PURE POISON ROUNDUP

Two of three of today's PP posts are on Andrew Bolt by Jeremy Sear (how unusual) with the third, just for something different, a critique by Scott Bridges of a Miranda Devine article on the departure of Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty:

You see, according to Devine, Keelty did good things for Australia (true enough) but “mistakes were made” regarding Mohamed Haneef and the Bali Nine cases. And — catch this — those mistakes were “trivial by comparison with the security benefits of his reign”. Trivial! Try telling that to Dr Haneef and the Australians now serving life sentences in Indonesian prisons.

Not "trivial", "trivial by comparison". A doctor inconvenienced and drug smugglers jailed overseas are indeed trivial when compared to the disruption of terrorists convicted of plotting to kill as many innocent Australians as possible. In any event, Bridges doesn't bother to explain what he's complaining about, including no links that might bolster his case.

Bridges continues:

Miranda’s argument seems to be that Australians should accept “trivial” threats to their liberties and rights because it’s a small price to pay to “[push] terrorism down the threat list”. And what example does Devine use to prove her case? Why, the Herald Sun’s favourite MCG Terror Threat beat-up.

The Hun loves this story because it really hits readers where it hurts: football. The thing is, there was never a scrap of credible evidence led in court that Benbrika and his associates had picked the AFL grand final as a target. One prosecution witness said it, and then that same witness was so thoroughly discredited during cross-examination that the judge warned jurors that it would be “dangerous” to convict anyone on the basis of this witness’ evidence.

Now I could be wrong, but the way I read it, the sole source of the MCG terror threat evidence was not discredited during cross-examination; rather, the presiding judge, Mr Bongiorno, warned the jury that the witness's testimony must be regarded as possibly suspect owing to the fact that he was part of the conspiracy but had decided to cooperate with the prosecution.

Bridges continues:

When the men were arrested they were in possession of precisely zero explosives equipment and the terrorists’ equivalent of pocket change in cash. Were Benbrika and co. a future threat? Possibly. Were they an imminent threat? No.

That those ultimately convicted of a terrorist conspiracy had little money and no explosives is irrelevant: the 9/11 terrorists also had little money and no explosives.

Bridges also objects to this from Devine:

But such is the current climate that when the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, praised the police taskforce for “the most successful terrorist prosecution that this country has seen”, he was howled down by a toxic combination of civil rights groups, defence lawyers and an opportunistic Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull.

Bridges swerving off on a tangent:

And the judge, Miranda. McClelland made the above comment during the trial, which any grade eleven legal studies student can tell you is a really dumb thing to do. Justice Bongiorno said the comment was unnecessary and said it had the potential to cause problems with the trial.

Defend Keelty all you like but don’t diminish his mistakes in the process. And try to get across the facts of court cases before you use them to bolster your argument.

There's no getting around the fact that the Attorney General praised praised the AFP for an investigation resulting in a successful prosecution. It's irrelevant that McClelland's comments came after 10 terrorists were convicted but one trial remained to be conlcuded -- Mr justice Bongiorno rejected the defense's request that McClelland's remarks warranted the trial being stopped. Bridges shouldn't criticise Devine when he's the one who misrepresents the court cases. Another fail for Pure Poison.