Poirot,

Yeah, probably, but how many times on OLO threads does one have to point out that two wrongs don't make a right ? You know what Hicks did was wrong, evil, with the intention of doing more evil, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, wherever, it didn't matter really. Of course, he was just a stupid boy playing at war with real guns, but his intention was to do harm, wasn't it ? So he does time, fair enough.

Kids pinch cars, go for joy rides, out-run the police, and then set them alight, and if they get caught, they do time (I hope).

As for such crimes as Hicks committed not being - technically - crimes at the time, I look forward to your defence of pedophiles, Mafia bosses, etc. who also get off on technicalities, and are probably as guilty as hell.

There's innocent and there's 'charges dismissed through a technicality'. Even you know the difference.

Joe

Loudmouth,

"As for such crimes as Hicks committed not being - technically - crimes at the time, I look forward to your defence of pedophiles, Mafia bosses, etc. who also get off on technicalities, and are probably as guilty as hell."

There's innocent and there's 'charges dismissed through a technicality'"

Where's the technicality?

If the reason you were incarcerated and tortured was not a crime, it's pretty straight forward.

I mean if someone came along and arrested you for an action that wasn't a crime under our law - what would you do?

Would you mitigate the actions of the constabulary by assuring yourself that if you raised the issue of the "crime" not actually existing, you'd be resting your defence on a "technicality"?

A more common example could be the designer drugs that evade control for a time because the regulations have to catch up.

Should the criminal gangs who manufacture those drugs be cheered on as innocent of any offence? Some here would go much further to claim such rogues are 'victims' of the police when they act in ways that attract police attention. If a charge doesn't stick because a clever lawyer gets them off on a technicality, 'nek minit' they are brazenly informing the media of their 'innocence'.

The 'morality' of some here is not dissimilar to that of the 'Housos' who are oppositional to authority and are continually flaunting the laws themselves. Some too are soldiers of political parties and are easily led. Then there are the leftist 'Progressives' who struggle with morality because it is all relative for them. It is only to be expected that they would be cheering on an unsuccessful terrorist.

platypus1900

"we can discuss howard and others in another post
keep this to the idiot who thot he was a muslim till he was sold to the usa by the true blue muslims"

Thanks for that - but I'll mention who I like (If yer don't mind:)

Regarding your other posts, they're far too in depth and sophisticated for me to respond immediately - I'll have to spend considerable time in contemplation.

An observation I ought to have added to my earlier post is that for the time that a new designer drug hits the streets until amendment can be made to the regulations, the drug is well supported and made profitable for the bikies and other gangs by the very same educated middle class who have the money to waste on recreational drugs.

Imagine how drug screening could decimate the ABC's 'Progressive' Q&A panels and audiences. There there is the ABC itself.

Yeah, otb....your narrative is quite intriguing..now the rule of law threatens to decimate the QandA audience!

Here's an example. A friend of ours bought himself a rather grand touring motor bike...(I'll add that he's not a "bikie" coz I'm sure you'd like to jump straight to that conclusion:)..anyway, it's quite powerful and has a limiter built into it which can only be removed if he has the appropriate license upgrade.

Anyway, he uses it to travel for his work - and one day he was cruising down a highway and was pulled over for a license check by the police. He duly handed over his paperwork and was promptly told by the officer that he wasn't licensed to ride that particular bike. He told her he was and a discussion ensued, the upshot being that the officer wrote him a ticket and told him in no uncertain terms that if he attempted to ride the bike she would arrest him. She then drove off and left him stranded in the middle of nowhere.

Upon returning home, he double checked the law pertaining to his bike and his license and rang up the police to set them straight. The police checked up and woe betide found he was right.

The ticket was rescinded and he received an apology from the officer concerned.

Should he have meekly accepted the ticket and the threat of arrest on the "technicality" that the officer was ignorant of the law?

There was no law on the books that he had broken.