Yesterday we were give a fine example of the left performing like the heroes from Central Casting that they are. Bob Brown sounded more sanctimonious than ever and looked like a man who was himself about to do time, perhaps it was disgust that with his guilty plea Hicks has taken away one more stick for the Greens to beat Howard with. Natasha Stott Despoja, her hair tied back in a severe style, no doubt to make her look more serious and less blonde, made a big play on the word “desperate”. In various left wing blogs those of the reddier green tinge were foaming at the mouth about the process and glossing over the admissions Hicks has made in the past and denouncing the admission that he is a terrorist that his guilty plea represents. Why even here my current resident lefties mounted a defense of “Davo” entirely consistent with the usual script from the left.
I look forward to the actual sentencing and although I have said that I think that Jihadists deserve the rope we don’t have capital punishment here and the reality is that Hicks will be likely to serve less than the twenty years that the prosecution was originally seeking but anything less than half of that would be an affront to the memory of the many who have died at the hands of Hicks’s fellow Jihadi’s
South Australian Premier Mike Rann yesterday told Parliament his Government had no objection to Hicks spending time in the South Australian correctional system.
In Yatala prison, Hicks would have access to privileges including television, reading matter, educational opportunities and visitor rights that would allow him to see his immediate family including his children.
A case management plan would be drawn up that could allow him to pursue the SA Year 12 courses that he began at Guantanamo. He would also have access to medical care.(source)
While many of us who see think that at the very least these people who devote their lives to the despots of Jihad should be thrown into a very deep dark hole. I will be rather pleased to see Hicks safely tucked up in an Adelaide cell and I don’t care that he will enjoy a few privileges, not for himself but for his Dad who can be respected for giving his son such steadfast support, that no father can deny his flesh and blood. Sadly it is the compassionate dedication of the father that has helped blind so many to the sins of the son.


[…] this new one is just beautiful: Natasha Stott Despoya (sic) her hair tied back in a severe style, no doubt to […]
*weeps with laughter*
Nice one, The Editor.
“anything less than half of that would be an affront to the memory of the many who have died at the hands of Hicks’s fellow Jihadi’s”
I can’t believe you want Hicks sentenced for the actions of others.
Not just sentenced John but put to death.
A have Iain if he and his mates have the guts to follow through and lynch him on his return to Australia. This should be no problem for them as they have shown they have no respect for the rule of law.
Fortunately they are just full of piss and wind.
Sorry should have said ‘I have asked Iain….’
Typing fast at work again.
Craigy
You neglect to mention that I am not advocating that Hicks should as you suggest be lynched, but that would spoil another Wizard of OZ moment for you wouldn’t it Craigy? Much more straw from you and I shall have to start worrying about spontaneous combustion. :grin:
and wasting the boss’s bandwidth and his time to have a go at me , naughty! naughty! :lol:
Iain, would you like to review your comment above?
From this very post;
“I look forward to the actual sentencing and although I have said that I think that Jihadists deserve the rope we don’t have capital punishment here”
He’s guilty Iain, who cares about the law, just get out there and lynch him, you know you want to.
No strawman here….
Does you wife no how much time you spend on your blog??? What about the house work and the shopping….and the car, no wonder it’s taking you so long.
Craig
My wife does not care how much time I spend on my blog as long as my chores get done(and they do)
more to the point does your employer know that you surf the net and comment on blogs on his dollar?
I think you had it right above Iain when you said I am ” naughty! naughty!”.
It isn’t taking up that much time, although I should back off a bit. I’m sure you are sick of me!
And a clue, I work at a place that appreciates the free flow of ideas!
Guess what, my wife apreciates that too :)
You really should listen to that pod cast by the way Craigy, Nick Cohen speaks some good sense about the left.
When I get time Iain….
Hicks will be likely to serve less than the twenty years that the prosecution was originally seeking but anything less than half of that would be an affront to the memory of the many who have died at the hands of Hicks’s fellow Jihadi’s
Iain, so if Hicks does indeed get less than half of of 20 yrs, will you be prepared to act fairly and state ‘another judicial jape brought to you by those jolly Americans?’
Agreed Craigy, hoping someone will be sentenced to extra time based on the crimes of others is pretty poor…
PKD
You are as usual talking from the wrong end of your Gastro intestinal tract. The whole point of citing the atrocities of other Jihadi’s is to point out just how serious taking up the Jihadi’s bomb belt is and in the same way that our courts consider the effect that other thieves have had when sentencing that shop lifter in the dock. When sentencing a would be Jihadist it is entirely valid to consider the gravity of his predecessors atrocities when passing sentence. It is how we judge the appropriateness of the judicial consequences handed down every day in courts all over the world.
WTH?
Iain you can only be sentenced based on the crimes you (in this case Hicks) have personally been convicted for. A judge may use a similar case in order to determine the length of sentencing, but he may not add extra time for offences by unrelated individuals! Even if they are from the same organisation! Yet this is what you are asking for – for Hicks to server at least 10 years based upon crimes committed at the hands of Hicks’s fellow Jihadi’s.
So no, he should only be sentenced for his watered down crime of providing material assistance to terrorism.
Little wonder you are so happy about the verdict if this is your idea of how sentencing is undertaken….
You know giving Hicks a rather harsh sentence will have the bonus of discouraging others from providing assistance to terrorist scumbags and things like training with them. After all isn’t sentencing supposed to deter and not just punish.
I also heard that the Indians might want to have a chat with the fellow, here’s to hoping he makes a stop in Delhi on the way back for an indefinite amount of time for, you know, ‘debriefing’.
You know giving Hicks a rather harsh sentence
Again, Hicks should be sentenced on the crimes he has committed personally, not on the political need to send a message to others who might be inclined (not matter how well intentioned).
On a related note, the thing that gets me over Hicks ‘crime’ of providing assistance to terrorism is this is exactly what many Republicans in the US did for years when funding the IRA via Sinn Fein. Many UK civilians directly died thanks to a partly-US funded terror campaign. Can we expect the people who provided funding can expect to be charged any time soon?
We are in a war, hence we need to send as many harsh messages are possible to the enemy. Besides terrorism is not the same as tax fraud or littering.
Fixed the bad bold tag! Feel free to delete the previous one… :)
we need to send as many harsh messages are possible to the enemy
When it comes to administering justice then no, you are wrong. The principal of a fair justice system is a fundamental one in our society. By lowering and indeed ignoring the justice standards and the standards in the treatment of the prisoners we hold, we fail in preserving one of the things which separates us from the fundamentalists we fight.
Besides terrorism is not the same as tax fraud or littering.
On that I agree with you MK, terrorists is (much) more extreme than littering harshly, and sentences to terrorists should be punitive. But they must also be fair sentences, upholding our princiapls of justice.
Rgrds,
PKD
.