Skip to main content

Oz politicians in breach of law

The Sunday Age reports today:

"Australia's support of a new, retrospective terrorism charge against David Hicks has put members of the Federal Government at serious risk of committing a war crime, a leading Victorian silk and international law expert has warned.

Peter Vickery, QC, said members of the Government were at risk of breaching the Australian criminal code as well as Australia's international treaty obligations by urging the US to proceed with the present draft charges against Hicks.

Mr Vickery, an International Commission of Jurists special "rapporteur" on Hicks, said the charge of "material support for terrorism" against Hicks was a classic retrospective law which did not exist in 2001."

This is not be lightly dismissed. Government Ministers, especially the Attorney- General, are required to uphold the law. It seems they are, again, missing in action!

In the meantime, Richard Ackland, editor of Justinian, and weekly columnist in the SMH, considers the so-called charges against David Hicks:

"So after five years all we have are these pathetic and phoney charges. But David Hicks is still not charged. The United States is walking all over the Prime Minister's mid-February deadline. All we have is a weekend announcement from Colonel "Moe" Davis, a military prosecutor, that he'll be recommending two charges: providing material support for terrorism and attempted murder in violation of the law of war.

No one in the US can say with certainty when Hicks will be charged and it's even more timeless as to when he'll be tried. The case remains shrouded in political fudges and misleading pronouncements.

Just take the retrospectivity issue, about which there's been quite a "conversation" this week. The Federal Government made it an issue because, in adopting its faux principled position, it said Hicks could not return to Australia because there was no law here that existed at the time he committed his alleged offences. In other words, it didn't want to pass a law that applied retrospectively to whatever it is he is supposed to have done."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the
Post a Comment
Read more

Robert Fisk's predictions for the Middle East in 2013

There is no gain-saying that Robert Fisk, fiercely independent and feisty to boot, is the veteran journalist and author covering the Middle East. Who doesn't he know or hasn't he met over the years in reporting from Beirut - where he lives?  In his latest op-ed piece for The Independent he lays out his predictions for the Middle East for 2013. Read the piece in full, here - well worthwhile - but an extract... "Never make predictions in the Middle East. My crystal ball broke long ago. But predicting the region has an honourable pedigree. “An Arab movement, newly-risen, is looming in the distance,” a French traveller to the Gulf and Baghdad wrote in 1883, “and a race hitherto downtrodden will presently claim its due place in the destinies of Islam.” A year earlier, a British diplomat in Jeddah confided that “it is within my knowledge... that the idea of freedom does at present agitate some minds even in Mecca...” So let’s say this for 2013: the “Arab Awakening” (the t
Post a Comment
Read more

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as
Post a Comment
Read more