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 > Commentariat: Janet Albrechtsen knows best > Comments

Commentariat: Janet Albrechtsen knows best : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 12/6/2007

Janet Albrechtsen handily delivered her verdict on Hicks and Habib before any examination of evidence in a legal proceeding.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Helen - Bravo!
Posted by jocelynne, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 9:51:33 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
Bravo again Helen, If the Australian were serious about their tagline about informing the nation then perhaps they could get you a column along side Janet each day to provide a balanced and informed view. Keep it up!!
Posted by Lesleyb, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 10:08:48 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 land should be without laws and so it is with the USA. In a 1942 case known as Ex Parte Quirin, a USA court ruled that enemy soldiers may be detained and tried by the military. No limits were placed on the detention period. Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation offers his opinion when he says that indefinite detention seems to flow from the Quirin case. As if to highlight the utter confusion surrounding detention Samp is a blasted attorney. His opinion would seem to be at odds with that of Helen Pringle so we are about to witness theomachy.

Helen, I think if you check youíll find Janet Albrechtsenís column appears under the heading of ĎOpinioní. Janet does have her fantasies but you too Helen take the occasional trip to oneirataxia.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 10:12:40 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
We need politicians who take the responsibility of governing which involves the true interpretation of democratic law. Australian citizens deserve to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This CANNOT be disputed. No journalist should be involved in publishing material in the public domain which counters this basic right. Respect is earned by treating people fairly - this is true at a personal level and at an international level.Australia has had its international reputation tarnished by the Hicks and Habib affair. Please give us leaders who are more concerned with proper governance than with gaining political power.
Posted by David, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 10:18:18 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
Sadly Janet has a huge superiority complex which leads to convienient ignorance on most occassions. The first rule of Australian law is "innocent until proven guilty" I can't speak for anyone else, but I would have confessed to anything to get out of that hell hole after being held for 5 long years without trial.
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 11:57:29 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
Sage says Janet Albrechtsenís column appears under the heading of ĎOpinioní. So what? Why is an opinion worth publishing? Surely you aren't implying that one opinion is just as good as any other opinion (whether it be about David Hicks, global warming, habeas corpus or any other matter of public importance)?

You would assume that to have your opinion regularly printed in a national newspaper you would be required to provide high quality and serious opinion pieces. So, apart from expressing your opinion elegantly and engagingly, you would surely need to demonstrate that you base that opinion on a set of verifiable facts and that your article is not only coherent and logical but also insightful - that is, your are able to shed new light on a topic that's been well worked over. You might also be expected to take account of contrary facts and explain why your opinion stands in the face of those alternative facts.

If you can't meet those straightforward criteria, you are really engaging in something close to self-serving idelology or mere prejudice.

Janet Albrechtsen writes elegantly and engagingly at times; but she is often caught short on the facts and rarely considers awkward facts which challenge her opinion. Perhaps it's because she comes from a legal training background where truth is subservient to winning your case. Perhaps that's why John Howard found it convenient to give her a sinecure on the ABC Board.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 12:16:02 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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