"Our own laws condemn Hicks' trial" - Former Chief Justice

[Ext User(fasgnadh)]

"Our own laws condemn Hicks' trial" - The Age 2/4/2007

"IN THE case of David Hicks, the Howard Government
has been prepared to break Australian laws in order
to further its objects, secure in the knowledge that
while it retains power, it is immune from the operation
of the law.

The case has now moved from tragedy to what at first
sight looks like farce, with Hicks' seven-year sentence
suspended after nine months and his return to Australia.
Farce it now may be, but it is a sinister farce.

Shortly before Christmas, a group of lawyers, that
included myself, delivered an opinion to the Law
Council of Australia for transmission to the
Attorney-General concerning the continued detention
and proposed trial of David Hicks. The opinion
referred to Division 268 of the Australian Criminal
Code, which creates an offence of denying a person
protected by the Geneva Conventions a fair trial.
It expressed the view that Hicks is clearly a person
protected by the conventions.

The opinion examined the proposal to try Hicks before
a second military commission set up by the US Congress
after the striking down of the first commission by the
US Supreme Court, and considered whether it could be
regarded as providing a fair trial.

The Australian Criminal Code provides for a sentence
to a term of imprisonment for 10 years for breach of
the requirement to provide a fair trial. The code has
extra-territorial effect so that the offences comprising
the war crimes in it apply whether or not the relevant
conduct or its result occurs in Australia or elsewhere.
Thus the code has application to the conduct of a trial
of David Hicks before a military commission held in
Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else

The opinion considered that, like the first military
commission, the second military commission is essentially
flawed and, similarly, cannot provide a fair trial.
In substance this is because its structure is not that
of a regularly constituted court and because it contains
provisions that are antithetical to a fair trial. These
include provisions for the receipt of evidence in secret
that is not disclosed to the accused, the receipt of
hearsay evidence in circumstances where the onus is on
the accused to establish that it is unreliable or lacking
in probative value and the admissibility of evidence
obtained by coercion falling short of torture.

If the opinion is correct about these matters, it follows
that the trial of Hicks before the second military commission
constitutes a war crime not only under the Geneva Conventions
but also under Australian law. The difficulty for the
leading members of the Australian Government is that under
the Australian Criminal Code to "counsel" or "urge" another
party to conduct a trial that does not meet the mandated
standards can constitute a war crime.

The whole thrust of the position of Australian Government
ministers has been not only to refuse to request the
US Government to repatriate Hicks, but also to press the
US Government to proceed with his trial before the second
military commission. If the second military commission
does not meet those required standards — and there are
strong arguments that it does not — then they are themselves
guilty of a war crime and a crime against Australian law.

Throughout this affair, the Australian Government has been
determined to evade its responsibilities to an Australian
citizen in order to appease the US. It appears that this
determination extended to the point of breaching its own
laws to do so. It is a shameful chapter in Australian
history and one that should be a cause of continuing
concern. It is one thing to ignore international law
but it is quite another to act as if Australian law is
so irrelevant in determining Government actions that
the Government and its ministers are immune from it.
Such an approach is redolent of totalitarian regimes
rather than this country, and is indicative of the
depths to which we have sunk under our present leadership.

There is a further observation that I would make and it
again involves the strongest possible criticism of the
Government and of the Attorney-General in particular.
Mr Ruddock had been suggesting that the remedy for
Hicks' release lay in his own hands, and that remedy
was to plea bargain. This was a cynical misuse of power
unworthy of our first law officer. He well knew that
unless the Government intervened, as it was morally
obliged to do, and if Hicks contested the charges, it
was highly likely that regardless of the outcome, it
would be years more in Guantanamo Bay before any
challenge to the legality of the second commission
could be determined.

It follows that with the connivance of the Australian
Government, Hicks was placed in an impossible position
to which there was only one possible solution, which
he took. As a lawyer, I would have advised him to do
so regardless of any question of guilt. It follows
that his plea of guilty means nothing, nor do any
carefully scripted admissions he might have made.

One might ask why was this deal done? There can be
little doubt that at a very late stage and faced with
increasingly hostile public opinion, the Australian
Government pressured the US Government to bring this
trial on as quickly as possible. Neither government
wanted him returning to Australia making allegations
about torture and ill treatment, or the process to
which he had been subjected. The answer was to devise
a sentence that would ensure his silence, at least
until after the Australian election and preferably
for many years after."

Alastair Nicholson, QC, is a former chief justice
of the Family Court. This is an edited extract of
a speech he delivered yesterday at the Unitarian
Church, East Melbourne.

---------

Nuclear NIMBYs split the Howard Government;


"Treasurer Peter Costello has said nuclear power is not viable.
It would cost 20-50 per cent more than coal-based power."
- Peter'Chernobyl'Costello, Federal Treasurer

"Finance Minister Nick Minchin said it would be crazy to
throwaway the natural advantage Australia possessed with coal."
- Nick'No-Nukes'Minchin, Federal Finance Minister

Mark'Nuclear Nimby' Vaile, has already refused to accept
any discussion of a nuclear power plant, or waste dump,
in his electorate, even though it is an an obvious
candidate for one of the score or more nukes that will
be dotted round the coast.

---------


The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------

[Ext User(kangarooistan)]

On Apr 3, 10:56 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Our own laws condemn Hicks' trial" - The Age 2/4/2007
>
> "IN THE case of David Hicks, the Howard Government
> has been prepared to break Australian laws in order
> to further its objects, secure in the knowledge that
> while it retains power, it is immune from the operation
> of the law.
>
> The case has now moved from tragedy to what at first
> sight looks like farce, with Hicks' seven-year sentence
> suspended after nine months and his return to Australia.
> Farce it now may be, but it is a sinister farce.
>
> Shortly before Christmas, a group of lawyers, that
> included myself, delivered an opinion to the Law
> Council of Australia for transmission to the
> Attorney-General concerning the continued detention
> and proposed trial of David Hicks. The opinion
> referred to Division 268 of the Australian Criminal
> Code, which creates an offence of denying a person
> protected by the Geneva Conventions a fair trial.
> It expressed the view that Hicks is clearly a person
> protected by the conventions.
>
> The opinion examined the proposal to try Hicks before
> a second military commission set up by the US Congress
> after the striking down of the first commission by the
> US Supreme Court, and considered whether it could be
> regarded as providing a fair trial.
>
> The Australian Criminal Code provides for a sentence
> to a term of imprisonment for 10 years for breach of
> the requirement to provide a fair trial. The code has
> extra-territorial effect so that the offences comprising
> the war crimes in it apply whether or not the relevant
> conduct or its result occurs in Australia or elsewhere.
> Thus the code has application to the conduct of a trial
> of David Hicks before a military commission held in
> Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else
>
> The opinion considered that, like the first military
> commission, the second military commission is essentially
> flawed and, similarly, cannot provide a fair trial.
> In substance this is because its structure is not that
> of a regularly constituted court and because it contains
> provisions that are antithetical to a fair trial. These
> include provisions for the receipt of evidence in secret
> that is not disclosed to the accused, the receipt of
> hearsay evidence in circumstances where the onus is on
> the accused to establish that it is unreliable or lacking
> in probative value and the admissibility of evidence
> obtained by coercion falling short of torture.
>
> If the opinion is correct about these matters, it follows
> that the trial of Hicks before the second military commission
> constitutes a war crime not only under the Geneva Conventions
> but also under Australian law. The difficulty for the
> leading members of the Australian Government is that under
> the Australian Criminal Code to "counsel" or "urge" another
> party to conduct a trial that does not meet the mandated
> standards can constitute a war crime.
>
> The whole thrust of the position of Australian Government
> ministers has been not only to refuse to request the
> US Government to repatriate Hicks, but also to press the
> US Government to proceed with his trial before the second
> military commission. If the second military commission
> does not meet those required standards - and there are
> strong arguments that it does not - then they are themselves
> guilty of a war crime and a crime against Australian law.
>
> Throughout this affair, the Australian Government has been
> determined to evade its responsibilities to an Australian
> citizen in order to appease the US. It appears that this
> determination extended to the point of breaching its own
> laws to do so. It is a shameful chapter in Australian
> history and one that should be a cause of continuing
> concern. It is one thing to ignore international law
> but it is quite another to act as if Australian law is
> so irrelevant in determining Government actions that
> the Government and its ministers are immune from it.
> Such an approach is redolent of totalitarian regimes
> rather than this country, and is indicative of the
> depths to which we have sunk under our present leadership.
>
> There is a further observation that I would make and it
> again involves the strongest possible criticism of the
> Government and of the Attorney-General in particular.
> Mr Ruddock had been suggesting that the remedy for
> Hicks' release lay in his own hands, and that remedy
> was to plea bargain. This was a cynical misuse of power
> unworthy of our first law officer. He well knew that
> unless the Government intervened, as it was morally
> obliged to do, and if Hicks contested the charges, it
> was highly likely that regardless of the outcome, it
> would be years more in Guantanamo Bay before any
> challenge to the legality of the second commission
> could be determined.
>
> It follows that with the connivance of the Australian
> Government, Hicks was placed in an impossible position
> to which there was only one possible solution, which
> he took. As a lawyer, I would have advised him to do
> so regardless of any question of guilt. It follows
> that his plea of guilty means nothing, nor do any
> carefully scripted admissions he might have made.
>
> One might ask why was this deal done? There can be
> little doubt that at a very late stage and faced with
> increasingly hostile public opinion, the Australian
> Government pressured the US Government to bring this
> trial on as quickly as possible. Neither government
> wanted him returning to Australia making allegations
> about torture and ill treatment, or the process to
> which he had been subjected. The answer was to devise
> a sentence that would ensure his silence, at least
> until after the Australian election and preferably
> for many years after."
>
> Alastair Nicholson, QC, is a former chief justice
> of the Family Court. This is an edited extract of
> a speech he delivered yesterday at the Unitarian
> Church, East Melbourne.

Its only a matter of time till dozens of Australians will be charged
as criminals over the Illegal Iraq war and the terrorism being
commited by the Government

As this article points out its our government that has broken the laws

They will all be charged as war criminals and they know it

Look at the faces on Howard Ruddock Downer Bush And Blair

You can see on their faces that they know they are in deep deep shit

Desperate men, doomed to die in jail if not at the end of a rope

Like Hitler and Saddam , they will put up a brave face , but the
evidence is in the public record


its only a matter of time till they all " hang "

When the western public find out that the wars are unwinnable AND the
costs will be fatal , the public will demand blood , pollys blood

HICKS WAS SHAFTED , the real terrorists are still in canberra running
our country into the ground

Hundreds of lawyers are all waiting to take the real terrorists to
court , now that HICKS is safe , they can make a move on the real
terrorists ,

ANY Australian can lay charges against HOWARD or any polly who breaks
ANY law

You dont need to be a copper or a lawyer

Every Aussie can lay charges , in the courts if they think ANYBODY has
committed a crime and has a case/ evidence to back it up ,

THERE is enough evidence as pointed out many times in the article
above and many others just like it

Mind you the double jepardy rule means its best to let it wait till a
good case can be made or they may WALK , and get costs against you

kanga
=====

kanga
=====
>
> ---------
>
> Nuclear NIMBYs split the Howard Government;
>
> "Treasurer Peter Costello has said nuclear power is not viable.
> It would cost 20-50 per cent more than coal-based power."
> - Peter'Chernobyl'Costello, Federal Treasurer
>
> "Finance Minister Nick Minchin said it would be crazy to
> throwaway the natural advantage Australia possessed with coal."
> - Nick'No-Nukes'Minchin, Federal Finance Minister
>
> Mark'Nuclear Nimby' Vaile, has already refused to accept
> any discussion of a nuclear power plant, or waste dump,
> in his electorate, even though it is an an obvious
> candidate for one of the score or more nukes that will
> be dotted round the coast.
>
> ---------
>
> The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;
>
> http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html
>
> The true-blue Homestead;
>
> http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
>
> The true-blue Hall Of Fame;
>
> http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html
>
> The Tuckerbox;
>
> http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html
>
> -----------

[Ext User(-tsunami-)]

"fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46125d12$0$16555$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Our own laws condemn Hicks' trial" - The Age 2/4/2007


Who gives a rats.

[Ext User(The Raven)]

"fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46125d12$0$16555$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "Our own laws condemn Hicks' trial" - The Age 2/4/2007
>
> "IN THE case of David Hicks, the Howard Government
> has been prepared to break Australian laws in order
> to further its objects, secure in the knowledge that
> while it retains power, it is immune from the operation
> of the law.
>
> The case has now moved from tragedy to what at first
> sight looks like farce, with Hicks' seven-year sentence
> suspended after nine months and his return to Australia.
> Farce it now may be, but it is a sinister farce.
>
> Shortly before Christmas, a group of lawyers, that
> included myself, delivered an opinion to the Law
> Council of Australia for transmission to the
> Attorney-General concerning the continued detention
> and proposed trial of David Hicks. The opinion
> referred to Division 268 of the Australian Criminal
> Code, which creates an offence of denying a person
> protected by the Geneva Conventions a fair trial.
> It expressed the view that Hicks is clearly a person
> protected by the conventions.
>
> The opinion examined the proposal to try Hicks before
> a second military commission set up by the US Congress
> after the striking down of the first commission by the
> US Supreme Court, and considered whether it could be
> regarded as providing a fair trial.
>
> The Australian Criminal Code provides for a sentence
> to a term of imprisonment for 10 years for breach of
> the requirement to provide a fair trial. The code has
> extra-territorial effect so that the offences comprising
> the war crimes in it apply whether or not the relevant
> conduct or its result occurs in Australia or elsewhere.
> Thus the code has application to the conduct of a trial
> of David Hicks before a military commission held in
> Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else
>
> The opinion considered that, like the first military
> commission, the second military commission is essentially
> flawed and, similarly, cannot provide a fair trial.
> In substance this is because its structure is not that
> of a regularly constituted court and because it contains
> provisions that are antithetical to a fair trial. These
> include provisions for the receipt of evidence in secret
> that is not disclosed to the accused, the receipt of
> hearsay evidence in circumstances where the onus is on
> the accused to establish that it is unreliable or lacking
> in probative value and the admissibility of evidence
> obtained by coercion falling short of torture.
>
> If the opinion is correct about these matters, it follows
> that the trial of Hicks before the second military commission constitutes
> a war crime not only under the Geneva Conventions
> but also under Australian law. The difficulty for the
> leading members of the Australian Government is that under
> the Australian Criminal Code to "counsel" or "urge" another
> party to conduct a trial that does not meet the mandated
> standards can constitute a war crime.
>
> The whole thrust of the position of Australian Government
> ministers has been not only to refuse to request the
> US Government to repatriate Hicks, but also to press the
> US Government to proceed with his trial before the second
> military commission. If the second military commission
> does not meet those required standards — and there are
> strong arguments that it does not — then they are themselves
> guilty of a war crime and a crime against Australian law.
>
> Throughout this affair, the Australian Government has been
> determined to evade its responsibilities to an Australian
> citizen in order to appease the US. It appears that this
> determination extended to the point of breaching its own
> laws to do so. It is a shameful chapter in Australian
> history and one that should be a cause of continuing
> concern. It is one thing to ignore international law
> but it is quite another to act as if Australian law is
> so irrelevant in determining Government actions that
> the Government and its ministers are immune from it.
> Such an approach is redolent of totalitarian regimes
> rather than this country, and is indicative of the
> depths to which we have sunk under our present leadership.
>
> There is a further observation that I would make and it
> again involves the strongest possible criticism of the
> Government and of the Attorney-General in particular.
> Mr Ruddock had been suggesting that the remedy for
> Hicks' release lay in his own hands, and that remedy
> was to plea bargain. This was a cynical misuse of power
> unworthy of our first law officer. He well knew that
> unless the Government intervened, as it was morally
> obliged to do, and if Hicks contested the charges, it
> was highly likely that regardless of the outcome, it
> would be years more in Guantanamo Bay before any
> challenge to the legality of the second commission
> could be determined.
>
> It follows that with the connivance of the Australian
> Government, Hicks was placed in an impossible position
> to which there was only one possible solution, which
> he took. As a lawyer, I would have advised him to do
> so regardless of any question of guilt. It follows
> that his plea of guilty means nothing, nor do any
> carefully scripted admissions he might have made.
>
> One might ask why was this deal done? There can be
> little doubt that at a very late stage and faced with
> increasingly hostile public opinion, the Australian
> Government pressured the US Government to bring this
> trial on as quickly as possible. Neither government
> wanted him returning to Australia making allegations
> about torture and ill treatment, or the process to
> which he had been subjected. The answer was to devise
> a sentence that would ensure his silence, at least
> until after the Australian election and preferably
> for many years after."
>
> Alastair Nicholson, QC, is a former chief justice
> of the Family Court. This is an edited extract of
> a speech he delivered yesterday at the Unitarian
> Church, East Melbourne.

One wonders why all these learned experts do take the relevant government
officials to court for their alleged war crimes?


--
The Raven
http://www.80snostalgia.com/downloads/batfink/sounds/wings.mp3

[Ext User(fasgnadh)]

The Raven wrote:
> "fasgnadh" <fasgnadh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:46125d12$0$16555$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>> "Our own laws condemn Hicks' trial" - The Age 2/4/2007
>>
>> "IN THE case of David Hicks, the Howard Government
>> has been prepared to break Australian laws in order
>> to further its objects, secure in the knowledge that
>> while it retains power, it is immune from the operation
>> of the law.
>>
>> The case has now moved from tragedy to what at first
>> sight looks like farce, with Hicks' seven-year sentence
>> suspended after nine months and his return to Australia.
>> Farce it now may be, but it is a sinister farce.
>>
>> Shortly before Christmas, a group of lawyers, that
>> included myself, delivered an opinion to the Law
>> Council of Australia for transmission to the
>> Attorney-General concerning the continued detention
>> and proposed trial of David Hicks. The opinion
>> referred to Division 268 of the Australian Criminal
>> Code, which creates an offence of denying a person
>> protected by the Geneva Conventions a fair trial.
>> It expressed the view that Hicks is clearly a person
>> protected by the conventions.
>>
>> The opinion examined the proposal to try Hicks before
>> a second military commission set up by the US Congress
>> after the striking down of the first commission by the
>> US Supreme Court, and considered whether it could be
>> regarded as providing a fair trial.
>>
>> The Australian Criminal Code provides for a sentence
>> to a term of imprisonment for 10 years for breach of
>> the requirement to provide a fair trial. The code has
>> extra-territorial effect so that the offences comprising
>> the war crimes in it apply whether or not the relevant
>> conduct or its result occurs in Australia or elsewhere.
>> Thus the code has application to the conduct of a trial
>> of David Hicks before a military commission held in
>> Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else
>>
>> The opinion considered that, like the first military
>> commission, the second military commission is essentially
>> flawed and, similarly, cannot provide a fair trial.
>> In substance this is because its structure is not that
>> of a regularly constituted court and because it contains
>> provisions that are antithetical to a fair trial. These
>> include provisions for the receipt of evidence in secret
>> that is not disclosed to the accused, the receipt of
>> hearsay evidence in circumstances where the onus is on
>> the accused to establish that it is unreliable or lacking
>> in probative value and the admissibility of evidence
>> obtained by coercion falling short of torture.
>>
>> If the opinion is correct about these matters, it follows
>> that the trial of Hicks before the second military commission constitutes
>> a war crime not only under the Geneva Conventions
>> but also under Australian law. The difficulty for the
>> leading members of the Australian Government is that under
>> the Australian Criminal Code to "counsel" or "urge" another
>> party to conduct a trial that does not meet the mandated
>> standards can constitute a war crime.
>>
>> The whole thrust of the position of Australian Government
>> ministers has been not only to refuse to request the
>> US Government to repatriate Hicks, but also to press the
>> US Government to proceed with his trial before the second
>> military commission. If the second military commission
>> does not meet those required standards — and there are
>> strong arguments that it does not — then they are themselves
>> guilty of a war crime and a crime against Australian law.
>>
>> Throughout this affair, the Australian Government has been
>> determined to evade its responsibilities to an Australian
>> citizen in order to appease the US. It appears that this
>> determination extended to the point of breaching its own
>> laws to do so. It is a shameful chapter in Australian
>> history and one that should be a cause of continuing
>> concern. It is one thing to ignore international law
>> but it is quite another to act as if Australian law is
>> so irrelevant in determining Government actions that
>> the Government and its ministers are immune from it.
>> Such an approach is redolent of totalitarian regimes
>> rather than this country, and is indicative of the
>> depths to which we have sunk under our present leadership.
>>
>> There is a further observation that I would make and it
>> again involves the strongest possible criticism of the
>> Government and of the Attorney-General in particular.
>> Mr Ruddock had been suggesting that the remedy for
>> Hicks' release lay in his own hands, and that remedy
>> was to plea bargain. This was a cynical misuse of power
>> unworthy of our first law officer. He well knew that
>> unless the Government intervened, as it was morally
>> obliged to do, and if Hicks contested the charges, it
>> was highly likely that regardless of the outcome, it
>> would be years more in Guantanamo Bay before any
>> challenge to the legality of the second commission
>> could be determined.
>>
>> It follows that with the connivance of the Australian
>> Government, Hicks was placed in an impossible position
>> to which there was only one possible solution, which
>> he took. As a lawyer, I would have advised him to do
>> so regardless of any question of guilt. It follows
>> that his plea of guilty means nothing, nor do any
>> carefully scripted admissions he might have made.
>>
>> One might ask why was this deal done? There can be
>> little doubt that at a very late stage and faced with
>> increasingly hostile public opinion, the Australian
>> Government pressured the US Government to bring this
>> trial on as quickly as possible. Neither government
>> wanted him returning to Australia making allegations
>> about torture and ill treatment, or the process to
>> which he had been subjected. The answer was to devise
>> a sentence that would ensure his silence, at least
>> until after the Australian election and preferably
>> for many years after."
>>
>> Alastair Nicholson, QC, is a former chief justice
>> of the Family Court. This is an edited extract of
>> a speech he delivered yesterday at the Unitarian
>> Church, East Melbourne.
>
> One wonders why all these learned experts do take the relevant government
> officials to court for their alleged war crimes?

That's all you wonder? Go black to sleep, Dopey.

In case you hadn't noticed, dimwit, the LEGALITY of the
US Government's Military Commissions, Mk I, WAS CHALLENGED
IN THE COURTS!! The Supreme Court found it to be ILLEGAL
and it was disbanded.

Howard, Downer and the other tory Government stooges had
consistently declared their support for those illegal
tribunals! 8^o In other words, because it served their
POLITICAL self interest, our top Government Legal Officers,
including the Attorney General, declared themselves happy with
the proposed Show trials that our judiciary, along with
international jurists had condemned, right up until the
US Supreme court agreed they were crooked!

While most people thought Hicks and the other detainees would then
be released, after such long years without charges or fair trial, as the
citizens of real democracies who protected their citizens, e.g. Britain,
had been, or, at the least, tried in a REAL court, as the AMERICANS
had been.

But they underestimated the political bastardry of Bush and Howard;

Howard had declared it would be WRONG to enact retrospective laws..
but that is precisely what the US did, it invented NEW laws in
2006 which were then applied to Hicks for alleged events years earlier!
And Howard supported it.

It will take time, but eventually these latest legal inventions will
be set aside as well.



BTW, your response seems garbled, do you actually mean you wonder
why they DON'T take the government to court? Perhaps if you take
your boyfriends cock out of your mouth before speaking in future
we might not have to GUESS what you are trying to say.

Consider some of the impediments:

As the corruption and illegality is the product of collusion
by TWO nation states, the unlimited resources and immense
power makes it difficult to get the evidence, while they
remain in power. Once Howard and Bush are gone, inquests
and Royal Commissions can be held, but where is the incentive
for any incoming government to chase old crimes?


Much of the political arrangements involve only the culprits
Howard, Bush, Cheney, and Cheney's political apparatchik appointed to
head the Military Commission.

As with Saddam, you usually have to remove a corrupt regime before
you can prosecute it.



---------


"Australian ministers, all the way
down from the Prime Minister, have been
party to the commission of grave crimes under the
Australian Criminal Code 1995, divisions 104
(Harming Australians Overseas) and 268D (denying
a fair trial), because they have been criminally
complicit under section 11.2."

- Robert Richter, Queens Council

http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/starchamber.htm

---------

"THE polls show John Howard is likely to be beaten
by Labor, now under its sharpest leader in a decade.
Facing defeat, the Prime Minister yesterday changed
not only his team but its tone." -Andrew Bolt 24/1/2007


Fraser accuses current PM of marginalising Muslims"

"I believe that this is divisive, dangerous and false."

"Mr Fraser said the Government was gearing up for
what he called a Muslim election next year.

- Malcolm Fraser ABC 2/11/2006

Every election, Howard creates DIVISION for a DIVERSION.



"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties." - Eureka Oath

------------

The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html


-----------