Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

I interpreted your writing to imply Leftie by association as it read. Apologies. So who are his leftie friends, Malcolm Fraser? Tennis tommorrow, more cracking ribs.

Cheers.

Perhaps you need to read the post again with more clarity. I did not call Valder a Leftie , only some of his friends were referred to as such, your suggestions are wrong there.

Greg wrote: "Howard won the seat of Bennelong in spite of heavy campaigning by Valder and his leftie friends." Lefty friends? Are you kidding?

Just because Valder hasn't the Ghengis Khan alignment on the political pendulum that the present gov is trying to emulate I would very much doubt he would accept being called a "leftie". Maybe just a Liberal rather than a lying fascist, all fascists lie.

Cheers.

PS Can't wait to tell the tennis crowd that he is a leftie, ribcracker.

Mr Valder is right. By his too close association with the policies of George Bush JWH is rapidly turning Australia away from the fair go country to some ugly doppelganger for the USA. The so-called anti-terrorism bill is in reality just a reflection of the same anti-democratic atttempts by the British and US governments to destroy what little remains of our liberal democracy.

One of the tragic ironies of the Australian legislation is that it will not be applied to the real terrorists, that is, those who illegally invade a sovereign nation with justifications based upon systematic lies; those who once in that nation daily perpetrate crimes against humanity and international law; and those whose justifications for this conduct shift with each exposure of their crimes.

The voices of conscience such as Mr Valder echo in a political vacuum left by a supine opposition and mass media. Only when the real terrorists are brought to justice will Australia have an opportunity to regain its international respectability.

Very tiresome, Greg Hynes. You say: “Howard won the seat of Bennelong in spite of heavy campaigning by Valder and his leftie friends, that is proof enough of their political irrelevance.”

In your original statement you said: “…mainstream Australian community does not care what they [Valder and Fraser] think and their political views don't mean much to the society.” Now you are talking about Bennelong as though that is representative of all of Australia!

If you had said: ‘…the Bennelong community does not care what they [Valder and Fraser] think and their political views don't mean much to Bennelong society’, then I would have gone along with that. But you didn’t say that and I asked you to provide evidence to support your assertion “…mainstream Australia, etcetera…,” You cannot, can you?

Now you are implying that Bennelong is representative of all Australia. So I ask again, prove it!! I should also mention that writing this - “That argument carries more credibility than your conspiracy theories and your lack of political knowledge” - as an attempt to distract me or readers from your inability to extract yourself from the embarrassing situation you find yourself in will not succeed.

I’m sure you will return soon with the required proof of your original statement.

Damian Lataan, you so seem to be so unable to handle the facts and adapt to reality. I repeat ... Howard won the seat of Bennelong in spite of heavy campaigning by Valder and his leftie friends, that is proof enough of their political irrelevance. There is NO need for any poll when the election result is a much better proof. That argument carries more credibilty than your conspiracy theories and your lack of political knowledge.

S Marker, even after a swing, Bennelong is not exactly a swing and its margin is pretty decent. Within the changing electoral profile the Left may have a decent chance but it likely they will keep losing other seats that they used to take for granted during elections.

Greg Hynes says, “…that the proof of Valder’s irrelevance in NSW politics is the actual result!”

That may well be the case in Bennelong or even NSW Greg Hynes, but I’m afraid you can’t slip out of it that easily because it wasn’t what you originally said. Let me remind you of what you did say – again:

“…mainstream Australian community does not care what they [Valder and Fraser] think and their political views don't mean much to the society.”

Nothing about Bennelong, nothing even about NSW, but definitely “mainstream Australian community”.

As for fake polls; I said nothing at all about fake polls. I merely asked you about polls or surveys that would support your original claim that, “…mainstream Australian community does not care what they [Valder and Fraser] think and their political views don't mean much to the society.” The fact is there are no such polls – real or fake!

No Greg Hynes, I’m afraid that the only person deluding themselves here is yourself with your constant shifting of the perspective of Valder’s ‘irrelevance’ in order to squirm your way out of an embarrassing lack polls or surveys to support your original presumptuous rubbish!

Greg Hynes, it is an unfortunate fact that John Howard won his seat again but this time, he also suffered one of the biggest swings AGAINST any sitting member in the country. Not bad for the incumbent Prime Minister. In the next few years, the demographics of Bennelong might change even more, you never know. We'll just have to wait and see what the effects of the IR and Anti-Terror legislation will be, won't we?

Michael de Angelos, regarding The Latham Diaries, christmas is tantalisingly close and you can always reserve a copy at the library. My copy is currently doing the family rounds. As I was living overseas when GST was introduced, the HUGE increase in the price of books in Australia since GST was introduced was shocking - especially after living in the US where it is still possible to walk into a book shop and have change left over from a $20.

Damian Lataan, as said before the proof of Valder's irrelevance in NSW politics is the actual result! The fact that Howard won his seat is proof enough. Do all the fake polls you can and keep deluding yourself with such polls, they don't mean much in a debate.

I believe the bloke needs to be elected president for it to actually count as a term.

Indeed LBJ was talked out of standing for a second (elected as President) term - he had about as much chance of winning as does Beazley at present. Aside from the war, civil rights and his personal downturn in popularity, he'd have been an incumbent challenged: by RFK. He'd have lost that too.

Ian Maxwell, I would refer you to Lyndon Johnson. He had the chance to stand for a second term (third) however decided against it in a famous speech.

Greg Hynes, you may spin it any way you like. I did not assert anything about Valder or Fraser; you did. I am saying that you cannot back up your original assertion that the “…mainstream Australian community does not care what they [Valder and Fraser] think and their political views don't mean much to the society.” YOU made the claim. Now back it up!!

Don’t come back to me with some airy-fairy crap about the Bennelong electorate; you said “…mainstream Australian community…” Now go away and try again. Come back when you have solid evidence to back your claim – not a moment before!

Jay White: "It may be the case of wording however a term is counted as such by election. As such by your wording if Truman decided to run and had been elected he would have entered his third term in office."

Not quite, but nearly. The effect of the 22nd amendment was that VPs who took over early during a President's term, as Truman did, would only be able to be elected for one additional term. Unless, of course, Truman as the incumbent President was 'grandfathered' from the provisions of the 22nd Amendment. And I think the period he served after FDR's death is generally regarded as a 'term' on the basis that he was elected as VP, but I could be wrong.

Ian Maxwell: "Actually, Jay, it was brought in during Harry S Truman's 2nd term in office (22nd Amendment, ratified 1951) two years before Eisenhower was elected. And FDR was elected four times, but died early in 1945 shortly after being inaugurated, so Truman took over".

Damn I hate being wrong about these things. I have mistaken 1951 for 1953. However I also think you will find that you are incorrect about Truman's term in office being his second. He was only elected to the office once and decided against running for a second term.

It may be the case of wording however a term is counted as such by election. As such by your wording if Truman decided to run and had been elected he would have entered his third term in office.

Jay White: "The change in election law was brought in after Franklin D Roosevelt's term in office, his third, by President Dwight D Eisenhower. I suggest you read the history on the reasons why."

Actually, Jay, it was brought in during Harry S Truman's 2nd term in office (22nd Amendment, ratified 1951) two years before Eisenhower was elected. And FDR was elected four times, but died early in 1945 shortly after being inaugurated, so Truman took over.

As for the reasons why, it merely codified an unwritten convention that had been around since Washington had been President. FDR was, by all accounts, exceptional, but thank our lucky stars they did amend the Constitution, otherwise we'd be stuck with Dubya and his election rorting cronies for at least another twenty years. Now if only we could do the same in Oz...

Damian Lataan, if you need a poll of every political assertion made then you are kidding yourself. The fact that Howard was reelected in Bennelong in spite of heavy grass roots campaigning by Valder is ample evidence enough of both of their statures. Whether you like it or not, Valder is not a significant figure in NSW politics, NSW politics is something you don't seem to understand.

Michael de Angelos, the comment was only in relation to the US observation. We unfortunately have the likelihood of the same problem developing here. Not often I'd agree with Jay, you know. Including Telstra, that makes two.

As to Valder, well he just wouldn't be the right's cup of meat. He is though an excellent example of how the party has changed. I was discussing this with a mate on the 'phone before the rugby debacle this morning. My friend back in our teacher's college days ('70s) was a liberal (and I think a member of the party at one stage). We'd argue the merits of all sorts of political arguments. These days he could no more vote for John Howard's Liberal Party than One Nation.

He hasn't moved left. He does though have a keen sense of social justice.

Greg Hynes says: “What is presumptuous rubbish is your conspiracy theories and your opinion that Fraser and Valder have significant political capital that is expendable.”

First, I do not have ‘conspiracy theories’ as you put it. I do, however, have a lot of very reasonable questions to ask about the official stories that governments put out about various events in history. Where there is doubt, I will question it. Governments – whether you care to believe it or not – do lie. (For example, you’ve no doubt heard of Howard’s ‘Children overboard’ claims and ‘Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons and is an immediate threat to us’).

Secondly, I have not been of the opinion “…that Fraser and Valder have significant political capital that is expendable”. I never uttered any such words. I merely said that you can’t prove your assertion they haven’t because there are no polls or surveys to support your claims which did, indeed, render your claims as presumptuous rubbish.

As I said earlier; you’ve really got to do better than that. Keep trying!

Marilyn Shepherd,

Valder may be upset about Hicks but in the article he is upset about other many others some of which are irrelevant to one other- the anti-terror legislation is one example. While he has a right to his views, his bold and questionable assertions can be criticised.

Damian Lataan,

Since you are not from Sydney you wouldn't know the composition and changing ethnic dynamics in many electorates including John Howard's one. What is presumptuous rubbish is your conspiracy theories and your opinion that Fraser and Valder have significant political capital that is expendable. The seat of Bennelong has become very diverse and not the old blue ribbon Liberal seat that it was, a swing against Howard could or not be as a result of Valder's campaigning, it is irrelevant as Howard was relected in his seat and as PM at the previous election.

"Exactly Jay! Should be more history hereabouts."

Err, well no Michael Park, not according to Jay. Many of us have already said we agree with John Valder, but he's been consigned to history's dusbin by Jay and a few others along with Big Mal. The Liberal Party's moved on, don't ya know?

Exactly Jay! Should be more history hereabouts.

One can only imagine the Republican mindset: six elections before recording a victory and of the five lost, four to Roosevelt. Had FDR not become the "Tired Old Man" the Republicans pilloried him as in '44 he'd may have gone on forever. A Democratic US monarchy?

Kidding, kidding...

Really though, it took an "All Star" (five in fact) candidate to overturn a Democratic "right to rule." This not withstanding running mate Nixon - in a foretaste of things to come - weathering accusations of maintaining an $18,000 "slush fund".

Now, there was no way that run was ever going to be repeated was there? Best amend the constitution eh?

Bravo Jay White. Yes even I make the occasional historical mistake but the reasons are still the same. As is the dislike of Howard within the Liberal Party, as will his end in power come soon.

Michael de Angelos "If you knew your Liberal Party history" And if you knew your American history you would know this statement is wrong-"There was a very good reason the American founding fathers limited their Presidents to eight year terms".

The change in election law was brought in after Franklin D Roosevelt's term in office, his third, by President Dwight D Eisenhower. I suggest you read the history on the reasons why.

"Leadership envy" Jay White ?. Is that what you think it's all about ?. If so I'd say the one person who has demonstrated that he holds that quality in spades is John Howard himself. His tenacity to cling on through leadership battles until he got the main prize and remain there is extraordinary. There was a very good reason the American founding fathers limited their Presidents to eight year terms. Some have put this man on a pedestal so high no words of dissension can reach his ears.

Once in power it isn't difficult to hold on as tyrants around the world have shown. The difficult thing is to be a leader who unites his people and then bow out gracefully. Winning is easy if one manipulates other people's natural tendency to believe one in power will only do right. There are other qualities that the PM will always have with him though. His deliberate lies, that among other things have led to a war in which thousands have died will always be with him, once his leadership is a forgotten memory. That day is drawing near whether the change comes from within his party or at the ballot box.

If you knew your Liberal Party history you would know how despised he is amongst his own unlike any other , who defer that hate in their desire to hold onto power. But change always comes and he will go as all men must and all indications, with a tiny handful of backbenchers sniffing the wind is that that will be sooner rather than latter.

Unlike other PMs who tend to fade into the background and get dismissed easily , as you would have Malcolm Fraser done with, Howard will not have an easy retirement. The talk in the past few days of the Whitlam/Fraser debacle will be peanuts compared to what faces Howard in the future. I guarantee it.

A. Mills:"Mahmoud, if that person undertakes violence to remove a democratically elected government then, yes, they are an evil terrorist."

So, A. Mills, does that extend to governments that do the same? That use violence to remove a democratically elected government?

A new day and a further notation to the David Hicks file, or rather another paragraph in this long running (to me) painful saga of injustice. If the SMH report about Mr Downer's comments are accurate, then are they not ironic? I mean Downer says Hicks shouldn’t be getting privileged treatment above drug dealers and other Aussies facing trial around the world!
I mean Hicks has been getting 'privileged treatment' but not of the preferred kind, for the chosen few.

A legal non-person in a concentration camp!
I am constantly irritated the way Mr Downer jumps up with a press release and dismisses in a half -cocked and biased fashion legitimate concerns of those that care!

I note other Ministers seem to be affected with a similar syndrome. Is this what politics does to one's soul? MMMMMMMm. If this is so how can we ever wish that our pollies respond in a humanistic way?

I sent this last night to the women in parliament in response to Danna's piece and attached a birth certificate for the baby. It said he was born in Adelaide to Afghan parents who married in Afghanistan. Somehow or other a public servant turned him into a Pakistani citizen using fraudulent means when he was barely four months old.

Danna supported this sort of treatment to the hilt for all her years in Parliament - in fact she ranted about innocent imprisoned refugees being filth and queue jumpers. Her new found care for David Hicks is welcome to most I would think but Downer and Howard continue to disgrace themselves over it.

This country has earned itself a shocking reputation for it's lack of concern for human rights in the last few years.

For all those who seek to overturn all notion of judicial enquiry bear in mind Roqia's and David's tales. Roqia and David might well have met if she had left a little later.

Dear Mrs Vale,
Congratulations for your piece on bringing David Hicks
home - it is welcome and long overdue.

That poor boy is not a cockroach.

Now I want to tell you the story of a friend of mine
named Roqia.

Roqia was born in Afghanistan in about 1970 or 1971,
she is not sure because Afghans don't register the
births of their children and especially not the births
of their daughters.

When she was 15 or even younger, during the Russian
invasion, she was used as a slingshot according to her
cousin and slung at the first man who wanted an Afghan
bride.

He was older and a cousin who came from over the
mountains - a wedding in Afghanistan is not like here
you know. Her father sold her to the first man who
"got off 6 shots" and put the shawl on the girl.

Her life was hard on the farm in Jaghouri because she
had 5 children by 1997 and lost one. Her husband had
to travel to Iran and Pakistan to get work to feed
those children and she was tortured and tormented by
the Taliban.

I have seen the scars on the back of the eldest boy
Alamdar from beatings with whips at the hands of those
criminal murderers when he was only 9 years old. His
back looks like chopped liver where the whips bit into
his little boy's back. His brother has similar but
less scars that happened when he was a boy of 7 and
saw their friend have his head cut off.

Roqia watched her friends disappear and had to raise
the children alone on the farm in a patriarchal society
that threw their girls away like rubbish.

In 1997 her husband was arrested by the Taliban and
her father in law killed. In 1998 they left
Afghanistan for good and went to live illegally in
Pakistan - these are facts that have never once been
disputed in spite of what happened next.

In 1999 her husband was forced to leave Pakistan due
to the danger from the Taliban who supported those in
Afghanistan and because they were Hazara and shi'ite
Muslims. Roqia was left alone with their last
savings, her brother and 5 very small children. Amina
was 1 and still recovering from being 2 months early,
she was tiny.

That continued until her father and brother helped her
leave with the five children in December 2000.
Thinking she was going to Ali in Germany she was
shocked to the core when the boat arrived at Ashmore
Reef after 6 days, close to sinking, only to find
themselves arrested by the navy and taken to Darwin.

There were 39 Afghan children on that boat. They
arrived in Woomera on 23 January 2001 and we now know
that on 22 March DIMIA wrote an internal email that
was circulated - Rakiya Bakhtiyari - Afghan, husband a
Pakistani who has a passport, travelled with brother
in law.

Except we also now know that the person they thought
was a Pakistani was not Ali and not her brother in law
but Mohib Sarwari, an Afghan man who is no relation to
them.

It was a mistake to claim she was a Pakistani.

From 22 March 2001 until her forced deportation in
December 2004 she told DIMIA every single day "I am
from Afghanistan" and every single day they told her
she was from Pakistan.

She watched her little children wither, hang
themselves, slash themselves, drink shampoo and
insecticide, go on hunger strike - even the little 4
year old girl.

She watched in horror as her brother jumped from the
fence and nearly died - the wounds on his arms are
horrendous and he can't use it anymore.

She stitched her lips in despair as did the two boys.

She was separated from her husband for the first 2
years while he was free in Sydney trying to have them
released.

For the next two years she lived with him in Baxter
for 6 months, then in a motel for 10 months away from
her whole family except the new born boy, then in the
house with her children for 6 months.

They are a close and loving family. The girls Nagina
12 and Samina 10 loved sports and Big Brother,
Australian Idol and all things Australian - they
forgave us all those long years in Woomera and Baxter.

Little Amina started to recover the trauma of half her
life in prison but then kept asking me to shoot her -
she was 6 years old.

The boys were taken from Woomera and some morons
turned them into the British consulate in Melbourne
using them as political pawns.

Roqia Bakhtiyari has always been an Afghan citizen and
cannot be a Pakistani citizen yet I have a tonne of
documents made by some members of DIMIA claiming that
she is.

Paul McGeough's discovery put paid to the Pakistani
story once and for all in September and I bless him
for it.

But you see Danna, it was all mistaken ID. It wasn't
even Roqia's husband that they thought was a Pakistani
it was someone in the same block of flats.

This is the same DIMA who deported Vivian Alvarez and
locked up Cornelia so I don't exaggerate.

I am sending some documents to prove part of my
claims. Danna, they used a little baby's birth
certificate that said his parents are Afghans to prove
that he is a Pakistani.

Now they are the only family ever deported to Pakistan
on no papers after the government tried for three
years to make them forge Pakistani documents for
travel.

That is a crime against children Danna.

In Afghanistan today little girls as young as 9 are
being used like Roqia was, I have talked to young
women here who were sold at 12 or 13 and had 5 kids by
the time they were 21.

They take those little girls and sell them to the
Taliban and war lords as slaves. Roqia has a new
little girl now - she has a one in four chance of
dying before she is 5 as does the baby boy born here.

Where were you and your colleagues for Roqia? What on
earth could this girl I love so much have ever done to
deserve what we did to her and her children.

I write this because she and her children served 4
years in jail without ever being charged with
anything, ever having a trial or ever being heard in
any court of law.

It's just not right and they should be brought back to
Australia to live peacefully.

Of the 39 Afghan children on their boat 34 of them are
here as permanent residents so the question has to be
asked - why were only 5 of them not worthy?

Of 840 Afghan children 835 are still here.

Of the 25 cases released under the Al Masri decision
the five Bakhtiyari children were the only ones ever
locked up again.

Of the 8 families who tried the family court 7 got
visas.

of the 25 families in long term detention 24 got
visas.

Only 5 of all the Afghan children ever got forced to
leave and now live in the most dangerous country on
earth.

Why is that do you think?

Marilyn Shepherd

Actually Hicks is very relevant to this forum because it was about Hicks that Valder first wrote to Howard and turned him into an agitator for democracy.

I read Danna Vale's piece with interest - why does it take these sitting liberals so long to find some spine? In the case of locking up refugees without charge or crime it took nine years, in the case of Hicks it took four.

Jay White, maybe some of us simply respect Valder and Fraser because they force us to remember we are a liberal democracy and not John Howard’s dictatorship.

Margo, the UK has denied Hicks citizenship and the matter will go to appeal.

The US Senate has passed an amendment barring Habeas to Gitmo detainees and other "illegal combatants" - this is from Irises:

''Bump and Update: Unbelievable. The Senate today passed Lindsay Graham's amendment, 49 to 42 barring detainees at Guantanamo and others declared by the Executive Branch to be enemy combatants from seeking judicial review of the legality of their detentions. Democrats indicated they may try to kill or change the provision before the Senate votes on the overall bill next week. Five Democrats sided with 44 Republicans in voting for the provision.' (Posted by Bob Wall | 11/11/2005 5:17:30 PM)

The transcript from AM is here.

I don't often agree with Ms Vale, but I certainly do on this.

Margo: Thanks for the update Bob.

G'day. Conservative federal Liberal MP Danna Vale, a former veterans affairs minister speaks up for David Hicks in The Age at Let's bring David Hicks home. Her last stand against Government policy was when she led the fight to overturn Northern Territory laws forcing judges to send children to jail for their first stealing offence:

"There are a couple of facts that I struggle to understand. The British refused to allow their nine prisoners to be charged by the Americans and asked for them back. Upon return to London, finding they had not committed, nor would be convicted of, any known crime under British law, they were set free. Australia, on the other hand, agreed to the Americans charging David Hicks on the basis that he would be tried quickly and fairly. After four years, "quickly and fairly" have yet to be delivered. And I have a nagging suspicion they never will.

"It has been said that if Hicks is returned to Australia, we have no law under which he can be charged and he would walk free. But why should he not walk free if he has not committed an offence against Australian law. He has already been incarcerated for four years, which is more than some get for rape or murder in our country. How long a sentence is considered enough punishment for a misguided fool and prize dill? And until proven otherwise, that is all that can be said about him. Yes, he admits to training with the Taliban, but there was no law against that at the time anywhere in the world. The US prosecutors agree that he did not fire a shot at any American, and indeed, that he has not killed anyone. Yet he is charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy."

Downer holds the line at Downer rejects Hicks release plea.

Simon Ellis I think it is difficult to foster "geniune debate" with people who are willing to hold Mr Valder and Fraser up as their pin-up boys for democracy. I think you should look a little deeper into both these men's histories. History does not change because you now agree with the things they are presently saying.

I personally think it is laughable that the best thing the left can come up with in response to their present feelings of leadership envy is to try and find fond memories of the way these gentlemen tried to shape the nation. I can only imagine people were either not around in those days or time has papered over the cracks.

The Liberal party has moved on since those rather average days. Either these people except it or not, everybody is entitled to their own opinions. I think I, along with a few others, have made ours clear.

I also consider a person who would side with the Greens against the Liberal party not only not a Liberal but about as far away from one as I can think of. So from that perspective I hold about as much respect for Valder's views as I do for Bob Brown's and his latter day feral come communist party. Little to zero.

Greg Hynes reckons: “…the fact that there is no reliable poll out there measuring the Valder factor in the political arena is amply proof that they are not significant enough to make a political expert.” Que?!! Do you really have any idea what you’re talking about? This is double gobbledegook. First, there is nothing clear or concise in your statement (it’s just straight-out bad English) and, secondly, even when one has a vague idea of what you are trying to say it still doesn’t make sense because your trying to prove that because it hasn’t been done (the poll or survey) then your assertion must be so. That is just presumptuous rubbish. The reality is you have absolutely no idea about the extent of Valder or Fraser’s popularity or lack of it throughout Australia apart from some nonsense that Valder didn’t defeat Howard in his own seat (in an election that was over a year ago) – and on top of that you attempt to dismiss the 3% swing away from Howard as being the result of some “…changing ethnic composition of the electorate.”

You’ve really got to do better than that. Keep trying!

Valder claims if there is a terror attack in Australia then Howard should be responsible as he followed George Bush in the Iraq war. Leaving aside the ridiculous nature of the allegation, shouldn't Howard be given a free hand on how he responds to the threat in the form of anti-terror laws? Since he would he held responsible by anti-Howard crowd, logically he should be free to respond in his own way and folks like Valder should stop whining. Liberal values does not mean appeasement of terrorists, Valder and Fraser apparently have got it confused about the liberal political values.

Marilyn Shepherd, you wrote 'I wonder that God Howard is so all powerful you salute his every word?' What the heck are you talking about? It is senseless and meaningless. Valder has layed out his opinion and he is being scrutinised and attacked for his views which would be expected when he is so passionately advocating them. Hicks, Immigration issues are not relevant in this debate.

Damian Lataan, redneck mates at the bar? Funny... the fact that there is no reliable poll out there measuring the Valder factor in the political arena is amply proof that they are not significant enough to make a political expert. Valder concentrated a large effort on ousting the PM from his seat of Bennelong. He failed even though he is happy with a 3% swing which could have been due to other factors like the changing ethnic composition of the electorate.

Simon ellis, sweeping generalisation at Lefties? I must have missed it, as in this thread I have not mentioned the word Leftie, apart from questioning Valder's relevance and his views with respect to the political situation. Perhaps you need to read the posts properly before posting allegations, it does not enhance the debate.

A Mills, do you believe that a democratically elected government has the right to attack another country because it follows Islamic Law. And I am curious to know if you actually know what Sharia Law is?

In regards to Peter Costello, he is a lune! He says that individuals or groups who want Sharia Law should leave this country and go to another country that “has” Sharia Law. Funny enough, there is currently no country that is governed by a Sunni version of Sharia Law (Sunnis make up close to 88% of the Muslim population). I don’t recall any present leader claiming to be “Caliph”. This title has been absent from Islamic countries for almost a century.

Marilyn Shepherd, your quote “300,000 Muslims in Australia mostly ran away from Sharia law” is very incorrect, and a gross generalisation. For starters, majority of Muslim migrants in Australia are from Lebanon and Turkey, and these two countries are very secular in their governments. In fact, Lebanon is 50% Christian, and much of its constitution is secularist for that reason. And what about Turkey? Three words, Evil Kemel Ataturk!

Webdiarist: People often have this view that Sharia Law is some brutal, repressive, misogynistic system that guarantees a world of eternal conflict. This definition is largely a result of media outlets attributing false connotations to the meaning of Sharia Law, and therefore creating a feeling of Islamaphobia. Also, Muslims who are against Sharia Law are often individuals who do not practice their faith, nor even know the basic tenets of their faith. Ironically, we always see these people in the media, or Shiekhs who don’t know how to speak English!

Y'all should leave Jay Millsy and Greg alone - if they weren't allowed to make sweeping generalisations solely designed to inflame the sensibilities of us Lefties they'd have very little incentive to contribute to Webdiary.

Surely you've all realised by now that they're often just baiting us? Do you think that Jay White refers to us as 'poor little darlings' because he is trying to foster genuine debate? Don't you feel a bit silly, swallowing the bait time and time again?

I say ignore the posts that are clearly deliberately designed to provoke. Our Righties are occasionally open for genuine debate on a topic so why not take them up on those things instead of the facile 'Saddam supporter, terorist appeaser and Labor Party stooge' stuff?

Those of us who've been Webdiarists for years should be embarrassed to be drawn into the same tired old debates (that never go anywhere) with the same tired old combatants.

Greg Hynes reckons that Valder and Fraser “…are figures from the 80s who are out of touch with Australian politics, society and its needs…” and that the “…mainstream Australian community does not care what they think and their political views don't mean much to the society.”

You have, I presume, a credible source for this ridiculous assertion, Greg Hynes? A qualified poll or survey perhaps? And I don’t mean just the opinion of your redneck mates in the front bar of your local!

A Mills, Stuart as usual, Greg as usual, what makes you guys tick I wonder that God Howard is so all powerful you salute his every word?

Did you like to see the children scream in Woomera? Did you like to hear them slash and drink shampoo in despair?

How about the children of Afghanistan as the pretty yellow cluster bombs fell with pretty yellow food parcels? Or the Afghans being bombed to bits for having a wedding party mistaken for warriors?

What about the children of Iraq, sleeping, walking to school - boom, blown to bits.

Sharia law will not come to Australia - for God's sake what sort of fools are you to listen to the buffoon Costello, the man without a clue?

300,000 Muslims in Australia mostly ran away from Sharia law.

As to, 'they can bugger off'. How the hell dare he? Vivian Alvarez didn't want to bugger off but was exiled anyway.

David Hicks has been in Guantanamo Bay for four years after trying to leave Afghanistan so he didn't have to shoot people.

Now we have these deranged "terror" arrests which amount to nothing more than a hill of f...g beans. The guy "stockpiling" the chemicals ordered meths and acetone - not peroxide as stated.

And he left the bloody stuff behind. With the police.

It's started already; see this link to a story on ABC Online headlined "Ministerial Art prompts treason complaint". Treason.

Thanks S Marker, I've been waiting for the price of Latham's book to drop but the damned thing's selling so well I'll have to pay full price!

Judith Miller, ex New York Times, was a conduit for government exaggeration regarding Iraq’s non-existent WMDs. Considering the large number of recent leaks about alleged home-grown terrorist activity in all media, you can only wonder how many local “Judith Millers” are delivering nonsense via their outlets.

Generally fine letter, John Valder. However, you are attempting to reason with an unreasonable man. Don’t forget, Howard fought against the rebel backbenchers in his effort to keep innocent children in jail. The guy is a freak. You are also giving him the feeling of power by saying that he is scaring everyone. The only power he has is to create illusions that can never last. Reality always wins. Evolution is unstoppable.

Keith Antonysen wrote: "The Federal Government certainly doesn't believe in ethics."

Yes. It’s amazing that government supporters accept innocent children in jail etc. I think they are ultra-pragmatists. If the economy is going well and according to their economic rationalism, then they’ll cheer the team no matter what (they often criticise Laborites for not supporting their own team no matter what). Still, jailing innocent kids, war, politicising terrorism, etc… it does make you wonder. I guess they are horrified by the alternative of a Labor government.

Michael Park wrote: "Don't mention the war."

I read about the war every day! The War on Terror, that is. (Hopefully, after the WOT, there will be the WOFAI - the War On Fear And Ignorance.) If Aussies were coming home in hundreds of body bags, Howard would be in trouble like Bush is. Cowardly Aussies are glad that Howard supported America. We happily let Bush sacrifice American soldiers while we risked few of our own. Good job, John Howard. Of course we killed lots of Iraqis, but they aren’t Aussies or Americans or Brits. And we let our friend America commit suicide in Iraq, but… anyway, we’re okay and America will protect us (even more). Anyway, Saddam’s gone, so why complicate things with the bigger picture?

M F McAuliffe wrote: "what will do us in is still and always the depth of our official insecurity, the colonial/cultural cringe."

Interesting point. I remember Howard grovelling shamelessly to Bush after 9/11. Howard said something like, "We will support you whatever response you care to take." My worst nightmare is that this might have emboldened Bush to attack Iraq. Bush might have concluded that everyone would totally support him whatever response (or tangential response) he cared to take. There again, Australia is also a little like a playpen full of innocent children. It could be the Garden of Eden. We could create paradise here one day.

Michael de Angelos wrote: "We have the perfect opportunity to examine what drives these people, although we may not like what we find. Looking at all the main terrorists groups since WW11 the driving reasons have been either political or connected to lands occupied by foreign forces. Isn't it now a time to examine what drives others to commit suicide bombings and kill innocent people so we may prevent terrible deeds in the future?"

Yes, one would think it is obvious. But those in power are neurotic. Those who vote for them are not wise. Voters, the government, and the media are operating at the unreflective instinctual level… still.

Matt Byrne wrote: "What the Iraq war has done for terrorism though is it has increased the pool from which terrorist organisations can recruit from, it has taken away resources and much needed focus needed in combating terrorism and its causes and it has given yet another reason for Muslims to hate the west whether we conceive of this war as legitimate or not."

Well said. If all the time, money, and energy that is spent on destruction and conflict was spent on construction and co-operation, can you imagine the difference it would make?

Christopher Muir wrote: "Beazley seems to spend a great deal of his time telling the government how right they are in what they do. Judging by John Valder’s analysis we should vote both sides out at the next election."

Yes, Beazley is bizarre. The game is politics and the goal is to win power, so ‘pragmatism’ enters. Labor should be setting a moral example so that when the government goes down, Labor would be shining and the Libs would find it hard to get back in. That’s a long term strategy, but the Libs aren’t going down soon anyway. There again, Costello will be taking over next year, so we’ll see. Perhaps Labor should quit and the government will divide in half. This process could continue until Howard is the only one left. (That’s like Osama - if everyone became Muslims, then he’d fight against those who were not like him until he was the only one left.) I think we should vote governments out in every election until we get one that is consistently wise and competent. Voting out governments is where our power as voters lies. Otherwise, our vote only rewards lies, etc.

Tom Noonan wrote: "All the debate in the world won't help. It has nothing to do with debate. It is the Soylent Green-Zardoz syndrome being acted out. In a world of dwindling resources the Haves are acting out their bid for survival."

What was the PNAC phrase? “A region of obvious strategic importance.”

Peter Funnell wrote: "But the real question for myself is what will it take for the Australian people to finally see off Howard's Way? Beats me. History will not treat Mr Howard kindly and Howards Way will be vilified by all those that study this period in our nation's history. Well, they might, if we have enough people in universities, if democracy survives and if we all live to think on this miserable interval in our nation's history."

Excellent points. Don’t forget innocent kids in jail. The people vote for Howard because the economy is going well or because they think he’s good for security or they think he’s better than the alternative. And the media supports him. All but two capital city newspapers recommended the mass-murderer (Iraq), child-abuser (detention centres), pathological liar (“We haven’t made a decision to join the war” x100), thief (Strengthening Medicare ads) be re-elected. Interest rates need to go up, or the IR changes need to bite before this mob will be thrown from office. Costello has been promised the leadership next year, so we’ll see if things change then. He will have to learn not to appear arrogant - Aussies hate that.

Carl Baker wrote: "Only in the most simple of minds does opposition to the war in Iraq translate into support for Saddam Hussein. I will no longer stand idly by and be accused of being a terrorist sympathiser because I seek to understand the real threat that confronts us. I will not be deterred from asking the tough questions simply because people like you are not smart enough to understand the answers. If the choice before us is more security with less freedom or less security with more freedom I’ll take more freedom thank you very much. I will not cower to some moronic halfwits who in all likelihood would have blown themselves up before they blew anyone else up. At night my windows are open and my front door is unlocked and I sleep just fine. I’m not afraid of the boogey man, whether he has a bomb belt strapped to his chest or not."

Bravo! Brilliantly said, Carl. What a breath of fresh air.

Stuart Lord wrote: "Terrorism would happen with or without Iraq. End of story."

Stuart, that’s a classic example of simplistic convergent thinking, which leads to fast, spectacular, simplistic, counterproductive action. Life is a multifaceted diamond. If you want to keep one facet and cut out the others, then you lose the diamond. Turn the diamond and see the many facets.

Yes, terrorism would happen with or without Iraq, but it’s not the end of the story. Terrorism after Iraq could be the beginning of a story, the middle of the story, or the end of the story depending on your point of view and the actions you take. Iraq must have increased the likelihood of terrorism. Also, the majority of the world was sympathetic to America just after 9/11, but after Iraq the majority of the world is against America, or at least against Bush. America has sacrificed its moral authority for future ‘humanitarian’ operations.

You say that terrorism would happen with or without Iraq. Similarly, Miss MacGregor, my grade-school teacher, said that the cat sat on the mat. But I refused to take her data at face value or as being complete. Incomplete data is untrue data. I was always interested what other things happened - before the cat sat on the mat, during the cat’s occupation of the mat, and after the cat left the mat. Most importantly, what was the cat’s goal, and what is our response? Is our goal good and achievable?

You are claiming that one snapshot, ‘Terrorism would happen with or without Iraq’, is the end of the movie. In reality, it is only one frame out of a multilayered mini-series. Your frame is actually in the middle of the mini-series, because everything has a past and a future.

Every event has infinite causes and infinite effects. Every action we take in response to terrorism has infinite causes and infinite effects. If our actions come from wisdom, then the effects will be harmonious. If they come from ignorance, then they will be disharmonious and they will come back to bite you and yours. (Of course, all are yours ultimately.)

No event happens in isolation. We contribute to terrorism by our actions and inactions. Whether it is Clinton or Bush on ‘our’ side, or bin Laden or the Saudis or Saddam on ‘their’ side, we blame someone for 9/11.

The War on Terror will be an eternal story unless we stop promoting it. We need to start promoting harmony and wisdom instead. This is doable. Indeed, it is the ONLY solution. We only have to set our minds on it. War, on the other hand, leads to bitterness and unhappiness for the apparent losers, and self-deception for the apparent victors.

Stuart, I suppose you are reacting to people claiming that Iraq is the sole cause of terrorism. Their claim is as equally erroneous as your claim. The pro-war and anti-war people both need to improve their games. The convergent thinkers and the divergent thinkers need to work together towards a harmonious goal. We must use our God-given, or evolution-given, brains.

Stuart, you’ve had many good responses in this thread. Are any of them good by your reckoning? Those we disagree with have an important lesson for us. I’ll admit I’ve learnt something from you eg. not to exaggerate by calling Howard a Hitler. Have you learnt anything from any of the other Webdiarists?

Michael De Angelos, I'm in the middle of The Latham Diaries (up to 2004) and John Valder hasn't been mentioned. I strongly recommend you take the time to read it - if only to realise how low the media have sunk and it might help put some perspective on the ineffectual political opposition that we currently suffer and Beazley's rush to embrace all that is Coalition.

John Pardoe, running the country last time a checked old boy.

I see Bob Wall is again calling the pot black. Sarcasm doesn't suit you Bob.

Mahmoud, if that person undertakes violence to remove a democratically elected government then, yes, they are an evil terrorist.

Peter Costello summed it up pretty well. Australia (the US, UK, all of Europe, Canada, South America, Southern Africa, Northern Asia and most of Western and Southern Asia) will never be under Sharia law. If one wants to live under such a law they should investigate which countries have adopted that law and choose to live there.

It's a bit like if I was to determine that Saudi Arabia should be under Christian law (I'm not religious but that's as close as I come) and so I undertake violent means to bring this about - that would make me a terrorist.

A Mills, so if a person believes that his religious laws are superior to man-made laws, and believes that war (violence) is a duty to an individual who wants to stop further injustice apon a race, he is automatically a "fundamentalist". And if that person believes in the above, does that mean that the individual is inherently evil?

For example, if a Muslim believes that his Koran is superior to ANY man-made laws, and that "legal" war is a necessary tool to rid oppressive, tyranical and corrupted regimes such as the Baathist, Assads and other regimes, is that individual classified as "evil", "terrorist" or other criminal terms we ascribe to these people?

Mr Valder, I really liked your letter, all the more so since I am sure Howard's ministerial office will gag on it. I share your disgust for the current Howard government and its quasi-fascist methods, and I am convinced that history will tar Bush and his two stooges with the same brush as Johnson and Nixon. When Bush ends his term and Blair retires, it will be Howard who has got the most mileage out of this sordid act of imperialism. All signs point to the fact that Howard, rather than seeking to do good deeds with his Senate majority, is hell-bent on abusing his power and punishing defenceless individuals and minorities who do not fit his righteous ideals. There is no point however in beseeching Howard to change direction and start acting in the public interest, but rather let him continue with his current line. We still have the power to vote. Given the acknowledged feebleness of the Opposition, it is precisely the stragegy required to remove this dishonest, mean-spirited excuse for a Prime Minister who has now shown his true colours to the so-called battlers by his barefaced attempts to remove simultaneously our civil liberties and employment conditions. We should never have let him move into Kirrabillee house in the first place, it has clearly gone to his head.

I am sorry I didn't vote for you in Bennelong in 2003, I was not aware of your efforts to unseat his meanness, the rodent.

Jay White, are you just the creation of a bunch of irksome university students playing devil's advocate? This would seem to be the case given the random nature of your posts. When I was at university such a group managed to graduate a fictitious student with a commerce degree. Perhaps you are related to Ludwig Plutonium?

Valder, Fraser and their fellow small l liberal crows should know that their views carry very little credibility within the Liberal Party. They are figures from the 80s who are out of touch with Australian politics, society and its needs. Their whining may be music to the journos in the Fairfax/ ABC but the mainstream Australian community does not care what they think and their political views don't mean much to the society.

Damian Lataan: "Alfred Stimoli, I must once again refer you to my post of 05/10/2005 3:28:59 PM on the Bali Bombing thread."

It's OK Damian, my post was addressed to James Squires, not you.

Greg M, maybe I could have been more clear as I was looking to clarify whether those like the Germans who were to have abided by the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of POW's treated Allied POW"s like this.

I do know about the things the Japanese did but I had thought that they did not abide by the GC and this would be well known and didn't have to be spelt out.

And maybe BL & the like wouldn't care how the CIA treats its prisoners but I'd imagine there would be others who decide an eye for an eye based on how the CIA treats its prisoners. This is hardly the point anyway. Should we judge or excuse our behaviour by the standards of others we oppose?

Anyway what I was trying to get at was the current rationalisation being used by certain GOP's - who one would think acknowledge the Geneva Convention - that it is ok to use these types of torture techniques because it is no worse than what happens at boot camp.

I wanted to know from our right wing apologists on this site - who think that the US cannot do any wrong - if this was done by us or to us, whether we would accept this as part of war or no worse than boot camp, and whether that would be breaking the Geneva Convention?

Interesting note that within living memory the West was attacking innocent civilians using atomic bombs and now we get on our high horse when another group does it. Oh I forget too we get away with it when it is deemed collateral damage.

You talk about being naive. Well to me those on the terrorism bandwagon is just as, if not more selective and naive in their appraisal of the core reasons behind the terrorists motivation and hypocritical in their core morals by dismissing evidence that the COW is committing atrocities.

Just in this post we have the right pointing to words from the horses mouth saying Bali wasn't to do with Iraq but ignore the same horses when they say that occupation and injustice by the West in the ME is the core reason for what they are doing.

Most of the right wingers here are no more than members of the Piers Ackerman club of right wing apologists who rationalise any atrocity perpetrated by Bush or Howard.

Oh Howard was just given wrong info 'kid's overboard', WMD's etc etc so don't talk to me about being naive.

Does this mean the left here is perfect? No, when Bali becomes directly linked to Iraq I think they are also wrong but they are closer to seeing the foundational cause of our current situation, rather than the superficial mischaracterisation of our enemies we get from the right.

BTW I'm so happy you think we should abide by our treaty convention so if the US is breaking the Geneva Convention by using these techniques you will join me in condemning them for doing so?

I think John Valder is caught in felo de se and am pleased to see the vultures coming home to roost. To my eternal shame, it was not the dismissal of the Whitlam Government that impelled me to resign from the Liberal Party and not go back, it was some months later when I attended a branch meeting to find that goons from "head office" were chairing the meeting rather than the President. That was the night I resigned and I have never been back.

Mr Valder was a prominent, rising member of the Party at the time. He, Howard and others promoted the machine in NSW and gave many of the thugs we now suffer their start. The likes of Andrew Peacock and Malcolm Fraser apart, that was the beginning of the political creature that had never done anything else after the age of thirty but machine politics. The age is now down to about the time they leave school. To that extent, they have mirrored the old Trade Union Official tradition in the Labour Party.

Banquo is back to haunt Valder and he cannot escape the ghost he created: it is appropriate that he be haunted by it. The time to repent is past.

Two once great Parties are now no more than tickets to a comfortable superannuation scheme.

Let him mewl as he likes, but he mewls where first he littered. I have no time for death-bed conversions. He should have spoken out in the '70s rather than baying now at the crescent moon. There were those of us then who would have joined in. Yet he preferred to promote the selfish market society by which we are now ruled. Let him live with it, preferably in silence.

Jay White, in deference to Margo, you can have a few says to try to think of an answer.

Don't strain yourself.

Bob Wall: "To not do so might infer that you only believe in justice for those you disagree with. Now that would not seem very Australian or, indeed, democratic. More akin to fascism, perhaps".

Perhaps you should go off and build your own strawhouse (site) and fill it with strawman as well?

You seem to know every debating trick in the book. Pity your not better at it.

Michael de Angelos, stuff Usama, what has happened to Jack Idema now there was a Hollywood story.

It seems to me that it is easy to say that all critics can be labelled as lefty scum or disgruntled ex-whatever and that any reporter that uncovers unpleasant facts has a hidden agenda or had proven mistakes in a primary school essay, but I still wonder what it would take for some people to say "hey, that's a little dodgy".

Is there ever such thing as an unimpeachable source?

It is harder to find the line between legitimate political discourse and sedition. I call myself a lefty with pride but that doesn't stop me from being a valued member of society, either in my capitalist work environment (sales and customer services.. you have to make money to pay the bills) or in my cynicism of the excesses of power. I look and listen and make up my mind, resulting in an abhorrence of the tactics of Labor in NSW. They are using the same tactics to stifle discourse as the federal Liberal party.

I appreciate reading the right wing views, expressed sometime eruditely, on this forum but there seems to be some sort of cult of personality pervading some of the ripostes. Why do we need a leader to tell us what we think when we are obviously possessed with functioning grey matter? Question everything or take it with a grain of salt is my buffer to bullshit. Labor or Liberal.

There are power mongering shits on both sides of the house and they should all be exposed for their duplicity. Should we ask ourselves if we want to support the truth or merely, like a blind footy supporter accept the piss poor result because they are "our team".

There is still a shred of independent thought festering in both the Liberal and Labor as there is on this website, and totally party politics have solved nothing.

John Valder has produced a 'Liberal' view, and I have personally disagreed with many of his viewpoints, but I agree with him that the tactics or methodology of the current government is getting out of hand. I'll accept a well stated argument, but crushing dissent, as the proposed new anti-terror are trying to do, is not contributing to the growth of ideas.

They say knowledge is power, but money is working to silence knowledge. It's OK to cheer for your team, but you shouldn't put up with malfeasance.

Simon Moffitt, the answer to your question as to whether "during WW2 captured diggers were subjected to sleep deprivation, exposure to temperature extremes, restricted to the fetal position for extended periods of time, being beaten or subjected to any extremely degrading situations(?)," is that yes they were, and to much, much worse treatment than that.

I feel sad that you are not aware of the atrocities committed against Australian and other allied prisoners of war, and hundreds of thousands of conscripted Asian labourers, by their Japanese captors in WW2. The Japanese committed those atrocities because their then military code, bushido, despised prisoners of war and treated their lives as forfeit. They chose not to adhere to the Geneva Conventions even though the allies did so with their few Japanese POWs, despite the allies' strong protests and despite their warnings of stern justice being meted out upon Japan's defeat.

If you ever visit Thailand I hope that you will take the time to visit Kanchanaburi, which is only a short distance from Bangkok where you can visit the allied POW war graves and the Thai-Burma railway, where some of the greatest Japanese atrocities against POWs occurred. I think that like me you would find it a humbling and heart-rending experience. If you cannot make the trip then I hope you can read one of the POW accounts of their treatment by the Japanese. Sir Edward Dunlop’s War Diaries is one account I would particularly recommend.

On your rhetorical question: “Or even today would our right wing friends have no problems if this was done to captured Australian personnel?”, whether Australian military personnel who were captured by enemy forces (say Al Zaqarwi’s “insurgents” in Iraq) would be treated to beatings, degrading treatment etc or worse would not be influenced by the way that anyone else, CIA or otherwise, treated their captured operatives.

The beheading of civilians for publicity purposes and use of car bombs against civilian crowds indicate that they have their own “rules of engagement” that have no regard to reciprocity of treatment. Like the Japanese of WW2 they have their own codes of behaviour which are not susceptible to influence by us and they wouldn’t use the excuse that “this is no worse than what occurs at US boot camps so therefore it’s OK", except to gull the most credulous of people in the West. You must be a very naive person if you think otherwise.

I oppose the torturing of prisoners. The reason I do so is not on the trivial basis that you advance, but on the same basis that it was correct for the allies to adhere to the Geneva conventions with their Japanese POWs in WW2, that is that we do so because we do what is right to do so, irrespective of what the other side does. We should stay within our treaty obligations.

Another slightly "off topic" question. Whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Does anyone know?

I thought he caused 9/11 and we were going after him.

Alfred Stimoli, I must once again refer you to my post of 05/10/2005 3:28:59 PM on the Bali Bombing thread.

"There is little pride to be found in knowing the party you support has little support." You must be talking about the unfortunate Democrats in their current state Jay. Presumably not Labor, which has always got the most votes for any single poltical party.

I am a bit of a traditionalist so I rather thought those who have been in a political party before one, may have much to offer. You know in the way we look to Anzacs and their exploits to inspire us. I forget that Australia was created only ten years ago, in the PM's image.

Margo that also seems fair to me. It has nothing to do with Webdiary so therefore Webdiary is not the place to debate it.

Jay White, a business to run and yet there you are, posting away. I would have thought that any spare time would have been occupied by your campaign to ensure that justice is applied equally to all by lobbying for the war criminal and terrorist co-conspirator, John Howard, to be called to account.

I hope I am wrong in assuming that you might not be pursuing this matter. Given your claims to abide by the principal of justice and also Australian and democratic values the least you could do was to declare this process necessary. To not do so might infer that you only believe in justice for those you disagree with. Now that would not seem very Australian or, indeed, democratic. More akin to fascism, perhaps.

Margo, that seems fair and I appreciate you letting me know.

James Squires to Damian Lataan: "Not only do the bombers not agree with you, but the timeline clearly shows the planning for the bombing starting over a year before Iraq was liberated. So basically, as has been pointed out on so many threads before this, wrong."

Shame on you James, didn't you know that whilst most people take their clocks forward 1 hour for daylight saving Damian takes his forward 1 year?

Besides how can a man with '2 sucessful academic careers" ever be wrong? If anyone has got it wrong it has to be Samudra, Muklas and Osama, after all what the hell would they know?

Michael de Angelos "Surely a former Liberal Prime Minister and Federal President of the party has given enough service to their party's political success to be entitled to speak out on what they see as the values of that party".

What political success? When he was running the show they could not win a chook raffle.

As the success (without Mr Valder) has grown so has his critism. It appears some people become so use to falling short they begin to love the concept. There is little pride to be found in knowing the party you support has little support. Only denial and delusion.

It is hard to make a difference in a nation from opposition.

Doesn't any former Liberal identity have a right to his opinion of his party Jay White? Surely a former Liberal Prime Minister and Federal President of the party has given enough service to their party's political success to be entitled to speak out on what they see as the values of that party. You don't have to agree with them but putting them down because they are no longer in powerful positions hardly augurs well for conservative values. Doesn't the PM and Peter Costello keep telling us that older people still have much to contribute to society?

Mark Latham, possibly Simon Filer - I haven't read his diaries but did he have something to say about John Valder?

Sean Hefferon: "Anyway, JW, I would suggest that what Valder brings to the table is a deep insight to the Liberal party, its values and traditions - what do you bring?"

What deep insight? Is he still a member of the party?

The insight he brings is about as deep as Malcolm Fraser's. He (Fraser) of course would know a lot about wars in other lands. Did you know he was Defence Minister during the Vietnam war for two years? A war that used Australian conscripts. How many conscripts are in Iraq?

Yeah right that does not get talked about much anymore. I guess you are the company that you keep.

My apologies this is slightly off topic but no one has posted specifically on the CIA being allowed to use certain torture tactics but can anyone answer whether if during WW2 captured diggers were subjected to sleep deprivation, exposure to temperature extremes, restricted to the fetal position for extended periods of time, being beaten or subjected to any extremely degrading situations that this would have been allowable under the Geneva convention?

Or even today would our right wing friends have no problems if this was done to captured Australian personnel?

The excuse being this is no worse than what occurs at US boot camps so therefore it’s OK.

I wondered how long it would take for that line to attract a strike Dylan Kissane.

In referring to State sponsored terrorism I'm referring to States which provide material and financial aid to "terrorist" organisations. Such organisations being – for example – Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic jihad or the well known al-Qaeda.

I wouldn't define the "offer" of a possible $50K to the family of someone who blew themselves up in another country (was it ever claimed?) as an act carried out as state sponsored terror.

I would however see the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization) as a terror organisation – as does the US – sponsored by the former Iraqi regime. It sponsored this mob (as opposed to other religious based organisations such – anathema in Saddam's Iraq) because it vehemently opposed the Iranian regime (with whom it is at "war"). Possibly the same reason the US now deals with it (all the while leaving it on its terrorist organisations list).

Damian Lataan, I see you are still peddling the same old “Bali bombings were about Iraq” line, even though on previous threads this has been totally demolished. So here is the information again, from the perpetrators mouths. This gives a good look at the build up too.

TRANSLATION OF SAMUDRA'S CONFESSION: One - to oppose the barbarity of the US army of the Cross and its allies - England, Australia, and so on. Two - to take revenge for the 200,000 men, women, and children and babies who died without sin when thousands of tonnes of bombs were dropped in Afghanistan. Three, Australia had taken part in efforts to separate East Timor from Indonesia, which was an international conspiracy by followers of the Cross.

TRANSLATION OF OSAMA BIN LADEN: The crusader Australian forces were on Indonesian shores and they landed on East Timor, which is part of the Islamic world.

TRANSLATION OF MUKLAS'S CONFESSION: We planned the explosion in Bali because there are many places in Bali that are visited by tourists from these countries, such as the United States, England, France, Australia, Israel, and other countries who behave despotically towards Muslims.

Not only do the bombers not agree with you, but the timeline clearly shows the planning for the bombing starting over a year before Iraq was liberated.

So basically, as has been pointed out on so many threads before this, wrong.

Margo: James, I have deleted the last sentence for the same reason I haven't published Jay's comments which also take on certain content in the blog you linked to therein. Webdiary is a space for civil discourse and I'm gunna keep it that way. I'd like to make it clear to Webdiarists that James and Jay have nothing to do with the content I'm talking about. The person responsible is Damian Lataan. I can't and won't take responsibility for what Webdiarists publish outside Webdiary, but I won't publish or link to it in Webdiary when it breaches Webdiary's ethics.

Actually CP, the bombs in Jordan could be because 60% of the population is from Palestine and it seems that a leader from Palestine was the target.

Now how do we explain the mass murders in Iraq committed by the trio of the killing?

Let me see now. Chemical and biological weapons? Weapons of mass destruction? Nearly nuclear weapons?

What, none were found, well gee only the whole world said don't go and bomb the crap out of Iraq but did we listen?

No we didn't.

Now we want to send people to prison for 25 years for doing nothing at all.

Mark Latham recent enough for you Michael De Angelos?

Michael Park, can you explain how one country paying people to use terror tactics to achieve a political end in another country is not state sponsored terrorism?

If there is a terrorist attack in Australia, John Howard bears the "lion's share"' of the blame, Mr Valder??

Not the terrorists who committed the act??

Proof positive that the brains of Valder and his ilk have left planet Earth and are in orbit around some distant world.

Mahmoud, you asked, "A Mills, could you please explain to me what 'Fundamentalist Islam' is? Are you alluding that one who follows the Koran word for word, letter for letter, has an open license from Allah to kill whom he please?"

Not sure if its a serious question or rhetorical for that matter but here goes. I see fundamentalist anything (Islam, Christianity, etc) as a group who believes that the laws of their religion usurp the laws of the country in which they reside. Alternatively, I would consider any religious group who uses violence to further their means as fundamentalist.

And before you ask, being caught with bomb making materials or denying the bleeding obvious (eg perpetrators of 9/11) would also fit under the description.

"So, today's terrorist mass murders in Jordan?" And what's your point C Parsons? While I have no idea who is behind this terrible event it's more than likely that it is to apply poltical pressure in Jordan - and these tactics are completely odious to old lefties as well - it cannot be compared to what happens here unless we are somehow involved.

Nice trawl back through history with the Churchill piece though. Anything more recent? Winston did become more liberal as he got older but sadly, it didn't stop the Brits from dumping him as soon as the war was over.

I note that Stuart Lord continues to push the ludicrous right-wing nonsense that Bali (the bombing) happened before Iraq. Rubbish! It happened long AFTER Iraq was lined up to be the next target for US aggression, shortly after the aggression against Afghanistan which, I might remind those right-wingers with short convenient memories, was a FULL YEAR before the Bali bombings.

Keith Antonysen: "For those with a conservative bent it is somewhat difficult to argue again a former leader of the Liberal Party."

Why not?

I mean, Winston Churchill was once on record calling for the abolition of the House of Lords. (A.N Wilson, After the Victorians 1901-1953, Hutchinson Press 2005)

So, today's terrorist mass murders in Jordan?

Because Jordan has "troops in Iraq", I suppose? Like Kenya and Indonesia.

"What the Iraq war has done for terrorism though is it has increased the pool from which terrorist organisations can recruit from, it has taken away resources and much needed focus needed in combating terrorism and its causes and it has given yet another reason for Muslims to hate the west whether we conceive of this war as legitamite or not."

Not to mention Matt Byrne that holiest and most sacred of Apis bulls, that which "dare not speak its name", that most seditious of "dog's testicles": signing up unconditionally for the Mesopotamian mis-adventure has – as that most politically adulterated and undermined federal officer once said – indeed made us a bigger target for those same terrorists.

We now have "State" (or at least part of that state) sponsored "terrorism" – which did not exist in Iraq in any manner like it now does – set up as an export industry (and no, offering $50k to the family of some dimwit to blow him/her self up in Gaza, the West Bank or Israel is not state sponsored terrorism). It rolls across borders to Afghanistan like Iraqi oil used to roll through pipes to the Gulf.

Don't mention the war.

I sent John Valder's letter to my Federal and State members - one of them even responded.

Keith Antonysen: "In relation to IR we are meant to believe the Coalition when they argue about how good it is; when in New Zealand ordinary people are worse off through their workplace reforms."

Good point. So much so that they gave up on them and repealed their individual-contract laws a few years ago. But they still haven't recovered from the damage done after a decade of that crap. This ought to have been all over the media here, but naturally this hasn't happened.

There are plenty of links out there on the 1991 Employment Contracts Act (NZ) and its aftermath, but one possible starting point is here.

ed Hamish: does anyone know of a writer from New Zealand who may wish to give Webdiary a briefing about this history.

Thanks John, hope there are people of conscience in the Senate today when the laws are due to rushed through, gagged by "the guillotine". The headless corpse of a body which is supposed to debate and review is where democracy is headed - into a basket case. What an image. Will there be Senators who stand up for democracy today?

And thanks Carl Baker. You have enunciated my thoughts exactly.

Jay White, we do live in the here and now, whatever age people have resided in they have wanted to live in a world where due process is enabled utilising an ethical approach. Do you not believe in ethics Jay?

Principles held by Mr Valder are a blueprint to operate in a structured and ethical way. Mr Menzies felt the electorate should be informed; laws were not pushed through Parliament in a willy nilly manner but duly debated and considered. Should the electorate be kept in the dark Jay and fed popcorn?

The Federal Government certainly doesn't believe in ethics. Two instances being contempt shown towards Parlialiament by Mr Howard and his band of yes men; the other instance being the unsuccessful advertising campaign in relation to IR. The advertising campaign being wasteful of public resources and partisan in its approach. You need to be pretty gullible to think otherwise.

For those with a conservative bent it is somewhat difficult to argue again a former leader of the Liberal Party. Mr Valder has argued strongly about the moral disintegration of the Liberal Party leadership.

Mr Howard has also been roundly criticised by Mr Fraser, former Liberal Prime Minister. The principles of the Liberal Party as formulated by Mr. Menzies have been blown apart by Mr Howard.

We ordinary Australians are meant to respect the unrespectable. Australia is fast becoming a laissez faire hell hole for many Australians through the rampant policy fomulation of the Conservative Parties. In relation to IR we are meant to believe the Coalition when they argue about how good it is; when in New Zealand ordinary people are worse off through their workplace reforms. We are all meant to reside under a mushroom, the bull... being at least thigh deep at present.

A Mills, could you please explain to me what “Fundamentalist Islam” is? Are you alluding that one who follows the Koran word for word, letter for letter, has an open license from Allah to kill whom he please?

Carl Baker, could you please explain to me what “Fundamentalist Islam” is? Are you alluding that one who follows the Koran word for word, letter for letter, has an open license from Allah to kill whom he please?

Webdiarist, if I could obtain a dollar for every time someone used the term “Fundamentalist Islam” I would be a multi-millionaire by now.

I saw Howard on TV last night, briefly, talking about the arrests.

I'm fascinated by his body language, the Samurai stare, the sliding lips that take a while to settle on a word, the odd shoulder-placement...

But the almost-smile before his resumption of the heavy oratorical marriage of prefect and ferret: the arrests are another form of me-too.

Australia's there! See us? See us? We've got 'em here, just like the Big Countries... So we're a Big Country now, aren't we, aren't we, aren't we?

Yes, we have a weak Opposition, just like the US, corporate media so close to the gov't that we're almost Italy, globalisation like the bottom half of the Louisiana or the top half of India. But what will do us in is still and always the depth of our official insecurity, the colonial/cultural cringe.

Terrorism may well happen without Iraq, Stuart Lord but not necessarily here. As arrests have now been made here we have the perfect opportunity to examine what drives these people, although we may not like what we find. Looking at all the main terrorists groups since WW11 the driving reasons have been either political or connected to lands occupied by foreign forces.

One of the few successes Tony Blair has had in his career was the cease-fire agreement with the IRA. They of course, had a history of brutal killings in the thousands over decades with just a small force. Isn't it now a time to examine what drives others to commit suicide bombings and kill innocent people so we may prevent terrible deeds in the future? Or do Australians want to continue down the path of fear? Isn't it time we did something to remove this problem so that politicians may get back to properly governing the country and we are more united as a people?

Afterall it was what John Howard claimed was his desire when first elected, and something he alluded to yesterday in Canberra.

Stuart Lord: "Terrorism would happen with or without Iraq. End of story."

This is true and I don't think anyone is denying that. What the Iraq war has done for terrorism though is it has increased the pool from which terrorist organisations can recruit from, it has taken away resources and much needed focus needed in combating terrorism and its causes and it has given yet another reason for Muslims to hate the west whether we conceive of this war as legitamite or not. So I think you are being a little naive in thumbing your nose to the relationship that the Iraq invasion has with terrorism.

John Valder’s letter expresses brilliantly the feelings, I’m certain, of very great numbers of Australians. Top marks to Webdiary for publishing the document.

John Valder’s emphasis on the Bush-Howard axis points to the genesis of our present predicament. It may also point to some difficult times ahead for our dear leader. Bush is rapidly losing respectability in his own country and internationally. Howard has placed himself dangerously close to the unpredictable US president. For example, would Howard send Australian troops into Iran or Syria? There is no graceful way he can distance himself from his (sinking?) mentor.

And what about the cabinet? Supine ministers seem to behave more like scared Kremlin puppets. Or are they so naive as to believe that the country has been set on the right path? You can’t blame the Liberals alone (as John Valder says) - after all, Beazley seems to spend a great deal of his time telling the government how right they are in what they do. Even Beazley’s IR bill parliamentary theatrics are looking vapid.

Judging by John Valder’s analysis we should vote both sides out at the next election.