Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Now, this is going to be interesting to watch. The mother of two Australian children has been thrown into prison by the Marxist creep Robert Mugabe, who as you know styles himself as Africa's answer to Fidel Castro.

Arrested alongside the two leaders of Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change, Arthur Mutambara and Morgan Tsvangirai, before they were due to address a rally in Harare’s Highfield township Sunday were a number of supporters, including Australian mum Sekai Holland.  I actually remember Sekai from years ago when she was active in the anti-apartheid movement. In those days she was also a supporter of the Marxist ZANU faction then opposed to Mugabe's Marxist ZAPU faction (I think that's right). Anyway, nowadays she supports Democratic Change.

A complicating factor for Sekai is that she recently renounced her Australian citizenship in favour of Zimbabwean citizenship to avoid being deported by the mob running Africa's most exemplary experiment in Socialism. Now, Sekai's not exactly some right wing running dog of George W Bush or Pik Botha.

My personal memories of Sekai, from our university days, include her rebuking me in front of classmates for suggesting that Communist China might be a less than an entirely satisfactory example of a workers' paradise, and on one occasion having her snatch from my hand a copy of Hedrick Smith's great book on Breznhev-era USSR life, 'The Russians' on the grounds that someone's personal eye-witness account of life in the Soviet Union must be inferior to officially authorised accounts published by the Soviet regime. I had to retrieve the book from a waste-bin handy to where Sekai was sitting in the student canteen.

Anyway, notwithstanding her Marxist zeal, I don't think Sekai ever went so far as to join a militia, shoot at people, torture animals, express racist sentiments, or fawn all over Osam bin Laden, so it will be interesting to see whether a nation-wide, mass campaign is put in place to get her out of gaol. Or whether she just disappears altogether.

Sekai's Australian born husband and her children remain in Australia, so that might give her a bit more international political leverage with Mugabe's regime than the rest of what he refers to as "filth" (Zimbabwe's opposition supporters and unemployed masses).

Source:  www.citizenship.gov.au/becoming-a-citizen/index.htm

Privileges of Australian Citizens.

It entitles you to privileges of Australian citizenship giving you the right to:

• live in Australia.
• apply for a Australian passport and to leave and re-enter Australia without applying for a resident return visa
• seek assistance from Australian diplomatic representatives while overseas
• vote to help elect Australia's governments
• stand for Parliament
• work in the public service
• serve in the armed forces
• register as Australian citizens by descent any of your children born overseas after you become an Australian citizen.

Responsibilities of Australian Citizens

Citizenship also brings with it responsibilities.  For example, citizens are required to:

• obey Australian laws
• enrol on Federal and state/territory electoral registers
• vote in elections
• defend Australia should the need arise
• serve on a jury if called to do so.

The rule of law in most, if not all democratic countries are based on the Westminster system with a strong alliance to the Christian Bible.

The U.K., the U.S, and Australia have a "rule of law" which, in most cases, is identical in intent if not the exact wording.

The Howard "New Order" has been ducking and weaving for five long years while David Hicks suffers in a U.S. torture camp that has been set up for that express purpose.

The Bush administration, supported only by the Howard government, are the only governments of the civilised world which commits and encourages these flagrant breaches of Human Rights.

Is it something that Hicks knows which the "New Order" doesn't want disclosed?  Possible but, with their servitude to the U.S. the CIA would soon have him accidentally a victim of the "black ops".

As strange as it may seem to dinkum Australians, it is probable that these arrogant and depraved "New Order" criminals made a major error by fawning to the "bully" and sacrificing this Australian Citizen without any dignity or appearance of independence.

Let us not forget that Howard, Downer and Ruddock found Hicks guilty of "something" even before there were any charges or evidence of wrongdoing.

When they accused him of being a combatant with the "enemy" they found that he would have rights under the Geneva Convention.  Not a good result.

So the Bush Administration invented another term for these "stateless" people.  And only the Howard Liberals agreed and even applauded its "fairness".

The Howard "New Order" Liberals have trashed the spirit and intent of our Constitution to end the Federalism which was installed in 1901 for the benefit of the Australian people.

They have trashed Australian values, the Freedom of Information and, because of their treatment of Australian Citizens overseas, especially David Hicks, the 18 lawyers in his Cabinet should be disenfranchised and forbidden from serving even on a Jury in this Nation.

Equally and more definitely, those who support this government of depraved indifference, do so with the mistaken belief that "it will never happen to me"! Fair dinkum.

NE OUBLIE.

In the Federal Court case launched by a legal team acting for David Hicks, Solicitor-General David Bennett QC has argued that the Government has no legal duty to protect Hicks:

“There is no duty on the executive government to sit down every day and consider whether any particular request should or could be made to a particular foreign government,” Mr Bennett said.

As nearly as I can unpack Mr Bennett’s statement, I think it means that the Government has no legal compulsion to act, and may do so or not at its whim. Thus, the Government’s intercession on behalf of nationals who get into trouble overseas may be entirely subject to political considerations.

Essentially, the Government seems to be arguing that it can’t be expected to act upon each and every call for help from each and every Australian national who gets into trouble overseas.

Hmmm... just as the Prime Minister can’t be expected to give a running commentary on each and every issue of the day.

So, whether it’s foreign intercession or running commentary, the PM’s and the Government’s rule of thumb seems to hinge on the political imperatives case by case. At least there’s a certain inner consistency there, I guess.

Down in SA's South East, in the town of Frances, a little folk festival happens every year.. a couple of hundred folkies, a couple of thousand locals dropping by over the weekend.  As the idea of creating it had been to reintroduce music playing to the local community (my family being the instigators) the bond that has been growing between the folkies and the farmers is pretty important.

Somebody parked a van beside the main marquee covered with Free Hicks slogans, and the much discussed motto on the vehicle's back proclaiming "John Hunt is a Coward".

The garishly coated Kombi  was greeted with open arms by the folkies.  With the locals it was another matter.  An ambassador was sent on behalf of the local community to request that the van be moved.  "A lot of people have been upset by it" was the explanation. Explaining that a lot of the folkies were in favour of Hicks' release didn't help.  To the dismay of many the van was duly moved.

Over the next couple of days I heard a lot of talk between both camps on the matter, and I don't think it did any harm at all.  Two communities with polarised viewpoints were at least able to agree to disagree and debate aspects of the matter. 

Whether minds were changed is irrelevant. That two groups who wouldn't normally discuss such matters beyond their own circles were able to exchange and compare their sentiments was probably a new process for many.

As the town is smack-bang on the border, there's talk of Trade Union choirs from both Vic and SA meeting there next year.  That will be interesting.

Roger Fedyk: "How’s this for hyperbole, folks..."

Oh, it's all hyperbole, Roger. All that Chicken Little clucking about calamity, and the audacity of those chimeric 'lefties' presuming to be, of all things, lawyers.

Undoubtedly the sky will fall in on us if the great unwashed and unannointed are allowed to trespass into the lofty realm of the law. It's the beginning of the end when lay people hold forth about legal principles. Next they'll be pissing and moaning about rights and similar rarified claptrap.

Well anyway, hyperbole is a fair indicator of the poverty of an argument. When all seems lost, just crank up the fear-and-loathing rhetoric, caricaturing the 'opposition' in some highfalutin' metastory, whilst hinting none-too-subtly as to one's Olympian condescension.

Works a treat! (At least, when preaching to the choir...)

C Parsons:  " I posted a link to an online history site answering your question, but the editor for doubtless very good reasons (I mean that) chose to not publish it."

That was very brave of you C Parsons, but at this point in time a mere excuse that proves nothing.

My previous comment still stands unless you can support your inferences with something that is considered publishable and factual.

Bryan Law: "C. Parsons, you'd be one of the few people I know who can describe five years of hard time, doing a lot of solitary and punishment, as getting off scot free."

Compared with what should have happened, David Hicks being processed through some Northern Alliance court martial or perhaps being simply shot outright as a foreign mercenary or spy (his admission) then yes, he's getting off scot free, thanks to the US$1500 bounty on his head..

Assuming, of course, the Indian government doesn't get its hands on the gallant little adventurer sometime between now and when 'Injun' David arrives to a hero's welcome at an Adelaide Peace Group AGM.

Anyway, all this compassionate concern for the fate of trigger happy hotheads has brought back memories of Lieutenant Rusty Calley, who led the charge at My Lai. He got life, but only served six years, according to this Socialist Worker article:

"President Richard Nixon came to Calley’s rescue--and had him released from prison, pending appeal. He was paroled in 1974. Calley would later become a well-paid speaker on the right-wing lecture circuit, earning $2,000 a speech."

Now, if he'd only fought for the Taliban or trained at an al-Q'aida spy school, he'd have been on the chardonnay lecture circuit or running for Parliament here in Australia after he'd been released.

Roger Earl, I posted a link to an online history site answering your question, but the editor for doubtless very good reasons (I mean that) chose to not publish it. Some of the loudest advocates out there (not here) for the right to free speech are also amongst the quickest to serve a writ if you draw attention to even the slightest chink in their armour.

It would appear C Parsons is unwilling to supply proof to support his inferences regarding Tim Anderson. One can only assume that if C Parsons cannot supply such proof then he should at least behave like a gentleman and withdraw his cowardly and childish inferences; if not, one can only assume that his inferences are more of a true reflection of his character rather than his accused.

C. Parsons, you'd be one of the few people I know who can describe five years of hard time, doing a lot of solitary and punishment, as getting off scot free.

Trevor Kerr: "I guess David Hicks' liking for flamboyant discharges from small-arms and his training as bomber makes him suitable for a certain type of paramilitary group. But would he have been accepted in the Aussie army?"

According to Terry Hicks in 'The President vs David Hicks', David applied to join the Australian Army but was rejected on the grounds of his poor education, having not reached Year 10.

My full address is 2/161B Nithsdale Road. Glasgow. G41 5QS United Kingdom.

Knock before entering though.

“The idea is to create as much of a political furore as possible in the hope of using political pressure to get the swaggering little mercenary off scot free. I mean, it worked for Tim Anderson.”

Me too Trevor Kerr, the above comment infers C Parsons believes that Tim Anderson was a mercenary and got off for something he should not have. Maybe C Parsons would like to provide proof of what he actually did and of his mercenary behaviour. I’m sure Tim Anderson would like C Parsons to provide proof as well. Maybe C Parsons would like to clarify his position.

By the way C Parsons who did bomb the Hilton?

I guess David Hicks' liking for flamboyant discharges from small-arms and his training as bomber makes him suitable for a certain type of paramilitary group. But would he have been accepted in the Aussie army? Our ADF criteria may or may not exclude people with sociopathy, but how would this bloke have shaped up as a regular soldier? Would he have taken orders, or ever have been capable of giving them? These are not trivial concerns, in view of the need to get more people into the ADF. We wouldn't want to train nutters in the use of guns and bombs, would we?

Perhaps it's a good thing David Hicks is locked up, looking at the verbosity being cast his way. Typical of cricketers - all mouth when there's no chance of copping a backhand excuse to go whining back to mummy. So, I am disappointed there hasn't been a follow-up on the passing reference to a Tim Anderson. I know of one who is not behind bars, who knows the system from seven years experience and who can look after himself.

So, my concern turns toward C Parsons. I'd like to see regular contributions, only to know CP is still in robust good health and not too preoccupied by legal matters. Or perhaps CP now recollects he was referring to another Tim Anderson of the same name? I would like to help, so will start with the phone book. CP, can you please include your full name, address, phone number and email with your next post?

“but he is entitled to being tried in a regular court of law, not a kangaroo court”

And that’s the problem those who play kids games fully understand. They know it is not fair, but with blind support for the morons in charge they surrender their sense or fairness and resort to schoolyard name calling, thus sinking to the level of spoilt little children.

“Again I say "play the ball" and not the man.“

Unfortunately the man is all they have to play with, because the ball is all too hard. Would it be fair to use the below as proof of the pathological behaviour of the President of USA:

“One of the local rituals for children,” reported Nicholas D. Kristof of Life in Midland, Texas, when George W. was a boy, “were meetings with cookies and milk at the home of a nice old lady who represented the SPCA. The cookies were digested more thoroughly than the teachings.

‘We were terrible to animals,' recalled [Bush pal Terry] Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush borne turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. `Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Throckmorton said. `Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.’”

I would argue that the majority of people (especially males) has been cruel to defenceless creatures at some point or another, I have witnessed much myself over the years, and to resort to this type of comparison only reveals how desperate some people get.

PS. Dick Cheney shoots birds for fun, and friends because he is an irresponsible fool. But I don’t hear any of those who “play the man” complain.

One thing I notice about the fear-mongers on this site is their inability to respond to rational argument.

I'm impressed by how many times the allegations of torturing mice, firing "hundreds of rounds", and eating more than his fair share of jelly beans are broadcast to make David into a "monster" we ought kill.

The same people maintain a calculated silence about the systemic, calculated torture of thousands of Iraqis through Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and various secret CIA dungeons around the world to which people continue to be illegally kidnapped and detained.

The issue is human rights and the rule of law.

And yes, C Parsons, I can find love in my heart for John Howard, and George Bush.  The way I do it is to imagine them as newborn babies - innocent and in a state of grace.  Completely lovable.  Then I ponder just what hurts have been placed upon them to have deformed their natural human goodness into numb brutality and blind obedience.

With John Howard I suspect he was forced to do his numbers beyond any reasonable expectation, and now seeks to punish everyone else in a similar way.

Richard Tonkin: "Whether saint or sinner, Hicks should be released."

Let's imagine David Hicks had been an Australian freelance CIA agent trapped behind enemy lines in Iran and that he freely admitted in a letter home that he enjoyed shooting hundreds of rounds at Iranian people, and went on to brag about his covert operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Kosovo. Somehow, I don't think Kerry Nettle or Peter Singer or Richard Neville or the folks at Green Left Havana would give a rats arse if he was strangled in his cell himself, let alone his pet mice.

Richard Tonkin: "There's going to be a US Supreme Court challenge to the ruling that Guantanamo inmates can't appeal their incarceration in the US civilian court system.  Fat chance now that Hicks will stand trial for another year."

Stalling through the appeals process is the core defense game plan. They've actually admitted it.

"The challenges to the veracity, legality, fairness of the process will occupy the civil courts in America one way or the other over the next couple of years." - David McLeod, Hicks' Adelaide lawyer.

The idea is to create as much of a political furore as possible in the hope of using political pressure to get the swaggering little mercenary off scot free. I mean, it worked for Tim Anderson.

There's going to be a US Supreme Court challenge to the ruling that Guantanamo inmates can't appeal their incarceration in the US civilian court system.  Fat chance now that Hicks will stand trial for another year.

So much for PM Howard's assurances from President Bush. 

C Parsons, play the ball!  Reputation smearing has little to do with the ethics of the situation, nor with the sentiment of the Australian public.  Whether saint or sinner, Hicks should be released.  The Australian Government has no business giving further support to Hicks' imprisonment

By the way, how do you justify condemning Hicks for "torturing" mice without condemning the torturers of the man?  If this kind of referred catharsis is keeping David sane, then I can relate.  There are lots mice.  Many of them are killed by people... are you going to lock up everyone who's hurt a mouse?

mike lyvers: "Unfortunately not everyone is as brave or unconcerned as you say you would be if a psychopath moved in next door."

The idea of David strangling the mice in his cell and hanging their bodies from the wall as well as his boasting about firing "hundreds of rounds" at the Indians, coupled with his profound racism are all pointing in a particular direction aren't they?

Bryan Law: "David Hicks doesn't deserve our sympathy.  He deserves our love."

I was overcome with waves of love for David as his father Terry last night on on SBS television gently read aloud one of his son's letters in which David's announces his intention to go Afghanistan and fight with the Taliban against the Jewish hegemony over world civilisation.

And that was in a purportedly a pro-Hicks documentary, The President versus David Hicks.

David's chagrin at the media getting hold of that picture of him from his days in the KLA apparently firing a rocket propelled grenade was amusing, as were his father's ceasleess efforts at rationalising away David's decisions to go repeatedly off to foreign lands and kill their citizens as part of his need to 'find himslef'.

Quite liked the bit, too, from David's former Guantanemo inmate laughing at how David liked to torture mice in his cell. And of the Lashkar-e-Toiba thug berating Terry demanding to know why, as his father, he would want to know what his son had been doing all those years wandering around verious killing zones.

Other highlights include the Northern Alliance guys describing David's arrest - he was shitting himself and pleading to be let go - and their eyes glazing over with boredom as Terry explains that David would have like to help them in their present circumstances. Yea, right.

I'd recommend this "documentary" to anyone. David epitomises the New Man and his dad stands for everything that is good in the "peace" movement.

Anyway, another victory for the Hicks legal team...

"The challenges to the veracity, legality, fairness of the process will occupy the civil courts in America one way or the other over the next couple of years."

- David McLeod, Hicks' Adelaide lawyer , February 15, 2007. 4:32pm (AEDT)

"The US federal appeals panel in Washington DC ruled inmates held at the American military base in Cuba do not have the right to challenge their detention in lower federal courts. The three judge panel ruled 2-1. However, instead of paving the way for Hicks to be prosecuted at a military commission trial after five years in US custody, the court decision will likely cause more delays.
It is expected the decision will be challenged in America's highest court, the US Supreme Court." - SMH, today, February 21, 2007 - 6:21AM

So, who is dragging out this process, hmmmmm?

Meanwhile the US military has announced Adelaide-born Hicks, 31, Omar Khadr of Canada and Salim Hamdan of Yemen would be the first three Guantanamo inmates to be prosecuted via the revamped military commission trial system.

I say, send them back to Afghanistan where the appeals process might not be so lengthy.

My, my Geoff, such a torrent of fear and outrage.

How do you find the space to do any clear thinking?

David Hicks doesn't deserve our sympathy.  He deserves our love.  As do the victims and perpetraters of the outrages you list.

I opened this morning's newspaper and turned to The World section. The lead article was about a bomb attack on the India-Pakistan "Friendship Express" train by Islamic militants. At least 67 people were killed and many more injured.

No one has claimed  immediate responsibility for the attack but I'd bet the house  it was the same mob that bombed the Mumbai train system last year. All-Qa'ida-linked Lashkar-e-Toiba, which is based in Pakistan. The same mob David Hicks is known to have helped in other operations.

There was another article about how Al-Qa'ida leaders, operating from Pakistan, have re-established control over their terrorist network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border.

A report from Thailand was about a resurgence of bombings, shootings and arson attacks by Islamic militants and separatists in the southern provinces, shattering a peace initiative.

Meanwhile in Iraq, another 68 people have been murdered by miliants. I am not sure if anybody bothers to count the wounded and maimed anymore.

Later in the morning I checked out what was happening at WD. No surprises. Not a word about any of these outrages. Hundreds of words about the travesties of justice inflicted on poor David Hicks. Plenty of stuff about his rights. Not a word about the rights of the latest crop of dead and wounded innocent people across the world at the hands of Islamic militants  utterly determined to kill any chance of peace in three regions or die trying. The usual bitter condemnations of the Australian Government and the US for the treatment of Hicks. Not a word of criticism for the killers of innocents.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that David Hicks is not entitled to be treated fairly. Certainly I haven't. It's the absence of any sense of proportion that sickens me. Hicks is entitled to the rule of law. So are the people he did his best to kill and those murdered in their thousands by his comrades.  He is not entitled to sympathy    

Mike Lyvers, how lucky are you?   You've got a wonderful opportunity in front of you to step through fear and become more powerful and satisfied as a human being.

When you embrace this opportunity you'll start to notice what a very little thing fear is, and how the war-mongers pump it up for all their worth to create a passive, pliable population of food animals.

The next step is to find and build the power of love in your own heart, and bond with the strands of human and universal love all around you.  As Nelson Mandela, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther Kin Jr, and Dorthy Day exemplify - you will become powerful beyond measure.

I'd welcome David Hicks as a neighbour, and partake in the joy of a human soul recovered.

Watch MLK's "I have a dream" speech, where he calls for the long delayed fulfillment of the American Dream.  We need some of that today.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEMXaTktUfA

If the Prime Minister chooses to stay the course regarding David Hicks, then he has only one course of action. He must appeal to the hearts and minds of the minority of Australians who have less respect for the rule of law than their desire to focus their hatred on one individual.

The very Christian Peter Costello is already on the job and we can expect more to come, it is not going to be pretty. This off course could be a very risky strategy especially if a majority of the electorate continue to respect the rule of law, and see through the predictable mind games of frightened politicians.

If the Prime Minister continues to stay the course with all its nastiness, then he risks flaming dissent, in the electorate but worse, in his own party. At best the Prime Minister may reclaim some of the middle, at worst he will become an election issue in himself; this he must avoid at all costs.

It will be interesting to see if the Prime Minister can turn this one around, or will his judgement and the good looking pretender outdo him?

Those who choose to play, judge, jury and executioner in support of our Prime Minister and their right to have an opinion, may well consider that they could be hurting the Prime Minister more than helping him. I suspect the majority of thoughtful Australians will see this type of support as childish and cruel, and same re the Prime Minister’s choice to keep David Hicks locked up at his pleasure.

In this little political poker game the Prime Minister would do best to fold, he can’t hold, but must raise the stakes for any possibility of a political gain, albeit slight. The odds are against him and he knows his hand is rubbish.

The PM must fold and direct his and the electorate’s attention to local stuff. With low unemployment, interest rates and inflation the Prime Minister should romp in at the next election, that’s the way it works for sitting governments in this country.

And to all those who enjoy the sight of our Prime Minister having to engage his opposite (and equal) don’t get too worked up, the Hicks poker game may well cost him, but at the end of the day he is sitting on a sh*t load of chips, complements of you and me, and this political poker tournament has a long way to go.

PS. But the PM losing his seat is a rather delicious dream (for some he he).

I have noticed over the last six months or so that articles in The Age appear to be reasonably balanced.

For eleven long years I have hoped for just one unbiased: National Newspaper; National Radio Station and a National T/V Station.  Howard can still have the rest - just give us a breath of "free" air.

For example, I quote from The Age from June 14, 2004 entitled "The Charges against David Hicks".

The US military has outlined a weak case against an Australian accused of terrorism.

If David Hicks is among the "worst of the worst" of alleged terrorists held by the United States military in Guantanamo Bay, as he has been described by the Howard Government, then pity those detainees whose behaviour is considered less heinous and, yet, still await being charged let alone their day in court.

After two-and-a-half years in custody, Hicks has finally been charged.  This belated small mercy in processing the former Adelaide man detained in Afghanistan in December 2001 is to be welcomed, and is the most significant step since the US determined it would not execute him if found guilty. [Emphasis added]

Hicks has been charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy.  But the charges are significant for what they do not spell out.  Though they are extremely serious, there is no allegation that Hicks killed or specifically harmed anyone.

His captors assert instead that he trained in al-Qaeda camps, guarded a Taliban tank at Kandahar airport and travelled to Konduz in northern Afghanistan to join Taliban engaged in combat against US-led forces.  They say he intended to kill coalition combatants in Afghanistan between September and December 2001.  They assert he aided al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the context of armed conflict.  In the absence of specifics it is impossible to make any futher assessment.

There are, however, some puzzling aspects, such as the claim that Hicks translated al-Qaeda training material into English from Arabic, a language of which he is believed to have had only a limited command. 

The charges are to be heard before a military commission within a matter of months.  This, like so many aspects of the process to date, mocks the democratic values US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq was meant to uphold.  [Emphasis added]

The legal limbo in which Hicks and other detainees are held means they have been unable to invoke the writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of their imprisonment.  They are held on Cuban soil, leading to the technical legal argument that this exempts them from the protection of the US constitution and the normal legal protections to which a prisoner is entitled.  They have been held as enemy combatants, not prisoners of war, and so have been denied the protections  of the Geneva Convention.  Yet the charges against Hicks relate to belligerent conduct.

Through the willing surrender of two of its citizens to this process, the Australian Government has set a dangerous precedent that should alarm all Australians.  The military commission that will hear the case against Hicks is an extension of the US executive, not an independent tribunal.  It is answerable ultimately to a US President who has called those in Guantanamo evil people. [Emphasis added]

This is second class justice.  Even alleged terrorists are due their day in court.  Nothing in these latest developments overtakes THE AGE's belief that the fate of Hicks should be decided under Australian law or before a properly constituted international tribunal, not by the US military.

Amen to that.

I have watched the Howard "New Order" Liberals grovelling to the US for the purpose of showing their loyalty to them.  This is NOT about whether this Australian citizen is guilty of the charges which change constantly with the Howard government's demands that they want this Australian citizen found guilty of "something".  Fair dinkum.

If that is the US Military/Corporate "justice" that Howard is trying to force on us - give it a miss - but for goodness sake "New Order", don't call it democracy!

Remember that the "New Order" Liberals are demanding that they "will get on with the job".

And remember also that "There but for the grace of God goeth I".

Treasurer Costello said on the radio this morning that people had lost perspective on what Hicks was charged with.  He then proceeded to link the case to the Twin Towers attack.  "Australians died in the World Trade Centre, so by all means the man is entitled to a trial, but let's not sanctify what he did or why he was there." said he.

What a cheap shot at the public heart.  If Costello would use S11 as a quick point scoring tactic he has denigrated the lives of those who died on that day. 

Welcome to the world of the ethically bankrupt, Peter.  Unfortunately, I think you've been conned.

Surely some spinner must've told him that such a stunt could backfire ... on him? Or did Howard tell him to use the line to knobble his cred-factor?  John's in a much better position, having talked to GWB overnight and having received a personal assurance from Dubya that things would be hurried along.  I wonder if this would be anything to do with the Washington Post's overnight publication of a story on Hicks serving his time in Australia?

Depending on which placards appear in the US broadcasts of the upcoming Cheney protests, the issue has a chance of hurting Bush.  Hicks could well be seen as a martyr for the other 400 Guantanemo inmates. 

Hicks, now portrayed as transformed into a gnarly middle-aged Arab by the wonders of computer augmentation, won't be charged with embassy spying.  That was a lie.  What else is a lie? Why the level of desperation to villify this particular captive?  I thought it might be because he's white, but if that was the case then it isn't now.  I bet the simulated picture is all over FOX by now.

Ernest William: "Yes, while Hess was sentenced to life imprisonment, and there was some restlessness in the Western world about the "old man", the Soviets insisted he pay the entire penalty."

Neurath, Raeder and Funk were released earlier due to their ill health, so keeping Hess had nothing to do with some Soviet desire for "justice". As if they'd care about that.

Hess was kept in Spandau for show so they could march a change of guard there twice a year.

Also, the prison was located next to Smuts Barracks which housed the Berlin Armoured Squadron.  The Soviets were able to take a close look at the activities in the barracks.

If the old fart had anything of value information wise, British intelligence had him at their exclusive disposal for years before he went into the dock at Nurnberg.

Unlike David Hicks, I don't think Hess ever fired "hundreds of rounds" at people in peace-time, though he too did struggle to end "Western Jewish domination of the world". For a while, anyway, then he gave up and volunteered to surrender.

Other major differences include Hess having a big, shiny Mercedes, bushy eyebrows, him sometimes wearing lederhosen and his occasionally eating pork. Other than that.....

Do you support the extradition of Hicks to India to answer some questions about using Indian soldiers for target practice?

I for one would view sympathetically any extradition request from the Indian Government, with reservations that the defendant not be subject to the death penalty, or any other form of "cruel or inhuman punishment" (in line with long-standing Australian Government policy).

If there's a legitimate case to answer in a properly constituted court, as opposed to a kangaroo one, why not?

How about to Afghanistan to face some good old fashioned Islamic justice of the type Hicks so starkly described in one of his letters?

This quite simply is rhetorical nonsense.

"Good old fashioned Islamic justice" is not the official face of the Afghani jurisdiction, notwithstanding the various warlords and insurgencies that terrorise beyond the capital.

And under what law would Hicks be subject? One that retrospectively outlaws collaboration with the former Taliban government, formerly recognised by the US Government?

How would that sit with the Australian Government's recently expressed abhorrence of retrospective law?

Even so, reservations against the death penalty, etc., would still apply.

We're civilised here, even if quite arguably Hicks is not.

Bryan Law: "One of the allegations against David Hicks is that he took photographs of a disused US Consular building in Kabul."

Another allegation is that he fired a heavy calibre weapons at human targets across the border into India. This is backed up by a letter David wrote his dad telling him how much fun it was.

"I got to fire hundreds of bullets. Most Muslim countries impose hanging for civilians arming themselves for conflict. There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally."

This is being investigated by the Indian government.

One of the allegations against David Hicks is that he took photographs of a disused US Consular building in Kabul.

What a piss-poor effort.

I've got photographs of the highly classified internal security compound of the US-run Pine Gap Terror Base in central Australia.

They were given to me by the Taliban Sheik Rattlenroll,  who has apparently infiltrated the Australian Federal Police.

Check out "Pine Gap - the Empire Strikes Back" for more details.

This Australian David Hicks has been in prison for almost six years without trial.

Howard's total servitude to the US Administration has always been obvious.

I have no doubt that Bush's "man of steel" and his cohorts Ruddock and Downer would scream "enough" after just 5 days of what David Hicks has endured.

What about David?

The US has offered to return him, but the "New Order" Liberals have refused, even though they could have a control order.  So the US is charging him, trying him and will find him guilty of "something" - at the behest of the Howard Government?

Would he accept a "guilty" plea that he was "naughty" or even that he had decided to destroy Australia so as to, at least, be released to his father, wife and children?

What would you do? God help this young Australian because the Australian people will not.

I am ashamed that any Australian would endorse the Howard Government's treatment of Australian citizens in trouble.

Who is duplicitous? Who is gutless? What do we really vote for?

There is no truth - only the powers that be.