According to the Daily Telegraph:
AN appeal court has quashed the convictions of the first man jailed under Australia’s new anti-terror laws.
Joseph Terrence Thomas, dubbed Jihad Jack, was arrested in Pakistan in January 2003 and convicted in Australia in February this year of receiving funds from al-Qaeda and holding a false passport.
He was sentenced to five years jail with a minimum two years.
But today, Victorian Court of Appeal Justices Chris Maxwell, Frank Vincent and Peter Buchanan quashed the convictions, saying the evidence used to find Thomas guilty was inadmissable.
This might be interesting to LP readers given the long discussion that followed weathergirl’s post on the case (in which I took up the losing side of the argument). I will certainly be hoping to read the Court of Appeal’s reasons.
Hoo-bloody-ray. He got the short end of a very sharp stick.
Excellent news. In which court does Ruddock chase this poor bugger in now?
Good.
For those of you who want to read the judgment, it will find its way onto this list soonish, but maybe not until Monday.
That is really good news. The original judgment would have set a very bad precedent for the admissability of evidence obtained through torture.
You bastard, Robert! I was just going to post this myself!
Hooray!
This is terrific news.
(Although there could still be a retrial, and there’s heavy-duty govt zeal behind this case).
Mamdouh Habib case collapsed.
Jack Thomas case collapsed.
David Hicks case looking shaky.
Champagne, anyone?
Unfortunately, there only seems to be one newswire report on this (quoted above) and it doesn’t give much away in terms of the reasoning, or whether it will go to a retrial. Do you have any more info, weathergirl?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/judges-quash-terror-conviction/2006/08/18/1155408007061.html
I particularly liked the use of legalese from the defence counsel in response to the request for a retrial though (from the ABC news website):
WG
Becasue he was found not guilty doesn’t mean Jihad jack didn’t commit any of those offenses. it simply means the evidence didn’t satisfy the appeals judges. Fair enough.
Those cheering… I’m wondering were you feeling the same way when OJ Simpson was found not guilty of slashing his wife’s head off? ….. You believe he didn’t kill her? I guess, “if the glove don’t fit you can’t convict”.
I suspect they’re cheering the fact that our courts don’t like evidence obtained by torture, JC. Put your brain into gear…
Exactly, JC . And Thomas was never charged with any violent offence. So don’t be such a dimwit.
I read the evidence in the first case, as well as the stuff that couldn’t be submitted. Quite honestly i’m shocked this clown was allowed to ever go free. But so be it and that’s the nature of our legal system.
Cristy
aren’t getting a little carried away with legal process rather than looking at reality in the face?
Joe, why do you hate democracy?
You have a problem with insisting on and defending the rule of law, JC?
tigtog
No, not at all. I’m pissed a jihadi got away scot free and it seems there’s not much we can do to ensure Jihad Jack gotr 20 years in the slammer.
Were you jubilant when OJ escaped the slammer, Tigtog?
The rule of law ain’t perfect as this case demonstrates, but it’s the best we’ve got. Here’s hoping the next virgin seeker never sees the light of day.
As has been patiently explained, JC, there are no similarities between this case and the Simpson case. End of story.
And how, pray, did you come to read the evidence that couldn’t be submitted?
Yeah the legal process has nothing to do with reality, especially when I don’t agree with the decision, anyway the judges are pinko lefty tree hugging communists, just like those judges in America, especially Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.
And how, pray, did you come to read the evidence that couldn’t be submitted?
I think he means the evidence that was admitted at the hearing, but which was subsequently disallowed — the evidence we discussed after your last post.
There’s more than a little difference between a judge ruling that prosecution evidence is inadmissable due to being obtained in an illegal and reprehensible manner, and a jury not believing the prosecution case.
I do not want to live in a country where confessions under torture are admissable evidence, both because I find torture morally indefensible, and I also don’t believe that such confessions are pragmatically supportable as ways of establishing truth. People will say anything at all under torture.
I’m not as familiar with the case as you claim to be, but if the prosecution couldn’t make their case within the accepted rules of evidence then they should take it up with the people who investigated the case. If they are doing their job properly, the evidence will stand up without resorting to illegal methods, surely?
Well said, tigtog.
I’m pretty familiar with the case, including having sat in on hearings, and I see nothing that supports JC’s views.
A question for Robert: some sources are reporting this as “convictions quashed” and others are calling it “acquittal”. I thought (erroneously?) these were different things. I thought that with the latter, there can’t be a retrial?
Hooray indeed. The laws were supposed to lead to the end of civilisation, plagues of locusts, armageddon etc.
The left was wrong. Ruddock was right.
My initial reaction was the same as yours — usually when a conviction is quashed, the court will either enter a verdict of acquittal or order a retrial. Thus a quashed conviction and an acquittal are not necessarily the same thing.
However, I thought I’d better look it up, and Halsbury’s says this:
I think they’ve just used “quashed” as shorthand for “quashed and acquittal entered”.
I’m still 99% sure they’re different.
Was the evidence deemed to be inadmissible found to be so because it was obtained under torture, or for some other reason? I may have missed it in the stories linked, but I didn’t see it.
I think this just proves that there is a far more dangerous and sinister force working in Australia than the Jihadists those prosecutors and their investigators that not only fail to uphold the rule of law but fail to understand it.
Rob, the defence case was that the evidence was inadmissable because it was extracted under torture and coercion, but the judgement is yet to be published.
Thanks, Robert, for looking that point up. I’m still a little confused, though.
Another question (I hope this isn’t tedious): if someone is acquitted by a jury, can they be retried for the same offence if new evidence comes up?
Is the situation different if acquitted by the Supreme Court of Appeal? And are you aware of any precedent where new evidence was a television interview broadcast during a trial?
Leinad
I guess Democ only works when a jihadi goes free? What i find amazing with some is the emotional delight this deadender, potential killer and bag carrier for AQ has been set free.
It’s got zippo to do with democracy. It has all to do that our LEGAL system letting a jihadi go free.
I wasn’t celebrating what wonderful domocratic values we share when OJ was set free, were you?
WG
Of ocourse the circumstances of these two cases are different, but the end result is the same in that a guilty man has gone free.
Guilty of what, exactly, JC? What, in your mind, against the opinion of 3 appeal court judges, did Jack do that was so criminal?
And don’t come at me again with
Actually, this wasn’t about the evidence, JC. What the defence was arguing was that information extracted under torture does not evidence make. According to law as well as practically. If you were stuck in a lawless Pakistani prison without charge and threatened, then you, too, would say anything to get out, particularly if coerced by good-cop techniques.
(Be careful of your reply, JC. Because the judges’ ruling, and some of the recorded evidence, will be published. I don’t believe you are as familiar with this case as you profess to be.)
Not the legal system. The system worked. Eventually. Evidence obtained under torture is inadmissable. What first year law student doesn’t know that? What let the suspected Jihadist go free was an inept prosecutor and investigators that somehow forgot that vital piece of law.
Don’t blame the system. Blame the idiot Chicken Littles that believe that they can ignore a few hundred years of legal precedent because they get scared watching the tv news each night.
You beat me to it Robert !!!
Vindication is sweet. As I said at the beginning of WG’s thread:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/25/judge-should-please-explain/#comment-117502
Shorter Cummins J: I thoroughly fucked it up.
Brilliant news – what a thiurd world shithole this country would become if evidence gained under torture was admissable.
Now, we just need to get rid of extended detnetion wihtout charge, and secret trials, and we’ll be a Western democracy again. Eat that Ruddock!
Finished your tome, LE?
Peter K, how does it reflect on a judge when their judgement is overturned on appeal? Is it a shameful thing in the profession, do you think, or just part of day-to-day business?
WG
You think he wasn’t a party to any of the accusations made against him, is that what you are saying?
There was supposed to be a ton of inadmissible evidence against this Jihadi. Fair enough, that it couldn’t be presented, that’s how our system works. Celebrate the system working not this guy.
There shouldn’t be any high fiving this person going free.
And anyway, who says my opinion of his guilt needs to align with the court ruling. Tons of guilty people go free when evidence has been messed up by prosecutors etc. We know that.
Blame the idiot Chicken Littles that believe that they can ignore a few hundred years of legal precedent because they get scared watching the tv news each night.
That must be why Australian Labor introduced compulsory detention for asylum seekers and Bill Clinton inaugurated rendition.
Who’s defending Labor’s move, CL? Relevance, please.
JC, your constant referral to Thomas as a Jihadi simply demonstrates your ignorance, which you again reiterate by attempting to answer my questions with questions. Answer the question and contribute, or STFU.
What you seem to be celebrating is the incompetence of the prosecutors in handling this case, hardly something to smile about. when that happens we as a society lose out.
As I said, don’t lose sight of what this guy was most probably up to.
Most probably? But you wouldn’t know, JC, because you know very little about Jack Thomas. And you still haven’t answered my questions.
Day to day business WG , but the higher up the hierachy the more embarrassing it becomes. Lower down at Local/District Court levels, knowing which higher court judge is prejudiced against which lower court judge is one of the “sweetest” bits of knowledge available to the defence for an appeal. [Not that I'm in any way suggesting justice is perverted
]
Yep, polished it off, WG, round 7ish. Up till 3am last night, but who cares – se fin, se bon.
Shortly, I shall proceed – in a orderly fashion – to get soundly wazzled on vino at Chateau Scumbag; our roof wine bar at Keating Towers.
Turn off the french clock alarms, Ms LE, I may be some time!
Jeez, that’s very interesting Peter. With a landmark decision like Cummins’ J, do you think there will be much talk or professional embarrassment?
Onya, LE.
Weathgirl
Please avoid rudeness if you expect to be treated with respect.I asked you as few questions so it would be nice and polite if you kindly answer those before you go telling people to STFU.
Please try to remain objective about the issues as not everyone shares your views and opinions that a Jihadis release is something raise a glass over.
You demand a certain level of courteous behaviour on your posts, it is therefore a good thing to lead by example.
Okay. I withdraw STFU if you stop calling an innocent man Jihadi. Now, will you answer the questions?
Nothing to do with prosecution incompetence, JC – evidence was gained under duress, hopelessly tainted, unreliable, and therefore inadmissable.
This is a very good outcome – even for the legal fight against terrorism. It means investigators will actually have to find some real evidence, instead of lazily relying on some offshore Abu-Ghraibist thugs to verbal people. When you think about it, it wont get us anywhere in terms of reliable intel, will it?
CL, Hooray indeed. The laws were supposed to lead to the end of civilisation, plagues of locusts, armageddon etc.
The judicial might be working, but it sounds like the executive is busted.
Separation of powers isn’t supposed to mean that the judicial acts as a constant doorstop against executive and legislative over-reach. In responsible government the executive and legislative are supposed to protect liberty, not take away as much as the judicial will allow.
Thanks for being more polite, reasonable and patient than me, LE.
Answer the questions I left you, WG. They came first.
A lot of silence WG will be the order of Cummins J days but as for “mutterings” at his bar table, or the odd frown from his fellow justices of the Victorian Supreme Court, I couldn’t really say
I’d love to be there when the first defence SC says in a very soft voice but with a slightly supercilious expression: “We’ll be opposing the admissability of that evidence your Honour.”
JC, not the incompetence of the prosecutors, actually they were as bold as brass— even if it’s suspected that cops beat the shit out of some poor bastard to get a confession, their job is to prove otherwise on the balance of probabilities to get that evidence admitted. It was Cummins J’s error in law to admit that thoroughly CLEARLY contaminated evidence which was the stuffup.
If contaminated evidence is admissable, we may as well have have star chambers back again, or in your apparent recommendation, 10 second pronouncements of instant guilt in one sentence will be the procedure
I beg to differ, LE. The confession should never have been submitted into evidence. That’s the prosecutor’s fault. If they needed the confession then they didn’t have a case. If they didn’t need it, it should have been exempted. Now we have a situation where a probable Jihadist is out on the street because of the ineptitude of the prosecution.
Probable jihadist my arse, skribe. Jack Thomas is guilty of being a young fool and victim of political climate, is all. Just remember, he was not accused of plotting or planning anything.
Maybe they didnt have any other evidence, Skribe. Lots of political pressure on this one.
Incidentally, what evidence makes you think he’s a ‘probable Jihadist’?
LE, I’m so cranky tonight. Must be watching this daft episode of Cracker wot’s done it (I’m blameless, of course). Thanks for being polite again.
Pete
Very well:
“If contaminated evidence is admissible, we may as well have star chambers back again, or in your apparent recommendation”
I agree.
It wasn’t my point though, was it?
I would add one correction to your post: the prosecutors have to meet a higher bar than the balance of probabilities. In this case it has to be beyond reasonable doubt.
This isn’t my point though. Jihad Jack got off because there was lot of evidence he confessed that couldn’t be admitted because his request for legal representation wasn’t met. I don’t believe his accusation of torture was even considered by the court as being important compared to the first issue I raised.
His is a guilty as sin in my mind for these reasons:
1. He was picked up and or seen, at what the Pak authorities later found was an AQ safe house.
( I hope he wasn’t saying that he had a cleaning contract at this house because that would have been too funny)
2.He was using or had a forged passport in his possession
3.He was a known associate of Sheik M. Omran who had known links to a Spanish AQ cell.
5 there was American Intel linking this critter to various AQ elements in Pak
6. he confessed to agreeing to start up a sleeper cell in OZ for AQ.
His confession was readily given to OZ intel authorities in Pak and was thought to be reliable which some people have said led to further Pak arrests of terror suspects
On probabilities this guy is as guilty as sin in my mind. But unfortunately he got away.
Please bear in mind that the Appeals court is not a court that will rehear evidence, as that is not that job. They are there to consider procedural issues only and in this case the procedural issues were found to be important. Fair enough.
So the evidence against this guy still stands. The lower court obviously did its job finding against this person on the evidence, but the higher court find for him on procedure.
Lawyers at this site could correct me if I am wrong but it is very difficult to turn a case on appeals over evidentiary issues alone.
This guy is till a bad dude, despite getting off.
LE re
That could be the understatement of the whole case. Meaning the trial was a waste, a travesty and I agree, most likely behind the scenes there were some political shenanagans.
Prediction: The latest “scare” in London looks like it could be going the same way as the trial of Thomas, with a crucial witness caught,… guess where?………. in PAKISTAN no less. It’s turning out to be the largest fishing expedition of all time, which is highly questionable and legally reprehensible. It seems that the Bushovics blew the whistle on this before the Brits were ready, no prizes for guessing why.
When it comes to slimebag politicians with their so called “anti-terrorism” legislation, cases such as Jack Thomas’ stand out simply because the political opportunistic stench of a Tony Blair or John Howard to secure a conviction, any conviction, for political gain, not justice–is palpable
Yes, it did look questionable (London).
Until a news bulletin tonight .
They were supposed to have found a few suitcases of the liquid explosives in a house connected to few of the people under arrest.
“When it comes to slimebag politicians with their so called “anti-terrorismâ€? legislation, cases such as Jack Thomas’ stand out simply because the political opportunistic stench of a Tony Blair or John Howard to secure a conviction, any conviction, for political gain, not justice–is palpable”
And Howard connected to this case other than being the had of government. Did he offer evidence in the case?
Don’t you, JC? You’d better read the judgement, then, hadn’t you?
Not true. He was arrested at Karachi airport. Now, do you have any idea about the Pakistani military police?
He was acquitted of this.
This is one of the more laughable of your assertions, JC. No evidence. Why do you suppose he’d been set free by the feds? And why do you think a jury found him not guilty of this charge? Or does the jury system not work, either?
Well, the jury, even presented with inadmissable evidence, found him not guilty of this. But blogger JC reckons he is.
Information extracted under torture in a lawless Pakistani prison is not evidence.
In fact, the lowest courts did not think the evidence was admissable.
A jury disagreed. An appeal court disagreed. But JC, who has never met Jack Thomas, and knows little about the case, says he’s a bad dude.
Damn
And Howard IS connected to this case other than being the head of government. Did he offer evidence in the case?
A great win for the rule of law, due process and democracy. However I’m thinking this is all bad news for David Hicks.
It was bad enough earlier this week when Ruddock compared Hicks to the gang rapist Bilal Skaf, now because of this decision I think that Hicks will rot in Gitmo befor this Govt makes an effort to uphold a a semblance of due process. The Govt will probably feel they need some kind of conviction to justify their capitulation to an unlawful military justice system and anti terror laws that were not necessary in the first place.
Oh, and apparently Ruddock also thinks we’re all communists for thinking the rule of law and natural justice should apply to cases like these.
What a crazy mofo.
JC re
Wrong. What we are talking about is the voir dire, a “trial within a trial” without the jury, where the defence wants to strike out the “tainted” evidence. The onus is then on the prosecution to prove on the balance of probabilities that it was not tainted/gained by torture–whatever. It’s somewhere in the Evidence Act 1995 Cth which I’m too lazy to find.
The trial itself, after the voir dire is then with an onus on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Very easy in fact, the evidence being inadmissable as a question of law, not fact, and in the apparent absence of other non-confessional evidence, the conviction is quashed. No evidence no case.
Which are not justifiable reasons by the laws of evidence in Australia. Like hearsay evidence generally–inadmissable.
WG sez:
“He’s guilty of being a young fool and victim of political climate, is all. ”
If you were Jack’s mum I could accept that statement, but you’re not.
The “young, impressionable fool” thesis is glib when the plain fact of the matter is that Thomas chose of his own volition, at the age of 27, to join and train with a group that he knew to be fascist, totalitarian, oppressive of women and gays and actively involved in the murder of civilians for political ends.
On the other hand I accept the verdict of the court. And I detest the use of torture and the denial of justice to the accused that so many of our arch conservatives now regard as essential in the “war on terror”.
As I’ve said many times, it is far better for guilty or bad men to walk free than for our cherished Anglo-Saxon legal principles to be needlessly sacrificed.
“Very easy in fact, the evidence being inadmissable as a question of law, not fact, and in the apparent absence of other non-confessional evidence, the conviction is quashed. No evidence no case.”
good point. you’re a better armchair lawyer than I could ever hope to be…..and very well put.
However it kind of points to what I have been saying in a less elequent way(mine). The lower court didn’t find any problem with the evidence against Mohamoud Jack. The jury was swayed by its credibility except that it wasn’t allowed for procedural reasons as was found on appeal.
He’s not an armchair lawyer, JC. He’s a real lawyer.
Munn:
I’m not his mum, Munn, but I know Jack Thomas.
Really? Pray tell. How did you deduce this, Munn?
That is, how did you deduce that he sought to train with this group and how did you deduce that he knew this group had these features?
And please, JC, refrain from name-calling. He is not Mahamoud Jack, and nor did he ever call himself Jihad Jack. Name-calling isn’t part of civil stoushing. Nor are baseless allegations.
No, WG, I think it’s arguing with ignorant fools who have zero understanding of the legal system and the principles upon which it rests that’s done it.
Well… that too!
It’d be better if everyone refrained from calling others names, quite frankly, adrian.
I’m sorry Mark, but it’s the truth. The level of ignorance is astonishing. And if people like JC actually believe what their typing then they are morons.
Make that ‘they’re typing’ !!
WG says:
“I’m not his mum, Munn, but I know Jack Thomas.”
No you don’t. Even if you’ve met him a couple of times it is absurd to claim that you really know him at any meaningful level.
As for the rest of my comment, Al-Qaeda has never made any attempt to conceal its agenda. Also, if you have any evidence that Thomas did not act on his own volition, please furnish it.
You appear to be some type of zealot who oscillates between extreme positions. For example, by your own admission you were a Liberal voter with anti-Arab racist sentiments but now you appear to have adopted an equally banal Far Left persona.
adrian, let me put it this way. This site is not a free for all, and I’d ask people to stop reflecting unfavourably on others rather than their arguments.
Weathergirl just called for JC and others to show respect for Thomas’ family and not apply that moniker to him. I concur. That call is undermined if people here can’t show basic respect for each other.
That goes for you too, steve. The topic of the thread is not your analysis of Weathergirl’s politics or personal qualities or whatever.
Everyone should get back on topic and debate civilly.
Steve, you have no idea how many times I’ve met Jack, so I’d be more careful. More about this case is coming out soon, so watch what you assert lest you embarrass yourself.
And you didn’t answer my questions.
Now, before resorting to insulting me (yes, as I’ve explained —not “admitted” —I once voted Liberal, and yes, as a girl I thought Arabs were yuck because I was influenced by my Zionist boyfriend), think again. Think back, say, to the time you attempted to slur my arguments with the “man-hating 70s feminist” accusation. Think to now accusing me of being on the Far Left, instead of engaging with my arguments. Think about those tactics, and think also about who among your colleagues is reading this.
And think about what Mark just wrote about name-calling.
WG
Didn’t know Pete was a lawyer. At least his bio doesn’t say he is, I thought.
Ok fine, no name-calling.
You can pick up all the answers you asked from my discussion with Pete.
Now would you mind answering those I asked? As I have stated repeatedly I have no problem with the courts decision, but please spare me the missive he wasn’t messing around with bad dudes in Pak…… and all the other stuff that came out in the lower court.
I don’t wanna hear he was in Pak looking for cleaning contracts.
You met him many times. Fine. But that doesn’t lend any credibility to squashing those facts about him that came out in the lower court. Not all accused admit to guilt specially to journalists….. and especially when he pleaded not guilty to terrorist charges.
WG
It’s pretty rich castigatiing me for messing about with his name when the title of the post references the nick name.
WG sez:
“Think about those tactics, and think also about who among your colleagues is reading this.”
Presumably this is a reference to the Greens and some type of thinly veiled threat.
Now back to Jack Thomas. I saw his interview on Australian Story. It was abundantly obvious from that interview that Thomas has the charm and intelligence to convincingly pull off a cock’n'bull story to explain why he chose to train with a murderous and terrorist outfit.
A further point, even if Thomas had scant knowledge about Al Qaeda when he joined them, which I don’t believe, then the truth of what he got himself involved in would have been apparent within days. This is because of (a) the propaganda training he received and (b) the talk that would have gone on around the campfire. I seriously doubt Thomas’s fellow trainees sat about discussing poetry and the merits of various wine vintages. Nope, the scuttlebut would have had a distinctly paramilitary flavour.
I also cannot help but note that David Irving, Eric Butler and the folk at the John Birch Society also employ the “misguided good ‘ol boy” thesis as an explanation for why white youths join neo-Nazi groups.
As is so often the case, Far Left and Far Right appear to inhabit a parallel universe.
Question for you JC, were they “bad dudes” when they were evicting the Russians?
I think there is a real need in this debate to keep political aspects such as assertions of people being “bad dudes” a mile away from what is regarded as traditional criminal law. Not to do so historically, gave us mob justice and lynch squads.
I’m for some shut eye, g’night all.
With due respect to everyone, Joe, the title was not weathergirl’s decision but Rob’s. And I presume Rob put inverted commas there deliberately.
Anyway, please play nice, folks, whether you’re left or right. Too late at night for me to be watching this anymore. And there’s a Roxy Music song on Rave right now!
Steve, I’m not going to dignify your nonsense with a response, other than this one. You have no idea about this story. There’s plenty more to come out.
Adding to Peter Kemp’s comments: were they bad dudes when America supported them?
I have just home after an evening working (playing guitar) and just heard about this. My gut reaction was to say “great – another one escapes a legal process that is so obviously set up for political reasons to produce political prisoners”. Whether or not you agree with people like Jack Thomas – or David Hicks or any of the other people that are currently locked down in supermax prisons awaiting trial – it appears as though we have moved into a society where these people are being prosecuted – and judged in the court of public opinion – not on what they have actually done, but on the basis of who they are and what they believe in. I never thought to live in a society that put thoughtcrimes on the statute books. At the risk of repeating a cliche, let’s all remember Voltaire and his willingness to defend the right of anyone to say and promulgate views that he profoundly disagreed with. And if Jack Thomas was such a threat to Australia and Australians, why was he left to roam the community for months before being committed for trial… That’s my two cents worth, anyway.
Cheers…
Well said. And a jury found him not a threat to Australia. He was found not guilty of the most serious charges.
Sorry Mark, my mistake, as I just assumed WB wrote the piece.
WB
” And a jury found him not a threat to Australia. He was found not guilty of the most serious charges”.
No, Wg that’s isn’t correct. A jury did find him guilty and subsequently convicted him. An appeals court, (which doesn’t have a jury sitting), found in his favour due to technical issues relating to procedural matters.
No, JC. He was charged with four offences. A jury found him not guilty of the most serious two of these. They found him guilty of altering his passport and accepting cash from someone linked to a terrorist organisation, based in most part on “evidence” that wasn’t.
1. Tampering with a Taliban-issued visa on his passport to disguise the time he had spent in Afghanistan.
2.He had been given $3,500 (US) to fly back to Australia by an al-Qaeda member, one Khaled bin Attash. Attash is believed to have been involved in the attack against USS Cole in Aden in 2000.
These are the two “less minor” offenses he was convicted for by the jury in the lower court.
Yes, they less serious than other other two, but I wouldn’t exactly call them shop lifting convictions.
Nice company Mr. Thomas keeps.
I hope the money wasn’t earnings from cleaning jobs?
“I never thought to live in a society that put thoughtcrimes on the statute books.”
Obvously Mick doesn’t live in Victoria.
Rob, now and then you surprise me. This is so true.
JC, I have some informed responses to the allegations you got from the tabloids, but I’m too goddam tired, and will post them in the morrow.
Actually, on second thoughts, no, you can find the all the answers on the thread Robert linked to, so some more homework for you.
I think this thread is about the current case, not past ones. It was a mistake to thrash over them yet again. We’ve done so several times on LP, Joe. So you can dig there for the response to your allegations.
Joe, I don’t think in a way what he was doing over there is relevant. I don’t know him, and I don’t know, and I suspect no one but he knows really. I think the much more important point is the one a number of people have made – it’s absolutely essential that we defend the rule of law and due process as fundamental values and institutions in our society.
Robert Richter QC said it well on Lateline – if the government thinks this decision of the Court is a problem, then all of us who believe in justice have a problem with the Government.
Going way back up the thread to Phil’s comment:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/18/newsflash-jihad-jacks-convictions-quashed/#comment-129787
It was bizarre that Ruddock came out making pro-Hicks back to Australia noises on Monday (in an attempt to influence the dissidents on the excision bill, or out of some bizarre guilt when they were acting on principle and what’s left of his heart strings tugged something) and then reverted to repulsive form the next day. The comparison with the rapist was abhorrent.
WG says:
“Think to now accusing me of being on the Far Left, instead of engaging with my arguments. Think about those tactics…”
I wouldn’t be so smarmy if I were you. You obtained the Greens membership list and my details on it and accessed my details from the Australian Electoral Commission. Both actions were unethical and the former is potentially illegal. If you are not a zealot then how do you explain these actions?
Back on topic, the rule of law is far more important than a single conviction, or a dozen convictions for that matter. Hopefully Thomas has learnt a lesson and will go on to lead a useful life.
Mark
I fully appreciate what your saying that this guy isn’t a big player in the whole scheme of things and Munn’s comment is probably close to the Mark, in that we can hope this was lesson well learned and he makes himself useful.
However I don’t have any solutions and only see problems ahead was we try to figure how the hell we deal with this monster that keeps wanting to do us harm.
I keep thinking our legal system was never set up to deal with jihadis and the sheer numbers of them appearing at the doorstep of our courts. The problem is also extremely complex and multifaceted when take the international perspective into account. There exists the possibility that Australians or more approp. Western born individuals are picked up in various countries on suspicion of being terrorists or aiding terror networks.
I am not sure if our present legal system is able to cope with these complexities and that’s why the government no matter which stripe has to be given some latitude in trying to figure how we move ahead.
Maybe it comes to trying these people in separate courts where the rules of evidence isn’t so demanding. No, I’m just thinking aloud here.
I really don’t have an answer.
But balancing civil rights/protecting our citizens/dealing with the new issues invovled requires some real heavy lifting.
But surely that’s not factually right, Joe. How many people have been charged in Australia? About 20?
Kim
I was thinking more about western nations in general.
The readers of LP are jumping up and down with unmitigated happiness. I wonder if the families of the victims of terrorism will feel so happy. Real deaths of real people.
You can have your next big party when David Hick’s dad gets made father-of-the-year.
Maybe the procedure was wrong and JJ didn’t deserve to be convicted but I find it unbelievable that anyone can get joy from the activities of the Jihad Jacks and David Hicks of this world.
Now that Jihad Jack Thomas has been found not guilty in Australia, does it mean that he is to be returned to his point of arrest in Pakistan and released? hehehehehe…..
Jihad Jack is hardly innocent. He “coughed” to the Pakistani cops. Just because the Pakistani cops have have a refreshingly realistic approach to people who sit in the interview room & bleat “no comment” does NOT mean that the subsequent confessions are innaccurate.
Jihad Jack may be released, but he is a marked man. From now until his dying day he can count on his own private ASIO detail, on all his telephone calls being between more than just the two parties, on all his mail making a detour to the ASIO steaming room, etc etc etc.
Steve should try being not at the pub some time.. “Pakistani cops have a have have a refreshingly realistic approach to people who sit in the interview room & bleat “no commentâ€? … So it is OK for cops to sit across you, threaten you with electrodes to the genitals, allow US and Australian spooks to sit in on the “interview” (sorry, interrogation) and say that they will arrange for your wife to be raped, your children to left parentless and this merely is just “refreshingly realistic… Come on. I don’t know about Steve (despite spending too much time at pubs myself), but I know that in those circumstances I would say whatever those people wanted me to say. Ands I’d say it in spades. I would swear the truth out of existence if it helped to get me out of that immediate situation. Nobody – repeat nobody, especially a court – should ever try and argue that any statement made under those sort of conditions represents anything that could be relied on. Ever.
And as for ASIO spending time on him in the future – well I would personally hope that my tax dollars are spent with a lot more sense and discretion than that….
Cheers…
PS. I don’t live in Victoria….
Already done thanks in great part to our inheritance of a Brit legal system JC. The real question seems to me to be: do we want traditional criminal law based legal trials or Howard fear-inspired demonising, political trials?
The “Jihadi” labelling tells me the latter political trials of “bad guys” is the way Australia is heading, which means appeal courts will be additionally busy, resources will be wasted and the results will be counterproductive. Is that wise?
Why ever not? Crimes of violence are already illegal, as is conspiring to commit such crimes. Such people can be perfectly well tried under the existing criminal justice system.
I’m with Peter Kemp on being very, very leary indeed of any attempt to install a separate, special, and probably biassed political trial system. Go have a look at any of the countries which have had such systems – has there ever been one where the political trial didn’t end up as a tool of domestic oppression? It’s no good saying “oh, that would never happen here” – we need to be vigilant against any slipping in of the thin end of the political policing wedge.
I am with Steve Munn on this. The guy was conspiring with OBL and should have gotten some legal equivalent of a slap on the wrist to send the right signal. But blame the police for stuffing this up and having to extract their evidence by torture, don’t blame the courts. At the same time like JC I won’t be doing a dance of joy for anyone sympathetic to radical Islamism who would have most of the unbelievers on this site (including me) stoned to death for being unbelievers if he had his way. But it was the only possible decision by the courts given the circumstances.
I’m not interested in him personally, and therefore not celebrating his acquittal (if indeed he has been acquitted). But I think the fact that evidence obtained by dodgy means in a dodgy country has been ruled inadmissable is well worth celebrating.
And here’s the hymnsheet du jour from Choirmaster Murdoch:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20178381-601,00.html
Choice bit:
Proposition 1. Judges should ignore the law. Weren’t the tories bleating about judicial activism only yesterday?
Proposition 2. Let’s legalise torture.
I’ve got a better solution:
Let’s use the law effectively and legally. This principle may be novel to some but it has served us well for 800 years.
Well said Kim.. That’s exactly the point.
Katz
That is the lamest editorial I’ve ever read. Wasn’t Chris Merritt the AFR’s legal editor? I’ve seen his work in the Fin before and this really isn’t up to standard.
But Katz, it’s only “judicial activism” when judges apply other, old laws to counter the new, improved laws! See, all that stuff about precedence is what should get chucked out. New laws uber alles!
Chunder.
Jason, conspiring to do what–firing an AK47 in the general direction of the USA?
Criminalising “membership” of an organisation in inherently synonomous with politicising crime as compared to charging people for actual criminal acts such as causing death. We don’t for example criminalise a member of a gang of robbers for being “in company” until the gang actually commits an offence.
Much of the recent statutory criminalising of a terrorist organisations is actually a politically revamped version of the consorting laws, since abandoned in NSW I believe. Consorting with criminals then carried a fine of around $50 if I correctly recall, and somewhat dubiously I maintain as it always raised the question how do you define criminality in the absence of crimes? Likewise how do you define “terrorism” in the absence of “terrorism, ie someone with an IQ of 60 driving OBL’s wife around?” What about OBL’s wife’s cook–criminalising on the basis that people have to eat ?
How do you define membership in Al Queda for example, for a member of Hezbollah who attends a two week training course in an Al Queda camp—does that person then become branded for life as a member of Al Queda under Australian law, when OTOH the EU says Hezbollah is not a terrorist organisation, and that person would never be charged with anything in the EU?
I’m not saying governments can’t legislatively define what is a “terrorist organisation” but by going outside traditional criminal law concepts, they are making a mockery of the law. What they are doing is more like criminalisation of political ideology and thought than it is criminalising violent acts, and in that stupidity and political opportunism, many more trials will fail, because their foundations rest in politics, not valid jurisprudence.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jihad-jack-goes-free/2006/08/18/1155408020814.html
WG
What exactly are you telling us? Everyone pretty much agrees the judges handled the case within the proper parameters.
You’re not expecting us to believe Mr. Thomas was in Pakistan and Afgan because he likes mountain climbing are you? Or like his other bother in arms, he was there to pick up cleaning contracts.
What exactly are you pleased about? That the legal system did it’s job, or something else?
He got scored a free kick as a result of our decent legal system. I just hope the guy is scorned by anyone he goes near. Personally I wouldn’t even serve him at the local supermarket if I knew it was him.
So stop celebrating this guy, it unseemly.
Please be warned everyone that this is a right wing blog that tolerates no dissent. When it finds dissent it closes off the thread.
That’s crazy talk, dude.
The thread was closed off because it went way off topic, and we have a policy about not publishing stuff which carries on inter-blog wars.
See here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/17/who-is-sourcing-albrechtsen/#comment-129827
And there’s an open post where you can put up these kinds of comments. They’re not appropriate on this thread because they have nothing to do with it.
Sorry if you can’t work out netiquette, but please do try.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/19/saturday-salon-68/
Kim,
I am indeed sorry that you are incapable of accepting dissent. This is a right wing blog and people need to know it. You have also carried on inter-blog wars under that explicit topic so why do you deny it now? People who use the excuse of irrelevance to the thread to exercise censorship are indeed interesting. I’ve read threads on Albrechtson that have gone off onto the biology of racial difference with no one calling time, and when I’ve criticised this the thread was closed.
I said he should get a ’slap on the wrist’, Peter. it’s clear he had intentions to collaborate with AQ. I’m not a particularly bloodthirsty person but it’s to send the right signal. Unfortunately it’s all academic for the time being because our authorities didn’t do things properly.
is it just me or does anyone else think Pakistan is stooging us? They’re throwing us all the bad catches like this minor herring Jack Thomas and letting the bigwigs go scot free like the fellow who allegedly masterminded the recent London terror plot. Pakistan and the Sauds are really playing a two-faced game here, I think. Firget about Iran and Syria, further action should go towards breathing down their necks.
You can think what you like, Bartleby, about the nature of this blog. It’s pretty clear that the posters are all left wing. Many commenters aren’t. That’s fine – the purpose of the place is among other things to provide a space for discussion and debate. If you don’t like the way that’s conducted, that’s your right too, and there are many other blogs around and you might find one more congenial to you.
I’m well aware of the fact that you had an argument with Jason Soon and Bird at Bird’s blog. What we don’t want is that argument spilling over here – not from you, not from Jason, not from Bird (only about 10% of his comments here are allowed through the moderation filter). You should note that Jason was also cautioned not to respond to your comment on the other thread.
You appear to be having trouble understanding that there are conventions and norms on blogs generally, and particular rules on this blog. I’d ask you to abide by the latter. It’s not a free for all public space and participation here requires signing on to the rules of discussion.
One of the reasons for those rules is to stop discussions like this diverting attention from the actual topic. You should also know that there are no full time moderators, and moderation is really a matter of judgement calls and whether anyone’s watching at the time. It’s not always totally consistent, but we do our best.
I’m giving you some leeway because you’re obviously new to the blogosphere, but I won’t entertain any further meta-comments on this thread.
BTW Peter Hezbollah is irrelevant here. Hezbollah’s beef is with Israel, not us. How we treat them is a matter of foreign policy. AQ *is* a criminal organisation. It’s main reason for being is to commit terrorist acts against non-Muslim countries, it’s a criminal gang.
Joe, I’m going to delete your comment because it’s personally abusive and it’s a meta-comment, and I’ve just asked Bartleby – and this goes for everyone else – not to post any more meta-comments on this thread.
So he was tortured with the promise of consular assistance and the hope of being allowed to go home….?
And Bartleby, yours has been deleted as well. Jason Soon’s biog from the link from Catallaxy is of no relevance to issues to do with Jack Thomas and the court decision. If you’re implying Jason is not a lefty, well, hey that’s not news. Jason is not one of the bloggers here, but a regular commenter. But I’m serious now – no further comments on irrelevant matters on this thread. Next person to post one goes into the moderation filter and stays there until they explicitly promise to abide by our comments policy.
If he was tortured what did they do to him?
You guys wouldn’t be lying to us about Jack being tortured would you?
Inhuman bastards.
I dare say that’s right, Rob. Why anyone would expect anything else from the Pakistani authorities is beyond me. Let’s not forget that the Pakistani military and intelligence were and probably still are riddled with radical Islamists themselves.
To summarise: Jihad Jack ain’t on our side.
In a society which has a more realistic approach to traitors than ours, he would be thrown into the tower/given cement shoes/”taken for a ride”/pistol to the back of the skull in the woods/sent to a labour camp/whatever, depending which society was protecting themself against him.
He may as well live out his days in comfort, as now his own side won’t dare go near him, and ours will keep too close an eye on him for him to get up to any lone hijinks.
His jihad career is over. Pity it isn’t being ended the way it would be in Iran/Syria/Egypt/Pakistan/Afghanistan.
You appear to have deleted a post that I made which simply conveyed an official biography. I think it is important to know that the person that they are talking to has right wing credentials. If you don’t think that would be useful information for people to know and wish to censor it then that’s the problem with this blog?
FFS, Bartleby, everyone’s well aware of Jason’s politics. It’s not as though he makes any secret of them. His blog is explicit about his politics and no doubt you found the link there. I’ve told you I deleted the comment because you are obviously not debating the topic but seeking to divert discussion away to some sort of meta-discussion about Jason’s political leanings. Everyone knows that both right and left wing people post comments here. You’re not discovering some deep secret here. Read my previous comments please.
Please read the comments policy. There’s a link above the comments box. You’ll note that the thrust of it is that we ask people to debate the issues not each other.
I’ve been very indulgent with you.
I’ll say it one more time. For the reasons I’ve given above, if you or anyone else posts one more meta-comment on this thread, they will be prevented from further participation in debates here until such time as they explicitly agree to abide by the comments policy.
My gentle irony might have got lost in the post there.
Jason, you’ve got a good point. The links between Al Qaida and Pakistani intelligence are institutional, according to some commentators.
Agree Rob: There is certainly cause for discomfort when considering the allegiances of the Pakistani security services.
Remind me never to have that one too many at your pub, steve at the.
Mostly I just get the formulaic ‘I’m sorry sir I can’t serve you any more alcohol’ but I suspect your staff might have a bit more freedom of leverage.
God save us from realistic approaches!
Its very funny whats going on here.
No-one is saying
“My God. Its terrible JUST TERRIBLE what they did to poor Jack! I don’t care if he was bundled up with Al Quaeda. No human being nor even yet any ANIMAL deserves to be treated in this way…. Now if it was heading of a specific terrorist attack that might be different. But pushing needles through a mans testicles and then bringing that old German dentist in… It makes me just sick to think about it.”
No-one is saying anything like this. Yet you are all saying he was tortured. Now why are you saying this. Surely what they did to him. We can SPEAK about it can we not?
JC, so that screen you look at all day shows baked beans sales at the supermarket, not baked beans futures?
Jason re
As I asked JC, was it also a “criminal organisation” when it was evicting the Russians from Afghanistan?
Just on the Pakis, I think it may have been William Maley the other night talking to Phillip Adams who said Pakistan is playing a double game with the US in particular over the Taliban in Afghanistan. The claim was that because only behind-the-scenes pressure was being exerted it really meant that the US didn’t really care about what they were doing to support the Taliban.
The US, OTOH, seemed to think that if they got too heavy with the Pakis it would force them into a more radical camp and we’d end up with an A-bomb toting Muslim fundamentalist regime.
On torture, I wish I’d bookmarked the interview Adams had with an ex-FBI guy who said that the FBI had picked up an interrogation technique as far back as WW2 whereby you could get just about whatever info you wanted out of someone within 24 hours by making genuine human contact, getting beside them and getting inside their head.
Unfortunately the CIA had a different way of going about things that won out in official acceptance at the highest level in the US.
I often wonder how much influence TV has where bullies and rogue cops typically force confessions out of the baddies, forgetting that it wouldn’t happen unless the script writer so determined.
I am not commenting on the line in the thread because I know little about the case. But my pet hate is people like weathergirl who tell others in the thread with an opposing point of view to be careful how they answer because she knows more about the situation and watch for what comes out. It’s easy to sit back and shoot down arguments from those opposing when you are privy to information they aren’t. Why don’t you share it so we can all make an informed opinion, or to use your words STFU and just use the known facts whatever they may be.
Peter, you’re clutching at straws here. AQ was a criminal organisation after S11. Jack Thomas’ involvement was well before the Soviets in Afghanistan. And what makes you think I was on the side of the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets?
That whole battle is irrelevant now but I thought it was a mistake. I’d rather see a whole clutch of rational secularist communist regimes in the Middle East and Afghanistan than what we have now.
People have been a bit too quick to make indignant noises about torture in the context of ‘inadmissible evidence’. It appears from the Age article that wg linked that what was involved was actually inducements — seemingly along the lines of ‘co-operate or you’ll never see your mother again’.
I never knew that evidence obtained thusly was inadmissible, so you learn something everyday.
Not clutching at straws Jason, just trying to get you to acknowledge the Western hypocrisy that “terrorism” against the Russians was not “terrorism” but “terrorism” against the west comes under different rules. You have missed the whole point of my arguments against criminalising organisations instead of relying on traditional law which criminalises acts for which convictions are so transparently fair.
To be consistent, why are we not declaring the Bandidos and Comancheros criminal organisations and imposing jail sentences for membership of or financial transactions by those members to/from those organisations?
Poor old Jack such a misunderstood young man,Im sure his intentions at the end of the day were all honorable.Yea Right.
For mine Jack should have been deported back to Pakistan.Of course not the usual way,Jack should have been given a parachute and thrown out over the himilayan mountains.The parachute should be the new type they are using lately “Opens on impact”.
Rob, we could be witnessing Pakiphobia: they’re coloured folk so of course they tortured him.
I wish I could care more about this but I’m already prepping myself for a far bigger story that will be hitting the news in the next several weeks.
Peter Kemp – AQ apologist, supporter of Iranian exterminationism and phoney “rule of law” advocate – has predicted nuclear war in the Middle East before November.
Standby everyone.
So the middle east will finally be turned into a vacant car-park C.L.? (Just in time for Christmas!)
While I mostly agree with what you’re trying to say in this thread, Peter, I disagree that this is an example of hypocrisy. It isn’t hypocrisy to spend more time and effort trying to prevent terrorism against one’s own country. It’s more just political pragmatism.
Of course, that doesn’t necessarily make it more right or wrong, just that it’s probably not really an example of inconsistency – of either logic or morality.
A general reminder to all commenters that we require a valid email address to be entered in the comments field so that we can correspond with you about moderation decisions. That would most preferably be an email address you regularly check. As this doesn’t appear to be the case with Bartleby, we are reposting the email sent to him to draw it to his attention.
Ebenezer:
That;s a very fair point, Ebenezer.
And look, my bias is that I think the guy is an innocent fool. I have a born-again Christian brother who, at around Jack’s age, did some very stupid things on par with what Jack did, in my opinion. And if I were in Jack’s position, in the wrong part of the world when the planes ploughed into the World Trade Center, and hearing about Guantanamo, I, too, would have accepted money and altered my passport (if he indeed did those things) just to get the heck out of there, and coughed up whatever I could to AFP if my family was threatened by the Pakistani police.
But if my bias wasn’t that Jack is innocent, I would still celebrate this Appeals decision. Habeas corpus, rule of law, liberal democracy, etc.
Standing alone Anna, that sentence of yours is true, my point being that the CIA armed and helped create Al Q in the first place, to evict those pesky Russians from Afghanistan. Now that Al-Queda is trying to evict the USA in particular from the Middle East, the wheel has turned full circle, and branding and criminalising Al Q a terrorist organisation for doing to the US (bad) what they did to the USSR (good) is the height of hypocrisy. That’s all mainly a macro political viewpoint, not a legal argument. And there’s the rub, Blair Bush and Howard are conflating geopolitical realities and international law with domestic anti-terrorism law.
The thrust of my argument at the purely legal level is that it’s much more effective to achieve convictions by refining what are criminal acts rather than going the ad hoc way of arbitrary and inconsistent categorisations of terrorist organisations by proclamation and court deliberations of jurisprudentially ridiculous, statutory concepts. The laws are designed to get convictions as does a star chamber, but as the appeal showed, justice ultimately prevailed.
Sorry for this.
Bartelby, rather than wasting everyone’s time by posting repetitive comments which won’t be allowed through the moderation filter, it would be much better if you checked the hotmail address you have supplied us. If you did so, you’d find that I’ve actually tried to engage you in dialogue about what you’re trying to achieve with your comments about Jason’s biog.
That’s the last word. I promise.
I agree with various commentators heree, starting with Jason: Pakistan is clearly playing a double game – as most of the US’ allies’ in teh region do – Saudis are the obvioud one.
Id just also note that Pakistan has the bomb – and nobody’s freaking out in a blind panic about that in the West. Why not? Is it because we’re aware its a standoff device in the relationship with India?
Agreed, Peter. Like I said, I agree with your overall take on the debate, but was just making a pedantic debating point, and suggesting one area where you and Jason may have been talking past each other slightly.
Eeesh. Innocent until proven guilty, illegality of torture. These aren’t hard concepts, people, but they’re at the core of our moral and legal universe. Why you’d want to destroy them to fight terrorism I can’t understand.
They didn’t torture him Leinad.
I’ve been told that he was THREATENED with torture and that one guy assaulted him.
Don’t by lying and telling us he was tortured.
I believe the term is “surrender monkeys”, Leinad.
Illegality of torture refers to threats of torture as well, Birdy, unless you think there’s some way that Thomas was meant to “know” that they wouldn’t really torture him just because they said they would. “Confessions” obtained under such conditions are inherently unreliable.
Well I’d like to see the legislation for that. You might be right. But Leinad said there was torture as a lot of you people have been saying there was torture.
Yet there WAS no torture so it seems you guys have been lying all this time.
As far as I can figure it from the press reports, the apeal court’s decision appears to be based on the fact that Thomas’ admissions were obtained through inducement, not torture. He may have been threatened with torture at some stage, but it seems not to have been the reason for his conviction being quashed. Gues we need to wait for the publication of the judgement to get the full picture.
In other words the confession was a dud because it was obtained under duress.
And only the other night I saw a good example of Sinophobia on the ABC, with allegations (from a Canadian) that the Chinese are cutting up dissidents for spare parts. Sneaky stuff, this racism.
What I really like about this comments thread is the rich irony – while us deluded lefties reckon this is a triumph for due process and the rule of law which, as we all know, the Left is dedicated to overthrowing, what do we get from the self-styled defenders of old-style freedom, democracy and all that jazz? A lot of complaints that the rule of law wasn’t properly suspended in Thomas’ case.
I think it’s time I moved to an ISP who provides barf-bags.
Not quite Gummo. Some of us are just quietly shaking our heads that the lunar left are licking their lips at having found found another nominee for their Australian of the Year list.
The court heard he was also hooded, beaten and chained to walls, if I recall correctly. Allegedly Pakistani police threatened to rape his wife, he was kept without food and water, made to sleep on wet concrete floors. This is on public record.
“The court heard he was also hooded, beaten and chained to walls, if I recall correctly. Allegedly Pakistani police threatened to rape his wife, he was kept without food and water, made to sleep on wet concrete floors. This is on public record.”
OK.
Now thats better.
The court ‘hearing’ is very different to the court ‘finding’, though. Maybe these allegations are true, maybe not. But on the incomplete information available to us, it seems the court found that the AFP did not ensure due process according to Australian law, which they should have done, by permitting the offering of inducements to Thomas which led to his admissions to the Pakistani police. If that’s correct, it seems to be a very proper finding, but says nothing about the allegations of torture.
Such sophisticated left wing commentary! Keep it up.
Why thank you Bartleby.
I assume you’re being sarcastic though.
I’ve tried to explain to you on this thread at great length where we’re coming from.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/25/history-summit-wars/#comment-130104
Read from there and scroll down.
I don’t think Rob and Bird believe they are writing “left wing commentary” though. The authors of posts here are left wing, but we encourage commenters of all views.
“he was also hooded, beaten and chained to walls…”
I know people who pay good money for that type of thing. Lucky devil.
Chris Merritt has done himself a great disservice with that rant. It’s the sort of thing you might hear on red neck talk back radio. But he’s the legal editor a supposedly serious national newspaper, and yet he’s made it clear he holds the courts and the rule of law in contempt. Merritt makes his living by getting people in the legal profession to tell him things. I doubt whether any of them, regardless of their politics, will want to talk to him again.
“Some of us are just quietly shaking our heads that the lunar left are licking their lips at having found found another nominee for their Australian of the Year list.”
Not as weird as expected Observa, but not bad.
Aside from the fact that not one comment above relates to your wish fulfillment, I suspect you and the others in Head Office may miss the point. As per D Hicks, Thomas may well be guilty of something, but in the rush to make examples of the first people collected in the drift net fishing, administrative SNAFUs have let down all ’stralians.
What’s enjoyable is not Thomas’ freedom per se. It’s you and the Head Office boys twisting yourselves in knots trying to turn this into another GWOT victory.
Good luck with that.
Bartleby – you were quite a good, thoughtful commentator for a while there. But, with respect, you need to rummage in the medicine cabinet for a man-size chill pill, dude. Its getting a tad churlish.
We all know who’s left, right and in-between here, and as far as Im aware, no one’s been pretending to be anything they’re not.
My advice: turn over a new leaf with a fresh moniker and rejoin the action.
Jason, I said he should get a ’slap on the wrist’, Peter. it’s clear he had intentions to collaborate with AQ. I’m not a particularly bloodthirsty person but it’s to send the right signal.
Are you suggesting the rule of law should have a political aspect to its decisions? Shouldn’t the rule of law be apolitical and purely rational? Isn’t that the only way non-arbitrary outcomes can be guaranteed?
Cam, go back and read carefully everything I wrote and don’t be going off on platitudes and taking my words out of context. How much more vigorous do you want me to make my agreement for chrissakes? It sounds like you all want the most vigorous mutual nodding of heads in the known universe:
Jason, I didn’t mean it that way. It was an honest question.
It sounds like you all want the most vigorous mutual nodding of heads in the known universe
heh, It seems we all get jammed into groups no matter how much we try to stay independent and out of it
“Are you suggesting the rule of law should have a political aspect to its decisions? Shouldn’t the rule of law be apolitical and purely rational? Isn’t that the only way non-arbitrary outcomes can be guaranteed?”
If that is the case he ought still be in jail surely.
Because the allegations of assault and various other threats can’t easily be proved.
WG high fives the release of Jihad Jack (“Jihad” is his real name, he changed after converting to Islam) and proclaims it a victory for justice and then WG used an uncorroborated and unsubstantiated allegation as evidence;
The court heard he was also hooded, beaten and chained to walls, if I recall correctly. Allegedly Pakistani police threatened to rape his wife, he was kept without food and water, made to sleep on wet concrete floors. This is on public record.
Its also on public record that JJ was, and may still be, an AQ operative.
There is no doubt that JJ trained at an AQ military camp (ref Lackawanna Six) and on his own admission that he was working with AQ so therefore it can be assumed that he would be fully versed on the AQ manual on fictional cover stories and interrogation techniques and that anything and everything that he says must be treated as totally untrue.
WG and others need to ask how the public interest will be served by allowing to go free a man who is an unrepentant enemy of the country.
Rog, have you ever thought of applying for a job at the Directorate of Public Prosecutions? You’d do an ever so much better job the then did with JJ.
If all of this was correct, why rely on coerced confessions?
Maybe you’ve been struck by the same worrying thought that keeps me pacing the floor in the dead of night…
You don’t think there may be a Jihadist Fifth Column inside the DPP white-anting the GWOT by deliberately botching prosecutions?
By the Beard of the Prophet, perish the thought!
Rog and others need to ask how the public interest will be served by declaring as the enemy long established legal principles such as not admitting coerced confessions into evidence.
If the law isn’t working, it is our job to change it.
The confession made to the media last year was not “coerced”, he readily confessed to being an AQ, you guys are clutching at straws.
Jails are full of innocent people – you just ask them.
Next time an Aussie AQ gets caught – leave him there, Pakistan will try them under the law, maybe Sharia Law.
But Rog, as far as I know, this wasn’t admitted into evidence. Judges can decide only on the facts presented to them.
Is this such a difficult idea to grasp?
Otherwise judges could decide cases on what Andrew Bolt or Philip Adams tells them in their newspaper columns.
What a silly notion!
And if this newspaper “confession” wasn’t admitted into evidence, maybe we’re (gasp) back to the Jihadist-Fifth-Column-in-the-DPP scenario! [Cue spooky music.]
You are saying that he is innocent because the evidence used was coerced and innocent again because other evidence not coerced was not used.
Reminds me of the murder case against Dean Waters, despite his confession that he had committed the murder a shrinks report was used as evidence and he walked free whilst the accessory Cooper got jail. Nobody argued that Waters did not do it, they successfully argued that he had been brainwashed.
You just keep pacing that floor Katz
Rog,
Do you understand the difference between being innocent and being found not guilty?
JJ may be as guilty as sin. Problem is to be found guilty, the prosecution must:
1. Present evidence to that proves guilt in the view of a jury
2. Demonstrate that evidence must be gained in a legal way in the view of a judge, or a panel of judges.
3. Present that evidence to the court in a judicially approved way.
I repeat. Please note that I am quite willing to stipulate that JJ may indeed be guilty.
So you are saying that it his guilt is irrelevant? Hardly seems worth arresting him at all, just shoot him.
sigh
And with statements like that we become exactly what we are supposed to be fighting. Great stuff Rog, for the moderates on either side.
“and on his own admission that he was working with AQ so therefore it can be assumed that he would be fully versed on the AQ manual on fictional cover stories and interrogation techniques and that anything and everything that he says must be treated as totally untrue.”
Yep. AQ operatives are taught to claim they have been tortured if they get captured as such claims fulfill a propaganda role. We have no way of knowing if Thomas is following the script or telling the truth.
Except that we do. A panel of three Appeals judges unanimously decided and were satisfied that this “admission” was extracted under torture by the Pakistani imprisoners. The defence would have had to have proved this beyond reasonable doubt.
Except that we don’t. The appeal from what I’ve read succeeded on the basis that the AFP did not prevent the Pakistanis from offering inducements to Thomas to obtain his admissions. That is not the same as extracting a confession by torture.
The point’s been made already, Rob. There’s effectively no difference. If someone threatens they are going to torture you, how do you know they won’t?
And how do they threaten you Kim? your morning coffee is cold? nuance?
Obviously guilt is not the issue, its one of being “comfortable”
Funny sort of justice you panty twisters espouse.
The information is still very limited on this, but as far as I can see the AFP allowed themselves to be party to an interrogation process that saw the Pakistanis saying something like, ‘Co-operate with the AFP and you get full consular assistance and a trial in Australia. Failing that you get 20 years in a Pakistani prison. What’s it to be?’ Admissions were duly forthcoming.
If this process is contrary to Australian legal process, the AFP should not have allowed it and the evidence obtained as a result was tainted. It appears that this is what lay behind the appeal court’s finding.
It nevertheless seems to me to be a long way from obtaining a confession by torture.
What’s the source for that, Rob?
rog, have you been hanging out with observa? That comment is weird, dude.
weathergirl’s link to The Age article and a similar piece in the SMH.
Specifically (from a previous comment):
I’m not saying Thomas wasn’t tortured or threatened with torture. These allegations have been made; we do not know if they were true or not. All I’m saying is that people on this thread are wrong in saying, over and over, that Thomas’ conviction was quashed because the appeal court fround his admissions had been obtained under torture. The available information simply does not say that.
Another twist from the Australian’s version of the story: Thomas was not given the right to remain silent. Now that clearly conflicts with Australian due process and the AFP should not have allowed it.
Alice sez:
“The defence would have had to have proved this beyond reasonable doubt.”
Maybe in Wonderland, Alice, but not under our Anglo-Saxon system of justice.
And what Rob said.
Nonetheless, in spite of Rog’s bravado, the threat of totrure would make most of us shit our pants. The courts got it right, end of story.
Perhaps we should wait for the reasons for judgement, Rob, rather than speculating on the basis of press reports which might be partial or inaccurate. Just sayin…
Well, yes, and I’ve said so somewhere above. But at least I referred to the available information instead of leaping to the conclusion that the verdict was quashed because admissions were obtained under torture in the toal absence of any information to that effect.
Ugh. I just waded through this thread, and it’s pretty bad — though I think that’s because the media coverage has been awful (especially Chris Merritt’s pathetic rant) and hasn’t really given a clear picture of the decision.
Anyway, the decision has now been published: R v Thomas [2006] VSCA 165 (rtf). Maybe now we can discuss what actually was decided, rather than some second- or third-hand speculation?
I’d like to highlight the fact that the AFP knew all along that they were going to face admissability problems. AFP Officer Williams, one of the officers who conducted the disputed interview, acknowledged in a case note prepared the next day that there were “obvious admissibility issues attached to this interview” (at [41]of the judgment). The day after that, AFP Officer Pike (attached to the Australian High Commission in Pakistan) wrote to the Pakistani authorities to complain about their inflexibility (at [42]):
I highlight this merely to illustrate that this is not an example of “judicial activism”, in which the Court has bent the law to favour the accused. Rather, it is an example of the Court upholding longstanding legal safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of power — safeguards of which the AFP were well aware at the time of the interview, and to which they tried (unsuccessfully, as it turns out) to adhere.
Of course, they could have avoided these “obvious admissibility issues” if they’d waited until Thomas was back in Australia before they interviewed him. The Court of Appeal is convincing on this point (at 46]):
The Australian High Commission’s Mr Adams reported a fortnight before the interview that (at [47]):
Really, Katz and a few others deserve an award for staying calm and rational when facing the bone headed ignorance of a select few commentators.
The rule of law and its attendant principles is such an important foundation of our democratic society that we are supposedly intent on safeguarding, that only someone with zero understanding of these principles would even contemplate their removal.
On the “bone-headed ignorance of a select few commentators” on this and other threads: see the mischievously-titled “Why I respect Tim Blair” on http://www.leftwrites.net/
I said at WG’s 25 July post
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/25/judge-should-please-explain/#comment-117502
As their Honours said in the link (appeal) provided by Robert:
On the torture issue I said
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/07/25/judge-should-please-explain/#comment-117740
What I didn’t know was the circumstances of what turned out to be a “constructive cumulative” coercion.
So, the grounds for the appeal were successfully accepted, namely
ground 1: Admissions not voluntarily made
ground 2: Even if voluntary, the discretion was exercised wrongly and contrary to public policy.
[ How did you make out Robert?
]
Mea culpa, Peter. I made sure I posted this latest news as soon as I could, lest people accuse me of ignoring it.
Still, allow me to try to explain myself a little bit. In the previous thread, I was playing devil’s advocate to a certain extent — I made it pretty clear from the outset that I was not familiar with the full details of the case, but was trying to clarify what Cummins J did and did not hold in his judgment. However, I admit slipping “into character” a little bit too readily as the discussion went on and I got cranky.
I was quite open about the fact that I was in no position to argue the merits of the “voluntariness” aspect of the case. In fact, my first comment in the thread asked for “those who are more knowledgeable” to step forward. I asked for more information about those claims the whole way through the discussion.
The appeal decision includes a very much more fulsome description of the situation Thomas was in, including the nature of the inducements made to him and the AFP’s acquiescence in them. I must say, having read that fuller description, I find it hard to see how Cummins J could accept Thomas’s will was not overborne.
On the breach of s23G, I thought Cummins J was on reasonable ground, because the AFP had no opportunity for a later interview. However, as I pointed out in my comment on this thread, the appeal court decision shows that that the AFP had every reason to believe they would soon have access to Thomas in Australia. Had I known then what I know now, I could not have held the same position.
The Court of Appeal put another strong argument against Cummins J, at [109]-[112]:
This is a very powerful argument which did not occur to me, and which, if it was raised in the other thread, I unfortunately missed.
So, in a nutshell — yes, I was wrong, but I was up front about taking my position based on sparse information, and I’m happy to admit I was wrong now that further and better information is available.
Thanks for the link weathergirl.
I’ll read it closely when I have time, but from a cursory reading it seems to be on the right track. Certainly food for thought for the administrators of this and other blogs. I know of a few people who simply can’t be bothered anymore, as a direct result of the offensive garbage posturing as genuine comment that they are forced to wade through on this blog.
Having said that, Peter and Roberts’ comments above are good examples of why it is worth it.
Really, Katz and a few others deserve an award for staying calm and rational when facing the bone headed ignorance of a select few commentators.
Katz has already said elesewhere that she wants to see Saddam reinstated as President of Iraq.
Katz has opined here that guilt (or innocence) is not the primary issue in justice.
Katz is rational, and calm.
Bullshit rog. Ye of the bone head.
Actually Rog, Katz is correct in that the whole appeal was about admissability, and was the primary isssue. Guilt, the secondary issue was quashed by rejecting its admission in Cummins J’s lower court.
Despite many RWDBs who want to throw all perceived enemies into jail without due process, and also throw away the keys, the case was all about long-held, hard-fought-for legal rights which will not disappear just because those RWDBs have simplistic irrational childish neo-con inspired fears of phantom enemies which have not coincidently replaced “reds under the bed.”
The Victorian Supreme (Appeal) Court said there is a process and it must be adhered to. Period.
Robert, it was sort of meant as a rhetorical question but we both suffered from not having all the transcripts at our fingertips, but I want to thank you sincerely for the debate, that’s what really matters, and so darned useful for honing my (at this moment slightly chateaux cardboard sozzled) grey matter
Thanks for the supportive words Adrian.
If only they could synthesise the imperviousness of the RWDB mind. They could coat the Space Shuttles with it.
They’d survive a million re-entries.
The whole criminal justice system is losing the plot; the decision by a jury was overthrown by 3 judges “who know better.”
What a joke, who do the courts act for, lawyers and the accused or victims?
Joe Cinque case was another farce where the responsibility of the guilty was diminished to the point of irrelevance, the victims were abandoned to deal with their grief whilst justice was “seen to be done”.
Shameful semantics
There you go!
At last, a practical suggestion from a RWDB.
If you RWDBs want to mount a campaign for reform, you ought to talk to us Lefties.
We Lefties have been the world champion reformers for at least the last 180 years.
So, any questions?
Criminal, equitable, property, succession, contract, torts, administrative, constitutional etc etc –whatever Rog, there’s a concept behind it, a purpose that it serves, sometimes incredibly difficult to grasp for people who can’t force it into (knee-jerk populist) submission: it’s called justice.
Katz: My question is what is an “RWDB” (someone may have explained before, memory fades in old age) & why am I one?
I am many things, but have never before been an acronym.
OK, SATP
How about Right Wing Dumb Bastard ?
rog, just a suggestion, but wouldn’t it be a good idea to know about something before criticising it??
I can provide you with many links to address your ignorance defecit if you are interested.