The revelation that there was now a lay-person's definition of Audit hit pretty hard round these parts early this week. As an owner and manager of small business over the last couple of decades I just wish someone had told me this a hell of a lot earlier. Definitely would have made that yearly colonoscopy from the ATO a lot easier I'd guess. Then again Hockey's definition of "layman" might just mean the few people left in this country who are dumb enough to LISTEN TO ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING THIS SACK OF PIES SAYS. EVER!
But enough of Jolly Joe.
What really and truly brought that little vein in my temple to its throbbing full glory was the announcement today that the Coalition believes that the government should intervene in the trial of the three members of the ADF currently facing charges of manslaughter.
I'm going to ignore for a moment the whole Separation of Powers thing. Hell, why not, it became positively de riguer during the Howard era. I'm not even going to get into the concept of due process and what has occurred in the past when it has been subverted for political gain. I won't even express my surprise that the Coalition didn't hide behind its usual mad dog in its attack on the judicial process.
What pisses me off, and I mean REALLY pisses me off, is the total lack of thought thrown into the policy by those who threw us into this mess in the first place. That this has aroused such anger amongst the members of the ADF is understandable, but surely the Coalition, our "Government-in-waiting"can't be trying to play politics with this, can they? Because that would be just wrong, wouldn't it?
My understanding.
1. The DMP did not, I would assume and stand to be corrected if wrong, make these charges as a result of a rash and unconsidered reaction to the alleged incident. As I understand it the investigation into this incident has taken, to date, some 18 months.
2. The ADF member's are still entitled to a presumption of innocence. Sure, I realise this is a concept that the coalition has had some trouble with in the past (cough) asylum seekers (cough) but if you read the fine print you'll see it still makes up a significant part of our system of Law.
3. The ADF member's are still entitled to a vigorous defence. And guess what, I'm even betting that we'll probably have some of our best people on the job. Again this forms a part of the system of Law, even for military courts.
4. We currently have many more members of the ADF on deployment in the region. They are there on a "hearts and minds" mission as they attempt to mentor and train the fledgling military and police force that a relatively new government needs to establish a RULE OF LAW. This is a bit difficult to sell over there for the most part. Three plus decades of gun-barrel legitimacy has left the populace somewhat bewildered by the concept. They do know, though, that under the old system those who had the guns were above the law. If we are seen to allow those who have been accused a pass then we become no different to those that went before. That the very people who committed our forces to this conflict would so quickly abandon the very argument upon which they based this action would be to absolutely dishonour those who have fallen during it prosecution.
5. Finally at around the two and a half thousand mark we kind of stand out in a crowd over there. My afghani is not great but I would be willing to be that if these charges were to be dropped the afghani for "child killer'' would be painted onto every scrap of AUSCAM fabric they could find. I guarantee that those we seek to conquer are watching this with an absolute intensity. If these charges were to be dropped then it would be more than likely a matter of minutes before the first video aired with Osama Bin Ladin telling anyone who would listen that ALL members of the ADF are child killers immune to the very laws that they seek to impose.
To ensure that justice is done, both by the members of the ADF and the population of the country that we are trying to help, it would seem reasonably apparent that we not only be seen to be doing the right thing, but are actually doing it. The risk to both our mission, and to those that are actively involved in it, is otherwise far to great.
So tell me Tony, when you say the government should intervene, is that Jet-lag?
Or are you using "subversion of justice" as a lay-person might?
Tony Abbott, You're a dick.
