Tortuous Reasoning V
May 23rd, 2005 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Politics | 52 Comments
There’s something a bit odd about the torture “debate”. Peter Faris complains about the liberal meejah and pc and freedom of speech:
My main reason in setting up the Blog in the first place was because I found my conservative political views were not represented in the media. Further, the media were not interested in my views. The rule of Political Correctness means that issues like torture or the death penalty cannot even be discussed in public.
Yet Mr Faris gets a front page story in The Age, far more attention than his blog would normally warrant, and apparently he also has a radio show on 3AW for 2 hours every Sunday morning.
Would it be unreasonable to suspect that Mr Faris might be seeking to make a bit of a media name for himself?
Unlike Professor Bagaric and Ms Clarke, who at least mounted some argument in favour of their position (albeit argument characterised by rather simplistic ethical reasoning and a seeming lack of understanding of the realities of interrogation and anti-terrorism methods), Faris QC doesn’t trouble himself by engaging in any sustained argument. Rather, he uses scenarios drawn from Dirty Harry to suggest that torture could be a normal part of criminal investigation technique.
You have to wonder about his moral seriousness, and also about his motives for this intervention. It’s certainly succeeded in gaining him some media attention.
The standard of argument on Mr Faris’ blog can best be described as juvenile. In response to what was an obviously satirical comment, Faris replies:
You represent everything in the Left that is disgusting. I exercise my right to freedom of speech and you threaten me. Stalinist.
Other comments on the blog reach these heights of erudition and ethical engagement with a debate ostensibly about doing deliberate harm to people:
Boy oh Boy!!!
Such nastiness from the peace loving left…Now I REALLY can’t wait for tomorrow. I might even get up before midday just so I can get stuck into them!
It’s fantastic that just one person’s point of view can cause so much anger! AWESOME!
It’s difficult to take Faris’ opinion seriously when it is not supported by any reasoned argument. It’s disturbing in the extreme that serious issues regarding national security and, I repeat, the doing of deliberate harm to persons are “debated” in such a flippant manner. In fact, it’s morally disturbing in the extreme, as well as intellectually bereft.
So let’s leave the QC to his conspicuous indignation about freedom of speech and raise some questions about the publication of Bagaric and Clarke’s article in the San Francisco University Law Journal. As far as I’m aware, the media coverage has yet to mention that this publication is a student edited and managed journal. This in itself is not unusual within the discipline of Law – a long tradition modelled on such publications as the Harvard Law Review exists in Law Schools. Such journals often carry serious and scholarly papers, though of course, as with any other discipline there’s a hierarchy of prestige and quality among them. Such rankings are normally determined through the citation of articles – a measure of their influence. The most respected citation index does not track articles in this particular publication. None of the faculty at SFU appear in a list of the 120 most cited American legal academics. The school itself is apparently so little known that it is not listed in a compendium of US Law Schools ranked on various criteria.
I’m grateful to Ken Parish for drawing my attention to this argument from reknowned legal scholar Richard Posner on the system of publishing academic articles (rather than case notes for instance) in student edited Law Reviews:
The system of scholarly publication in law is starkly different. With a few exceptions, law reviews are edited by law students rather than by professors or other professionals. The law reviews are numerous, are published bimonthly or at more frequent intervals, are edited without peer review, and are seemingly unconstrained in length. Their staffs are large, but the members, being students, are inexperienced both in law and in editing. With such abundant manpower and no reliance on peer review, law reviews do not forbid simultaneous submission or insist on brevity, and the interval between initial submission and final publication is much shorter than in other scholarly fields. The size of law review staffs enables them not only to check the author’s citations but also to make many substantive comments and to engage in line-by-line copyediting
A legal academic himself, Ken tells me that in Australia, law journals are peer reviewed. Similarly, in the United States, there are many serious journals which deal with questions of legal and moral philosophy which have a rigorous and high standard of peer review. The question then becomes – were Bagaric and Clarke reluctant to submit their paper to a review process? Would it have survived peer review?
Some clues to the motivation for publication in the San Francisco University Law Review come from this email to Melbourne journalist Katherine Wilson from the editor of the journal, Megan K. Rosichan (permission to cite has been given):
Indeed, in the spirit of this debate, the Law Review sponsored a symposium at our school in April, entitled “Torture: When, If Ever, Is It Permissible?”. Our keynote speaker was former Gen. Janis Karpinski, the general who was in charge of the military police at Abu Gharib prison. The symposium included a panel discussion that featured Professor Bagaric, as well as two other professors, one of whom does not support torture in any circumstances (Prof. Marcy Strauss of Loyola School of Law, Los Angeles) and one of whom supports torture under somewhat more limited circumstances than Professor Bagaric (Prof. John T. Parry of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law).
We have substantiated all the sources cited in the final version of Professors Bagaric and Clarke’s article, and we believe that they fairly and accurately stand for the proposition for which they were cited. Beyond that, we believe that Professors Bagaric and Clarke are entitled to make a welll-reasoned, scholarly argument, regardless of the viewpoint that they support. For these reasons, the U.S.F. Law Review stands by our decision to publish their article.
This confirms that all the editors have done is check the references in the article. It also answers the question of why this obscure journal from a small Law School at a private Jesuit University was chosen.
But Bagaric and Clarke need to answer the bigger question – can their arguments be taken seriously by scholars and thinkers who are experts in legal and moral philosophy and anti-terrorism methods? Without the peer review process, we will never know.
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop raises similar questions about Faris’ “freedom of speech” claims.
Update: Rob Corr points out that in Dirty Harry, the torture failed to save the girl’s life.
There is a small ambiguity in here – the journal concerned doesn’t purport to be peer reviewed, and that is absolutely understood by its readers, who know the context.
It is basically an op-ed piece, which contains all the flaws of op-ed. Without some kind of pressure of proof, they often become ridiculous rants which we in the blogosphere wearily bash around like a dead goat in a tribal polo match.
It just points up the fact that the damn thing needs to be a convincing argument, whether or not it is peer reviewed.
The blogosphere – to go all meta on you once again – provides a similar hierarchy. We cluster around certain sites, and use the comments section to pick through the grammatical ruins that various splenetic oldsters use to simulate an argument. At least this provides a critique, from which we may one day get some discipline.
In our daily papers, of course, that presupposes the idea that credibility is part of the op-ed game. Mostly, it is a matter of cheering the emperor in a coliseum owned by the proprietor.
It’s an interesting take, btw. I wish we did more of yer actual research.
There is a small ambiguity in here – the journal concerned doesn’t purport to be peer reviewed, and that is absolutely understood by its readers, who know the context.
It is basically an op-ed piece, which contains all the flaws of op-ed. Without some kind of pressure of proof, they often become ridiculous rants which we in the blogosphere wearily bash around like a dead goat in a tribal polo match.
It just points up the fact that the damn thing needs to be a convincing argument, whether or not it is peer reviewed.
The blogosphere – to go all meta on you once again – provides a similar hierarchy. We cluster around certain sites, and use the comments section to pick through the grammatical ruins that various splenetic oldsters use to simulate an argument. At least this provides a critique, from which we may one day get some discipline.
In our daily papers, of course, that presupposes the idea that credibility is part of the op-ed game. Mostly, it is a matter of cheering the emperor in a coliseum owned by the proprietor.
It’s an interesting take, btw. I wish we did more of yer actual research.
That’s true, David, but again – banging on about the point I’ve been making about journalistic reporting of academic research, most people reading the papers would assume from the journal’s title and Bagaric’s title of Professor that it’s a serious scholarly publication.
That’s true, David, but again – banging on about the point I’ve been making about journalistic reporting of academic research, most people reading the papers would assume from the journal’s title and Bagaric’s title of Professor that it’s a serious scholarly publication.
Oh, and another thing -
What on earth was Professor Bagaric doing at that seminar in a small Jesuit university in San Francisco?
Was it just an accidental thing, using a foreign scholar who just happened to be there, or did they bring him in?
Oh, and another thing -
What on earth was Professor Bagaric doing at that seminar in a small Jesuit university in San Francisco?
Was it just an accidental thing, using a foreign scholar who just happened to be there, or did they bring him in?
Good question!
Good question!
I wonder what the Jesuit Fathers think of it – if you look around the school’s website, it’s pretty clear that there’s a strong social justice ethos there.
I wonder what the Jesuit Fathers think of it – if you look around the school’s website, it’s pretty clear that there’s a strong social justice ethos there.
A clue to Faris’ motivations?:
A clue to Faris’ motivations?:
Not that it means anything much, but was Faris the guy that was dumped or resigned from the position of Chairman of the (former) NCA over some business about a prostitute? Rings a bell….
Not that it means anything much, but was Faris the guy that was dumped or resigned from the position of Chairman of the (former) NCA over some business about a prostitute? Rings a bell….
“Graeme Slattery is guilty of unbelievable cruelty, depravity, degradation of human life … evilness beyond comprehension,” …
“This man, we say, is an evil man.”
The words belong to Peter Faris who no doubt wants to see some fellow Australians at least, be given permission to be evil, and probably demand that they be evil.
Oh in limited extreme circumstances of course.
Just as long as it’s legal it can’t be wrong and can be justified.
Mr Faris can argue that one before The Judge as indeed one day he will.
I’m not liking his chances.
“Graeme Slattery is guilty of unbelievable cruelty, depravity, degradation of human life … evilness beyond comprehension,” …
“This man, we say, is an evil man.”
The words belong to Peter Faris who no doubt wants to see some fellow Australians at least, be given permission to be evil, and probably demand that they be evil.
Oh in limited extreme circumstances of course.
Just as long as it’s legal it can’t be wrong and can be justified.
Mr Faris can argue that one before The Judge as indeed one day he will.
I’m not liking his chances.
On Rob’s question – google has not proved to be my friend in this instance. Why did Faris leave the NCA post?
On Rob’s question – google has not proved to be my friend in this instance. Why did Faris leave the NCA post?
Found this reference:
Got the guilts about this. So what if he visted a working girl? It’s not even clear if he did. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong about torture (although he is).
Found this reference:
Got the guilts about this. So what if he visted a working girl? It’s not even clear if he did. Doesn’t mean he’s wrong about torture (although he is).
Thanks, Rob. I suppose he broke the law, though I know nothing about the laws relating to prostitution in Victoria at the time.
Thanks, Rob. I suppose he broke the law, though I know nothing about the laws relating to prostitution in Victoria at the time.
How’s this:
How’s this:
Simulpost. Same link, too!
Simulpost. Same link, too!
Oh just look at all his favourite films on Amazon and you’ll get the picture.
Oh just look at all his favourite films on Amazon and you’ll get the picture.
The collective unconscious of the blogosphere strikes again!
The collective unconscious of the blogosphere strikes again!
Don’t feel too guilty – there’s more to it:
News and Features
NCA CHIEF QUITS AFTER ROW OVER THREE POLICE
By DEBORAH CORNWALL
428 words
13 February 1990
Sydney Morning Herald
2
English
Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd
The chairman of the National Crime Authority, Mr Peter Faris, resigned last night amid claims that he had failed to report fully on allegations of police corruption in South Australia.
Announcing the resignation, the Acting Attorney-General, Senator Tate, said Mr Faris, 49, had tendered his resignation, because of ill health, to the Governor-General.
The departure of the chairman, however, comes only five days after a major row between Mr Faris and the former NCA head, Justice Stewart.
In a letter tabled in the South Australian Parliament last Thursday, Justice Stewart accused his successor of “watering down … almost completely” an NCA report on the alleged corrupt reporting procedures of three police officers involved with Operation Noah in South Australia last year.
Justice Stewart said the original 139-page report had recommended that the State Police Commissioner, David Hunt, “undertake an immediate review of the suitability” of the three officers in the light of the NCA’s investigations, dubbed Operation Ark.
He said Mr Faris had later “substituted” an 11-page report for the original report which was completed by the NCA last June, when Justice Stewart was still chairman.
A letter from Mr Faris, tabled at the same time, said Justice Stewart’s report had been rejected because it had been unfair to police officers, had lacked objectivity and was sarcastic and offensive.
Mr Faris said the report had also failed to make sufficient findings of fact and that, if published, would “unfairly damage the reputation of a number of police mentioned by name”.
In another letter tabled in Parliament, Justice Stewart called on the South Australian Government to release the original report “so that the people of South Australia may draw their own conclusions”.
Senator Tate said last night Mr Faris’s departure was “distressing news for the NCA and for the Government”.
“I am sure that the whole Australian community is concerned that such a good and able man should need to resign in the midst of a great battle on behalf of us all,” he said.
When the original report was written, the NCA was made up of Justice Stewart, as chairman, Mr Lionel Robberds and Mr Mark Le Grand.
In July 1989, Mr Faris was appointed chairman and joined by Mr Julian Leckie and Mr Greg Cusack, QC. Mr Le Grand, who remained an NCA member, was the only person who supported the full release of the original report.
Mr Leckie has been appointed acting chairman of the authority.
Don’t feel too guilty – there’s more to it:
News and Features
NCA CHIEF QUITS AFTER ROW OVER THREE POLICE
By DEBORAH CORNWALL
428 words
13 February 1990
Sydney Morning Herald
2
English
Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd
The chairman of the National Crime Authority, Mr Peter Faris, resigned last night amid claims that he had failed to report fully on allegations of police corruption in South Australia.
Announcing the resignation, the Acting Attorney-General, Senator Tate, said Mr Faris, 49, had tendered his resignation, because of ill health, to the Governor-General.
The departure of the chairman, however, comes only five days after a major row between Mr Faris and the former NCA head, Justice Stewart.
In a letter tabled in the South Australian Parliament last Thursday, Justice Stewart accused his successor of “watering down … almost completely” an NCA report on the alleged corrupt reporting procedures of three police officers involved with Operation Noah in South Australia last year.
Justice Stewart said the original 139-page report had recommended that the State Police Commissioner, David Hunt, “undertake an immediate review of the suitability” of the three officers in the light of the NCA’s investigations, dubbed Operation Ark.
He said Mr Faris had later “substituted” an 11-page report for the original report which was completed by the NCA last June, when Justice Stewart was still chairman.
A letter from Mr Faris, tabled at the same time, said Justice Stewart’s report had been rejected because it had been unfair to police officers, had lacked objectivity and was sarcastic and offensive.
Mr Faris said the report had also failed to make sufficient findings of fact and that, if published, would “unfairly damage the reputation of a number of police mentioned by name”.
In another letter tabled in Parliament, Justice Stewart called on the South Australian Government to release the original report “so that the people of South Australia may draw their own conclusions”.
Senator Tate said last night Mr Faris’s departure was “distressing news for the NCA and for the Government”.
“I am sure that the whole Australian community is concerned that such a good and able man should need to resign in the midst of a great battle on behalf of us all,” he said.
When the original report was written, the NCA was made up of Justice Stewart, as chairman, Mr Lionel Robberds and Mr Mark Le Grand.
In July 1989, Mr Faris was appointed chairman and joined by Mr Julian Leckie and Mr Greg Cusack, QC. Mr Le Grand, who remained an NCA member, was the only person who supported the full release of the original report.
Mr Leckie has been appointed acting chairman of the authority.
I don’t think it was illegal to buy sex from a prostitute. Lots of things were: soliciting for the purposes of, living off the earnings of, running a bawdy house, etc. The transaction itself wsa not illegal. Although I believe by 1996 brothels were legal in Victoria. The former situation was one of those rather quaint, somewhat silly situations that JS MIll would nonetheless have understood and probably approved.
I don’t think it was illegal to buy sex from a prostitute. Lots of things were: soliciting for the purposes of, living off the earnings of, running a bawdy house, etc. The transaction itself wsa not illegal. Although I believe by 1996 brothels were legal in Victoria. The former situation was one of those rather quaint, somewhat silly situations that JS MIll would nonetheless have understood and probably approved.
And another:
FORMER NCA HEAD CLEARED BY INQUIRIES
By MARIAN WILKINSON
426 words
23 March 1990
Sydney Morning Herald
3
English
Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd
The former chairman of the National Crime Authority (NCA), Mr Peter Faris, QC, was made the subject of an authority inquiry shortly before his appointment as chairman in June last year.
The inquiry arose from information gained from phone taps on an NCA”target”, which was given to authority members.
As a result of the intercepted conversation, the then chairman of the NCA, Justice Stewart, and his fellow members on the authority initiated an inquiry into Mr Faris. The inquiry took place shortly before Justice Stewart was due to step down to be replaced by Mr Faris.
In the course of the inquiry Mr Faris was grilled over several hours by Justice Stewart and members of the authority.
The inquiry completely cleared Mr Faris, and he took up his appointment in July. However, it is understood that he was deeply concerned by his treatment over the incident.
Shortly after Mr Faris took over the authority, one of his first actions was to quash a report by Justice Stewart into allegations of corruption in the South Australian Police Force. The report, completed the day Justice Stewart retired, was described by Mr Faris in a letter tabled in the South Australian Parliament as not supported by the evidence, and lacking in objectivity.
A battle between Mr Faris and several of Justice Stewart’s former supporters in the NCA continued for the eight months before he resigned.
Shortly before he left in February, the differences between the two men were aired publicly in the South Australian Parliament.
Mr Faris’s resignation was said to have had nothing to do with the South Australian dispute. However, his sudden departure on the grounds of ill health just eight months into his three-year term sparked a new controversy.
Following Mr Faris’s resignation, the NCA, this time under its acting chairman, Mr Julian Leckie, held a second inquiry into Mr Faris. This inquiry was prompted by rumours concerning an incident involving Mr Faris that came to the attention of authority members shortly before his resignation.
The incident occurred in Melbourne last September. The Herald has been told that a confidential report on the incident, presented to a meeting of State ministers and the Federal Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, two weeks ago in Darwin, also cleared Mr Faris.
It found the former chairman was not involved in any illegality, nor had he jeopardised any NCA operation.
Mr Faris was stopped and questioned by Victorian police on September 19 last year.
And another:
FORMER NCA HEAD CLEARED BY INQUIRIES
By MARIAN WILKINSON
426 words
23 March 1990
Sydney Morning Herald
3
English
Copyright of John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd
The former chairman of the National Crime Authority (NCA), Mr Peter Faris, QC, was made the subject of an authority inquiry shortly before his appointment as chairman in June last year.
The inquiry arose from information gained from phone taps on an NCA”target”, which was given to authority members.
As a result of the intercepted conversation, the then chairman of the NCA, Justice Stewart, and his fellow members on the authority initiated an inquiry into Mr Faris. The inquiry took place shortly before Justice Stewart was due to step down to be replaced by Mr Faris.
In the course of the inquiry Mr Faris was grilled over several hours by Justice Stewart and members of the authority.
The inquiry completely cleared Mr Faris, and he took up his appointment in July. However, it is understood that he was deeply concerned by his treatment over the incident.
Shortly after Mr Faris took over the authority, one of his first actions was to quash a report by Justice Stewart into allegations of corruption in the South Australian Police Force. The report, completed the day Justice Stewart retired, was described by Mr Faris in a letter tabled in the South Australian Parliament as not supported by the evidence, and lacking in objectivity.
A battle between Mr Faris and several of Justice Stewart’s former supporters in the NCA continued for the eight months before he resigned.
Shortly before he left in February, the differences between the two men were aired publicly in the South Australian Parliament.
Mr Faris’s resignation was said to have had nothing to do with the South Australian dispute. However, his sudden departure on the grounds of ill health just eight months into his three-year term sparked a new controversy.
Following Mr Faris’s resignation, the NCA, this time under its acting chairman, Mr Julian Leckie, held a second inquiry into Mr Faris. This inquiry was prompted by rumours concerning an incident involving Mr Faris that came to the attention of authority members shortly before his resignation.
The incident occurred in Melbourne last September. The Herald has been told that a confidential report on the incident, presented to a meeting of State ministers and the Federal Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, two weeks ago in Darwin, also cleared Mr Faris.
It found the former chairman was not involved in any illegality, nor had he jeopardised any NCA operation.
Mr Faris was stopped and questioned by Victorian police on September 19 last year.
“Mr Faris was stopped and questioned by Victorian police on September 19 last year”
Bill, yes that was the visit to the prostitute thing. I remember it now.The police stopped him in the street. I think his story was that he was engaged on some kind of special NCA investigation. Hmm.
“Mr Faris was stopped and questioned by Victorian police on September 19 last year”
Bill, yes that was the visit to the prostitute thing. I remember it now.The police stopped him in the street. I think his story was that he was engaged on some kind of special NCA investigation. Hmm.
Gosh Bill is dredging up memories. The NCA office in Adelaide was a joke. One sustained factional brawl, only outdone by the sustained Liberal Party factional brawls that paralyzed the state for years.
Gosh Bill is dredging up memories. The NCA office in Adelaide was a joke. One sustained factional brawl, only outdone by the sustained Liberal Party factional brawls that paralyzed the state for years.
Well, I know its bold, but you heard it here first:
The so-called “torture debate” over, and won for our side. Hooray!
Bagaric, Clarke and Faris: Your arguments have been found thin, scenarios ludicrous, consequences odious etc.
I look forward to your future work. But here’s a hint for next time: try not to undermine the whole point of your profession when you make a splash. No trial, no rights, no process = no lawyer. D’oh! This made you like kinda goofy, despite the seriousness of material.
So, whats next people? May I suggest Eric Abetz hasn’t received nearly enough critical blog attention. Some questions, to gaze upon and tremble:
Why do we need a ‘Special Minister of State’ anyhoo? Does the state have enemies? Should I, Ozymandius, be fearful for my beloved state?
If so, who are mine enemies, that I may smite them….
And what makes this Minister so special? Is it his weird, pedantic Dork-Nazi image? And whats with the Davros voice?
What are his plans for us?
Well, I know its bold, but you heard it here first:
The so-called “torture debate” over, and won for our side. Hooray!
Bagaric, Clarke and Faris: Your arguments have been found thin, scenarios ludicrous, consequences odious etc.
I look forward to your future work. But here’s a hint for next time: try not to undermine the whole point of your profession when you make a splash. No trial, no rights, no process = no lawyer. D’oh! This made you like kinda goofy, despite the seriousness of material.
So, whats next people? May I suggest Eric Abetz hasn’t received nearly enough critical blog attention. Some questions, to gaze upon and tremble:
Why do we need a ‘Special Minister of State’ anyhoo? Does the state have enemies? Should I, Ozymandius, be fearful for my beloved state?
If so, who are mine enemies, that I may smite them….
And what makes this Minister so special? Is it his weird, pedantic Dork-Nazi image? And whats with the Davros voice?
What are his plans for us?
The actual story, which was reported somewhat ellipitically at the time, and was fleshed out in more detail for me by some NCA blokes over few drinks later (John Sylvester also has a great rave about it) was that the Vic wallopers were staking out a North Melbourne brothel for an investigation that had nothing to do with the NCA.
They spotted some bloke “behaving suspiciously” in a car out the front and hauled him out. It was Peter F., who had buggerall ID on him but a few hundred bucks in ready cash. After initially trying to stonewall the cops, Pete admitted who he was but then claimed he was like (Eddie Murphy voice) deep deep undercover as part of a supersensitive ultra your eyes only NCA investigation.
It only took the cops a couple days (with the help of NCA insiders who did not like the white collar crime direction Pete was taking the Nackers in) to establish his story was complete bullshit. And VicPol, having no love for he NCA whatsoever, made damn sure this ludicrious attempt by Pete to pull rank and pretend he wasn’t after a root reached the appropriate ears in Government and the media.
So it was then made very clear to Pete at the highest levels that the Federal Government’s glamour crimefighting body couldn’t afford such a pathetic and farcial screwup at the top level and that he should resign to spend more time with his health.
And you’ll notice his legal career hasn’t exactly been lustrous since either. Especially not with the songs the members of the bar sang about him at the Savage Club. Basically he’s still a laughing stock among the Melbourne legal establishment he wanted so to be part of which, perhaps may account for why he’s now becoming a grumpy old shock jock.
Anyway, doesn’t give me much faith in his judgement that crime and security authorities could appropriately and accountably get real medieval on others asses.
The actual story, which was reported somewhat ellipitically at the time, and was fleshed out in more detail for me by some NCA blokes over few drinks later (John Sylvester also has a great rave about it) was that the Vic wallopers were staking out a North Melbourne brothel for an investigation that had nothing to do with the NCA.
They spotted some bloke “behaving suspiciously” in a car out the front and hauled him out. It was Peter F., who had buggerall ID on him but a few hundred bucks in ready cash. After initially trying to stonewall the cops, Pete admitted who he was but then claimed he was like (Eddie Murphy voice) deep deep undercover as part of a supersensitive ultra your eyes only NCA investigation.
It only took the cops a couple days (with the help of NCA insiders who did not like the white collar crime direction Pete was taking the Nackers in) to establish his story was complete bullshit. And VicPol, having no love for he NCA whatsoever, made damn sure this ludicrious attempt by Pete to pull rank and pretend he wasn’t after a root reached the appropriate ears in Government and the media.
So it was then made very clear to Pete at the highest levels that the Federal Government’s glamour crimefighting body couldn’t afford such a pathetic and farcial screwup at the top level and that he should resign to spend more time with his health.
And you’ll notice his legal career hasn’t exactly been lustrous since either. Especially not with the songs the members of the bar sang about him at the Savage Club. Basically he’s still a laughing stock among the Melbourne legal establishment he wanted so to be part of which, perhaps may account for why he’s now becoming a grumpy old shock jock.
Anyway, doesn’t give me much faith in his judgement that crime and security authorities could appropriately and accountably get real medieval on others asses.
While we are into character assasination – he’s been described to me by a Melb barrister as the Bar equivalent of Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now.
Would seem to have his eye firmly set on a celeb/media career. I don’t know we’ve had a legal type play this role before. Doesn’t seem up to it, judging by his blog.
While we are into character assasination – he’s been described to me by a Melb barrister as the Bar equivalent of Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now.
Would seem to have his eye firmly set on a celeb/media career. I don’t know we’ve had a legal type play this role before. Doesn’t seem up to it, judging by his blog.
How about Stuart Littlemore? Or Marsden? Or even everyone’s favourite celebrity lawyer, Lionel Murphy?
How about Stuart Littlemore? Or Marsden? Or even everyone’s favourite celebrity lawyer, Lionel Murphy?
Johnny Cochrane?
Johnny Cochrane?
I will add another take to the head-of-the-NCA visits-a-prostitute thing, in a single word. Security. It opens all sorts of blackmail possibilities, and effectively compromises the head of the supreme criminal investigative body in the country. You bet the Attorney-General of the time told him that “he should resign to spend more time with his health”.
I will add another take to the head-of-the-NCA visits-a-prostitute thing, in a single word. Security. It opens all sorts of blackmail possibilities, and effectively compromises the head of the supreme criminal investigative body in the country. You bet the Attorney-General of the time told him that “he should resign to spend more time with his health”.