fantasize about it in the same level of detail that ol’ bongobone did, it’s pretty much okay with me if Lindh and Hicks have a lousy time of it in prison.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 01 24 at 01:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. So bring Hicks to trial then if he’s a traitor or chose to fight alongside terrorists. It’s a pretty fundamental notion that people have their day in court… Oh, but I forgot we’re at war. So we just kiss goodbye to centuries of accepted legal and democratic principles that actually serve to distinguish us from the enemy.

      Prisoners of war have never had the right to a trial. People captured by the military in the field in times of war are not in the same category criminals apprehended by the police.

      I actually oppose the whole idea of putting the Gitmo detainees on trial at all, except maybe a hearing to determine if they were actually illegal non-combatants, but they’re either illegal non-combatants, in which case they get banged up at the leisure of the government who captured them, or they’re not. If they’re not illegal non-combatants then either let them go or charge them under criminal processes.

      Posted by jpaulg on 2006 01 24 at 10:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. Gustov Critto’s “question” was (at its very mildest interpretation) sternly rhetorical (i.e. not requiring an answer) and at the time it really sounded like more of an “out there” anti Howard Gov statement..

      Posted by crash on 2006 01 25 at 03:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. abc Life Matters -DREAMING THE RAPTURE IN IRAN -Sheites,Christian and Jewish religions-and there end of the world scenarios…The Book Reading -about an arab and read by one.AM about RENDITION and the U.S. Paul Beaver BBC? -“there is no out and out proof” Franny “that’s good news for the President”.
      On the subject of the spy “rock” in Russia -“no confirmation this end Fran.”
      Fran finishes with a dramatic flourish “but then WHY WOULD THEY !”  (More rhetoric).

      Posted by crash on 2006 01 25 at 03:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. ABC this week’s Hindsight – Sikhs who settled in Austraya at er Woolgoolga.
      A “settling wife of a Sikh” rocked me with this statement “It was such a SHOCK to come here in the 50’s -no sink,no fridge,no toilet..”
      Are these the same people that our parents lectured us about -who were starving…in the 50s…?

      Posted by crash on 2006 01 25 at 03:53 AM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.