Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
From Guantánamo to Damascus - Moe Davis's Road
Colonel Morris Davis hasn't had a good run. His prosecution of David Hicks was thwarted by a plea-bargain which was apparently orchestrated by U.S. Vice President Cheney. His dislike for evidence obtained by torture was ignored by the Pentagon, and it turns out that
Colonel Davis appears to have been saving his vexations for an appropriate time, and the trial of one of Osama Bin Laden's drivers was the one that did the trick. While having no problems with the collecting of the evidence for the trial at which he was appearing.
Standing at the prison gates as Hicks was released I felt the closest I ever want to feel to the sensation of attending a public hanging. That our state (South Australian) government was getting a "free kick" at Laura Norder politics by incarcerating and castigating the man had been galling enough. Then came the tar-and-feathering by the media, which seems to only have ended because of public outcry. Even then our state government hasn't gone out of its way to be of assistance. Actually, nobody has. Now it appears that, if the man whose job it was to convict the South Australian at Guantánamo had had his druthers, the trial that resulted in the “terrorism supporter’s” conviction and return to
Hicks is no longer gagged by his Guantánamo agreement to remain silent, which he has abided by in spite of being hounded by people trying to create the "scoop" of his first comment. He has not yet released any information from which he has gained personal profit. It will be interesting if he does, though, as then the onus will be on the SA and federal governments to prove that Hicks is indeed guilty of making profit from a crime. In other words, they have to prove that a crime was committed. With appeals and counter-appeals this could take years, especially if ASIO evidence becomes involved. Then somebody will ask where the evidence came from, and they'll refuse, and then an appeal will force disclosure, which they'll refuse. Look how long the Scott Parkin case has taken and you can see how long it would take for the Hicks case to go through the Australian legal system. All Hicks has to do is pick up a pay check from 60 Minutes and the avalanche is set in motion.
The proof of crimes that
With a happy ending on the story, the value of the movie rights would go through the roof! If Morris Davis's sworn statements that the Hicks trial and the whole Guantánamo set-up were compromised by political manipulations are true, quite a few politicians are going to be deeply embarrassed.
That Moe Davis has timed the release of his accusations to appear in the public domain so close to the
When validity of a conviction is challenged at such a level, how long before it falls?
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Investigation clears Eliot Ness
There have been reports over the last few days of the report of a major investigation into FBI participation in or knowledge of torture or harsh interrogation: Report Details Interrogation Debate; 'Borderline Torture'. Local news has focussed on the references to Mamdouh Habib: Habib's sick grilling: FBI watched.
The actual report is at USA DOJ OIG (6MB PDF). The basic message seems to be that the FBI field agents were mostly OK, but the senior levels failed badly in at least a couple of ways: they didn't follow up the reports of abuse that they were receiving; and they failed to provide proper guidelines for dealing with other agencies.
U.S. Presidential candidates want Guantanamo closed
I guess the Federal and S.A. governments are happy to wait and follow their leaders....
Guatanamo is Australia's Auschwitz pt 2
Richard, I think that this comment of yours was a little contentious...but, whatever: at least we finally said "Stop". And, for our own, it stopped.
But it's interesting to see how much trust that we wanted to have in our government, how much we wanted to believe them, and how much rope (and time) we would give them, before our decency stepped in and put and end to it.
Interesting, that is, in that we often query how "nice" German people came to accept such as Auschwitz.. Now we can see how easily that happens.
Guantanamo is Australia's Auschwitz Pt III
F Kendall, what you have written is exactly how I intended my post to be interpreted. I know the accusation is a horrible one to make, but yes we are as bad as those Germans, and that sensation is for me accompanied by nausea. What have we become?
Voice of America has just reported that military defence lawyers have moved for the current crop of Guantanamo to be dropped due to Hartmann's tainting of the evidence. They claim that Hartmann failed to provide impartial legal advice.
A deal was done
From quite early on the US was prepared, probably happy, to repatriate low value detainees. They had a lot, thanks to the bounty. There were those lower in value than Hicks, but if he was high value then that tank would have been defending him, not he it. Once they'd done the"interrogations", there wasn't much point in keeping him.
He did have some value for an early show trial: a native English speaker would make everything a little easier; an Australian would have better exemplary value at home than a Saudi or Pakistani; there was reasonable admissable evidence for the lesser charges, and a good chance of him copping a plea and allowing them to trumpet a conviction (always desirable if the trial is legally dodgy).
On the other hand, the only charge that had a hope of succeeding was "material support for terrorism", even with the usually legal niceties eliminated. Doesn't sound very impressive, and if anyone actually looked at the evidence they might conclude that he was probably a nett drain on the terrorists' resources. It would have been much better propaganda to start with the worst of the worst.
What swung the issue was that the Australian government did not want Hicks released. Prosecution at home would be difficult, though probably not (as they had claimed) impossible. Until the lead-up to last year's election they perceived domestic political advantage: standing up to terrorism; supporting the traditional alliance; bashing the appeasers and the lefties. They had demonized Hicks so successfully among their supporters that reversal would have been very embarrassing. And Bush was no doubt grateful that someone, somewhere, supported the Military Commissions.
The Australian government needed a successful trial. As the years went on, the need grew more and more urgent. The number of voices calling for the release of Hicks increased, and not all of them could credibly be labelled ratbags. The legal credibility of the detention and the Military Commissions was increasingly eroded (from a small base), and people began to think that whatever Hicks had done he had been punished enough. A difficult election was looming.
So a deal was done.
First trial postponed
Worse and worse. The judge on Hamdan's trial has decided to postpone the hearing until after the Supreme Court's decision on the prisoners' right to habeas corpus. Obviously he doesn't want to waste anyone's time.
Hey Mark, what did you make of kSM being flown to the prison just before Hicks' trial? "Worst of the worst" guilt by assocation?
Charges won't be dropped
Hi Richard. My guess is that it was just happy coincidence that the KSM and Hicks stories coincided. They'd be running on mostly independent tracks, and the value of bringing them together not all that great.
But there was some value, so it might have happened. Handling the Hicks trial, and particularly the plea bargain and sentence, was a delicate matter. Too much attention and people might start asking hard questions, so a story like KSM was handy. It not only has the guilt by association element, but acts as a distraction as well.
The defence aren't going to get the charges dropped due to Hartmann. They tried it in Hamdan and lost, basically on the grounds that any undue influence was on timing, not on the nature of the charges or the proceedings. It would be very surprising if the Military Judge found differently in other cases.
If it gets it past the post, Mark.
If getting this point decided delays trial till after the Supreme Court deciision on the Guantanamo inmates' right to habeus corpus, Mark, then whether or not the trial can proceed may be irrevelent if the whole trial process is rendered illegitimate.
Hey, Mark, want to learn some prisoner terminology? Have a look at this "clarification" that AP put up today:
No unlawful enemy combatants in Iraq
I don't think it makes much difference, Richard. The Supreme Court habeas decision is due by the end of June, and the cases won't have progressed much by then anyway. Just more wood on the fire.
It took me a while to get my head around the AP correction, particularly since I couldn't find the original AP report or the US report it referred to. But I think I've found them: US: 500 youths detained in Iraq; 10 in Afghanistan and Involvement of children in armed conflict - written reply (small MSWord doc).
The AP report now contains only one reference to "unlawful enemy combatants", referring to Afghanistan. The US report has a number of references, all either referring to Afghanistan or to "unlawful enemy combatants" generally. None to Iraq. There are no references at all to "civilian internees".
What is happening is that the US is responding to a series of questions, and a number of the questions specifically call for responses on both Afghanistan and Iraq. In each case, detainees in Afghanistan are referred to as "unlawful enemy combatants", and the status of those in Iraq is not characterised. Carefully, and no doubt on legal advice.
But, Richard, they are none of them "prisoners". They are detainees, and have rather fewer legal rights. Rather like our own asylum seekers.
Just a small disappointment
This today from Richard Ackland.
Call me a cynic (amongst other things,) but there were no surprises for me in the performance to date of the Rudd led government. However, I was disappointed that on achieving power, the first thing they should have done they squibbed on.
Having Hicks released from unlawful detention.
It speaks volumes.
Pardon?
Scott, the mess here with Hicks is an iceberg-tip of the problems in the States. Secretary Gates has been saying this week that they can't close Guantanamo down because they're afraid that the people they can't charge will go back to the battlefield, and because nobody wants to house the prisoners on the mainland.
It seems to me if you're not going to charge someone, and you won't give them prisoner of war status (as made plain, I think, Mark, by that clarification of terminology) then do you really have much choice than to set them free?
As for Rudd setting Hicks free, well I can understand that by then it was probably simpler to let the non-suspended part of the sentence expire. It is, however, looking like time for a pardon.
Oh, for the days when we had the advantages of being British
Are all sure that it would have taken guts?
I have assumed that our government was complicit: that it was part of the initial "be frightened, be terrified" campaign that made an unwilling populace accept the necessity of a war. (Remember how the Americans were all sent out to buy duct tape? That did wonders for sales at 3M.) Fridge magnets?
I didn't read at the time that the British had any difficulty in getting the Brits repatriated, but I do believe that our government blocked efforts to bring him home. In fact, didn't it all eventually happen fairly quickly because J Howard at last asked for it? And, didn't J Howard ask for it because of an upcoming election, and campaigns such as that by GetUp were getting media attention?
Guantanamo is Australia's Auschwitz
I could be totally wrong, but I think along the lines of F Kendall, but more so. The point where SA Premier Rann decided to seek the post-release conditions after a discussion with Bush/Cheney sycophant (there's no milder word I can think of) Alexender Bloody Downer, the man who doted on Bush ever since Andrew Peacock introduced them, was the point when the Government of South Australia decided to participate in this exercise of political expediency.
Translatiing Moe Davis it's difficult to dismiss the conjecture that we could have had Hicks home any time we chose. instead, though, the Australian government of the day chose to partiiipate in what is now becoming blatantly obvious as a deliberate reinterpretation of the ethics of justice.
We're as close as you'll get to the Germans who ignored Hitler. We've aided and abetted an utter travesty, and we're the only country in the world to have done so in such a proactive manner.
The fact that we had the chance to participate in the global nullification of this sham of a legal process but instead helped to reinforce its perceived validity is one of my greatest concerns.
It' s not too late for us to comprehend and atone.
Those Guantanomo records of Hicks' torture ... what's the appropriate methiod of FOI? We nead to read them
Jenny, regarding repatriation and observation, yesyesyes. This would have have been sensible. The fact that this didn't happen suggests that there must've been "good reasons not to''. Halliburton notwithstanding, as you say.
Hicks's supporter seriously deluded
Richard Tonkin: "Even Eliot Ramsey had the manners (after all the repartee that he and I have had on the Hicks issue) to continue that conversation elsewhere."
I think it is highly indicative that one of David Hicks's supporters would compare him with the children being starved and beaten to death in that Bulgarian hell hole.
As far as I am aware, none of those kids ever boasted about shooting at people or joining in wars of ethnic extermination.
Not grumpy, Jen
I'm sorry, Jenny, didn't mean to sound grumpy. It's been a very long few days,and the more I catch up on Guantanamo (it's been longer than I realised) the more frustrated I've become at the angle presented in MSM, if any. This is not to detract from the tragedy that you describe.
I'd better spend some time with the rugrat, get the washing in before the hail. Will write more after tea.
PS have just corrected all the typos here and give up on trying to concentrate with a 9-yr-old in my face.
Fat fingers
Don't you just love it?
"PS have jsut corrected all the typos here and give up on trying to concentrate with a 9-yr-old in my face."
Richard: Let he who is without sin, Scott.... I may miss some of mine, but always get yours. Mental self-editing block, methinks, working on it.
No stones in my hand
Yes Richard, guilty as charged. We don't read letter by letter, sometimes I've left out whole words but still get the same sense, (to myself) on re-reading.
This though, even to a saint such as myself was temptation too much; the context perfect.
(Not in the same class mark you of Jenny sending Ian off for a year in a Muslim girls' school.)
Yes well Scott
Yes well Scott, I think I told you never to mention that again. So watch it!
Mind you he wrote some long esoteric stuff here once about bipedalism under my name. Now had that Professor in Wales who is expert on the subject sought to engage with me I would have had to plead insanity.
Mind you at times that would not be so difficult. Any sign of rain up there? Hate to think what is happening while we're grounded. The roos will be getting far too bold.
Sorry Richard. A distraction again.
I still think Howard could have just told the Yanks we're coming to pick him up, Halliburton notwithstanding. It just needed some guts to stand up to Bush. We may not have had the same number of troops there as the Brits, but the moral support was played on by Bush a hell of a lot. Hell imagine the furore if Howard had had the guts and had said to Bush, and I will be on that plane to make sure we get him.
I would make a lousy politician Richard. I cannot stand prevarication and stonewalling when it is clear what should be done, and isn't. The Australian public would have been satisfied if Hicks had been brought back here right from the start and kept under watch till he was no longer deemed a threat.
Do we hate ourselves for our values? Condoning torture?
Um, Eliot, by talking about a Hicks supporter you're talking about me? I've made no such comparision. In fact I've been getting into trouble by trying to keep the issues separate.
This is way bigger than just Hicks' case. Have a look at ths piece published yesterday by Time:
The piece goes on to explain that the main differences between this suspect and the others now charged is that all of his torture occurred at Guantanamo, as opposed to at CIA rendition camps. Guantanamo can't compel the CIA to hand over their interview records, waterboarding KSM and suchlike, so they can't come out in court. However, Qartani's torture, having been exclusively carried out at Gitmo, was scrupulously documented and potentially useable by his defence team.
With that kind of hindsight I can better understand the Hicks plea bargain. Submission of documented proof of illegally obtained evidence would have destroyed the prosecution's argument.
Jenny, yes it looks like Qartani is still locked away in Gitmo. According to Time his lawyer is visiting him there next week, and is hopeful of repatriation to Saudi Arabia. That, however, will necessitate a dropping of charges in a manner less temporary in nature. By the way, I don't think this thread is only about the legalities. It's also about whether to condone torture. As Irfan Yusuf states so eloquently in today's Age,
Direct action was possible
Richard, I think torture is abhorrent in all its forms and I have no doubt under Rumsfeld, Cheney and their ilk that it not only took place but was condoned. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats take power this year what they will do with Gitmo.
If I had been in Howard's shoes and concerned about Hicks I would simply have told Bush, we are sending a military plane on Monday to collect him and we will detain him here till we deal with any risk we think he might pose. Now, given how Bush relied on our moral, ir not military, support in Iraq and Afghanistan, that would have forced the issue I am sure. They could hardly have shot down an Australian military plane. And it is not as if the Taliban had the capacity to send one over to grab their nationals.
Sometimes you just have to stop talking and take decisive action to resolve an impasse. Even the threat of that action would probably have brought the whole matter of Hicks to a head a lot earlier. The Brits must have called some sort of shots to get their nationals out as early as they did.
It just required a bit of guts to stand up to the Yanks on this. But will Rudd have any more? Something tells me No.
I cannot see how it has done the interests of the US any good incarcerating those detainees, and likely torturing them in the process for so long. But on the other hand I can accept that there are likely people in there who should never be released due to the threat they pose. Clearly there is a lack of confidence by the Government in the US justice system in regard to its being able to deal effectively with such cases. I would not know how to break the legal impasse over there. But sooner or later it will be broken.
It is because we have the laws that we do that legal impasses arise. In the home countries of many of these detainees they would simply have been summarily executed by their accusers. So while western legal systems and government bureaucracies may have serious flaws, they are better than those that prevail, or simply do not exist at all in many parts of the world.
A plausible theory, Jenny
Maybe the Brits applied political leverage that we didn't have. It could have involved comparative troop numbers. How many other countries did the same? When I have the time I'll look it up, pretty sure there were more than a few. Eliot, you're quick with such things - any ideas?
Now, what leverage would the Bush Administration have been able to hold over the Howard administration to keep Hicks jailed? Investment, Halliburton infrastructure assistance?
However, it doesn't appear to me that our leaders, of whatever political persuasion, had any interest in freeing Hicks while they could appear tough by keeping him under lock and key. Until people started complaining, that is.
Still waiting for someone to publish the international bar association complaints. Maybe it doesn't sell newspapers. Nobody's missed Hicks going to the Chaser show here in Adelaide and having a giggle at the Osama skit. Tabloid-selling stuff.
Did the Brits keep holding any of their folk that were let out of Guanatamo? No.
FBI opposed torture
The report's finally out:
[AP extract]
It appears, though, that FBI agents weren't really worried till after the Abu Ghraib glossies started appearing.
Good, bad, wicked, evil and sinful
In time, yes, Richard, - I'm very caught up at present.
Anyone else is very welcome to preempt me.
The latter, I think
I don't know whether to be more cheered by the thought that the obviously fairly innocuous David Hicks was cited as the worst of the worst, showing that the world is a far safer place than I had imagined....
or, discomfited by the fact that the most powerful and senior politicians in our country lied to us for so many years on this issue.
Nuance
No, I didn't ask you to define evil, Jenny Hume. I asked, "How do YOU define evil."
If you ask me then obviously you are asking me
F Kendall, if you ask me how I define evil, the clearly you are asking me to define evil.
To the examples I cited of what I would define as evil, I merely add the treatment of those children in Bulgaria as another example.
Out of those examples I am sure you can figure out how I define evil. So go figure as they say. No offence, just don't have time for word games.
Bugger Bulgaria, what about Hicks?
Why did you introduce that topic into this thread, Jenny? Even Eliot Ramsey had the manners (after all the repartee that he and I have had on the Hicks issue) to continue that conversation elsewhere.
I do not understand this approach coming from you.
Now the Bulgarians, weren't they the enenemies in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, locking their kids in underground caverns, and persecuting Benny Hill for making toys?
I do not understand your adamance in not wavering in your opinion in the Hicks case, but I can accept it. Also I'can't figure why you keep trying to divert the thread.
Sorry for brevity of conversation, but even acting as a prisoner has worn me out this week. You should'be seen the reactions of people in Hindley St last night as our barred and labeled "prison bus" trundled through to reshoot. Yep, from personal extrapolation Hick's compo is worth aplenty.
Our Australian pollies, I've no doubt now, have played along for whatever form of political expediency is appropriate, thinking the situation open-and-shut (as it appears that you do) when the twists and turns might make a reevaluation appropriate.
Personal interpretations of good and evil, though, might make a good thread. F Kendall, would you be prepared to kick it off?
Not diverting, nor a deliberate approach, just me Richard
Now Richard, you are a bit tetchy but I see it was 3.44 am. I write as I write. I did not attempt to deliberately divert the thread. If you knew me you would realise that the last thing I am is devious, nor deliberately lacking in manners.
I made certain comments earlier on this thread and you wondered why I had gone quiet.
I tried to explain that I was simply rationing my time here for several reasons and noting my concern for what I saw as a more pressing humanitarian issue, namely the plight of those children in Bulgaria. I then went over to that thread to follow up on that issue as you will see, which is where Eliot then came in. Simple as that. As you know threads wander all over the place. One could say I have diverted Fiona's thread about carers in Australia by raising the issue of Bulgarian orphans.
Why am I not wavering on my opinion about David Hicks? Simply because I see no reason to.
I do not think he is entitled to any compensation from the Australian taxpayer but if he makes a bucket from his story or gets compensation, then I could not care less what he does with it. But if he does cash up, it will be interesting to see if he is prepared to use any of it to try and help his mates get out of the Bay. Or see whether he is prepared to spend any of it on an humanitarian cause, say helping some of those maimed for life by the sort of people whose activities he was prepared to embrace and join in, or dare I say those Bulgarian children.
But I accept the thread is primarily about the legal issues so in the interests of not diverting, I will depart it forthwith.
Survivors' stories leave no doubt: Guantánamo makes us less safe
George Monbiot in today's Guardian:
Murder, war crimes charges against 9/11 suspect dropped
At round the same time as Hartmann was resigning, Guantamo Authority convenor Susan Crawford was dropping the murder and war crimes charges against Mahommed al-Qantani. It's been claimed he wasn't a plane hijacker because he didn't get into the country on time.
[Australian extract]
The charges can be reinstated at any time.
It's a notable coincidence that the two events occured at the same time. It's also notable that the dropped charges were delayed from becoming public knowledge until after Hartmann's fall. Perhaps here's an attempt to whitewash the insinuations of tampering with an attempted show of impartiality.
I'd like to remind everyone of our State Premier's words after learning of Hicks' guilty plea:
[BBC extract]
As Hicks left Yatala Rann egged the tar-and-featherers on by publishing a list of accusations, and suggesting that a Hicks apology should be "full and unconditional". It is, however, the opening lines of that particular media release that Rann must recontemplate now.
[SA Ministers' site extract]
Does anyone think that if David Hicks case was held in the current climate a conviction could arise?
Jenny, I know you're busy but you've been very quiet since this latest batch of information. What are your opinions now?
Innocent
Yes I am winding down on contentious issues on WD Richard, for the reason you know - and such can take up a lot of time by their very nature. And I have not been following this particular issue closely of late.
Apart from that I am trying to finish a book I started 16 years ago! In order to discipline myself I have done what I said I would never do again, that is set the launch date before the book is even one third finished. That resulted last time in 300 people coming for a launch and up to two hours before the book had still not turned up from the printer. So now I am on my own self imposed deadline.
I have set out my views about David Hicks as you know. In relation to this latest case, irrespective of the politics of the matter, this would suggest that it is possible for a person to demonstrate their innocence while in Guantanamo Bay and be released. Pleading guilty is not the only way to get out.
This puts a question mark over the claim that these detainees are so badly treated they will plead guilty to anything just to have that treatment stopped. There is so much conflicting information on all sides it is hard to know where the truth lies any more.
My position has always been that the detainees should have been given their day in court long ago and I do not support the mistreatment of anyone, by anyone, or years of incarceration without being charged and tried.
The problem is that any legal process can be delayed for years and years as has happened in this situation, even with the best system in the world. Those detainees have languished for years because of the relentless toing and froing in the legal institutions over there.
I agree that if you mistreat people and deny them justice you risk creating a desire for revenge - a likely self fulfilling prophecy. But to get out and then go and bomb innocent people in another country as that Kuwaiti did in Iraq. What sort of revenge is that? They were not responsible for his incarceraton and mistreatment, if one accepts that indeed he was mistreated.
As for whether David Hicks would still be convicted, who knows? Clearly every case over there is different. This other man has been freed because he was found to be innocent. So I fail to see the relevance of the question concerning Hicks.
Frankly I am more appalled at what I saw on TV last night in relation to those menally disabled children in Bulgaria than I am over David Hicks. And I thought we had left Belsen behind. I was just sickened to the bottom of my soul. Those big fat nurses, if one could call them nurses, while their charges were no more than emaciated stick figures, crippled, starved, unloved and devoid of any hope or shred of quality of life whatsoever. Broken limbs, no treatment whatsoever by any doctors - just there to die. A crime against humanity was the only way to describe it.
This species of ours does not deserve the primary place it holds on God's earth.
You asked me to define evil, F Kendall?
Not free, but back in a cell
In a judicial environment where the prosecutor has been told that acquittals won't be tolerated. where suspects and witnesses are tortured, and thesea srances are implemented and condoned by the relevant government, you can still say that a tempory dropping of charges demonstrates the workability of the Guantanamo system?
Jenny, that's a peculiar set of rose coloured glasses that you are wearing.
"The other man" has not been freed, nor were any when the system was overturned the US military This one, like Hicks was then, is back rotting in a cell while the US Military works out what to do with him next.
I strongly suspect that that he's only been allowed this because of Hartmann's resignation, and maybe because any continuation of the case would further allow former prosecutor Davis to demonstrate political interference.
Yes you're right, such issues do take a lot of time and headspace to deal with. That's why I suggest that, when you can, that you take an opportunity to reflect on all of this. I don't think your faith that Guantanamo can ever hold a candle of hope for its inmates is justified.
No glasses Richard
No glasses, Richard. I have just not followed the case of this man. I clearly made the wrong assumption from you post that because the charges were dropped he was free. If he is not, then why not? Are there other charges pending?
I could spend more time getting my head around all the ins and outs of the legal complexities over there, but frankly I would rather concentrate my efforts on trying to do something for those kids in Bulgaria. At least there I might have some chance of success.
I think at the end of the tunnel the Guantanamo inmates will see a candle of hope, mabye when Bush has gone.
But for those kids, all that awaits is death after indescribable suffering.
?
There was no attempt at a blow beneath the belt from here, Jenny Hume. I've reread it, and can't see where you got that impression. But hey, if I offended, I apologise.
And no, I wouldn't speculate about anyone else's world view. But, I do assume that you have one!
Richard Tonkin, mother's family from Casterton, but I was born in Mildura. Hail, fellow Vic.
Not offended F Kendall
Oh I am not offended F Kendall. Just felt that somehow you were taking a swipe and even if you were I take such things with good humour. If what some of those crazies on some other sites have written about me in the past does not worry me, nothing here is likely to.
But I accept anyway that nothing was intended. Yes I have a world view, which can change from time to time. I'd be worried if it couldn't.
Compromised integrity
That was a good time to ask about Gen Hartmann. There's more around about him today, especially in the Wall Street Journal and SMH.
First let's backtrack to April of last year:
[Australian extract]
[WSJ extract]
The piece continues:
And then there's this lovely little coup de grace:
Ok, so Hartmann is the adviser to the person running the whole show, Susan Crawford, who organised the Hicks plea deal. Now run back through the Defense Department, past the Under-Sectetary, and to the former Defense Secretary, the current Vice President.
Might I also suggest that this makes denials of political interference in the Parkin case considerably less credible?
At any rate, with the integrity of such a key player compromised, the demise of the Guantanamo system must surely be closer than ever.
Unlawful influence
The Ruling on Motion To Dismiss (Unlawful Influence) (2MB PDF) is now available on the Military Commissions website.
It gives a bit of extra detail on the zealousness of Hartmann, and directs that DoD protect from "adverse consequence" witnesses who testified at an earlier complaint against him. Sounds like an unpleasant person with friends in very high places.
I like the final paragraph, too:
Beg pardon? I didn't hear that! Illegal torture prison you say?
I must have been asleep in the last week of February. That was when Cheney's top man in the Guantanamo process fell on his sword ahead of an outcry from over 30 bar associations
[The Australian, February 25]
On February 28, in the same paper:
The morning of Feb 28 in Australia being the eve of Feb 27 in the US, a letter from the head of the American Bar Association had, at this time, just arrived at the White House. "Under the current system we do not believe that detainees will receive due process or a fair trial," it said. "Detainees cannot challenge their detention by habeus corpus, and the standard for admissibility of evidence could allow for conviction based on rank hearsay."
But it was back on February 25, the day that Moe Davis was shooting at Hartman in the Australian, that the representatives of 34 bar associations from across the world signed a joint statement to send to President Bush.
The statement (which can be read as a pdf here) concludes:
Obviously Haynes' political suicide wasn't enough to stop the fall of Hartman. Having eliminated those two, who do you think Morris Davis might be after? The head of the Guantanamo Authority, Susan Crawford? Or maybe even Deadeye Dick himself?
The saddest thing of all is that Australia has been the only country to actively validate what is now known to the world, even though the message has been remarkably unreported here, as a travesty of justice. I hope that somebody's passed a copy of that letter to SA A-G Mick Atkinson, not to mention our Premier and henchman (er, treasurer) who have endorsed the Guantanamo process all the way.
With his Guantanamo chain being destroyed, and that congressional expedition to Halliburton's Cayman Islands office, you could pardon Dick Cheney for feeling a little paranoid at the moment.
Pardon him for nothing else. Like Scooter Libby, I'm sure Bush would pardon Cheney before leaving office. Or is that the whole idea?
The Star of the South
Only Lawson, from the time that you could crawl, Jenny? It didn't get a little repetitive? He didn't write all that much, as I'm sure that you know.
I'm fascinated by personal history: so, I wonder how much of the above poem, with its lines such as:
"I tell you the Star of the South shall rise in the lurid clouds of war"
and
"And the scorn of Nature and curse of God are heavy on peace like ours""
entered and moulded some aspects of your world outlook? (I actually found them quite thrilling, when I was a teenager.)
My Mum read to us: an immense rich multicultural variety. "Why on earth did you read us Les Miserables?" I asked as an adult....I was 6 when she read it to us - skating over such as the details of Fantine's single parenthood, of course. "Well, my father read it to me," she said.
This delighted me: in the early days of the 20th C in western Victoria, a man was reading his daughter the works of a French novelist. Well done him.
Inquiries and Inquistions
Jenny, Kathy, I understand your viewpoints now.
Yes Kathy Christianity has been spending much time atoning of late. Given that reaching this phase has taken it two thousand years can we expect other faiths to be evolving synchronously? Perhaps Christianity is going to need to assist Islam in a transition?
Jenny, the notion of setting aside territorial boundaries following natural disasters is an interesting one. Do you think that the US would have let outside forces charge in and correct the shambolic Katrina mop-up? It one country excludes itself, why couldn't another? We'd be back to square one in thirty seconds. It's a great idea, but the lobbying required to achieve it would no doubt be phenomenal.
I've just read the Moe Davis piece in Newsweek, which contains these interesting lines.
[extract]
I'm going to see what sort of relationship this Hartmann has with Cheney. I'd imagine that given the jobs these two hold, and Cheney's level of interest in the project, that they'd be on fairly regular speaking terms.
Stephen Smith has said that DFAT isn't privy to the conversations the Howard Government had with the Bush Administration. What the..? Perhaps US State has kept transcripts at the other end. Chats between Rice and Downer, Cheney and Howard would clear up a few things at both ends. Come on, Newsweek! You found the Scott Parkin files,howsabout the Hicks ones as well?
I've finally gotten around to a piece that Mike Carlton wrote in the SMH a couple of weeks back, and he's nailed a few things regarding the Australian aspects of the situation
[extract]
David McLeod's calls for an inquiry have a lot of merit. Only, of course, if it has the power to acquire the transcripts. Otherwise we've only the words of the politicians to rely on.
I wonder, ladies, if Guantanamo will go down in history as our version of the Inquisition?
Hey F Kendall, what part of Western Vic.? Born and bred Portlander here.
Under the belt?
F Kendall, you ask me.........so, I wonder how much of the above poem, with its lines such as:
"I tell you the Star of the South shall rise in the lurid clouds of war"
and
"And the scorn of Nature and curse of God are heavy on peace like ours""
entered and moulded some aspects of your world outlook? (I actually found them quite thrilling, when I was a teenager.)
Now now, that feels a bit like an attempt at a blow beneath the belt. My world outlook? What exactly I wonder do you understand that to be.
But since you ask, I do not even recall that particular poem so no, it did not mould my views in any way. And by the way, Lawson was a very prolific writer both of poetry and short stories so we never tired of them and we had our favourites which we were happy to have read many times to us.
The children's books we had in my childhood up to the age of ten I can number on two hands and I remember every one of them. In fact I still have them. I guess because we were so poor our mother could not afford books so it was mostly Dad's copy of old Henry and Mum's Bible. And anyway after and before school we were expected to pull our weight on the farm, like all the kids on those poverty stricken coastal dairy farms. But we had our share of fun, without books. Most of the time we simply ran wild in the bush.
So I started reading books for myself quite late and the first one I recall was when I was about 12 and it was a book about the Holocaust. I have never forgotten the pictures in that book to this day. If anything that book may have moulded part of my world view. It certainly got me thinking as a child that you cannot turn your back on evil, you have to fight it.
So blame that if you like, and let old Henry rest in peace.
It's not my fault! Blame something else!
Kathy Farrelly, I apologise. I misunderstood you....(the organic retief shiraz was very nice, but its unexpected 14% alcohol content maybe blurred my judgement) ... Kneejerk reaction. My regrets.
Fair Dinkum Christians part 2
Kathy, I'm puzzled by you comment that "Fair Dinkum Christians do not kill in the name of God."
Are you suggesting that if Fair Dinkum Christians kill in the name of someone else -say Heckle and Jekyll - that's ok?
Or, if they just kill for its own sake - (cf mafia, eg) - that's ok?
I wonder how you can hold that view, Kathy, when the "leader of the free world" can rain down bombs on innocents, while proclaiming himself a Christian, and we rush to join in the carnage. How many decapitations, defacings, delimbings, delifings have we been complicit in?
What a pity that blogger James Waterton didn't concern himself with facts.
True Christians and red herrings
I too, am puzzled F Kendall. Did I not write that Fair Dinkum Christians do not kill in the name of God? That is not an ambiguous statement.
I'll say this again. The 5th commandment Thou Shalt not kill is a tenet adhered to by followers of Christ. If a person "proclaims" themselves a Christian whilst dropping bombs and murdering and maiming, then they aren't really a Christian at all, are they? True Christians do not kill. It is as simple as that.
Therefore when a "so called Christian" murders, he cannot claim to do so in the name of God or Jesus. Jesus would never sanction such acts.
James Waterton's statement is quite correct in my opinion.
No surprise there, Jenny Hume
...that our views differ, that is.
Whatever Christianity I have is linked to the words of Christ, not to the Hebrew Bible. However, I am familiar with Ecclesiastes, and am aware that his summary, after mulling over the uselessness of everything, is: "Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man."
"Thou shalt not kill" is a pretty straightforward commandment, as far as I'm concerned. Not much room for interpretation there.
Yes I am aware
Yes F Kendall, as we all know the Bible is in many instances self contradictory and if one reads Revelations one is not supposed to change one word of it. Am not sure how one gets around the contradictions. All one can do is try and live by the ten commandments (of which Thou shalt not kill is one) in one's own life, and which are in fact, like the passage from Ecclesiastes from the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament, as you know.
Richard, the notion of global government has been flagged from time to time on various threads. The EU is demontrating to some extent the benefits of sovereign states joining in a kind of federation for shared benefits and outcomes, but even there there are many areas of disagreement between the member states.
It seems to me that such an arrangement across the globe would face even greater problems. Far too many things that divide the peoples on this earth would militate against it. I think the UN itself highlights the limitations of world wide co-operation and agreement.
I think the world is destined to continue as it has over the millenia. There will be wars, and there will be peace between nations till the end of time. Our species will ultimately destroy itself and probably sooner rather than later.
To answer your question I don't think there is any real alternative to sovereign statehood and international boundaries. But I do believe there are times when those boundaries should not be respected such as in Burma today.
Maybe the world could try and agree on the circumstances under which international boundaries are set aside, such as during humanitarian disasters like this. The Asian tsunami showed how such a temporary arrangement can work with the agreement of an affected country. It allowed outside military personnel temporarily into one of the most contentions areas in the archipelago.
But in places like Somalia and Darfur? Well clearly you first have to have at least a stable government of sorts otherwise nothing is possible.
The lucrative art of war/ Drill, ye tarriers, drill!
Is the title of a recent New York Times editorial. The stars, of course, are my mates.
[extract]
They could also have mentioned Halliburton Products and Services running its Tehran office from the Caymans.
It gets me back to wondering about Lesar's visit and Hicks' incarceration here. Surely our compliance wasn't ensured with a veiled threat to withhold the drills? Would anyone be surprised at that one either?
I'm hearing that the uranium deposit goes down three times deeper than previously anticipated.
Intervention
Hopefully humanity, or at least our civilisations, will manage to evolve before we self-exterminate, Jenny.
Ever read any science fantasy? I used to be (alright, still am) keen on Julian May's novels, mainly for her philosophies. Cripes, in her last set she even had Halliburton (under the name of Halluk ... HAL UK, geddit?) as a bunch of extragalactic aliens morphing in form to subsume from within, and no I hadn't read those when I started my trek. Anyway, Intervention was the bridging book between two sets of novels, and dealt with the state that humanity had gotten itself into before it sent out a unified cry for help. The next book deals with the draconian implentations of a proctorate tryiing to tidy up the house. One little one is to abolish native appellations and the enforcement of the use of the word Citizen, as in citizen of the world. Naturally the French were the most unhappy.
Ok, so there aren't any aliens (maybe) so if we're going to sort things out in order to survive do we need to hand things over to a benevolent dictatorship that can impose a unification? I can't see any way around it. Those who don't abide are going to have to be made to do so, or else isolated until they acquiesce. That's what UN sanctions are meant to be about, isn't it?
The trouble is choosing who to allow to take the reigns (pun intended, Fiona!) The US is obviously never going to relinquish power to the UN, let alone the European Union (which is, in spite of the hiccups, turning out to be the best model so far) and I don't see a lot of statehoods being prepared to relinquish their independence, even temporarily, to the US. So perhaps an Alliance, a global triumvirate, of the above three?
I can relate more to such thoughts at the moment, having needed to tighten a few cultural screws myself of late.
My one thought on a global proctorship (and no this isn't in the books) is that if such a thing were to occur it should be in the hands of somebody who doesn't want the job. They'd be the ones working the most quickly to make themselves redundant. Give it to somebody who wants it, and they'd never let go.
I'm hoping to enjoy some of the fruits of my labours tonight. Renee Geyer, Rebecca Barnard and Lisa Miller singing three-part. Soundcheck was spectacular, and the show will warrant a nice bottle of red. If only it was easy for humanity to be able to do similar.
Alan, killing in the name of some god has been the problem for millenia, hasn't it?
Scifi and fantasy
No Richard, I confess from a very early aged to have been totally bored with science fiction and fantasy in all its forms. I was never a Dr Who fan for instance, and Harry Potter would drive me witless. Even Alice in Wonderland was stretching the patience a little, and which I only read in the dentist's surgery the other day. You know, those books put there to quieten the kids.
Maybe the old man did the damage, reading nothing but old Henry to us from the time we could crawl. But there was also the nightly Bible reading and some would say that is delving into the world of fantasy I suppose.
I think you are right, the UN is the best we have got at the moment but it is limited in what it can do due to the sovereign state reality. The trouble with sanctions is that they visit almost as much misery on the civilian population as war. I am not sure that dying of starvation is any easier that being hit by a bomb. Some would say the latter is a better way to go than die slowly in a desert humpy with no food watching as your family die one by one.
The dictators are always nice and fat and healthy as are their armies that they use to subjugate their people.
War is obscene, but so also are the various forms of dictatorships visited on so many millions around the world. I guess if you really wanted to count bodies, more millions have died at the hands of their own rulers than through wars with neighbouring countries. Pol Pot, Mugabe, the Jangawee, the Hutu massacres, the internal struggles in China - the amount of suffering and killing by rulers over the centuries of their own people has known no bounds.
The history of mankind has been bloody for millenia. And continues that way.
And as we continue to destroy the planet, it is only going to get worse as even the most basic needs cannot be met. Look at those towns in South America which depend on their water from melting glaciers which will in many cases be gone by mid century if not before. Wars over water and massive shifts of populations are on the way.
BTW: I see the outlook for rain in the Murray Darling Basin for this winter is dismal in the south. They are even now talking of permanent drought in the Basin, in which case it will die completely. We will be left clinging to the coast dependant on food imports if this keeps up. A very sorry picture indeed.
Hope the fruits of your labours met all expectations.
When the world changed
I have in front of me the N.S.W. School Magazine for 1/11/1939. The first item is a "Message to the Boys and Girls from the Rt Hon. R.G. Menzies ".
I quote: "Once more Australia, along with Great Britain and the other countries of the British Empire is at war with Germany. How has this tragedy happened?..............The truth is that we are at war because her government has, for some years past, ......acted in such a way as to show that it believes in force as a means of disposing of international differences, and that it is not prepared for peaceful negotiation and settlement."
"These are just not long words; they contain a great truth. If you are going to grow up into a world in which fair- play and honest dealing and truthfulness and peace are to prevail among nations, it is essential that the nations who to-day stand for these things should defend them against the attacks of those who believe that you should give fair-play only to those stronger than yourself, that honest dealing is for good times only, that truth is subordinate to national self-interest, and that there can be no peace for the weak."...and so on.
To my mind, the day that our world changed was the day that we decided to join those who, in RG Menzies words, "believe in force as a means of disposing of international differences, and that are " not prepared for peaceful negotiation and settlement".
Our whole moral and ethical inheritance went down the gurgler when we joined the USA on this ghastly venture.
That is when the world changed. Our world, anyway.