“It’s not all military parades or victories” – Jihadi

Well, no. There is a lot of rape, murder, and mayhem.

Rita Panahi has an excellent op-ed in the Herald Sun today talking about the 3 Australian jihadis who want to come “home”.

“A lot of people when they come they have a lot of enthusiasm about what they’ve seen online, what they’ve seen on YouTube,” he said. …

Let’s think for a minute about the type of material that inspired that man and his ilk to join the terror group.

Islamic State propaganda that the group so skilfully disseminates online isn’t just about victory parades; it is often a celebration of the vilest brutality imaginable.

It includes bound victims being beheaded on camera for the crime of being Christian or Shiite or any number of other offences these vicious extremists deem worthy of a horrible death on camera.

Their videos show terrified men being thrown off buildings for the crime of being gay; in one instance the victim did not die on impact, so he was stoned to death.

There are images of dozens, sometimes hundreds, of prisoners being lined up and shot in cold blood. And women aren’t forgotten; Islamic State fighters proudly boast of their work in beheading female Kurdish fighters and enslaving Yazidi girls.

There are even productions starring children executing prisoners.

That is the type of sickening barbarism that is attracting young Muslim men from around the world to give up their comfortable Western lives and head to Syria and Iraq to fight what they see as a holy war.

So it turns out that raping and murdering isn’t as much fun as expected. Perhaps there are diminishing returns to raping and murdering – so it was fun at first but the enjoyment wore off after the nth mass murder or mass raping. Who knows? Who cares?

These people are criminals and need to face the criminal justice system – so I have a lot of sympathy for the “You will be arrested, you will be prosecuted, and you will go to jail” attitude taken by Tony Abbott. I’m not sure how credible the threat to deprive people of their citizenship is – but the government could and should implement the practical consequence of that threat anyway. After returned jihadis have served their Australian prison terms they should be deported back to the country where they committed the crimes (irrespective of any other law, convention, or international treaty – that is, even if they faced the death penalty).

This entry was posted in Tough on Crime, tough on criminals. Bookmark the permalink.

240 Responses to “It’s not all military parades or victories” – Jihadi

  1. Rabz says:

    As Iowahawk pointed out recently, the message doesn’t seem to be getting through.

    ISIS Propaganda: Hey kids, ISIS is all about rape and murder! 🙂

    US Government counter propaganda: Hey kids, ISIS is all about rape and murder! 🙁

  2. jupes says:

    (irrespective of any other law, convention, or international treaty – that is, even if they faced the death penalty)

    In a just world we would execute them ourselves.

    In a fantasy world we would ship them back to Iraq or Syria to be executed.

    In the real world they will probably do less than ten years jail in Australia. Less than five if they volunteer to become part of ‘de-radicalisation’ program (paid for by us suckers).

  3. feelthebern says:

    But the ABC told me not to judge these young lads.
    How’s about we #bringbackourboys, give them jobs at the ABC, nominate them for Australia day honours & let them march on ANZAC day?
    You know it makes sense.

  4. kae says:

    In a just world they’d be killed over there and would no longer be a problem to/for/in Australia.

    Though their extended families over here might be.

  5. hzhousewife says:

    I would like to hear Abbott in the media every day repeating
    “You will be arrested, you will be prosecuted, and you will go to jail”.

    But I would prefer us to reunite the poor homesick boys with their
    families, all in Syria and Iraq, never to return here.

  6. notafan says:

    It’s rape murder pillage with no adverse consequences because such things against the infidel and the kufr are halal. What more could a devote muslim want?
    But the intermittent electricity and water,occasional bomb, no smokes and crap pay when the loot runs out in a hellhole man made desert where the winters are bitter and the summers worse makes a young man yearn for mumma’s cooking and his DSP in his bank account every fortnight.
    The ABC tells the world you are reformed and presto chango here you are.
    But you aren’t ‘reformed’ because you didn’t do anything wrong in the first place.
    It’s sharia law, baby.

  7. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    These people are criminals and need to face the criminal justice system – so I have a lot of sympathy for the “You will be arrested, you will be prosecuted, and you will go to jail” attitude taken by Tony Abbott.

    Breitbart London also likes the policy:

    Playing Nice Doesn’t Work: How Australia Tackles IS Terrorists Trying To Return From Foreign Battles

    Compare the pair. Sweden offers full support to any and all returning IS terrorists who make it “home” from battlefields in Iraq and Syria. They are guaranteed jobs, housing, welfare benefits and counselling as official state-sanctioned policy.

    Now look at Australia. According to the Guardian, Prime Minister Tony Abbott will cancel passports, impose mandatory prison sentences and deny voting rights to any IS terrorist who makes it back alive.

    It’ll be interesting to see how well Sweden goes on this trajectory. The social progressive approach doesn’t quite seem to work:

    Swedish Police Release Extensive Report Detailing Control Of 55 ‘No-Go Zones’ By Muslim Criminal Gangs

  8. rtp says:

    “Rita Panahi” and “excellent” should never be used in the same sentence together.

  9. Outraged says:

    Stick to your guns, Tony.

  10. Roger says:

    After returned jihadis have served their Australian prison terms they should be deported back to the country where they committed the crimes (irrespective of any other law, convention, or international treaty – that is, even if they faced the death penalty).

    It’s quite probable that neither Syria nor Iraq will exist in their present forms 10 or so years down the track (the maximum sentence under the Foreign Incursion and Recruitment Act, 1978; it would be extremely difficult to prosecute returning jihadis for any other crime under Australian law). It’s quite possible that IS will still exist as a de facto state, given that neither the Iraqi nor Syrian armies have the capability of defeating them and Western countries are unwilling to put troops on the ground. I doubt we’d send them back to IS. We’d do better to cancel their passports and/or hand them over to the Iraqis and Syrians now so they can prosecute them in the jurisdiction where their alleged crimes have been committed evidence.

  11. Roger says:

    …and evidence is obtainable.

  12. Helen says:

    After returned jihadis have served their Australian prison terms they should be deported back to the country where they committed the crimes (irrespective of any other law, convention, or international treaty – that is, even if they faced the death penalty).

    Very Doomlordish, very forceful and manfully impressive, Sinc.

    Five paws! And a gold elephant stamp.

  13. S' says:

    There’s a push by muslim leaders saying how valuable they are to “rehabilitation” for other at risk youths. Hope none of these scum ever touch Australian soil again.

    Also hope any of these scum who do return – which let’s face it – we’re spineless – face more scrutiny than Hicks – e.g show the videos they were watching and liking online. Don’t let the aid work narrative get any traction whats so ever.

  14. Michel Lasouris says:

    Given that this scum are allowed to return, I would prefer that they be sentenced under sharia law. Apparently, they would appreciate that……

  15. mosomoso says:

    Just as well those IS guys don’t oppose gay marriage (their gays are too dead to marry) or eat raw onions or look at their watches or wink or wear Speedos while lifesaving. Then they’d be in serious trouble.

  16. Gertrude says:

    What did the Jughead Jihadis think it would be? Paintball with privileges?

  17. Helen says:

    Bruce that Swedish story is chilling. I have a couple of girls here from Sweden at present and they say the government is already gone – meaning lost in their leftness. Sending in the copperts to grill halal kebabs to make the naughty car burung btys see the error of their ways?

    They need to wall the ghettos off, no one allowed out and cut off the electricity, water and dole going in. The offer a one way ticket to the true home for those wanting out..

  18. Helen says:

    I will have to slow down my typing speed to Armas three words a minute to kill all the typos !

  19. Joe says:

    No, this is not a criminal offence. If Australian citizens, then these turncoats are traitors and should face the penalty of traitors – the firing squad.

  20. Joe says:

    If you cannot be a good citizen, then you can be a horrible example.

  21. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    In the real world they will probably do less than ten years jail in Australia. Less than five if they volunteer to become part of ‘de-radicalisation’ program (paid for by us suckers).

    What bothers me about ever letting them back into Australia, is the way some elements of this country practically slobbered over David Hicks. How long would it be before the apologists emerged here?

  22. Myrddin Seren says:

    “You will be arrested, you will be prosecuted, and you will go to jail

    Maurice Blackburn, Julian Burnside and other ‘uman roits ambulance chasers now rubbing their hands together.

    ‘Your Honour –

    We tender in evidence the public statements of the Prime Minister, who has presumed our client guilty without benefit of trial, and is attempting to bully the courts in sentencing !”

    Judge Bleedingheart Bolthater:

    “Why – you are absolutely correct Counsel ! Case dismissed, costs awarded to poor Mr Jihad al Headloppi, and the Court warns the Prime Minister that any further statements of this nature outside the privilege of Parliament may be viewed by the Court as contempt !

    What’s next on the docket ? Sexual assault charges against an SLF ? Case dismissed, costs awarded to SLF, and the Court warns the Complainant that any further discussion on this matter by her may be viewed as contempt !

    Court dismissed – gotta go, Labor Party preselection meeting in my branch !”

    You know it is coming……..

  23. Grey ghost who walks says:

    My take on this, following the wet responses in the Hick’s saga; would be that one of these creepy cowards would win a next ‘book of the year’ prize.

  24. Anne says:

    David Woods explains how muslims become Jihadis.

    Just 3 essential ingredients.

    http://youtu.be/QjvfaZIDLCg

  25. Myrddin Seren says:

    My take on this, following the wet responses in the Hick’s saga; would be that one of these creepy cowards would win a next ‘book of the year’ prize.

    A joint award of the Sydney Peace Prize personally presented by Professor Jake Lynch seems likely.

  26. I have a couple of girls here from Sweden at present and they say the government is already gone – meaning lost in their leftness.

    Helen, if the Swedes don’t have the guts to start shooting their treason committing politicians and the Muslims who are destroying their country, then they deserve all they get.

  27. Nic says:

    Sinc, Im quite sure that as an immigrant to Australia you have personal reasons for choosing Australia and migrating here. Im sure you have made deliberate decisions as to how both you and your family would integrate, contribute to your adopted country and prosper, for your children to grow as Australians. For those who decide to use Australia as a womb in which to be protected from physical and other harm to themselves, while at the same time, work to ensure the downfall of everything their adopted country stands for, there should be little time wasted in removing their ‘rights’ to be a citizen of our nation. Citizenship should not be something once bestowed, has little or no other obligations.

  28. Myrddin Seren says:

    Sweden.

    I know I may becoming a bore about this, but the right-on, uber-PC Swedish Left – which is pretty much 90% of the political establishment and virtually all the media and academy – is the road map which we can see the rest of the Western Left will follow, because Da Equality:

    A former Swedish government minister, Jens Orback, may well have unveiled the country’s sentiment nearly a decade ago with his comment on live radio: “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us” .

    Now this Commo’s assumptions about Islamic tolerance of the kuffir is hilariously misinformed. But essentially the Swedish Left is actively working to make the indigenous Swedes an historical footnote in their own country.

    From the Nordic lands that gave the world the far-ranging and ruthlessly conquering Vikings, we now have nothing remaining but emasculated girlie men who sit down to pee.

  29. candy says:

    Entirely possible a LaborGreen government would have them home and parade them around as “reformed” to schools and so on, and then they become heroes to kids because of their “journey” who would then take off to join ISIS to become a media star too.

  30. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    For those who decide to use Australia as a womb in which to be protected from physical and other harm to themselves, while at the same time, work to ensure the downfall of everything their adopted country stands for, there should be little time wasted in removing their ‘rights’ to be a citizen of our nation. Citizenship should not be something once bestowed, has little or no other obligations.

    Well said – a womb that offers a sympathetic media, a legal system that enables you to claim “discrimination” against anyone who voices any criticism, and a crowd of useful idiots, who see support for Islam as their private protest against the system (#illridebesideyou). Well said, indeed.

  31. wreckage says:

    Criminal justice? Fuck that. Military justice under international laws and treaties. They’re traitors and enemy combatants, francs tireurs, answerable to no nation, uniform or command structure. They should be shot.

  32. Dan says:

    All killing and no beer makes jihadi a dull ploy

  33. Dan says:

    All killing and no beer makes jihadi a dull ploy

    [sinc, I typed the wrong email address for a moderation comment above]

  34. duncanm says:

    We need a new island prison for this sort of person.

    Macquarie sounds nice, Heard may be a little hard to maintain – and they can count penguins for us.

  35. Fisky says:

    It’s all about the Left’s brand new cause of “deradicalisation” on ABC this morning. They’re obsessed with it like global warming pre-Copenhagen.

    What they really mean by “deradicalisation” is “decriminalisation” of jihadism. Making it legal for jihadists to go abroad and kill people and then come back to Australia to receive free money from the government.

  36. Combine Dave says:

    Let them go, but cut off their family’s welfare here, and cut off their citizenship (they aren’t stateless they are citizens of ISIS).

    End of story.

  37. john constantine says:

    Simple, Australia has to have a great big inclusive conference, where representatives of the australian Islamic community get to hammer out exactly what programs are needed to deradicalise australian islamic youth, and exactly what money is needed to safeguard the world and aussie from radical assault.

    That money is funded from the halal tax, and if that isn’t enough, then all tax exemptions for islamic groups/mosques/charities/lobby groups are suspended until the deradicalisation program is complete.

    Headology says that if big cash flows become available to fund people ‘looking after’ radical islamists, these people will never deradicalise themselves out of a job.

  38. . says:

    Combine Dave
    #1688355, posted on May 21, 2015 at 12:24 pm
    Let them go, but cut off their family’s welfare here, and cut off their citizenship (they aren’t stateless they are citizens of ISIS).

    End of story.

    Finally someone gets it. Now if the righties will understand they will stop getting mistreated by the left when they stop subsidising them as well.

  39. David says:

    and they can count penguins for us

    Before or after they have buggered them?

  40. Fred Lenin says:

    Rehabilitation ? Ask the families of the people who have been Murdered by “rehabilitated ” criminals .
    Rehabilitatation works , there are hundreds of crims who have been rehabilitated many times in our jails .
    The final cure for radical criminals is a group of men with rifles and one givimpng the order to ” Fire”!
    And of course the extended families returned to the cesspits they germinated in .

  41. Habib says:

    They’re not criminals, they’re traitors. they’ve taken up arms with the enemy. I’m quite sure if some dickhead had’ve joined one of the Waffen SS foreign divisions during WW2, they would be dropping through a trapdoor upon repatriation. IS makes them seem like white middle class homeboys in comparison, they should never be allopwed to return here, and if captured on the field treated as the illegal combatants they are.

  42. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    who sit down to pee

    Myrrdin – Thanks for that wonderfully silly HuffPo article. It has a poll, which is still open:

    Quick Poll
    Should it be illegal for men to urinate standing up?
    Yes 12.94%
    No 83.95%
    I’m not sure 3.11%

    I think someone should ask Bill Shorten this question, just for entertainment purposes of course. I’m betting he’s in the 3.11%.

  43. Docket62 says:

    No, this is not a criminal offence. If Australian citizens, then these turncoats are traitors and should face the penalty of traitors – the firing squad.

    Sadly, Australia doesn’t shoot the bastards. But I’d be reasonably confident that sending them back to Syria to face their former ISIS overlords would result in this.

    I’d be happy to escort them back and do the re introductions

  44. Dr Faustus says:

    Not sure what role these failed humans are supposed to play in ‘de-radicalising’ anyone. Is the idea that they are expected to tell potential jihadiis that God was just having a bad day when he commanded the faithful to slaughter the unbelievers? Or that the Caliphate is not as fun as it seems?

    It seems like a golden opportunity for the Australian taxpayer to spend a fortune protecting their worthless selves from from their own community.

  45. Myrddin Seren says:

    Collateral Damage

    Attacks on Syrians in Turkey increasing

    At a May 13 address to NATO foreign ministers in Antalya, the Turkish PM put the figure of Syrians currently in Turkey at more than 2 million.

    The past few weeks brought an upsurge in protests and acts of violence against the Syrian refugees. Some of these actions are said to be in response to the criminal activities of some of them, who are trying desperately to eke out a living to sustain their families.

    The overwhelming majority of Syrians, however, are scattered around the country, many of them roaming from city to city in search of work or simply begging on the streets.

    Public anger is not only being stirred by Syrian beggars becoming permanent features on the streets of cities and towns, but also because the refugees are undercutting already low wages and forcing up rents in mainly lower-income districts because of the increased demand for housing they create.

    The refugee crisis in the ME caused by the great Sunni-Shia War will be epic and tragic.

    This is only the tip of the iceberg.

    Thanks Aussie jihadis for your contribution. If you would really like to help and atone, there appears to be plenty of work going for helpers in Turkish, Jordanian and Iraqi displaced persons camps.

    Oh – that’s right. You guys are hankering to get back here for Mom’s hummus, Centrelink’s DSP for your PTSD and Friday nights tooling up and down George Street in your street rods yelling out profanity at kuffir women.

  46. Mique says:

    “After returned jihadis have served their Australian prison terms they should be deported back to the country where they committed the crimes (irrespective of any other law, convention, or international treaty – that is, particularly if they faced the death penalty).”

    Fixed yer typo.

  47. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Military justice under international laws and treaties. They’re traitors and enemy combatants, francs tireurs, answerable to no nation, uniform or command structure. They should be shot.

    My knowledge of the Geneva Convention is a bit out of date – can somebody with a bit more knowledge then me tell me if these bar stewards DO have any rights?

    Remember that the Viet Cong officer, shot in the street during the 1968 Tet offensive had no rights under international law.

  48. Ubique says:

    I keep reading that we can’t renounce the Australian citizenship of those Jihadis who aren’t dual nationals, for that would make them stateless persons. What utter rubbish. Who gives a rat’s arse if they are made stateless? They are the lowest form of murdering outlaw scum – they deserve to be made stateless.

    See how far the bastards can get with an ISIS-issued passport.

  49. Baldrick says:

    According to Teh Dumb…
    They’re not criminals. They’re disaffected disenfranchised youth who have been marginalised in Australian society because of their cultural, religious and in some cases, refugee heritage.

    Bwahahahaha!

  50. The Fifth Bike Rider of the Apocalypse says:

    If we’re going to shoot these returning failed terrorists, why not sub-contract the job to Indonesia.

    They’ve got a proven track record in this regard.

    As the head of their firing squad no doubt said, ‘We aim to please’.

  51. incoherent rambler says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heard_Island

    Methinks a good spot for jihadis and the dept of climate change

  52. Fred Lenin says:

    Do we stiil have the old law of Outlawry ,declare these muppets Outlaws ,every hand against them ,a Dead or Alive Reward on their. Heads no legal aid ,no criminal lying lawtrades people and jail their supporters in politicaps and the criminal left media . Simple Innit .

  53. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Do we stiil have the old law of Outlawry ,declare these muppets Outlaws ,every hand against them ,a Dead or Alive Reward on their. Heads no legal aid ,no criminal lying lawtrades people and jail their supporters in politicaps and the criminal left media . Simple Innit .

    Fred, have you ever considered running for Parliament?

  54. Andrew says:

    According to Teh Dumb…
    They’re not criminals. They’re disaffected disenfranchised youth who have been marginalised in Australian society because of their cultural, religious and in some cases, refugee heritage.

    Mmmnyes, we marginalise refos here. Like that fucking Balt Arvi Parbo – chaired Western Mining and BHP, copped a Sir Philiping.

  55. Ex Adelaidean says:

    No leniency for prodigal sons?

    It would be a fine intellectual court in which every reformed Marxist stood condemned; not a few sound classical liberals, libertarians and others would be for the chop.

  56. Andrew says:

    Re returning Young & Naive tourists from Syria:

    Grant them immunity from prosecution under Oz law if they undertake deradicalisation course. Then on return hand them over to Syria on receipt of extradition papers.

  57. MikeS says:

    Perhaps a modest counter-ops program turning up evidence of apostasy or previous unorthodox, non sharia compliant views held by the tourists and posted on jihadi accessible social media.

    Maybe bags of pork crackling snacks and “The Gospel for Dummies” mysteriously found in backpacks and boogie board bags on the way to the caliphate would do the trick. Autographed photos from Tony Abbott expressing the nation’s gratitude for their intelligence gathering efforts and clippings from Andrew Bolt’s column might sway the balance.

  58. Fisky says:

    They’re not criminals. They’re disaffected disenfranchised youth who have been marginalised in Australian society because of their cultural, religious and in some cases, refugee heritage.

    The Left need to get their shit together. One minute they’re like, “oh no no, we have no idea what’s causing this radicalisation, so you’ll have to pay us billions in research grants to find out”, and the next minute it’s “we KNOW why radicalisation is occuring, it’s because Western Civilisation has yet to be destroyed and its existence is oppressing people!!”

  59. rickw says:

    These people are criminals and need to face the criminal justice system.

    No, they’re not, and they don’t need to face the criminal justice system.

    They are War Criminals and they should face a justice system that has clearly within it’s scope the ultimate punishment. Nuremburg MKII.

    The Australian Criminal Justice system is simply not fit for the job of dealing with War Criminals, it is hardly fit for dealing with ordinary criminals.

  60. Elwood says:

    Yes they are war criminals – a Nurembourg might be a good suggestion to lob at the United Nations. They are no better than the SS.

  61. DavidH says:

    “you will go to jail”

    Some suggestion that this means Tony Abbott presumed their guilt … this could be taken to mean “you’ll be in jail until tried and longer if convicted”.

  62. Rabz says:

    “you will go to jail gaol”

    😡

  63. Up The Workers! says:

    And the A.L.P. not only encouraged such people to come to Australia (because barbarian savages apparently vote A.L.P.), but spent billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded cash rewards to thank them for breaking our laws in illegally coming here.

    If, all of a sudden, the A.L.P.-imported Jihadis started beheading senior A.L.P. and Union bosses, do you reckon the knuckle-draggers would notice?

  64. strange says:

    It all made sense until, “I’m not sure how credible the threat to deprive people of their citizenship is – but the government could and should implement the practical consequence of that threat anyway. After returned jihadis have served their Australian prison terms they should be deported back to the country where they committed the crimes”

    Obvious that this blog has nothing to do with rule of law or any other precepts of responsible citizenship or state action, or standing for what we believe in (ie opposition to the death sentence). Nice of us to return our citizens to another country where they can wreak havoc again. Thanks for that!

  65. Habib says:

    ZK2A, illegal combatants, not covered by any of the conventions. They’re also war criminals. Perfectly legal to shoot them on the field, however our ROE and DFDA would prevent our troops from doing so. Doesn’t however prevent them from handing the maggots over to the Syrians or Iraqis.

  66. JohnA says:

    After returned jihadis have served their Australian prison terms they should be deported back to the country where they committed the crimes (irrespective of any other law, convention, or international treaty – that is, even if they faced the death penalty).

    As a few have already said:
    a) why wait for them to complete their sentence? ship them off immediately they receive the guilty verdict; and
    b) why are we denying them the goal of their jihadi desires – martyrdom?

  67. Habib says:

    Strange old mate, I think you’ll find an overwhelming majority favour capital punishment. These swine are not protected under any conventions, and can quite legally given a lead earring. A sight more humane than what they’ve been dishing out.

  68. Zippy The Younger says:

    Unprivileged belligerents, not what one would rationally choose as a lifestyle choice, given the lack of rights under Geneva.

  69. Zippy The Younger says:

    Obvious that this blog has nothing to do with rule of law or any other precepts of responsible citizenship or state action, or standing for what we believe in (ie opposition to the death sentence). Nice of us to return our citizens to another country where they can wreak havoc again. Thanks for that!

    We are not talking about an armed hold up of the local 7/11 here.

    These are illegal combatants in a war zone. They have no right to POW status and no right to due process.

    And they will be decapitated if caught by their own side.

    Darwin Award candidates.

  70. Boambee John says:

    ZK2A @1.53:

    Its a while since I looked at the relevant Protocol, but my recollection is that to gain its protection, four conditions must be met:

    Operate under a clear command chain (I’m sure some oomin rites lawyer can argue that such exists in ISIS);

    Carry arms openly (they all do);

    The command chain enforces the rules of law and punishes breaches of them (even the most elequoent oomin rites lawer is going to have trouble with tbis one, given the proliferation of internet snuff movies, apparently produced under the orders of the command chain); and

    Wear a uniform or clearly visible identifying symbol at all times (the oomin rites types could argue that black robes meet this requirement, but Greek Orthodox clergy, and others, might disagree).

    Hope this helps.

  71. Boambee John says:

    Laws of war, NOT rules of law. (Do such exist?)

  72. notafan says:

    Reavers don’t wear uniforms. They might parade in black but out in the desert it’s whatever from traditional islamic dress to nike trakkies and t-shirts.

  73. Habib says:

    Not sure of the chain of command, someone obviously issues orders. Only partially uniformed, and most components look like they’ve been swiped from murdered enemy captives, so add perfidy to the list. They’re walking war crimes.

  74. Makka says:

    We have laws that already accommodate these circumstances. Under no circumstances should they be negotiable. Deal with these traitorous scum through existing laws and the situation of their return resolves itself.

  75. . says:

    Operate under a clear command chain (I’m sure some oomin rites lawyer can argue that such exists in ISIS);

    It sure does – but they also use retarded people as cannon fodder.

    I am sure there is grounds to execute them if captured if they are not obliterated beforehand.

  76. Harry Buttle says:

    Minor logistical matter – which airline do you think is going to allow these “ex-jihadis” on their plane to get home if it were to be allowed?

  77. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Its a while since I looked at the relevant Protocol, but my recollection is that to gain its protection, four conditions must be met:

    That was my understanding – a uniform, or fixed, distinctive sign, visible at a distance, carry weapons openly, and conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, and operate under a clear chain of command, where someone is accountable for your actions.

    (I’m not a Viet Nam veteran, but it’s my understanding that that’s why the Task Force wore the little yellow “Rising Sun” flashes, and the “black pajamas” worn by the Viet Cong qualified as uniform.)

  78. Rabz says:

    which airline do you think is going to allow these “ex-jihadis” on their plane to get home if it were to be allowed?

    They’ll no doubt demand (and probably get) taxpayer funded charter flights.

  79. Gleambright says:

    There are a lot of opinions here about how best to deal with these Jihadists, and I don’t disagree with a lot of it. However, we should not forget that the reason why IS has come to power in Iraq/Syria is a direct consequence of a pointless foreign invasion that Australia supported. I’d like to see at a part of the anger towards Jihadists to be at least partially directed towards avoiding a recurrence of same.

  80. GregJ says:

    I have a couple of girls here from Sweden at present and they say the government is already gone – meaning lost in their leftness.

    Helen, if the Swedes don’t have the guts to start shooting their treason committing politicians and the Muslims who are destroying their country, then they deserve all they get.

    Agreed.

    Frankly, their Norse/Viking forefathers would be cringeing in shame at the pack of Beta-males they have spawned.

  81. . says:

    Gleambright
    #1688628, posted on May 21, 2015 at 5:01 pm
    There are a lot of opinions here about how best to deal with these Jihadists, and I don’t disagree with a lot of it. However, we should not forget that the reason why IS has come to power in Iraq/Syria is a direct consequence of a pointless foreign invasion that Australia supported. I’d like to see at a part of the anger towards Jihadists to be at least partially directed towards avoiding a recurrence of same.

    Iraq maybe, but Syria?

    al Qaida would have got involved in Syria. There would have been a rebellion without the bombing of Gadaffi.

  82. Memoryvault says:

    I don’t know what all the fuss is about. Just cancel their current passports.
    This does not revoke their Australian citizenship, nor make them stateless.
    It just means they haven’t got a valid passport and can’t get back in until they get one.

    They will simply have to reapply for one from wherever they are.
    The local Australian Embassy should be able to help with that . . .

  83. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Its a while since I looked at the relevant Protocol, but my recollection is that to gain its protection, four conditions must be met:

    The story might be apocryphal, but when Northern Ireland began heating up in the late 1960’s , a U.S. politician demanded that the British Government treat captured I.R.A. men as “prisoners of war, under the Geneva Convention.”

    The British pointed out, very tactfully that, since the I.R.A. fulfilled none of the conditions to be treated as P.O.W’s, they could quite lawfully be shot out of hand.

  84. Habib says:

    On the whole Boer prisoners were treated fairly well, however if captured wearing khaki they were summarily shot. Had Harry Morant’s defence put forward that the Boers he croaked were caught wearing British uniform components he probably would’ve walked- there was an actual directive issued by Kitchener.

    I’d say the loopy loppers would well qualify for this.

  85. Zippy The Younger says:

    Operate under a clear command chain (I’m sure some oomin rites lawyer can argue that such exists in ISIS);

    Afaik they also have to be acting for a state. Just because this groups calls itself a state doesn’t mean it need be recognised as a state. These are technically non-state actors and would be unprivileged belligerents. Ie without POW rights of normal state military or even due process rights.

    Only IS recognises its own “state” status. We certainly don’t.

  86. notafan says:

    They will simply have to reapply for one from wherever they are.

    It’nt this what they are currently trying to do via their Australian lawyer?

  87. Splatacrobat says:

    Nazi war criminals are still being hunted after 70 years. What if we accept these war criminals back in and in 5,10,20,30 years from now Iraq or Syria decide to press The Hague for war trial like in the Balkans?
    We don’t need ” Australian war criminal extradited to The Hague ” splashed on international broad sheets.

    No quarter given.

  88. A Lurker says:

    Methinks a good spot for jihadis and the dept of climate change.

    They can try to convert each other into their respective cults.
    The volcano on Heard Island would be added entertainment during its eruptions.

  89. Memoryvault says:

    It’nt this what they are currently trying to do via their Australian lawyer?

    No. They’re attempting to negotiate a return without repercussions for what they have been doing, who they have been doing it with, and the laws they have broken as a consequence. They’re young, and haven’t been gone long, so presumably they already have current passports.

  90. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Had Harry Morant’s defence put forward that the Boers he croaked were caught wearing British uniform components he probably would’ve walked- there was an actual directive issued by Kitchener.

    What’s usually overlooked is that, only one of those Boers was actually a prisoner of war, and wearing British uniform. The Boer , Visser. The rest were all in civilian clothing- one group was captured, riding in a wagon, too ill from malaria to even walk. They shot them all, including the twelve year old boy driving the wagon.
    The Boers were what were contemptuously called “handsuppers” – coming in to sign their paroles, take the oath of allegiance to the British Crown, and take no further part in the war. (The scene where Visser is found wearing Captain Hunt’s tunic is pure fiction – Morant’s own orderly testified to the Court Martial that Morant himself had Hunt’s uniform, and was wearing it at the time Visser was shot.)

    FWIW, I’ve seen the grave in the Old Cemetery in Pretoria, but, not surprisingly the South Africans have a different view of the matter. ( One South African Historian estimates the total dead at thirty five – nobody counted Africans.)

  91. Alexis says:

    In more general terms a combatant that doesnt accept any of the Geneva convention rules isn’t protected by them either. See Hamas for another example.

  92. Mater says:

    If they have operated in Iraq, and acted as insurgents in Iraq, the only deal they should be offered is a guarantee of a fair hearing under Iraqi law. Surely that is were our responsibility ends. It would set a horrible precedent if the Government of Australia were to extricate citizens back to Australia, knowing full well they had likely committed indictable crimes in another country.
    Would we facilitate the repatriation of an Australian citizen who was on the run from US authorities in America?
    We either recognise the authority of the Iraqi Government, or we don’t. Let them prove their innocence to the Iraqi courts.

  93. Mater says:

    They’re young, and haven’t been gone long, so presumably they already have current passports.

    Didn’t some of them burn their Australian passports on YouTube as a point proving exercise?

  94. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    It would set a horrible precedent if the Government of Australia were to extricate citizens back to Australia, knowing full well they had likely committed indictable crimes in another country.

    Particularly in the light of Memory Vaults post – that they are trying to negotiate a “get out of gaol free” card.

  95. Memoryvault says:

    This is all getting ridiculous. As Splatacrobat correctly points out above, doing anything with these arseholes other than inviting an application for extradition from the Iraqi or Syrian governments, and holding them until the paperwork arrives, leaves Australia open to a future charge of harbouring war criminals.

    As Mater states, we wouldn’t do it protect someone on the run from the U.S. authorities. Last I heard we still recognised the current governments in Syria and Iraq as legitimate. Why should the solution be any different? Because we know what will happen to them? Stiff shit. They knew that themselves, before they even left here.

  96. Fisky says:

    It would set a horrible precedent if the Government of Australia were to extricate citizens back to Australia, knowing full well they had likely committed indictable crimes in another country.

    Nope, the Left don’t care about laws in non-western countries. Witness their indifference to the fact that David Hicks was firing at Indian troops over the border, a war crime. The Left only care about themselves in their unreality bubble.

  97. Fisky says:

    Also, the Left wanted Tony Abbott to go into Indonesia and physically bring two convicted drug smugglers back to Australia, never mind Indonesia and its legal system.

  98. Memoryvault says:

    Didn’t some of them burn their Australian
    passports on YouTube as a point proving exercise?

    If that is the case, Mater, then the Australian authorities should immediately produce replacements and make them available for pickup at the nearest Iraqi or Syrian police station. That should take care of the need for any extradition paperwork.

  99. Tel says:

    . Witness their indifference to the fact that David Hicks was firing at Indian troops over the border, a war crime.

    Hmmm, if one nation firing at another nation’s troops is a war crime, then all war must be a crime surely?

    Maybe you are saying he was firing without prior provocation, but there’s been a long history of simmering belligerence on that border. If I remember it was in the India/Pakistan/Kashmir area.

    Hicks hardly came up with the idea of starting a campaign on his own. He was more of a cheap mercenary doing tasks given to him. That doesn’t make it right, but “war crime”? I doubt it.

  100. john constantine says:

    Of course if anything happens to one of the ‘hands up don’t shoot’ headhunters attempting to enforce their right of return to australian ‘disability pensionhood’ or more likely well paid respect money govvie jobs—

    Imagine the swampfilth legal assault on the Great Abbottbeast, the photos of the swarms of little fatherless kiddies and the stricken widows. the social media memes.

    Instead of running the country and fixing ruddfilth/redfilth/ruddfilth the cold dead hand of the filth government is still holding australia back, the senate is holding australia back, their media is waging terror attacks, all the lefty lawyers have to do is to steal hours or days of useful time from the elected government and divert them down lefty dead ends. Suing the government for jihadi deaths is just a ploy to use taxpayer funds against the state.

    Factcheck time for their abc, what is the financial liability for australia to fund the families of jihadis ? what cost to pay for jihadi post traumatic stress pensions?. What cost to set up a hive of tax leeches to create welfare herds of radical jihadi kiddies?

  101. john constantine says:

    If you get more govvie money for providing services to a radical jihadi kid than you get for providing services to a non jihadi kid, the taxleeches will be assessing kids as jihadis in industrial numbers.

    As the patrician said, if you want less rats, don’t subsidise rat farms, tax them.

  102. Tel says:

    Witness their indifference to the fact that David Hicks was firing at Indian troops over the border, a war crime.

    I quite agree. Australia is not and has never been in the business of owning people. We don’t support slavery nor serfdom here. We cannot commad the loyalty of anyone, people are free to leave if they wish to. This is very important, because if we start trapping people we can no longer call ourselves a free country, nor can we claim there is some agreement in place while we are holding people who don’t even want to be here.

    That said, if someone wants to assign their primary allegiance to some other foreign group, and they don’t want to obey Australian law, they cannot simultaneously expect to be granted the protection and privilege of Australian citizenship. It’s really a matter of individual choice.

  103. Tel says:

    Crap, stupid quote. Was attempting to reply to this:

    I keep reading that we can’t renounce the Australian citizenship of those Jihadis who aren’t dual nationals, for that would make them stateless persons. What utter rubbish.

  104. Zippy The Younger says:

    Hmmm, if one nation firing at another nation’s troops is a war crime, then all war must be a crime surely?

    There are all these rules as to what give combatants Geneva protection. Being part of the state as a citizen or military is the primary one. Mercenaries are a different category and generally recognise as unlawful.

    Since islam is not a state, nor any of its subgroups, it’s fighters regardless if which group they belong to are not lawful combatants.

    If moslems fight for a state as part of its military then they are entitled to Geneva rights, but that is with the constraint that they are doing it for a real state.

  105. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Tel:

    Witness their indifference to the fact that David Hicks was firing at Indian troops over the border, a war crime.

    Hmmm, if one nation firing at another nation’s troops is a war crime, then all war must be a crime surely?

    Sigh.

    To be a lawful combatant under the laws of war, one must:

    bear arms openly

    wear a distinctive uniform, insignia or sign

    be in a national, state or tribal chain of command

    It ain’t rocket science. Hicks did NONE of these things, and therefore was an unlawful combatant.

    As such, he should have been immediately shot once his status as an unlawful combatant was established by an appropriate authority (such as an officer from a force obeying the laws of war).

    The Indians could, quite legally, demand his extradition, try him, and hang him for what he did to them.

    And it ould be perfectly appropriate if they did.

  106. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    The Indians could, quite legally, demand his extradition, try him, and hang him for what he did to them.

    IIRC, they Indians DID want him extradited when he was to be released, but they seem to have quietly dropped the idea.

  107. incoherent rambler says:

    Of course if anything happens to one of the ‘hands up don’t shoot’ headhunters attempting to enforce their right of return to australian ‘disability pensionhood’ or more likely well paid respect money govvie jobs—

    I reckon they won’t get much of a welcome at the local RSL.

  108. wreckage says:

    Shooting across a border without declaring war is a crime for individuals or for states, yes. Next question.

  109. incoherent rambler says:

    P.S. I favour the 180gr. deradicalization pill,

  110. Memoryvault says:

    I reckon they won’t get much of a welcome at the local RSL.

    Why not?
    It’s not as though they are something despicable and disgusting.
    Like a Nasho Vietnam Vet, for instance.

  111. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Zippy, mercenaries are not unlawful. The Gurkha regiment in the British Army are mercenaries – non-citizens enlisted in the British Army for pay. They are both perfectly legal in every way.

    So are the Papal Guard, who, aside from wearing pike and shot era uniforms for tourists to gawk at, are in reality highly trained infantry who spend most of their time lurking in and about the place armed to the teeth with modern weapons, and that the tourists NEVER see. Most of the SOF/para guys I know regard them as part of their brotherhood. (SOF guys are a little odd. Paras are genuinely odd)

    Reminds me of a little tale. many years ago I was talking to some 101st guys. The Screaming Eagles have an issue with fakes. So they keep records, and you can call the orderley room and check the name of any claimant. These guys said when they were juniors in the 80s they spent their Memorial day ‘in this podunk town’, where they met some old Eagles. They checked, yep. Genuine. The oldest asked how many jumps they had, (hundreds) and any combat (yep, about half a dozen each). They asked the old Eagle how many jumps – less than 20, ‘training was different back then’. Any combat?

    Yep, but just two.

    Oh, which ops?

    OVERLORD and MARKET GARDEN.

    Wounded in both.

    And there was this very sincere and deeply respectful silence for a while.

  112. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Paras are genuinely odd)

    Anybody prepared to jump out of a fully serviced aircraft, crewed by men and women trained and qualified to fly said aircraft, and trust their lives to what is basically a folded bed sheet, and several hundred feet of string, indeed is genuinely odd.

  113. hzhousewife says:

    Respect, Screaming Eagles, Gurkhas – and the Papal Guard !

  114. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Oh, ZK2A, thanks for the advice on single malts earlier. I do not mind them at all, although my favourite sipping whisky is ballantynes. I keep a 3 litre bottle of that (on a swing-to-pour arrangement) topped up. Had to bring back a reserve litre last week.

    Enjoying Flor de Cana ATT.

  115. Zippy The Younger says:

    Zippy, mercenaries are not unlawful.

    It varies. Geneva Convention says: “A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war”.

    It’s a case of who wins, write the rules as far as mercenaries go.

    Being non-state actors and terrorists, jihadists have at best humanitarian protection.

    With an unprivileged belligerent. You may capture them. You may transport them anywhere or any country. You may extract whatever information you want. Afaik only POWs have protection from torture, so how you extract information is open to interpretation.

    You have no obligation to give them a trial or put them before a tribunal. You can hold them till they push up daisies.

    So long as you keep the off domestic soil and away from human rights lawyers, these people if they have any informational value are fucked.

  116. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    It’s a case of who wins, write the rules as far as mercenaries go.

    I seem to remember that the Americans made loud protests after an American, Daniel Gerhardt (spelling) was shot in Angola, in the mid 1970’s. They alleged a breach of international law.

  117. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    It depends on who’s hiring, ZK2A. There’s no doubt that Mad Mike Hoare’s 4 and 5 Commando’s were fully legal. They were hired by a valid, recognised government.

    Those ‘deniable’ CIA hirelings – not so much.

    The former-SOF guys I know who do, ah, ‘security work’ have a Rule #1 – never work for the CIA.

  118. Zippy The Younger says:

    So uncle google tells me the US does not recognise the limitation of mercenary use in the Geneva Convention and is not a signatory to the United Nations Mercenary Convention. It specifically names terrorist groups so there is no ambiguity about privileged and unprivileged status.

    Australia is not a signatory.

    saudi arabia and qatar are (cough cough) signatories

  119. Fisky says:

    IIRC, they Indians DID want him extradited when he was to be released, but they seem to have quietly dropped the idea.

    Such a shame we didn’t take them up on it. He was a shit and fully deserved to hang.

  120. Tel says:

    To be a lawful combatant under the laws of war, one must:

    bear arms openly

    wear a distinctive uniform, insignia or sign

    be in a national, state or tribal chain of command

    It ain’t rocket science. Hicks did NONE of these things, and therefore was an unlawful combatant.

    Wait, you are changing the story here. You first said that the act of firing at all was a war crime, but anyway let’s look at your newer points:

    Hicks was firing a machine gun, hardly a concealed weapon that he whipped out of his trousers, anyway it was provided by others, didn’t even belong to him, and I believe (wasn’t there at the time so this is very second hand) that he was firing from some sort of entrenched position… sort of a very clearly military type entrenched position.

    Hicks obviously was following instructions from someone, exactly how the command structure worked I have no idea but to pretend he was his own self driven campaign is ridiculous.

    So now this thing about uniforms. Well, we have plenty of military and para-military forces running on taxpayer’s money who routinely operate out of uniform. We have undercover cops, drug enforcement operatives, just about the entire CIA, no doubt some Australian foreign operations as well, and quite often mercenaries don’t have any real uniform, they might have some small insignia often not particularly recognizable. If that’s a war crime then we must all be guilty because one way or another we all voluntarily support some group or other who knowingly do it. What’s more, any criminal with any weapon would suddenly become a “war criminal” just because they have no uniform, especially if they cross a border.

    I’m not sure what you want to accept as a definition, but there’s a wikipedia page on war crimes here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

    The only mention of uniforms is the act of Perfidy which means putting on the uniform of the other side and then using that to carry out assassination or something like that. Hicks never did that.

    You could be getting confused with the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 which deals with prisoners of war and whether a captive can claim POW status. People captured while not in uniform might end up being accused of spying, and lose any protection under the Geneva Convention. That hardly makes it a “war crime” it’s just worse luck for the captive.

    Hicks was not captured while firing a machine gun at India. We only know about it because he wrote a letter, we don’t even know what he was wearing at the time. Hicks was captured much later, possibly not as a belligerent at all, but he was nabbed by people nominally on his own side (i.e. the Afghan side, which nowhere had a solid or consistent command structure) and Hicks was turned over for a bounty payment. Hicks was never offered POW status so I doubt the Geneva Convention came into it (not sure if Hicks ever attempted to invoke it) but the laws he was accused of breaking were retrospective laws that Howard created after the fact. Hicks was never accused of spying, nor could he credibly be considered a spy, intelligence wasn’t his strong point.

    The rule of law never operates retrospectively, it’s a logical impossibility. Only the will of man can impose retrospective punishment, and that’s a bad thing when you see it, because it’s a clear sign that rule of law is not in operation. Fair enough if Howard decided that the existence of Australian mercenaries is bad for national security, it is the Commonwealth responsibility to guard the borders, and that’s fair call for the Prime Minister to make such decisions. In which case it should apply to all Australian freelance fighters, but strangely Hicks was singled out, largely for political reasons, and retrospectively.

    The ISIS fighters at least have been breaking existing laws that were well publicised, and they have been involved in actual war crimes such as rape and murder of civilians and pillage as well. There’s no evidence that Hicks did any of those things, the main crime he committed was just not being particularly likeable.

  121. cohenite says:

    Is anyone here making a submission to Bernadi’s halal enquiry?

  122. . says:

    The Indians could, quite legally, demand his extradition, try him, and hang him for what he did to them.

    It’s a shitty world when this doesn’t happen but Indonesia plays tough on two dudes importing drugs into Australia…

  123. Andrew says:

    The rule of law never operates retrospectively, it’s a logical impossibility. Only the will of man can impose retrospective punishment, and that’s a bad thing when you see it, because it’s a clear sign that rule of law is not in operation. Fair enough if Howard decided that the existence of Australian mercenaries is bad for national security, it is the Commonwealth responsibility to guard the borders, and that’s fair call for the Prime Minister to make such decisions. In which case it should apply to all Australian freelance fighters, but strangely Hicks was singled out, largely for political reasons, and retrospectively.

    So he was captured by Afghans, handed to Yanks, held in Guantanamo, tried in Guantanamo by a U.S. military tribunal defended by a U.S. lawyer and did his sentence in a U.S. institution.

    But somehow this is Howard6666’s fault??

  124. notafan says:

    I made a submission, at least I tried too. Last I looked only three had been published on the website.
    No way I would have my name published.

  125. Piett says:

    There has been some discussion of the ‘franc-tireur’ principle. People seem to think it is still a valid part of military law. I don’t.

    Its most famous use in the 20th century was in Belgium in 1914, during the Battle of Dinant. As they were preparing to assault the town, a German raiding party crept in during the night, and got into a firefight. As they retreated, they were shot at, by Dinant civilians, French infantry, and/or their own troops, in the confusion. The Germans decided, without being sure of who had been doing the shooting, that the town must be full of hostile civilians.

    The next day, as they took Dinant, they shot every civilian man they found (plus some women and children) as franc-tireurs — 674 in total.

    That’s the problem with the principle — it’s far too open to abuse. It should be consigned to the dustbin of legal history. Which effectively it has been. As someone mentioned upthread, Australian LOAC and ROEs don’t recognise the principle, and I’m pretty sure that would be the case with most or all Western nations.

  126. Piett says:

    So what should happen to returning jihadis? Well, call me a softie, but I’d let them back in if they comply with all the following: (1) no evidence that they participated in atrocities, (2) unequivocal, public renunciation of the IS, (3) complete cooperation with authorities in providing intel on the IS, (4) agreement to work with the Government to warn young Muslims about the IS, (5) acceptance that they will be charged under the new law regarding travel to prohibited areas, and agreement to plead guilty and accept whatever penalty the court hands down.

    If the above is unacceptable, they can damn well stay in Turkey and do humanitarian work to atone, as Myrddin Seren suggested above.

  127. perturbed says:

    They have chosen the current sh*thole for themselves; we should do everything in our power to make sure they remain there until they die, however long that takes.

  128. Zippy The Younger says:

    Hicks was never offered POW status so I doubt the Geneva Convention came into it

    That right there tells you he was not seen as a legal combatant. All legal combatants captured are entitled to POW status.

  129. Zippy The Younger says:

    Thomas Jefferson & Radical Islam’s War on the West
    Those that assume that radical Islam is a modern phenomenon that became prominent during Bill Clinton’s tenure as president in the 1990s merely scratch the historical surface of America’s complicated political entanglement with the Middle East’s supposed “religion of peace.” In truth, the tentacles of radical Islam go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. Historically, Thomas Jefferson was the first U.S. president to go to war against belligerent Islam.

    The Mujahidin knew the Union Jack, but they didn’t know the Stars and Stripes. Not that it mattered then or now: All foreigners and non-Muslims were targets. Jefferson foresaw the danger and spent the fall of 1784 studying Islam as well as fellow diplomats’ treatment of the long-standing issue. Specifically, in March of 1785, future presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. When they inquired into the Mujadhins’ propensity “to make war upon nations who had done them no injury,” the ambassador replied:

    It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

    Jefferson argued correctly that paying “tribute” to Muslim extremism would encourage further malfeasance: “infidel” enslavement, hostage-taking and ship hijacking had already plagued Europe for a thousand years. Although John Adams concurred, as America had no standing navy, the circumstance forced the new, debt-ridden nation to pay a hefty 1 million dollar tithe (approximately 10% of the U.S. government’s annual revenues in 1800), a government entitlement program for terrorists that went on for 15 years. Unlike the Obama doctrine of continued appeasement and hollow political “victories” not worth the paper they are written on, Thomas Jefferson wanted to fight. However, certain precincts of the U.S. government reacted haphazardly to continued acts of terrorism. In late 1793, the mass hijacking of U.S. ships by Muslims had a 9/11 effect on the U.S. economy. Four months later, on March 27, 1794, Congress—after debating the subject periodically over a decade—finally decided to build a fleet of warships: six extra-large frigates. In essence, the United States Navy was born in response to unprovoked Muslim aggression.

    After 17 years of calling for war against Islamic extremism represented by Barbary piracy, it was not until 1801 as America’s third president that Mr. Jefferson dispatched a naval squadron of four warships to the Mediterranean to engage in a four-year war off the shores of Tripoli.

  130. cohenite says:

    notafan

    #1688948, posted on May 21, 2015 at 10:56 pm

    I made a submission, at least I tried too. Last I looked only three had been published on the website.
    No way I would have my name published.

    I can relate to that. The site for submitting is problematic. If I do one if will be something like below:

    Halal means what is permissible under Sharia which is Islamic law. It does not just apply to foods and beverages but every aspect of life. If something is halal it is part of Islam. Making things, foods, actions etc halal means they become part of Islam.

    Halal is the process by which Islam replaces the social, economic, political and legal structure of a host society.

    Other ways Islam subsumes the host society are through the building of Mosques and visible symbols such as the burqa.

    There are over 370 mosques in Australia which, per capita, is more than six times the number of Buddhist and Hindu temples. It is much more than the conventional (sic) religions such as Catholicism and Anglicanism. The Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated: “A mosque is our barracks, the domes our helmets, minarets our bayonets and the faithful are our soldiers.”

    In 2010 France banned the burqa based on a Parliamentary Commission to Study the Wearing of the Full Veil in France. This Commission had found the burqa was an infringement of the principle of freedom, a symbol of subservience and a negation of the principle of equality.

    In 2014 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld France’s banning of the burqa. In addition to the principles found by France the ECHR also found the burqa was an an affront to the country’s tenets of secularism and a security risk, preventing the accurate identification of individuals.

    Other European nations have followed or plan to follow France’s lead in banning the burqa but a limited ban in Queensland has failed.

    The building of Mosques and the wearing of the burqa as well as food certification are part of the halal process.

    Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says:

    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    Section 116 has four limbs. The first three limbs prohibit the Commonwealth from making certain laws: laws “for establishing any religion”; laws “for imposing any religious observance”; and laws “for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion”. The fourth limb proscribes the imposition of religious tests to qualify for any Commonwealth office or public trust.

    The first limb is of relevance to halal. In Attorney-General (Vic); Ex Rel Black v Commonwealth (“DOGS case”) [1981] HCA 2; (1981) 146 CLR 559 (2 February 1981) the High Court found that Section 116 did not encompass laws that benefit religions generally; it only proscribed laws that established a particular religion.

    Islam is a particular religion. Halal certification is the process by which Islam establishes itself. In Quick and Garran (1995) [1901]. The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth. Sydney: Legal Books. ISBN 1-86316-071-X establishment means “the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others.” (page 951)

    Allowing halal to continue could be construed as conceding special favours, titles and advantages to Islam.
    It would seem that there are 2 possible legal principles affronted by halal. The first is described by the French banning of the burqa. The second is described by S.116.

  131. Zippy The Younger says:

    I made a submission, at least I tried too. Last I looked only three had been published on the website.

    URL?

  132. . says:

    Allowing halal to continue could be construed as conceding special favours, titles and advantages to Islam.

    Nonsense.

  133. cohenite says:

    #1689069, posted on May 22, 2015 at 8:34 am

    Allowing halal to continue could be construed as conceding special favours, titles and advantages to Islam.

    Nonsense.

    Your best yet dot. All cylinders fucking firing.

  134. . says:

    You think private actions where there is no relevant legislation is “unconstitutional”?

    You’re a crank.

  135. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    (5) acceptance that they will be charged under the new law regarding travel to prohibited areas, and agreement to plead guilty and accept whatever penalty the court hands down.

    Publicly, and I mean publicly, on the A.B.C. and other mass media, denounce Islam, and all it’s values, and everything Islam stands for.

  136. cohenite says:

    .

    #1689096, posted on May 22, 2015 at 9:17 am

    You think private actions where there is no relevant legislation is “unconstitutional”?

    You’re a crank.

    This is the problem; for uber individuals like dear dot, halal is a private activity worked out in the hurly burly of pure capitalistic endeavour.

    If you don’t like eating halal food, don’t eat them; if you don’t like burqas don’t look at them; if you don’t like the inculcation of anti-West ideology at the mosques ignore them. It’s all your choice! Freedom at work.

    For the dear dots of the world freedom is a given. It exists because it is and available if people want it. And islam is no threat to that freedom of choice, in fact it adds to that freedom by adding another choice.

    Is that position dot?

  137. cohenite says:

    notafan

    #1689101, posted on May 22, 2015 at 9:36 am

    The message I get is that files are uploading and no submissions can be done until that is complete.

  138. . says:

    If you don’t like eating halal food, don’t eat them; if you don’t like burqas don’t look at them; if you don’t like the inculcation of anti-West ideology at the mosques ignore them. It’s all your choice! Freedom at work.

    Correct – and it isn’t a problem. That is an ideal that people should look up to.

    …and you can’t get Parliament to legislate to stop a religion in any way on the grounds that its existence which does not require any legislation is favouring it. It is a legal nonsense.

  139. notafan says:

    I’m getting error messages when I had another go. I suppose I could try emailing as I didn’t get a confirmation notice.
    By the by avoiding halal certified foods is one of the issues being addressed by the enquiry. Apparently some food manufacturers pay the fee but don’t label the items.
    It defeats the purpose of the certification and raises questions as to why you would do that.
    Health tick, organic you pay but you don’t display?
    Makes no sense to me.

  140. Anne says:

    Libertarians? Tolerance of Islam is like the one drooling psychotic relative in an otherwise respectable family.

  141. cohenite says:

    Correct Anne. The family analogy is apt. Dot with his pure principles is manifesting a form of Folie à deux or shared delusions.

    Freedom is not achieved or maintained by tolerating that which opposes the freedom; islam does not reciprocate and uses the freedoms to abolish those freedoms.

    S.116 is interesting. There is no law banning halal but is one needed? By allowing halal is islam being tolerated to an extent which allows it to establish itself at the expense of other religions, let alone the society it is in.

    As I say above establishment means “the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others.” That can be interpreted as meaning that no specific law is required for the tolerance of halal to contravene S.116.

    Dot’s simplistic world view is going to see us all with short haircuts.

  142. . says:

    S.116 is interesting. There is no law banning halal but is one needed? By allowing halal is islam being tolerated to an extent which allows it to establish itself at the expense of other religions, let alone the society it is in.

    This is legal rubbish.

    As I say above establishment means “the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others.” That can be interpreted as meaning that no specific law is required for the tolerance of halal to contravene S.116.

    Wank wank wank. No court will ever allow this.

    Dot’s simplistic world view is going to see us all with short haircuts.

    Be prepared to be on the losing side of a lot of court cases. Hint: I’m actually helping you.

    Islam having Halal doesn’t deny other churches rights. It actually allows them a competitive advantage – in that you don’t have to follow such silly rules.

    What you propose is to ban a lot of voluntary action to *protect all other religions than Islam from Islam*.

    Unless you can convince the High Court that we have all lost our free will, you cannot possibly expect any law banning Halal etc to ever survive.

    Lastly, there is no head of power for these laws to exist. They would be ultra vires and void ab initio.

  143. notafan says:

    Islam a ‘religion’ with its own legal and political systems that imposes itself on non-muslims. Nothing to worry about there.
    The murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists was the de facto imposition of sharia blasphemy law penalties against non muslims. Halal certification of food for non muslims at the expenses (no matter how financially insignificant to individuals) is another manifestation of the same impostion of muslim law on to non muslims.
    Muslims are pushing for blashemy laws in the West (no death penalty yet) and they will and do use 18c and its state equivalants to close down criticism of islam.
    Demands to allow jihadists war criminals to return without penalty is just another ploy. If 200 come back do they all get employed as deradicalisation experts? When muslims (continue) to scream because their rights to obtain a passport are cancelled because freedom and their youth plot terrorism attacks on Australian soil why should we look at halal certification in a vacuum?
    If muslims want halal certification they can have it if they pay for it.

  144. Anne says:

    Companies can pay Halal Certification or any fees to whomever they please and pass that on to customers if they wish.

    I just want that information/affiliation made clear to Consumers so I am FREE TO CHOOSE!

  145. . says:

    I don’t see how unjust ideas like the racial discrimination act (anti free speech) and no punishment for terrorists can be linked to not banning Halal. They could be changed/repealed/enacted if Halal existed or not, let alone was banned or not.

    If you don’t want Halal food, the easiest way is to eat Kosher. I eat some Kosher foods merely by coincidence, the food is quite good and not hard to get, even in rural areas. There are also anti Halal resources /groups who list Halal and non Halal food so you don’t need labeling.

  146. cohenite says:

    Islam having Halal doesn’t deny other churches rights. It actually allows them a competitive advantage – in that you don’t have to follow such silly rules.

    This needs elaboration. For instance how are other churches imposing their ideology on the rest of us. And to what extent, and this is one of the crucial issues floating around here, should any religion be allowed to poke its head into the secular processes. After all this is what the European Court found: that the burqa was an unreasonable religious intrusion into the secular framework.

  147. jupes says:

    Dot is from the Lunar Libertarian branch of the party.

  148. . says:

    For instance how are other churches imposing their ideology on the rest of us.

    I didn’t assume anyone was. Halal disadvantages Islam because it restricts the liberty of its followers. This limits how many people want to sign up. This is to the advantage of all other religions which proselytise.

    After all this is what the European Court found: that the burqa was an unreasonable religious intrusion into the secular framework.

    We don’t have any constitutional grounds to base a “social cohesion” argument, whereas France does. You would also have prove that social cohesion was interrupted.

  149. . says:

    Fine jupes, be a smart arse, ignore the legal realities.

  150. jupes says:

    Halal disadvantages Islam because it restricts the liberty of its followers. This limits how many people want to sign up. This is to the advantage of all other religions which proselytise.

    FMD. Halal is to the advantage of other religions! Who knew?

    I may or may not ignore legal realities, but you, Dot, ignore reality.

  151. cohenite says:

    Halal disadvantages Islam because it restricts the liberty of its followers. This limits how many people want to sign up. This is to the advantage of all other religions which proselytise.

    LOL. I think I injured myself reading that.

    Islam is a fucking cult; restricting the freedoms of its acolytes is the point of cults. And islam is the fastest growing religion/cult in the world. What does that tell you about human nature dot?

  152. notafan says:

    Because halal is pushed as an opportunty to profit from food being sold to the ‘non-muslim’ community by the halal certification industy.
    Because the industry is controlled by the various Islamic Councils in whom I have no trust.
    Because the halal industry forces food manufacturers in the meat processing industry to employ muslims controlled through a dictatorial and arbitrary registration process of the Islamic Councils.
    Before the halal certification industry took off anyone who believes in God could perform halal slaughter and muslims themselves are still allowed to eat kosher meat so the halal slaughterman registration rules are over and above what is required by islam itself.
    Why are abbatoirs paying tithes to halal certifiers for meat intended for the ‘non-muslim’ market?
    Some people think this works as a subtle extortion racket, perhaps the Senate enquiry will lay those concerns to rest.
    Someone is funding terrorisms in Australia and paying for jihad in the middle east, I’d like some assurances that the growing halal certification industry isn’t part of that. It may not fund it directly but it doesn’t mean it hasn’t facilitated other funds being freed up for the purpose. It’s not like islamic banking has much of an audit trail.
    We know that there have been millions in taxpayer funds redirected from muslim schools to the Islamic Councils which are currently subject to court action in NSW and massive welfare fraud, but we are supposed to assume the halal certification industry is innocuous and shutup.

  153. . says:

    FMD. Halal is to the advantage of other religions! Who knew?

    Yes .

  154. . says:

    You’re conflating things nota.

    If people are supporting terrorism, they should be prosecuted.

    If people are forced into Halal, they are victims of racketeering and the offenders should be prosecuted.

    There is no legal, constitutional basis to ban Halal.

  155. Piett says:

    So let me get this straight … section 116 exists for the specific purpose of preventing the Commonwealth from interfering in religion, and cohenite thinks he can use the section in order to force the Commonwealth to … interfere in religion.

    OK. Cohenite, can I come and watch when you put this argument to the full bench of the High Court? The expressions on the Judges’ faces will be priceless.

    It seems to me there are two ways of dealing with Halal, for those opposed to it. One is to try to cook up bizarre and dodgy arguments to get the government to ban halal. (It won’t work, honestly.)

    The other way is to realise that you have an opportunity here. Set up your own non-halal food production or distribution. Or set up a website that advises customers on where and how to get non-halal food. If you got suppliers to advertise, you could have a nice little earner. But that all sounds like too much work, doesn’t it?

  156. Roger says:

    Halal disadvantages Islam because it restricts the liberty of its followers. This limits how many people want to sign up. This is to the advantage of all other religions which proselytise.

    An interesting theory, dot.

    Hard to prove empirically, though, since records of conversions to Islam in the West, where such conversions would be free choices and which would give us a basis for such a comparison, are virtually non-existent.

    My thought is that for people seeking a religion, dietary restrictions would not be an issue, and perhaps even an attraction, since they serve as an identity marker (like distinctive clothing), and religious conversions are often in response to questions of identity.

  157. cohenite says:

    Dot, you’re nuts if you believe halal is to the benefit of other religions. Why? Is it opening potential markets? I can just see the Catholics down at Woolworths with a booth in front of the meat section demanding everyone undergo confession before they buy their lamb chops. 2 hail Marys for each cutlet.

    LOL.

  158. jupes says:

    There is no legal, constitutional basis to ban Halal.

    If true*, then hold a referendum.

    * I have as much faith in legal advice from the Lunar Faction of the LDP as I would taking legal advice from the Greens.

  159. Andrew says:

    Libertarians? Tolerance of Islam is like the one drooling psychotic relative in an otherwise respectable family.

    Really? You’ve forgotten their Hansonite* border “protection” policy?

    *as in Sarah Sea-Patrol, not the other one

  160. cohenite says:

    Piett

    #1689186, posted on May 22, 2015 at 11:38 am

    So let me get this straight … section 116 exists for the specific purpose of preventing the Commonwealth from interfering in religion, and cohenite thinks he can use the section in order to force the Commonwealth to … interfere in religion.

    The point I was making is that halal is enabling a religion to establish itself at the expense not just of other religions, despite dot’s fanciful reasoning, and society as a whole. It’s not rocket science.

    As for the Judge’s expressions I daresay they will be no different from the expressions I get now.

  161. . says:

    Dot, you’re nuts if you believe halal is to the benefit of other religions. Why? Is it opening potential markets?

    Because you have to give up a lot to follow it. Not being a follower is more attractive.

    I can just see the Catholics down at Woolworths with a booth in front of the meat section demanding everyone undergo confession before they buy their lamb chops. 2 hail Marys for each cutlet.

    Exactly – Catholics wouldn’t do that. They don’t want to piss off potential believers.

  162. . says:

    If true*, then hold a referendum.

    * I have as much faith in legal advice from the Lunar Faction of the LDP as I would taking legal advice from the Greens.

    The notion that Halal can be banned is illucid, cranky and a joke. You should look at yourself if you seriously think it would happen with no referendum.

    A referendum probably wouldn’t get up. Vic, SA and Tas are too left wing. You could not get 4/6 States even with a 60% popular vote.

  163. jupes says:

    Because you have to give up a lot to follow it. Not being a follower is more attractive.

    LOL.

    That must be why Islamic State has such a recruiting problem at the minute.

  164. cohenite says:

    Extortion. You seem to accept that business is making a pure commercial decision. That’s nuts. Even if the mullahs don’t come around with a cleaver and say to specific CEOs “you halal or else” there is the context of Islamic violence. Do you really think the individuals who run businesses don’t consider that when the issue of halal arises?

  165. . says:

    The point I was making is that halal is enabling a religion to establish itself at the expense not just of other religions, despite dot’s fanciful reasoning, and society as a whole. It’s not rocket science.

    This is bullshit.

    Your reading of the caselaw is cranky and is abuse of the English language.

    Halal is not legislated by government. Private actions are not “unconstitutional”. The government cannot intervene in religion to stop this. There is no head of power to otherwise legislate.

    Accept the lesson and move on.

  166. cohenite says:

    Exactly – Catholics wouldn’t do that. They don’t want to piss off potential believers.

    Yeah sure, they just root kids.

  167. cohenite says:

    Halal is not legislated by government.

    Ok, why can’t it be. Every other business is legislated for.

    First legislate against uniform halal for the domestic market. Would you disagree with that?

  168. . says:

    cohenite
    #1689201, posted on May 22, 2015 at 11:49 am
    Extortion. You seem to accept that business is making a pure commercial decision. That’s nuts. Even if the mullahs don’t come around with a cleaver and say to specific CEOs “you halal or else” there is the context of Islamic violence. Do you really think the individuals who run businesses don’t consider that when the issue of halal arises?

    You cannot prove an extortion case on what people might be thinking.

    Fault element?

    Physical element?

    Who specifically are you going to indict?

    How are you going to prove this to a jury? Let alone get past committal?

    What evidence would you produce?

    Furthermore the Commonwealth cannot legislate criminal law except where it is a function of exercising their other powers, and the States cannot legislate on religion either.

    FFS.

  169. cohenite says:

    Halal is not legislated by government. Private actions are not “unconstitutional”. The government cannot intervene in religion to stop this. There is no head of power to otherwise legislate.

    Read this numbnuts: Adelaide Co of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth (1943) 67 CLR 116

  170. notafan says:

    Halal certification will not end at food, cosmetics, pharmacuticals even hotel rooms are on the list. If its not cleaned to muslims standards its not clean.

    Amsterdam’s halal prostitutes

  171. Combine Dave says:

    The point I was making is that halal is enabling a religion to establish itself at the expense not just of other religions, despite dot’s fanciful reasoning, and society as a whole. It’s not rocket science.

    This is bullshit.

    Your reading of the caselaw is cranky and is abuse of the English language.

    Halal is not legislated by government. Private actions are not “unconstitutional”. The government cannot intervene in religion to stop this. There is no head of power to otherwise legislate.

    Accept the lesson and move on.

    The government can and could ~not saying they should but if there is evidence that funds from this are going to support terrorism or that overt extortion is occurring they should act against those parties specifically caught doing this.

    Maybe they could declare that halal cert is a private business service and should pay tax? I believe it’s currently tax free as a charity/religious service?

  172. . says:

    So Catholics “root kids” to get more people to come to church? Obviously this drives people away, but you can’t seem to see that Halal turns people off Islam. (Besides being pretty offensive to Catholics and ignoring the stats on other churches, Rotherham or state institutions).

    (Let alone abusing all religions once such a weird law that you are proposing was passed setting a perilous precedent – either by common law [highly unlikely] or once “Islam was banned after a referendum”).

    Why would I support a blanket ban of Halal? For the most part, it is just ritual slaughter, like some Kosher stuff. You can avoid it already as some people have set up information services. Would I support a ban of it? Of course not. Like I wouldn’t support banning Kosher or Catholic belief in transubstantiation.

    It would be, once again, ultra vires and void ab initio as such a law is not supported by any head of power.

  173. cohenite says:

    Dot, stop using legal terms inappropriately; your comments are void ab initio. I have presented a cogent basis for applying S.116 to halal, and you have ignored the French and European Court process, haven’t you.

    I suggested that the government deal with halal domestically; why don’t you apply your great legal expertise to that proposal?

  174. Piett says:

    Halal is not some kind of secret, stealth means of converting the entire population to Islam. As if everyone will wake up one morning and decide, “Gee, the stuff I buy from Coles is halal — well then, I’ll just go the whole hog (pardon the expression) and become a Muslim! It’s the obvious thing to do!”

    I’d rate the % of Australia in the 21st century becoming a Muslim country ruled by sharia, as only slightly higher than the % chance of an alien invasion. (Both well <1%.)

  175. . says:

    Adelaide Co of Jehovah’s Witnesses Inc v Commonwealth (1943) 67 CLR 116

    Congratulations, you’ve found a relevant head of power (national defence).

    Given the case was decided during total war – good luck banning Halal whilst we have committed six F/A 18s for light duties in a limited war overseas.

    The government is not going to, and cannot ban Halal on national defence grounds, in addition to your first absurd argument that private acts can be unconstitutional.

    You seem to misunderstand that the national defence law was upheld as valid, and it controlled the beahaviour of Australian Jehovah’s Witnesses. The court never ruled that private actions can be declared unconstitutional.

  176. Anne says:

    There is no legal, constitutional basis to ban Halal.

    Clearly label it and LET THE MARKET DECIDE!

    Two other issues –

    First, only muslim men can do the blessing/killing in these abattoirs. Does this constitute a hostile/discriminatory work place?

    Secondly, it is my understanding that Buddhists cannot eat meat that has been offered up to another God.

  177. cohenite says:

    As for the Catholic offenses; they were inconsistent with Catholic theology; the offenses committed in Islam’s name are consistent with its ideology.

    And address the issue of a religion intruding into the secular society.

  178. notafan says:

    I haven’t seen anyone suggest that halal certification is a form of proletizing. I see it as nice way to transfer funds from non-muslims to muslims.
    If anyone thinks it is merely about the meat processing industry they would be wrong.

  179. Piett says:

    OK, Cohenite, what do you mean by “legislate against uniform halal for the domestic market”?

  180. . says:

    cohenite
    #1689227, posted on May 22, 2015 at 12:10 pm
    Dot, stop using legal terms inappropriately; your comments are void ab initio. I have presented a cogent basis for applying S.116 to halal, and you have ignored the French and European Court process, haven’t you.

    I suggested that the government deal with halal domestically; why don’t you apply your great legal expertise to that proposal?

    Don you really believe yourself?

    You are trying to apply merely persuasive (at best) French/European constitutional law to Australia where we haven’t got ANY similar “social cohesiveness” provision in the constitution.

    I have already pointed that out.

    What do you even mean “apply domestically” – Australia cannot ban Halal in foreign nations.

  181. notafan says:

    Secondly, it is my understanding that Buddhists cannot eat meat that has been offered up to another God

    That would be Sikhs
    The halal slaughterman registration process is a secret closed shop with the Islamic Councils having the right to withdraw registration for any reason at any time with no right of appeal.
    It is a requirement that is imposed above and beyond what is necessary for halal slaughter which only requires that the slaughterman believe in God and follow the correct ritual.

  182. P says:

    Certified bottled water?

  183. Anne says:

    Thanks Nota. 🙂

  184. cohenite says:

    Bismillah.

    Domestic. Export. The difference is plain.

    It has nothing to do with social cohesiveness. It is not even necessary for a contextual , as opposed to a black letter interpretation of S.116. It would turn on the facts. Halal promotes islam; halal establishes islam. Islam is growing but a connection between halal and membership increase is not necessary because halal increases the application of halal principles to the wider society.

    The inability of commentators to grasp that simple point is irrelevant.

  185. . says:

    It has nothing to do with social cohesiveness.

    The French/EU case you refer to depended on that being a basis of their law.

    Both a contextual and black letter law reading of s 116 means banning Halal is not legally possible.

    Furthermore it is not a public statute and it cannot be declared “unconstitutional” any more than a turnip can be sued.

    Say what you like about other commentators, you will not take a hint about the law.

  186. cohenite says:

    The French case as you call it was based on in the first instance:
    1 an infringement of the principle of freedom,
    2 a symbol of subservience
    3 and a negation of the principle of equality.

    To that the ECHR added the burqa was;
    4 an affront to the country’s tenets of secularism
    5 and a security risk, preventing the accurate identification of individuals.

    I can live with the 5th principle but seriously, you don’t give a rat’s about the other 4?

    Incidentally I would also call upon this case.

  187. cohenite says:

    The French case, as you call it, drew upon 5 principles:

    1 an infringement of the principle of freedom,
    2 a symbol of subservience
    3 and a negation of the principle of equality.

    The ECHR added that the burqa was:
    4 an affront to the country’s tenets of secularism
    5 and a security risk, preventing the accurate identification of individuals.

    I can live with the 5th but seriously are you saying you don’t give a rat’s about the first 4?

  188. . says:

    None of those have any relevance to the Australian Constitution.

  189. notafan says:

    The devout Muslim, prayer > charity> jihad. The lastest claim is that the man was doin’g ‘charity work’ in an Indonesian orphanage. Sounding a lot like Oliver from Toowoomba now but ramping it up to do ‘charity’ work in Syria.
    Nope sounds like the usual third stage decision to be totally obedient to islam and wage war on the unbelievers to me.
    A father of five from the northern suburbs. Do journalists ever ask who paid the extensive travel? Mum on SPB, I suppose.
    And yet another one of several Syria bound ‘humanitarian workers’ linked to the Preston mosque which is run by the Islamic Society of Victoria Inc

    There are many holes left unexplored in his story. We’re told he met an unnamed Australian ‘humanitarian worker’ in Turkey who somehow had the expertise to infiltrate him into Syria; that he had his passport stolen; that he only drove ambulances in Aleppo and treated injured people; that his wounds were caused by a Syrian regime bombing of the medical clinic where he was working, and that he was transported unconscious to an ISIS-controlled area. The only cliché missing is that he worked in an orphanage with sick children. Readers would be well advised to treat such accounts sceptically, as should the journalists who question such people.


    What to do with a returning jihadi

  190. notafan says:

    Adam Brookman never mentioned being captured by Islamic State in his February interview, you think that might have been somewhat significant? The general impression he left because jihad wasn’t as exciting all the time like he thought it would be. No mention either of doing nursing either but he knows what the conditions of employment are for Western fighters.

    Western fighters who arrive in Syria are well looked after. They are provided housing, given food and paid a monthly allowance of $50 in the summer and double that in winter to cover the cost of buying warmer clothing, Ibrahim said.

    While the death cult is happy to have people join them, they don’t take too kindly to those who choose to leave.

    When Ibrahim decided he wanted out he had to ensure he did so without their knowledge.

    “The restrictions on leaving are difficult but it felt a bit like a prison in that respect,” he said.

    “If I was caught I’d probably be imprisoned and questioned

    “They’re worried about infiltration.”

    Does he miss it?

    “I don’t think I’ll miss it. I’ll miss friends I made and the brotherhood, but ISIS itself, no.”

    Ward said Ibrahim was now trying to return home but was scared that he would be arrested in his home country.

  191. cohenite says:

    .

    #1689348, posted on May 22, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    None of those have any relevance to the Australian Constitution.

    Question asked, question answered. You don’t appear to give a rat’s arse.

    The Australian Constitution has express and implied rights. But whether they can be construed to accommodate this issue, that is an ideology which wants to replace our constitutional system of rights, is the point you miss, seemingly on the basis that you don’t think that is Islam’s intention.

  192. . says:

    The Australian Constitution has express and implied rights

    The implied rights do not contradict the express ones, like those granted under s 116.

    None of the principles in the French case can be derived from our constitution.

    Our law will have an Islamic interpretation when we lose a war or elect Hizb ut Tihir. Not before.

    The government cannot use s 116 to ban religion.

    Which should be blindingly obvious.

  193. cohenite says:

    The government cannot use s 116 to ban religion.

    Which should be blindingly obvious.

    Banning fucking halal is not banning the fucking religion. It is stopping it dominating the public space.

    Let me try to explain this differently: do you think the abc should compete with private media?

  194. . says:

    Banning fucking halal is not banning the fucking religion. It is stopping it dominating the public space.

    Where is the head of power for this?

    Let me try to explain this differently: do you think the abc should compete with private media?

    Halal is not a taxpayer funded broadcaster.

    Despite what you think, Halal is not a tax and no court will ever give that credence.

    You are being a complete and utter cretin about this issue.

  195. . says:

    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    Explain how you can possibly ban Halal because it “dominates the public space”.

    The states cannot ban religion because Commonwealth treaties, they are bound by the external affairs power and s 109.

    Halal and fees existed before the issue came to light. It never need Parliamentary approval. Retroactively claiming responsibility over it because you think it is a tax would basically do away with any restrictions on Federal power.

  196. Slayer of Memes says:

    What bothers me about ever letting them back into Australia, is the way some elements of this country practically slobbered over David Hicks. How long would it be before the apologists emerged here?

    Dear ZK2A,

    Meet Waleed Aly.

    Sincerely,
    Slayer

  197. Slayer of Memes says:

    Minor logistical matter – which airline do you think is going to allow these “ex-jihadis” on their plane to get home if it were to be allowed?

    It’d be the ultimate in schadenfreude if El Al was the only one willing to do it….

    and supply armed Mossad escorts to protect their jihadis from “racist bogans”…

  198. incoherent rambler says:

    If we had anti racketeering laws (similar to the US), then the halal problem would disappear.

    A racket is defined as making people pay for something they don’t need or want or serves no useful purpose.
    That is, a racket is low-end extortion.

    Do you need halal?

  199. incoherent rambler says:

    It’d be the ultimate in schadenfreude if El Al was the only one willing to do it….

    A plane load of jihadis.
    Would that be worth losing a commercial airliner?
    Probably cheaper than the number of smart bombs required.

  200. . says:

    You need to show coercion – “making people pay”.

    Which would probably be prosecutable as demanding property with intent to steal in NSW.

    Is there evidence? Yes or no?

  201. Zippy The Younger says:

    The states cannot ban religion because Commonwealth treaties, they are bound by the external affairs power and s 109.

    Simply declare islam to be a cult and not a religion. I.e. the truth!

  202. cohenite says:

    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion

    or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

    You have been given the definition of establishing for the purposes of S.116; given that the first limb shall take precedence over the third especially when the second also contradicts halal which despite your declaration is a religious tax, the Commonwealth can ban halal without contravening the third limb. After all muslims can bless their own food without the bullshit of commercialised halal.

  203. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Tel:
    To be a lawful combatant under the laws of war, one must:
    bear arms openly
    wear a distinctive uniform, insignia or sign
    be in a national, state or tribal chain of command


    It ain’t rocket science. Hicks did NONE of these things, and therefore was an unlawful combatant.

    Tel:

    Wait, you are changing the story here. You first said that the act of firing at all was a war crime, but anyway let’s look at your newer points:

    Comment: No, I am not changing the story (twas not I, squire, who said it was a ‘war crime’). Either he was an unlawful combatant or he wasn’t. To be legitimate combatant means one is entitled to every protection due to a PoW, and to do THAT you must meet three direct and one imputed criteria:
    1 carrying arms openly
    2 being identifiable as a combatant at a distance
    3 being under a recognised chain of command (including tribal)
    4 All this imputes that the chain of command (the organisation) collectively responsible for ALL your actions, itself follows the law of war. Not this point well, responsibility is collective, so from that a war crime by an individual within that organisation (such as a massacre not carried out in reprisal) is the collective responsibility of the organisation. Which is why such men are punished harshly, they have to be, to keep the organisation within the laws of war. If they do not, then their enemies have only one tool to use against them – reprisal. So when the British blindfolded and tied up German PoW after the Lofoten Raid, the germans viewed this as a war crime, and conducted perfectly legal reprisals against British PoW in their custody. The British apologised and punished those responsible for the breach (for a breach it was), at which time the Germans ceased their reprisals (which was to blindfold and tie up a much larger number of British PoW and closely confine them).

    Why we follow the LoW is that if we do not, we lose the protections available to PoW if captured.
    (Oh, ‘we’? Yes, I have skin in this game.)

    Collective responsibility (and guilt) is assumed for the obvious reason: individuals do not conduct operations, organisations do.

    Hicks was firing a machine gun, hardly a concealed weapon that he whipped out of his trousers, anyway it was provided by others, didn’t even belong to him, and I believe (wasn’t there at the time so this is very second hand) that he was firing from some sort of entrenched position… sort of a very clearly military type entrenched position.

    Comment: So what? The laws of war have nothing to say about ‘weapons concealment’ or ‘position’ as both matters are besides the point. He was NOT bearing arms openly (and this does not mean what you think it means, by the above). He was dressed as the civilians in the area were and they go about in public armed, so he was not distinguishable from the civilian population. ‘Bearing arms openly’ does not mean ‘carrying a gun concealed’ at all, it is a means of publicly distinguishing the combatant from the civilian. He did not do that.

    Hicks obviously was following instructions from someone, exactly how the command structure worked I have no idea but to pretend he was his own self driven campaign is ridiculous.

    Comment: So what? His chain of command had to be either tribal (impossible, he’s not a Pashtun Tribesman) OR Pakistan/Afghan Army, there being no other entities there recognised as lawful combatants under the laws of war. He was neither. End of story. Had he been a Dongali tribesman or whatever, there would be no issue. He isn’t.

    So now this thing about uniforms. Well, we have plenty of military and para-military forces running on taxpayer’s money who routinely operate out of uniform. We have undercover cops, drug enforcement operatives, just about the entire CIA, no doubt some Australian foreign operations as well, and quite often mercenaries don’t have any real uniform, they might have some small insignia often not particularly recognizable. If that’s a war crime then we must all be guilty because one way or another we all voluntarily support some group or other who knowingly do it. What’s more, any criminal with any weapon would suddenly become a “war criminal” just because they have no uniform, especially if they cross a border.

    Comment: irrelevant. You do not actually need a uniform. Even a sigil or distinguishing feature, (a sash, a ‘hayrick head o’hair’, or a cowhide shield like every other warrioir in the Impi will do provided it can be distinguished at a distance (normally but informally considered to be effective rifle range, 300 yards).
    Police?? Who cares about civilian examples FFS? Police are just more pissy little civilians in funny clothes: your examples are irrelevant.

    Hicks was not captured while firing a machine gun at India. We only know about it because he wrote a letter, we don’t even know what he was wearing at the time. Hicks was captured much later, possibly not as a belligerent at all, but he was nabbed by people nominally on his own side (i.e. the Afghan side, which nowhere had a solid or consistent command structure) and Hicks was turned over for a bounty payment. Hicks was never offered POW status so I doubt the Geneva Convention came into it (not sure if Hicks ever attempted to invoke it) but the laws he was accused of breaking were retrospective laws that Howard created after the fact. Hicks was never accused of spying, nor could he credibly be considered a spy, intelligence wasn’t his strong point.

    Comment: So what? He self-identified as an unlawful combatant, and that’s that. The fact that he was not caught when firing is irrelevant. The fact that he was sold for a bounty is also irrelevant. He’d already self-identified as an unlawful combatant, and should have been executed then and there for that crime.

    The rule of law never operates retrospectively, it’s a logical impossibility. Only the will of man can impose retrospective punishment, and that’s a bad thing when you see it, because it’s a clear sign that rule of law is not in operation. Fair enough if Howard decided that the existence of Australian mercenaries is bad for national security, it is the Commonwealth responsibility to guard the borders, and that’s fair call for the Prime Minister to make such decisions. In which case it should apply to all Australian freelance fighters, but strangely Hicks was singled out, largely for political reasons, and retrospectively

    .

    Comment: Who said that the LoW operate retrospectively? Once identified as an unlawful combatant, that’s that. Passage of time changes nothing. Why should it? The only thing that changes is the will to do something about it ( if the national Socialists had won in ’45, there’d be no ongoing prosecutions of National Socialist war criminals but Resistance members would still be hunted and killed). Yep, victor’s rules. That’s how it works.

    The ISIS fighters at least have been breaking existing laws that were well publicised, and they have been involved in actual war crimes such as rape and murder of civilians and pillage as well. There’s no evidence that Hicks did any of those things, the main crime he committed was just not being particularly likeable.

    Comment: So what? What has that got to do with anything? An unlawful combatant does not have to commit an atrocity, he simply has to participate as a combatant unlawfully by not following the rules. And there’s just three simple rules (and one imputation). You either meet them all or you don’t. If you don’t, then you are an unlawful combatant. And that’s that. Hicks is an unlawful combatant until the day he dies. Nothing retrospective about it. On day X he became an unlawful combatant. He still is an unlawful combatant. Where’s the retrospectivity in that?

    The LoW are simple because they have to be. Nothing else works on a battlefield.

    Piett

    There has been some discussion of the ‘franc-tireur’ principle. People seem to think it is still a valid part of military law. I don’t.

    Comment: Then you are entitled to your opinion. It’s false, but that’s common.

    Its most famous use in the 20th century was in Belgium in 1914, during the Battle of Dinant. As they were preparing to assault the town, a German raiding party crept in during the night, and got into a firefight. As they retreated, they were shot at, by Dinant civilians, French infantry, and/or their own troops, in the confusion. The Germans decided, without being sure of who had been doing the shooting, that the town must be full of hostile civilians.

    Comment: Better examples are found in the franco-Prussian war.

    The next day, as they took Dinant, they shot every civilian man they found (plus some women and children) as franc-tireurs — 674 in total.

    Comment: Sigh. No, they did not ‘shoot them as franc-tireurs’, they shot them IN REPRISAL (legal reprisal) for franc-tireur activity. And yes, it’s legal under the laws of war. The ONLY tool available is reprisal, for the simple reason that nothing else works. It is quite clear that you do not understand this.

    That’s the problem with the principle — it’s far too open to abuse. It should be consigned to the dustbin of legal history. Which effectively it has been. As someone mentioned upthread, Australian LOAC and ROEs don’t recognise the principle, and I’m pretty sure that would be the case with most or all Western nations.

    Comment: Reprisal is not abuse of the system. It’s the only tool available within the system. Why? Because only reprisal works. The law of war (customary, statutory, and common) can’t be enforced by any court because we live in a sovereign state system which is anarchic. So from that it follows that the only thing which can enforce the law of war is the law of war itself. To do that there is one, and only one, tool – reprisal. Reprisal is conduct that would normally be a war crime, but which becomes both legal and legitimate in order to deter an enemy from violating the law of war. And reprisal by bits inherent nature assumes collective guilt.

    The fact that we do not currently recognise it under ROE is also irrelevant, as it’s merely a reflection of not having fought a serious war since 1945, and having grown soft and infected with lawyers.

    We used reprisal very commonly in WWI and WWII. We also used it in Korea.

    If crap goes existential again, we’ll ditch the current idiotic ROE invented by stupid lawyers unconnected with reality and use it again. Why? because it works and nothing else does.

  204. cohenite says:

    Strange thread: dot defending islam and someone defending hicks.

  205. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST we need to consider matters as from what is appropriate within the context of the constitution. There is no question about it that the Commonwealth of Australia can cancel any naturalization where the person having made an oath/pledged/affirmation to serve Australians as to gain permanent settlement then goes out to join a so to say enemy force. I view it would also be appropriate for the Commonwealth of Australia to legislate that any Australian joining up with what is deemed to be an enemy force then is deemed to have renounced his/her nationality and for all purposes and intend becomes an “alien”. Obviously the Commonwealth would require to set up a legislation that is so to say fool prove and not can be railroaded by any gutter lawyer. In my view the Commonwealth also ought to legislate that any person who joins so to say an enemy force then will be deemed an accessory to whatever criminal conduct this force is involved in. As such, instead of the Commonwealth having to prove each person’s participation in crimes it simply will hold a person accountable for whatever crimes the group he/she joined was involved in. Also any person deemed to be a “foreigner” must be excluded from any entitlement to any Legal Aid funding. Also, any person who is deemed to be involved with such a group shall have forfeited any rights and entitlements of any disability or other welfare payments, as well as that all and any bankholdings will be frozen subject to any court order otherwise. Any such person, if returning to the commonwealth of Australia, with or without permission of the Commonwealth of Australia shall not be able to obtain any benefits, including disability or other benefits as result of any injuries or otherwise problems relating to or likely resulting to having been involved in such group.
    What the message needs to be is that any person who joins such a group better consider the legal consequences and there likely will be not road of return.
    If they deem old enough to get involved with a group that commits rapes, murders and other vile acts then well they deserve whatever is coming to them an d no amount of monies can overlook their association with such a group. As such even the rich kids will not have their parents to bail them out.

  206. Piett says:

    Mk50,

    Better examples are found in the franco-Prussian war.

    The reason I chose that example is that it highlights the difficulty, in certain situations, of identifying franc-tireurs. You have a confused fire-fight at night in a city. Bullets might (or might not) be coming from civilians, as well as the French infantry holding the town. Are there franc-tireurs shooting at you? How can you tell at night? If you’re so minded, it can be used as an excuse for an atrocity. Which is exactly what happened.

    No, they did not ‘shoot them as franc-tireurs’, they shot them IN REPRISAL (legal reprisal) for franc-tireur activity.

    Good point. I was a bit sloppy there in my wording. But I completely deny that there is any such thing as legal reprisal.

    And yes, it’s legal under the laws of war.

    Oh yeah? Find me a modern legal source to support that assertion. Take your time; I’ll wait. Just one, from any modern manual of LOAC or textbook or case.

    The Lofoten example you mention doesn’t count, because it’s essentially trivial in terms of the carnage of WW2. After the war was over, no one was going to bother prosecuting a German officer for making some prisoners uncomfortable.

    But many, many incidents of reprisal involving mass murder were committed — when Germans or Japanese decided to slaughter entire communities in reprisal for some partisan activity that happened in the vicinity. The officers who ordered the reprisal, if still alive after the war, often found themselves facing a court, followed by the gallows. And rightly so. I could reel off a list of horrors, but I’m sure you know them as well as anyone. Do you justify the perpetrators of these crimes? Really?

    Tell me, if you were an ADF commander in a foreign area — let’s say peace-keeping in the South Pacific — and one of your men is killed by a terrorist, you’d think about ordering your men to go into a nearby village and start murdering men, women, and children in reprisal? (And if your soldiers refused, you’d start killing them too?)

    One other thing for you to ponder. There were relatively few mass reprisals by the Germans in Western Europe during WW2. There were huge numbers on the Eastern Front, where it was the cornerstone of their anti-partisan strategy. And rather than suppressing the partisans, reprisals inflamed the situation to the point where they were facing hundreds of thousands of organised partisans in Russia, Poland, and Yugoslavia by 1943-44.

    Reprisal is illegal, immoral, and poor strategy.

  207. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Piett

    Tell me, if you were an ADF commander in a foreign area — let’s say peace-keeping in the South Pacific — and one of your men is killed by a terrorist, you’d think about ordering your men to go into a nearby village and start murdering men, women, and children in reprisal? (And if your soldiers refused, you’d start killing them too?)

    Comment: Sorry, you miss the point and confuse two very different things. Reprisal is used against breaches of the laws of war by recognised combatants (again, see the correspondence on this issue between the French and Prussian commands in 1870, and particularly between the French and von Blumenthal. You need to look at the Martens Clause of Hague II (1899) and then at United States v. Wilhelm List, et al., (11 Tr. of War Crim. Bef. Nuremberg Mil. Trib. 1248 (1948)) where teh Nuremburg Tribuneral stated that ‘We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans.

    And then we return full circle to the point, Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, which states that ‘francs-tireurs are entitled to prisoner-of-war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.’

    That does not apply in a terrorist attack. OK, then, in your confusion are you conflating a guerilla war with a terrorist act? In that case then yes, reprisal is legal against a village known to be supporting the guerillas (where they are not following the laws of war – during the Tet offensive reprisal would have been illegal as the VC followed ALL the 3 rules: after Tet reprisal was legal and ws commonly used by both sides, do not forget what happened to the pro-SVN guerillas linke the Hmong in the central highlands).

    But you have postulated a TERRORIST attack, and terrorists are akin to pirates, the ‘common enemy of mankind’ because they are indiscriminate.
    What you have done is to clearly illustrate the fact that you do not clearly understand these distinctions, or the history of the laws of war.
    Note I do not use modern LOAC – that’s a very different thing much beloved by lawyers and 9as all such efforts are) doomed to failure the moment a conflict becomes existential for one side, which again you present no evidence of understanding.

    One other thing for you to ponder. There were relatively few mass reprisals by the Germans in Western Europe during WW2.

    Really? (you are partially correct in this instance) And why do you think that was?

    It was because there was, in fact, very little resistance, especially in France and Belgium (there was essentially none in Luxembourg). Now why was that, why did about 90% of the population passively accept German occupation? Why did about 8% actively collaborate, and only about 2% (and that mostly passively) resist?
    if you actually talk to the French, as I have (and it has to be one-on-one and not attributed), you’d understand that the general passivity was because they were terrified of … reprisal. Y’see, they had very, very vivid memories of it from WWI. And from 1870.

    Reprisal works, nothing else does. And the case you quote is one of the many, many things that prove it.

    There were huge numbers on the Eastern Front, where it was the cornerstone of their anti-partisan strategy.

    Only partly. In fact the cornerstone of anti-partisan operations was infiltrating organisations like the AK. Reprisal was a tool and again it worked, and both sides used it, just as the VC, Hukbalahap and Chin Peng’s guerillas used it. Tito’s partisans actually used it far more than the Germans did, which is pretty much why they won.

    I suggest you read Omer Bartov’s The Eastern Front 1941-45: German Troops & Barbarisation of War. There you will find out what really happened in terms of general National Socialist policy of indiscriminate atrocity. if you can work out a methodology to discriminate between the National Socialist general policy of wanton atrocity and a separate policy of reprisal for the actions of illegal combatants on the Eastern Front, I know of at least three institutions that will be begging you to become a doctoral candidate.

    And rather than suppressing the partisans, reprisals inflamed the situation to the point where they were facing hundreds of thousands of organised partisans in Russia, Poland, and Yugoslavia by 1943-44.

    Oh, utter bollocks. It was the general ideological policy of National Socialist atrocity which did this, and there’s plenty of Polish scholarship to prove that point. The National Socialists gave the general populations of Poland and the Soviet Republics nowhere to be safe: the French genpop could be safe through passivity. The eastern genpops could NOT – see Bartov for just why that was.

    I appreciate your civility, and I am not attempting to be offensive – you have made it plain that you have strong emotive responses to this issue (this is OK), and you are revealing that your level of knowledge is fairly shallow. That can easily be improved should you be sufficiently interested in the subject.

    have a read of Bartov, then grab Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (1977).

    Walzer’s now a little dated, but he lays out the basics well: ‘ For the most part the arguments made are logical and detailed. However the underlying moral philosophy the author brings to his debate is never questioned or explicitly discussed. I would describe his philosophy as that of a liberal democrat and it is from this perspective that each issue is examined. This makes for a curious analysis where everything is gauged against a mainstream political view supplemented by the authors’ own moral preferences. This is compounded by his insistence in using ‘we’ when discussing American military and political choices, an unusual choice of words when pursuing a rigorous moral analysis. ‘

    These two books will give you a sound foundation on which to build.

  208. Piett says:

    yes, reprisal is legal against a village known to be supporting the guerillas (where they are not following the laws of war …

    Note I do not use modern LOAC.

    And that’s your problem, right there. The law — including LOAC — is what it is. That’s why it’s called “the law”.

    You’ve got your own personal version of the law, which corresponds with the German position in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but it is not modern Australian or Western law, and would do you no good if you tried to rely on it as a defence in a trial or court-martial.

    Your point about things changing when a conflict became “existential” is not to the point, because if Australia were fighting an existential conflict it would, presumably, be a defensive war fought on Australian soil — and thus we’d presumably be looking for stronger, not weaker, legal protections for civilians.

    After Tet reprisal was legal and ws commonly used by both sides, do not forget what happened to the pro-SVN guerillas linke the Hmong in the central highlands. …

    Reprisal was a tool and again it worked, and both sides used it, just as the VC, Hukbalahap and Chin Peng’s guerillas used it

    Yes, what happened to the Hmong was what most humane people would call an “atrocity”. I’m astonished to see, here on the Cat of all places, someone defending the crimes of the VC, Huks, and the Malayan Communists.

    What did the West do during the Cold War that was equivalent? The reprisal massacre at My Lai was investigated and punished by court-martial, as a crime. In Malaya, there was some retaliation against Chinese communities in terms of making life harder for them in response to CT activity, but not in terms of massacre.

    The Iraq COIN campaign was won by the US without need of reprisal (though Obama screwed things up afterwards).

    Oh, utter bollocks. It was the general ideological policy of National Socialist atrocity which did this, and there’s plenty of Polish scholarship to prove that point.

    Agreed, but you’re missing my point. I’m not saying reprisals caused the huge partisan movements on the Eastern Front, I’m saying they failed to deter them once they had begun. They were not an effective response.

    Which leads to a key point: what do you do when a reprisal fails to deter partisans? Keep escalating? Ramp up the massacring? What happens when you’re destroying villages by the hundred, and the partisans are getting stronger? It’s a cul-de-sac; best not to head there from the start.

    have a read of Bartov, then grab Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (1977).

    I haven’t read Bartov, but I did read Walzer many years ago, when I was doing my LLB. (Yes, I’m a lawyer, and yes, I’ve worked in military and international law, though not in the last decade.) Does Walzer actually support your position on reprisals? I’d be very surprised, though I can’t remember his arguments in any detail. I’ll be passing the state library this afternoon, I’ll pop in and check what he says on the subject!

  209. . says:

    cohenite
    #1689514, posted on May 22, 2015 at 7:50 pm
    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion

    or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion

    You have been given the definition of establishing for the purposes of S.116; given that the first limb shall take precedence over the third especially when the second also contradicts halal which despite your declaration is a religious tax, the Commonwealth can ban halal without contravening the third limb. After all muslims can bless their own food without the bullshit of commercialised halal.

    This is utter bullshit.

    The government has not established Islam. The government does not levy Halal fees. They have no head of power to legislate over this matter. The states are banned because of human rights treaties set above the states due to s 109 inconsistency and the reading of the external affairs power. There is no precedence of the clauses. They are to be read together and in context of the framer’s intent.

    Simply declare islam to be a cult and not a religion. I.e. the truth!

    You’re going to need some evidence, and actually convince other people. The truth is nothing without persuasion.

  210. cohenite says:

    This is utter bullshit.

    No, you do not understand what is meant by establishment:

    establishment means “the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others.”

    Or

    concession

    What other religion can impose a religious tax, for that is what halal is.

  211. Piett says:

    Mk 50,

    One more thing. I’d like to expand on your point about existential war.

    Let’s say Australia is in an existential situation — those damn Orangelanders, to borrow an old adversary, have invaded, and Australia’s very existence as an independent nation is under threat.

    Australian guerrillas attack the Orangeland supply lines. They don’t wear “distinctive uniform, insignia or sign”.

    Are you actually saying that the Orangelanders would not only be entitled to shoot Australian guerrillas as franc-tireurs, but also to massacre Australian women and children in reprisal actions? You would be perfectly fine with that, and would want no legal penalty for a captured Orangeland commander who had ordered such massacres?

  212. notafan says:

    Re reprisals; it’s the issue that in a war to ensure that the civilian population remain passive the invader (or whoever) will threaten reprisals and carry them out when necessary to discourage partisans etc.
    If you win the war that is life or death for your own country who is going to punish you for what you do to win?

    When keeping the civilian population passive is live or death you do what you have to do.
    I wouldn’t do it but I’m not surprised it happens.

    In islam any resistance ensured a bloodbath of the civilian population (see Constantinople) so the next town or village would simply submit. That is how they still operate.

  213. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Which leads to a key point: what do you do when a reprisal fails to deter partisans? Keep escalating? Ramp up the massacring?

    This is asked from the wrong perspective. When has reprisal NOT failed to deter partisans?

    What was MAD but reprisal taken to the strategic level? Did it fail to deter even at that strategic level?

    What happens when you’re destroying villages by the hundred, and the partisans are getting stronger? It’s a cul-de-sac; best not to head there from the start.

    Oh, nonsense. We know the answer and know it well from the historical record – there is no case where what you described occurred. It’s immoral to ignore that historical record – because if you do, those poor sods deaths are made meaningless.

    At a certain level of ruthlessness in reprisal, the villagers themselves kill the partisans or report them even to the national enemy. This was precisely the IJA’s policy in Korea, Manchuria and later in China, where they called it the ‘Three Alls Policy’ (kill all, burn all, destroy all), and it stopped partisans cold at varying levels of population loss. And the word from there spread like wildfire, driving partisans out of much larger areas. Ask yourself ‘just WHY did the CCP have to do that ‘Long march’ thing?’ They did not walk to Yunnan because they were bored with the available decor in Guangdong – the KMT drove them out through reprisal.

    The French knew exactly what would happen under the Germans if they did not stay passive – reprisal. So they reported the partisans and four times as many collaborated as resisted, which enabled the germans to deal with the partisans via secret police, they were doing nothing more than leveraging off the reprisals of 1870 and 1914-18.

    The Imperial Russians stopped guerillas in the central asian emirates and khanates as they conquered them in the 19th century through precisely the same policies of reprisal.

    Note the crucial thing here, both the IJA and the Imperial Russian Army and the Gestapo gave a place for the general population to be safe – passivity and turning in any partisans who showed their faces meant they left let you be safe. Note that in Turkmeni areas where they were Salafist, the Imperial Russians often had to kill the bulk of the population to get to this point (one of those awful historical facts one would rather not know, but which it is necessary to know).

    You continue to miss the core issue at hand, the current version of LOAC as applied to the ADF etc does not work on the battlefield, and the critical words here are ‘current version’. LOAC changes all the time in Russell Offices depending on the lawerly theoretical fashion de jour. It generates exasperated amusement among the line types, watching this nonsense constantly play out. it’s nothing more than ‘I got my pet legal theory up into LOAC, PROMOTE ME NOW!!’

    it’s oddly pathetic.

    Oh, we obey it where that’s possible or where you will get caught and punished where it does not work but you are under the eye (and what is that but reprisal?), but on the battlefield?

    Please. There are no lawyers there. Ever.

    THERE, the actual laws of war apply. For example, a navy unit will pick up survivors if that does not impede its mission. If it does, sorry guys, did not see you, mission comes first. An army unit advancing may or may not take prisoners (if the enemy resists beyond a certain point, for example, no surrenders will be permitted). There’s never a lawyer present in circumstances such as this, as the lads say ‘they are too busy playing with themselves and with their books back at a nice safe base’.

    There is a lawlerly insistence that ‘the law’ can be applied on the battlefield and therein lies the rub, it cannot be. And Geneva itself recognised that as described above. Current LOAC is merely a set of theoretical accretions which do not work on the battlefield, and which are routinely ignored or worked around for just that reason (this upsets ADF lawyers – the stupid ones, anyway)

    ‘The law’ (aside from too often being an ass) applies within societies via voluntary adherence. There are often laws which people know about, and deliberately ignore because in a specific set of circumstances they are worthless, or do not work. Why should ‘military society’ be any different? Especially in the madness of a battlefield?

    ‘International law’ (a fundamentally ridiculous concept in an anarchic system of sovereign states but it’s a real gravytrain for lawyers) depend even more on voluntary acquiesence, and we are seeing this right now – who is ‘the policeman’ dealing with Iran’s flagrant breach of ‘international law’ (to wit the nuclear proliferation treaties) right now?

    Get the point?

    And so we get to full circle again, we are back at just why there are three real laws of war, centuries of warfare has taught that these, and only these, work. Mostly.

    And here’s the nasty point I mentioned in my first reply to tel: only the laws of war make even the laws of war work at all. And even at geneva this was accepted although not articulated – the only tool available for that is reprisal.

    And whatever pretty words and theoretical castles in the air lawyers write in the stress-free peacefulness of a 9-to-5 office a thousand miles away from that battlefield really is irrelevant to that reality.

    The truth is, no military needs lawyers at all outside the ambit of its own domestic legal system and maybe Admiralty law, and they are always a net reduction in combat capability.

    The laws of war are simple, and are applied by battlefield necessity – which is a place where lawyers never, ever are to be found. The correct approach would be to teach them as drills.

    And all you need for that is a decent sergeant.

  214. notafan says:

    Cohenite the upload for the senate enquiry into third party certification schemes worked this morning.
    Nothing wrong with muslims eating halal food btw it’s making everyone else pay to eat halal that we don’t want or can’t identify that is the problem.

  215. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Piett:

    Let’s say Australia is in an existential situation — those damn Orangelanders, to borrow an old adversary, have invaded, and Australia’s very existence as an independent nation is under threat.

    OK

    Australian guerrillas attack the Orangeland supply lines. They don’t wear “distinctive uniform, insignia or sign”.

    Ok, so these are NOT ADF, they are not ‘stay behinds’ in uniform, they are not SOF. These are self-armed civilians, illegal combatants.

    There is one further assumption – that Orangeland is signatory to the same agreements we are, ie, that they are not a non-signatory outfit like Imperial Japan was.

    Are you actually saying that the Orangelanders would not only be entitled to shoot Australian guerrillas as franc-tireurs,

    Of course they would be. These are illegal combatants, and really, really stupid ones because in that circumstance it would be very easy to form a local militia with elected officers, get ADF approval and operate as a legal combatant. All they have to do is self-declare this, wear a distinctive sash or something, and make sure that the ADF knows about them and has accepted them as a unit of some kind. (Hell, why did they not join the retreating ADF?)

    but also to massacre conduct reprisal against Australian women and children in reprisal actions?

    I have removed the emotive term for obvious reasons.
    They would have the right to reprisal, yes, in order to deter further murder of their uniformed personnel by illegal combatants. And make no mistake, murder it is, because they are not members of the ADF doing the killing. They are civilians doing the killing and that’s murder under both Australian and Orangeland domestic law to which CIVILIANS are subject.

    You would be perfectly fine with that,

    Nope, emotionally I would be enraged beyond measure, and as a legal combatant it would make me fight harder. But I would understand why they did the reprisal, which would enable me to fight them harder and kill them without hatred. Which is important in a way I do not expect a civilian to understand.

    and would want no legal penalty for a captured Orangeland commander who had ordered such massacres act of reprisal?

    I have removed the emotive term for obvious reasons.
    There should be no legal penalty for reprisal as described just as there was no legal penalty for any number of such cases after Nuremburg where the reprisal was found to be valid. Those who bear the moral responsibility for the reprisal are the illegal combatants. if not for their actions, it would not have occurred.

    In fact, should the illegal combatants get back to our lines I’d have them arrested by the civilian police for murder of the Orangeland legal combatants AND for the manslaughter of those killed in the reprisal, and I’d make damned sure the Orangelanders knew it, specifically to prevent reprisal. In other words, I’d want to make sure they knew we were dealing with the francs-tireurs ourselves.
    You may not believe this, but as a legal combatant, it’s in my direct personal interest to do so.

    Note also that generally what happens is that if a unit of the ADF catches anyone from that unit on a battlefield, well, I’d be surprised if they took any prisoners unless ordered to. Soldiers have emotions too but it’s universally civilians who stir these emotions up to high levels (a brief study or propaganda will show this) – but should they be under my command I would order them to take prisoners where possible IF I judged that they would obey that order.

    You never give an order you know will not be obeyed.

    BTW, you just described a big chunk of the New Guinea Campaign in WWII. AIF and AMF only took IJA prisoners if ordered to, and often not then, due to the IJA’s penchant for atrocity (not reprisal, atrocity).

  216. Zippy The Younger says:

    Judge to watch SBS doco before sentencing former Kevin Rudd’s Muslim youth leader Fadi Abdul-Rahman
    A judge will watch a 90 minute SBS documentary about a prominent former Muslim youth leader and anti drug-campaigner to consider his character before sentencing him over drug dealing.

    Fadi Abdul-Rahman, who featured in Kevin Rudd’s 2020 Summit and used to help reform prisoners, was last year convicted by a jury over supplying a commercial quantity of prohibited drugs.

    The 38-year-old was part of a drug syndicate when he was caught with more than $1.5 million worth of cocaine hidden in a wooden chess set in 2012.
    Police had intercepted the cocaine, which was smuggled with the US, replaced it with a plain white powder and placed a listening device in the chess chest.

    The listening device captured Abdul-Rahman saying “it’s a f***ing tracker” once he discovered the device.

  217. Piett says:

    Mk50,

    Lawyers don’t rule the battlefield — but we do rule the courtroom, I’m afraid. And that’s where LOAC violations will take you, unless you’re very, very careful.

    Fine, don’t take prisoners if the opposition “resists beyond a certain point”. Or indulge in a massacre ‘act of reprisal’ against civilians. But then you’d damn well better make sure there isn’t a scrap of evidence of what you’ve done. And in the modern world, that will be harder and harder.

    Maybe while you’re conducting the massacre act of reprisal, some kid is hiding in the distance, videos it on his mobile phone, and manages to escape undetected.

    Oh dear! When that video surfaces, a bunch of military prosecutors will take a great interest in your activities. They make their career out of major convictions, and now your head is firmly in their sights. And some of them are quite smart cookies — talented grads who chose to escape the grind of commercial law.

    So, into court. Tell the Judge all about the IJA in China, and the Imperial Russian Army in Central Asia, and the Germans on the Eastern Front. Express your opinion that “current LOAC is merely a set of theoretical accretions which do not work on the battlefield”. Tell His or Her Honour that international law is “fundamentally ridiculous”.

    I’m sure you’ll have great success there. But if not, you’ll have a lot of time to ponder these issues, in the relaxing confines of the institution in which you’re serving your multiple life sentences.

  218. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    You have proven that you still just do not understand, which is why you have personalised the nonsense above in an effort to make it about the super-duper superiority of the law over the individual.

    Should any ADF personnel be ordered to conduct a reprisal by the chain of command, the lawyers would long since have made that a legal act.

    We obey laws voluntarily and from enlightened self interest, but one thing western military officers never forget is that it was the lawyers who made the genocide of European Jewry legal. Unspeakably immoral – and lawyers made it perfectly legal under German law.

    Which is why I have consistently addressed this issue, and your scenario/s, from a moral basis. it does not change. That shabby, tattered thing called ‘law’ changes every day, at subjective whim.

    This is about the battlefield and what works there: what you refuse to understand is that the three ‘laws of war’ are not based on legal interpretation at all, they are based on morality and what is practical in teh most extreme situation humanity can devise. It’s a completely different world from the theoretical nonsense lawyers and courts bang on about and interestingly, every person on that battlefield has a pretty pat temporary insanity defence.

    it’s apparent that you do not understand any of this, which is an insight into why most military people have a genial contempt for lawyers outside the orbit of national domestic law.

    It’s also apparent that you do not understand what I mean by ‘battlefield’.

    As for reprisal, when a war Australia is involved in gets to the point where reprisal is required to survive, why, the lawyers will change the current LOAC to make reprisal into the very acme of the legal. Just like they did every time before. What’s legal is subjective and mutable, what’s moral is absolute and immutable.

    Hey, lawyers and activists in this country have made the ongoing mass murder of innocents perfectly legal, infanticide is both common and socially acceptable here.

    But morally, it’s murder. Always has been , always will be. But it’s legal murder – which is why anyone with a shred of morality regards the lawyers and judges who made it legal as contemptible.

    Men asked if machine-gunning the survivors from the Battle of the Bismarck Sea in their lifeboats and rafts was legal. They were told ‘of course, the lawyers just made it so, like all good whores, they do what they are paid to do’.

    Yet those who refused to partake of that operation (in essence disobeying orders in the face of the enemy – then legally a hanging offence) were never even thought of poorly by their peers and were certainly never sanctioned in any way, because their objections were based on their moral views.

    Your argument has collapsed to the point where you are no longer pursuing it because you make a single fundamentally false assumption: that the legal trumps the moral.

    It does not.

    And Nuremburg actually, and for all time, proved this (and irony of ironies, codified it in law). Perhaps you should study the Judges Trials at Nuremberg, for the court noted that even though everything the German judges had done was legal, they were all guilty of the crimes with which they were charged as morality trumped legality, and they said as such:

    By his manner and methods he made his court an instrumentality of terror and won the fear and hatred of the population. From the evidence of his closest associates as well as his victims, we find that Oswald Rothaug represented in Germany the personification of the secret Nazi intrigue and cruelty. He was and is a sadistic and evil man. Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance in office on account of the scheming malevolence with which he administered injustice.”

  219. cohenite says:

    Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    #1689933, posted on May 23, 2015 at 12:08 pm

    Correct; nothing works without the threat of reprisal. Some ethereal types think the pure notion of democracy/libertarianism will stop the reavers by itself.

  220. cohenite says:

    notafan

    #1689959, posted on May 23, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    Cohenite the upload for the senate enquiry into third party certification schemes worked this morning.
    Nothing wrong with muslims eating halal food btw it’s making everyone else pay to eat halal that we don’t want or can’t identify that is the problem.

    The bloody thing is still not working for me. (it’s a conspiracy!!)

    Are you aware of Bismillah? Doesn’t that make the whole rationale for halal crap?

  221. cohenite says:

    Piett

    #1689993, posted on May 23, 2015 at 1:51 pm

    What do you think of sharia law champ?

  222. notafan says:

    Yes Cohenite I do but I accept that Jews and Muslims want ritual slaughter.
    Both will allow compromises in certain,usually exceptional, circumstances.
    Islam is a religion of control of the minutiae of daily life. I’m okay with them adhering to their dietary restrictions. Kosher does nevert tried to impose itself onto the domestic market in the way sharia halal does and the certification industry fully intends to impose itself into the entire consumer market.
    The UAE make it quite clear that halal certification is part and parcel of sharia law whereas in the West they try to pretend that it is somehow divorced from sharia law.
    The UAE has a list of approved UAE Standards applicable to the halal certification scheme which include

    Food safety management system – Requirements for any organization in the food chain

    Hygienic Regulations For Food Plants And Their Personnel

    General Principles Of Food Hygiene

    What we are getting here is a sharia Food Hygiene Certification process that runs in parallel to existing Australian Food Handling standards, and Australian businesses and consumers are expected to cover the cost of both the government scheme and the muslim one.
    If you doubt that sharia halal will not extend to every item consumered from food to clothing to hotel accomondation see what the UEA has to say on the matter.

    The announcement comes as part of a halal regulations package, which will also include halal certification for cosmetics and perfumes as well as clothes and accessories.


    Halal mark a must for all food products in UAE

  223. cohenite says:

    notafan, I agree with you; try and convince dot.

  224. Piett says:

    Your argument has collapsed to the point where you are no longer pursuing it because you make a single fundamentally false assumption: that the legal trumps the moral.

    Well, the legal does trump the moral, in terms of its potential consequences. Moral violations may lead to nothing more than sleepless nights; legal violations can lead to deprivation of liberty (or life).

    Anyway, I switched from a moral to a legal argument because the moral evidently wasn’t cutting through. You mentioned that “in Turkmeni areas where they were Salafist, the Imperial Russians often had to kill the bulk of the population to get to this point” (the point where the survivors were passive, and willing to turn in guerrillas). “The bulk of the population”!!

    And you noted that the IJA’s reprisal policy in Manchuria and China often amounted to the same thing — “the ‘Three Alls Policy’ (kill all, burn all, destroy all) … stopped partisans cold at varying levels of population loss”. (That’s a nice, clinical way of expressing it: “varying levels of population loss”.)

    Astonishingly, you evidently approve and endorse the policies of both armies.

    Then there’s nothing further I can say from a moral perspective. I can hardly think of anything more immoral than such mass reprisal policies, pursued almost to the point of extermination.

    It was undoubtedly convenient and useful for Tsarist and Imperial Japanese soldiers, by reducing the danger from guerrilla attack. But in the modern world, soldiers don’t, and shouldn’t, have the only say about what happens on the battlefield, either from a moral or legal perspective. Ultimately, civilian government determines the law, and civilians participate in the debate about what’s morally acceptable.

    Personally, I would rather Australia risk losing a war — even an “existential” war — then ever contemplate mass reprisals against civilians. And I’m not some pacifist or leftie. On the contrary, I have huge respect for the ADF and other Western armed forces (my ancestors served honourably in the RAF and British Army), and I’m a classical liberal in political terms. My late RAF grandfather served almost the full duration of WW2, in a flying role, and then a couple of years afterwards. He deplored the night bombing campaign against Germany, which fortunately he did not have to participate in, and I’m sure he would have been aghast at the moral position you’ve expressed above.

    Well that’s it, I’m out of here, so you’ll have the last word, if you wish. I find your views profoundly alien, but nonetheless thank you for a civil and interesting discussion.

  225. notafan says:

    I know you do but thinking halal certification is just about halal slaughter for the export market and thus the issue is an innocuous one, you are already wrong on the facts as they currently stand.
    When the Copts first agreed to pay the Jizya the amount wasn’t onerous but over time the amounts were increased again and again and again. One of the muslim overlords even banned conversion to islam to keep the Jizya flowing.
    Once you agree to a monoploy on something, expecially if the cost is hidden from the consumer what is going to stop it being increased again and again.
    It’s not like halal certifiers are going to act competitively.

  226. notafan says:

    I didn’t mean you as in you Cohenite btw

  227. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Cohenite: .

    ..nothing works without the threat of reprisal. Some ethereal types think the pure notion of democracy/libertarianism will stop the reavers by itself.

    Correct. And even the oh-so PC touchy/feeling hard-line marxist who is president of the USA agrees with us.

    What, after all, is a drone strike which kills (maybe) an ISIS savage and 20-30 innocent bystanders but reprisal? And all legal, too.

    I was expecting Piett (to whom I bear absolutely no ill-feeling or ill will in any way) to raise the issue of ‘justice’.

    Reprisal is certainly moral. But is it just?

    The answer is yes, it is just where applied selectively and with discrimination, with intent to ameliorate violation of the three laws of war.

    Why is this just?

    Because it prevents indiscriminate actions (atrocity).

    The troops that caused the My Lai atrocity did so because they had been taking consistent casualties from mines and booby traps made and planted by the My Lai and other villagers. Had they been ordered to undertake reprisal, this would have ceased.

    The immoral action of the chain of command (advised, you guessed it, by lawyers taking their cue from politicians worried about what the papers would say) forbade reprisal.

    The result was atrocity, indiscriminate slaughter.

    Those morally responsible for this were not the troops who conducted the atrocity, but those who forbade moral application of the laws of war.

    Time for a thought-experiment

    Imagine, if one will, that the British response to the Final Solution was institution of reprisal.

    ‘OK, either you stop this or we nerve-gas a German city: to prove our determination, we will nerve-gas a single German town tonight as reprisal for what you have ALREADY done.’

    Would the Holocaust have continued?

    it’s worth pondering.

    I am often amused by lawyers who bang on about ‘justice’ in Australia, as if, somehow, the Australian legal system has anything at all to do with justice.

    it’s entertaining to close down their argument completely with the five magic words: ‘The Australian Family Court System‘. A place where Oswald Rothaug would feel perfectly at home, a system both evil and unjust.

    Fortunately, there cannot be more that a smattering of terminally bewildered in the country who could possibly conflate the Australian legal system with justice. There are, of course, the honourable exceptions who can actually use the Australian legal system to obtain justice. (And more strength to their arms, this was done for Daniel Morcombe for example – but generally the system is so unjust that private vengeance may well be preferable to bothering with it.)

  228. Piett says:

    What do you think of sharia law champ?

    I hate it, Cohenite. I never want to see it in Australia. And if some misguided government tried to implement it, I’m sure it would be struck down by the High Court under s 116.

    Sharia law is “law”, as the name implies. Halal certification is not law. Therein lies the crucial difference, as dot has been trying to explain to you, over and over, to no avail.

  229. notafan says:

    The reaver slaughter of western journalists and humanitarian workers was a reprisal for air attacks.
    The coalition call off bombing raids for fear of killing civilians when the reavers will kill civilians and claim them as victims of bombing raids anyhow.
    Where is that getting us in the war against islamislamic state?

  230. cohenite says:

    Sharia law is “law”, as the name implies. Halal certification is not law.

    This is a definitive statement. It is also a meaningless one since halal is the criteria for the operation of sharia. Examples of halal include a woman’s testimony being worth half of a man’s, or needing four male witnesses to prove rape or underage children can be married, or a non-Muslim’s testimony is not equal to a Muslim’s, or you can’t criticise Islam, the Qur’an or Mohammed.

    All those are examples of halal or what is permissible and not permissible in sharia.

    Do has a gutful of halal meat which has starved his brain. As a jurist, I presume, you should do better.

  231. cohenite says:

    Dot has a gutful of halal meat which has starved his brain. As a jurist, I presume, you should do better.

    My fingers are starved apparently

  232. Piett says:

    Time for a thought-experiment

    Imagine, if one will, that the British response to the Final Solution was institution of reprisal.

    ‘OK, either you stop this or we nerve-gas a German city: to prove our determination, we will nerve-gas a single German town tonight as reprisal for what you have ALREADY done.’

    Would the Holocaust have continued?

    it’s worth pondering.

    This assumes that Hitler cares about the lives of German civilians. And if he did, why did he fight on under the night bombing campaign, which killed plenty of people as it was.

    In your hypothetical, my guess is that Hitler tries to deter the Brits, by declaring that in reprisal for the nerve gas attack, a French, Dutch, Polish, or other occupied town, will have all its inhabitants killed and be razed to the ground. Or alternatively, all Allied personnel in one POW camp will be executed.

    And then the Brits do another nerve gas attack in reprisal, and Hitler commits another barbarity in reprisal, and we go on our merry way until there is hardly a civilian or POW in Europe who is not six feet under.

    (I know I promised my last comment above was the end. But I couldn’t resist!) 🙂

  233. Tel says:

    ‘International law’ (a fundamentally ridiculous concept in an anarchic system of sovereign states but it’s a real gravytrain for lawyers) depend even more on voluntary acquiesence, and we are seeing this right now – who is ‘the policeman’ dealing with Iran’s flagrant breach of ‘international law’ (to wit the nuclear proliferation treaties) right now?

    Get the point?

    Iran actually signed the first version of the NNPT and they have (so far) kept to the treaty. Later versions they declined to agree with, so I’m not sure what part of international law you think they have breached… the law of not following a treaty that you didn’t sign I suppose. Pakistan never agreed to the NNPT, they do have nuclear weapons and the USA treats them very nicely indeed.

  234. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Piett:

    And you noted that the IJA’s reprisal policy in Manchuria and China often amounted to the same thing — “the ‘Three Alls Policy’ (kill all, burn all, destroy all) … stopped partisans cold at varying levels of population loss”. (That’s a nice, clinical way of expressing it: “varying levels of population loss”.)

    Well, it has to be referred to in some manner. My preference is for the factual.

    Astonishingly, you evidently approve and endorse the policies of both armies.

    I most certainly do not – and on firm moral grounds. Both of these were unprovoked wars of aggression and were morally indefensible. Worse, the IJA was not a signatory to the Conventions and itself did not follow the laws of war. That led to the Pacific war (the real one, 1931-1949), being one endless list of the most appalling atrocities. The Japanese did not receive half the flogging they deserved for their collective national guilt.

    The only (and extremely thin and partial) silver lining to both of those very large and extremely black clouds is that both the IRA and the IJA did leave an area where the passive could be safe. Of course, in China the maoists rocked up in ’49 and butchered them all as ‘collaborators’, communists leaving no safe space for the passive at all.

    Then there’s nothing further I can say from a moral perspective. I can hardly think of anything more immoral than such mass reprisal policies, pursued almost to the point of extermination.

    If we wish to discuss that, again the ground beneath the topic shifts – I used those examples to show that reprisal works. In the moral sense, those reprisal tactics occurred within a framework which was itself immoral, that of aggressive wars of conquest (as we see in Syria and Iraq right now). Those wars should never have occurred, which means the operations within them should never have occurred, and that those operations were immoral because the war in which they occurred was not morally justifiable. But that’s a different issue.

    For war to be moral, the war must be just.

    Well, the legal does trump the moral, in terms of its potential consequences. Moral violations may lead to nothing more than sleepless nights; legal violations can lead to deprivation of liberty (or life).

    Agreed, but only in those terms. And in my world, the personal and legal is far less relevant to the general and the moral. What I think you are missing (and this is not your fault in any way) is that there is are large groups of persons who understand that there are things far larger and more important to them than their own lives. These persons (and I am one of them) accept that the loss of their own life can be immaterial, should such loss retain these things for their group/country.

    So to all of us in that milieu, if we were given a choice of living but doing the morally wrong thing or accepting even very high risk of death and doing the morally right thing, we would generally choose the latter. OK, why? Because at that point this becomes a matter of the most important thing in our lives – honour, not only personal honour, but organisational, family/tribal, group or national honour.

    For such people, why would risk of mere deprivation of personal liberty, or loss of one’s own life, be of the slightest concern if it was the price of retaining one’s honour?

    We all die, as the Stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius notes in his ‘Meditations’ life is a brief flash in between two eternities. So retaining one’s honor, the very thing that IS you, is in the end simply more important than a few years or even decades of personal liberty or life.

    I do regret that this could seem alien to you: but also thank you for an interesting insight into what is (to me) the very strange world you speak of.

  235. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Piett:

    This assumes that Hitler cares about the lives of German civilians. And if he did, why did he fight on under the night bombing campaign, which killed plenty of people as it was.

    Well yes, you’ve nailed the false assumption in the thought experiment, the NSDAP regime was not rational even within their own frame of reference (which takes some doing), yet the thought experiment is valid as such.

    heh. Civil discourse is hard to resist!

    🙂

    If we assume some shadow of rationality and an ‘out’ for them like ‘ship them to Sweden and we’ll have cartel ships ship them to Madagascar/Imperial colony X’ or something then the thought experiment is a bit more robust.

  236. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC says:

    Hmm. And with regret, I do have to pull stumps. I have to get the last bit of my dissertation finished. Yes, you can get sick of even a labour of love!

  237. cohenite says:

    Bedtime reading: ISIS goes nuclear.

  238. . says:

    cohenite
    #1689895, posted on May 23, 2015 at 11:36 am
    This is utter bullshit.

    No, you do not understand what is meant by establishment:

    establishment means “the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others.”

    Or

    concession

    What other religion can impose a religious tax, for that is what halal is.

    You blithering fucking idiot. “The Commonwealth SHALL NOT’

    It is plain as day and you think this empower the Commonwealth to ban religions.

    You are reading law as Henry VIII would. Your abuse of legislative interpretation is the same shell game lefties play to fuck us all over.

    No concession is made to Islam. All religions are free to “impose” “religious taxes”.

    You imbecile.

  239. cohenite says:

    All religions are free to “impose” “religious taxes”.

    And which others do. Little man.

Comments are closed.