It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Handing victory to terrorists in Australia

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
So here's a situation that strikes me of Political Madness but on ATS, that forum applies only to the USA. Instead, I'm posting in War on Terrorism.

Maddness
Here's the gist:


The Melbourne barrister and human rights advocate Julian Burnside has warned politicians that tightening bail and parole laws at the expense of a right to justice and freedoms “is to hand victory to terrorists”.

His comments follow an announcement from the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, on Friday following a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments that laws would be strengthened to create a presumption against bail and parole for people who have demonstrated support of, or links to, terrorist activity.

“Violent criminals with terrorist links should not be walking the streets,” Turnbull said.

That last sentence bears repeating: “Violent criminals with terrorist links should not be walking the streets,”

What's wrong with that? Since when do the bleeding-hearts think we should let those who intend to destroy the way of life in a country go free while we wait to prove their guilt? What about common sense? If there's the slightest indication that someone is guilty of a crime and is a threat to society there's precedent to hold them without bail. I suppose the laws are different in Australia than the USA, but still, do you really want to let potential bad guys go loose?

The bad guy in this case is:


The 29-year-old Somali-born Australian declared links to both Islamic State and al-Qaida – although police have questioned the strength of those links – and shot a man dead and injured three police officers.

The argument goes like this:


Speaking to Guardian Australia from Indonesia, Burnside expressed concern about the bail and parole amendments, and said he would need to see the finer details. “That said, a presumption against bail is a bad idea: it means jail before a finding of guilt.

Great cause but why speak out in this case? Does Burnside really advocate letting someone with claims (legit or not) to ISIS and Al Qaida go free?
edit on 6-10-2017 by LogicalGraphitti because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

edit on 6-10-2017 by LogicalGraphitti because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
You give governments an inch and they will take a yard. Sooner or latter anybody questioning the Governments stance on any subject, will be called a terrorist.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
You give governments an inch and they will take a yard. Sooner or latter anybody questioning the Governments stance on any subject, will be called a terrorist.
True but we also deny bail to anyone deemed a threat to society by a judge. It's not just terrorists. It seems like Burnside is jumping on the bandwagon of a cause that is misguided. I'd support this idea under other circumstances.
edit on 6-10-2017 by LogicalGraphitti because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

But how do you define potental threat to society. If governments start arresting people on thought crimes you end up something akin to government given in Orwell's 1984.

An australian judge spoke about this subject on radio. He said the problem isn't that they get bail, its the fact that they arn't handled properly during the bail period. Today we have technology to track people out on bail using tracking anklets etc. If they illegally left the confines of their home etc, police would know where they were.

We need attack the problem of terrorism at its source. A muslum girl in a video I watched recently said governments should shut down all mosques financed by Saidia Arabia. Their wahhabism is an attempt to corrupt and destroy the Islam religion. Many muslums know it but reaalize Saudia Arabia works hand in hand with USA and Israel.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Heres a suggestion get rid of the whole parole system,if you get 5 years then you come out in 5 years- if you behave- if you dont behave you can stay longer.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
The Barrister is correct.

What he is referring to is, if you change the laws and "Tighten" things up, it affects EVERYBODY, EVERY CITIZEN, Not just terrorists...........its makes thing worse for everybody!!

So the terrorists win, as they have caused panic, More rules and regulations, More loss of freedom for the normal citizen etc etc.

Just like the USA has done since 11/9/2001 (yes in most countries we say the day first, then month, then year
.

Far better solution for these "terrorists" or religious freaks, is deport them.......no contest.
Or, shoot to kill them, make sure they have a fatal accident on the way to the police station.
It cost $50,000+ per year to keep one prisoner in jail, we dont need no stiiiinkin terrorists in our jails!!!

edit on 10-6-2017 by gort51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Terrorist has already won because we spend more money on defense than we do on trying to build stuff or keep our citizen's healthy and happy.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Yea I am totally against allowing the state to put you on a concrete box without first proving you are a legit danger to society..


In America they can keep you locked up for years with no trial, and then don't owe you a penny if you are found innocent. That can easily ruin your life..

Any law we allow to be implemented is inherently backed by deadly force.. so it should be treated as such..

Is an expired tag worth some ones life??

edit on 10-6-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Thanks for this; being Australian you've made my day. Nothing wrong with refusing bail if there are known terrorist's links.
The accused gets their day in court to prove their innocence or not. What it does do hopefully protect society from further radicalization or the accused walking free whilst awaiting trial to get upto more mischief.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
People need to understand the woeful state of sentencing in Australia to gain a bit of background as to why this is happening:

I was watching an American talk show that detailed a Kentucky man who punched his neighbour in a heated scuffle sending him to hospital - that guy got 20 years in prison for that one stupid punch.

In Australia you could murder someone in the most horrible way and maybeget 10 years.

There are African APEX gang members who break into people's homes and bash them, deal meth, repeatedly rob jewelry stores and they consistently get these lenient suspended sentences. Only to go out and do it all over again.

The Police are arresting the same criminals over and over again and saying to the Court "S/He has a long history of crimes that are escalating. We recommend they serve prison time" and the Magistrate goes "But S/He had a tough life so 3 months probation", slap on the wrist.

The community are outraged as many cases have come to light of the infamous Jill Meagher (?) murder where a young woman on a night out was abducted, raped and murdered by a man who was out on parole with a long history of violent offences. The communities expectations of sentencing don't match up to the bleeding heart Magistrates who suffer from "White Male Privilege Guilt" and declare these soft punishments because they see the criminal as the real victim.


So anyway there's a little background to the situation



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti


An australian judge spoke about this subject on radio. He said the problem isn't that they get bail, its the fact that they arn't handled properly during the bail period. Today we have technology to track people out on bail using tracking anklets etc. If they illegally left the confines of their home etc, police would know where they were.



It has since come out that the Somali-born terrorist in last weeks Melbourne hostage situation did have an ankle bracelet but he cut it off. If an alarm sounded when the device was removed nobody paid attention and police weren't notified



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

But how do you define potental threat to society. If governments start arresting people on thought crimes you end up something akin to government given in Orwell's 1984.

If someone is caught committing a crime and a judge (during the arraignment) decides the person is a threat, they can lock them up without bail. Yes, innocent until proven guilty but the person can also be flight risk.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Kalixi

The bracelets are suppose to send an alert to the authorities if they are tampered with. Thanks for the info Kalixi. Oz police arn't as backward as I presumed obviously.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti
In America they can keep you locked up for years with no trial, and then don't owe you a penny if you are found innocent. That can easily ruin your life..

Only in Guantanamo Bay. Otherwise a person can be held until trial.


Any law we allow to be implemented is inherently backed by deadly force.. so it should be treated as such..

Is an expired tag worth some ones life??

That's not a realistic comparison. There has to be some common sense applied along with the law.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Thanks for this; being Australian you've made my day. Nothing wrong with refusing bail if there are known terrorist's links.
The accused gets their day in court to prove their innocence or not. What it does do hopefully protect society from further radicalization or the accused walking free whilst awaiting trial to get upto more mischief.


Exactly!



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I'm turning in for the night but as it is already Sunday morning in Australia, I hope to see some real dialog on this topic.



posted on Jun, 10 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti



If someone is caught committing a crime and a judge (during the arraignment) decides the person is a threat, they can lock them up without bail.


Just reading more about Khayre's drug and alcohol abuse on the internet, his contact with other terrorist that sent him to somalia to train with terrorist organisation al-Shabaab.

If I was a judge and had all the information at my disposal yes I'd lock him up without bail. But I half remember hearing that the judge didn't have any information about his terrorism links. That information is secured and not accessible by law courts.

It seems a mess and a half on reflection. I am starting to see your point of view.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kalixi

The community are outraged as many cases have come to light of the infamous Jill Meagher (?) murder where a young woman on a night out was abducted, raped and murdered by a man who was out on parole with a long history of violent offences. The communities expectations of sentencing don't match up to the bleeding heart Magistrates who suffer from "White Male Privilege Guilt" and declare these soft punishments because they see the criminal as the real victim.





While the prosecutors were arguing that he should never be released, the judge said Bayley would be eligible for parole in 35 years.

Jill Meagher's family said justice has been done.

Samantha Donovan was in the Victorian Supreme Court this morning for the sentencing and she joins us now.

So Sam, senior legal figures have been describing this case as a catastrophic failure of the justice system. What did the judge say as he handed down this sentence this morning?

SAMANTHA DONOVAN: Eleanor, Justice Geoffrey Nettle said the rape and murder of Jill Meagher was a heinous case. That her rape was savage and degrading and that she was violently strangled.

He went through the events of Jill Meagher's last night, last September. How she'd been out with friends from the ABC for drinks and how Bayley had come across her in the street in Melbourne's northern suburbs, followed her and then dragged her into a laneway and attacked her.

And that he had in all likelihood strangled her because she was threatening to ring the police after he'd raped her or, the judge said, because he got some kind of perverse pleasure out of killing her.

ELEANOR HALL: Did the court hear much about Bayley's previous crimes?

SAMANTHA DONOVAN: Yes, we heard a lot about those today, Eleanor. Justice Nettle pointed out that Bayley first started offending when he was 18 and he went through the string of violent rapes that Bayley's been convicted of in the past. He's previously served 11 years for rape and attempted rape.

When he was 18 and Bayley's wife was pregnant with her first child he raped a young woman in his home. Then when he was released on bail in 1990 he attempted to rape a 17-year-old. Then in 2001 he was charged with 16 counts of rape against five victims.

Justice Nettle pointed out that those women were prostitutes who Bayley thought would be easy targets, and he went into quite a bit of detail about how those women were very violently raped and humiliated and how shocking injuries were caused to them.

As we know, Bayley was released on parole in 2010 and as the judge pointed out he offended again almost immediately, attacking a man in Geelong. We know that he was convicted of that offence and then bailed, and of course as we know went on to murder Jill Meagher.


Expert says parole not appropriate for serious repeat offenders

A deeper contex into a specific case that due to her media profile garnered extra attention. In theses instances where a life sentance should be the judgment, society and the individual benefit from the death penalty after sufficant review by the judicial system? Recidivism rates especially amongst reapeat sex offenders and violent criminals is around %50 in most states. The system needs to strengthen it's stance against repeat offenders, if a prisoner is not reformed after the first parole period?
edit on 11-6-2017 by aliensanonymous because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: glend




that laws would be strengthened to create a presumption against bail and parole for people who have demonstrated support of, or links to, terrorist activity.


OK make me a one person case study . Lets say i commit a crime , i see no reason for bail to be opposed on terrorist grounds . Why . Because i am not a bloody terrorist nor do i have contact with anyone who is . The terrorists have not won , now they dont get to commit acts of terror while on bail . Bring it on i say .



new topics




 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join