Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty has called for limitations on the criticism of Federal Police and government security agencies.
This guy is beyond a joke. Obviously smarting from the Haneef affair, and I hope justly concerned about how the judicial enquiry will judge his performance and that of the AFP. But seriously, what a petulant and absurd statement.
When you give more powers to the police they ALWAYS want more. If anything the conduct of the Haneef case demonstrates there should be more scrutiny of the AFP and security services not less. Among immediate bungles that come to mind is the falkse intelligence assessments provided for weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war, and the stuff ups over intelligence on East Timor. In any case, if the GWOT is a fight to defend and extend democracy (which I don’t think it is - more revenge for 9/11 and Western greed for Iraqi oil, as even that prat Brendan Nelson has admitted, then surely one doesnot “win” said war by destroying democracy in one’s own country? I know these are tired old arguments, but that doesn’t lesson their truthfulness or validity. To limit or destroy democracy at home is just doiing Al-Qaeda’s work for them, without them firing a shot or planting a bomb.
Maybe it’s just that we haven’t seen the whole speech (it’ll presumably go up on the Sydney Institute website soon) but I note a distinct absence of criticism of his former bosses for using his department for the basest of political purposes…
The speech… “Terrorism:Policing’s New Paradigm”…is yet to appear on The Sydney Institute website. Love to see the full transcript.
It is interesting to note that while Stephen Keim seems to be the lawyer most attacked, albeit unnamed, he is unable to respond directly because he is still under investigation for having released transcripts in support of his client Haneef.
“I can talk but nobody else, thankyou”….is what it all sounds like. A bit of a pattern there with Keelty, you would have to say.
Great news also… Mick also took a swipe at blogs according to Aunty.
“Among immediate bungles that come to mind is the falkse intelligence assessments provided for weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war, and the stuff ups over intelligence on East Timor.”
To be fair, Paul, we cannot blame Bill Keelty for that kind of bungle. The AFP don’t do that kind of thang.
What for? Because we knew his terrorism case was rubbish before he did?
Paul, the aim is to supplant one form of fascism with one more friendly to western business interests; limiting dissent in the name of “security” at home while toppling unfriendly leaders in countries with natural resources we desire.
Mick Kelty gave a speech arguing that the public interest is better served if all media scrutiny of ongoing AFP cases was withheld up until the time the defendants are charged in a court of law. A noble proposition but totally unworkable under the new terrorism laws.
What we have seen in recent cases is the AFP and State Police leaking key details of arrest locations so the camera can turn up for a giant publicity stunt organised by the arresting authorities. We then have selective leaking of the police interrogations of suspects to the media to enhance the police case and police public relations.
The Haneef case came unstuck for the AFP when the general public thought that charging someone with a terrorist offence for lending their almost expired prepaid SIM card to a relative 12 months ago was a joke. Simple or deliberate mistakes were then made by the AFP in transcribing interview evidence which severely prejudiced Haneef’s case. The AFP were caught out by the media with very sloppy police work overhung by a very political agenda. It is no wonder that Mick Kelty wants to control media scrutiny of his AFP’s actions.
Mick this is how it works. We the public give you great new powers to detain, without charge, suspects. The public then has the absolute right to examine your conduct in an open and transparent way to ensure that the trust we give you is not abused.
In the Haneef case, the AFP abused that trust and very rightly was pilloried for its incompetence. That’s the way a democracy works. To give the AFP the sole right to leak to the media favourable information for their case is an abuse of power and trust.
Proves, conclusively, that he is out of control Robert Merkel.
Only lunes read blogs, you know that.
Do you reckon Mick is a closet blogger?
Anyway, well done to him for creating the most awaited speech post silly season.
I also remember Kelty’s disgraceful remarks at the time of the Van Nguyen case. To paraphrase, he basically said that we were lucky that a drug trafficker was caught in Singapore where they’d off him and it wouldn’t be our problem anymore.
Remember their behaviour during the Scott Rush case in Bali? Scott Rush’s father dobbed him into the Feds before he committed the crime so that the Feds would stop him. What do they do? Keep him under surveillance, make sure the Bali police get to arrest him and, voila, death penalty. These people nauseate me.
I would never criticize Mick Keelty! Never!
But that Kick Meelty is sure a stupid bastard.
Ah, yes, the old “nacht und nebel” approach to law enforcement. Seriously, people like him scare me far more than a few bearded Islamic nutters. His malignity is only ameliorated by his incompetence.
And as I’ve said earler, all experience shows that giving coppers and spooks more powers tends to reduce their effectiveness. Because without transparency and accountability they rapidly become brutal, corrupt or inefficient - or commonly all three at once.
Joe2,
He was calling or less scrutiny of the AFP and the Security service.
Everyone,
What’s the bet we’ve all got AFP files for what we express on this blog? And for those of you who use monikers, presumably the AFP has a way past that. Just sayin’.
Hullo, Mr. Kelty. Hope you get a bit of a laugh sometimes, the way I do.
Frankly, he should be grateful he still has a job. Wanker.
Beyond the lack of merits of his non-argument what about the politcial intelligence of appearing at a Liberal party leaning institution to canvass issues that may become the matter of a judicial inquiry by a government of a differing political persuasion?
How smart is this?
the current government has not wanted to rock the boat but as evidence of political partisanship this is pretty well up there … his minister will be thrilled … not
or is he trying to get himself severance pay and get out?
No surprise that the ABC had Lord Henderson of the Privy Council on AM defending Kelty this morning. Being the expert that his Lordship is on legal matters it was the perfect choice.
Really that program has become a load of reeking cow manure in recent years, although cow manure can at least serve a useful purpose.
I think what he’s referring to is how Haneef’s legal team conducted his defence in the media with selective leaks and one-sided information in order to discredit the AFP. It only led to the AFP responding in kind with their own leaks, authorised or otherwise.
Pretty ugly all round. I’d be happy for both sides to be made to STFU until after the case - to the point where all defence lawyers fall under the official secrets act and face charges for disclosing material to the media.
However, if Keelty is going to go into bat for this, he’d be smart to go in with a better example than the Haneef one.
Craig, Keelty was leaking like crazy to start off with. Haneef’s lawyers reacted to that, and what Keim did wasn’t accurately characterised as a leak anyway since he was upfront about releasing information he thought ought properly to be in the public domain.
As Greg Barns wrote in Crikey today:
[link]
The AFP’s whole mo has been to leak details of terrorism charges to ensure a media circus which they thought would show them out there protecting the community, etc. It’s very rich indeed to turn around and whinge about people scrutinising their incompetence and defending their reputations against an avalance of crud planted in the press by the AFP in the first place.
What planet are you on? The only place the AFP should have done anything was in court. And their press conferences were a joke.
I think we’re in furious agreement.
Orwellian statement of the month:
How exactly are our rights protected by exempting the AFP from public scrutiny? I have yet to hear one good reason why habeas corpus, freedom of speech and the rest need to be limited or eliminated because of terrorism. If anything the reintroduction of torture and the random selection of various non-entities and innocents as al-Qaeda ‘operatives’ is ample demonstration of why those things exist in the first place.
>
And that goes double for the Haneef case which demonstrates the necessity of public scrutiny. The only evidence against the guy was ignorant paranoia and a tired government desperately pushing the fear button.
>
Interesting test for Kevvie tho’. What will he do? Turn the fascist creeping back or business as usual. Inside every duly elected member, I suspect, there’s a pair of patent leather boots and itchy riding crop dying to get out and start signing proscription lists.
no mention of that quote in the report at “The Age” online [link]
You might also consider how the AFP has been deployed to foreign shores under Mick Keelty and JWH. There are larger forces at work here.
Nice to see you back in these parts, gandhi.
Just sayin…
Looks like Hendo is out on a limb in defending Keelty.
The Libs aren’t:
[link]
This clinches it. For the safety of all of us, Keelty should be sacked, sooner rather than later. What a dangerous idiot.
The AFP have been shopping Oz junkies to foreign police forces (mostly Thai & Indo) for at least 12 years in the hope that such pandering would be them quid pro quo. Never worked, what a surprise.
And yes, you Do have files.
Commissioner Milk Kitty, is head of the highest lore enforcement agency in the country Nation. Top dog and top cat. He’s the big cheese, head honcho, boss of the cops. But only he seems to fully appreciate this. The rest of us insolent convicts really oughta show a bit more respect, as far as he’s concerned. Towit this should be legislated. He’s getting mighty sick of being exposed as a right proper nong. It should be more widely understood enforced, that he is way beyond reproach.
Bwaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Quoth the Commissioner:
So which AFP officers have been charged over the Haneef leaks, then?
Everyone:
Sounds like Commissioner Keelty needs to be taken down to the parade ground for a bit of extra training. The country he is in and which he serves is …. Australia!!!!
I’d settle for his resignation or dismissal.
Christopher Pyne
If Keelty does not want to be accountable - he should resign or be sacked.
No. I agree with MK. LP must be shut down immediately because, you know, we discuss stuff and that’s just wrong.
Notwithstanding selective AFP leaks to press, really, Mick Keelty should just go back to handing out traffic tickets in the ACT. Seems to be about his level of competence.
This bloke obviously has not a whit of a clue.
I am somewhat dumbstruck by Mick Keelty’s argument. I really hope someone in the government has given him an earfull over it.
Keystone Keelty is coming on like an out-of-control mug copper. Again. He is a recidivist goose. Howard appointed him and made him publicly recant when he transgressed Ratty’s line. Pixie should publicly ping him or better still, as many have suggested, do us all a favour and give him the flick.
Neocons, Sydney Institutionalists and Pal Gerry will have to learn to live with the dis-appointment.
Never ceases to amaze really that so many uber-authoritarians like Keelty are such complete and utter fuck-wits. Imagine how these pricks would stomp our remaining freedoms under Martial Law following a “terrorist incident”?
————————————
Oh goody, CK and gandhi have returned. Missed yez.
I would like to put in a good word for Sergeant Mick.Plod. He has progressed through a system that encouraging diligent conformity and non-thinking (much like the education system).
If you train a monkey to dance for peanuts, it will. Why be surprised?
Not to excuse Keelty’s brain-flatulence…
Police recruits in Australia all complete at least one degree before they’re commissioned, DavidG, and most forces encourage graduate recruitment. Career progression, I understand, is very dependent on continuing education and training.
Australian police forces do value higher learning these days, unlike the world-weary cynical blog commenters.
Keelty is getting one hell of a caning in the press. As is appropriate. This is the first real test of the Rudd Government’s democratic credentials. Will they rein this nutter in or not? I won’t be surprised if they don’t. One can only hope they don’t follow his advice on this. And as for C. Pyne being holier-thaqn-thou on this, you can bet if the Rudd Government did follow Keelty’s advice and pass the necessary legislation, the Copalition would be voting for it. Its good this has happened now rather than in the midst of some phony terrorism scare. If it had happened in the latter environmrnt Keelty would get his way for sure.May lerts and larmeds perish now and forever more.
Liam, you mention Keelty’s brain flatulence then go on to applaud the academic achievements of ‘The Force’.
Seems like you’re trying to have a bet each way to me.
P.S. And just imagine anyone being cynical about our world. Shock. Horror!
Maybe it’s because he believes it, DavidG., as the basis of a well thought-out position, itself part of a coherent but wrong world-view.
We all disagree with Keelty, but some of us’d like to think that [gasp] Education is not to blame.
Education rarely cures stupidity, it just gives you more things to be stupid about.
Uh no, I’m trying to disagree with Keelty on an actual political position, rather than just (ahem) copping out, fanning myself and despairing about the state of the world, oh dear.
Shake that aphorism! Yeah!
Zarquon - LOL.
Not in Queensland, Liam. Our appalling Police Minister did away with the requirement - introduced after the Fitzgerald Inquiry - because Pauline Hanson, the Courier-Mail and the Police Union complained about it.
That’s madness, Mark. Or a victory against stultifying conformist non-thinking education, I imagine the argument might run.
Hey, don’t Australian Courts already have the power to suppress publication, or go into closed session, on the application of a participant in proceedings? Been used recently in some of Melbourne’s whacky gangland/police corruption cases…. so if the AFP wants some part (or all) of a case to be temporarily unavailable for comment, the AFP may so apply in court, innit?
You see why I keep whinging about our freakin Police Minister, Liam!
Mark @ 43 - There never has been a requirement to have obtained a degree for entry into the Qld Police. Further education was encouraged with the usual limiter being completion of the equivalent to a third of a degree. This was overlooked in many cases in favour of work and life experience. Incidentally, Fitzgerald never recommended recruits hold a degree - he simply stated that tertiary education needed to be recognised in order to encourage graduates to apply.
Are you sure, Waxeater? My impression was that university level degrees in Justice Studies were established in the early 90s to cater for the requirement that intending cops undertake tertiary studies, and that this requirement was later relaxed. Certainly Hanson, and a number of other loud voices, were arguing against it. But perhaps the whole thing got simplified to the point of error by the Courier Mail’s coverage.
Justice studies were indeed introduced in the 90’s and recruits were required to study several units via Griffith Uni (I think it was) as part of the recruit training. I think you will find that it was canned more because of the fact that it took up too much time when they really needed to train them in policing and churn them out onto the streets. No doubt, it would have been the intention to encourage the new officers to then go on in their own time (and expense) and complete the degree.
So in fact, Waxeater, there was a requirement to complete some tertiary study, and that was then ditched?
Both Griffith and QUT introduced Justice Studies.
“Police recruits in Australia all complete at least one degree before they’re commissioned, DavidG,…”
Liam, i do not believe this is correct for state police forces or AFP. They get a pretty basic training and that’s it. Explains a lot really.
[link]
[link]
Well. Yet another indication of the superiority of New South Wales over the rest of Australia.
Just brilliant Liam.
[link]
I’d settle for his resignation or dismissal.
>
I’m not a fan of the guy (he’s cop after all) but does this statement necessitate the sack? I don’t know. I’m just worried the govt will take him seriously. One of those let’s show ‘em we’re not soft on terrorism type things.
>
Plus politicians and cops like power. They certainly ain’t in it for the money.
Not by itself, though you have to wonder at whether someone who is basically a public servant should be making public statements which are so out there. He’s not, as I understand it, a statutory office holder with independence, but basically a functionary of the executive government. Should he be an independent political actor in a Westminster system?
If the incompetence and arrogance of the AFP is found to be of the scale that it appears to be from the scrutiny that Keelty wishes to avoid, then being sacked would be an appropriate option if recommended by the inquiry which is to be held into the Haneef affair.
Rudd repudiated his comments, as did Pyne on behalf of the Opposition. Aside from himself, the only person who seems to be taking him seriously is Hendo.
Looking at Keelty’s profile at the AFP site - he’s on huge number of national, regional & international policing committees & boards etc. Besides being the Commish of an org. that has expanded 20 fold in the past ten years - the Deputy’s mentions only two very minor board roles…”the police memorial steering committee”..big time stuff!
[link]
a sign of control freakery?
maybe he needs a long holiday….Bali, perhaps.
Richard Ackland on our Thick Blue Line
And a potential slap in the face for them, the overzealous spooks and Deputy Dawg in forced retirement in Wollstonecraft.
Personally I hope Hicks makes gazillions of dollars.
By the way, everyone, you can download the audio of the full speech from the “Podcast” link on the Sydney Institute’s website.
I’ve listened to most of it, and I can confirm he hasn’t been taken out of context. It’s a terrible speech, with little sense of any coherent narrative thread. It’s just a grab-bag of things that he thinks the world should know about the AFP. It even features the high school debater’s favourite trick of throwing in quotes obviously taken from a quote book…
And Stephen Keim, one of Haneef’s lawyers, has been cleared of professional misconduct charges for releasing transcripts related to the case.
Not the best week for Mick.
One hopes that Mick hasn’t heard of Olaf Palme. If I were Kev I’d get in first.
58 sorcerer Feb 1st, 2008 at 8:28 am
Of course you do. Hicks is a terrorist, traitor and dead-beat dad. Thats like winning the trifecta for most Cultural Leftists. Form like that should pay a handsome dividend.
Mr Strokey, what is a Cultural Leftist?
I was under the impression that the terms Left and Right referred to a political position.
Does that therefore mean that a Cultural Rightist sips gin and tonic in a smoking jacket and panels his library (books at 20 quid a yard) with rare timbers, on which to mount his fine collection of the heads of endangered African fauna, and the riding crop with which to beat the servants, while banging on about how much better it was during the Empah, when all those coloureds and women Knew Their Place?
Or is a Cultural Rightist more the Alf Garnett/bogan type, replete with tabloids, lovingly folding the flag for the next stoush with the olive skinned Untermenschen at Cronulla Beach?
Poor dopy misguided David Hicks was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but made perfect election fodder for Rodent, aided and abetted by his White House puppet masters in gratitude for Rodent providing troops for Chimp’s illegal war in Iraq. No traitor, no terrorist. Guarding a tank for the Taliban is somewhat the modern equivalent of feeding and watering the camels. Usually the dimmest of boofheads gets that job.
Something like continually channelling Paddy McGuiness with frothing frenzied Culture Wars diatribes
Loath as I am to sink the slipper into an Officer of The Crown when he’s down, but in this case, an exception is clearly warranted.
The Fourth Estate and ordinary, decent citizens of our Great Southern Land hereby nominate the linked nincompoop for exclusive membership of the Moron of The Month Club in anticipation that he’ll promptly be assigned traffic duties before he causes Australia any furthur embarrassment.
[link]
The nation has reason to believe that he continues to ideologically consort with Little Johnny Stableford, aka El Rodente, aka The Rodent and is therefore no longer a fit and proper person to hold the office of top copper.
The dumb things coppers say when they are trying to be serious. Reminiscent of a Chief Constable in the UK at the time of “The Great Train Robbery” (perpetrated by Ronald Biggs among others) being lampooned in comedy shows:
In the midst of Keelty’s machinations and attempts to convince an ill informed public that only he and the AFP can save us, one thing is clear. Terrorism is simply another manifestation of criminality and should be treated in the same way as any other criminality: the right to a fair trial, habeas corpus, no hearsay evidence etc etc (and no legislation such as we find of late in the Commonwealth’s Criminal Code which puts innocent acts such as money transactions subject to a fuzzy determination by the trial court of recklessness and what constitutes a terrorist organisation post the alleged “actus rea” (guilty act) and “mens rea” (guilty mind).
The selective leaks by police in terrorism cases, tipping off media to be ready with the cameras is a national disgrace and ultimately prejudices the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Presumptions of innocence fly out the door when the scaremongering TV news shows all the footage of people having their front doors smashed in. The unsubtle message is: “They must be guilty, otherwise the police wouldn’t be making such a fuss about it”. “We arrested him because he’s a terrorist and he must be a terrorist because we shot him/smashed down his front door.”
Keelty, (and his former boss in spades) have lost touch with a crucial aspect of our criminal justice system: Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, ie transparency. The more politicians and/or police want to hide things from public view, the more the public (and legal practitioners especially) should scream NO, from the rooftops.
Police do have a hard job and in criminal cases must prove beyond reasonable doubt, the “burden of proof.” They are given extensive powers to do their job, excessive powers IMHO in terrorism cases. With power comes responsibility and accountability, I stress the latter because that is exactly what Mr Keelty is inherently trying to avoid. The Haneef case exposed and made the AFP accountable for complete incompetence and stupidity. Mr Keelty obviously wants to avoid a repetition of that.
The fact that lawyers defending alleged “terrorists” must have security clearances worries me greatly. With the AFP doing the “clearance”, one wonders how long it will take (barring repeal of Ruddock’s legislation) before all such defence lawyers (heaven forbid) are chosen as “cleared” on the basis that they have been infected with the common neo-con political virus called “existential threats”.
55 Mark Jan 31st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Keelty is just a copper trying to do his job. A job well done considering our borders are better protected and home land safer now than they were before his watch.
He is obviously fed up with the fact that the media pack, bleeding hearts and the legal establishment constantly take the side of every suspect hauled before the courts. Its a thankless task trying to keep rat-bags in check when the Clercs prefer Trahison.
Obviously he must be judged by a few blues rather than overwhelming successes. Every school boy knows that terrorism is a myth propagated by the Bush family and its cronies.
Instead of trial by media of the perpetrator we now have trial by media of the authorities. So there is obviously no legal or penal point in prosecuting terrorists or even arresting suspiciously acting characters.
They all wind up becoming folk heroes, suing for outrageous amounts of compensation or making fortunes from hawking their stories to media pimps. You can’t make this stuff up. [sic]
No doubt Keelty should resign, and the AFP disbanded. This would save the administration of justice of packet. We could leave security work to the egg-heads who are obviously the experts going by the sensational success their cherished cultural programs have had in eliminating terrorism in places like the UK.
Hark, what is that scratching and scraping sound? Sounds like liberal grave-diggers preparing the ground for the interment of their own civilization…
I haven’t had time to read the whole thread, so apologies if this is off the mark.
I thought I’d mention that Brian Toohey in the Weekend AFR said that the AFP had 300 detectives on the Haneef case working on a said crime that was supposedly committed in the UK where the coppers quickly recognised that it was irrelevant.
Jack at clicketty-click,
attempted sarcasm and jailbird satire are not really your forte, son. You’re far more amusing when spitting your chips rapid-fire. Why over- burden yourself by attempting to engage circuitry above brain-stem level? Hip-shooting polemicists scatter their message something fierce when they they try to get too fancy. Trust the following link proves instructive.
[link]
Safer Jack? Now that any two bit “terrorist” knows that the AFP has achieved accolades for its high level of incompetence?
Remember the “presumption of innocence” Jack? When self promoting pollies and police assume a right to smear, to give selective leaks in attempts to promote their political moral panics/only the AFP can save you lines, what do you expect the legal establishment to do? One barrister released a transcript of interview to expose the lies. (His Qld Bar Association essentially gave him a gold medal BTW for so doing.)
Otherwise, did you expect that the majority of the legal profession would roll over and applaud Andrews’ use of the Migration Act to subvert bail given to Haneef by a Qld court (”exceptional circumstances”), on what we now know (and knew then) were on utterly spurious grounds?
Did you expect that just because some people in the land, seemingly including your good self, have recurrent nightmares (”dry” dreams one assumes) about existential threats, the legal profession would agree to a presumption of guilt?
Thankfully, for once, the media DID print the transcripts, and DID provide means for transparency on this incompetent prosecution which had not a shred of hard evidence. Without which, Haneef would be waiting for years possibly to be acquitted.
Agreed, unless the AFP can demonstrate a modicum of competence.
It’s the sound of the neo-cons buried alive Jack, scratching their way out, hopefully to emerge minus their ideas of existential threats from criminals.
Strocchi:
Hicks signed a paper to that effect under conditions that were so corrupted that the US military prosecutor (the man who was trying to put Hicks into jail!) resigned in protest.
The only evidence we have of Hicks’ potential criminality was his decision as an Australian citizen to join the armed forces of another country, to wit, the armed forces of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan.
Hicks could have been in breach of CRIMES (FOREIGN INCURSIONS AND RECRUITMENT) ACT 1978 - SECT 7
[link]
That does not make him a terrorist.
69 Peter Kemp Feb 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 am
To be honest, where terrorism is concerned, I can tolerate a few false positives. Less costly than false negatives so beloved by the “presumed innocent” crowd. (Why not a “no presumption of guilt or innocence” as they do in French inquisitions. That would seem to be less prejudicial.)
Your assumption that terrorism is a figment of conservative imagination would not go down well with the survivors of Bali. This is one, amongst many, of the reasons that liberal lawyers are held in such low regard by common folk.
Doubtless the Haneef case could have been handled better by the AFP. But his saga was no big deal one way or another. Its not as if Haneef spent ages languishing in the joint or was done over by the hard-men down at police HQ.
In any case Haneef gave good cause for the authorities to be concerned. He was acting suspiciously and consorting with some sus characters. He was in the middle of doing a runner when he was nabbed. He lied to his employers about his reason for taking leave. And he failed to properly disclose his connections with the bombers.
No doubt there was an innocent explanation for all this deception and prevarication. Its just that in the post-Tampa and post-Bali era I am in no mood to be charitable about such things. I am rather glad that plod is being bloody minded about such matters.
The minister has legal discretion to act the way he did, based on statute. If you dont like it, lobby to change the statute. Otherwise lawyers and their amen corner in the civil rights section should find something else to flap their jaws about.
Jack has a valid point here. In these uncertain days, we should all shut our yaps and let the authorities do whatever they want without any citizen daring to ask for oversight.
Hey this strawman thing is fun! No reason, all attitude. I can see now Jack why you spend all your time online doing the conga line with a scarecrow. If you don’t scare yourself to get the blood pumping, then who will?
Let’s talk about this more over a drink or two at BIO2008 in San Diego this June. You’ll be there won’t you?
Dang, the tourists win agin!
It was a good movie though. Greta Scacchi and Harrison Ford.
A good movie, yeah?
And did Jack “Let’s hand over the keys to our forever year old legal system because the guy over there looks so mean I’ve just shat my pants” Strocchi appear in it?
(And one for the scholars out there? Does Deuteronomy still appear in modern editions of the Bible?)
He may have been playing the too enthusiastic by half assistant DA, wbb. (A character given when the movie was made I suspect to have been based on Rudy Guiliani.)
Yep, Deuteronomy is still there.
“Greta Scacchi”
Ahh, tequila! Or perhaps a Pimms No 1?
If Greta is mixing, I’ll have it with the cucumber…
Can we then look forward to Jack Strocchi doing the Sydney Carton bit for some poor benighted terrorism laws victim?
We pinko Marxist socialist revolutionaries accept nothing less than an aged single malt.
“I’ll have it with the cucumber…”
Now where is border protection when you really need it?
Cucumber, the world’s most boring vegetable - even leaves some certain blogosphere entities for dead if they’re pitched up against that dull watery tasteless slug.
Hell, even Jack Strocchi or John Greenfly has more charm and charisma than a cucumber.
Although quite not as much as steamed broccoli.
Though one shudders to think what they’d do with said vegetable….
How quickly we forget, Nabs.
In this case various permutations of Pimms and lemonade…
“than an aged single malt.”
Well what I’m currently absorbing sorcie baby is Glenmorangie experimenting with aging their 10 year olds in Port instead of Bourbon casks. The Quinta Ruban. It’s a very smooth drop indeed but does lack a certain chewiness. So far. I’ll get to the bottom of it soon. And then eat the lead seal for roughage.
Mmmm many thanks for the heads-up Nabbers. I will alert the Geordie on his next trip to Dan Murphy’s
:)
Jack, we parted company with the French well before Waterloo [the last time we Anglos had our way with them, more’s the pity :-)] . Less prejudicial indeed: to the prosecution. The presumption of innocence is 400 years of recognition that the overwhelming power of the state against an individual needs to be balanced.
When it comes to a fair trial, habeas corpus, rules of evidence, presumption of innocence and burden of proof on the crown beyond reasonable doubt, you’ll find almost all lawyers are “liberal” Jack.
(”Common folk” BTW seem to hold us in such high regard when they are acquitted. Even when convicted, one I recall shook my hand on his way from the court dock to jail–I guess it was “low regard” he didn’t give me a hug or a sloppy kiss?)
As for “terrorists” and your strawman Bali argument, please do advance your reasons for implied neo-con Star Chambers law. (Apart from your nightmares.)
Seems like the EU has scuppered that one Jack, unless you’re referring to some of Napoleon’s “inquisitions”. I guess from your position the EU has become too “liberal”–not enough of them dreaming the neo-con dream: “Wir haben Bin Laden, terroristisch, schweinehunde, untermenschen: Islam RAUS” etc etc
[link]
Nabakov @ 80
Indeed, a boring vegetable to put in a drink, but a firm little cucumber has uses beyond the kitchen… see ref 1
(1) “Coming of Age in the Suburbs”, Margaret Meed, Anthropology Classics Inc, Canberra DVD Stores, 1991.
(2) “Coming, ready or not!! Children and Their Merry Games in pre-1960’s Victoria”, Vanessa N’dressa PhD, Malvern Party Books, Malvern Adult Shoppe, 2003