I was looking through my e-mails yesterday morning and saw a CNN news alert where Larry King was discussing former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination – and I thought, hmm, they missed the word ‘attempted’ there. But low and behold, after some digging below the Christmas and holiday news at the headlines of the Australian news outlets, she had indeed been assassinated.
I really don’t know all that much about Benazir Bhutto, but after seeing her recent return from self-imposed exile and hearing her talk, I developed an appreciation for her, her pro-democracy stance, and her determination. Although I guess it was almost inevitable, I’m rather disappointed, for lack of a better word, that an assassination attempt against her was successful. It can only mean bad news for Pakistan, and the war on terror.
Other news related to the war on terror today is David Hicks’ release from Yatala Prison in Adelaide (David pictured on right in green shirt; picture from News Limited). He has been taken in a black car to to a ‘secret location’, but with media cars and choppers tracking it I’m sure it won’t be long before that secret location becomes public.
There is a lot of controversy about whether he should now be afforded a private, normal life or whether he should continue to be monitored. Well, I think someone who was so immersed in what he was immersed in, and who believed so strongly in Islamic fundamentalism, doesn’t just suddenly change his mind and want to become a normal citizen. It’d be nice if he did, but honestly, why would he? He met Osama bin Laden at least 20 times and wrote a letter home to his parents saying that Osama was a “lovely brother”. He joined al-Qaeda of his own accord. He became a supporter of the enemy of Australia, the US, the Western world…. in fact, when you think about it, the rest of the world too. And now he’s suddenly decided that he wants to be an Aussie again.
None of us can claim to know what’s really going on inside his mind, but wouldn’t underground terrorist cells in Australia be already trying to get in contact with him? Maybe they won’t be yet because his phone calls are being monitored. But some are calling for this monitoring to be removed because “existing laws and surveillance techniques would suffice” – a view held by the Australian Democrats according to AAP. I’m sure existing laws allow for increased monitoring when it is warranted. I think it’s warranted.
The Democrats are obviously making this a political issue (see the above linked article) but I hope that the Labor government won’t. Just as the previous government made unpopular controversial decisions in order to protect the public (such as Kevin Andrews with Mohammed Haneef), I hope the current government will continue to put the safety of the Australian people above political popularity.
See also: differing opinions on NEWS.com.au with Lou Fortescue and Ray Chesterton – Does Hicks rate a break? – Update 11/01/2008 7:17PM: the article I linked to seems to no longer exist, and is now replaced by a one sided editorial from Natasha Stott Despoja – I can’t find the original anywhere. Pity, as it was a pretty good argument from both sides.
Muslims Against Sharia condemn the murderers responsible for the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her supporters.
Our prayers are with the victims of this atrocity. We send our condolences to their loved ones.
May the homicide bomber rote in hell for eternity. May his accomplices join him soon!
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2007/12/prime-minister-benazir-bhutto-murdered.html
The above comment was picked up by my spam filter, legitimately I might add, because it is simply just a repost (probably done en masse) of their blog post – not a personally written comment relating to my blog post.
But, I allowed the comment through because I want to make a point on it. ‘Muslims Against Sharia’ have said here “May the homicide bomber rote in hell for eternity” – whereas the Koran gives the suicide bomber permission to do what he did.
What I don’t understand is how you can be a Muslim yet not follow the Koran. See http://www.reformislam.org/ for more details. I might have a read through their site at some point and write a post on it.
“What I don’t understand is how you can be a Muslim yet not follow the Koran.”
The same judgment applies to Christians who ignore the Bible or twist it to suit their agenda.
After all Judas was one of the 12 who walked with the Master for 3 years, and he still got it so wrong.
Growing up in an evangelical church I was led to believe that people were basically good who occasionally sinned. At least that’s the way it seemed with the church folk and friends.
Later in life, I came to realise the truth of the Bible in that we’re all just bad eggs, and occasionally we’re motivated to do good things.
So I’m not surprised by assassinations of all sorts in Muslim and Christian worlds.
Wherever and whenever good appears, you can be sure that evil will be there to make sure it takes no foothold.
Matt 10:11-23
I’m not sure that the Haneef decision is a shining example – the charges against Mohahmed Haneef were dropped in short order, and the decision to cancel his work visa was overturned not long after – the reinstatement being upheld by the courts a couple of weeks ago. As far as any of us are aware, Haneef has broken no laws and should not be treated as if he has.
As for David Hicks, should he not be treated as any other former criminal (though it has been noted many times that he has not committed any crime under Australian law – a statement I make simply in defense of due process, not to defend his actions), and be permitted, nay, encouraged to rehabilitate, while at the same time ensuring the safety of the public? Is the law sufficient to deal with former members of other criminal organisations? Is there then any reason why we should not let the law deal with Hicks in the same way?
I really don’t think that there’s anything necessarily ‘sudden’ about Hick’s apparent desire to live a normal life in Australia – he was, after all, captured some six years ago. You’ve asked why he would want to be a normal citizen – could the experience of being detained for years without trial in Guantanamo Bay (he is reported to be suffering from mental health issues as a result of his detention) be a significant motivator? Colonel Mo Davis, the former Guantanamo Bay chief prosecutor (in whose opinion Hicks should have received a *tougher* sentence) seems to think so, and has been quoted as saying:
“My hope is, my belief is, that he [Hicks] learnt a lesson from what he’s experienced the last five or six years and I think that will probably deter him from doing anything like that again.”
Speaking personally, I would like to think that a person can change for the better, that bad choices in the past do not preclude the possibility of good choices in the future – and I believe that our criminal justice system is based on such an ideal. Therefore, should we not allow for, hope for and indeed pray for a person such as Hicks to turn from his former ways and live a life that, at the very least, does not cause harm to himself or others?
Peace out my friend,
Nick
Hi Nick,
Thanks for your comment, and sorry for the delay in responding.
Firstly, the issue with Mohammed Haneef showed in the end that Kevin Andrews’ judgement was in fact incorrect, but I still believe that Kevin was right to make the judgement in the first place. With the information he had, he believed that Haneef posed a security issue to the people of Australia, and thus revoked his visa. The consequences of failing to act in this circumstance could have been high if it turned out that Mohammed Haneef did have an ulterior motive to being here, thus I think it was warranted to risk the politically unpopular and potentially damaging (to Haneef) situation in order to protect the public.
It turns out Andrews was wrong, but I think he had the right to make the decision and, having not seen the evidence he used to make it, I can’t really comment on whether he made the wrong decision (i.e. not knowing how convincing the evidence was or how much he went on gut feeling). I trusted his judgement and still do (perhaps blindly, but that’s the best I can do).
Moving on, I believe that a criminal can be rehabilitated and can be completely remorseful of what has happened in the past and, after receiving punishment for it, live a normal life without reoffending. I believe that because I think the principle is similar (although the scale is completely different) to mindsets such as suicidal ones. I was once depressed enough to seriously consider suicide, but now I have realised that I didn’t think clearly enough to see the bigger picture, and I have been “rehabilitated”, am living a fairly normal life, and would never consider it again. I think the same can happen to a murderer.
But I would have problems if the murderer was someone like Ivan Milat. The cold blooded, premeditated nature of a killer like him surely points to a deeply rooted, dangerous mindset. After the first killing he didn’t suddenly realise what he did and become remorseful, he went and killed six other people. I would have serious trouble believing that he could suddenly decide to want to be a normal citizen again if it so happened that he was actually going to be released (which I’d imagine is why the justice system has determined that he shouldn’t be released).
I see the David Hicks issue as similar. Hicks went over to train in Afghanistan of his own volition – there was premeditation. He stayed there, meeting Osama bin Laden over and over again, knowing what bin Laden was involved in and wanting to be trained to be involved in it also. He saw that bin Laden had effectively ordered the death of thousands of people and he (Hicks) wanted to be involved in more. Then he was captured.
Now we get to the stage where none of us can claim to really know what’s going on in Hicks’ mind. Those close to him probably have a fairly good idea. But for you and me, we have to base it on what conclusions we can come to in our own minds. Those are my reasons.
I think that he does pose a potential problem to the Australian people, because for the reasons I’ve outlined above, I don’t think he could be easily rehabilitated. So I think he should continue to be monitored. As with the Haneef decision, choosing not to monitor Hicks could have far more devastating consequences than monitoring him would. And in this case, Hicks has actually done something that warrants the inconvenience to him, whereas Haneef was (again, as far as we know) innocently caught up in the problem.
Cheers
Tim