![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
What is going on with Team Rudd's death penalty policy?
Reading The Age this morning I was delighted to read Labor's Foreign Affairs spokesman Robert McLelland announcing a Labor government would from a regional coalition to abolish the death penalty in South East Asia. Finally, Rudd is showing he's more than just Howard with a smile. The proposed coalition may not really get too far considering that South East Asia is the region with the most government executions, but at least Labor was taking a principled stance.
However Rudd has quickly distanced himself from any sort of real divergence with Howard. Saying on radio that Labor would never move to have the death penalty overturned in the case of a terrorist. "We will not be making interventions diplomatically in support of any terrorists anywhere, anytime."
You can’t really consider it a principle if you’re happy to let it slide every so often. The hypocrisy of the Howard government was made clear last year with the support of the death penalty when it comes to hanging Saddam Hussein, but not when it involves Australian drug traffickers.
Is the death penalty legitimate? Or is it a barbaric and inhumane like Labor argued it was last year.
"The death by hanging, beheading, electrocution, firing squad, or stoning is inhumane, no matter what the crime. Australia needs to use its position internationally and in the region to abolish the death penalty universally." Nicola Roxon argued last year.
I don’t see how Rudd or Howard could argue otherwise.
I thought APEC was crazy enough already, now we have this.
How much is this big imperialist group-hug supposed to be costing? We already have one multi-million dollar meeting room, half a city in lockdown, along with numerous other programs.
I am looking forward to the protests though...
Aboriginal Assets to be Siezed then Rented back for Profit.
I was looking over some of Alexander Downers press releases made in response to Indian and Pakistani nuclear testing in 1998, and it is really interesting to reflect on the fact that Downer was the one that made the recent submission to cabinet to export uranium to India.
In a press release, Downer decries the tests as "outrageous acts" and points out relatively correctly that they could have "damaging consequences for security in South Asia and globally". He also urges India to sign the NPT and CTBT and "foreswear forever the use of nuclear weapons".
In less than ten years Australia is now offering to assist this very same nuclear program, and the USA is offering them an unconditional guarantee of fuel. If India tests again we dont really have the moral high ground to condemn it anymore, as we're helping them do it. The security of South Asia and the globe is obviously not a high priotiry either, as clearly any changes in India's nuclear program are going to get a response from Pakistan, and this is not a region of the world that you want to add more weapons to.
A couple of years and a friendly nudge from Washington was all it took for Alexander to change his mind.
I recently sent this letter to the editor. Watch out to see if it gets published! (not likely,but...)
"The Howard Governments’ recent decision to export uranium to India is grossly irresponsible and can only exacerbate nuclear proliferation.
Unlike some other nuclear weapons states, India continues to produce fissionable material and selling Australian uranium will only free up Indian reserves for weapons production.
The safeguards that the government is asking for will effectively achieve nothing for non-proliferation, as they will not affect weapons grade uranium production.
It also weakens the integrity of the non-proliferation regime more generally, increasing the risk that other countries may withdraw, and threatening the NPT’s relevance and legitimacy on the world stage.
Selling Uranium to this unstable region is irresponsible and provocative, as any changes to India’s nuclear program will surely get a response from Pakistan.
Canberra’s decision has sold out Australia’s good non-proliferation credentials for short-term commercial gain."
(If only it was true...)
The events surrounding Dr Mohamed Haneef have reached some sort of conclusion as he arrives in India sometime today. This sorry saga of imprisonment and executive power has been interesting to observe, and will be even more interesting to see how team Howard can extract themselves from the case.
For anyone living under a rock, in a cave, on mars, with earmuffs on, and with their eyes closed, the story goes like this… It all came about after the airport bombings in the UK. Haneef was linked to the attacks because he is related to some of the people allegedly involved (his cousins) and he lived with them sometime last year. A sim card belonging to Haneef was supposedly found in the burning jeep, but it later emerged it was found in the house of one of the terror suspects.
Haneef was arrested because of his sim card connection to these supposed terrorists. That sounds relatively insane in itself, because there was never any charge that the sim card was important to the attack, or that Haneef even knew about the attack prior to it occurring. Even more insane was the way Team Howard followed it up.
The idea of ‘security’ has (somehow?) been a strong suit of Howard, so they were understandably excited to hear this going on close to an election. But when the case started to look shaky and the Brisbane magistrate presiding over the case granted bail, the government stepped in and cancelled Haneef’s visa. Deeming him a threat to security, his visa was cancelled only hours after the bail decision (Effectively imprisonment through executive order, Lettre de Cachet anyone?). Bail can only be granted under the terror legislation for exceptional circumstances, so its not as if the magistrate took the decision lightly. This also meant that granting bail had a negative impact, as the conditions of Australian prisons are comparably better than that of immigration detention centers.
The remarkable intrusion into the case by the Howard government was a little scary to behold. First of all it is a direct interference with the independence of the judiciary. Clearly, if Haneef was really considered a security threat, then his visa should have been cancelled as soon as he was arrested, rather than as soon as he was granted bail. This would have had the added effect of separating him from his legal team, and severely weakening his case. This also had international ramifications, as Haneef’s ‘terrorist links’(the basis for cancelling his visa), are not actually guilty of anything. The government is passing judgment on a case currently before the UK courts, and labeling Haneef a terrorist because he knows his cousins. (When does family become a terrorist organisation?)
The case eventually collapsed completely on Friday 27th, as the DPP said there was not enough evidence to prosecute, and even revealed that some evidence presented before court was false. After this news was revealed, the Immigration Minister let Haneef into residential detention, and sought legal advise on his decision to revoke the visa in the first place. Why was Haneef now so little of a threat to the community that he could be in residential detention rather than in a detention center? Clearly the evidence Andrews had seen had not changed, only the political circumstances in which he made the decision.
Haneef left Australia on Sunday, and apparently arrives in India early today. He will continue to fight his visa cancellation.
The political issue that Team Howard probably saw as so hopeful turned into a complete shemozzle. The public opinion that allowed the illegal detention of David Hicks for numerous years has hopefully (finally!) turned against the arbitrary detentions and misuse of executive power that allowed it. It seems that Andrews, the AFP and the DPP are taking the heat for it too. Where was Howard in all of this? Clearly a decision to revoke a visa in such a high profile case would not take place without extensive consultation with the PM. Yet apparently, Howard knew nothing…
