Defending terrorists

There's been a kerfuffle this week about the Government spending $10 million on defending convicted terrorists. The gist of the complaint is that the people in question didn't qualify for Legal Aid, and even if they did, the defense they got involved QCs and was way over and above what Legal Aid would have been able to provide.

So there's a big hoo-har about spending tax-payer money on criminals blah blah blah. I can't help thinking they've missed the point. The question is not whether the criminals deserved this defense, the question is why the Government felt the need to provide it. Terrorism is an international issue, and combatting it is fraught with risks of persecution and loss of personal freedom. It is important for a Labor Government to be seen to be only convicting people who represent a genuine threat. This alone, however, doesn't really explain why they felt they needed to provide literally the best defense money can buy.

I am now going to move into wild speculation - could it be that the Government has little faith in the AFP to bring just cases against people? They haven't exactly had a good track record, and rather than face another humiliation, the Government may have decided to pay someone else to keep the AFP in check.

I have no evidence for this, but if I was on the Senate Estimates Committee, that's the question I'd be asking - who was the Government protecting from whom, and why?

I just don't trust police

I don't have a good track record with police. I have pretty much never seen them as anything but a) the enemy or b) bumbling fools who couldn't find their own arses with both hands. A lot of this comes from years of festival going and a diametrically opposed view on drug use from both our government and the police force, but it also comes from a bunch of experiences in which me & mine have been on both sides of the law. In fact, I have been most disgusted by them when I was a victim of crime - mostly because they seemed only interested in the amount of paperwork that would be generated and nothing else. They definitely didn't care about me, nor did they care about the perp they caught (because his mother called them and told them he had done it, not due to any effort on their part). I did, as it happened, care about the perp (still do, he's my neighbour), and I wanted his so-called friends to be held as accountable as he was. Apparently photos of said friends taken on the retrieved stolen camera couldn't help the police identify the other kids involved.

I know this doesn't mean all cops are terrible, I know it's pretty much entirely the institution and the process. So when I say "police", I mean the great amorphous mass, not the people. No doubt they are mostly like everyone else with a job - doing their best with what they get handed.

But this story, about the police chase that ended in the death of a two year old girl? I was trying so hard to keep an open mind. Then I read today that the chase involved two highway patrol cars and a helicopter. There was a chopper following these guys. I know there will be an investigation, and I can't know all the circumstances from where I sit, but seriously, I am struggling to see why it was necessary to continue a high speed chase when there was a chopper on their tail, and at least another 100km of pretty frequent towns with other highway patrols who could be alerted and updated with the two men's whereabouts. A little girl died because of this. Nobody should be defending anyone's actions until they have been investigated with a microscope.

It goes without saying that the two men driving the car hold the ultimate responsibility, despite the incomprehensible claim by one of the offenders' brother that "it's not their fault. All they were doing is a job and getting away, that's it." Yeah, right, getting away at any cost. About as justifiable as apprehending them at any cost.