Presumption Of Innocence

The Magna Carta established the rights of englishmen and by extension all dominions, including Australia and USA.

But it did not establish legal rights for foreigners.

So should we have laws for Australians and another code entirely for foreigners, especially those who intend harm or mischief/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zed

what do you bleeding heart liberals want ? do you want a couple of hundered people at circular quay to be blown up before the govt gets tough ???? \!

---

Only if they are members of the press, or people who participate in Good Morning Australia Phone polls.

P
'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

and by making the legal processes public
terrorists are better advised about their own planning needs.

---

If I haven't said that already, then I meant to!

Kill reporters!

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

So should we have laws for Australians and another code entirely for foreigners, especially those who intend harm or mischief/

---

Unfortunately the British experience appears to be that terrorists have been home grown. Once again, how do you divine an intention? Im not up to that one....

Sebastiaan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

Unfortunately the British experience appears to be that terrorists have been home grown. Once again, how do you divine an intention? Im not up to that one....

---

Yeah, but they all looked foreign and that's the main thing! :D

Chasers did a loverly thing on photographing "secure" sites. Dressed as an American tourist they were all but welcomed in for a meal, in an outfit so overtly Moslem it was funny, complete with obviously fake beard, they weren't allowed within cooee of anywhere carrying a camera.

It's easy to spot a terrorist!!

P
:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

And Zed, how many people die of cigarette related disease every year? Sanctioned by the government because it raises so much tax. I think Zen is right. The response is not proportional, if they were fair dinkum what would they do to the mob that kills thousands each year by smoking? Ever been there and watched a smoker die of lung cancer? Ever had an alcoholic friend ruin their life? Ever seen someone gamble away their kids food money? All good tax revenue and no proportional response in sight.


Sebastiaan

---

Irrevelent to the issue at hand.

As to the tax take according to my doctor the cost to the community for smoking related illnesses is about 10 times more than the tax take on tobacco. The reason it is not banned is that prohibition doesn't work.

BTW he also refuses to bulk bill anyone who smokes. He reckons that if they can afford to pay for smoking they should also be able to pay for their health care.


Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

BTW he also refuses to bulk bill anyone who smokes. He reckons that if they can afford to pay for smoking they should also be able to pay for their health care.


Peter.

---

Lucky that nasal cancer from woodwork is not a huge issue:D
Zelk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Irrevelent to the issue at hand.

As to the tax take according to my doctor the cost to the community for smoking related illnesses is about 10 times more than the tax take on tobacco. The reason it is not banned is that prohibition doesn't work.

BTW he also refuses to bulk bill anyone who smokes. He reckons that if they can afford to pay for smoking they should also be able to pay for their health care.


Peter.

---

Hi Peter,

Relevant in that the response is not proportional to the threat. If terrorism is a societal cost (which it must be) then the reponse should be proportional to the cost. Same as smoking etc. Im trying to highlight the blatant hypocrisy in the situation which is why the presumption of innocence is so readily discarded so that the "L's" can court our vote.

We know prohibition doesnt work but it still appears to be a large proportion of our pollies activities. Prohibition on terrorism doesnt work either,

Sebastiaan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

Hi Peter,

Relevant in that the response is not proportional to the threat. If terrorism is a societal cost (which it must be) then the reponse should be proportional to the cost.
Sebastiaan

---

Fair enough Sebastiaan.


But society considers some crimes and threats to its wellbeing greater than others. Hence those crimes and threats are treated different from others.

For instance, if you have an accident and stop and render assistance the punishment is minimal but make it a hit and run and the book is rightly thrown at you.

If you defraud a company with clever and creative accounting you are treated much more leniently than if you go and rob a bank.

Similarly with terrorrism. The laws, by its very nature, need to be more restrictive to fight that crime against our society. Sometimes we get it wrong but hopefully most of the time we get it right.

However there may be a need for appointing a permanent royal commissioner to review and oversee the fight against terrorrism with regular reports direct to parliament.


Peter.

G'day,

I fully agree with Peter. :aro-u:

:2tsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

Secrecy harms the process

---

How :? :)

Makes it harder for the busy bodies :doh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

Unfortunately the British experience appears to be that terrorists have been home grown. Once again, how do you divine an intention? Im not up to that one....

Sebastiaan

---

Acts in preparation. Police V Edwards Case Law.

About a man, a horse, a box and a distinct lack of pants .......I kid you not :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

How :? :)

---

If people dont trust the process they wont follow the process, and secrecy breeds distrust and can also breed fear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

Start Quote
Hey MH

Do you let him leave?. What if he was part of a cell here? Are there other members ready to attack here? Has he left a device (car bomb?) here that is ready to go?.

Of course you would have to interview him (as they did) if he was suspected of being part of a terrorist cell:rolleyes:. However, it became obviously apparent to us anti-Howard supporters that this was a botched job as time went by. Like the main evidence against him was it was supposedly his sim card that would be used to detinate the bomb. But it wasn't and they (the investigators) knew of that early in the peace but of course they didn't want to look stupid in their case so they spent time tying to discredit the poor guy. Do you remember that one of the ivestigators wrote details on some paper but tried to hang it on the poor doctor:((.

Hard questions. How would you deal with it. (MH leaves it to others but whines on the way :rolleyes:). Poor old Dazzler (who comes across as being a racist) is disappointed that his beloved Howard will be on his way after the next election. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pass the poison chalice over to Costello as soon as it gets through his thick head that it will lose in a landslide. Remember Dazzler as a citizen of this country I have equall as yours. You were just fortunate to have been born here.

Let him go and hope nothing happens. Let india deal with it?. Please show the text where I said he "should not have been interviewed".

End Quote


Sorry MH just found this, didnt mean to seem rude. For some reason your post wouldnt quote properly so I have block copied it. Your qoute is above.

How do you interview him :? . He is about to get on a plane to india. There is no right to interview him, he is free to leave, unless he is either arrested or detained. There was nothing about his sim card being used or planned to be used to detonate a car bomb. There was no main evidence. Just circumstantial evidence that he was questioned about.
The investigator made a mistake during the interview by referring to a photocopy of a page of his notebook that had writing on it. The dr stated it wasnt his so the D/S went and checked, came back and corrected it on tape.

FYI, frequently an interviewer will place an exhibit (say the notebook) in a sealed bag to show the suspect, and hand a photocopy of the document in question to the suspect so they can refer to it. They will often write on the police copy questions and lines of inquiry to prompt them during a lengthy interview.

Now you have to read this bit slowly, cause its important. The charges were dropped because it is not clear whether or not the alleged suspects in the UK belonged to a declared terrorist group. If the group is linked to a declared terrorist group then they will most probably reinstate the charge. It had nothing to do with the location the sim was found. This is why the charge was "recklessly" which removes the intent componant of the higher charge. IMO it would be a long bow to get up on anyway. Just another example of the media misreporting the facts.


Now to the more serious bits;


1. Please explain how I come across as racist, what comment can you point to that is racist or implies racism on my part?


1a. Perhaps others on the board can point to it so that I can apoligise to everyone. :)


2. Where have I suggested or intimated that I love Howard. What comment can you point to that shows this?


3. How does the fact that I was born here have any bearing on what I have said?


4. Once again, if you were the investigator, what would you have done at the airport given the concerns that had been raised about him? Concerns great enough for a pass alert to have been granted under the conditions explained earlier.

cheers


dazzler (who grew up being called "wogboy" in a small country town by our indigenous people :rolleyes: )

---

Here Metal Head, Metal Head, Metal Head.


Here Metal Head.


Where is he :? .

Here Metal Head:)