ruddock v nicholson?

I'm not a lawyer. I haven't read any documentation about the makeup of the new US military commissions, or even the old ones for that matter. I wouldn't know where to start looking and, really, even if I had I probably wouldn't have known understood much of what I was reading. Certainly I don't have the legal training or nuanced understanding of any relevant precedents to say with enough certainty that someone's claims are wrong.

All I've got is my gut. And an ability to assess for myself the quality of a source of information. I can take in to account perceived and actual conflicts of interest, perceived or actual truthfulness of previous statements, the consistency of someone's position in relation to a claim. (Is this opening drawn out enough yet?) In short, my BS detector is fully functional.

So when I read Philip Ruddock's op-ed piece in The Age the other day it seemed wrong. But, sadly, I didn't have the facts to just come out to call him a liar. But it seems Mr Alastair Nicholson has! Well, he doesn't call him a liar, of course. He's far too dignified a character for that. But his response piece yesterday was a wealth of information.

Mr Nicholson doesn't need to dip into any more dignity than he possesses in his little finger to surpass Mr Ruddock as a quality source of information. So, even though they're both only second hand sources of information and naturally, each comes with their own particular viewpoint, if its okay with you I'll accept the assessment of the former chief justice on this one!