PDA

View Full Version : Court Slams Silly Bin Laden Link


Elias
08-31-2006, 04:49 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/08/31/1156817005419.html?from=top5


A magistrate has blasted the federal government for including terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden's name in a list of people that cannot be contacted by terror suspect Jack Thomas.
In the federal magistrates court in Canberra, magistrate Graham Mowbray accused the government of turning the proceedings into a farce by including Bin Laden's name on an extensive list of people who Mr Thomas is not permitted to contact.
Mr Mowbray imposed Australia's first interim control order last weekend, restricting Mr Thomas' travel, requiring him to report to police three days a week and banning him from leaving Australia without permission.
The government is now arguing in court to have the interim order extended.
Mr Thomas has been a free man since August 18 when the Victoria Court of Appeal quashed convictions for receiving funds from Al Qaeda and holding a false passport, and overturned a five year jail sentence.
At a directions hearing today in Canberra, Mr Mowbray criticised the government's move to include Bin Laden on the list
"In my view it makes the order look somewhat silly in putting the name on the list," he said.
"...it makes it look almost a bit farcical, and this is a very serious proceeding."
Mr Mowbray said he thought the government would have used "some degree of nous" in drawing up the list.
Mr Thomas' lawyer Lex Lasry, QC, said the names on the list also included 13 people who were either dead or currently in custody at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.
He described the situation as "ridiculous".


It seems the Australian Liberal govt are anxious to make Jack Thomas into a sacrificial lamb to appease their new Security laws post 9/11

ditch
08-31-2006, 08:31 AM
Well I don't know if they need Jack Thomas for that reason. They may like to add him to the list of those who have been accused and convicted of transgressing the new laws, but need him....I don't think so.

While I think a certain amount of cynicism is a healthy thing, too much of it can blind you to the facts. Don't reject outright every conviction re these new laws. You'll end up excusing anyone of anything if you're not careful. Just because the laws are a product of a govt you don't take a fancy too, doesn't mean they aren't necessary.

Stiofán
08-31-2006, 03:49 PM
Sound advise there, Ditch. I'm not up on your laws, but we have a similar thing going on with our "Patriot Act". Most people don't even know what it supposedly restricts or the vast "new" powers it gives to the government. They know they don't like this government though.

ditch
09-01-2006, 03:26 AM
Any change to freedoms is unpopular and it's easy to understand why. I know this topic has been discussed here brfore and some very good arguments have been put up for and against such laws. I'm inclined to think that under difficult times we need to suffer a certain amount of "inconvenience", so long as we revert to normality after the need passes.

The uncertainty lies in knowing whether any changes are required to the status quo in the first place, and if so, to what degree.

Loans | Business Directory | Servidores dedicados | Loans | Loans