The Australian politics thread

[social]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Well there's nothing wrong with that view mate, but do you reckon he should have been left there for nigh on five years without charge?

Notice when Hicks asked Howard about the way he was treated, Howard immediately talked about those who see Hicks as "a hero"? The old desiccated coconut just cannot help himself. Avoided the question completely.. Whoever said Hicks is a hero? Howard did a lot to make him a martyr though. Was a stupid thing he did leaving him there. Once he decided he needed to move him for political reasons, he was back here in six weeks - the fix was in.

The real hero in the Hicks saga is Michael Mori. Proud to say I met him at a conference in Hobart in 2007. Nice bloke too, for a Yank anyways.

Shared a cab with him from Sydney Airport once - very nice fella and told me some horrific stories regarding treatment of inmates at Guantanamo

Without condoning Hicks actions, he deserved more support than he got from the Oz government IMO

[morgieb]

Originally Posted by stephen

AWTA

I never understood why there was such public sympathy for a treasonous bastard like him.

Yes, he was a criminal. Doesn't mean that he should've been arrested in that ****hole called Guantanamo for 5 years, especially without a trial. That was a joke afaic.

[Spark]

so apparently the opposition had a massive fail moment today.

[stephen]

Originally Posted by morgieb

Yes, he was a criminal. Doesn't mean that he should've been arrested in that ****hole called Guantanamo for 5 years, especially without a trial. That was a joke afaic.

He's lucky he's still breathing as far as I'm concerned.

He wasn't just a criminal, he was treasonous. Even if he never fired a shot at an Australian, his intent was certainly to do so.

Every second that he's alive is one that he should be grateful for, regardless of his location.

[Jono]

Mate, what he did was bad. Awful in fact. Nonetheless when you commit a crime, be it shoplifting or treason, you should be charged. Not a foreign concept, in fact it's the cornerstone of any democratic legal system.

[morgieb]

Originally Posted by stephen

He's lucky he's still breathing as far as I'm concerned.

He wasn't just a criminal, he was treasonous. Even if he never fired a shot at an Australian, his intent was certainly to do so.

Every second that he's alive is one that he should be grateful for, regardless of his location.

That's a bit far, isn't it?

[Matt79]

Not really. **** him.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Jono

Such a good feud.

Tag match between Hawke and Howard vs. Keating and Costello clearly the best way to solve all of this.

Except it's comparing apples with oranges, because whereas Keating eventually bit the bullet and took the risk of confronting Hawke publicly, Costello wussed and now comes across as a bit whiny tbh. Anything he says about how he knew then that Howard had to go just affirms that he lacked the courage of his convictions back then, and having now lost his chance, wishes he had been more assertive back then.

[Jono]

I agree. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be an entertaining tag team match.

[Matt79]

Backing Keating to produce a knife while Graeme Richardson distracts the ref.

[Jono]

Backing Keating to yell at the crowd to get a job as he enters the ring with his entrance music being scenes from Keating: The Musical.

Man would Keating cut an awesome promo!

[howardj]

Shoe and A

[Jono]

It's true. It allows for stereotyping, but what ya gonna do?

Hicks asked Howard whether he believed the treatment in Guantanamo had been humane. He was subsequently questioned by an audience member as to why the rule of law violations in Guantanamo were OK for Australians but not OK for British or French nationals, who were repatriated by their governments. Howard deflected by noting that the sort of democratic exchange facilitated by Q&A would not be possible in many countries. But he would not recognise that the doctrine of habeas corpus, the right to a fair trial, and the repudiation of torture were also important democratic principles which had been denied to Hicks.

Howard also gave a strong indication that he was doubtful of the extent to which the stolen generation was damaging to the families involved. He gave this response in answer to the question of whether he regretted not delivering the apology. It illuminated not only Howard's adamant refusal to apologise for an action he did not literally commit, but that he was sceptical about the very existence of that wrongdoing.

These were significant words offering a retrospective insight into 11 years of governance. But they will not be given the critical inspection they deserve because of the lunacy of one individual and his shoes.

Don't worry, many have noticed.

[R_D]

Originally Posted by morgieb

That's a bit far, isn't it?

I forgot the **** is out.... should be thankful.

Shouldn't be breathing free air though.... should be rotting in jail cell.

[howardj]

It struck me the other night on Q and A that you can get away with a lot of unpopular positions if the economy is running well and you don't have any absolute disasters like pink batts. I mean, Howard was really on the defensive the other night to the point where it made you realise that apart from the economy and his approach on border protection, there was not much the Australian people liked.

I think in a way that could be a lesson for Gillard. As long as the economy is going well and she doesn't have any absolute calamities like pink batts, she should feel free to do what she really believes is right (introduce a carbon tax, act humanely to refugess, implement the Murray Darling plan regardless of how many farmers you piss off).

Much better to go to the next election saying you acted on climate change, were humane to refugees, acted to save the Murray Darling. Because, even if there are losers out of a carbon tax and the Murray Darling plan, you've still got the roaring economy as your safety net.

But it appears that she's already running in fright from the Murray Darling reforms. I don't think those farmers are ever going to vote for her anyway. Whereas, she will get enormous credit in the wider electorate if she acts and helps to preserve Australia's food bowl.