Valueless australia

-----------------------
The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info
-----------------------

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 07:33 am

“There are no peculiarly Australian values that are worth enforcing,” writes the Age’s Terry Lane. Well, presumably aside from the peculiar values that allow gullible columnists to keep their jobs despite publishing old lies. Lane continues:

What makes Australia a desirable destination for migrants is the extent to which we believe in and enforce universal human values. Our values worth enumerating and preserving were set down in eloquent prose in 1948 by the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These are the rules for living that transcend national prejudices and should be aspired to by decent, enlightened, civilised people everywhere. If only …

Article three sums up a fair go as: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Except David Hicks, of course …

Articles five to nine say: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Except David Hicks.) Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. (Except David Hicks.) All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. (Except David Hicks.)

And so on, and on. I’m in broad agreement with Lane; these rules should be aspired to by decent, enlightened, civilised people everywhere. If only David Hicks aspired to them.

Posted by Tim B. on 10/01/2006 at 02:00 AM
    1. Hicks should be grovelling in apology for dragging Australia’s name down. Lane should be begging forgiveness for belittling the country which gave him far too much leeway to prattle on in a prominent way.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 10 01 at 02:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hell, if only Terry Lane aspired to honest reporting. That’d be a start.

      Posted by Crusader rabbit on 2006 10 01 at 02:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. Cuba, Zimbabwe, Iran? Dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out precious.

      “The embarrassing stupidity of this proposal, with its infantile harping on mateship and a fair go, is enough to make a chap seek asylum in a more enlightened country.”

      It must be sad to lack the certainty of your own convictions. Imagine declaring to the world over and over how shit your country is, and how much better others are. Then staying there?
      Bullshit Terry Macbeth Lane now go and find a nice country to seek you own mental Asylum from.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 10 01 at 02:29 AM • permalink

 

    1. Cuba, Zimbabwe, Iran? Dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out precious.

      “The embarrassing stupidity of this proposal, with its infantile harping on mateship and a fair go, is enough to make a chap seek asylum in a more enlightened country.”

      It must be sad to lack the certainty of your own convictions. Imagine declaring to the world over and over how shit your country is, and how much better others are. Then staying there?
      Bullshit, Terry Macbeth Lane now go and find a nice country to seek you own mental Asylum from.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 10 01 at 02:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. And he is still employed, why?

      Gives the VRWC something to point and laugh at, I guess. Cheaper and more pc than a freakshow.

      Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 10 01 at 02:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. Presumably Lane believes that the guilty (ie, Hicks) deserves the same treatment by society as the innocent, and should be released.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 10 01 at 03:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. tiodi,

      He’s still alive.

      Posted by tiodi on 2006 10 01 at 03:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief…”(Except David Hicks and his fellow Jihadists)

      Posted by rog2 on 2006 10 01 at 03:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. Perhaps he meant to say: There are no Australian commentators worth keeping…

      As for the values side of it, the Australian values of cheeriness, openness and bullshit-detecting are definitely worth keeping.
      So is the value responsible for the “boat races” in a dry riverbed in the middle of Australia – that’s a corker that one.
      Unfortunately bullshit detecting seems to be a diminishing value 🙁

      Posted by carpefraise on 2006 10 01 at 03:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well Nihilistic thinking means believing no values of any culture can be claim superiority over any other, is that correct?
      So Terry should be happy if he believes there is nothing worth believing over here.
      what’s he whingeing about?

      Posted by davo on 2006 10 01 at 04:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. What on earth did Australians do before 1948?

      Posted by tertius on 2006 10 01 at 04:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. If Hicks is so depraved and the case against him so overwhelming then why not provide him with a fair and free trial?

      Not doing so only adopts the methods of Al-Qaeda that are supposedly being combatted.

      Posted by Kalli on 2006 10 01 at 04:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. Kalli, why should he have a ‘fair and free’ trial?  He has his case assessed by a tribunal, thats enough.

      If he is worth enough to keep this long, it was probably a good thing he didn’t get the treatment irregular combatants deserve under the Geneva Convention and the normal usage of war.

      Posted by ChrisPer on 2006 10 01 at 04:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. ah the kalli troll is back.  hicks is a signal to other aussie jiwannabehadis that if they save up their dole & desert their kids to go picknicking with the taleban, hezbollox or al quaeda, they stand a good chance of being picked up & having a not very nice time for quite a while.  lock up one, educate a thousand.  & chrisper is right – the septics had every right to shoot him on the spot but refrained

      Posted by KK on 2006 10 01 at 04:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. #13. My point is that if we talking about defending ‘Australian’ values then that includes equaltiy before the law and the right to a fair trial.  It seems hypocritical and even counter-productive to not apply those standards to Hicks.  Wouldn’t you agree its a mistake to adopt the same contempt for human rights as the terrorists?

      Posted by Kalli on 2006 10 01 at 04:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. #14. hicks is a signal to other aussie jiwannabehadis that if they save up their dole & desert their kids to go picknicking with the taleban, hezbollox or al quaeda

      Perhaps if they just stick with fighting with the mujahideen in the pro-NATO/US KLA they’ll be okay.

      Posted by Kalli on 2006 10 01 at 04:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. it was very nice of the yanks not to give hicks a bullet to the back of the head immediately, as they are entitled to do with irregular combatants.  he should thank his lucky stars that he is alive

      Posted by KK on 2006 10 01 at 04:55 AM • permalink

 

    1. if we talking about defending ‘Australian’ values then that includes equaltiy before the law and the right to a fair tri….

      Since Terry and the leftists believe that there are no Australian Values worth defending, how coem they suddenly re appear when it comes to jihad hicks?

      Posted by davo on 2006 10 01 at 05:18 AM • permalink

 

    1. Kalli.

      “Wouldn’t you agree its a mistake to adopt the same contempt for human rights as the terrorists?”

      Im sorry I must have missed the bit where hicks was held down and had his head sawn off.
      Your not even a very good troll.
      POW’s (which hicks, fighting for a terroist organisation, was not) Dont get trials. They are held until hostilities cease, or on parole.
      end of lesson.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 10 01 at 05:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’m with KK. Kalli, with all the clamour for us to abandon what we stand for and bow to International Laws and Conventions, then by all means let us extradite Hicks then shoot him as per the Geneva Conventions.

      I am more than happy to throw away our sovereignty in this instance.

      Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2006 10 01 at 05:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages… For your edification.

      Posted by kae on 2006 10 01 at 05:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. #9

      Henley-On-Todd Regatta.

      Posted by kae on 2006 10 01 at 05:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Except David Hicks.) Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. (Except David Hicks.) All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. (Except David Hicks.)

      Bring on the referendum.  I’d be happy to sign on to the Hicks Ammendment with the addition of ‘… and any other son-of-bitch who joins Al Qaeda and embraces terrorism against Australia and its allies’

      And don’t start with the question-begging BS. He was caught in a war zone with a smoking gun, walking like a duck, talking like a duck and fessing up to being a duck.

      Posted by Big Jim on 2006 10 01 at 05:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. If Lane had half a brain he would notice that Hicks is in fact the exception that proves the rule.

      I propose, howwver, that we amend the Declaration, although it is naturally as useful as tits on a bull, so that we’re prevented from having to come across this sort of rubbish, that Lane manages to get paid for, every Sunday morning. I’m mean, really, he gets paid for writing shite, and cannot imagine why this land is called the lucky country.

      Posted by dover_beach on 2006 10 01 at 06:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. Terry Lane is an ass. He entirely misses the point that David Hicks is just a damned traitor; nothing more, nothing less. He betrayed the country that provided him with a good home, and wasted countless dollars that could have been spent more usefully elsewhere. As far as I’m concerned they should just stand him up against a wall and lay some .303 calibre love on him. I realise that patriotism is a dirty word these days, but honestly, there are limits!

      Posted by Mr Snuffalupagus on 2006 10 01 at 06:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. Thanks to people like Kalli, (who seem to successfully render superfluous the adjective “useful”) the decision on the battlefield fate of irregular, un-uniformed enemy combatants becomes easier and easier.

      Kalli, give up, take your medication, and just think of the blood on your hands.

      Posted by Kaboom on 2006 10 01 at 06:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. #15 Kalli-come-Nigel.  Your post is sooooo nicely illustrative of the ridiculous ‘civil rights’ bleatings that equate the ‘rights’ of terrorists who saw people’s heads off with those of your common-all-garden shoplifter, that I’ll repeat it here:

      #13. My point is that if we talking about defending ‘Australian’ values then that includes equaltiy before the law and the right to a fair trial.  It seems hypocritical and even counter-productive to not apply those standards to Hicks.  Wouldn’t you agree its a mistake to adopt the same contempt for human rights as the terrorists?

      Fair dinkum, if you really can’t see the difference between what Hicks was doing, where he was doing it and against whome he was trying to do it, versus an alleged criminal in Australia or the USA who gets a ‘fair’ trial (at least until they lose, ROFL) then you are too dumb to debate.

      I suspect however that, like last time you popped up here, you are simply trying to provoke an argument.  The thing is mate, while you think you are so terribly clever coming here to stir up the neo-cons, we see your type week in, week out.  Its so predictable what your arguments will be and how they will be phrased.

      Andrea, you know how I go into bat for our pet trolls, trying to save them from banning.  (Well, yes, I don’t get out much – why do you ask?) I throw in the towel in advance with this one.  Kalli is a complete waste of electrons.

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 10 01 at 06:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. Umm, didn’t Hicks leave the country to join a system that threw rocks at women who exposed their ankles and that banned women from being educated? He walked away from the Australian values as a grown man, and now wants to use an accident of birth to now benefit from them. An affront in my view, and he can rot.

      Oh, and BTW didn’t he also abandon the name ‘David Hicks’ in favour of ‘Mohammed Daoud?’ Surely an Australian value is to call people by their proper name – in this case, a new name chosen by the individual. Why is Hicks not referred to by his proper name by the likes of Terry Lane?

      The thing I like best is how little influence the likes of Lane have on how world events are unfolding. It bugs the crap out of them, which is part of the fun.

      Posted by Effing & Blinding on 2006 10 01 at 06:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. There’s a difference between your usual criminal (who is committing crime essentially on his own behalf) and those who are actively subverting the state. You cannot treat them the same, for they are different.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2006 10 01 at 06:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. Terry Lane is an utter plonker

      No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (Except David Hicks who gets a comfy room in the tropics and three squares a day and anyone captured by islamist terrorists who can be tortured to death or have their heads sawn off while Terry Lane bleats about Bush and Howard.)

      Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. (Except David Hicks who gets the world’s most annoying lawyer while islamist terrorists regard every kaffir on the planet as a prop to be killed in their psychotic little performance, and anyone captured by islamist terrorists because they regard them as outside any law, so they can be tortured to death or have their heads sawn off while Terry Lane bleats about Bush and Howard.)

      All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. (Except David Hicks who with his other barbarian mates have had oceans of ink spilled over them while islamists have lovely laws like: homosexuals: death, apostates: death, infidels like Terry Lane: death, women: chattel property, 9 year old little girls: shag them, black people: slaves. Meanwhile, Terry wants to know if you have heard his bleats about Bush and Howard.)

      Terry? Dry your eyes, princess.

      MarkL
      canberra

      Posted by MarkL on 2006 10 01 at 06:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. o/t Our old friend journo MARTIN CHULOV(pretty sure it was him) was taken to task last week by the Fed Police Boss Mick Keelty.
      Keelty described Chulov’s behaviour as “reprehensible” for “promoting” his book with a story about mix ups in the returning of body parts to families (Bali I think).
      He said something along the lines of “suicide bomber’s body parts were accidentally mixed with victims’ “.

      Posted by crash on 2006 10 01 at 06:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. These are the rules for living that transcend national prejudices and should be aspired to by decent, enlightened, civilised people everywhere.

      What happened to multi-culturalism?

      Posted by rhhardin on 2006 10 01 at 07:02 AM • permalink

 

    1. Lane (and others) obviously have no knowledge of the Geneva Conventions. Kalli, take note:

      Hicks trial a privilege not a right

      The Geneva Conventions provide that enemy combatants can be held for the duration of the conflict and need not be charged with any crime. This is even true of legitimate prisoners of war, those who wear uniforms and carry arms openly. PoWs, however, are entitled to certain privileges that unlawful combatants – terrorists and guerillas – are not, such as access to musical instruments and scientific equipment.

      Hicks’s status as an enemy combatant has been adjudicated pursuant to Article 5 of the Geneva Conventions, and in doing so the US went beyond its obligations. International law mandates such hearings only if the detainee’s status is in doubt, but in 2004 the US Supreme Court held that detainees with American citizenship were entitled to them as well. The military responded by providing Article 5 hearings for everyone.

      In addition, the military established a proceeding called an Administrative Review Board, analogous to a parole hearing, that leads to the release of detainees who are judged no longer a threat to US security.

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 10 01 at 07:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. The big problem with things like the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention is that they only work if everyone agrees to play by the rules.  You can’t run an AFL match if one side plays by the rule book and the other decides to ignore the umprire, indulge in a bit of eye-gouging, tackle-grabbing, date-fingering and the odd push in the back.  The Geneva Convention will probably be followed reasonably well next time Germany invades France (or Poland), but it doesn’t hold much water when one side regards it with utter contempt.  I don’t recall the Germans or the Russians paying it much attention on the eastern front.

      It’s a fine rule book for when organised, civilised western societies decide to settle their differences via combat, but of no use at all when dealing with groups that play outside the rules.

      We should take a line from Heartbreak Ridge – “Gunny, you should be frozen in a box marked ‘thaw in event of war’” – or something like that.  The Geneva Convention should be locked up in the bottom drawer and only pulled out for conventional wars against organised states.

      In the meantime, someone find me some pliers and bring me the toenails of David Hicks.

      Posted by mr creosote on 2006 10 01 at 09:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. The Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are very different documents.

      The Geneva Conventions are a worthwhile set of rules designed to minimised civilian casualties in a time of war between civilised but opposing states.  However, very few wars in the modern era are fought beween civilised states, so while worthwhile in theory, the Conventions are not terribly useful in practice.

      The Declaration of Human Rights, on the other hand, is a deliberate twisting of the entire concept of human rights into socialist economic theory.

      Article 25, for example:

      Article 25.

      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

      (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

      What the hell is that?

      The Bill of Rights got it, um, right.  It says, Congress shall make no law….  It doesn’t grant rights; it recognises pre-existing – inalienable – rights and forbids the government to abridge them. (Not that this has been entirely successful.)

      This bit from the Universal Declaration is particularly rich:

      Article 29

      1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
      2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
      3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

      Posted by Pixy Misa on 2006 10 01 at 09:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. If a person has no real values of his own (as Terry MacBeth Lane apparently does not), then how can he reasonably be expected to recognize them elsewhere?

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 10 01 at 09:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. If Hicks hadn’t been caught and Lane was covering the Middle East, then this might have been a completely different story…

      Posted by Hanyu on 2006 10 01 at 09:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. SCD and others: Kalli and Nigel (aka “Nige S”) are two different trolls. Nigel’s IP address resolved to California, and Kalli’s to Australia. Just wanted to clear that up.

      And yes, I am thinking of banning kalli now that he’s brought up the old “you’re just like the enemy for wanting to fight them” canard. Do leftards seriously think the proper response to terrorism is to piously raise our eyes to heaven and call upon the holy Gods of International Law to save us? Well of course they do.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 10 01 at 10:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. I myself would be more than happy to live up to the letter as well as spirit of the Geneva Conventions.

      That would apparently solve all the problems that the leftoids have with these trials and incarcerations.

      A last meal and the long drop.  No longer than 24 hours after being captured, or released from hospital.

      Posted by trainer on 2006 10 01 at 11:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. Kalli,
      In a perfect world, I would actually agree with you.  I do recognize that what is happening to Hicks is abnormal and it’s not a situation I would want to become the norm.

      But we live in abnormal times, and I personally believe the potential islamization of the west (however, grindingly slow it happens) is such a real and dangerous possibility, that I just don’t have it in me to feel much for him.  On my list of “injustices to fix”, he rates at about my 10,000th priority.

      Others have made comments about our jihadi-adversaries “not playing by the rules”.  Well, I’m every bit as cynical as our adversaries, and if I think the danger to my society is high enough, I’ll throw away the rule book myself.

      But, on an intellectual level, I’ll grant you have a point.

      It’s worth pointing out that their are Australians of Tajik and Uzbek origin who went and fought for the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, and from a legal perspective have behaved no differently to Hicks.  And they are free men to this day. (That’s what happens when you’re on the winning side of history.)

      But like I said, Kalli, I’m more concerned with protecting my society in the long-term, and for me that outweighs any short-term compromises.

      On the upside, I suspect that the Hicks scenario could not be repeated. As I understand it, the new introduced terror legislation in Australia has unequivocally criminalized Hicks-style behaviour (and possibly that of the Aussie/Northern-Alliance fighters too?), and so any future David-Hicks-copycats would be tried here in a normal court, and would bypass the whole Gitmo situation.

      Posted by ekb87 on 2006 10 01 at 11:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. What makes Australia an attractive destination for people from abroard, is the fact that it has what their home countries so obviously lack, little things like economic opportunity freedom and the rule of law.

      But dumbbastards like lane who have lived their entire lives in a prosperous and stable society, and who have done incredibly well in that same society, taking the best it has to offer, and doing their highly paid do nothing jobs whine like pre teens when the slightest step is taken to ensure that a new generation will cintinue to reap those same benefits he so lazily and selfishly takes for granted.

      Good things are nobodys birthright the only reason lane can speak as he does is because others shield him from the harsh rules that would apply if the stupid bastard got his way.

      This fool is a muslim in all but name he has all the standard muslim traits , whining and special pleading, demanding ‘respect’ they have done nothing to earn.

      The realy annoying thing for me is he is a journalist for allahs sake, he is supposed to know about events and situations in other countries, but he shows all the petulance and unawareness of a spoilt two year old year old……stupid old fart.

      Posted by phillip on 2006 10 01 at 12:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. It is an injustice that Terry Macbeth Lane is allowed to continue his “reporting” career.  Where is that in the Conventions???

      Posted by ushie on 2006 10 01 at 12:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. A game we thrice-blessed expats in Costa Rica play sometimes is, “if you could live anywhere in the world other than here, where would it be?” It usually involves a certain amount of head-scratching, umm-ing and aah-ing, followed by, “Oh yeah! Australia.”

      It would not be an exaggeration to say: the whole world frickin’ loves you guys.

      Posted by David Gillies on 2006 10 01 at 01:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. You can’t run an AFL match if one side plays by the rule book and the other decides to ignore the umpire, indulge in a bit of eye-gouging, tackle-grabbing, date-fingering and the odd push in the back.

      But I thought that no teams from Victoria made it to the Grand Final this year for the first time in history?

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 01 at 02:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. Someone should arrange a boxing match for Kalli, who would not strike back, since doing so would be a “lowering to the level of the opponent”.

      I nominate Andrea to issue the thrashing.

      Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 10 01 at 04:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. Thanks Pixy, I never realised that the UDoHR was such a socialist crock. It essentially re-categorizes right-wing, laisser-faire capitalist theory as a breach of human rights, doesn’t it? Big government now a prerequisite for the maintenance of Human RightsTM

      Posted by Dminor on 2006 10 01 at 05:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. andycanuk:
      Victorian teams have not made the Grand Final a number of times now.  This was the first year that none made it to the 2 preliminary finals (the round of 4 teams that decides who plays in the Grnad Final).

      One bloody point.  Arrrrgh!

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 10 01 at 05:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. Since Lane has such a hard-on for Hicks, shouldn’t he be complaining about America’s lack of values worth enforcing? Last time I looked, that’s whose jurisdiction Hicks was in.

      See today’s Steyn and this Hewitt/Steyn transcript for a peek at the daily horror that is Detainee 002’s life at Club Gitmo.

      Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 01 at 06:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”

      A bunch of commie claptrap.

      David Hicks ought to be executed along with every other terrorist/freedom fighter who is caught violating the rules about uniforms, carrying weapons openly, being part of a formal military organization etc., as per our laws and customs.

      If it was up to me, there’s be no need for Gitmo, because pretty much everyone there would have been hung long ago (or turned loose where appropriate), after a court martial that would last about fifteen minutes.

      Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 10 01 at 07:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Do leftards seriously think the proper response to terrorism is to piously raise our eyes to heaven and call upon the holy Gods of International Law to save us?’‘

      Andrea, have you been reading Mark Shea’s blog again?  It can’t be good for your blood pressure.

      (Yeah, I know he’s technically not a leftard, but the rest of it seems to fit.)

      Posted by Sonetka’s Mom on 2006 10 01 at 10:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. Sonetka’s mom: I glance at it every now and then. As long as the topic isn’t anything to do with politics or war he is perfectly reasonable —and safe to read. But I have so much to do, and there are so many other blogs…

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 10 01 at 10:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. For those who are interested: John Peters Humphrey, the composer of the UDHR. As noted in the article, he continued his depredations on behalf of the UN for some 20 years.

      He was a lawyer.

      Cheers

      Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2006 10 01 at 10:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. #47 I guess I won’t win any quiz shows in Oz, then, eh? And I did mean the playoffs rather than the championship match itself but (one) point taken, SCD!

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 01 at 11:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. Australian values no longer worth enforcing? Is the market for Australians collapsing? What am I supposed to do with the ones already on the shelves?

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 10 02 at 12:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. Pixy Misa’s quotations show the absurdity of the left’s case.

      Absolutely nothing in the treatment of Muhammad Dawood violates their beloved “Universal Declaration”.

      Come to think of it, nothing done by any dictatorial regime violates it, because absoltuely every tyranny in history has been justified under Article 29 Paragraph 2, from the Gulag, to North Korea, even the Holocaust would have been OK under the “Universal Declaration”.

      Posted by Sheriff on 2006 10 02 at 06:18 AM • permalink

 

    1. #27. I don’t understand how you can’t see that not applying the rule of law and ‘Australian’ values consistently undermines your claims that our system is superior to the one the Islamists want to impose?

      I mean, if you carry on like Bush and co. denying people their basic rights then what is it that you are fighting for?

      And this whole ‘illegal combatant’ or whatever it is is just nonsense.  You are either a criminal or a Prisoner of War.  As far as I can tell David Hicks was fighting for the Taliban, who were the government of Afgahnistan at the time.  So, he was fighting in that government’s army, so when captured he becomes a POW.

      Posted by Kalli on 2006 10 02 at 07:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. Kalli, you forget that the ‘government’ of Afghanistan wasn’t recognised by anyone (apart from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) as a legitimate government.

      You are either a criminal or a Prisoner of War.

      You left out a catgeory: war criminal.

      Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 10 02 at 08:51 AM • permalink

 

    1. #54 Grimmy,Paco will know…

      Posted by crash on 2006 10 02 at 09:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Among other things, he has to be wearing a uniform to be part of anyone’s army Kalli.  That is how one distinguishes participants in open warfare under the Geneva Convention as opposed to civilians who are not to be intentionally targeted.  Without a unifrom he is not a “legal combatant” and can be summarily executed for engaging in combat.

      Understand the “illegal combatant” part yet?

      You should realize that your position places you in open opposition to warfare having any rules at all.  But then it’s not like the side that you support follows any of them anyway.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 02 at 09:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. “Without a unifrom he is not a “legal combatant” and can be summarily executed for engaging in combat.”

      This is simply not correct. The “uniform” thing is not the deal-breaker many seem to think it is.

      Article 4.A. of the Geneva Convention contains 6 seperate categories that define who “prisoners of war” are. The uniform thing is only mentioned in the second category, and not the other 5.

      I’ve held my tongue on this for awhile, but I’ve noted a lot of the rhetoric from my fellow RWDBs to be getting more and more heated – and yes, simply factually inaccurate.

      Guys, we are RIGHT – simply when we rely on the facts alone.  We don’t need to (and should not) risk our credibility by embellishing and exaggerating stuff.

      People ridicule (and rightly so) the Kos-kiddies for swanning about some alternative intellectual universe, and endlessly repeating falsehoods that gradually evolve to become more and more extreme (and disconnected from reality).

      Let’s not fall into the same trap.

      Posted by ekb87 on 2006 10 02 at 10:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. ekb87-your argument amounts to a quibble over my use of the word “uniform” as shorthand in place of spelling out several different clauses.

      Fine, at a minimum a legal combatant has to do something to distinguish himself from the civilian population-that is the logic of the entire history of the laws of warfare, which is the real thrust of my previous post.

      A “uniform” is the most common manner of doing this, but a legal combatant has to make some effort to set himself apart:

      From the Hamdan decision

      One problem for Hamdan is that he does not fit the Article 4 definition of a “prisoner of war” entitled to the protection of the Convention. He does not purport to be a member of a group who displayed “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” and who conducted “their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.”

      Otherwise you are not a “legal combatant” (hence an “illegal combatant”) and you do not enjoy the protections found under Geneva.

      The logic remains the same.

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 10 02 at 12:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. “As far as I can tell David Hicks was fighting for the Taliban, who were the government of Afgahnistan at the time.”

      No, they were not the government of Afghanistan at that time, or any other time.

      “So, he was fighting in that government’s army, so when captured he becomes a POW.”

      No, he doesn’t become a POW.  What he becomes (upon capture, and after a court martial) is a spy and saboteur, who is subject to the traditional penalty for spies and saboteurs…that would be death.

      Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 10 02 at 01:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. Kalli, no one’s rights under the “Universal Declaration” are being violated by President Bush. I suggest you read Article 29 Paragraph 2 again.

      Posted by Sheriff on 2006 10 02 at 07:11 PM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.