Today in Bin Laden and Terrorism after a De-facto Relationship…. I had 2 priorities….
1) priority should be to post about Bin Ladin
2) Those of you who have followed my posts for a while now I have been embroiled in the preparation of Legal Action with my ex life partner defacto “terrorist”. Apparently one in every hundred or so relationships must have one.
I have decided some cathartic writing for me is required about my legal issue also because something serious was discovered yesterday 4 May and also because the other sides Lawyers still refuse to negotiate. While this is annoying it allows time for further evidence in support of my position to surface. It seems they can even attempt (and succeed temporarily) in stealing your partners identity for financial gain…but if they are stupid enough not cover their tracks …..it will be only for a short while before they get caught which came to light yesterday.
This was one of the tipping points to my original decisions to blog. It also raised some painful questions [for me] re: the property rights of entities in a defacto relationship that I believe from my experience there is need for some rigorous but simple Legal reform.
I think it is important to share some brief thoughts on Bin Ladin. Some I have I have previously tweeted but also some thoughts that have emerged over the past few hours.
Fundamental to all this is a key belief of mine.
Generally the [Advanced] World is or should be against the death penalty; whatever the crime committed and yesterday both in Libya and Pakistan was not a big day for democracy.
I am in fierce opposition to the death penalty and there is no exception to that fundamental principle. Cruelty is not to be answered with cruelty. I believe that there were other possible means to revenge the orchestrated and or committed by Bin Laden.
The death penalty is not the right answer.” I believe the execution of Bin Laden will have a negative impact and that he will now become a martyr. You don’t fight barbarism with acts that are also barbaric. The death penalty is not compatible with the advances human condition nor is it with democracy.
This entire operation looks like a [highly] staged fairytale. The United States hasn’t proved that it has iron-clad, video-taped evidence regarding the operation and how the body was transferred to land-locked Afghanistan first, then to be dumped at sea.
For over 10 years, there have been many reports of Bin Laden’s death including Pakistani Presidents Benazir Bhutto in 2007 Pervez Musharraf in 2002 and US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2003.
Now with Bin Ladin officially gone the US might move away from seeing the shadowy form of Al-Qaeda as its chief enemy in “the War on Terror”, and refocus on nation state enemies like Libya, Syria and Iran. It will also help to increase support to the Islamists implicated with association with Al-Qaeda in Benghazi
It is also fact that Barack Obama is going into a new election cycle in 2012. Bin Laden’s death is good for wartime president. This gives the us some credence overseas now after the mud of Iraq Afghanistan and more recently Libya.
From the rhetoric of Hilary Clinton’s speech yesterday we can see if the US chooses to engage in a new conflict like in Libya or in Iran over the next 12 months, this is going to help Obama get re-elected.
I thought I would set out some bullet points of thought some that have been part of my tweets yesterday.
- It seems we have learned nothing from the missing body of Hitler and the Bunker in 1944.
- Obama called it justice! Justice for whom? Justice would have been to have brought this man in front of a court for trial so the world could have really seen what a decrepit figure he was He would have been seen just like the Nazi Criminals at Nuremberg. This is an opportunity lost
- We the world has been denied our justice.
- Now we know IF HE WAS executed yesterday was it because he would have implicated others in the role that was played in the days of the fighting with Stinger missiles against the Soviets. Is this why he was dumped in the sea?
- Who did give him arms in the days he fought the Russians?
- Had he been put on trial who else he might have also implicated in his crimes.
- We are told he was buried at sea to forestall there being a place of memorial for his followers. Those who ever participate in the laying of wreaths in the North Sea the Atlantic for all those unknown losses of seamen in the 2nd World War will understand that is a nonsense to suggest.
- The memorials to unknown soldiers around the World prove you do not need a body to create a place of remembrance. No one is buried at the Cenotaph in Whitehall London or at the Australian War Memorial or for that matter Trafalgar Square.
- The question of not having a place for burial to forestall a place of pilgrimage. What rubbish. I wonder where Adolf Eichmann is buried. As he was now dead affording him Muslims burial rights? He distorted the Koran and was a War criminal why not cremation?
- By not taking him alive the opportunity to interrogate (I stress not torture we should be above such behaviour) denies the opportunity to investigate his criminal network. All the Nazi criminals at Nuremberg were interrogated for this very reason.
- We are told it was a luxury Mansion It looked a pretty poor piece of luxury to me…a crack den more like! :-).
- If there was such a fire fight of 45 minutes where are all the bullet pock marks on the walls. With all the rubbish strewn about why in the video I have seen are there no spent cartridges?
- To the right this is the picture released yesterday supposedly that is Bin Laden. Problem is they were released several years ago to the press in UK ( I did display the pictures yesterday 4 May but to confirm the fakes were released several years ago I have removed them for the time being) 6th may as the pictures were indeed fakes there is no point in posting them just for the sake of it…they are gruesome and serve no purpose.
- Why the initial reluctance to show the body. In other times such as the death of Himmler or Goering Mussolini Nicolae Ceaușescu Saddam’s sons were shown We were also shown the Hanging of Saddam.
- Why were we first told that Bin Ladin was armed he died in a firefight and now this has suddenly changed?
- Finally Is it just co-incidence this action occurred on the very day after the killing of Gadaffi’s Son Grand Children in what turns out was a strike not in Gaddafi compound but in a residential neighbourhood. Some of the World ready to condemn was now looking the other way.
This is probably very dull but it is part of a cathartic process for me.
A critical aspect of concern may be for all who may find themselves in my position. In August 2010 after a relationship of over 5 and a half years and through no fault at all of my own other than finding my partner in an illicit relationship with another[man] I was given just 14 days to vacate the home. This resulted in my being homeless for over 20 days.
The main concern was then and today and a source of my grief are the apparent lack of property rights of a defacto when one of the parties; in this case me… is not listed on the title deeds.
Though having made [proven] *substantial monetary contributions and physical improvements to the home one party can lack the protection in family law for basic rights of residency when not a registered as a titled “owner”. In those circumstance the “owner can make vexatious claims against the other party to justify a lock out from the home. This has to be changed.
The evidence of this is for the appropriate jurisdiction and as is a substantial part of my legal evidence that cannot be revealed here today nor a matter of identity theft (MINE) that came to light by accident yesterday 4th May 2011 that also involves my ex life partner.
My original blogging about this was a response and was precipitated in part because the other party decided to go public anonymously on her blog and twitter with statements about me and the relationship. This was after I was long gone from the premises.
I chose to ignore this behaviour for 6 months before deciding to not only use the vehicle of the Law to seek remedy but to also to post publicly to counter the defamation being made about me.
In response to my partner’s postings; there were over 9 people who either by twitter of by commenting to her blog exasperated the situation by participating with equally defamatory comments about me even though most (though 3 did) had no knowledge of me or the truth of the matter. But others who did read her blog alerted me to the content or her writings.
All this was hurtful to me in two ways; from a business and political perspective. There were and are people in Canberra who read the blog “Curiouslyminty” who knew us both and who therefore knew it was me she was blogging vexatiously about.
Some of these people are participants in a loose grouping of left leaning journalists senior public servants, self called left activists..
3 of the parties who have made written comment are also known to me personally and they know me, and knew the posts were about me. Not only was/is there a risk in this and other posts to my community and political life but also to my professional reputation which why I decided to write again on the matter today.
Some of these people hold responsible positions in society and one would [I think] consider them self to be of the left, supporters of social justice.
They engaged in either agreeing in writing or actively tweeting agreement with Ms Greens comments about me.
Ms Green also tweets under various identities the most common “curiousmint” where she regularly lambasted her children her ex husband, work colleague’s, employers and line managers. So it seems I was keeping good company.
One of the parties who chose to indulge in a dig at me” is an “International Human Rights Lawyer” based in Geneva. I draw attention once again to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1 which states..
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family home or correspondence, nor attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack.
This lawyer has worked for Amnesty International, the International Service for Human Rights and ironically the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions.
I have written to this person twice and though I didn’t really expect a reply the fact that she didn’t respond in any number of ways she could have; confirms to me as I am sure it would to anyone looking from the outside that she [knows] she did wrong by posting her defamatory comments about me.
Logic says if it indeed it wasn’t her (she didn’t use her real name on the posted comment) and if I was in error wouldn’t she respond with some denial or polite puzzlement?
However with no denial forthcoming and this person and having been so forthright in her comments about me would she not have repeated the assertion privately without hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
Others who defamed me (later) have included a lecturer in Sociology to the ADFA and another who is a criminologist at the ANU. These have continued to remain anonymous from the time of their initial posts in “support” of Ms Green. They have continued to engage in tweeting from time to time falsely about me for a short period.
[Twitter will provide subpoenaed records of all tweets made…the same is true of Gmail].
My detractors while they are anonymous thought they could write in November 2010 what they like without knowing the truth.
As I have done before I invite them if they are SO confident they have not defamed me in any way to repeat their contentions about me on my blog.
They can make a public retraction of the statements and you know something that would be fine by me. It’s just a matter for you to do the right thing and to consider the unfairness and ignorance of your action.
They entered “the game” uninvited. Ms Green didn’t even ask them to participate! All I asked originally when I first posted in March was for some social justice. Some of them have responded positively