Virginia Tech: Just get over it.

Thursday, April 19, 2007.

I can’t stand hearing more about the Virginia Tech. Not because it upsets me, but because it seems so two-faced. People are asking “how could this happen?”

Easy: allow nutters easy access to weapons as is currently the case. If the bloke had has to make do with a knife or an axe, then we on the other side of the world would not be hearing about it.

Of course, if this massacre had taken place in Iraq at the hands of a USMC squad, it would have made the news because non-American lives don’t matter.

More than 30 Americans are killed every day either by guns or cars. No one is upset if 30 people die in clumps of 1-3.

So, stop asking “why” and “how” – it is easy – psychos kill, and when they get their hands on weapons that can kill large clumps of people, they do.

Perhaps the deaths are just collateral damage for a ridiculous policy of allowing the public to arm themselves with weapons that should only be held by those in the armed forces?

Nothing in comparison to white phosphor bombs dropped on Iraqi cities or US cluster bombs dropped over a whole country.

Pathetically small number of people really to be hogging the news lime-light.

Cartoon from:
Cartoons – Cartoon – Opinion –

Crocodile snaps off zoo worker’s arm


The crocodile holds the forearm of zoo veterinarian Chang Po-yu between its teeth

Photograph: Frank Lin/Reuters

Not my usual blog entry, but I jsut had to show this picture from The Guardian’s news photo page.

Kaohsiung, Taiwan: The lower left arm of zoo veterinarian Chang Po-yu was bitten off by a crocodile when he tried to pull a tranquilizer dart from its body. In a bid to rescue the arm two bullets were shot at the crocodile but it was unharmed. Chang eventually underwent emergency surgery to have his limb reattached.

Go here to see all 5 pictures of the retrieval of the arm and the zoo keeper post-surgey.

Hicks Release Conditions Unenforceable

Saw this on google news just now. So interesting I started hunting around and discovered that the Hicks story has caused a storm of controversy in the US, but for some reason it is not making its way into Australian papers.

So, here are a few extracts.

The release conditions put upon Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks are unable to be enforced and can basically be ignored, according to International Law experts.


International Law Compliance Forum justices, attorneys and other law experts said that there was ample evidence that the Australian Government had a substantial input into the conditions that were to be set, prior to the conditions being put to Hicks’ legal team.


The guilty plea by David Hicks essentially means nothing as the processes as to obtain such as plea mean nothing in law, any law.


As the processes as to the capture, transportation and detention of David Hicks were, in themselves, illegal acts under both International as well as US laws, any subsequent detention of Hicks in Australia can also be deemed illegal regardless of how long Hicks will be confined in an Australian prison.


Any Australian detention of Mr. Hicks can be deemed to be an illegal detention and Mr. Hicks can, as such, be deemed to be a political prisoner.


The Australian conditions put upon Mr. Hicks in relation to deny for twelve months any possible media contacts to convey his story, as well as any monitory gains to made by Hicks conveying his story, have no legal validity as the processes of the Hicks conviction were not within appropriate legal confines of processes of law, any law.


The Australian conditions also do not apply to Mr. Hicks as the conviction was recorded by US authorities and not by Australia, regardless of such processes being legal or otherwise. The US Constitution safeguards media freedoms. Hicks can thus convey his message as he pleases.


The statement by Hicks that he was well treated by the US can be regarded as suspect as firstly, Hicks told UK officials that he had been tortured by US officials, the statement made during his UK passport interview and secondly, the processes of capture, transportation and detention are in themselves not processes through which ‘well-treated’ claims can be made.


The processes used by the US are known to be brutal as well as illegal and outside the confines of law, any law. It can therefore be assumed that the Hicks statement in that regard was put upon him as a condition of release.


The condition put upon Mr. Hicks disallowing him to sue the US Government can safely be ignored. The condition firstly renders a guilty plea on behalf of the US Government in relation to Hicks’ illegal treatment at Guantanamo Bay as well as his illegal capture, transportation and detention while secondly, there are no legal provisions in Australia or the US that could prevent Hicks from suing the US Government, or the Australian Government for that matter.


As an aside, the ILCF experts noted that the statement made by an Australian Government lawyer during a case related to Mr. Hicks as to an alleged fact that the Australian Government had no responsibility towards Australian citizens located overseas are clear nonsense as all Government have a responsibility towards their own citizens by international convention, regardless of what positions they may find themselves in.


The ILCF experts also severely reprimanded the Australian Government for its repeated lack of compliance in relation to the Australian Government not complying with international laws and conventions during the life of the Howard Government.


Actually, I see now it is the whole article. Couldn’t cut anything out! Brilliant.

Source: Hicks Release Conditions Unenforceable

See also:

Outcry over Hicks sentence ‘fix’ –, April 2, 2007

Guantánamo gag order may be unenforceable –, 04/04/2007