:: Wog Blog ::

:: WHAT AM I THINKING ABOUT? ::

:: Thursday 10 July 2003 ::

Well, okay then

"You're going to see the presumption of innocence, you're going to see proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you're going to see them being represented by an attorney.

"There is no adverse inference for them choosing to remain silent.

"The commission panel members themselves are actually tasked ... to ensure that the accused gets a full and fair trial and I have every confidence that that is what will happen with the commissions."

Not that any of this sort of clear statement is going to settle any of the more hysterical minds of Oz. Like this jerk writing in today's SMH who asks of Hicks in Guantanamo:

A test many of us would accept as to the fairness of a judicial process is: would you be happy if one of your family was subject to the said process? meaning the process of foreigners capturing the Oz family member while he is engaged in violent thuggery in another foreign land that is so blasted, backwards and shitful it dresses its women in blankets and stones them for perceived adultery etc etc, incarcerating him in a leased landplot for over a year while feeding and sheltering him all the while interrogating him too, but always respecting his imbecilic religious conversion to a faith that has zero zip nada to do with him and is nothing more than a trite cover for his violent imbecility, then eventually trying him in a military jurisdiciton, mirroring substantively usual criminal process, even though the acts which brought the violent thug to this point in life are well beyond anything usual and criminal, but rather are determined, murderous and hatefilled.

That process.

As usual in the SMH, letter writers for the most part are idiots. Demonstrated well here. I mean, "would you be happy if one of your family was subject to the process?"

Um. Maybe take a step back - and ask instead: Would you be happy to find a family member was fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan in ~Nov 2001?

Nope.

Or how about asking another question: out of a population of 18m how embarrassment wouldyabe if you were the father of the only - the single, sole, only - jackass violent thug skippy loser to get his halfwit arse all the way over to Afghanistan fighting.....wait for it.....for the Talibanners, and who hung around long enough to actually get caught by the Americans in ~Nov 2001?

Very embarrassment.

In fact, the jackass's Pa denounced his son first up. Said clear as a bell that the boy just was not right in the head. It was only after the lawyers got involved (they are great lawyers too, eh? Done a heap for the bloke, eh? Self-aggrandising legal wankers) that he come round and starting supporting his son. Sad. Poor man.

See, my Ma is my family. And my Pa. And a bunch of others. And of all the family, not a single not one, ever took up arms for Islamofascists. Hmmmm. Now, what can I learn from that? Oh, I know. I learn that Hicks does not have my sympathy. There is no slippery slope that I need to be concerned about here, okay? We are talking about a shitful violent thug who faught for womenbeating Talibanners and against anything and everything that was about to crush those womenbeating Talibanner bastards.

Okay?

No slippery slope. The whole "ooooh doooom, we cannot alloow Hicks to be tried by a military tribunal becuase it will be a slippery slope and before you know it all Oz will lose their rights to be tried at Oz trials...." is a crock. You have to do some serious bobbing and weaving into danger - yes, into it - to end up getting caught in a warzone, even when the freakin' terrorists have managed to turn peaceful zones like Manhattan Island into war zones by their reckless violent thuggery.

War on terror - territory, planet earth, sadly. Not my making. Not my mother's making. Or my father's. Hicks' making, the shit. Hicks and his guntoting womanbeating Islamofascist buddies. And every Red Brigader, IRAsshole, Basquebomber Shining Pather, PLOtting suicider etc etc.

But even with a global war on terror, even with all that, still no one comes in the night to take my Ma away. Damn her, but she's just lawful. Damn her to heck, eh?

I wanna see this Hicks on trial. I want to hear him sing like a canary (cos he will, I reckon, his Dad will beg him to - poor ol' man - you can't blame him for sticking up for his loser son, but his initial reaction was as Australian as you could get - he knew his son was a jackass and knew he did not deserve any favours).

Now the lawyers will rabbit on and on about how Hicks should be brought home, so he can be tried here, blah, blah. Like this is some normal crime to be heard by any old magistrate. And they will rabbit on til the man is tried and during and even after.

Zif you would want a magistrate to hear the Hicks case.

This fighting with the Taliban, actually choosing to side violently with those rock monsters over all other peoples, is serous stuff. It is serious. Hicks is the only skip. Round of applause to Oz. In my opinion he's one too many. And it is serious and we need to take it seriously.

There is no slippery slope.

It was fair to challenge censorship laws using a slippery slope argument back in the 70's when books were getting censored, and there was no other way to get them into Oz and past the censor except through customs on the docks which is where the censor got 'em. But nowadays you can easily get stuff which the govt tries to censor, online, blackmarket etc. Society is agile and well developed and can move very fast to bob and weave out of the way of aggressive government to read whatever it wants. No need for a song and dance about censorship, because even though the law is there, no one's getting hurt. The balance is much finer than in the past - we still have to balance while ever the laws are around, but the measuring range is that much finer, between wankers who want their kiddie porn to feel like art and be public, and puritans who don't want anyone ever to have a hardon (see Ken park post somewhere below, on that).

And it would have been fair back while the Iran Iraq war was on, say, or even Bosnia and Kosovo, where Hicks fought as well (thug), to insist he be brought home and tried. But no, while we know how evil and menacing the terrorists are, how souldestoryingly violent and ugly they can be, and what long games they play, well, the balance between Hicks' freedom to enjoy Oz law no matter where he may get caught being a jackass, and the remaining population's freedom to know true terrorists are going to be tried in a serious forum that carries serious weight, maybe even death and won't get released on some nice legal technicality, or be able god help us, to make a bail application, when everyone knows he was there in Afghanistan with a freakin' gun pointing at everyone but the murderous scum running that joint, is a tight balance to make but I think we can do it.

I do not think society will crumble if we let him be tried by military types. Not even American types. Not even if American's Hicks' themselves get different legal treatment. Who cares about that? I do not give a shit about the Englanders caught in Afghanistan, or the Americans. I am interested in the skippy. And I measure my thoughts and my decision as to his current state and future trial by reference to him, and not by reference to others.

Cos he's a skippy. He comes from home.

It is not a slippery slope.

It is a balancing act.

We are in grams and milligram territory, follow?

Whatever.

Typey typey make fingers hurty.

Buona notte.

:: WB 3:18 am [link+] ::