The fact that it is us , the taxpayers, who have to pay from our pockets to give Associate Professor Ben Saul employment , high social standing and the opportunity to stab us in the back should ring some alarm bells at the Fairfax headquarters but this parody of justice seems not to be the focus of the news item quoted below.
It is "Dave done wrong", which makes the headline:
A co-director of the Sydney Centre for International Law, Associate Professor Ben Saul, said he was advising Mr Hicks and there would be an approach to the US President, Barack Obama, some time in the future.
"While I cannot speak for him personally, I think any reasonable person locked up in Guantanamo for six years and subjected to an unfair trial process and facing every likelihood of being convicted on a retrospective charge would have pleaded guilty to get out of there,'' he said.
''His alleged conduct was not a crime under the law of armed conflict or under United States law at the time of its commission. You can't easily make an argument that his plea was voluntary and not coerced - and that renders it unlawful under international law.'' (source)
(Mr Saul, ..and who has ever accused David Hicks of being "reasonable"? What would a reasonable person be doing in Pak shooting Hindu people across the border?)
Looking at the track record of this sad excuse for a "lawyer" and an "academic" we should understa
nd better our young people more and more often tend to vote in sinister, fascist leaning Green Parties, wear terrorist Muslim Keffiyeh symbols around their necks and proudly display the mass murderer Che Guevara on their t-shirts.
Oh, did I mention that Saul also has been a legal expert for the United Nations Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and that he currently lectures our students on Counter-Terrorism Law and Policy at the University of Sydney?
Nice!
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Comments (15)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
The bastard ought to be glad he's alive. He brings up *torture* in his defence, why not the firing squad for treason? Now that's a term not mentioned anymore, but it would be equal to his firing on U.S, British and Aussie troops.
Maybe someone will find him, report where he is and then let karma take it's course.
Maybe someone will find him, report where he is and then let karma take it's course.
1
July 18, 2010
Blak bird is right he is a traitor.His citizenship should be stripped from him,and expelled to a Islamic country.
2
July 18, 2010
"... he currently lectures our students on Counter-Terrorism Law and Policy at the University of Sydney."
Ben Saul and Waleed Aly, jockeying to be first up against the wall, come the revolution!
Reading about the sociopathology induced by islam -[url= http://www.newenglishreview.or...c_id/63122 - it is no surprise that he cannot bring himself to admit his guilt. Whilst I could have sworn he had 'renounced' islam -http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070911/a_hicks11.art.htm – it comes as no surprise that even that was taqiy/kithman.
The fact is, Hicks is guilty of nothing, he’s innocent because he is a muslim and when engaged in jihad, as Hicks says he was, there is no ‘sin’, no crime. Kufar are NOT innocent – ever. They are legitimate prey, so how can Hicks be guilty?
Something I have been curious about for a long time has been answered though - Hicks is a Shia.
http://www.answering-islam.org...onesty.htm
Ben Saul and Waleed Aly, jockeying to be first up against the wall, come the revolution!
Reading about the sociopathology induced by islam -[url= http://www.newenglishreview.or...c_id/63122 - it is no surprise that he cannot bring himself to admit his guilt. Whilst I could have sworn he had 'renounced' islam -http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070911/a_hicks11.art.htm – it comes as no surprise that even that was taqiy/kithman.
The fact is, Hicks is guilty of nothing, he’s innocent because he is a muslim and when engaged in jihad, as Hicks says he was, there is no ‘sin’, no crime. Kufar are NOT innocent – ever. They are legitimate prey, so how can Hicks be guilty?
Something I have been curious about for a long time has been answered though - Hicks is a Shia.
Kithman: Hiding the Truth
Kithman is a command to deliberately conceal one’s beliefs. It is a particular form of lying primarily practiced by the minority Shia’ Muslims. This doctrine is articulated by Imam Jafar Sadiq, the sixth Imam of Shia’ Islam:
One, who exposes something from our religion is like one who intentionally kills us. 2
You belong to a religion that whosoever conceals it, Allah will honor him and whosoever reveals it, Allah will disgrace him.3
So Shia’ Muslims are commanded to purposefully hide what they truly believe in order to mislead outsiders as to the true nature of their religion.
http://www.answering-islam.org...onesty.htm
3
July 18, 2010
Dan, it is amazing how obtuse ideological academics can be. Unfortunately Ben Saul seems just a parrot for leftist doggerel, patronising attitudes and vacuous values devoid of any moral anchor. I mean Hicks would have willingly killed Australian men if they had been there. What part of the word 'traitor' does he not understand?
4
July 18, 2010
Well how strange that Ass.Pro.Ben Saul's name turns up again within a few weeks connected with Islam and people linked under suspect of terrorism.
We see here that he is working with good ole David Hicks.
If you guys recall a few weeks back on one of the stories about Sheikh Mansour Leghaei, I posted on the said topic that he (Ben Saul) was one of the ones who was disappointed etc that the Sheikh had lost his case and was subject of his deportation back.
Saul....Now where does a last name like that come from..??? Seems to me he is selling out more than just us Australians.
5
July 18, 2010
Hicks should never of been captured alive .
Shooting at Indian people should be enough to have Hicks sent to India to face terrorism charges, no different than the Mumbai terrorists.
I will also bet that there are other things that we do not know about. that Hicks has done he went willing to kill for allah
6
July 19, 2010
Ben Saul is a slimy character by any measures.
I would love to hear what his ‘inalienable rights for Palestinians’ are. Is he reading history books printed in Saudi Arabia perhaps?
It is scary that he lectures on Counter terrorism when he believes that Muslims are the ‘victims’.
If Hicks ever gets compensation for his Jihad against Australia, then we are on the path to doom.
We will be writing to this Saul moron but not expecting a response.
Has Saul ever noticed that Muslims don’t afford us infidels the same treatment as he wants for Hicks? Has Saul ever read ‘The Reliance of the Traveller’?
Hicks should have faced a firing squad.
I would love to hear what his ‘inalienable rights for Palestinians’ are. Is he reading history books printed in Saudi Arabia perhaps?
It is scary that he lectures on Counter terrorism when he believes that Muslims are the ‘victims’.
If Hicks ever gets compensation for his Jihad against Australia, then we are on the path to doom.
We will be writing to this Saul moron but not expecting a response.
Has Saul ever noticed that Muslims don’t afford us infidels the same treatment as he wants for Hicks? Has Saul ever read ‘The Reliance of the Traveller’?
Hicks should have faced a firing squad.
7
July 19, 2010
What a distasteful character this Saul is. I honestly can't find adequate words to express my disgust for him, but opportunistic and slimy come to mind.
As for Hicks, he was caught in the act fighting with the enemy. Not only is he guilty, but he got off far too lightly. Now he's been reinvented into some sort of hero.
And by the way, it appears Hicks got married in a CHURCH!
C'mon you Muslims, follow your religion, and kill him for the crime of apostasy.
Where are the good diligent Muslims when you need them!
As for Hicks, he was caught in the act fighting with the enemy. Not only is he guilty, but he got off far too lightly. Now he's been reinvented into some sort of hero.
And by the way, it appears Hicks got married in a CHURCH!
C'mon you Muslims, follow your religion, and kill him for the crime of apostasy.
Where are the good diligent Muslims when you need them!
8
July 19, 2010
It is scary that he lectures on Counter terrorism when he believes that Muslims are the ‘victims’.
You got that right, Geoff! On that tack, WHAT possible qualifications could Waleed Aly have, that qualify him to lecture on same? Is it his more than passing knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood's designs and purposes, his allegiance to the Ummah, or merely the fact that he is a muslim?
He IS QUALIFIED for one thing.... a case study in how islamistation works from within a system.
The presence of this man in such a position is all the evidence one needs to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that the ship of fools is being helmed by madmen. Rocks ahead, Australia.
9
July 19, 2010
Lawyers who exploit the Western court systems for Muslims see them as no more than channels to rents, from judges who are incapable of impartial judgement where third world religious politics are involved.
Those who insist on the separation of church and state seem oblivious to the theocratic nature of Islam, dating back to the Caliph of Baghdad, who was both supreme temporal and spiritual ruler of Sunni Islam. The papacy did combine such rule but only in the Papal States through the centre of the Italian Peninsula. Kings in Europe throughour the Middle Ages, included Henry II who may be responsible for the death of Thomas a Beckett, Archbishop of Canterbury, because he wanted to block to have more influence in ecclesiastical affairs, particularly in ecclesiastical courts and the investiture of bishops. These conflicts have been resolved since the Thirty Years War in most of Europe, ennding in 1648, but continue in Islam.
Further, under Islam, the encroachments are more from the other direction with the religious imposing itself on the secular, but with little government opposition since Turkey’s Ataturk or under Erdogan when Turkey sought entry to the European Union. One good outcome of the recent crisis is that Europe is unlikely to accept Turkish membership, given the risks from even small countries like Portugal and Greece. Also, Turkey will give up its pretence of being a developing progressive democracy, as evidenced in its recent flotilla to Gaza.
The West thrives because church and state politely co-exist with each deferring to each other in their respective spheres, in keeping with Christ’s teaching, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” There can be no such sensible approach under the mad mullahs of Islam.
Those who insist on the separation of church and state seem oblivious to the theocratic nature of Islam, dating back to the Caliph of Baghdad, who was both supreme temporal and spiritual ruler of Sunni Islam. The papacy did combine such rule but only in the Papal States through the centre of the Italian Peninsula. Kings in Europe throughour the Middle Ages, included Henry II who may be responsible for the death of Thomas a Beckett, Archbishop of Canterbury, because he wanted to block to have more influence in ecclesiastical affairs, particularly in ecclesiastical courts and the investiture of bishops. These conflicts have been resolved since the Thirty Years War in most of Europe, ennding in 1648, but continue in Islam.
Further, under Islam, the encroachments are more from the other direction with the religious imposing itself on the secular, but with little government opposition since Turkey’s Ataturk or under Erdogan when Turkey sought entry to the European Union. One good outcome of the recent crisis is that Europe is unlikely to accept Turkish membership, given the risks from even small countries like Portugal and Greece. Also, Turkey will give up its pretence of being a developing progressive democracy, as evidenced in its recent flotilla to Gaza.
The West thrives because church and state politely co-exist with each deferring to each other in their respective spheres, in keeping with Christ’s teaching, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” There can be no such sensible approach under the mad mullahs of Islam.
10
July 19, 2010
Greg Deane,
Unfortunately many lawyers have discovered profitable new areas of law in which to make their fortune. Human rights and civil liberties lawyers have tapped a rich seam, with government-funded loot to be had. No wonder so many lawyers are jumping on the bandwagon.
This is compounded by the replacement of the independent system of justice, where the judge is an impartial referee, with a new breed of judicial activists, who no longer apply the law, but politicise it in order to push their personal agenda.
Sadly, the law, which used to serve us well, has been subverted and is now in the service of those who would undermine the rule of law.
Unfortunately many lawyers have discovered profitable new areas of law in which to make their fortune. Human rights and civil liberties lawyers have tapped a rich seam, with government-funded loot to be had. No wonder so many lawyers are jumping on the bandwagon.
This is compounded by the replacement of the independent system of justice, where the judge is an impartial referee, with a new breed of judicial activists, who no longer apply the law, but politicise it in order to push their personal agenda.
Sadly, the law, which used to serve us well, has been subverted and is now in the service of those who would undermine the rule of law.
11
July 19, 2010
Dan what a loathsome man this Ben Saul is for he is not simply acting as a disinterested lawyer but clearly is advancing a political, pro-Islamic view where the safety of Australians, Indians...any who aren't Muslim is completely irrelevant!
I agree totally with Cassandra --these legal slimes just find a path to easy money --they have no moral values, no aim to protect Australia, no aim to protect the real victims in the world --all non-Muslims under attack both in the Islamic world and increasingly in the west from Muslims!
As for the likes of him, Wal and Monash's Muslim head of their terrorism unit --we all know these people will teach nothing about the sadistic jihad of Islam from Mohammad to the present --We should demand these 'schools' be closed as at least that would save taxpayer money and stop paying these enemies of Australia to undermine our society and lie to our children.
I agree totally with Cassandra --these legal slimes just find a path to easy money --they have no moral values, no aim to protect Australia, no aim to protect the real victims in the world --all non-Muslims under attack both in the Islamic world and increasingly in the west from Muslims!
As for the likes of him, Wal and Monash's Muslim head of their terrorism unit --we all know these people will teach nothing about the sadistic jihad of Islam from Mohammad to the present --We should demand these 'schools' be closed as at least that would save taxpayer money and stop paying these enemies of Australia to undermine our society and lie to our children.
12
July 19, 2010
"Ben Saul" sounds like a Jewish name, too. I'm sure his rabbi is spinning in the synagogue wondering at the duplicity of this shyster, acting like a bleeding-heart goy.
13
July 19, 2010
There is an ethical dilemma here. On the one hand, to be PC we must respect Islam and Islam says that apostates must be killed. Hicks was a Muslim and I believe got married in Church and has therefore left Islam.
So should we respect Islam and insist he be killed by any Muslim who wants to get extra brownie points? Or should we abide by Australian law, which forbids killing a person who changes their religion?
It's all so difficult!
So should we respect Islam and insist he be killed by any Muslim who wants to get extra brownie points? Or should we abide by Australian law, which forbids killing a person who changes their religion?
It's all so difficult!
14
July 22, 2010
Greg Deane,
Even if Ben Saul is nominally a Jew, he is probably the Antony Lowenstein type, and if he goes to a synagogue, it would no doubt be one of those wanky progressive "temples", where they spend most of the time lamenting the suffering of the Palestinians and admonishing real Jews for not being inclusive when they refuse to embrace terrorists and think that Israel has a right to exist.
Even if Ben Saul is nominally a Jew, he is probably the Antony Lowenstein type, and if he goes to a synagogue, it would no doubt be one of those wanky progressive "temples", where they spend most of the time lamenting the suffering of the Palestinians and admonishing real Jews for not being inclusive when they refuse to embrace terrorists and think that Israel has a right to exist.
15
July 22, 2010
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.
