Re: What is wrong with you people?

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:55:19 GMT, "George"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



So Bush is down in GITMO shoving guns and dogs in his face, is he?

Bush's representatives are.


My, but
he must have all the time in the world to be able to clear his schedule to
do such a thing. Please refrain from emotionalism, and stick to the facts
at hand.

The orders and treatment of people in that camp
come from high ups. Bush is ultimately responsible.
Commander in Chief.... or is that a Hollywood term?


Charge him, give him his day in court or let him go
would be the fair and decent thing to do.
What do you think George?

These issues are up for Supreme Court review. Until then, he's stuck, I
suspect. Sorry.

I don't think that is correct George.
This army Gitmo Bull*** thing doesn't allow Australian
legal people or Australian high ups to see Hicks like
a regular court would.




The families of these men could not get near the Arseholes
who are holding them. Arsehole George Bush is still holding
Hicks. Habib is now out but look at what the family had to
do to get Bush's attention and get Habib out of Gitmo.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/23/1066631572994.html
Mrs Habib also had to stand in front of John Howards car on as
many occasions as she could and the *** would not take
her documents. And you are asking Bob about evidence!

Yes I am.

How they hell can you say " Yes I am" when I showed
you a link to picture of an Australian senator being
physically jostled trying to give Bush evidence.

I've explained to you that you don't walk up to a leader of any country
during public events and shove a file in his/her face and expect that
he/her is going to give you the time of day. Its absurd. He should have
asked for a private meeting - in advance.

Wrong George. It was not a public event
but it was televised.
It was parliament house Canberra.
A place where pollies are supposed
to talk to one another. The He you are
referring to is a She. If you had looked
at the caption under the picture you would
have known that.



If you believe in the rule of law, then you believe in the rule
of evidence. Where is the evidence?

You didn't read those links did you? Look again.

The point is that you don't try cases, especially these kinds of cases in
the court of public opinion (and we all know about opinions, right?). The
Supreme Court has said that they have the right to redress in the civilian
courts, so perhaps he and his lawyer should get on with it.

Evidence is not allowed to get through.
George you are forgetting your crooked government
high ups do not allow Australians to visit Hicks in that
Gitmo bull*** hell hole.
Hicks' lawyers would like to get on with it. They can't,
they are not allowed access.


Look, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here.
Sometimes that is necessary so people will realize that things aren't
always what they appear, that there is more than one side to a story.

Hmmm! So you were deliberately stuffing old Bob around, eh?



And if it is found that he, in fact, did participate in activities against
American armed forces, are you going to apologize to our boys for making
him out to be something he wasn't?

I don't have to apologise to anyone. I haven't made
Hicks out to be anything. The man is innocent until
he is proven guilty. He hasn't been allowed to have
his day in court by American high ups.


Where is the American justice?
There isn't any for David Hicks.

Where is the justice for the 3,000 people who died on 9/11?

The man is locked up for years without charges or trial.
If Hicks played a part in the death of 3000 people
why doesn't your government charge him and let the
lawyers get on with it?


Here is an Australian politician senator Nettle trying to present
documents to George Bush.

Did he have an appointment?

Appointment! Appointment!
Are you taking the piss?
You didn't read the article did you?
Otherwise you would not have made such a
stupid statement about appointments.
Bush was in the blooming Australian parliament house.
FFS read the bloody articles!

Right. He was meeting with people in an public forum.

Wrong. Bush was in parliament house Canberra
where the politicians hang out. American blanket
security for umteen kilometres all around ensured
it wasn't public.


The president wasn't
there to look at the files of everyones' pet projects. Perhaps if the
senator had contacted him in advance and asked to review the case with him
in private, he could have gotten somewhere. He can still do that, by the
way.

Senator Nettle is a female politican, why do keep referring to her
as male. You didn't read the blooming article did you.
Bush is a pollie. Nettle is a pollie. They are paid to talk to one
another. They were in parliament house Canberra, the ideal
meeting place for pollies to talk to each other and exhange info.



You have to have an appointment.
Bull***! Bush was standing beside Australian
members of parliament in Parliament House
Canberra. You didn't read the articles!

So what? If I wanted to present a file to John Howard, you are telling me
that I could simply walk into Australia's parliment during a
slap-on-the-back session with some foreign leader and demand that he read
my files? Please tell me that you aren't this naive.

George you would ask your pollie to do it for
you just like Mrs Habib asked her pollie senator
Nettle to hand over the documents for her.
That is the correct way.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/23/1066631572144.html
Bush didn't have to read it there and then.
He could have had his minders accept it
for reading later. If Bush accepts/reads
these documents then he can't say later that
he didn't know about them.
Do you understand that ploy?

John Howard is an expert at not accepting
information then he can deny later that he
didn't know about it.
Bush got caught on camers not accepting
information.
Do understand that?

Later Habib got released without charge.
Bush and Howard looked like barefaced
obstructors of justice to the whole world.


I think you are overeacting to leftist media reports or someone's blog, and
that is never a good thing.

Wrong. Bush's address to the Australian parliament
in Canberra was televised. I also saw the TV news
with still pictures of the jostling incident.

George, this is a Scottish group therefore there
are lots of lots of leftists or Labour voters here.
You get to like it or lump it.

You haranged old Bob for evidence, I gave you an
example with a picture of how evidence isn't allowed
through to your high ups.
You can accept that or lump it.

Regards,
John Crighton
Sydney

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.

Loading