![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
krazykitkatNationals Senator Barnaby Joyce questioned the trial process.
"The only thing that is guilty here is the judicial process under which he was being tried," he said.
Barnaby is totally correct.
And Downer just doesn't get it:
"First of all there was the view that Hicks clearly couldn't have done anything wrong, and we hate the Americans and all of that," he said.
"There were people who thought David Hicks should just be strung up, he was obviously a horror.
"And there were people in the middle, which is where I was, really. My view was always that the legal process had just taken far too long."
Boy he likes to simplify things into terms he can comprehend. I think there's only a few people where he is, the rest of us (who he throws in the first camp) with more than half a brain and reasoning ability realise that his guilt or innocence became irrelevant a long time ago. The system is a joke and was never more than a kangaroo court.
And Downer et al actually blamed the length of time on Hicks' legal team. If they hadn't been battling for his pesky rights the trial would've been over a long time ago.
The dismissal of Hicks' civilian lawyers is a case in point of the total lack of anything approaching justice:
The judge also decided that Hicks’s civilian lawyer, New York criminal attorney Joshua Dratel could not represent Hicks because he had not signed a form demanded by the court saying he would conform to the regulations governing proceedings.
Mr Dratel protested strongly, saying he could not sign the form because the regulations governing the conduct of attorneys had not yet been formulated by the Secretary of Defence. He was not going to sign a blank cheque for his ethical obligations.
I think anyone, whatever their innocence or guilt, would probably take a plea bargain at this point. The result was predestined, and unless habeas corpus iss reinstated the challenges against the system probably aren't going to go anywhere. Though if it is reinstated (which apparently the Dems have been talking about), and then the military commission was ruled illegal, would that mean his guilty plea would be dismissed? If the restrospective charges were found to be unconstitutional, could his plea be overturned?
"The only thing that is guilty here is the judicial process under which he was being tried," he said.
Barnaby is totally correct.
And Downer just doesn't get it:
"First of all there was the view that Hicks clearly couldn't have done anything wrong, and we hate the Americans and all of that," he said.
"There were people who thought David Hicks should just be strung up, he was obviously a horror.
"And there were people in the middle, which is where I was, really. My view was always that the legal process had just taken far too long."
Boy he likes to simplify things into terms he can comprehend. I think there's only a few people where he is, the rest of us (who he throws in the first camp) with more than half a brain and reasoning ability realise that his guilt or innocence became irrelevant a long time ago. The system is a joke and was never more than a kangaroo court.
And Downer et al actually blamed the length of time on Hicks' legal team. If they hadn't been battling for his pesky rights the trial would've been over a long time ago.
The dismissal of Hicks' civilian lawyers is a case in point of the total lack of anything approaching justice:
The judge also decided that Hicks’s civilian lawyer, New York criminal attorney Joshua Dratel could not represent Hicks because he had not signed a form demanded by the court saying he would conform to the regulations governing proceedings.
Mr Dratel protested strongly, saying he could not sign the form because the regulations governing the conduct of attorneys had not yet been formulated by the Secretary of Defence. He was not going to sign a blank cheque for his ethical obligations.
I think anyone, whatever their innocence or guilt, would probably take a plea bargain at this point. The result was predestined, and unless habeas corpus iss reinstated the challenges against the system probably aren't going to go anywhere. Though if it is reinstated (which apparently the Dems have been talking about), and then the military commission was ruled illegal, would that mean his guilty plea would be dismissed? If the restrospective charges were found to be unconstitutional, could his plea be overturned?
