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. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Ouch!
Posted by Irfan, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 6:07:36 PM
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
It is shameful when drivel is published in a newspaper. I no longer waste my time reading JA. It's disappointing that money is paid for garbage but it seems that is what the editors and publishers want. Terribly sad.
Posted by ocm, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 7:04:36 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
Chainsmoker, watched the 4corners programme as well.

Those of us who were asking questions about how the Americans are treating, not only Australian, terrorism suspects are horrified that what is suspected is very likely true.

In Europe the scandal of prisoner rendition, CIA secret flights, and torture are a pretty big issue. Not so here. Is it any wonder the USA does not want anything to do with an International Criminal Court?

The likes of Albrechtsen have managed to marginalize anybody who asked questions re Hicks and Habib. We're Hicks supporters, Left wing Chardonnay sipping do-gooders, anti-Western and self-hating. It could not have anything to do with actually believing in our legal and political system. That our system is the best.

Interesting isn't it how many of the Right have so little faith in the Western political and legal system we are supposed to bring by force to 'barbarians'. Most of them would be much more comfortable in a dictatorship like Sadam's Iraq. If you've nothing to hide, behave 'as the Romans' do life can be pretty good. You wouldn't even have to vote anymore for those lousy moneygrubbing politicians!
Posted by yvonne, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 7:48:04 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
Fantastic article.
Posted by Rayann, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 9:04:18 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
Rule of law exists in any place of the globe-the question remains WHAT is LAW?

I think an article perfectly testifies to de-facto triumph of the law in a Guantanamo case.

Really, unemployed father of five travels upon two-three years far away oversea and live there-although sponsor is unknown a notion is obvious: none pays for nothing.
Already famous for his illegal entering Kosovo and participating in partisan activities had been provided with funds and training to benefit an internationally-operating terrorist organization.
No prove that money had been given for something different than on air tickets-and to-be-terrorist is freed.

This is rather examples of a perfect rule of democracy to extent of the dis-functioning of the very logical basis of court system, which is a punishment for a crime.
Posted by MichaelK., Wednesday, 13 June 2007 3:28:03 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
Dear everyone, thank you for your comments! I would just like to reply to Sage, and more broadly, on the question of the Quirin case (so people can check for themselves, it is readily available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=1). I am well aware of the case. Albrechtsen also has heard of it, as she flourishes the case in one of her opinion pieces that I cite above (“Brown blind to immoral reality”, Oz, 29 October 2003), although she does not note the name of the case. She also gives a slightly inaccurate account of the facts in the case, as well as a very abbreviated version of the Court’s holding.

Sage also notes the upshot of the ruling inaccurately in saying that “a USA court [this suggests that Sage might not have read the case yet, as it was the Supreme Court, hardly just “a USA court”!] ruled that enemy soldiers may be detained and tried by the military.” It was not said by the Court that enemy soldiers could be tried by the military, rather: “Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.” I have read the case again tonight, and I find no evidence in it to support Sage’s claim that “No limits were placed on the detention period.” The length of detention was not in contention in the case, as I read it, and actually, the period of detention turned out to be very short indeed (the detainees in this case might perhaps have preferred a slightly longer detention before being executed).

And I'll have to finish this in another post, ran out of words!
Posted by isabelberners, Thursday, 14 June 2007 12:42:59 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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