Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Jul 29, 2007

‘War’ on Verbs and Nouns

The Haneef case here has been a shambles of shoddy investigation and political interference in that investigation.

The subject of the case was an Australian resident doctor who was related to the idiots who attempted the bombings in the UK, and who had lent his sim card to one of them.

One of my big concerns is the way that the media accept terminology handed to them which muffles the actual intentions, in this case, "to secure successful outcomes in counter-terrorism cases.”

To counter this I have sent a letter to the editor of 'The Australian' outlining this: -

In reference to the article: “Blunders leave agencies exposed” from Patrick Walters, July 28, 2007,I find the following disturbing.

“The AFP has been under intense political pressure to secure successful outcomes in counter-terrorism cases.”

This is not just a matter, which should concern ‘civil’ libertarians, or mainstream libertarians, but also any person who values our freedoms. Without any doubt the term ‘successful outcome’ relates to obtaining a conviction, which is only a successful outcome if the subject of the investigation has committed a crime.

Justice should be separated from the political need for ‘Positive or successful outcomes’, and the prevailing of truth and justice should be recognized as the only successful outcome.

The Haneef case certainly had enough circumstantial evidence about it to warrant an investigation, however it is now apparent that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. The failure to obtain enough evidence to charge him is only relevant if it is subsequently proven that such evidence existed and was not discovered. Any ongoing investigations should uncover whether this is the case.

The public and the media have to become more circumspect about supporting the current fad of politicians of declaring ‘war’ on verbs and nouns, and demanding more power to the authorities and less security from injustice for the public, in order to ‘fight’ those ‘wars’. Terrorists are common criminals and should be dealt with as criminals; treating them any other way gives them political credibility.

Apart from the ‘war on terror’, other great rhetorical wars of the last decade or so, have been on poverty, child abuse, domestic violence, drugs, guns, and the list goes on. The common threads to these wars have generally been, lack of success, greatly increased power to the state, massive expenditure, and the erosion of rights to the population.

1 comment:

  1. Jim, a hearty congratulations on your new site. Looks great. And I absolutely adore the title. You couldn't have picked a better one.

    I'll be adding your site to my Blog roll at

    P.S. I visited Pearth/Freemantle for 7 days when I was in the Navy back in the early 1980s. Hope to go back to Australia one day. Perhaps we could meet?