Always look on the bright side of international arrest

Kate says:

12:02pm | 03/07/12

Good point Chuck about sending Melinda Taylor to Libya in the first place.

M says:

01:35pm | 03/07/12

As much as I want to disagree with you chuck, I can’t.

T-rev says:

03:05pm | 03/07/12

Just cause she is a lawyer doesn’t mean she is smart.

The lack of common sense shown by her, and those who sent her into Libya, is quite astonishing.

What did they think was going to happen?

Tom says:

10:47am | 04/07/12

T_rev, well said.

Sending her in that role also says a lot about Australia’s lack of cultural sensitivity towards Muslim views in their own country.

marley says:

01:16pm | 04/07/12

@Tom - actually, it says nothing about Australia’s cultural sensitivity since we didn’t send her.  The ICC did.

Tom says:

08:56am | 04/07/12

Good call Max. .... “Whoops, I did it again”? .... or what about “All that fuss about little old me?”

Craig says:

01:10pm | 03/07/12

Rubbish on all counts. Melinda had the backing of the UN and was a qualified professional.

Her husband was looking after their two year old.

Women are not the only ones capable of looking after children and it really offends me as a male that you’d discriminate against her husband in such a blatant way.

Melinda was doing something she believed in passionately, as a trained professional with international support.

She was not naive, the Libyans involved with the detention were, and they have noe learnt better.

Defending accused murderers and war criminals is not glamorous or idealistic, it is necessary to sustain a fair legal system.

Rose says:

01:17pm | 03/07/12

Oh, if only everyone was as clever a you!!

Andrew says:

01:37pm | 03/07/12

@Craig, sorry mate I would have to disagree with you on this one. Melinda was very naive and arrogant. @Cat is absolutely spot on.
Yes, men can look after children. That is not the point here. The point is this - if you have children then there are some things you simply should not do - and Melinda did several of these. @Cat is right - first responsibility is to your child…child needs BOTH parents not to grow up with just one because Mummy or Daddy was too busy furthering their own career.

Josie Q. says:

03:26pm | 03/07/12

Cat is correct.  First consideration should be to your young child.  Obviously not the priority of this mother.
Leave the vainglorious deeds to those who don’t have young children.

thistle says:

04:08pm | 03/07/12

“Fact is, you never know when a situation like this one could arise…....”.  Well, it’s fairly unlikely;  highly unlikely, if a mother is looking after her child, and not going into a situation which could deprive a two-year-old of its mother.  Choose.

Someone cites “the backing of the UN”.  Wow.  “qualified professional”. Wow.  ‘qualified International professional’ Wow again
Agree, Cat

marley says:

04:09pm | 03/07/12

@Cat -

1.  No, you would not have gone into this situation with two interpreters, one chosen by the government.  If you’re a defence lawyer and you expect your communications with your clients will be privileged.  Defence lawyers don’t invite the prosecution to sit in on their private sessions with their clients.
2.  You would have been cautious.  Perhaps.  But given that she had every right to believe that her visit had been cleared with the ICC through the Libyan government, and further that she had diplomatic immunity, I don’t see that she was unreasonable in expecting to be able to talk to her client without interference.
3.  The time for questioning your client is when you meet him.  She wasn’t the prosecution, she was the defence. 
4.  Whether the ICC was incompetent in clarifying their roles, I couldn’t say. But she should have been able to trust her bosses,don’t you think?
5.  As for the issue of the child, she had no reason to expect the Libyans would ignore international conventions on diplomatic immunity.  We don’t criticise our soldiers for putting themselves into much greater risk, even though many of them have young kids;  why should we criticise her for doing something far less risky?

DavidT says:

04:26pm | 03/07/12

Er @Marley - the lady does not speak the language - and she would not have been allowed in without an interpreter even if she could. Interpreters are part of the deal in such situations. What is more the ICC knew the situation was dangerous.
Cat is right on all counts.

marley says:

06:38pm | 03/07/12

@David - no, she had an interpreter with her. Cat is saying she should also have had a government interpreter.  I don’t think so.

And the ICC claims to have had the agreement of the Libyan government to the meeting.  I think there was probably a major misunderstanding there, but nonetheless, there was some form of agreement.

What is not in dispute is that she had diplomatic immunity. And whether you’re a Libyan official or some deputy sheriff from Texas, you do not arrest diplomats.

Tom says:

09:02am | 04/07/12

Craig, your clear message is that we wonderfully superior westerners have an unfettered right to impose our cultural views on Libyans in their country.

Have you thought for one teeny nano-second about whether the Libyans views on women’s suitability for that role should have been considered?

marley says:

04:14pm | 03/07/12

Oh bulldust.  Assange was brought to court in a western country with a strong legal tradition;  he had access to lawyers;  he was able to pursue his case through to the highest level of that court system.  He’s had his day in court. 

That’s a bit different from someone who has been arrested by a dysfunctional element of a volatile country not noted for its rule of law, and arrested, moreover, in blatant violation of major international conventions on diplomatic immunity.

Assange got the level of support I would expect an ordinary Australian citizen to get, which is to say, oversight to ensure that he had access to due process.  Which he did.

Taylor’s mere detention was a violation, because of her diplomatic status.

Two very different scenarios.

Inky says:

02:58pm | 03/07/12

It’s easy to retain dignity when your government doesn’t hang you out to dry.

Steve says:

04:34pm | 03/07/12

@Inky, by “hang you out to dry” do you mean the not providing a SAS snatch squad to smuggle Assange out of the UK to avoid extradition to another Eurpoean country, which BTW has honest and functioning courts? 

Or do you mean the lack of an international dummy-spit at the UK for having the temerity to actually hold the internationally-renown truth-teller Assange? 

Perhaps Australia should have demanded that Assange be freed by the UK court system, because we all know that UK government ministers can just have international extradition proceedings dropped. NOT.

Ben says:

05:33pm | 03/07/12

Steve, “hang you out to dry” in this sense means that the Australian Government actually forced Assange to release all those cables. Right, Inky?

Stone age liberal says:

11:51am | 04/07/12

No what is meant by Hanging out to dry” is when our politician quite happily bend at the knee to kiss the US’s butt. Assange did nothing the NY Times didnt do. The Aust government should have come out swinging at the US the second they started talking about charges against Assange.

marley says:

09:19pm | 03/07/12

Well, not so sure about that - it was covered in the UK’s Guardian, after all.  And, I see, in the Canadian news as well.

marley says:

08:41am | 05/07/12

@rod sexton - she wasn’t a self appointed saviour, she was a lawyer working for an international organisation which sent her to Libya to do a job.  And it was the UN, more than Australia, that had responsibility, given her diplomatic status.