Justice

Judgment at Nuremberg:

But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men - even able and extraordinary men - can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination. No one who has sat through this trial can ever forget. The sterilization of men because of their political beliefs... The murder of children... How *easily* that can happen! There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the "protection" of the country. Of "survival". The answer to that is: *survival as what*? A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. *It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult!* Before the people of the world - let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what *we* stand for: *justice, truth... and the value of a single human being!*

I love it when the words of the past - even words uttered by fictional characters - can so utterly convict and expose the present.

This film should have been essential viewing for anyone in US military charged with making tough decisions after 9/11.

AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

America - where evil deeds protect good people?

The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.

Unless, of course, the good man resorts to evil deeds in response to evil:

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

In the past 12 months my stance against the Bush administration has not so much softened as it has not been discussed. Most of my anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War statements at this blog occurred in 2005 and 2006. Since the middle of 2007, I have focused mainly upon economic issues, probably because it was a developing area (and still is) and is more interesting.

But this recent revelation - quoted above - reminds me of the anger I still hold against the Bush administration for destroying America's reputation around the world. The fact is that the Bush administration - and Bush himself - approved the use of torture of terrorist suspects. Abu Ghraib was not some anomoly, it was the natural result of things. Stories we have heard of torture at other places, like Bagram, Guantanamo Bay and the roving CIA torture cells that walk into other countries and violate their sovereign laws by kidnapping people and taking them to places where they can be tortured for information - they are true. These stories have moved from rumours to substantiated rumours and have now gone onto documentable fact signed and sealed by those at the top of the US Administration.

Add to this the flimsy basis upon which the Iraq war was founded upon - with the deaths of over 4000 US Servicemen and probably over one million Iraqis since 2003 - and the situation seems very clear.

I'm exceptionally annoyed that impeachment of Bush and Cheney was never seriously considered. It speaks volumes of America's seriously skewed priorities that one President's lies to protect adultery was grounds for the first and only impeachment trial of the 20th century while the invasion and conquest of another nation (which was unconstitutional in the first place) that results in the deaths of over one million people, the economic and social ruin of tens of millions of others did not so much as get looked at in Congress.

Bush, Cheney and his gang may not escape impeachment, but it is in the interests of American and the entire world for these people to be tried as war criminals, with immunity granted to those in the lower echelons so that they may testify about what they saw and heard - these lower echelons being those who actually created the procedures and participated in them.

But, then again, I wouldn't hold any hopes high for such a process to happen. If only Bush, post-president, were kidnapped and extraordinarily rendered to Europe to face the International Criminal Court - that would be justice.

In order for evil to triumph, it is not just necessary for good people to do nothing... it is also for evil people to get into positions of power and abuse them in the name of good.

And to think that Bush - and Ashcroft - publicly declare faith in Christ. Abomination.

PS - Thanks to Tom Hinkle for setting me off on this.

China, Tibet and the Olympics

Ah yes. Tibet. Scourge of China and the interests of Richard Gere alike. What to do?

What should NOT happen is a boycott of the Olympics. It's not that I somehow think that China needs to be appeased or that the Tibetans don't somehow need justice. Sometimes boycotts are necessary, although the last two - 1980 and 1984 - were hardly effective and were conducted more out of spite than anything.

The problem I suppose is, firstly, the belief that the "side" I am on, namely the English speaking industrialised world, is hardly occupying any moral high ground. And this not just in terms of older history (ie Australia's treatment of Aborigines, America's treatment of their indigenous people, Britain's treatment of pretty much everyone) but also in recent history. If I'm going to argue for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics then I should also argue for a boycott against the countries that have invaded Iraq as well, including my own country.

In short, there a multitude of reasons for boycotting the Olympics or getting angry that certain nations are going to be there. That being the case, in theory no one should go.

The second problem, though, is more along the practical side of things. Boycotting the Olympics will not somehow soften China's resolve in Tibet. The Chinese government is not going to suddenly make Tibet free, recognise Taiwan as a sovereign country and turn into a western style democracy because a bunch of westerners decided not to attend a glorified sporting event.

What might hurt, though, is economic sanctions, though I would point out that any trade embargo against China would hurt America more than China, so that's out as well. Moreover it is inflammatory, and that is not what is needed.

We need to remember that the best sort of change is achieved slowly and carefully. Change is not wrong - in fact change is an essential part of how societies work. What hurts the most, though, is when change comes suddenly.

Take Iraq under Saddam. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but invading the country and destroying the nation's power structure has created anarchy and done far more harm to it than anything Saddam would have done.

Dealing with rogue states - and even states like China that have roguish elements - requires patience and time. Look at nations like Egypt, Syria and Libya - these nations are hardly examples of world's best practice, but they have moved over the years from being potentially bad states to being potentially good states. This should have been the goal with Iraq, and it should have been the goal in Afghanistan from the late 1980s onwards. It's also the goal we should have towards Iran, though I would argue that Iran is less a rogue state than it was in the 1980s.

Look at the problem with Cyprus. Both Greece and Turkey have been arguing over this Mediterranean island for decades and have occasionally come to blows. Yet the moderating effect of the European Union has forced both sides to make concessions and to approach this issue - which is hardly solved yet - slowly, carefully and effectively. As time passes, issues like Cyprus will lose its ability to stir up base emotions and a solution will eventually be found.

The same can be said about China and its problems with Tibet and Taiwan. Slowly, slowly is the best way. It is the most effective way. Oftentimes the best solution is not to be found in the flag of victory waving over a bloody battlefield, but in the bored looks of those examining the "small print" of agreements.

1 in 100 Americans are in prison

From the department of We're-no.1:

For the first time in the nation’s history, more than one in 100 American adults are behind bars, according to a new report.

Nationwide, the prison population grew by 25,000 last year, bringing it to almost 1.6 million, after three decades of growth that has seen the prison population nearly triple. Another 723,000 people are in local jails.

The number of American adults is about 230 million, meaning that one in every 99.1 adults is behind bars.

The incarceration rate is higher than virtually every single country in the world. Is this because America is more able to punish criminals? Or is it because there is more criminal behaviour in America?

NSW Labor - as corrupt as you can get

Morris Iemma was battling an escalating corruption scandal last night that threatened to draw in two of his most senior ministers and to bring down one of the state's biggest Labor-controlled councils.

Joe Scimone - a close ally of the Minister for Ports and Waterways, Joe Tripodi, and a friend for 30 years of the former Wollongong lord mayor and current Police Minister, David Campbell - stood down from his job managing property within NSW Maritime yesterday pending the outcome of an Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry.

There are allegations before the commission that Mr Scimone, a former Wollongong Council officer, paid $30,000 last year to conmen posing as commission officers who were offering to destroy evidence against him.

Mr Tripodi's office confirmed last night that Mr Scimone, a former federal Labor preselection candidate and Labor branch president, had been stood down on full pay.

The future of Wollongong City Council was in doubt last night as some of its ALP councillors were further implicated in the growing sexual and corruption scandal inside the council.

And that's why I don't vote for the ALP. I am sick of how easy it is for corruption to infiltrate politics. I may be down on John Howard and his government, but at least there was little evidence of this sort of corruption. If the Rudd government gets drawn into a corruption scandal in the next few years, I wouldn't be surprised.

Another innocent man jailed... and then freed

From the department of amateur-policing:

A Northern Ireland man has been cleared of the murders of 29 people who died in the Omagh bomb attack in 1998.

Sean Hoey, 38, of Molly Road in Jonesborough, was found not guilty of a total of 58 charges, including those not directly linked to the bombing.

Speaking at Belfast Crown Court, Mr Justice Weir was critical of police evidence and said they were guilty of a "deliberate and calculated deception".

He said transcripts of the trial had been sent to the police ombudsman.

In delivering his verdict, Mr Justice Weir referred to "a most disturbing situation exposed by the defence".

The judge said he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that prosecution submissions showed that all explosive devices were made by one person.

Speaking after Thursday's verdict, Mr Hoey's solicitor, Peter Corrigan, said his client was an innocent man who had been completely vindicated.

"Today's judgement - a reasoned, lengthy and well considered judgement - completely vindicated this position that he maintained. Sean Hoey is an innocent man," he said.

Outside the court, Mr Hoey's mother Rita said: "I want the world to know that my son Sean Hoey is innocent.

"The authorities north and south have held two separate trials, but one witch-hunt."

"It was concluded that the evidence was sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction"

Lawrence Rush, whose wife Elizabeth died in the explosion, said the case had been handled disastrously by the police.

"I wouldn't have liked the wrong man to be charged," he said.

Michael Gallagher, whose son Aidan was killed in the bombing, said a cross-border inquiry into the bombing should be set up by the British and Irish governments.

I have a great deal of time for police officers. They have a hard job. They deal with the worst people in society every day and never get a break.

But we all trust that police officers will, because of law, treat their job with seriousness, prudence and judiciousness. When they don't, innocent people end up suffering while the guilty go free.

While Sean Hoey sat in prison, knowing his innocence and suffering because of police incompetence, the real perpetrators of the bombing were walking freely around the streets. More than that, they were walking around happy in the knowledge that the police weren't looking for them since someone had been convicted of the crime already.

The tragedy behind police incompetence is often the dual result of an innocent man imprisoned (or, in the case of the US, occasionally executed) while the guilty are safe to resume their "normal" life.

So what's the solution? Better police officers for a start. Those entering the force/s must have already demonstrated their intelligence. More than that, police officers need to be paid well to ensure that they do not fall victim to bribery. Professional conduct must be drilled into them to ensure that mistakes like Omagh never happen again.

The Secret Speech

Since I'm into all things Russian today, I have been reading up on Nikita Khrushchev's "secret speech" that he gave in 1956. This speech was instrumental in changing the Soviet Union after Stalin's death, mainly because it was a fair and honest assessment of the massive damage that Stalin did not just to Russians, but to Communist Ideology.

It was a very brave move on Khrushchev's part, and it amazes me even today to think that the guy ended up being the Soviet Union's no. 1 man.

What I find interesting is this quote from the speech:

Stalin originated the concept 'enemy of the people.' This term automatically made it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven. It made possible the use of the cruelest repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent… On the whole, the only proof of guilt actually used, against all norms of current legal science, was the 'confession' of the accused himself. As subsequent probing has proven, 'confessions' were acquired through physical pressures against the accused. This led to glaring violations of revolutionary legality and to the fact that many entirely innocent individuals… became victims."

Given the current debate about "waterboarding" in the US, it seems striking to consider that 50 years ago, the Soviet Union realised that torture simply did not work.

A good reason why I'm opposed to the Death Penalty

From the department of criminal-incompetence:

Prosecutors had linked the weapon to Kulbicki through forensic science. Maryland's top firearms expert said that the gun had been cleaned and that its bullets were consistent in size with the one that killed the victim. The state expert could not match the markings on the bullets to Kulbicki's gun. But an FBI expert took the stand to say that a science that matches bullets by their lead content had linked the fatal bullet to Kulbicki.

The jurors were convinced, and in 1995 Kulbicki was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his 22-year-old girlfriend. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

For a dozen years, Kulbicki sat in state prison, saddled with the image of the calculating killer portrayed in the 1996 made-for-TV movie "Double Jeopardy."

Then the scientific evidence unraveled.

Earlier this year, the state expert committed suicide, leaving a trail of false credentials, inaccurate testimony and lab notes that conflicted with what he had told jurors. Two years before, the FBI crime lab had discarded the bullet-matching science that it had used to link Kulbicki to the crime.

Now a judge in Baltimore County is weighing whether to overturn Kulbicki's conviction in a legal challenge that could have ripple effects across Maryland. The case symbolizes growing national concerns about just how far forensic experts are willing to go to help prosecutors secure a conviction.

To be honest, there's every chance that the guy who was charged with this crime actually did it. Fortunately he was not executed, but the same could not be said for other instances of incompetence within the law-enforcement community.

In this particular case, the prosecution hinged upon the man's use of a .38 calibre handgun to kill his girlfriend. An expert witness, an engineer and scientist, concluded before the court that the bullet used to kill the woman was fired from the man's handgun. Many years later, the credentials of the expert were found to be false and the "expert" committed suicide as a result. When the forensic evidence of this particular case was then re-examined, it seems that the bullet could not have been fired from the man's handgun.

Bungling police officers, unqualified experts, drunk defence lawyers and corrupt juries bedevil too many criminal cases around the world, especially in the US. No system of justice is perfect, though it is in the interests of everyone that professionalism and objectivity be paramount in any criminal trial.

The main reason I oppose the death penalty is that, too often, convicted murderers have ended up being executed and then posthumously exonerated by evidence of unprofessionalism, incompetence and bias in the trial process. The advantage of throwing a murdered in jail for the rest of his life is that, if he is eventually found to be innocent, then the means exists for recompense.

Having not worked in professional law enforcement, I am not aware of the pressure that policemen, judges, lawyers and experts may have upon them. History shows us, however, that even in a modern society innocent people can end up being jailed because of unprofessional and subjective. The imprisonment of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the death of Jean Charles de Menezes are examples of conduct unbecoming law enforcement officials in the face of public and political pressure.

Mistakes will always be made when people are charged with criminal offenses, and those whose job it is to enforce the law try very hard to ensure that they do the right thing. It is the interests of society to have professional, unimpeachable, transparent and accountable law enforcement. Yet when mistakes are made, there should be a way of ensuring that those who suffer are compensated. This can't occur when the person has been executed.

There are many reasons why the death penalty should not be practised in a modern nation. The fact that innocent people have been executed is one of the most important reasons for its abolishment. Sending murderers to jail for life - without possibility of parole - is a far better solution.

Cricketer Bob Holland on child sex charges?

This doesn't look good:

A 61-year-old man has been refused bail after police laid an additional 67 child sex charges against him relating to seven more male and female victims aged between two and 16 at the time of the alleged offences.

Robert Holland, from West Toronto in New South Wales Hunter region, is now facing a total of 115 charges against 12 victims but police expect to lay more charges.

The extra charges, laid by Lake Macquarie detectives in Newcastle Local Court yesterday, relate to offences allegedly committed between 1957 and 2001.

The charges include sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, committing an act of indecency and buggery.

Magistrate Richard Wakely refused an application for bail, citing concern for the welfare of the community.

The case was adjourned to December 12.

There is nothing in this report about whether this is the same Robert Holland who played for Australia in the mid 1980s. Yet there are two reasons this might the case;

1. When Bob Holland played for Australia, he was based in Newcastle at the time. He probably remained in the Hunter Valley after retirement. West Toronto is in the Hunter Valley region.
2. The Robert Holland who was arrested was described as being 61 years old. According to Bob Holland's cricinfo page, he is 61 years old.

Of course, none of this proves that it is the same Bob Holland, but, you have to admit, it looks bad.

Update:
I've just contacted the Sydney Morning Herald. They think it is a good lead. More soon.

Update 2:
SMH contacted me. It WAS NOT Bob Holland the cricketer. That's good news.

FBI investigates Blackwater

From the department of unprofessional-professionals:

Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.

The F.B.I. investigation into the shootings in Baghdad is still under way, but the findings, which indicate that the company’s employees recklessly used lethal force, are already under review by the Justice Department.

Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.

On one level, this does not surprise me in the least. The entire Iraq venture has been a complete shambles from beginning to (eventual) end.

Blackwater is a mercenary organisation, to put it bluntly. It is doing what it does not for patriotic reasons but for money. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but this investigation by the FBI shows that they are anything but professional. In this situation Blackwater is under obligation to perform according to strict guidelines of engagement. But if Blackwater personnel are given more "lax" guidelines than US soldiers, you have to wonder what the point is.

What is interesting to me is that this incident has meant an investigation not by the military, but by the FBI. The FBI has neither any interest in whether Blackwater is found guilty or not - their interest is (in theory) only doing their job and investigating the incident dispassionately. By contrast, a military investigation into alleged crimes committed by members of the military has an interest in making sure their men are looked after, rather than investigating properly. That was the reason why Colin Powell helped cover up the My Lai Massacre, and why it took such a long time to investigate the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. I wonder if the FBI, or some other independent investigative agency, should investigate all alleged claims of abuse against US Soldiers.

Nah. Wouldn't work. US soldiers guilty of war crimes? Not possible...

More on the Armenian Genocide

From the department of common-sense:

Last Wednesday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee condemned mass murder in the Middle East. Quite right, you may say -- except that this mass murder took place more than 90 years ago.

The committee approved a resolution, which could go to the House floor this week, calling on the president "to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide . . . relating to the Armenian genocide."

...

It is absurd, then, that Turkish politicians and some academics (not all of them Turks) insist that the issue is somehow open to debate, though there is certainly room for more research to be done in the Turkish archives. And it is deplorable that writers in Turkey can still be prosecuted for describing the fate of the Armenians as genocide.

Yet I remain far from convinced that anything has been gained by last week's resolution. Indeed, something may well have been lost.

Relations between the U.S. and Turkey were once good. The heirs of Kemal Ataturk were staunch allies during the Cold War. Today, Turkey allows essential supplies to Iraq -- around 70% of all the air cargo that goes to U.S. forces -- to pass through Turkish airspace. Moreover, the regime in Ankara currently offers the best available evidence that Islam and democracy can coexist.

...

Does gratuitously bringing up the Armenian genocide increase or decrease our leverage in Ankara? The angry responses of Turkey's president and prime minister provide the answer. On Thursday, President Abdullah Gul called the resolution an "attempt to sacrifice big issues for minor domestic political games" -- an allusion to the far-from-negligible Armenian American lobby, which has long pressed for a resolution like this.

The absurdity is that the genocide of 1915 was not perpetrated by today's Turkish Republic, established in 1923, but by the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed at the end of World War I. You might as well blame the United States for the deportation of Acadians from Nova Scotia during the French and Indian Wars.

"If we hope to stop future genocides, we need to admit to those horrific acts of the past," argued Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat and a sponsor of the resolution. Really? My sense is that all the resolutions in the world about past genocides will do precisely nothing to stop the next one.

And if -- let's just suppose -- the next genocide happens in Iraq, and the United States finds itself impotent to prevent it, the blame will lie as much with this posturing and irresponsible Congress as with anyone.

The more mistakes this Democrat-controlled congress make, the more I will believe that there is something systemically broken about the American democratic system. We've already had one of the worst Congresses in history, we don't need another bunch of idiots making stupid decisions.

If this resolution is passed by congress and then vetoed by Bush, it may be the first time I support anything Bush had done in his role as president.

Turkey, Armenia and the US Congress

As much as I believe the notion that there was an Armenian Genocide, why was it so important for the US Congress to pass a bill condemning it?

These days, post "Mission Accomplished", any sort of action from US Politicians condemning things like Genocide is hollow and hypocritical.

For Turks, raising the issue of the Genocide is very touchy. No one likes it when another nation tells them off for doing something wrong, even if it is true.

Turks, like the Japanese, have to eventually come to terms with their nation's past. Acknowledging the Armenian Genocide is certainly part of this. However, it is not going to happen overnight, and it is certainly not going to be helped by the US Congress passing a bill condemning it.

Personally, I would love it if the Turkish Government issued statements condemning America's invasion of Iraq, as well as their invasion of Haiti, their meddling in Guatemala, Honduras and Chile and, of course, the shameful way Americans treated Native Americans during the 19th century. These stains on America's history are as Genocidal as anything Turkey could manage, and killed more people as well.

If Congress could also pass a bill condemning American actions in the 19th and 20th centuries I would probably take this current bill more seriously. As it stands, however, no government that heads a nation with a checkered past has the right to publicly condemn the checkered past of another nation - and that includes my own country, Australia, and their treatment of Indigenous Australians in the 19th century (a treatment that was essentially genocide by omission, rather than commission, but still, in effect, the same thing).

Certainly scholars and historians, as well as Armenians and informed Turks should come out and continue their criticism of early-20th century Turkey. Historical records and proof of the event needs to be disseminated amongst Turks to show them that their history is not as wonderful as they think. Turkey will eventually agree that the Genocide did take place, but that will not happen now, and nor will it happen in the next ten years. Moreover, having the US Congress condemn the Genocide will do nothing to convince Turks - in fact it will make them even less likely to believe it.

The new IR laws... continued

I just learned this little piece of information from my wife, who is a Social worker at Centrelink. Centrelink is the place where Australians go to if they need to be assessed for welfare, including unemployment benefits.

One of the requirements for a person to get unemployment benefits is an assessment of their recent work history. If a person was working and quit their job for no good reason (for example, because they didn't like it, or because it interfered with their social life) then the person would not be able to receive unemployment benefits for 8 weeks. Additionally, if the person is unemployed because they were sacked by their employer for failing to do the job properly, the 8 week waiting period would still apply.

The problem with the new IR laws is that it has made it easier for employers to fire staff. Previous unfair dismissal laws made it harder for bosses to fire staff, but these days it is easier. The result is that more workers are being fired than before.

And here's the problem - these newly unemployed people are turning up to Centrelink and asking for unemployment benefits. But because they were sacked and because the employer states that it was the employee's fault, these people are not receiving unemployment benefits.

Moreover, the Federal government has set a benchmark for Centrelink to follow - that a certain percentage of unemployment claims MUST be knocked back. Rewards are given to Centrelink offices and employees for having high rates of knockbacks.

So, in summary:

• It is easier for employers to fire staff.
• It is difficult for fired staff to then get unemployment benefits.
• Centrelink is rewarded for preventing people from getting on unemployment benefits.

Winner: Bosses and Federal Government.
Losers: Workers.

Now you can see why people have turned so viciously against the Federal Government.

Linux beats SCO

Just like one of those stories in which the good guys finally triumph over the bad guys, we now see this:

The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), a leading provider of UNIX® software technology and mobile services, today announced that it filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. SCO's subsidiary, SCO Operations, Inc., has also filed a petition for reorganization. The Board of Directors of The SCO Group have unanimously determined that Chapter 11 reorganization is in the best long-term interest of SCO and its subsidiaries, as well as its customers, shareholders, and employees.

Let me offer a brief explanation. Way back in 2003, the tech company SCO made a public announcement that said that Linux was based upon Unix (which it sort of is) and, since SCO held the copyright for Unix, large portions of Linux software code was actually owned by SCO. The upshot of which was the danger that Linux was actually not free, and people who used it were actually violating copyright. Linux programmers responded by saying "show us the code and we will change it". SCO said that it couldn't do that since to reveal the code would be tantamount to revealing trade secrets. Duh. SCO went to court against IBM and a number of other software companies and the case has been bogged down since then. Recently the judge in the case ruled that SCO didn't own the copyright. Since then SCO's share price plunged about 70% and is now seeking chapter 11 bankrupt protection. Read the details of the sordid case here.

Madeleine McCann - another Chamberlain?

The parents are now suspects.

I have seen a few times in the past parents who use the media to share their grief over their missing child, only for them to admit guilt in killing them.

However, as the Chamberlain case reminds us, often hysteria and bias can get in the way of impartiality and good investigation. Moreover, both the parents are GPs, which gives less weight to the current theories of Madeleine being accidentally killed by her mother by using too many sedatives.

The Death Penalty relies upon a perfect justice system

But, of course, we don't have one do we?

My stance on the death penalty was changed a number of years ago when I read a report in The Economist magazine about the amount of errors in sentencing that many death row inmates seemed to get. I can't remember the exact detail, but I vaguely remember that 5% of people executed in the US had not gone through a "fair trial". Moreover, the evidence showed that in many cases, innocent people had been executed.

5% doesn't sound like much, but if an alternative to the death penalty is available (ie life in prison) then any mistakes made during a trial can result in recompense. Once a person is dead, however, the state can't compensate the innocent dead.

Now, however, it seems as though there is more to these cases than just incompetent judicial procedures. It seems as though in many cases there was a deliberate desire for malicious punishment.

Richard Moran, commenting in The New York Times, says this:

My recently completed study of the 124 exonerations of death row inmates in America from 1973 to 2007 indicated that 80, or about two-thirds, of their so-called wrongful convictions resulted not from good-faith mistakes or errors but from intentional, willful, malicious prosecutions by criminal justice personnel. (There were four cases in which a determination could not be made one way or another.)

Yet too often this behavior is not singled out and identified for what it is. When a prosecutor puts a witness on the stand whom he knows to be lying, or fails to turn over evidence favorable to the defense, or when a police officer manufactures or destroys evidence to further the likelihood of a conviction, then it is deceptive to term these conscious violations of the law — all of which I found in my research — as merely mistakes or errors.

Mistakes are good-faith errors — like taking the wrong exit off the highway, or dialing the wrong telephone number. There is no malice behind them. However, when officers of the court conspire to convict a defendant of first-degree murder and send him to death row, they are doing much more than making an innocent mistake or error. They are breaking the law.

Perhaps this explains why, even when a manifestly innocent man is about to be executed, a prosecutor can be dead set against reopening an old case. Since so many wrongful convictions result from official malicious behavior, prosecutors, policemen, witnesses or even jurors and judges could themselves face jail time for breaking the law in obtaining an unlawful conviction.

But what would motivate law enforcement officials to conspire against a defendant? Remember that a disproportionate number of death row inmates are African-American...

Man Awarded $525,000 for being taken away from parents

From the ABC:

Bruce Trevorrow has been awarded $525,000 in the South Australian Supreme Court for being taken from his family when he was just 13 months old.

The ordeal began when Mr Trevorrow, then a baby, was taken to hospital with stomach pains on Christmas Day, 1957.

Once he had recovered, he was sent into foster care without his parents' knowledge. He was returned to his mother 10 years later, but his father had already died.

The experiences left Mr Trevorrow was scarred for life.

"In and out of institutions, jail, depression, just couldn't get on my feet," he said.

"It's just made me happy that the judgement has come against the state."

A question

Does anyone know of any instances where gangs of homosexuals, or a lone homosexual, has gone out and killed Christians because they think that the sexual beliefs/practices of Christians are immoral?

The reason why I ask is because it seems to happen the other way around quite a lot in the US.

RFID Chips in HIV positive Papuans

The ABC Reports:

A doctor says lawmakers in the Indonesian province of Papua are mulling the selective use of chip implants in HIV carriers to monitor their behaviour in a bid to keep them from infecting others.

John Manangsang, a medical doctor who is helping to prepare a new health care regulation bill for Papua's provincial Parliament, says unusual measures are needed to combat the virus.

"We in the government in Papua have to think hard on ways to provide protection to people from the spread of the disease," Dr Manangsang said.

"Some of the infected people experience a change of behaviour and can turn more aggressive and would not think twice of infecting others," he said, adding that lawmakers are considering various sanctions for these people.

"Among one of the means being considered is the monitoring of those infected people who can pose a danger to others.

"The use of chip implants is one of the ways to do so, but only for those few who turn aggressive and clearly continue to disregard what they know about the disease and spread the virus to others."

But Dr Manangsang says a decision is still a long way off.

The head of the Papua chapter of the National AIDS Commission, Constant Karma, reportedly slammed the proposal as a violation of human rights.

"People with HIV/AIDS are not like sharks under observation so that they have to be implanted with microchips to monitor their movements," he told the Jakarta Post.

"Any form of identification of people with HIV/AIDS violates human rights."

I gotta say... this concerns me.