Who has more credibility? (1 Viewer)

[wheredanton]

I've always thought that holding someone without charge for that long, in conditions that defy the Geneva convention were illegal under international law. Ignorance of the law, is not an excuse for breaking the law, although you seem to believe that it can apply to Howard. Lol, typical of a Howard lover.

Everyone knows that conservatives don't believe international law is 'law'. Ie Geneva convention.

 

[Optophobia]

I believe they're both sincere people on the inside

They're politicians.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Not doing anything much yet... Labor jumped another 3 points.

 

[withoutaface]

I've always thought that holding someone without charge for that long, in conditions that defy the Geneva convention were illegal under international law. Ignorance of the law, is not an excuse for breaking the law, although you seem to believe that it can apply to Howard. Lol, typical of a Howard lover.

Strawman. I never said he was ignorant of the laws surrounding detainees, I implied that there was neither knowledge, nor willful blindness of specific cases where the law had been broken, and as such there was no negligence or dishonesty on the part of the PM.

For your interest, I'd disagree with the PM about as often as I agree with him, and if you'd brought something up like Children Overboard, I would freely concede that he was dishonest.

 

[Season]

Its a well known fact that Howard will support America no matter what, this is not a completely bad thing because if something bad happened to Australia- say Indonesia invaded it's nice knowing that we have the security of America behind us.

But its pretty obvious that Howards content to leave our national interests in the hands of the American military, for FIVE YEARS David Hicks has been held in detention, five years! Then they had to drop half the charges because it turned out they had no evidence whatsoever.

See Howard says he's angry at America but then he goes and says

Mr Howard said he remained reluctant to see Hicks brought back to Australia without a trial in America.

hmm contradictory much?

Other US allies pulled their citizens out, and no Americans are kept there. But the Australian Government has done nothing but stand by a judicial process first found to be illegal, and then re-created in much the same unfair form.

Now if America wouldn't submit its own citizens to this treatment why the heck are we allowing it to happen to one of our own citizens?

 

[Optophobia]

For your interest, I'd disagree with the PM about as often as I agree with him, and if you'd brought something up like Children Overboard, I would freely concede that he was dishonest.

Go on then.

 

[nwatts]

why can't politicians be seen as the beautifal individuals they are?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

John Howard lied over the Children Overboard scandal.

Kevin Rudd went to dinner with a disgraced colleague.

Kill them both!!!:burn:

:rofl:

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'm not sure if I even get what the liberals are trying to claim happened here... are they insinuating that Rudd used Burke to knock of Beazley?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

I'm not sure if I even get what the liberals are trying to claim happened here... are they insinuating that Rudd used Burke to knock of Beazley?

I believe that is the problem, yes.

Although since Australia hated Beazley and the Liberals spent all their time mocking him as a leader, their sudden concern for his downfall is a bit odd.

 

[withoutaface]

I'm not sure if I even get what the liberals are trying to claim happened here... are they insinuating that Rudd used Burke to knock of Beazley?

If the meetings were benign he'd have revealed their contents by now...

 

[Captain Gh3y]

If the meetings were benign he'd have revealed their contents by now...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudd-defies-wa-scandal/2007/03/06/1172943364287.html

He conceded last night that the leadership might have been discussed at his August 2005 dinner with Mr Burke and business leaders. “What I’ve said is I can’t recall that, but I’ve also said it’s quite possible that those sorts of questions were raised,” he said.

The truth will come out! etc.

Actually, apparently one of the ministers in the reshuffle after Campbell got sacked has had connections with Burke too:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1864800.htm

A political analyst says Prime Minister John Howard has made an unwise decision promoting Senator David Johnston to the frontbench, given his links to lobbyists Brian Burke and Julian Grill.

Senator Johnston has been chosen to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Ian Campbell who quit because he had a meeting with disgraced former Western Australian premier Brian Burke last year.

Senator Johnston has admitted Mr Grill was his boss when he worked at a law firm in Kalgoorlie more than 20 years ago.

Maybe they need to establish some sort of "Burke number" where n = 0 if you are Brian Burke, n = 1 if you have dealings with him, etc, and you can't be a minister unless n > 10.

 

[kenny156]

Maybe they need to establish some sort of "Burke number" where n = 0 if you are Brian Burke, n = 1 if you have dealings with him, etc, and you can't be a minister unless n > 10.

Paul Keating made a very good point the other day when he said this:

Burke is smarter than two thirds of the Western Australian Labor Party rolled together. That's why he keeps bobbing up. And instead of leaving him out in the cold, what Gallop and Carpenter should've done was bring him in simply as a lobbyist and legitimise him like all of the other lobbyists over there, so all this nonsense goes away, you know.

and in terms of honesty, I would believe Rudd over Howard any day. Neither is perfectly honest but Howards track record on changing his position (such as climate change and david hicks) and being either unaware or ill-informed (children overboard, WMD, AWB) makes Rudd by far the lesser of two evils.