Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Major Mori seems to have similar ideas:

 [from the Australian today]

“David is aware there have been comments and speculation in the media regarding the enforceability, under Australian law, of David's requirement not to speak to the media,” Major Mori said. “However, David will abide by the pre-trial agreement which requires him not speak to the media for twelve months.”

The newspaper also reports that US Government lawyers have moved to dismiss Hicks' civil court attempts to be allowed his right of habeas corpus.

The USAustralia Status of Forces Agreement of 1963, in particular Artilce 8 of the treaty, has a couple of points in it that make you wonder how far US Forces could go with Hicks.  For example, although Ruddock says that Hicks would not be given up to the US for violating his agreement to remain silent, citing this treaty would be a simple way of the US to haul him in again. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[excerpts of Article 8]

1(a) the military authorities of the United States shall have the right to exercise within  Australia all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the law of the United States over all persons subject to the military law of the United States;

2(a) The military authorities of the United States shall have the right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over persons subject to the military law of the United States with respect to offences, including offences relating to its security, punishable by the law of the United States, but not by the law of Australia.

7(b)The authorities of Australia shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the military authorities of the United States for assistance in carrying out a sentence of imprisonment pronounced by the authorities of the United States under the provisions of this Article within Australia.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many moons ago - when I was still a naïf - I 'fell' for the 'Israel as David' swindle. There are possible evolutionary reasons for this; as Dawkins points out in his God Delusion, it is in the vital interest of the human naïf to accept all instruction with minimal-to-no delay. The example I like to give is from 'Bringing up Baby:' "Stop! Look! Listen!" - aka learning how to cross a road.

But this 'feature' can be - and is being - abused.

I think technology gets part of the 'blame;' TV is just sooo delicious - just the pure technology - "Oooh, isn't it pretty!" And despite how 'sophisticated' some people like to big-note themselves as, I claim that the human-computer cannot reliably distinguish between fact and fiction, when partaking of the TV-soma. It's toadally® fatuous (Oh, 'only' IMHO of course), to say "It's only a movie!" ('Movie' being detested Ameri-speak; spit! Spit!)

The rest - the greatest share - of the 'blame' goes to the horrible humans who prepare and transmit the propaganda spew we get, not as 'movies,' but as the 'info-tainment' so often passed off as news. Yep; it's one'o my favourite moans; the corrupt and venal MSM - plus the criminals 'driving' the whole show, our putative 'leaders.' Sooo, the end-result of TV (with 'the press' and other media limping along) is what I call the 'pushed paradigm,' a deliberately warped picture differing radically from reality.

And nowhere is this info-gap as wide as the one 'built' around Israel. Just as they are building an illegal apart-hate wall on stolen ground, for 60 looong and Oh, so bloody years they've been spinning the tale of poor little innocent Israel, surrounded by A-rab and or Muslim towel-headed, baby-eating sharks.

But the mis-information is not just about Israel, it's also about the US. We've all heard it sometime; "Truth, justice and the Merkin way!" Well, news for naïfs: it just ain't so. It's the 1st swindle along with the 2nd-rank Israel one; it may'a been serendipity at the start, now it's chillingly - and increasingly murderingly - deliberate. And so we arrive at one'o my allegories; the wanna-be world hegemon plus its illegal sprog and the poodle with dag - aka USrael/UK/Aus. It's this grouping who have, more or less, set up a criminal scheme predicated on resource rip-offs, Oh so well illustrated by the current murder for oil process underway in Iraq. (Nothing new here; move along!)

I've talked about the rip-offs before; as well as murder for land and water by Israel and murder for oil primarily by the US with UK and Aus as accessory/accomplices, we've got the resource-extraction scams as documented in Perkins' "Economic Hit Man." The upshot of these scams is a) no fair recompense to sovereign resource owners (i.e. we the sheople®), then b) eventual empty holes all over Aus, with nothing much more than wages to show for them. The resource boom is a toadal® sham, we're just not getting our fair share.

-=*=-

Back on track, Alan Curran: "it might not be Iran that gets nuked, in fact it could be any of the Arab countries that surround Israel ... they will have gone in a mushroom cloud."

This is absolutely typical, of the 'pushed paradigm' I've been talking about. Using the WW2 Nazi-holocaust as 'the hook,' a certain group (possibly called Zionists, forced PC-censorship is also part of this propaganda-push), let's use 'Zionists', set out to set-up modern Israel on what was legitimately owned Palestinian land. Not being prepared to deal honestly, modern Israel was 'born' amongst thieving, murdering violence [1] - which continues down to this day.

Let me be perfectly frank: the murdering theft carried out by the wanna-be world hegemon plus its illegal sprog and the poodle with dag is nothing other than psychopathic criminality on a world-wide scale - and should be treated as such (i.e. reconvene the Nuremberg court). The only reason (seems to me) why this is not actually underway, is exactly what Alan illustrates: threatening annihilation by nuke.

Well, news - for Alan and all - the ruse has been tumbled.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1]:

Deir Yassin Remembered

Early in the morning of April 9, 1948, commandos of the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin, a village with about 750 Palestinian residents. The village lay outside of the area to be assigned by the United Nations to the Jewish State; it had a peaceful reputation. But it was located on high ground in the corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Deir Yassin was slated for occupation under Plan Dalet and the mainstream Jewish defense force, the Haganah, authorized the irregular terrorist forces of the Irgun and the Stern Gang to perform the takeover.

In all over 100 men, women, and children were systematically murdered. Fifty-three orphaned children were literally dumped along the wall of the Old City, where they were found by Miss Hind Husseini and brought behind the American Colony Hotel to her home, which was to become the Dar El-Tifl El-Arabi orphanage. Visit http://www.deiryassin.org/

[Deir Yassin Remembered]

It's been a quiet week in Peoria. David Hicks hasn't had a mention in the Journal Star Online. There was an editorial on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed back in March.

It starts:

It's impossible to muster any sympathy for a man who reportedly has confessed to plotting the mass murder of thousands of people. And so we waste no emotion on the travails of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of 9-11-01 and some 30 other lethal attacks across the world. Instead we offer condolences to an America a little less governed by the rule of law, and a little more by the rule of men.

But we remain unconvinced that depriving our enemies of basic due process rights - championed by this nation from its infancy, adopted as fundamentally just throughout the civilized world - is necessary to win the war on terrorism. We remain unconvinced that it is impossible to be true to ourselves - you have a case, you prosecute it for all to see, you prove it, you convict, you sentence - and still achieve the same result as these military tribunals seem likely to.

Indeed, an opportunity exists to prove to the world, and more importantly to ourselves, that our judicial system does not teeter on "ifs," that even when confronted with the worst of the worst, we can retain the moral high ground. Instead we look like pretenders. Let's hope it doesn't have consequences we'll regret someday.

I was not permitted to appear on Mr. Hicks’s behalf because I refused to sign a Notice of Appearance that would have had me agree to obey regulations governing the conduct of civilian defense counsel that have not yet been promulgated. In fact, the formal Notice of Appearance form required by the military judge did not (and still does not) exist, either. The Military Commission Act, at 10 U.S.C. §949c(b)(3)(E), provides that there will be such a form, but the Rules for Military Commission manual (“RCM”) that has been issued for the commissions grants authority to devise the form solely to the Secretary of Defense [Rule 502(d)(3)(E)]. Thus, the military judge for a particular case does not have authority to create such a form on his own, and in so doing he usurped the authority vested solely in the Secretary of Defense.

Joshua Dratel, Hicks' US Civilian lawyer continues:

I was, however, willing to sign the form with one change: from “all applicable rules and regulations” to “all existing applicable rules and regulations.” In fact, I prepared a Notice of Appearance reflecting that single change, and signed and submitted it days in advance of the proceedings. That did not satisfy the military judge; he insisted I sign his form, or not be permitted to appear. In the pre-proceeding chambers conference, I suggested we reach some accommodation that would be satisfactory to both of us. He said it was simple: sign or not appear. I refused to sign. As a result, the military judge refused to allow me to appear on Mr. Hicks’s behalf." 

Read the rest of Dratel's Jurist post here.

Richard Tonkin, I truly can't remember the details of either version. I think it would be one of those stories that surprise you even though you've seen it before. According to wiki the Kubrick film was based on the American version, with the last chapter omitted. I remember Burgess was scathing about this, though to me the resolution is inessential. The piece poses a philisophical question that defies resolution, aiming to prompt discussion, rather than to provide an answer.

In Stalinist Russia political prisoners were given a harder slog than mere criminals; Perhaps that was the inspiration for the actions of the Minister. I compared David Hicks to Lynndie England earlier and I think there is a lesson in that. She recieved three years; Hicks was in prison for five, without even being charged. The conditions of his plea were that he deny his claims of abuse at Gauntanamo - to deny that he is a political prisoner would be delusional. But he is both a political prisoner and a criminal prisoner. Our government has clearly sought to portray Hicks as a dangerous individual but it has mostly been in reaction to the cherubisation of him by critics of the government. Is one form of spin more ethical than another? I don't know or care.

Kubrick also denies that the film condones Alex's violence but he talks of viewer's forming an identification with Alex. I didn't feel anything like that and don't quite understand it. I found him obnoxious. I think it has a lot to do with timing, with the film coming out whilst a lot of young people were in flower, and rebelling against society. Apparently there were some copy-cat rapes after the films release. I can understand an identification with amoral or immoral characters but not if they are clearly infantile and pathological. Kubrick talks of violence in cinema potentially being "cathartic". That is an understanding of media that I have been meaning to explore. It is more sophisticated than the "Monkey-see-monkey-do" analysis that we often get. But I am not entirely sure it always operates in that way.

I read James Baldwin's Another Country recently and found that there was a deeper message in it than I first thought. It starts off as being part of the beat school of writing, describing life in 60's Harlem for its bohemian characters, but ultimately it has a similar theme to Dostoyevsky's The Possessed, which is cited often in the work. The black jazz musician that is introduced in the earlier part of the novel, Rufus, is shown to be violent and criminal in his behaviour, and yet as the novel progresses the end his WASP friends reveals show a kind of cultish love for him. Because he is black he is allowed in their eyes to be "real", or something. It has an almost reverse structure to The Possessed which establishes the cult surrounding Nikolai Stavrogin, mainly because of his looks and his manners and air of mystery, then punctures it about halfway through with his confessions. I think there is starting to develop something cultish around Hicks that is not a normal demand for due process and a fair trial.

Comparing the situation to To Kill a Mockingbird, as some have done, is not at all accurate. The point of the novel is that the black man has been wrongly accused and that the white jury will convict him anyway. The point of the Hicks trial is that it is likely that he is guilty but that our standards of a fair trial ought to be adhered to. Here is Roger Ebert's rather cynical review of the Gregory Peck film. Note that the novel and the film resolve themselves by vigilante justice and corruption of the legal system by allowing Boo Radley to go free, when he clearly has a case to answer.

Yet in a more general sense I am not entirely enamoured of our system of law and as such, claims of unfairness don't wash so well with me as they used to. There are other methods of law. I think a more inquisitorial system, with professional jurors, like in France, is preferable to our adversarial common law system. I am not exactly sure that standards of criminal law can be applied in a military situation, where by the guilt or innocence of the captive is less important than what he or she knows. That is why I described it as an information-gathering exercise. 

The biggest complaint is the time taken to make a decision. Yet it is fascism that is the most efficient of all legal systems - they take you out and kill you, guilty or innocent. Orson Welles' version of Kafka's The Trial is worth a look, as a critique of the labyrnth nature of the law as well as fascism. The ending in that is quite profound.

I am very much in favour of what is known as "restorative justice" and rehabilitation for violent crimes. Studies have shown rates of recidivism are lower in such circumstances. For other crimes I am uncertain. I spoke of corporal punishment earlier, mostly tongue in cheek (AKA cognitive dissonance), however I am deeply concerned about the use of lengthy jail terms on prisoners. Sometimes it may be necessary for societies safety but I am not at all convinced that taking up to decades of a person's life away from them is more ethical than colonial-style corporal punishment. I am not sure what alternatives there are, that can satisfy the victims, protect society and are humane to the perpetrators.

Kubrick makes the point that the Nazis were well-educated and cultured but it did nothing for their morality. I think there is something profound in that. My aquaintance with art has often led to a loosening of my sense of ethics. I wrote in my review of Lolita that the character takes a moral sanction from art and I think that this can often be the case. I felt no identification with Humbert either, yet apparently some do. What I have been wondering, lately, is whether a deep education can lead to a refining of ethics and not a rejection of them. That is my great hope. Much of it is simply literacy. I am even starting to miss the law, having been largely away from it for some months now.

The use of physical negative reinforcement to enforce particular political beliefs is obviously totalitarian. Part of the problem with A Clockwork Orange is that it is based on Pavlovian theory which was about animals, not humans. Modern psychology is far more sophisticated and the techniques used by political parties or other groups in order to coerce people in to subscribing to their particular, dreary obsessions. I am less bothered by propaganda than some - familiarity does indeed breed contempt but also, I suppose, complacency.

Then there are the sedition laws, heaven help us. I have a great respect for Phillip Ruddock but he has put us in the unfortunate position where by our civil liberties are going to rest in an articulate and forthright judiciary - but the Scientology case long ago set the precedent that the courts will be loathe to look in to the work of security operatives. Yet secrecy itself creates as many national security problems as it solves.

Judge: "Have you anything to say?"

Prisoner: "F**k all!"

Judge: "What? What did you say?"

(Looong silence...)

Court attendent: "He said f**k all, your honour."

Judge: "That's funny; I'm sure I saw his lips move."

-=*=-

What? Did you speak, Alan Curran? Did I hear you address me?

Y'know, Alan, my recall isn't sooo bad that I don't remember just the other day asking you to 'substantiate or withdraw?'

There's a reason for 'substantiate or withdraw,' which has less to do with an individual's ethics so much as the veracity of the challenged statement. In other words, it goes to believability; without substantiation, believability is pretty-well non-existent. You OK with that, Alan? Just so's you know?

-=*=-

I've talked of 'the pushed paradigm,' which has less to do with the truth, and more to do with what the - umm, err - ruling kleptocracy (aka our so-called 'leaders') want us to know; for example that the grisly mass-murder for oil currently underway in Iraq isn't really about oil theft at all. (How many of you 'out there' believe that? The 'pushed paradigm,' I mean? Q: Wha'd'yas reckon all those permanent military bases are for, eh? A: Haw!)

Alan Curran: "you are going to thank Israel for delivering a bomb in the right place."

Me: Oh, no; not me, matey: not on your Nelly, I won't.

Alan, I asked you to 'substantiate or withdraw,' which you didn't/wouldn't. (From 'Bringing up Baby:' "Do what you want! (I know you will anyway.)")

Sooo, now I challenge you again: could you please explain the legal niceties of how/why Israel is gunna bomb Iran?

(Recalling that a war of aggression[1] contains all other war crimes, and is a crime against peace.)

Thanks in advance.

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1]:

It was addressed earlier by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II, which called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

[wiki/War of aggression]

Not just BTW, the above wiki description fits what B, B & H did to Iraq perfectly, as Israel vis-à-vis Lebanon, 2006. Which makes them all supreme international criminals. OTOH, Iran hasn't attacked anyone, and is in compliance with the NPT - whereas USsrael is not. And so it goes, the corrupt and venal MSM propagandises us, we the sheople® - with a barrage of filthy lies, aided and abetted by amateur right-whinging stooges... all working on behalf of the lying and mass-murdering ruling kleptocracy. Good system, eh? No bloody wonder then, if:

"They hate us for our freedoms!?"

"A one-day story in the USA? Almost as proud a moment as the time President Bush gushed that he didn't know what Geneva's language, "offense against human dignity", could possibly mean."

"...as a cursory glance at either Australian or American television can show, there are far easier ways to become a celebrity."

You lot are probably too highbrow to watch the Simpsons or Spinal Tap or suchlike (perhaps A Mighty Wind?, so you mightn't know Harry Shearer.  Every kid in Middle America knows the sound of his voice. 

When Dylan writes the song, Bush is doomed. 

Richard Tonkin:  "You missed the point.  If enough people believe that Bush is dishonouring their country in how it handles its prisoners of war, he'll be out of a job."

If enough people believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is dishonouring his country, though, it won't make a bit of difference to his job. That's the point.

G'day Richard Tonkin, from your piece on April 10, 2007 - 2:19pm:

In this instance it's not a matter of what Iranian words and deeds you consider to be international atrocities, but the self-perceived international dignity of American citizens, who seem to have a much better understanding of Justice than George Bush, his Australian cabinet, and their spin-doctors.

So far, any 'self-perceived international dignity of American citizens' isn't getting too much of a run - or so it seems 'from here,' but more on that in a sec. In the 1st instance, Hicks vis-à-vis Howard; it's pretty obvious that our 'non-poll driven,' toadally® 'honest' John acted only out'a the goodness of his own heart: it suddenly occurred to him that not only should justice be done, but he ort'a be seen to be doing it. Clear? Justice, that is, Hicks was 'brought to justice' by JWBush, and our 'deputy' just finished him - err, it off, after only five looong years, lots in solitary.

What's this gotta do with 'plunder vs. purchase?' Well, not much except that usually, wars don't just consist of valiant warriors fighting honourable opponents with a 'just cause' (on both sides, natch) - but rape and pillage, etc (with a 'touch' of larceny on the side, like stealing about half the world's oil, say.) What's this gotta do with Hicks?' Well, not much except that all they 'got' him for was the stuff he (naïvely) allowed to reach the public. Open and shut case, said Howard; he's pleaded guilty to terrorism. (Which Howard is yet to do - but we know...) Hicks was not himself plundered, but was purchased by the US as a 'prize,' from some Afghan warlord.

Richard: "it's not a matter of what Iranian words and deeds..." No, you're right, mate, it's not. But as so oft these days, a red herring has been dragged in. Here's a bit'a filthy Ameri-speak: "Bait and switch" (spit, spit!) This tactic, coming as it does from Amerika, could be employed by local amateur Israel Lobby members intent on diverting discussion, with the express purpose of vilifying some fanciful 'enemies' of Israel.

Well, 'could be' doesn't mean 'is,' eh?

-=*=-

OK, I can't keep you in suspense any longer: "plunder vs. purchase," the real thing:

We can see, the whole wide-world can see, that the US is plundering Iraq for oil - possibly next for the 'chop,' Iran; just as Israel is plundering its neighbourhood for land and water.

Sooo, where does any 'self-perceived international dignity of American citizens' - or Israelis, for that matter, come in?

Have they no shame?

I've asked this before; why can't these people just buy what they want, like all the rest of us (good, honest burghers) have'ta?

Or, do they all (aka the democratic majority) really think, why purchase when it's easier (for some, in this case USrael) to plunder?

Richard Tonkin, I studied both the film and the book of "A Clockwork Orange" some years ago and I have utterly forgotten how either of them end, except that it is different in both versions. I like Kubrick, generally, but I found the film rather drawn out and boring. Roger Ebert is scathing in his review here.

"Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is an ideological mess, a paranoid right-wing fantasy masquerading As an Orwellian warning. It pretends to oppose the police state and forced mind control, but all it really does is celebrate the nastiness of its hero, Alex...Well, enough philosophy. We'll probably be debating "A Clockwork Orange" for a long time -- a long, weary and pointless time."

I think he was right, but nevertheless there are interesting points to be debated. There is something very '70s about the film, judging from all the material I've consumed from the period. The style has a very Pop Art feel but I don't think it has any Pop Art philosophy in it at all.

Kubrick's own comments on the film are well worth reading, here.

The violence in the story has to be given sufficient dramatic weight so that the moral dilemma it poses can be seen in the right context. It is absolutely essential that Alex is seen to be guilty of a terrible violence against society, so that when he is eventually transformed by the State into a harmless zombie you can reach a meaningful conclusion about the relative rights and wrongs. If we did not see Alex first as a brutal and merciless thug it would be too easy to agree that the State is involved in a worse evil in depriving him of his freedom to choose between good and evil. It must be clear that it is wrong to turn even unforgivably vicious criminals into vegetables, otherwise the story would fall into the same logical trap as did the old, anti-lynching Hollywood westerns which always nullified their theme by lynching an innocent person. Of course no one will disagree that you shouldn't lynch an innocent person -- but will they agree that it's just as bad to lynch a guilty person, perhaps even someone guilty of a horrible crime? And so it is with conditioning Alex.

All this fear of "psychological conditioning" is '70s paranoid nonsense. Conditioning, to the extent that it exists at all, is a natural part of living in society. From memory all that occurs in the film is the use of negative reinforcement techniques through the use of electric shocks. If such a technique works to stop serial rapists then I have no objection at all to its use - but I am doubtful.

Society does have a right to socialise its members, however it needs to be balanced with the rights and dignity of the individual. Kubrick turns it in to a black and white, no-win situation, which suits the ideological wars of the time but has little resonance for contemporary society. Another culprit is Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and the Nicholson film. They both served an important function but nevertheless live in a world of black and white that doesn't have much utility to us now.

I am writing an article on Mental Health policy and there seems to be a real concern over the use of medications for "Behaviour modification" as opposed to appropriate treatment, especially in the immigration detention system (See Rohan Price;Lynda-Crowley-Cyr). This includes the misuse of solitary confinement and medication. The systematic deficiencies of the detention regime have shown to actual induce or worsen the mental condition of detainees. There is a real philisophical question when we start prescribing medication, treatment or rehabilitative techniques on individuals for the sole purpose of controlling their behaviour, when there are more effective and humane techniques available, which work holistically and get to the heart of the problems.

David Hicks, from what I know of him, seems like a rather erratic individual. I wonder at the kind of assistance or treatment that will be provided (or not) to him once he is released. The government has denied that he is suffering from any mental illness; Watch closely for any mention of medication or treatment from Terry Hicks. Even if he is only treated for trauma, due to his time in Guantanamo, I wonder how this will be approached. Imagine living knowing that you will be watched, every where you go, perhaps for the whole of your life.

"This is a system which by comparison, makes Iran’s recent behavior seem tame."

Yeah. Any moment now George W Bush is going to deny there was a Holocaust and he'll start conducting military operations against ethnic minorities within the United States. Then he'll start strangling homosexuals to death in public. And as you know, we only have the British hostages' word for it they were tortured.

Richard Tonkin: "I watched the movie (A Clockwork Orange) today for the first time in twenty years. The political resolution is strikingly similar resolution to that attempted with the Hicks Problem."

Really? In what way?

There's an interesting piece here suggesting that the treatment of Hicks has deprived the US of a moral highground from which to castigate Iran for its treatment of British military prisoners.

Professor Victor Hansen, a former lieutenant colonel, writes on Jurist that:

The Bush Administration is fond of saying that 9/11 changed everything. Many legitimately dispute whether everything has in fact changed. However, no one can dispute that some things have certainly changed. As Americans we must now look at the behavior of counties like Iran through the lens of "black sites," CIA renditions, torture memos, Abu Ghraib, water boarding, habeas-stripping statutes, military commissions, and indefinite detentions. Iran’s 15-day detention of British sailors and marines and the subsequent ham-fisted propaganda stunts by the Iranian government look pretty tame by comparison.

One only needs to compare the treatment of these captured British sailors and marines to the case of the Australian David Hicks to understand why the United States has lost the ability to complain about Iran’s conduct.

 Hansen concludes:

This is a system which by comparison, makes Iran’s recent behavior seem tame. After the public statements made by the released British sailors and marines about their capture and treatment, many Iranian officials may be looking with envy at the terms of Hicks’ plea agreement, and they are probably wishing they would have extracted similar concessions before they released their captives. Not to worry, Iran and the rest of the world have the United States’ example to follow, and given sufficient time and opportunity, others like Iran will certainly learn to adopt our ways. And we Americans are forced to sit silently by when other counties engage in this kind of behavior. That is what it means to lose our moral authority, and the thanks goes to the Bush Administration’s global war on the rule of law. 

I watched the movie today for the first time in twenty years.  The political resolution is strikingly similar resolution to that attempted with the Hicks Problem.  

I won't spoil it for anyone, so only can suggest another look at the DVD.

This horrifying news from today's Sydney Morning Herald:

David Hicks says he was tortured by US personnel during interrogation sessions in various locations.

Hicks's graphic account of his treatment by the Americans is contained in a sworn statement given earlier to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in Britain to support his bid for British citizenship, News Limited newspapers report.

In the immigration appeals statement, Hicks says: "My hands were restrained behind my back and I was forced to kneel during interrogations."

"US personnel would force me into painful physical positions."

Hey? Do the Taliban still behead people with butchers' knives and then broadcast videos of it on the web? David was in the Taliban, wasn't he?

"The US interrogators would question me and after my responses I would be slapped in the back of the head and told I was lying."

Frere Jihad, it'll be one of these. (Both are 96% full and 81% indigenous).  I wonder what the room service is like.

Thanks for the kind offer of afternoon tea, but as a terrorist-supporting TaliTubby I have a sooper cunning plan.  I've already done two years of special Islamic fingernail strengthening exercises, which will empower me tunnel from the Alice Springs prison to the Pine Gap terror base - where I will tear apart the electric cables with my teeth.

Ha ha ha ha ha (maniacal laughter if you couldn't tell).  Be harder from Darwin.

Then, having brought the evil Cyclops of the Great Satan to its knees, I intend to write nasty graffiti about Coca Cola on the radomes and end forever the sickness of western civilisation.

Seep and Acco won't know what's hit them until it's too late.

Frère Jihad Ja...: "Yes folks, the pro-Hicks leftie nuts are still on about the refugees fleeing the Taliban and Saddam, herded aboard the wallowing SIEV-X at gun point, then killed on the high seas with our connivance."

Not much lately. They are more likely to openly support the Sunni insurgency trying to re-instate the Ba'athists or otherwise trying to get their beloved prospective Taliban-Democrat Senate Candidate out of stir.

The Australian Government did not request that a gag order be put on David Hicks, the man who negotiated the deal on behalf of the US says.

Here's hoping he gets his own talk-back segment on ABC702

Alan Curran: "C Parsons, the way the Democrats are going if Hicks does stand as a candidate, he could well be the only one that wins. Then Barmy Bob would probably poach him, just ahead of Little Kev."

Well, gender relations within the Democrats being what they are of late, the Taliban might seem a positive step forward. And then there's the NSW Labor machine...

The David Hicks saga is, on one level, about David himself, and his actions.

I suspect that most Australians believe he is guilty of rash, unwanted, and even criminal behaviour. Serving his sentence ought expunge his bad behaviour.  His decision to plead guilty was wise.

I’m certain that a large majority of Australians believe the systematic torture and mistreatment meted out to him in Guantanamo Bay is a far more serious crime, and evidence of U.S. intemperance and violence. There is no longer any serious public support for the military adventure in Iraq.

The Howard government has been irredeemably painted as the gang of lying vicious toadies that they are. That won’t go away before the federal election, but whether that picture (and other irritations) impels enough votes to dislodge those toadies from office remains to be seen.

Certainly the government is worried. There are voices being raised in the electorate of Leichhardt, where I live, to encourage the deeply unlovely Warren Entsch to call off his retirement and run again because Liberal Party polling is showing that his pre-selected replacement is “not gaining traction” in the electorate.

I expect to be in prison for the next election, so I won’t get to vote. Yet I expect to celebrate Howard’s downfall while I’m there – and to prepare to hold Labor somewhat more accountable than it’s used to.

I find the widespread cynicism about Hick’s “confession” reassuring. The Australian people may be apathetic, dopey, and slow to arouse – but I believe we are a fundamentally decent people...which must be very disappointing for seep and his buddies.

Richard Tonkin: "Ruddock said that recapture of Hicks for violation of his gag order was unlikely."

It's only ever been a fiction in the minds of Hicks's increasingly hysterical apologists.

Now this is funny;

The Australian Democrats today took the extraordinary step of saying they would welcome convicted terrorist David Hicks running for the party as a candidate.

Sandra Kanck, the Democrats' leader in South Australia which is Hicks' home state, said she would be happy for him to seek a political career as a Democrat.

A spot on Dancing with the Stars is looking more likely.

While the treatment of David Hicks and Guantanamo Bay generally has slowly leaked into the international arena, Howard's "New Order" is looking even more dishonest and sneaky.

The Daily Telegraph, Howard's favourite, even got into the act with:

Meanwhile the Law Council has waded into the debate, with president Tim Bugg today saying Hicks' detention for more than five years at Guantanamo Bay had nothing to do with justice and everything to do with politics.

"From the very beginning Mr Hicks was a pawn in a political game played ruthlessly for advantage in both the US and Australia,"  Mr Bugg said.

"The Howard Government's complicity in his detention in a legal black hole beyond the reach of anything resembling an impartial or independent judicial system marks a low point in Australian political life."

Mr Bugg attacked the federal government on its continued support of the American military commission system set up to try Guantanamo Bay detainees.

He said the system gave the US "judicially unsupervised powers to detain indefinitely without charge anyone, arrested anywhere".

"Mr Hicks' nightmare is nearly over because it became politically imperative for it to end," he said.

"Heaven help those in Guantanamo Bay without someone to stand up for their rights.  The US and Australian governments clearly won't be coming to their aid."  

Then, on Paul Bongiorno's Meet the Press last Sunday:

PB:  Well, Julian Burnside QC has been following developments and welcome back to the program Mr Burnside.  How do you see the outcome? Is it a good end to a sorry saga?

J. Burnside: "Well, yes and no.  It's good for David Hicks because he's been through five years of hell and now at least there's an end in sight, but it's a bad outcome because the whole deal is poisoned at the [start?]. 

This deal comes at the end of five years of what must be almost unbearable treatment.  It comes just before he was about to face a trial that by any standard was going to be an unfair trial, and it comes in circumstances where the Government which has abandoned him for the last five years has decided they'd better do something to help him because it's an election year. 

So, frankly, I don't think anyone should draw any inferences against Hicks just because he's done this deal.  Frankly, I think most people in his situation would have done the deal no matter what."

Brian Toohey:"....Don't you think that there's a reasonable chance however that were he put before a civilian court within, say, a year, he would have been found guilty of the narrow charge of assisting or providing material support to a terrorist organisation?"

JB:  "Well, I doubt it very much. Because it seems - obviously if he'd been tried in a civil court they would not have been able to receive hearsay evidence, they would not have been able to receive evidence obtained by coercion and it seems fairly clear that none of the evidence that was going to be led [sic] against him would have got through those hurdles.

Why do you think they introduced specific rules for this commission set up specifically for him that allowed hearsay and coerced evidence?  That was the problem of the trial that he was facing."

BT:  "There was another Australian, Mr Habib, who spent time at Guantanamo Bay after he'd been "rendered", as the euphemism goes, to Egypt  where he was tortured for many, many months.  Is there any way that prosecutions could be launched against those, given that torture is against the law in Australia and internationally, is there any way that prosecutions could be launched against those who were in any way complicit, be they Australian officials or Egyptian officials?"

JB.  "It's possible but very difficult.  I have some involvement in that area so I don't want to say too much".

Whose out of step with democracy and the "rule of law"?   - Howard, Downer, Ruddock, Abbott, Costello and the other lawyers in Howard's "New Order".

If you watch the "charismatic knee", Philip Ruddock on Lateline, and remember the sleazy way this person handles his portfolio, notice that he made a qualification that Hicks' return to Guantanamo, as dictated by the US, would require a "like law" in Australia!

With both houses of parliament, the Howard government has abused that power religiously.  It would be a done deal with America, should the "New Order" be elected again, that the required legislation would be steam-rolled through ASAP.

And when you may wonder WHY the Howard government is so fawning and servile to the Bush Administration we should remember.

Howard's rush to please Bush from the outset has made him and his senior Ministers complicit in some of the most heinous crimes against humanity.

They are now captives of their own making in that - they must now depend on the protection of their chosen Bully otherwise they WILL face prosecution as signatories to the International Criminal Court.

So don't ever think that our vote for his party of depraved indifference will give them a chance to change their ways!  They are totally committed to being the Servant of the Master and only protected as long as they are in control of Australia and feed the Military/Corporate.

Hoist by their own petard.

And just an aside Brian Toohey.  I certainly don't think that the "assisting or providing material support to a Terrorist organisation" is a "narrow" charge. 

One of Bush's famous idiot boasts was "you are either with us or against us" - to hysterical cheers.

And if he doesn't like a country or an organisation, that "narrrow" charge becomes universal.

There is no truth - just the Military/Corporate.

It is history now that Howard's complacent AFP gained political points from the Indonesian Government by sacrificing the "Bali nine" drug mules, while they were in that country.

That with the sure knowledge that Indonesia has the death penalty and the chances of those Australian citizens receiving that sentence, has now been proven.  Hang your head Keelty.

Howard, Downer and Ruddock say that it has nothing to do with them, it is between the accused and the Indonesian government.  Fair dinkum?

Like the young Australian who was hung in Malaysia - these citizens are being denied their rights as Australians and the U.S. -  (to who Howard's "New Order" sold their souls) - would never allow such a thing to happen to any of their nationals.

Now the saga of another Australian who has been sacrificed to score political points from the most powerful and organised "Terrorist" regime the world has ever known.

While consistently and relentlessly finding David Hicks guilty of "something", the "New Order" Liberals supported the first Kangaroo Court as "fair", the first charges were "serious" and that it had nothing to do with Howard's mob because Hicks had NOT BROKEN ANY AUSTRALIAN LAW.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Bush/Howard conspiracy of the "fair" Military procedures were illegal - Bush rushed to develop a new one.

Then maintaining the secrecy of the 2002, AFP interrogation of Hicks IN Guantanamo Bay, the "axis of evil" - Howard, Downer and Ruddock - stated that the new and changed "Trial", with new and changed charges against Hicks - were also "fair".  Even Costello got in the act with his very rare unsmirking face - very serious he said!  Struth.

Every Western world democracy denounced the U.S. military court except - Howard's "New Order".

Uncommitted commentators in the U.S., when asked about the "trial" routine for Hicks have claimed that the Howard government had introduced politics to cause David Hicks to make a plea bargain in an election year.

So, an Australian citizen who:

a)  has not broken any Australian Law;

b)  was sold to the U.S. by the Afghanistan Rebels;

c)  has suddenly been given the opportunity to have a GUILTY plea bargain;

d)  is "guilty" only under a new and retrospective U.S. law; 

e)  will serve out his sentence for breaching that U.S. law - in an Australian gaol;

 f)  has a "gag" placed on him until after the election in Australia, that is not enforceable (Ruddock) and;

g)  will be prosecuted by the AUSTRALIAN government, if he, or any of his family or friends, SELL his story about breaching a U.S. law AND -

h)  according to Major Michael Mori, he may well be taken back to Guantanamo Bay as breaching the plea bargain that has nothing to do with the Howard government.

So, whose interests are being protected here?  Those of the most powerful Terrorist Organisation in the world or an Australian citizen under a Howard "New Order"?

Like the Malaysian and Indonesian political sacrifices, "it is strictly between the U.S. and Hicks' lawyers!  Fair dinkum.

Would you trust the Howard "New Order" to protect you if you had broken a "deal" with the U.S.

Not bloody likely.

There is no truth - just the secrecy of the Howard/Bush conspiracies.

NE OUBLIE.

How many days before Good Friday did Pontius Pilate wash his hands?

It was a very different Phillip Ruddock on Lateline last night.  While defence minister Nelson has been saying that Australia should accept the Hicks verdict, the AG appeared to be going to great pains to explain that part of the sentence was meaningless. 

Ruddock said that recapture of Hicks for violation of his gag order was unlikely.  "“I'll leave it to your imagination as to a way in which somebody seeking extradition in relation to a party for breaching a so-called gag order would be able to be delivered up through the judicial processes in Australia,”  he told Lateline's Tony Jones.

The trouble is Mr Ruddock, that our imaginations would have had trouble with an Australian citizen being imprisoned in Australia under the auspices of the retrospective legislation  of another country.  You've distanced yourself from the decision brilliantly... an old Easter political tactic.

Meanwhile PM Howard, running around Adelaide while our State Premier is abroad, is castigating our Premier for questioning the public's safety after Hicks' release.  He's done this the day after his Treasurer has linked the man to S11 and Bali.

Ernest William: "He could potentially be brought back to Guantanamo to serve it."

If you think that's an innovative line, how about this;

The plea bargain meant he had to confess and even "prove" his own guilt (after Hollywood makeup department was called in to give him a makeover for the media).

- Peter Gorian, Letters to Editor, Manly Daily, 4 April 2007.

The efforts to go on portraying Mr Hicks - a former Taliban mercenary, ex-member of Lashkar-e-Toiba, trained by al-Qaeda and proud racist - as the "victim" of something is becoming for me the most instructive aspect of the political Left's exultation of him.

Last night we watched the 4 Corners episode on David Hicks and, if correct, it raises more questions about this type of trial and illegal incarceration which is only supported by Bush and the Howard "New Order" Liberals.

It revealed, as we had already been informed, that Hick's letters to his parents were the basis of his final "guilty" plea.

However, I cannot remember Howard, Downer, Ruddock or the MSM mentioning that the Australian Federal Police interrogated David Hicks IN Guantanamo Bay prison, in May 2002.

It boggles the mind to think that the once independently professional AFP were sent to the illegal torture chambers of Guantanamo Bay, NOT to assist an Australian citizen (as in the Rights of Australian Citizens), but to play prosecutor/interrogator for the Bush/Howard conspiracy.

As I have mentioned before, AFP Commissioner Keelty went to water when confronted by the "New Order" jackbooters and, as far as I am concerned, he cannot be trusted to independently investigate the alleged fraudulent behaviour of Howard's three Queensland Liberals.

At the conclusion of the 4 Corners program, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell stated his "take" on the trial and the precedents it has set in motion.

His greatest concern was, as he put it: "...the Political pressure, as in the case of Hicks, to plea bargain".

IMHO, no one, not even the "New Order" staff, can rely on anything that Howard, Downer or Ruddock say, even when they change from AC to DC in the blink of an eye.

I do believe however, what Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson said, in part because I have respect for Colin Powell (who Bush ordered to lie to the U.N. about WMD) but equally because it explains the continued vacillation of Downer's claims regarding the Liberal's interpretation of the Rights (or lack thereof) of Australian citizens.

I do hope that someone tells Millionaire Malcolm what happened!

There is no truth - just Liberal politicians "overboard" with lies.

NE OUBLIE.

Mark Sergeant: "Hi, Angela. It is most unlikely that there will be a Supreme Court decision on these Military Commissions before the end of the year - so no effect on the imprisonment, unless Hicks wants to take action for compensation or some sort of declaration of false imprisonment, which I think would be pushing it."

Er, didn't he plead guilty? And this is yet to be resolved;

David Hicks, already facing the possibility of 20 years' jail on terrorism charges in the US, is the subject of a new investigation by the Indian Government over his attacks on their armed forces in Kashmir.

The investigation has been triggered by disclosures in American prosecution files about the involvement of Hicks with a terrorist group that has killed thousands of people in the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

No news from Bob Brown yet about whether the Greens might like to start a campaign in support of Mahammad Abbas.

While Australians are being torn apart, yet again, by the depraved indifference of the Howard "New Order" Liberals, regarding the illegal and unlawful treatment of an Australian citizen - let's have a reality check.

IMHO - Malcolm Turnbull in his inimitable fashion, has 20/20 vision after the event.

This not so clever clown must be Howard's new "diversion" expert.

He states (with typical arrogance) that Hicks should have applied for a "deal" much earlier!  Fair dinkum.

Consider the facts that Mr. Turnbull ignores or - like all of Howard's Ministers - "has not been informed".

From the beginning of the arrest of David Hicks for being accused of  defending the legal Government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Howard, Downer and Ruddock have claimed that he is guilty of "something".

Now this person has brilliantly opined that Hicks should have asked for a plea a long time ago.  Fair dinkum.

Is this person on the same planet?  Does he really believe that his ill-advised attitude will be accepted by the Australian people?

Mr. Turnbull - while you continue with your Howard mentor's belief that you have been born to rule - no matter what your opinions are - on every issue that your have so far had maximum exposure - are you as stupid as you appear?

It may be difficult for you to understand but, IF David Hicks is not guilty of the charges that have; have not; increased and decreased against him, then I would imagine that he would NOT COP A PLEA.

This Australian citizen has suffered five and a half years of torture and deprivation "Sir" Malcolm - do you or your misguided followers imagine that he would NOT have agreed to anything to avoid the U.S. Torturers?

With your Bankrupt Millionaire status, how would you feel Mr. Turnbull, if you and your complicit criminals, Howard, Downer, and Ruddock were tortured for say - not telling the truth?

And, Mr. Turnbull, how do you feel about the nine young Australian citizens, guilty or not, who were sacrificed to the Indonesian Police for an offence that Howard knew was a death penalty offence in that country?

I am not a millionaire - I am not a foreign "investor" - just an ordinary Australian citizen and - I have no rights under the Howard "New Order".

I am of the opinion that the opposition parties have to spend as much money as is necessary to prevent another unbelievable  result in the next U.S. sponsored Australian Federal election.

There is no truth - ....