Friday 19th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

despicable ......

despicable .....

 

‘Philip Ruddock is a hypocrite when parading his Amnesty International membership.

He pretends to give a toss for the organisation and the principles for which it stands: the rule of law, freedom from arbitrary arrest and punishment, freedom from torture, opposition to the perversion of accepted civilised notions of justice and the obligations he owes to those notionally under his protection. Instead, he has publicly and shamefully betrayed all of these precepts.

He is a liar when he pretends concern for David Hicks' fate. His protestations about Australia's efforts to secure a speedy trial for Hicks cross the line of decency when we consider that Hicks is, after five years, not charged with any offence. Nor is he subject to the jurisdiction of any lawfully constituted court of justice. We know he has not committed any offences against Australian law. Our A-G says so. We also know that he does not stand charged with any known crime against US law. So how is it that the Attorney-General has not demanded the return of Hicks to the country that owes him protection as a matter of law?

It is because the A-G has publicly prostituted his duties to the law - and to those he owes a duty of protection - in the service of his political masters in the government he serves.

Hypocrites Breaking Our Law At Every Turn

habeas corpus buried alive by clowns

From our ABC Guantanamo inmates denied court challenges A US appeals court has upheld an anti-terrorism provision that prevents inmates at Guantanamo Bay, including Australian man David Hicks, challenging their detentions in American civilian courts. The provision is a key element of a law passed by Congress last year after the Supreme Court put a stop to the old military commission system. By a 2-1 vote, in a major victory for the Bush administration, the US Court of Appeals ruled the law that Congress passed last year took away the rights of the prisoners at the US military base in Cuba to bring such cases and that hundreds of their lawsuits must be dismissed. "Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these cases," Judge A Raymond Randolph concluded for the court majority in his 25-page opinion issued by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they planned to appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, which has previously handed setbacks to the Bush administration over handling of its war on terrorism. There currently are about 395 detainees at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, including Osama bin Laden's driver in Afghanistan, who has challenged the law. The first prisoners arrived more than five years ago following the September 11 attacks, and the base has been a central and controversial part of Mr Bush's war on terrorism. The indefinite and incontestable nature of the Guantanamo prisoners' detention and allegations of prisoner mistreatment, which the US military denies, have tarnished the United States' image abroad, and a growing chorus of allies have urged the United States to shut down the camp. Lawyers for two groups of prisoners - including about 40 detainees still at Guantanamo such as Hicks and six Algerians captured in Bosnia - argued before the court the new law did not apply to their clients. They said it violated the US Constitution's clause that prevents the suspension of habeas corpus rights except in times of rebellion or invasion. Those longstanding rights allow someone being being held to challenge their detention.