Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Experts in Wills, Trusts
& Estate Planning

We are paying our CM for this drivel.

By Thumper 7 September 2005 68

From Hansard 17AUG04. I would suggest one, that this is a blatent waste of taxpayer’s money, and two, an irrelevant cheap shot at Australia and Iraq War involvment.

Mr Pratt’s comments are interesting as well but one must remember when he was arrested he wasn’t packing an RPG or an AK47 during a war in which Australia was involved.

[ED – Somewhat interesting debate reproduced from hansard below. Personally I think the Chief Minister’s right on this one. UPDATE: I’ve added my thoughts in full in the comments here]

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (10.19): I will just speak just briefly in relation to the position that I have put around the quite illegal detention of Hicks and Habibi in Cuba by the Americans. It is simply outrageous and beyond defence, and it intrigues me that the Liberal Party seeks to defend that dreadful abuse of human rights that has been exhibited in the detention without charge for so long of two Australians. It is shameful that the Australian Government did not seek to intervene more strenuously to ensure that that dreadful abuse of the human rights of two Australians was not allowed to persist.
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
We can take some small comfort that some process is now moving, but the process is quite illegitimate and does not guarantee a fair trial, and that is what it is all about. Mr Pratt has rushed to judgment and has deemed Mr Hicks to be guilty of an offence that he has not been charged with. I assume the sub judice rule does not apply to courts or judicial process in other countries. It might be an interesting point. Standing in this place and simply assuming that Mr Hicks is guilty certainly offends the sub judice rule, but I do not know whether it applies internationally.
I find it ironic in the extreme that anybody would defend that sort of singular abuse of human rights and legal process and presumptions in relation to freedom, the issue of habeas corpus. I know Mr Stefaniak understands these things and must be offended that the rule of habeas corpus simply has no application. It is ironic that the Liberal Party defends that abuse of civil liberties, human rights, that total disregard for habeas corpus and for the rule of law and everything we stand for in this nation in relation to the rule of law. It is also ironic that Mr Pratt leads the charge on behalf of the Liberal Party. When Mr Pratt was arrested for spying and was detained-
Mr Smyth: On a point of order-
MR STANHOPE: He was arrested for spying.
Mr Pratt: On a point of order. The Chief Minister might be best placed if he was to use the term “allegedly spying”.
MR STANHOPE: Mr Pratt makes my point. Mr Pratt was not arrested for spying, Mr Pratt was arrested for allegedly spying. Mr Hicks was not arrested for allegedly anything. It is interesting. Mr Pratt was not arrested for spying, he was arrested, in Mr Pratt’s words, for allegedly spying. When it comes to Mr Hicks it does not matter, you do not even need to charge him, you can just arrest him. Not only do you just arrest him, you then kidnap him and transport him across the world.
When it comes to Mr Pratt being arrested for spying and detained by the Serbians, it is a different issue. It is one rule for Mr Pratt and the Liberals, another rule for Mr Hicks. So, how funny, how ironic that Mr Pratt rails in this place for five minutes about the guilt of Mr Hicks, who has not even been charged, and when I say, “But, Mr Pratt, do you not remember when you were arrested for spying, you did not like being detained,”Mr Pratt jumps up and takes a point of order. He says, “I was not arrested for spying, I was arrested for allegedly spying. Get the terminology right.”So when Mr Pratt was arrested for spying and then dobbed on his mates in order to achieve his release-
Mr Pratt: On a point of order. The point of order is about the definition that the Chief Minister was using, not what I was arrested for.
MR SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr Pratt: It is so.
MR SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
68 Responses to
We are paying our CM for this drivel.
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Thumper 1:01 pm 15 Sep 05

hehehehe… I was bored….

wonsworld 12:43 pm 15 Sep 05

I’m friggen dyslexic. . . I have been sitting here for 20 mins trying to figure out what “friday nigth” is?? *slaps head*

Thumper 10:59 pm 14 Sep 05

Forget the ‘Paul is dead’ stuff.

Lets remove Oliver Cromwell’s helmet and he could be George harrison circa 1968.

And that is pretty much hippie.

Mael is a mate of mine. he’s ex army. He spent a year in a combat zone. He has some very direct points of view based upon his exeriences.

I spent some time in Infantry. Thankfully the closest I got to a two way firing range was when Fiji blew up in 87 and we didn’t get there. We spent a day in a C130 ready to go, shitting outselves because we were armed and ready to hit the ground.

If you’ve never been there you can’t comment on it because it is so far beyond comprehension unless you’ve done it.

Mael is coming from his point of view. It is completely valid and based upon his experiences which are from a background of warfare.

Therefore I find it hard to see how anyone who has never experienced being in the Tiger Country can comment upon what it is like.

I reiterate, I was lucky, I never ended up on a two way firing range. The worst I saw was flying into Bougainville in red choppers and dropping supplies for the Sig guys that were up there.

Criticise if you like, but unless you have been there, then you have no right to put your views forward.

there’s nothing quite like a two way firing range to polarise the mind and work out what is important and what is not.

Mael is not as redneck as people may think. In fact, he’s quite a nice guy with a social conscience. He works in an environmental program and is good at it. Yes, he puts trees in the ground, a good thing.

Okay, I’ll admit I’m sticking up for a mate, but then again, I’ll always stick up for a mate. Thats the way it is and should be.

Discussion over guys.

Mael, foxtrot october romeo golf echo tango india tango. bravo echo echo romeo october november foxtrot romeo india delta alpha yankee november india golf hotel tango?

I’d send the same message in Tetun but it harder than phoenetic and my Tetun is pathetic…. *g*

Cheers Diggers

johnboy 9:40 pm 14 Sep 05

My “hippie mates”?

Oliver Cromwell?

Maelinar 8:30 am 14 Sep 05

JB, aka Mr idiot:

It would be nice if you had any idea what you’re talking about whatsoever before you spout abuse at other participants on this site.

The wikipedia is a good source but I have many others on this one.

I have no intention of looking up those details because they are both boring and irrelevant

Nothing but your words softhead, sorry the link didn’t transfer via cut and paste, but you get the drift.

If you aren’t prepared to stand up for something you’ve quoted yourself, don’t fucking quote it.

Other than that, I respect your point, and agree to disagree with you. I think it’s quite clear which side of the fence I sit, and have my own reasons for sitting there. You and your hippie mates have yours, and you’re welcome to it. Just don’t come asking for blankets when one of your activist mates thinks chopping down trees for firewood is wrong and bad m’kay.

I know it’s an analogy, but should be relatively transparent enough for even you to understand.

johnboy 11:26 pm 13 Sep 05

In more general terms:

“Every age refights the Civil War in its own way and ours is no exception. Roundhead and Cavalier, Whig and Tory, Gladstone and Disraeli, Labour and Conservative, each conflict is an echo of the original.
Every age has its own Cromwell, the man repainted, regilded, forged, twisted to suit some current purpose. The historian Isaac Foot, father of Michael, said that he judged a man by one thing, ‘On which side would he have fought at Marston Moor’, the King’s or Parliament’s.
The pendulum of politics long ago stopped swinging from Left to Right, now being stuck on Right. But it always swings from Roundhead to Cavalier. It swings from the authority of democratic institutions, defended ceaselessly and sometimes bloodily, to the corruption of over-centralised power.”
– Simon Jenkins, “The London Times”

So which side are you on boys? Because Cromwell and I want Hicks out. But if you want to line up with the Cavaliers we’ll be happy to do you over.

johnboy 7:52 pm 13 Sep 05

First to Bonfire:

If Hicks is a POW he can’t be tried. He is being tried so he is not being treated as a POW. Please enlighten us as to which declared war he is a prisoner of and why his rights as such under the Geneva Convention are not being honoured.

Can’t do that? No, didn’t think so. So he’s not a prisoner of war. The Americans invented a new concept called “enemy combatant” just to provide a fig-leaf for their treatment. If you could stop muddying the debate with this bollocks it’d be handy, thanks.

Now to Mael:

I have no intention of looking up those details because they are both boring and irrelevant (although you might want to bear in mind that village blacksmiths in afghanistan are more than capable of building their own AK47’s and they make their own ammo in those parts too).

As you note Hicks was charged by the Military Commission in august 2004. So how long was he held again? Captured in 2001 You say?

And even then charged under a commission which doesn’t conform to the US Uniform Code of Military Justice and was not created by any act of any Parliament? So dodgy that three US Military Prosecutors have refused to act against Hicks in it?

Things you heard in the pub are fine things to form opinions with. They are neither proof, nor admissable evidence. And when they come out of the world class lie factory that is the US Military should be taken with large grains of salt.

Now you may not like Hick’s life choices. I’m not saying I’m a fan of the man.

I’m saying he has demonstrably not done anything that can be proven wrong in any lawful court. How do we know that? Because, despite having three jurisdictions in which he could be charged, a special star chamber had to be formed seemingly just for him.

Now as to your brown trouser moment in the face of Al Quaeda. I say our society fought its many bloody wars (and lets not forget many of the bloodiest were against our own authoritarians) so that government’s could not behave this way. If you want to throw that away on the back of your own fear and prejudice, and a rag-tag handfull of ignorant zealots then don’t let me get in the way.

Just don’t try and take the rest of us along for the ride.

There’s what we think we know, and what we can prove. Don’t get them mixed up.

Maelinar 4:40 pm 13 Sep 05

Hear Hear Thumper, beat me to it

ORL, apart from ‘out hunting goats’, just what do you think David Hicks was doing in Afghanistan ?

Until you softheads admit that he was there with the intent, I say again INTENT to shoot fellow Australians, Americans and fellow members of the coalition of the sheep, I won’t stop, because, HE WANTED TO KILL OUR REPRESENTATIVES.

Don’t care if he was looking at a soldier through the sight picture and got cold feet, nobody will ever be able to know that for sure apart from the dominant personality that was in control of Mr Hicks at the time.

What he did within Australian law remains Treason, and he’s lucky he isn’t being tried for that in Australia, because I DO remember the Armed Forces Discipline Act, and there is only one punishment in Australia for Treason, as it has not been updated since WW2, and I’m sure that would have been quickly pointed out to the legal defence team.

It involves 5.56mm, watch a film titled Breaker Morant if you’re still confused. (same punishment albiet different crime portrayed in B.Morant)

So to conclude, that’s how I know why Mr Hicks wants to shoot us, because of situational awareness of where he was, and the why behind why he was there.

Your comment regarding he wants to kill you etc was from a question I asked Simto, in order to get him to answer me a simple question, please read further up the post to clarify why I asked that

As a trained soldier of 15 years experience, I know that there are members of my team that may not fire upon the enemy.

They are quickly identified, either from their own admissions or from team members, who are depending on their firepower to cover them as they move from one position of cover to another.

HINT: If somebody is still shooting at you there may be a problem with the guy who’s meant to be covering you’s accuracy or commitment to the battle.

There is a role for them in combat, they can become medical staff, or other non combatants not directly involved with the battle.

Last time I checked, the Taliban and Iraqi forces didn’t recognise them as non targets however.

As for your next argument, I’m sure Mr Hicks’s defence team would have already checked to see if he was there to provide medical support or tea and cookies to the fighters, or if he was there to fight.

I can tell you that after 15 years of training, and having been on a battlefield, on a combat patrol, with live rounds ready to fire, that I do not have the moral compunction to not fire upon somebody who has the intent to kill me. If I am afforded the chance, I will fire with deadly intent first.

I am also a marksman.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site