the prosecution makes a prompt response
My quote of the day, a little off topic, comes from philosopher Jamie Whyte: Most theologians are humble to the point of ostentation...[I was thinking of that John Carroll bloke].
Obviously the prosecutors in the David Hicks case are reading my blog and are keen to prove me wrong, especially the last sentence of my last post. They've come out suddenly with some specific claims about Hicks – for example that he complained directly to old Osama about the lack of English-written terrorist training manuals, and that he was then tasked with doing the translation himself, presumably because of his great command of both languages. Now there's one in the eye for all those Hicks bashers who think he's just a dumb racist Hick.
In spite of all this, no trial date has been set, and I remain convinced that there'll be no trial, and for the same reason I gave before. There's no evidence whatsoever against Hicks. If there was anything substantial they would have tried him years ago, with glee. The way things are now they can treat him like the piece of shit they obviously believe him to be, without having to answer to anyone. They must be particularly pleased with the Australian government's connivance in this ongoing situation.
Meanwhile we can but marvel at the tale told by the prosecutor interviewed by The Age recently, a fantastic tale which suggests that Hicks is guilty as hell. I suppose he thinks that if we believe that Hicks would have been or could have been tasked with translating complex training manuals from Arabic into English, we'll believe just about anything. But can he really believe that?
And what's with the attack on Mori? It really has a bad odour to it. For me, the only real question is what will become of Hicks, or what's left of him, after this administration is booted out in 2008.