(oh, and thanks Wikileaks)

From the Daily Telegraph, where it's all but company policy to refer to the Wikileaks US Embassies' Cable Collection as mere "low grade documents", comes this headling blasting story :

US terrorist agencies were told to place 23 Australians on a "no-fly" or "selectee" security list requiring them to be detained at US airports because of suspected links to a Yemeni terrorist group.

Acting on the advice of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the names were forwarded from the US Embassy in Canberra in January 2010 to the US State Department in Washington.

That's quite a story. And it's running across the Murdoch media empire. How could it not? Dozens of Muslims living in suburban Australia deemed dangerous enough to go on the US War On Terror's no-fly list....there must have been fucking balloons falling from the ceiling of News Limited's HQ when those cables were publicly leaked by....

Oh, here it is. Wikileaks. They get credited in paragraph six. But only once in the whole story. And the embedded link on the word 'Wikileaks' doesn't lead you to the Wikileaks website, or a place where the cited cables are published in full, which is part of the deal of using Wiileaks released cables for stories like this one, you link to where the cables are published in full so that the reader can check for themselves that the information used in the story is accurate.

It's about the only Wikileaks rule there is, and it costs the publisher nothing.

Even when people like Julian Assange provide free and easy opportunities for the mainstream news media to undergo such basic reforms as linking to source documents, they refuse to do it.

It's their way of saying, "Oh, Julian? Thanks for that great story, but Fuck You."

"One Reason Conspirators Said They Bombed The Nightclub In Bali In 2002 Was That It Did Not Allow Locals In"









.

Australia Will Back UN Investigation Of Israel War Crimes

The Rudd government treads softly, but the message is clear :

A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said the government was deeply concerned about the continuing conflict in the Gaza Strip.

"The death of Palestinian civilians in conflict is tragic and we urge Israel to ensure that it takes all precautions to avoid and minimise harm to civilians," she said.

"The Australian government supports the proper investigation of allegations of violations of international law."

That's diplomatic speak for 'war crimes'.

The Rudd government doesn't have to look too far to find obvious violations of international law by Israel :

From the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons :

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.

2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

A federal Labor source says that the disgust and anger at Israel's slaughter of hundreds of children in Gaza, and the targeting of hospitals, schools and even UN food warehouses, is deep and wide and very much alive across the government, including many of those politicians who have long thought that Israel could do next to no wrong.

Apparently, during the Christmas-New Year break, a lot of federal, and state, politicians copped earfuls of questions, outrage and abuse from friends and family and neighbours on why Australia was so quiet about what Israel was doing to the people of Gaza, and why we were not, as a nation, voicing our opposition to a War On Terror ally killing and wounding thousands of civilians.

Some will try and convince you that the only Australians fully outraged and disgusted by the destruction of Gaza and the slaying of so many children are Muslims with Palestinian-heritage.

They are liars.

It's Not "War", It's Just Another 'War On Terror' Massacre

By Darryl Mason

The savage slaughter of hundreds of civilians in Gaza is now so obvious, so horrific, that even some of the Murdoch media can't pretend it's not happening.

From the news.com.au and Daily Telegraph online front pages at 1.30am today :



The story.

It's pretty obvious why they don't have this story open for comments. The disgust felt by most Australians at what is being done to the Palestinian people in Gaza grows by the day, as Israel kills more than 500 men, women and children in nine days of artillery attacks, tank assaults and gunship strafing.

And finally, Rudd voices his outrage - well, not really - at the relentless slaying of children by an Australian ally engaging in acts of brutal terrorism and collective punishment :

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Israel must meet its humanitarian obligations to the people of Gaza.

"Australia recognises Israel's right to self-defence while we call on all parties to avoid any actions which result in unnecessary suffering or increased suffering on the part of innocent civilians,'' he said.

Israel had to meet its humanitarian obligations under international law and ensure people in Gaza had access to basic goods, food, humanitarian assistance and medical supplies.

Mr Rudd said a diplomatic solution should halt the rocket attacks against Israel "by the terrorist organisation Hamas'' and stop arms shipments into Gaza.

It should also bring about the opening of the Gaza crossings, involve an immediate ceasefire and "form part of a longer term compact involving Israel and Palestine, based on a two-state solution".

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph's Piers Akerman, who has been busted plagiarising Israeli Army press releases and propaganda and publishing it under his own byline, pathetically tries to tamper the growing disgust at Israel's mass killings by not mentioning the outrageous death toll, already beyond 500 people, at all. He describes "collateral damage" as "a small bonus."

Like Akerman, The Sydney Morning Herald, supposedly an Israel-hating organ of Evil Pagan Lefties, sees no reason to mention all those dead kids, and in the below online front page pic shows Israel Army missiles and artillery shells on a report about Hamas rockets being fired into Israel. Just another editorial mistake, presumably :



From the on-the-spot report, where Israeli locals appeared more upset by car alarms than the Hamas rocket hit :

Looking at the raw numbers - more than 10,000 Qassams fired in the past six years and 19 people killed - the rockets do not appear all that effective.

Wonder why would that be? This is what a Qassam rocket looks like :



These rockets are not being smuggled in from Iran, or whatever bullshit claims are now circulating in the media, these are homemade weapons. They are ineffective at killing because as far as military grade missiles go, they are utter shit, they don't even rate. They are effective at scaring the hell out of thousands of Israelis, but not quite as effective as the terror that comes from helicopters gunships unloading into Gaza apartment blocks, and blowing up mosques while women and children are praying inside.

Why does the Australian media so religiously follow the Israeli propaganda line that what is now going on in Gaza is "War"? Homemade rockets against the best gunships and weapons of mass destruction that American, British and Australian tax dollars help to buy is not "War" by even the loosest definition.

To quote HG Wells, it's like bows and arrows against the lightning.

The Ak Attack

Piers Akerman of the Daily Telegraph says British born Muslims were involved in the Mumbai terror attacks, despite official denials by the governments of Britain and India, and so Australians who think Australian citizens should not be held without charge in the jails of our allies are EVIL. Or something. It doesn't matter. His readers get the message, they understand, and issue yet more Murdoch-media hosted calls for massacres of Australians citizens :

...lawyers, civil rights groups, civil libertarians and refugee advocates... they should all be shot as traitors.

Worried About Terrorism, Don't Care So Much About The War On Terror

Will Australians fear terrorism more under Kevin Rudd than they did under Howard?

The shift raises complications for Kevin Rudd because, while the electorate supports his withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq, it still wants Labor to retain the Howard-era laws to combat terrorism at home – a feeling at odds with the views of many Government MPs who want to tilt the scales of justice back toward personal liberty.

The Australian Election Study posed a new, more general question last year: “How concerned are you that there will be a major terrorist attack on Australian soil in the near future.”

Two out of three (65.7 per cent) said they were concerned.

Murdoch Media Helps 'Al Qaeda' Spread Fear And Terror

The Australian Uses Online Game Art As 'Al Qaeda' Post-Nuclear Apocalyptic Imagery

By Darryl Mason

UPDATE : The Australian newspaper has been busted using artwork from an online game to illustrate a 'Al Qaeda Wants WMDs To Blow Away Washington DC' piece of war propaganda.

Go Here For More On That

Thanks to reader NikC who revealed the 'nuked Washington' image The Australian said was from Al Qaeda actually came from a videogame.


A private American intelligence agency, which turns considerable profit off distributing 'Al Qaeda' propaganda videos and Bin Laden speeches, has been hyping a new 'quasi-documentary' where some nobody on a message board says, basically, "Hey, you know what would kill lots of infidels? WMDs. We should try and get some of those."

The 'documentary' has been discredited by the FBI, and widely mocked for days across alternative and independent news sites.

So why is The Australian and News.com.au giving this piece of crap fluff prime placement coverage today, under the headline 'Al Qaeda Urges Use Of WMD'?

A few seconds of Google searching would have revealed that nobody, not even the American agency that releases old Bin Laden videos cobbled together to appear as though they are new speeches, gives any credibility at all to this bullshit video.

The video was roundly dismissed as being called 'fan-made.' That's right. Somebody, somewhere in the world, cut together a whole heap of old Al Qaeda propaganda videos and dumped it onto a website, and now Murdoch media is giving it the star treatment.

Why?

Why is The Australian, of all newspapers, helping to distribute and give exposure to this crap, days after it was dismissed as ridiculous fluff by American and international intelligence agencies?

Anyone got an answer?

UPDATE : As reader NikC points out, The Australian is using artwork not from 'Al Qaeda' but from a video game website to try and ramp up The Fear for its pissweak and thoroughly discredited piece of war propaganda.

Go Here To See The Video Game Art Being Passed Off As Apocalyptic Al Qaeda Imagery By Murdoch Media

Fight Terror : Jail Comedians


Flashback : The Chaser's 'Notsama Bin Laden' being arrested during the APEC summit in Sydney

The 'War on Terror' is clearly no place for comedy. Unless you think going to War On Iraq to pursue Saudi Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11, and who trained in Afghanistan, is pretty funny.

That's why Australian authorities are devoting time and resources they might otherwise be using to track down terrorists to pursue legal action against comedians from The Chaser.

It is only a coincidence that some of these very same comedians made the police look like dills during the APEC summit in Sydney, when they drove an Osama Bin Laden lookalike through what was supposed to be ultra-security, almost up to the door of President Bush's hotel.


story continues after...
-----------------------------

Go Here To Read Darryl Mason's Online Novel ED Day - Life After The Bird Flu Pandemic Kills Millions In Sydney, Australia

-----------------------------
story continues...


So what did The Chaser do that has the police after them again? They delivered a 'ticking bomb' to a Sydney business. And they're still not off the hook for the APEC stunt :

In the skit, a Chaser cast member posing as a delivery man takes a ticking package into Energy Australia's Sydney office where he asks a worker to sign for the item.

The Chaser crew has defended the act, which occurred during the filming of this week's show.

"The Chaser chose the loudest and most deliberately comical ticking to ensure that the people involved in the filming could not think it was any real threat," a statement obtained by the Nine Network said.

However, NSW Police Minister David Campbell said the matter was not to be treated lightly.

"In these days of global terrorism the community expects the police to respond to potential threats," Mr Campbell told the Nine Network.

The Chaser team is already facing criminal charges stemming from a stunt during last month's APEC conference.

Matters against the 11 cast, crew and production members have been adjourned until December 5.

"The (latest) investigation involves actions of individuals and is not related in any way to any incidents during the recent APEC conference," the police spokesman said.

Of course not.

The community does expect the police to respond to 'potential threats'. But how much of a realistic 'potential threat' does a stunt by a bunch of comedians actually pose? Besides pointing out gaping holes in security of major Australian corporations?

Clearly if we're going to win the 'War On Terror', along with the sidebar 'War on Comedy Terror', we have no choice but to jail these comedians. Regardless of how piss-your-pants funny they are.

The Chaser Delivers 'NotSama Bin Laden' Into APEC Security Zone - Fake Beard Confiscated

Don't Laugh At 'War On Terror' Japing - Live In Fear

The White House On The Chaser : 'We Are Not Amused'

Australian Military Hides Truth Of 'War On Terror' Casualties

Most Australians Have No Idea Of The Scale Of Violence Our Soldiers Have Experienced In Iraq And Afghanistan

Australian Defence Force chiefs kept secret the death of soldier David Pearce for some 10 hours, according to this story. It's the latest example of a carefully designed program within the defence force, initiated by the Howard government, of information suppression and control, mostly aimed at keeping quiet, for as long as possible, the truth about the violence Australian soldiers are encountering in Iraq and Afghanistan :

...the Afghanistan and Iraq deployments remain among the most secretive ever undertaken by our forces.

The attack in which Trooper Pearce died was the latest in a six-month barrage involving Australian troops in the Oruzgan Province.

About 25 roadside explosions targeting Coalition forces have been recorded there since June.

It is often days before the Australian Defence Force acknowledges such engagements. Some attacks, especially those involving special forces troops, are not spoken of publicly at all.

At least seven times since August the ADF has failed to release details of hostile engagements between Australian soldiers and the enemy until at least two days after the attacks.

The tactic is to invoke an information blackout on the most serious incidents and release minimal information when it has been rigorously vetted by senior officers and bureaucrats.

Australia has suffered four military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, the conflicts have also produced more than 50 battlefield injuries and more than a dozen soldiers are believed to have been permanently incapacitated as a result.

Along with the hundreds of veterans now suffering the horrors of what will likely prove to be lifelong post-traumatic stress disorder. Some of those who are being hammered by the early stages of PTSD are as young as 20 years old. Unofficially, divorce rates for Australian 'War on Terror' veterans are soaring, as are incidents of suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism and domestic violence.

By downplaying, controlling and outright censoring the truth of what is happening to Australian soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the veterans who have returned from those wars are now encountering a public that can barely comprehend what they've gone through.

How are non-military associated Australians expected to know how horrific many of the veterans tours of duty have been when so little of the facts find their way into the Australian media?

The full impact of this kind of censorship and suppression by military chiefs, under the guidance and encouragement of the Howard government, will become clear in the next decade when the long-term effects and impact of PTSD for these veterans become clearer.

As with the veterans of the Vietnam War, the new generation of veterans will eventually be forced to ask for more help and will be faced with a public that doesn't understand, because they don't know, what the scale of the violence they experienced during their deployments done to their lives and their families.

Let's hope the current generation of youth learn how to look after the needs of 'WoT' veterans better than the Baby Boomers did for the veterans of Korea and Vietnam.


UPDATE : The Australian Defence Force is now denying there was a cover-up, or a failure to reveal details with due haste of the death of soldier David Pearce.

Australian Soldier Killed By IED Attack In Afghanistan


Australians on patrol in Afghanistan

Update : The soldier who was killed yesterday in Afghanistan was David Pearce, 41. He leaves behind a wife and two children.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson waited only hours after the official announcement of the soldier's death to begin politicising the tragedy, by kicking off the 'Blame Iran' campaign, though Nelson admitted he has no proof the IED that killed Pearce comes from Iran.


Yesterday, an IED tore through an Australian patrol in the southern Oruzgan province in Afghanistan killing one Australian soldier, wounding another, and injuring three local children.

The injured soldier was airlifted to a medical base and was reported to have serious injuries, though they are not believed to be life-threatening.

The death of the soldier marks the first combat-related fatality for Australia in Afghanistan or Iraq during the 'War on Terror', as a direct result of enemy action.

Hopefully both sides of politics will be able to refrain from seeking political capital from the death of this soldier, but don't bet on it.

If anything, the death of the soldier, and the blanket media coverage that the arrival of his body back home will generate, along with the politician-heavy funeral and memorial service, is bound to ramp up the ferocity of debate here over the future role of Australian troops in the 'War on Terror'.

The Labor Party is currently planning to withdraw most of the combat troops from Iraq in 2008, should it win office, but leader Kevin Rudd recently committed to an ongoing deployment of troops to Afghanistan.

Some 1000 Australian soldiers are based at Camp Holland, in the Oruzgan province, according to ABC News.

More than 50% of Australians now oppose Australia's involvement in military action in Afghanistan.

Presumably the Taliban are well aware there is a federal election drawing near in Australia. The death of the soldier is likely to return Australia's involvement in the 'War on Terror' to the top rung of the pre-election campaign issues.

Australian troops have endured massive fighting against the Taliban in recent months, killing dozens of militants. More than six Australian soldiers have been injured since June in gunfights with the Taliban.

The fatal IED attack yesterday has been reported have specifically targeted Australian troops.

The Taliban would clearly know who the Australians are, and what their uniforms and vehicles look like.

Family of Australian Terror Victim Brushed Off By Downer

Why? She Didn't Die In A "Mass Casualty" Terror Attack

Families Of Bali Bombing Victims Sent "Insert Name Here" Form Letters

Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, feels it is completely ethical to use the threat of terrorism, and the horrific deaths of more than 120 Australians from terror attacks over the past seven years, to frame his arguments on why the War On Iraq must continue, why Australia is a part of the 'War on Terror' and to explain why Australians must get used to having their civil liberties torn away as part of that war.

But the shattered family of one Australian terror victim were told by Downer that they would not get any help from the government to meet the costs of bringing home the body of their dead daughter, who died in a terror attack in Turkey.

They needed $16,000, and thought they would get help, because the Australian government had compensated the families of Australian terror victims who were killed in Bali, in Indonesia, in London and in the 9/11 attacks on New York City.

But the distressed, mourning family were brushed off by Downer, then ignored. Then they were sent an insulting letter.

Why?

Because their daughter didn't die in a "mass casualty incident"

Why should that make any difference at all?

Because Downer's clearly not interested in one dead Australian terror victim here, or a couple there. He only wants to know about the terror attacks where dozens of Australians are slain, because that's what grabs the headlines, and that's the kind of horror and terror that supplies the political capital he needs to justify the War On Iraq and to attack political opponents for supposedly being "soft" on terror.

Alexander Downer is beyond repulsive. and as inhuman as all the other despicable creatures who use terrorism for political, religious or personal gain.

Just when you think Downer can't get any lower, he'll prove you wrong.


And then there's the generic form letters sent to the Australian families of terror victims by Downer's office. You can see the letters for yourself here :

...the email version came with a number of documents, apparently sent by accident. They included a six-page summary of occasions the Government had helped Australians, such as reimbursing the cost of repatriation of remains for Bali bombing victims, $5000 for funeral costs, the cost of air fares and accommodation for close relatives to go to Bali and financial help to attend the first anniversary of the bombings and the trials of the accused terrorists.

Another attached document was a generic Foreign Affairs letter for Bali bomb victims' families, with spaces to "insert address here" and add "first name" here.

If Downer and John Howard can find the time to spend entire mornings preparing for their purely politically motivated attacks in Parliament, ranting about the threat of terror and why Australia is supposedly fighting in the front lines of the 'War on Terror' in Iraq, then they can surely find the time to write all the families of terror victims proper letters, and deal with their inquiries in a humane and decent way.

Beyond chilling.

Bureaucracy as its coldest, and most heartless.

An International Embarrassment

Weak 'Terror' Charges Against Dr Haneef Dropped

Dr Haneef Set Free


You can have your shoes back now, Dr Haneef. Sorry about the whole 'terrorist' mix-up

UPDATE : Dr Haneef will be given back his passport and allowed to stay in Australia.

So, no great surprise here :

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has dropped the terror charge against Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef.

Commonwealth prosecutors withdrew the charge of supporting a terrorist organisation in Brisbane Magistrates Court this afternoon, following a review of the case by DPP Damian Bugg...

The 'terror charges' being that Dr Haneef had "recklessly supported a terrorist group" because he gave a SIM card to a relative back in England who then allegedly went on to try and launch terror attacks in England.

Of course, the British authorities haven't charged Haneef's cousin with being a part of a terrorist group. So how can Haneef be charged with supporting a terror group that doesn't, at this point, officially exist?

Hence, the dropping of the charges.

A statement from the Director Of Public Prosecutions :

"On my view of this matter a mistake has been made ..."

Understatement of the year. The DPP accepts some responsibility for the "mistake", the Australian Federal Police says it did nothing wrong, and prime minister John Howard still backs the Immigration Minister's very public, and legally damaging statement, that Dr Haneef was "of bad character" and so had to have his visa cancelled.

The blame gaming has now officially begun.


EXCLUSIVE : First Draft Of Joint Australian Federal Police/Howard Government Statement Of Apology To Dr Haneef :

Umm, sorry about the whole "You're probably a scumbag terrorist" thing, Dr Haneef.

We realise now that you were telling the truth all along and that you didn't try to make a bomb-detonating call to those supposed car bombs in London, and that you didn't plot to blow up buildings in Queensland and that you don't want to destroy the West and that you don't worship Osama Bin Laden.

But, you know, them's the breaks in the 'War on Terror', mate.

And after all, you are a Muslim. And all terror attacks are done by Muslims....well, except those done by the ETA, and the ones carried out by black ops forces on enemy infrastructure, and the occasional bombings by Mossad and MI5, and the governments of Pakistan, India, Russia, China, the United States and all those trying to fight the War On Terror by using state terror for...look, none of that really matters to you, right?

So, thanks for coming to Australia and helping to fill the shocking doctor shortage. And thanks for being such a good sport about us holding you in custody without charge for, what, it was only 12 days or so, wasn't it?

And thanks for letting us 'interview' you for 12 hour long sessions, and parade you in front of the media dressed like a convicted criminal, with no shoes.

You'll probably want to sue us now, right? Okay. Well, here's the deal : Fuck off back to India, we'll see you in court. And don't forget we'll spend five million of taxpayers money to avoid having to pay you even $100,000 in damages.

By the way, Dr Haneef. Could you pass the word around back home that we're still looking for more doctors? We've still got a pretty bad shortage of them here.

Of course, a lot of Australians are paranoid about Indian or...well, let's face, any dark-skinned doctors now, what with all that 'Those Who Will Heal You, Will Kill You' black propaganda stuff.

Again, sorry about the mix-up.

Thank you, come again. (just a little joke there to show the Aussie sense of humour)

BTW : Even though the charges against you have been dropped, the Immigration Minister still thinks you are "of bad character". Which probably says more about him than it does about you.

I'm not sure the above letter is the real deal. It seems a bit restrained to me.

Naturally, Howard government spin master Tony Abbott got in early this morning, clearly aware that the charge against Dr Haneef would be dropped today :

"If he's a good guy who has done nothing wrong, I suppose, he should be treated like other good guys who've done nothing wrong."

Tony Abbott only supposes Dr Haneef should be treated like someone who has done nothing wrong even though it was abundantly clear he had done nothing wrong. Continues Abbott :

"But whether he is a good guy who has done nothing wrong is the sort of thing that Kevin Andrews, quite rightly, will be seeking expert advice on

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews hasn't changed his mind :

"I believe that Dr Haneef fails the character test and for that reason I cancelled his visa," Mr Andrews told ABC radio today.

"Nothing that has been revealed to me in the last 24 or 48 hours would lead me to believe that information was inappropriate or incorrect."

Of course not, Dr Haneef is still a Muslim.


Here's but one example of the Murdoch media' s terror scaremongering around Dr Haneef, before even the most basic facts were known or even taken into consideration. Naturally this example comes from the Daily Telegraph's blockhead-in-chief Piers Akerman :

The detention of a Gold Coast doctor shows the alleged sweeping extent of the global links of international terrorism.

The liberal use of "alleged", "seems" and "probably" in the Akerman column of July 4 will presumably protect News Limited and the Daily Telegraph from having to fork over another six figure sum in damages for Akerman's inability to restrain himself from writing such garbage, and trying to smear people long before they are even charged, or not charged, with terrorism-related crimes.

You can only hope that this appalling fiasco does not make Australians less alert to the threat of terrorism, from whichever groups or extreme religious true believers who think they can change the direction of politics or international policy through the killing of innocent people.

But the more often incidents like the Dr Hannef fiasco occur, the more often that terror attack warnings are issued for reasons other than the safety of the public, the more people will tend to believe that the threat of terrorism is overwrought, and that fear campaigns are being used against the public for strictly political reasons.

The terrible irony is that in the case of Dr Haneef the only people who ended up being terrorised was him, and his family.

An Earlier Story From The Orstrahyun on the Dr Haneef Scandal

Howard Tries To Distance Himself From The Collapse Of The 'Terror' Case Against Dr Haneef - Good Luck With That PM

Haneef Will Be Released


MORE ON THIS STORY COMING...

Haneef Contacts Lawyer To Free Police Of Allegation They Wrote 'Incriminating' Names In His Diary

UPDATE : AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty now claims police did not write anything in Dr Mohamed Haneef's diary. It was a duplicate diary, or something...wait, it now appears that Dr Haneef himself contacted his lawyer to tell him that the story of the police writing names in his diary was not true. The police wrote names on a piece of paper and showed them to him, according to this story.

Keelty says, wait for the case to go before the courts. And then what? Find out the entire case against Haneef was worthless? The most likely scenario now appears to be that the charge of "supporting a terrorist group", a group that doesn't appear to actually exist in the UK, will be dropped and he'll be deported. Or he willingly flee Australia.

The Haneef fiasco is receiving blanket media coverage in India, soaking up front pages, editorials and letters to the editor. A friend writes from India that Australia, its police and the Howard government are disparaged nightly on the news and current affairs shows. The Greens, apparently, are being seen as the action makers in trying to get Haneef released.

An international 'Free Haneef' campaign also appears to be gathering steam.

All in all a very poor outing for first major use of the updated 2004 anti-terror laws. While talk back radio and online public comment has a few "deport the terrorist" types, the vast majority of Australians contributing their opinions to the public debate seem pretty annoyed, disgusted and ashamed at how Dr Haneef has been treated, how the AFP have conducted their investigation and how some in the media have frenzied in their coverage.

PREVIOUSLY : Is the case against Dr Haneef really so pissweak that federal police officers have to try and fake evidence?

...investigating AFP officers wrote the names of overseas terror suspects in Dr Haneef's personal diary, only to later grill him during an interrogation over whether he had written the potentially incriminating notes.

Apparently, it was all just "a mistake".

Thank God for that. Otherwise you might be led to believe that something absolutely dodgy has been going on, what with all the 'leaks' claiming that Haneef was more evil than previously speculated and was somehow, once more allegedly, involved in plotting terror attacks in Queensland.

The Courier Mail reported on Sunday :

Police are investigating whether detained doctor Mohamed Haneef was part of a planned terrorist attack on a landmark building at the Gold Coast.

Australian Federal Police are examining images of the building and its foundations found among documents and photographs seized in a police raid on the doctor's Southport unit three weeks ago.

The AFP inquiry is looking at documents referring to destroying structures discovered in the raid, law enforcement sources said.

Within hours the story had been exposed as complete twaddle, by none other than the head of the Australian Federal Police, Mick Keelty.

Still no word yet on where the Courier Mail got its information, or even if the source was valid, and the editor has published no apology for being involved in yet another smear campaign against Haneef.

Presumably the bullshit story came from the police, otherwise why would Mick Keelty decide he needed to all but apologise to Haneef's lawyers for such an allegation becoming public?

...Mr Keelty issued a statement describing as "inaccurate" reports police were investigating a local terror plot after discovering images of the Q1 building in Dr Haneef's Gold Coast unit.

"We will be taking the extraordinary step of contacting Dr Haneef's lawyer to correct the record," Mr Keelty said.

David Marr :

Crooks are not caught by backyard gossip and idiotic speculation but by bringing logic to bear on facts.

Was that tiny weapon of mass destruction - Haneef's SIM card - found at the scene of the crime in Glasgow? No. Perhaps the overcoat he left also with his cousin turned up in the blazing Jeep Cherokee driven into the airport terminal? Apparently not. Was he roaming Surfers Paradise looking for a target to destroy? Not according to the police.

It seems we're just where we were last Friday: the public case against Haneef has entirely collapsed.

Mick Keelty back on July 3, when talk radio and online news page comments were busy spreading the myth that Haneef may have tried to detonate the London car bombs by mobile phone calls from Queensland :

...we should be cautious here that Dr Haneef may have done nothing wrong and may, at the end of the day, be free to go.

Keelty was insisting on July 20 that the police case against Dr Haneef had not been damaged by the near endless stream of controversies, foul-ups, leaks and mismanagement of the investigations.

After another weekend of false stories and allegations being leaked to the media, by "law enforcement sources", and yet more mopping up by Mick Keelty, you have to wonder whether he still believes there is still a case worth pursuing against Dr Haneef at all.

British police still haven't named or even confirmed the existence of "the terrorist group" that Haneef is being accused of supporting.

The Haneef tale has become a major story across the world, particularly in India, the UK and across South East Asia, but not because of the charges against Haneef, but for the endless series of screw-ups and controversies surrounding the federal prosecution's increasingly hole-ridden case.

As the Calcutta Telegraph writes in this lead :

Critical information used to brand Mohammed Haneef a terrorist and condemn him to solitary confinement might not be true...

Somewhere in Pakistan, the leaders of Al Qaeda are laughing themselves stupid. They barely have to even try anymore to send a nation and its federal law enforcement officers into a state of confusion, panic and chaos. We are quite capable of doing all that to ourselves.

Lawyer : Government Is Trying Haneef By Media

Prosecution May Have Misled Court

No Comment From Ruddock On Haneef 'Plot'

Australian Federal Police Under Fire As Haneef Case Unravels

Australian Authorities Flayed For 'Sloppy' Investigations

London Bomb Victim Slams Howard For Increasing Terror Risk For Australians



Louise Barry is a young Australian who barely survived the July 7, 2005 bombings in London. She hit the headlines two weeks after the terror attacks when she confronted prime minister John Howard, during a hospital visit, on whether the bombers had attacked London because of the US-UK-Australian War On Iraq.

Two years later, and only days after another series of attempted bomb attacks on London and Glasgow, Louise Barry will appear in a TV commercial where she demands that John Howard get Australia out of the Iraq War before more Australians are killed or injured in revenge terror attacks.

Barry reportedly thought up the idea of the commercial, and wrote her own lines.

"You got us in this mess," Barry says, addressing the prime minister, "it's your responsibility to get us out."

"The situation clearly is not getting any better. I don't want what happened to me to happen to
other Australians, or anyone else for that matter."

“The recent attacks in the UK brought back some really painful memories."

“Wasn't going to war in Iraq supposed to make us safer, not put us in more danger?

“I don't have all the answers and I'm not an expert, but I do know something about the real cost of terrorism.”

During the July 7, 2005, attacks in London, Barry was on a train hit by one bomber. She was uninjured. But the bus she was directed to get onto, after being evacuated from the underground train line, was torn apart by another bomber an hour after the first blasts.

John Howard visited Barry in a London hospital on July 20, 2005. She was recovering from a broken neck, shrapnel wounds and severe burns. Howard was expecting to visit an Australian victim of the bombing who would be thankful for his visit, and might want to ask him some questions about terror. He had no idea she was going to confront him over the connections between the increased threat of terrorism to Australia resulting from its involvement in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

During that hospital visit,Louise Barry's concerns about the links between the July 7 bombings and the Iraq War were all but dismissed by the prime minister :

LOUISE BARRY: What do you think about all this sort of stuff then? Do you reckon... 'cause everyone says that it's all about 'cause of the Iraq War. Do you reckon?

JOHN HOWARD: No, I don't. But, you know, different people have different views. I don't. I mean, they had a go at us and they had a go at other people before Iraq started. I think it's less likely in Australia.

LOUISE BARRY: You reckon?

JOHN HOWARD: A bit less likely, yeah. Less likely in Austra...

LOUISE BARRY: Why?

JOHN HOWARD: Why? I don't think there's the concentration of groups in Australia that might produce it, that's why.

LOUISE BARRY: Yeah.

JOHN HOWARD: But I think it's still possible, and I've said that, and it could happen.

LOUISE BARRY: Pretty scary stuff though.

JOHN HOWARD: It can happen anywhere, unfortunately.

LOUISE BARRY: Yeah, I know.

She sure does.

Howard was clearly uncomfortable during the questioning by Barry, which is the usual reaction from Howard when he hears something he doesn't like, or is confronted by an Australian who hasn't been screened by his minders, in case they raise too much truth reality or truth in his presence. When Barry confronted Howard, he quickly became annoyed, dismissive and rude. Like a petulant child.

The commercials are being paid for by political action group GetUp, who are also using Barry's commercial to solicit donations to buy more ad time and raise funds for further campaigns.

It's interesting to note one of Howard's comments to Barry :

"I don't think there's the concentration of groups in Australia that might produce (terror attacks)..."

But that's not what Howard and terror fear mongers tell us now. We're supposed to have thousands of young Muslims in Australia who subscribe to Islamist ideology, and we could be attacked in our streets at any time.

Nothing to do with the half million people killed in the Iraq War, of course.

You can expect the usual Howard and Iraq War supporters to take cheap and nasty shots at Barry. No doubt they will claim she is being used by those evil Lefties for political purposes. Their response to Louise Barry's plea to lessen the terror threat to Australians by getting our troops out of Iraq will be as tired, propagandist and cliched as their arguments for why the War On Iraq must continue, for years to come.

Howard Finally Admits Iraq War Was A War For Oil

PM Finally Admits Iraq Was A War For Oil

Howard To Iraq : We're Not Leaving Until You Say We Can

Howard Shoots For National Security Poll Rise In Desperate Attempt To Stave Off Leadership Challenge


Update : According to this story from the Melbourne Age, on today's speech by PM Howard on national security and the Iraq War, detailed below, Howard will say that Australia has a "major stake of oil dependency", and this is one of the key reasons why we had to become involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. So it was a war for oil after all.

Perhaps by no coincidence, The Australian newspaper also features a major story today on how we are now entering an age when Australian will suffer from major oil deficits, where in the past we had enjoyed locally sourced oil supply surpluses.

Update II : Both John Howard and defence minister Brendan Nelson discussed the need for Australia to continue the occupation of Iraq to secure future oil supplies, and all hell broke loose.


Original Story Follows :

John Howard will move today to dispel any doubt about his intention to keep more than 550 Australian combat troops in Iraq until the Iraqi government says they can go home.

Which raises doubts about this story from last week, which claimed Howard had a secret plan to pull out most of Australia's fighting forces from Iraq in early 2008. The doubt raised, then, is that the leak used in the story was a plant, a set-up to gauge the public reaction to a withdrawal of Australian troops. The reaction from most Australians was "yeah, so what?" Howard can now dismiss any notion raised by Labor on the way to the federal election that he is planning to pull troops out once the election is over.

Off the back of the currently very weak links between the spectacularly hopeless car bombing attempts in London and Glasgow and an Australian-based doctor, Howard is expected to ramp up both the threat of homegrown terror, and the threat of terror attacks from non-Australians who are visiting, or working, here.

Howard's core message will be simple : Australia is not pulling its fighting forces out of Iraq, and Australia is not withdrawing from Afghanistan. Not until the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan say our troops are no longer needed :

In a major security speech, Mr Howard will stress the stark consequences of a failure by the US and its allies to secure Iraq.

He will argue that the military coalition cannot allow weariness, frustration or political convenience to dictate strategy in Iraq.

Mr Howard today will launch a new defence policy statement, which underscores the strategic importance of the Middle East to global security and Australia's broader national interests.

The document warns of a far more complex and challenging global environment facing Australia's military.

It says Australia's new security challenges dictate a military force able not only to play a lead role in the region, but also to operate in an expanded range of operations further afield with close allies.

The 65-page defence update declares that violent extremism will remain a threat around the world for a generation "and probably longer".

It says the stakes are high in Iraq and Afghanistan, not only for the peace and stability of those countries, but also because the outcome will influence how the US will deal with future global security challenges.

A critical danger remains the prospect of terror groups such as al-Qa'ida getting hold of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.

Increasingly, military technology once available only to nation states is being used by terror groups and other non-state actors. Organisations such as al-Qa'ida are unlikely to be deterred from using WMDs by the threat of military retaliation.

The update says extremist terrorism continues to draw funding, support and people from Middle Eastern states.

"For as long as that is true, Australia and like-minded countries need to fight terrorism at its source rather than wait for it to come to our shores.

"To help defeat terrorism Australia must have patience, a sustained military commitment, a willingness to adapt to conditions on the ground and work closely with our friends and allies."

It forecasts the defence force will increasingly be called on to fight irregular opponents and be capable of mounting counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations.

In short, Australia will keep fighting the 'War on Terror' for as long as the 'War on Terror' helps to keep spawning new terrorists.

Which also means Australia will keep spending more than $23 billion a year on defence, the second highest per person defence spend in the world (after the United States) for years to come. Not much is expected to change on that front even if Kevin Rudd, and Labor, win the federal election later this year.

Don't expect Howard to do much talking up of the Australian-United States alliance between now and the federal election. He will acknowledge it, but he is unlikely to be seen publicly praising President Bush. At least if his advisers have any say in it.

Pledging a strong and ongoing commitment to fighting the 'War on Terror' is now a coded way for Howard to say that he will continue to support Bush-led American military misadventures around the world for the foreseeable future.

It will be surprising if Howard has anything to say about Australia's involvement in the US 'missile shield' between now and the election, or Australia's involvement in helping the United States to 'encircle' China, in anticipation of a coming trade war between China and the US.

Howard's speech today on Australia's future security "challenges" and his government's role in helping to fight the 'War on Terror' will be seen as probably Howard's last major chance to buzz up his own dismal standings in the polls before Parliament resumes, and to tamp down the grumblings within the Liberal Party on whether or not Howard will destroy their chances of holding onto power in the coming elections.

There was speculation a few months back that Howard had to score a decent rise in national polls, like Newspoll which will begin collecting data on Friday, after Howard's key speech today, or he could be rolled by his own party and removed from the leadership. If Howard was replaced, the coalition government could delay the federal election until early 2008 to give themselves a fighting change. But they still need someone to replace Howard. Someone from the front ranks of the government who doesn't make most Australians wince every time they open their mouths.

Howard may see a slight rise in the polls from today's speech, partly due to unease caused by the, however weak, Australian links to the London car bombing attempts, but he will really have to rally the nation to knock Rudd and the Labor Party off their election winning perch, which they have enjoyed for all of 2007. This seems incredibly unlikely.

The chief problem for Howard today is that while he can pledge to try and keep Australians safe from terror, Australians are more concerned about who is going to keep them safe from Howard and his dishonest, double-dealing, secret agenda heavy, gang.


March, 2007 : Howard Sees Only "Faint Glimmer Of Hope" In Iraq

February, 2007 : Howard Keeps "Own Interest" Option For Early Troop Withdrawal From Iraq

Australian Defence Minister Says There Is No Hope Of Victory In Iraq War

National Security Demands Widespread Dobbing

But Religious Leaders Unite In Their Vow To Keep Quiet About Confessions

Australian Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders have all vowed they will not betray their followers by passing information they may learn through confessions to national security authorities, unless there were direct threats that impacted on the safety and wellbeing of other people.

Radical religious views and beliefs, however, are unlikely to be viewed by the leaders of Australian faiths as worthy of supply "tip-offs" to anti-terror investigators.

How could they betray "the trust of their followers", they argue, when the protection of confidential information was their "bread and butter" :

The Jesuit Social Services associate director, Peter Norden, told The Australian he would be prepared to give police information only if the tip-off was crucial for the safety of others.

But he said he would make sure the information given did not identify the person who provided it.

"You would be entitled to take some steps to protect human life but you need to do that in such a way that it was of a general nature and wouldn't identify the person concerned."

"If you were (to betray confessors), you would have to do away with the profession for minister of religion."

The Rabbinical Council of Victoria president Meir Shlomo Kluwgant said rabbis were bound to the same confidentiality procedures as counsellors, but were able to tip-off the authorities if the information they received suggested someone's life was in danger.

"Certainly the very first thing that a rabbi would do would be to dissuade their congregant from committing a crime," he said.

Muslim clerics were revealed, last week, to have not alerted federal police when they had been asked about the rights and wrongs of joining the international jihad.

Tim Dunlop, at Blogocracy :

Maybe all this means is that they are willing to be prosecuted rather than disclose all the information they have, though Norden’s further comments—that “If you were (to betray confessors), you would have to do away with the profession for minister of religion”—seems wide of the mark. Why would that be the case? And I’m really not sure why informing authorities of a crime should even count as “betraying confessors”.

...it’s interesting that all the major religions line-up on the issue...

Maybe the leaders of Australia's major religions have got a gut feeling that the violations of human rights and civil liberties that are becoming the "bread and butter" of the 'War on Terror' are not always going to be confined to the followers of the Islamic religion.

Australia Accused Of Helping Fund And Arm Tamil Tiger "Terrorists"

If it wasn't enough that the Howard government helped keep Saddam Hussein supplied with enough cash to buy more human shredding machines and testicle shock kits - by repeatedly turning many blind eyes to the flood of memos pouring across the desks of the prime minister and foreign minister all but screaming out "Pay attention morons! Your wheat contractor is bribing Saddam with hundreds of millions of dollars!" - now the very same government is accused of not only allowing the Tamil Tigers to raise funds in Australia to fight their insurgency in Sri Lanka, but also stand accused of helping them to arm up and put together their own air force as well (as minor as it is).

If this keeps up, Australia is going to become a prime target of the 'War on Terror'.

After all, it was John Howard's good mate President Bush who has often said that if you hide, feed, supply weapons to, or help fund, terrorists, then you are as bad as the terrorists.

Just like when dump trucks full of cash were backing up to Saddam's palace gates in the late '90s, and early 2000s, Australia's foreign minister Alexander Downer knew all about how the Tamil Tiger sympathisers were raising cash and buying equipment that could be adapted to fight their insurgency in Sri Lanka :

...Downer admitted yesterday the Government had been aware for some time that money raised in Australia was being siphoned to the Tigers' cause in Sri Lanka.

Singapore-based terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna says the Tigers have been procuring aircraft, arms, explosives and other technological devices from Australia for more than a decade.

Dr Gunaratna says Australia's involvement extends beyond just fundraising.

"The failure of Australia and other countries to act in a timely way enabled the Tamil Tigers to procure aircrafts and other capabilities that have enabled them to develop a successful terrorist air wing."

"For Australia, it was never a priority to curb the non-Islamist terrorist groups operating in Australia," he said.

Wait a minute....non-Islamic terrorism?

Could there really be such a thing?

If the regular propaganda stream pouring from the mouths of the prime minister and foreign minister, and their media droogs, is to be believed, you'd be forgiven for thinking that there wasn't such a thing as non-terrorist Islam, let alone non-Islamic terrorism.

So Australia has been helping to fund and arm Tamil Tiger "terrorists"?

The 'Axis Of Evil' will clearly have to widened to the 'Quadra Of Nasty', so Australia can be included.

If only Australia had major mining or business interests in the disputed Sri Lankan territories that the Tamil Tigers are claiming as their homeland, we would have put these insurgents out of business a decade ago.

400 Special Forces Troops Now Head To Afghanistan

Howard Claims Australians Will Go After Taliban "Leadership"

Australia Digs In Years To Come In Afghanistan As Troop Numbers Expected To Climb To 2000 In 2008

Prime Minister John Howard, foreign minister Alexander Downer and defence minister Brendan Nelson went on a media blitz last week for the announcement that Australia will double its troop commitment to Afghanistan.

They didn't mention, however, that Australia's commitment could double again, to more than 2000, in 2008, as troops dig in for another four or more years of war fighting in the region.

Howard, Downer and Nelson boasted that Australia's special forces won't be targeting "goat herders" on their return to Afghanistan, but will be taking on the upper ranks of the Taliban, and its leadership. At the same time, they repeatedly stated that Australians "must prepare " for casualties.

If Australia's special forces are truly going in hard against the Taliban, and are aiming to decapitate the Taliban leadership, casualties are all but guaranteed.

What hasn't been addressed yet is whether the special forces will be entering the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan where most of the Taliban leadership is believed to be holed up, or whether they will enter Pakistan itself.

Pakistan's president Musharraf insists that Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are not coming from his country, but are border-region Afghan refugees. The United States, meanwhile, claims that Pakistan is sheltering Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders.

With the announcement today that John Howard has told Pakistan president Musharraf that he "has to do more" to deal with the Al Qaeda and Taliban groups and support bases inside his country, it certainly sounds like the prime minister is laying the ground for Austrailan forces to work close to, or inside, Pakistan's border.

An exceptionally good summary of what Australia's special forces will be facing in Afghanistan from Patrick Walters writing in 'The Australian' :

Australia is being slowly yet inexorably being drawn into a novel 21st-century version of the "great game" in Afghanistan as our military prepares for its most sustained fighting since Vietnam.

The upgraded Afghanistan mission promises to be long and hazardous, and Australia's defence chiefs know there is no guarantee of victory. Our overall troop commitment is much likelier to rise than fall in the next two years as the battle intensifies to stabilise Afghanistan.

But, unlike Australia's two most recent wars, in Vietnam and Iraq, the war in Afghanistan is a full bipartisan commitment from the Government and the ALP. When Australian special forces return to the mountain-locked Oruzgan province next month they will face a far more confident Taliban insurgency. A dysfunctional NATO command in Kabul is manifestly failing to subdue the insurgency now gripping south-eastern Afghanistan.

"It is a fundamental test for NATO and NATO will fail it. It (NATO's counter-insurgency strategy) isn't working and it isn't going to work. But there will be some local successes," says one senior Australian government source. "The only people actually doing anything hard are the US, Brits, Canadians and Aussies."

Australia's military is preparing for the possibility of a four-year assignment task in Oruzgan. But planners know successfully stabilising the south in partnership with Afghan security forces will take a decade of sustained effort.

Since the SAS and commandos returned home from Afghanistan in September 2006 things have gone backwards in Oruzgan. Less than 30 per cent of the province, one of Afghanistan's poorest with a population of about 400,000 people, is under the control of the central government.

Areas subdued by the Australians in 2005-06 such as the Chora Valley, just 15km north of their base at Tarin Kowt, have now effectively fallen back under the control of the Taliban.

Nearly six years after the overthrow of the Taliban government in Kabul, Oruzgan remains a Taliban heartland. Its inaccessible mountain valleys are a safe haven for an estimated 300-400 hardened fighters who roam freely across the mountains from neighbouring Helmand and Kandahar.

There are few roads, even fewer government services, and the opium crops are flourishing. Taliban fighters are steadily encroaching on the provincial capital, Tarin Kowt, which lies in a broad valley. They continue to threaten the main road and main supply line south to Kandahar, 120km away.

The Australians know the terrain and know the enemy but, as one senior military source acknowledges, "we will have to start from scratch again and recover lost ground".

Taking responsibility for the province would involve more than doubling the planned 1000-strong commitment, and would include the provision of combat air power and more ground forces.

NATO estimate the number of Taliban fighters in the southern provinces at about 10,000. Many of these are mercenaries and opportunists who will switch sides if they sense the momentum is slipping away from them.

With the Taliban leadership holed up in Quetta, Pakistan, and newly trained fighters crossing freely into Afghanistan, NATO is facing a far more resilient enemy fully prepared to test the resolve of the US and its allies.

In Oruzgan, Australia's SAS, ably supported by commandos, will aim to quickly regain the tactical initiative, limiting the insurgents and freedom of movement and cutting off their support bases and disrupting supply lines.

The aim will be to create fear and uncertainty in the minds of the Taliban and al-Qa'ida fighters, mounting clandestine patrols, all the while trying to gain the confidence of local Afghan elders and villagers.

This time the special forces will stay for at least two years and have the opportunity to really make a difference. But the Australians will need more help to do the job effectively, particularly helicopter support in combat operations. The army's refurbished Chinooks won't return to Oruzgan until early next year, leaving Australian forces totally reliant on NATO aircraft during the next nine months.

Australia's well-meaning efforts in Oruzgan may prove to be only a transitory success in a long painful march out of Afghanistan.

More details and background on the announcement of more troops to Afghanistan here :

Australia's defence deployment to Afghanistan will be doubled, with special forces charged to aggressively hunt down Taliban leadership and disrupt its resurgent terrorist network.

The existing 400 personal working with the Dutch in a Reconstruction Task Force in the Oruzgan province in the troublesome south, will be joined by a Special Operations taskforce made up of Special Air Service soldiers, Commandoes and a "solid intelligence capability", as well as an additional RAAF air surveillance radar group at Kandahar airport.

The present deployment of 120 special protection soldiers, rotated every six months, will be extended for another 18 months.

Two Chinouks helicopters will be returned and joined by an Hercules C-130J aircraft operating broadly across the Middle East.

The announcement means that Australia will have more than 900 personnel deployed by the middle of the year, peaking at over 1000 by the middle of 2008.

Mr Howard indicated he was conscious of the political difficulties Pakistan had in containing the Taliban but was keen for it to do more.

"We would like the Pakistanis to be as active, intense, as committed as zealous as possible in containing it," he said.

"I understand some of the political realities under which (Pakistani President) General (Pervez) Musharraf operates."

Mr Howard said he had made personnel representations to General Musharraf about the matter, as had British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US Vice President Dick Cheney.

"We do all understand some of the history and there is a balancing act," he said.

"There's no doubt that overall the Pakistanis have been good allies in the fight against terrorism," he said.

"I guess in relation to Afghanistan we would like them to be even better allies."

This is exactly the kind of talk which is now infuriating Musharraf, who claims :

"We have suffered the maximum and we have contributed the maximum. Therefore, we will not accept that Pakistan is not doing enough in the war against terror...It pains me when people say that Pakistan is not doing enough."

Why Howard continues to pour on the pressure when Musharraf is threatening to "quit" fighting the 'War on Terror' may be more about laying the media ground work for later revelations that Australian forces are operating on, or in, Pakistan's borders.

Though, according to Musharraf, they might end up doing such operations with his permission.


Howard Claims If Terrorists Gain A Foothold, Again, In Afghanistan, There Will Be "Direct Consequences To This Country"

Howard Asks Pakistan To Curb Taliban

Stop The Criticism Or I Will Quit Fight Against Terror, Warns Musharraf

In Plea Deal, David Hicks Admits To Backing 9/11 Attacks, Withdraws Charges Of Gitmo Abuse

Sentenced To Seven Years For Meeting Osama Bin Laden And Fighting For The Taliban, For Two Hours

Back In Australia Within Weeks, Banned From Speaking To The Media For One Year


UPDATE : David Hicks' 7 Year Sentence Has Been Suspended.

Hicks will be transferred back to Australian within two weeks, and will serve nine months in an Australian prison.

Lawyers and politicians are claiming a "conspiracy" exists between the Howard government and the Bush government to remove the extremely controversial issue of David Hicks' treatment at Guantanamo Bay and why he was held for five years without trial, from the media agenda, as the Australian prime minister prepares for the coming federal election.

In even more remarkable news, claims have surfaced that Hicks' lawyers cut a special deal for the suspended sentence without the knowledge, or agreement, of the US military prosecutors, who were said to have been shocked when it was made public during last night's sentencing hearing that Hicks' would serve only nine months in an Australian prison, even though he admitted to training with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11 and meeting with Osama Bin Laden.


Previously...

David Hicks has admitted that he did take the side of the Taliban in the Afghanistan War, weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and that he did go to the front lines.

For two hours.

He then fled, catching a cab back to Pakistan. He was then captured by the Northern Alliance and sold for a bounty to American forces.

As part of his plea deal, which meant the US military prosecutors did not have to ultimately present evidence to back up their claims in a court, Hicks has admitted to a fleet of so-called terror-related charges. Lawyers have claimed that none of the claims made against him by the US Military prosecutors were crimes in Australia or the United States when Hicks first entered Guantanamo Bay in early 2002.

One of the more surprising bits of news some media are reporting from today's hearing is that Hicks has agreed to provide information on other alleged terrorists and will testify against them.
Presumably, Hicks has already given interrogators this information, sometime during the five years he spent in Guantanamo Bay.

Almost as interesting as the charges he said "Yes" to in last night's military tribunal were the charges Hicks denied, during the course of the plea agreement negotiations, which the prosecution were then forced to drop.

In exchange for dropping some charges and claims, the US Military prosecutors got their conviction and Hicks has been sentenced to seven years imprisonment, five years of which are expected to be considered as time already served in Guantanamo Bay.

Hicks will now be returned to Australia in less than 60 days, possibly as soon as next weekend, and will serve the remaining two years in a maximum security prison.

Hicks was asked by the US Military judge, Colonel Ralph Kohlmann, if it was true that he had "never been illegally treated by any persons in the control or custody of the United States" during his time in Guantanamo Bay. Hicks said, "Yes."

Hicks will now not be able to legally pursue charges against the US government or US Military for torture or illegal imprisonment after he is released from prison.

He has also been banned from speaking to the media for twelve months.

Under oath, Hicks admitted that he had trained with Al Qaeda, but the prosecution were forced to drop the reference "advanced" in reference to at least one training camp, that specialised in surveillance.

The prosecution were also forced to drop the allegation that Hicks had met Richard "Shoe bomber" Reid in a training camp run by Al Qaeda, and another claim that Hicks was near, or in the company of, John Walker Lindh on the front line of the Afghanistan war.

Here's what Hicks admitted to :

* He heard a talk given by Osama Bin Laden, in Arabic, while at a training camp, and he told Bin Laden that there was a lack of "materials" written in English.

* He attended at least three Al Qaeda training camps in January, April and late 2001.

* He saw the September 11, 2001, attacks on a television while staying with a friend in Pakistan, and he had approved of the attacks.

* He had returned to Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States, but he did not admit to having had "advanced knowledge" that terrorists were going to hit New York City and Washington, DC..

* When the US-led coalition invaded Afghanistan in October, 2001, he volunteered to fight with Al Qeada to support the Taliban. Hicks guarded a tank near Kabul Airport and spent a total of two hours on the front lines of the war, near Konduz.

* After two hours on the front line, Hicks then fled to Pakistan after selling his gun for the taxi fare.

Not exactly a stunning win for the prosecution, particularly considering the enormous trouble the US Military had in getting he hearings underway, after years of legal challenges, and a declaration by the US Supreme Court last year that Gitmo military tribunals were unlawful.

Remarkably, the list of charges Hicks admitted to are almost identical to the story told by Hicks through his letters home to his family in the documentary 2004 documentary The President Vs David Hicks.

Hicks will go down in the history of the 'War on Terror' as being the first person to plead guilty and be charged with providing "material support to terrorism" at a Guantanamo Bay military tribunal, created to try detainees picked up during the course of the war.

The full detail of the sentence imposed on Hicks should be announced over the weekend.


Hicks Father Says His Son Has No Plan To Sell History - Agent Estimated Hicks Story Worth More Than $1 Million

US Government Has Its First Certified Tried 'WoT' Terrorist, But Questions On Hicks Treatment Will Still Be Questioned

Foreign Minister Says For Schapelle Corby's Sake, Hicks Should Not Challenge US Sentence Back In Australia

The Gitmo Diet : Fruit, Juice, Sporks And 5000 Calories A Day

"Good Morning, Mr Hicks" : Haircut, Suit & Tie, He Looked Like He Was Going For A Job Interview

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates Wants Gitmo Closed Because It Has No International Credibility - Too Tainted For Trials

Hicks Withdraws Claims Of Abuse And Torture At The Hands Of Americans