Comments on: Deadlines

By: joe2

joe2 — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:10:26 +0000

“You wonder what the ALP are up to sometimes.”

Indeed, wbb. They only jumped on the Hicks bandwagon after getting a feel from the polls that there is a vote in it. In fact they have shown very little interest in the individuals right to a speedy trial or release, locally. Preferring to go along with Howards fear mongering War on Terror.
But I guess you knew that anyway.

By: wbb

wbb — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:41:33 +0000

Go Senator Fielding. Smart move that. Actually going to Washington. Speaking to actual politicians. You wonder what the ALP are up to sometimes.

By: steve at the pub

steve at the pub — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 13:35:59 +0000

Graham Bell: Please copy & paste where I have EVER divided the world into “left” or “right”.

By: Graham Bell

Graham Bell — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:23:49 +0000

AnotherKim:
G’day. Please be my guest …….

By: Graham Bell

Graham Bell — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:21:09 +0000

SteveAtThePub and Observa:

Last night, when I criticized the Right for not supporting David Hicks because his case would have been a natural one for the Right to support, I honestly did not know that a Family First Party politician was in the United States lobbying Congressman there to have David Hicks returned to Australia. Fair dinkum, I did not know.

Say what you like about the Family First Party: earthly agents of the Anti-Christ; bible-banging b*stards; clever and dangerous harbingers of a Theocratic Australia; etc., etc., ….. they are always several jumps ahead of the other parties on the Right.

TheDevilDrink and SirHenryCasingbroke:

That ‘legal advisor” you fellows mentioned sounds like a right royal example of the evils of self-abuse.

Gentlemen, gentlemen! The correct expression – after saying or attempting to say “British Constitution” and “Sixty-six West Register Street” – is …..”As Jober As A Sudge”.

By: Another Kim

Another Kim — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:26:44 +0000

It was probably from the mouth of his nana or his mother..

but I am so stealing Graham’s phrase about “..now,have a very hard,very quiet think”.

I’m not only stealing it, I’ll be using it.

By: The Devil Drink

The Devil Drink — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:07:27 +0000

Any actual ideas on-topic

What, are you tripping?

By: Sir Henry Casingbroke

Sir Henry Casingbroke — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:05:17 +0000

You’re right DevilDrink. Must be just a cretin then. Any actual ideas on-topic about the legal conundrum faced by us all-night time-wasting tappers?

By: The Devil Drink

The Devil Drink — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:58:22 +0000

Is this man a habitual drunk?

Sir Henry, turn it up. A man can be an habitual drunk without being involved in the process of the law—and being a lawyer, as far as I’m concerned, is a far worse blight on someone’s character than just being permanently potted. Consider the folklore of folk law: the phrase “sober as a judge” is a backhanded compliment to judges just as much as it is a description of the sozzled non-lawyer in question.
A few of the comments on this thread, by the way, show the telltale signs of nights-on-the-keyboard-tiles, tap tap tap tap slouch ramble hyperbole tap tap tap. Bravo chaps and chappettes! Keep up the good absence of work.

By: Sir Henry Casingbroke

Sir Henry Casingbroke — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:37:49 +0000

Shurely shome mishtake? John Bellinger, the legal adviser to the US Secretary of State, according to today’s SMH, defended Hicks’s trial process as fair and denied Hicks was being charged under a retrospective law. But then he is also quoted saying – in mitigation of US action re Hicks – that there were tribunals using offences that were “obviously put down on paper much later than the conduct actually that was in question”. Is this man a habitual drunk? Or is it just a shortcoming in processing a logical train of thought? This is a legal adviser to the US Secretary of State?! Perhaps I am missing a legal subtlety here. I invite the legal geniuses at Catallaxy to please explain this one.