The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Our Attorney-General is missing in action > Comments

Our Attorney-General is missing in action : Comments

By Natasha Cica, published 12/2/2007

Philip Ruddock's stance over David Hicks has undermined the status of his office.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
While not wishing to dilute a fine article with specious flim-flammery, I nevertheless took out Occam's Razor and fashioned myself a tinfoil hat - to whit:

How many laws must the kamp kommondants shred, before the fog of self-delusion clears? How big must a turd be, before some of us react to the smell? Guantanamo is a criminally inspired dive run by a criminally inspired US Administration.

Guantanamo is a node in the CIA network. One compartment in the CIA is charged with the responsibility of nurturing and shepherding the world's heroin production, without which, some major money-laundering Wall Street banks would go to the wall.

In early 2001, the Taliban pirated the heroin supply at it's source.

In late 2001, the demolition of the WTC provided a handy pretext for the sly-boys to redress the balance, and the opium poppies have since flourished like never before. Air Rendition (TM) provides an efficient heroin courier service, while posing as misguided zealots in the "war on terr'r".

Any innocent suspected of knowing anything about the scam is incarcerated at Guantanamo.

There's your terrorist. Try seeing Hicks in the light of that conspiracy theory. If you do your homework, you may end up drawing the same conclusions as me.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Monday, 12 February 2007 8:48:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Natasha is correct in arguing that Phillip Ruddock's treatment of David Hick's has besmirched the office of Attorney General. Phillip Ruddock's treatment of the Baktiari family established his credentials as a nasty small minded liar.
Posted by billie, Monday, 12 February 2007 8:48:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'universal human rights and Judeo-Christian morality'. How selective can an author be? I take it she opposes abortion and homosexuality or does the ethics then change.
Posted by runner, Monday, 12 February 2007 8:53:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ruddock taints everything he touches. He lowers standards just by being wherever he is. Remember him being cheered at a Coalition indoor barbie?

That's what he lives for. Applause.

One very sick puppy.

But he's got mates, oh yeah. That's why he;s surrounded by them all the time. Lonely in that phone booth isn't it Phil?
Posted by RobbyH, Monday, 12 February 2007 9:14:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one questions that Hicks should have long ago had his day in court.
However remember this, if he was really a soldier he could be held
until the end of hostilities, be it five years or a hundred years.
If he was a soldier he would not face trial at all.

However it seems that he did not have a uniform, a paybook or a
serial number.
If anyone goes running around armed and does not have the requirements
of a soldier he is very very stupid.
That seems to be Hick's status and I have not heard anyone claim that
he was a soldier. He really has no one but himself to blame for
his predicament. On a battle field he could have been shot as a spy.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 12 February 2007 10:55:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have tried to get the A-G to realise that the US has let him (and us)down. They say they're going to give Hicks a fair trial, and that it's coming on soon, but it's all blather. Their 1st military commission was proved unconstitutional, and still our A-G and PM go on believing the US is doing the right thing by Hicks. By all accounts, the next military commission won't be any better, but our boys now say that Hicks must be tried soon - not a word about whether the proposed trial will be fair or not. The implication is, though, that any delay caused by questioning the legality etc of the new commission will be Hicks's and his legal team's fault.
I have also pointed out to the PM that my three highly educated and productive children live and work overseas. They are embarrassed about the deterioration of their country's abandonment of the 'fair go' principle in the last 10 years.
Posted by Pidgy, Monday, 12 February 2007 11:51:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am surprised that Ruddock and Howard have not been called more to account for this fiasco, and that the media really does not seem too serious about highlighting it more. The media should really be hammering this much more. And where are the lawyers? The arbiters of justice? They are not screaming loud enough.
Good article, but let's hear more.
Arcticdog
Posted by arcticdog, Monday, 12 February 2007 11:55:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hicks I believe will be the pawn in the next election. Howard will ask Bush to release him to the Australian legal system, and appear to be a hero. Hicks of course by now is a basket case, so whether found guilty or not he will have to be supported by the nation in some way.

This will be heralded as Howard stands up to Bush, a Hollywood script, that may or may not con the average voter in this country, Hicks is Howard's trump card and will be played when the time is right.
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 12 February 2007 12:25:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BAZZ:

I'm afraid you missed the point! Even if Hicks is "guilty" and/or a stupid, unwitting pawn in a multinational drug cartel game(oops, did I say that!), he STILL deserves the right to a fair trail, according the internationally accepted standards of most of the western world ! Anything else is, quite simply, a continuing abuse of human rights.
END OF STORY !

SHONGA:

You got that one right mate ! Watch Johnny and Phil get up there and bark like little lap dogs at the US in the lead up to the next election! It is simply another mealy-mouthed, morally bankrupt election stunt waiting to be enacted. Wanna bet on when it will be shown on national TV?
Posted by FU2, Monday, 12 February 2007 12:37:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a bit late to be moaning about respect for the law.
Posted by Sage, Monday, 12 February 2007 1:06:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner... this is about as far from abortion as you can get. That issue is not black and white. You can argue your view, fine, but if you're trying to pretend that there is a simple ethical stance to be taken on abortion, you've clearly lost the plot - here I thought that abortion is always being strenuously debated. I'd be far more interested as to whether you think the plight of David Hicks is okay, and that ignoring hundreds of years of the rule of law was acceptable.

The only defence I've seen for the treatment of David Hicks is the argument that he must deserve it - for which we've been denied the evidence due to the fact we haven't had a trial.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 12 February 2007 2:46:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurnRightThenLeft

Every person does have a right to a trial. I am however sickened by the fact that this man who was so willing to take up arms on a number of occasions is now being heralded some kind of hero. Suddenly the ones he was prepared to kill (to line his own pockets) are the villians. It seems very warped logic to me.

Had the author not invoked what she describes as the Christian Judea ethic abortion would not of been mentioned. The fact that she somehow appeals to this ethic on this topic and very selectively is a mis reprentation of God's views.
Posted by runner, Monday, 12 February 2007 3:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I haven't actually seen much hero-worship of Hicks. What I have seen is frustration that the process has taken so long, combined with a certain disgust that the right to a fair trial has been so blatantly subverted by the executive.

The separation of powers has never looked flimsier and we are well on the way to seeing western governments that are capable of persecuting their political liabilities.

I can't help but wonder how the US would treat Iranian soldiers in the event of hostilities. Will they find a way to label them as 'enemy combatants' instead of soldiers, and ignore the rights of their enemies under the geneva conventions? What if they are operating as soldiers of an enemy state?

It is the way we treat our prisoners that differentiates us from them. Now enemies of the west can claim to hold westerners without trial, and our objections will be nothing but hypocrisy.

Welcome to the new world.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 12 February 2007 7:54:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a self educated Grandmaster “constitutionalist” I look at the Hicks issue from a constitutional point of view.
Personally, opposing any violence, I would not particularly approve of some of the conduct David Hicks has been reportedly been involved in, however, he is an Australian, and entitled to his constitutional rights.

Why is it that we do not seem to have competent constitutional lawyers in that respect.
Section 51 (xxix) gives the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to deal with external affairs. As the Delegates at the National Australasian Convention (Constitution Convention Debates) made clear this power was given so the Commonwealth of Australia could pursue that Australians abroad could receive the same rights as the citizens of a country where the Australian was held.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens. Therefore, it is desirable that the Constitution should define the class of persons for whom these rights and privileges would be gained.

In this regard there is clearly a DUTY OF CARE upon the Commonwealth of Australia as to secure the release of David Hicks.

Further, within the provisions of Section 24Aa of the Crimes Act (Cth) it is an act of treachery to attack a friendly nation.
Just that John Howard unconstitutionally took over prerogative powers to invade Iraq, a “friendly” nation without the Governor-General having published in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR. It also did so against Afghanistan. Hicks on the other hand, no matter my views about his conduct, came to the aid of a “friendly” nation.

See further part 2 posting
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 2:24:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Therefore it is John Howard who appears to me to be the war criminal and so his cohorts and Hicks the defender of a “friendly” nation.
Also, the treaty between Cuba and the USA in fact does not allow the keeping of prisoners like David Hicks. I will not go into details in this posting, but my books set this out, including my 6-7-2006 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

This book was subsequently used as evidence in my successful appeals on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria where I totally defeated the lawyers of the Federal Government on all constitutional grounds I had raised, after a 5-year long legal battle.

And there is a lot more to David Hicks position. For example the transfer of prisoners to Cuba is in breach of old British law, that is part of Australian law. Further, unbeknown to most if not all lawyers, the European Union Human Rights Act is in fact applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia

What I view should be the pressure upon the Government is that they face to be charged for failing their duty towards David Hicks! As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, any Minister not acting within his powers appropriately could be sued in court.

Also, as I have set out in the past to John Howard, constitutionally retrospective legislation isn’t permissible. Hence, no retrospective legislation could be put in place against David Hicks. And, as John Howard himself appears to me to be in breach of Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) and other legal provisions he is hardly going to attempt to get David Hicks charged under Australian laws, even if they were made retrospective.

I do compliment Dr Natasha Cica for her statement and would like lawyers to finally get of their backside and do some appropriate research, as I did, to check out all relevant matters. For the sake of any Australian in need.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 2:29:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you've been waiting for the mainstream media to take up the Hicks story I hope you haven't been holding your breath. But it's a mistake to assume that people only form views on what they read in the papers, or that they only have views about what's currently in the papers.

There's been a large, long and increasingly complicated dialogue going on among Aussie citizens about Hicks for years now in the alternative of the blogosphere.

The current gummint habitually respond to whatever the commercial media and shock jocks are spouting at any given time. If they'd been watching the blogosphere they would have seen the wave of support for Hicks coming long before it hit them. And if they'd seen it they would have understood they needed to do something.

Media opinion does not make public opinion, but public opinion can make political action. We've yet to see whether an election can make justice happen in the Hicks case.
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 4:50:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SHONGA

I agree. Howard will likely be the hero of Hicks' last minute return to Australia. However, on arrival in Australia Hicks might be held incommunicado (on charges pending or a Control Order) till after the election so he can't criticise Howard.

TurnRightThenLeft

The US has been unable to legally, morally or politically solve the problem of what to do with captured alleged terrorists. If its a "Long War" Hicks can't be kept locked up as a POW for (say) 30 years.

Equally if Hicks is only guilty by associtation (as seems to be case on current info) a sentence of (say) 10 years sounds excessive.

The fact that the US has released maybe half the inmates of Guantanamo (perhaps) due to presssure from their home countries makes US doctrine seem even more confused and poorly based.

Mr Gerrit

If Ruddock went into bat for Hicks over Constitutional rights/protections (his job) instead of US alliance politics (which he appears to see as more important) Hicks would indeed be home by now.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 5:02:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor old Phillip Ruddock.
Sitting behind a desk, quietly organizing and approving a bureaucracy that does the dirty work must be very difficult.
Poor old Adolph Eichmann had similar difficulties.
Posted by Jolyon Sykes, Monday, 19 February 2007 11:30:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy