Howard Goes For 'The Fear' Over Future Of Iraq War

Bookies Brand Rudd Next Australian PM

The following are excerpts from a post I wrote for Road To Surfdom :

Australia's prime minister, John Howard has got that 5 a.m. gambler’s stale sweat tang seeping out of his pores, and those who once praised him as the greatest PM since Menzies are now stepping around his quivering shadow. This gambler’s luck has run out, the bar’s cut him off, and he still needs to turn his last $2 coin into a taxi fare home. The bouncers are ready to toss this loser out into the bright dawn.

But even the bookies won’t now extend Howard the courtesy of easy confidence. They’ve turned on him, and fast :

Since Mr Rudd took over from Kim Beazley in December, Centrebet’s odds for a Labor election win have shortened from $2.75 to $1.80, while the Coalition’s have blown out from $1.40 to $1.90.

International All Sports, another online betting agency, also has Labor as favourites - $1.85 compared with the Coalition’s $1.95.

However Sportingbet still has the Coalition in front - $1.85 compared with Labor’s $1.95.

Watch those Sportingbet numbers change quick smart on the back of the next Newspoll.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Watching Howard sink into his own muck is like watching your sherry-soaked granddad making a fool of himself at a family gathering.

It’s fun for a while, and as long as granddad keeps his pants on, and doesn’t go near the BBQ, you know he can only cause so much damage.

Soon enough, he’ll be out on his feet, snoring away in front of the cricket. He’s old, you might only get a few more chances to watch the crazy old bastard in full flight.

Why wrestle him to the ground now and spoil everyone’s fun? Let him go off for a while, at least until the snags are cooked.

Howard has ranted for three solid days about the supposed apocalyptic fallout from a troop withdrawal, which is now very likely to come from US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, and President Bush himself, beginning in late 2007.


He has shouted himself hollow in a pathetically desperate effort to resuscitate the decomposing corpse that is the NeoCon wet-dream horror-fantasy of thousands of jihadi-crazed Iraqi insurgents sweeping out of the Middle East like a plague of turbaned locusts on the back of an American defeat in Iraq.

Howard has, of course, added the local angle, threatening every Australian with bomb-packed terrorists lusting to splatter us all across the sails of the Opera House.

So much for the Iraq War not bringing terrorists to our shores.

Go Here To Read The Full Story

For The PM, US Fallout From Linking Democrats To Al Qaeda Grows Only More Intense

Outraged Decorated Marine Veteran Tells Howard To Commit More Troops To Iraq War

John Howard Refuses, But Publicly Commits American Troops To Iraq For Another Year, Or More

By Darryl Mason

To rehash a worn-out, thoroughly disproved argument about the Iraq War must have seemed like no big deal to Prime Minister John Howard when he sat down early Sunday morning for an interview on a national current affairs show.

What he said wasn't all that different from the mantra that he's been chanting for the past three years : that any major withdrawal of American forces from Iraq, before "democracy has taken hold", would be viewed as a major victory by Al Qaeda and a veritable international cast of assorted terrorists.

But this time, John Howard wasn't using the Rumsfeld-trademarked argument against an Australian political opponent, or to whip up unease amongst the Australian public.

Howard's dementia-level international gaffe came when he tried to claim that presidential hopeful Barak Obama, or any other Democrat who wanted to withdraw some combat troops from Iraq in the first quarter of 2008, would hand a victory over America to Al Qaeda.

This time, the American reaction was so intense, and so intensely embarrassing, that Howard couldn't even rely on his "good friend" President George W. Bush to come to his rescue.

It was pointed out to American journalists that Bush had not spoken to Howard in more than six weeks, and Bush made no comment in support of his friend and ally, nor did he issue a statement.

Howard was on his own.

The barrage of criticism and the daily "laceratings" (Howard's description) in federal Parliament became a noxious breather from the intense wave of American anger.

The level of coverage in the US was given a huge boost by the fact that Howard had made these comments on a Sunday morning.

By the time the biggest American news night of the week, and the roll call of current affairs talk and magazine shows, got rolling last Sunday evening, Republicans and Democrats alike were falling over themselves to blast Howard for "interferon" in American politics.

On many American network and cable news shows, the 'Howard Vs Obama' story was number two and even number one, straight out of the gate.

Howard has clearly been left stunned, even mortified, by the American reaction.


There were claims made against Howard in the US that he was being insensitive to the horrific losses of life, and treasure, suffered by the United States in the War On Iraq. The War On Iraq has cost America more than 3100 lives, leaving more than 25,000 wounded and a monumental spend already reaching $AUS400 million.

Then, perhaps even worst of all, came the lead or second-to-lead American Monday night news revelation that Australia had a mere 1400 troops in Iraq. And that as a Coalition of the Willing ally we had suffered no combat deaths, and spent most of our time in the desert training the Iraqi Army, blasting away on firing ranges or shepherding diplomats in and out of the Green Zone.

As an American news-addict friend told me when I called to get his take on the US coverage : "If you ain't dodging bullets, you ain't in the war."


Howard is failing to win the war of opinion over Iraq, or even to seize the high ground.

You could clearly see the look of deep concern on the faces of Howard's ministers as he tried to rebuff the calm, quiet demands in Parliament from Opposition Leader Keving Rudd for the prime minister to apologise to Obama and US Democrats, on Monday and Tuesday.

Howard yelled and waved his hands around and occasionally shrieked, as he tried to light fires with old irrelevant quotes from Labor leaders and ministers. But the noise from his side of Parliament was far more subdued than usual. They were not rallying behind their leader this time. At least, not like they usually did.


Howard tried to reframe the controversy, yet again, last night by claiming :

"My deep concern is that if America is defeated in Iraq a humiliated, enfeebled America might withdraw its interests in our part of the world..."

Trying to now make it all about Australia is an argument unlikely to turn down the heat. And it completely ignores the tremendous losses the US has suffered, and says nothing about the 100 or more Iraqis now being blown to pieces every day the war goes on.

"...my job is to try and call what I think are the consequences of certain actions against Australia's national interest..."

"...if America is defeated in Iraq, it will be a colossal blow to Western prestige and it will give an enormous boost to terrorism and to terrorists not only in the Middle East but in our part of the world and that will not be in Australia's national interest..."

His words have become cold, calculating and genuinely disturbing. And they show clearly just how far removed Howard is from what is happening in Iraq, or perhaps more importantly, what is now happening in the United States, where more than 60% of Americans want their troops to pull out now, civil war or not.

Howard has claimed that any withdrawal at all of US troops from Iraq in the next twelve months hands victory to Al Qaeda and terrorists across the world. This time he did not specify Democrats, or Barak Obama.

His words, without direction, were aimed at the Bush White House as well. Not as a warning, but as a tip of the hat.

"...if we are out in a year's time it will be in circumstances of defeat. When I say we, I mean all the coalition forces and obviously if the Americans go, then other forces will go as well.

"Now that would be circumstances of defeat and I know that the consequences of that for the West, its prestige, American prestige and influence in the Middle East, to spur that would give the terrorism in the Middle East, the implications it would have for the stability of other countries in the Middle East and also in our part of the world, the spur to terrorism..."

You don't need any clearer indication than that, that Howard has already been told by the Bush administration that there will be no withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in the next twelve months.

It is simply not going to happen. Full stop.


In Australia, it's now three days on from Howard's already infamous quote :

"I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."

And it doesn't look like the pressure and attacks on Howard, from within Australian and American politics, is slowing down. Incredibly, the level of fury and outrage seems only to be rising, increasing, multiplying.

The Australian defence minister, Brendan Nelson, tried to come to Howard's defence by committing Australian troops to Iraq for another year, or more :

"Only when we get through the next six, 12 months or whatever period of time it takes will we be in a position to make any reasonable and responsible judgement about whether the United States, Britain or anyone else is in a position to withdraw..."

Clearly Howard's crew believes they are on the right track. That they have seized control of the national debate and can use it to show up Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd as being "weak" on national security. They are all likely to be proven very, very wrong. As with the situation in the US, Howard has lost clarity on the views and opinions of Australians when it comes to how long our troops should stay in Iraq.

Rudd challenged the prime minister to a televised debate over the future of Australia's involvement in the Iraq War.

But Howard refused.

Not a good look for someone now trying to claim that Rudd is "gutless", because he won't spell out what he thinks will happen in Iraq following a coalition troop withdrawal.


It's a rare day in political hell when a coalition leader manages to get both the Democrats and Republicans offside. I can't think of another incident from a leader, say Tony Blair, that even comes close to generating the level of fallout that Howard's absurd claims have now created.

And now comes the hardest question of all for Howard to answer : If he believes in the War On Iraq so much, so vehemently, that he would accuse American politicians of trying to hand victory to Al Qaeda, why doesn't he commit more Australian troops to the fight?

Saying we don't have enough forces, that our Army is too small, that combat-trained troops are already on other deployments, won't cut it in the United States.

It's barely a good enough excuse back home. The Americans are going to eat Howard alive if he thinks that's some kind of excuse for short-changing the war effort.

Decorated Marine veteran, and American senator, John Murtha, has demanded Howard keep his nose out of American politics and domestic affairs, or commit more troops to Iraq. Now :

John Murtha, a decorated Marine veteran who is close to military commanders, and who galvanised leading Democrats into demanding a phased withdrawal from Iraq, said he appreciated that Australia had been a good ally, but that it was US soldiers whose lives were being sacrificed in Iraq and US taxpayers who were paying for the war.

"John Howard is trying to interfere in an election and that's uncalled for," he told CNN. "I agree with Barack Obama that if Mr Howard believes it is so vital for coalition forces to stay in Iraq, he should find a way to send more Australian forces."

"The Iraqis will deal with al-Qaeda as soon as we are gone," he said. "They don't want them in the country and al-Qaeda will be gone once we have withdrawn."

Note : The US Ambassador to Australia just said during a National Press Club address that Murtha is the only person he knew of who was making this argument. The ambassador needs to read more Arab media, where arguments exactly like the one Murtha made have been debated for more than a year now.


Howard Advises Al Qaeda On Winning A Victory In Iraq Against America

Howard's Fears Of An American Defeat In Iraq Are All About The Damage To Australia's "Interests"

The Tide Of Events In Iraq And The US Are Running Against Howard, And The Australian Public Knows It

Police 'Legally' Search Mobile Phone Records Of Journalists To Source Leaks And Whistleblowers

By Darryl Mason

It's a story you might think would have got more media coverage, considering it concerns...the media, as well as being a story that heralds a stunning invasion of their private and professional lives. But clearly the death of Anna Nicole Smith was far more important.

It's surprising enough to learn that police are able to access the 'cell' phone records of journalists, without their knowledge.

But it's shocking to think that this is being done to discover the source of journalists secret sources, to uncover the names and locations of those who 'leak' information to the media, or "blow the whistle" on police corruption and criminal behaviour.

If they can do it to journos because news reports using undisclosed sources can lead to embarrassment for senior cops and government ministers, what exactly do you think they're doing with your phone records?

The days of "If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about" are dead and gone.

This is the age of "If you haven't done anything wrong, we're still going to have a good look around your private data and keep a permanent record of it for later, just in case."

From the Sunday Telegraph :

NSW Police are combing through the mobile phone records of journalists trying to find whistleblowers who have given information to the media. The Sunday Telegraph has been told the practice has become common since the Macquarie Fields riots in early 2005.

Newspaper and radio reports following the riots exposed serious shortcomings among senior NSW Police.

The leaks embarrassed Commissioner Ken Moroney and the Government.

Presumably "common" means "daily".

Police Commissioner Moroney refused to answer any of the ten questions submitted by the Sunday Telegraph, but he did issue the following, fact-filled, chilling, statement :

"The Telecommunications Act 1997 governs the circumstances in which telecommunications carriers may disclose mobile phone records. The NSW police force obtains access to this information within the bounds of this legislative scheme. It is not in the public interest for the NSW police force to disclose its investigative methodology.''

It appears the police commissioner is not only saying this is all perfectly legal and nothing new, but that they may have been combing journalists 'cell' phone records for 10 years.

In fact, forget maybe and think definitely instead.

The exploitation of provisions within the 1997 Telecommunications Act has clearly allowed police to cross-check the phone records of journalists, without their knowledge, over the past decade, and may have already yielded the identites of numerous whistleblowers and leakers.

The sheer fact that such privacy violating provisions exist within the law also acts as a powerful psychological weapon.

If you had the 'scoop' on some corrupt coppers and the phone number of a journalist you knew would be interested, but you then read the Sunday Telegraph story, you'd be thinking twice about contacting that journalist by any method of communication other than semaphore flags from a distant hilltop.

But then that fear of exposure might be the exact kind of deterrent desired, in the first place, by those who wish to discover the identity of once anonymous whistleblowers and leakers.


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

More Blogs By Darryl Mason

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Bird Flu Blog'

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War' Blog

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Last Days Of President Bush'

Go Here For The The Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality'

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

Prime Minister Advises Al Qaeda In Iraq On Strategy To Defeat America And The West

Howard : Democrat Win In 2008 Presidential Elections Will Spell Victory For Al Qaeda

Howard's Attack Aimed At All US Democrats

By Darryl Mason

In a bizarre, venom-splashed attack on US presidential candidate Senator Barak Obama yesterday morning, the Australian prime minister, John Howard, first imagined what he would do as leader of Al Qaeda, and then offered the following advice to the terrorist group that has killed thousands of American citizens and troops in the past six years :

"I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats."

Howard's astounding comments (echoing comments made against Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry by US President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney in the months leading up to the 2004 presidential elections) came only hours after Senator Barak Obama announced he would pull US combat forces out of Iraq if he became president of the United States.

Senator Obama fired back, stating that John Howard should send 20,000 Australian troops to Iraq to help win the war, if he believed his own words and wanted to avoid a hypocritical stand :

"I think it's flattering that one of George Bush's allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced [my candidacy]," Senator Obama said.

"I would also note that we have close to 140,000 troops in Iraq and my understanding is Mr Howard has deployed 1,400.

"So if he is...to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq, otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

In Parliament this afternoon, the prime minister attempted to claim that his comments were only aimed at Senator Obama, though clearly he was talking about all Democrats who foresaw a US troop pullout in their portfolio should they win the 2008 presidential election, including Hilary Clinton.

Under persistent questioning by Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, the prime minister launched into near incomprehensible ranting about how his Obama comments were all about "Australia's interests". He claimed that a US defeat in Iraq would spell big trouble for Australia and the region, appearing to go against his former claims that local terrorist threats were unrelated to the Iraq War.

Many Australians are wondering today whether prime minister, John Howard, has "lost it." "It" being his previously razor-sharp political instincts and his ability to rarely put a foot wrong when it came to international politics.

Howard's attack on Obama are widely viewed in Australia as yet another major error by Howard, who claimed last week that "the jury is still out" when it came to the link between climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. He later corrected himself in Parliament, though he clearly did not want to do so. Long derided as a global warming denier, Howard now says he is a climate change "realist".

Howard's damaging errors of the past seven days are causing huge displeasure in the coalition government (though few have stepped forward to publicly criticise the prime minister, so far), placing his position as leader of the coalition under threat.

Howard has long maintained that he would remain leader of his party as long as the party wanted him to remain leader. If the coming federal election was delayed until 2008, Howard may find himself learning the harsh reality of those claims.


Story continues below...

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

More Blogs By Darryl Mason

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Bird Flu Blog'

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War' Blog

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Last Days Of President Bush'

Go Here For The The Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality'

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


John Howard's recent remarkable failure to maintain his rarely dented visage as a political behemoth come as fresh polls reveal both Howard and the government he leads are losing favour and popularity amongst the Australian electorate, at near record rates of decline.

Howard is clearly rattled, by the failure of the War On Iraq, and his fading popularity. More Australians now prefer Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd as prime minister than John Howard by a margin of some 16%.

The prime minister was clearly hoping to give his American allies, President Bush and the White House administration, an opportunity to infer, as Fox News has already done, that Senator Barak Obama has some kind of sympathy with Islamist terrorism because his father was a Muslim. Obama has repeatedly stated that he supports the War On Terror and that he is a Christian.

In all, Howard's comments are damaging to the Australian-US alliance, as this alliance is about decidedly more than simple allegiance to President Bush.

How John Howard expects to have an open and honest relationship with the Democrats should they win the 2008 presidential elections, after openly stating such a victory would be praised by Al Qaeda, is anyone's guess.


MORE UPDATES TO FOLLOW.....

Demands Made In Parliament That Howard Retract Obama Comments And Apologise To All US Democrats

Howard Steps Up Attack On Obama

US Democrats Say Howard's Comments "Bizarre"

Howard Vs Obama Over Iraq Dominates US News

Obama To Howard : Send 20,000 Troops To Iraq Or Shut Up

One In Three Australian Medical Specialists Admit They Will Break The Law To End Infants Suffering

The crime is not using pain and consciousness relieving drugs to hasten the end of a terribly unfortunate life. The crime is that compassionate medical professionals must break Australian law to do so.

Below is a story that quietly appeared in the Australian media and then disappeared again, almost without a sound.

It was quite surprising that no conservative groups or right-wingers latched onto this story and raised a fuss. It is a mark of a mature society when medical professionals are left to do their jobs with the trust of the community behind them. That the hard choices they sometimes have to make, that we rarely hear about, are not made in a spontaneous fashion, nor spuriously, and are only done so as to end pain and human misery where it is reasonably possible to do so.

Yet it remains an appalling tragedy that these medicos must break the law by using drugs to bring about a fast and humane end to human suffering in lives so young, yet it is legal to let a three month old baby die of starvation or asphyxiation instead.

The crime is not the action, in these cases. The crime is the law.

From 'The Australian' :

One in three medical specialists is prepared to break the law by using painkillers or sedatives to hasten the death of a baby born with a severe life-threatening disability.

An anonymous survey of neonatologists in Australia and New Zealand also found almost half were willing to use medication to speed up death in critically ill newborns for whom further treatment was considered hopeless.

Peter Barr, a senior physician at the Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, who conducted the study, said the desire to alleviate a baby's pain and suffering sometimes outweighed doctors' concerns about the law.

"This was a self-reporting questionnaire where neonatologists responded to hypothetical situations, so we don't know exactly what they do in practice, but we know what their preferences are," Dr Barr said. "They were presenting their views, knowing that they were not lawful."

While neonatologists commonly withdraw or withhold treatment in newborns with a terminal disease or severe disability, it is illegal to use medication to hasten a person's death.

However, doctors reported that they would prefer to use painkillers or sedation to hasten death, rather than withholding oxygen or nutrients.

"For example, if further medical treatment has been deemed therapeutically non-beneficial or overly burdensome, then neonatologists may consider it more compassionate and humane to purposefully hasten death unlawfully with analgesia-sedation than, for instance, to forgo gastric tube feeding, which may be lawful," the study found.

"Hence neonatologists seem to support the moral notion that it is sometimes 'better to kill than let die' - even though the former is unlawful and seems not to respect the 'sanctity of life'."

Dr Barr also discovered there was a link between doctors' personal fear of death and their ethical beliefs. "Neonatologists who said that they were prepared to hasten death when death was inevitable had a greater of fear of death than those who thought that it was unacceptable," Dr Barr said.

"Fear of the dying process and premature death may unconsciously motivate these neonatologists to do what they can to ease the baby's suffering and hasten their death, and that takes priority over the legal implications."

University of Queensland professor of medical ethics Malcolm Parker told The Australian doctors who chose to break the law were motivated by compassion.

"It's never easy for clinicians faced with that situation but I'm sure they feel compelled in very severe cases to do what they believe is the most humane thing," he said. "In that sense, ethically they may not find it a difficult decision to make but I'm sure the idea of breaking the law would not be easy."

Thousands Of Birds Dying In Huge Clusters In Western Australia

Why? "Extreme Weather"

Thousands of birds have been, literally, dropping from the skies over towns in Western Australia over the past two months, and no-one seems to know why.

While finding a dead bird in your yard isn't unusual, find a few dozen certainly is, but this was the experience of people in the WA town of Esperance in December, 2006.

Now it's happening again, in other towns.

There were reasonable fears that the birds were dying of avian influenza, but that has apparently been ruled out, as has other viruses and poisonings.

The best WA's Department of Environment and Conservation has been able to come up with to explain the bizarre bird deaths has been "extreme weather".

From the smh.com.au :

More mass bird deaths have been reported in Western Australia but authorities do not believe they are related to the mystery scourge that killed thousands of birds in the state's south.

WA's Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) has been unable to determine what killed up to 4,000 nectar-eating birds in and around Esperance between December 7 and January 2.

The birds, mostly yellow-throated miners, wattle birds, new Holland honeyeaters and silvereyes, plus some seagulls and pigeons, were found dead near water sources such as sprinklers and water tanks.

The DEC said bird viruses and bacteriological causes had been ruled out as the cause of death and toxins were still the most likely culprit.

DEC Nature Protection Branch manager Dave Mell said the department had recently received reports of groups of dead birds - up to as many as 200 - at Yealering, Kellerberrin, Cunderdin, Kulin and Kukerin, in the state's wheatbelt.

But Mr Mell said he did not believe the deaths were related to those around Esperance.

"The recent deaths have coincided with high temperatures of up to 45 degrees Celsius and strong winds, and we believe it's most likely the deaths can be attributed to the extreme weather conditions," Mr Mell said.

"Monster" Great White Shark Spotted Off Sydney Beaches

Cue music : duh dum, duh dum, duh dum dumdumdumdumdum....

It's said to be at least 15 feet long, and has already eaten a dog and a pelican. It's a great white shark, and it's prowling off Sydney beaches.

The "monster" sized shark was described in this report as having "a tendency for aggressiveness." Unlike all those other 15 feet great whites that are complacent and friendly.

“There is evidence to show that this shark has been taking animals,” said Stephen Leahy, the rescue services manager for Surf Lifesaving Sydney.

A couple of eyewitness reports :

“I just went down to the beach, everything was nice and calm and then all of a sudden it was like a boat taking off with all the wake; but we could only see the fin and the shadow...”

Mangan, who owns the Boatshed Cafe on the seafront corroborated Leahy saying, “I definitely know about the pelican being eaten, because the helicopter pilots who saw it happen come for coffee in my cafe. They said it was a White Pointer.”

Mangan was worried about his business. “I rely on people coming swimming and then eating at my cafe. The shark has been hanging around for over a week. I hope it goes away soon,” he said.

But wait a minute, there seems to be a bit of a dispute about whether or not sharks are actually aggressive. Apparently sharks are not aggressive, they're just "curious".

Yes, curious about what your lower torso tastes like.

Shark expert Matt Jacobs informs :

“Sharks, unfortunately for us, don't have hands, and so use their mouth to feel. They are curious and sometimes soft bodied animals, like us, can be damaged.”

“They could just be curious but because it's a shark, people think it is being aggressive...”

Matt appears to be saying that if sharks, uh, had hands, they would not be biting off so much of you when they came up to see what you felt like (?).

They're just curious, you see, and all that chomping and thrashing and foaming blood and sea water is just how a great white shark gets to know you better.

So far the "monster" shark has spotted off La Perouse Beach, but shark alarms have also been raised at Bondi.

Swimmers Should Think Twice "Until This Monster Goes Away"

December, 2006 : Surfers Had To Be Talked Out Of Returning To The Waves After Vicious Shark Attack

Head In Shark : "Poke The Bastard In The Eye"

McDonalds : Good For The Heart?

Nine Maccas Meals Approved By The Heart Foundation

Ever since the UK McLibel trial of the early 1990s exposed the questionable quality, product sourcing and preparation standards of McDonalds' fast food, the global hamburger giant has spent billions re marketing itself as a "healthy" fast food alternative to, say, a bowl of green salad.

They now sell green salads, of course - along with the deliciously greasy double-meat, double-cheese burgers - and this has won the company the right, in Australia at least, to claim some of its food is good for the heart.

Australia was one of the first countries in the world to test-trial McDonalds salad range and low-fat yoghurt's and fruit salads and sandwich 'wraps'.

The move wasn't exactly a monster success for the first couple of years, but they've gradually clawed themselves a new market amongst vegetarians and people who used to feel their clogged chests tighten when they panted the words "Two Quarter Pounders and a large fries, please."

The move by the Australian Heart Foundation to allow McDonalds to put its widely-respected 'tick' logo on some food products is going to be enormously controversial, particularly since McDonalds also had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the "clearance" to do so from the Heart Foundation.

But Australians are buying the 'fresh food' and 'vegetarian' alternatives on offer from McDonalds in greater numbers than they were three or four years ago.

And with the Heart Foundation's approval, they are now likely to buy a whole lot more of those healthier fast food options in the future.

Along with an occasional large fries.


From ABC Radio's 'The World Today' (excerpts) :

For the first time McDonald's has received the Heart Foundation 'tick of approval' for nine of its meals.

It's an unlikely liaison between a fast food giant and a guardian of healthy eating, and undoubtedly the best advertising a fast food outlet could have.

JANE COWAN: For years a trip through the Golden arches has been laden with guilt, as well as fat....

Susan Anderson from the Heart Foundation...makes no apology for the Heart Foundation venturing into the world of fast food. She says McDonald's is feeding thousands of Australians every day and has genuinely lifted its game.

SUSAN ANDERSON: We've given them a tick of approval for meeting some very strict standards, because we know people are there, we know that they're not curbing their dietary patterns by not going to these sorts of places, so it is much better that they have a healthier choice when they're there.

JANE COWAN: Catherine Saxelby is a Sydney-based nutritionist. She concedes she was surprised to hear McDonald's had won the tick, but pleased.

CATHERINE SAXELBY: Look, in an ideal world I would love to walk into a fast food outlet where everything was healthy, was low in fat, high in fibre, lots of vegetables, lots of salad, but it isn't available, and when I'm driving on the highway and I have to stop at McDonald's because it's the only place available, at least there are healthier choices.

So there you go, even nutritionists now admit to eating McDonalds, after guilt-tripping everyone else for years about scarfing down a 3am Big Mac to quell a gut full of roiling booze.


Weird Fact : One of the founders of the Heart Foundation was a man named Sir Warren D'Arcy McDonald.

Prime Minister : I Can Free David Hicks Whenever I Want...

But I'm Not Going To

David Hicks is probably the most famous and easily recognised name in Australia at the moment. His plight has generated enormous publicity in the Australian media, and for the past three months, much of that spotlight's glare has been downright sympathetic.

Which is remarkable, when you consider that the US military accuses 31 year old David Hicks of aiding terrorists and attempting to commit murder.

He is one of the Guantanamo Bay detainees that President Bush, and former US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, used to refer to as, "killers who kill" and "the worst of the worst."

For five years, Hicks has been isolated, tortured, deprived of sunlight, of sensory stimulation, of human contact. His lawyers claim he has become like a tired, old man, desperate and despondent. They fear he may prove to be mentally unfit to stand trial.

Hicks spends 22 hours a day in what his lawyer has described as a "steel cell". He is under constant surveillance, in order to prevent suicide attempts.

Hicks's lawyer, David McLeod, spent four days visiting Hicks In Guantanamo Bay last week :

"...when I left David on the Thursday, in my 30 years of professional life it was one of the hardest and most heartrending things I had to do.

To look him in the eye and say "David, I don't know when we'll be seeing you again, we'll do our best for you", but it was like looking into the eyes of someone dying from a potentially fatal illness who is being denied the life saving drug that would cure his ill and to leave him in that state alone with his thoughts, nobody to talk to, nobody to comfort him, it was a very heartrending thing for me to do...."

The US military have denied Hicks the opportunity of independent psychiatric assessment. No doubt they fear that any psychiatrist given access to a man like Hicks, who has been detained in such conditions for so long, is going to shout long and loud about the intolerable inhumanity inflicted upon him.

Last week the US Military announced they were planning to finally charge Hicks, but last night they revealed it could be months more before Hicks even gets close to facing trial by the reconstituted military tribunal.

Three years ago, most Australians would have not recognised David Hicks' name, or known why he was being held hostage by the American military in Guantanamo Bay.

But they know who he is now.

They know his face, they know parts of his life story, they are seeing images of him as a bright-eyed kid on a televised ad campaign, and they know the pain and torment his aging father has suffered while the Howard government refused to even pressure President Bush to get the Australian charged and on trial for four long years.

It was only after shocking polls showed just how much support the 'trial now or release him' demands by campaigners had found amongst the Australian public that John Howard was finally seen to be putting at least some pressure on his "close friend" President Bush.

As a sign of the extraordinary change in how Australian view Hicks' plight, a story about his extended detention and shattered mental state was aired last night on the highest rating current affairs in the country, and there was barely a mention that he was a suspected terrorist, or that he had been 'captured' by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks and sold for a bounty to US forces.

The story on Today Tonight stuck to a new script determined by polls that showed more than 70% of Australians were vastly unhappy with how the Howard government has dealt with the Hicks fiasco.

Almost 50% of Australians said that what happened to David Hicks would affect the choices they made come election day.

Remarkably, the demands by the Australian public that Hicks either face a fair trial for his alleged crimes or be set free is now shaping up to be one of the four key election decisions that will determine whether or not John Howard remains prime minister of Australia come 2008.



Prime minister Howard admitted yesterday that he can get David Hicks out of Guantanamo Bay any time he wants to.

But he won't do it, because he believes Hicks must face the terrorism-related charges set to be filed by the US Military, despite the fact that virtually no reputable law firm or expert in the world believes the trials proposed by the US military will come close to being fair, or just.

When Howard told his coalition MPs yesterday afternoon, on the first day that federal parliament resumed for 2007, that he could get the United States to set Hicks free, at least six MPs demanded to know why Howard wouldn't allow Hicks to come home.

Howard replied that Hicks couldn't be tried for his alleged crimes in Australia, as no offence under Australian law been committed at the time he was captured.

What Howard is saying is that he cannot stomach the fact that Hicks could be flown home to Australia and go free, to be reunited with his family after five long years.

But Australians have grown very aware of how their prime minister has manipulated them over the past decade, and they will be extremely suspicious if Howard manages to secure the release of David Hicks in the coming weeks.

If Howard thinks he can now boost his rapidly diminishing chances of winning the upcoming federal elections by Hicks out of Gitmo, before he faces trial, he's going to be in for a shocker of a surprise.

Hicks coming home would make the vast majority of Australians very happy, but that is unlikely to translate into votes for Howard. If anything, it may make Australians even more cynical about the prime minister's motivations, and his humanity.

From the Sydney Morning Herald :

(Howard) indicated yesterday he would not let him languish indefinitely, saying he would set the US further timelines for the case to be dealt with.

He earlier gave the US until the middle of this month for Mr Hicks to be charged. At the weekend, two new charges were sworn against Mr Hicks but have not yet been approved or laid.

Lawyers from the US State Department said yesterday it was unlikely he would be formally charged by mid-February, and it was too early to say whether he would be tried within a year.

The Prime Minister said public sentiment was shifting and the matter had not been well handled by the Americans.

But this did not deter backbenchers from speaking out, saying it was not the person but the process that concerned them.

....MPs pointed out that Mr Hicks's case was becoming a "big concern" in the community.

The West Australian senator Judith Adams said a Labor victory in a state byelection in Perth over the weekend was in part fuelled by anger over Mr Hicks and Iraq.

Mr Howard dismissed this.

Labor's legal affairs spokesman, Kelvin Thomson, said Mr Howard's claim exposed the whole process as a joke.

"If the Prime Minister is claiming he can determine, and therefore by default, is determining David Hicks's fate, this is outrageous," Mr Thomson said.

New Charges Against David Hicks Announced : Is That All They've Got On Him?

Attorney General Approves Use Of "Coerced Evidence" Against Hicks In Trial

Hicks' Lawyer : "He's Clearly On The Spiral Of Despair"

Come To Beautiful Australia....

And Die

2433 Visitors Met Their Deaths Down Under In Seven Years

Invisible rips off some of Australia's most beautiful beaches, car accidents, crocodiles, crazed koalas that can "carve up" the unsuspecting, serial killers, poisonous spiders, the unforgiving heat - there's plenty of ways backpackers and tourists can come to grief in Australia.

And thousands of them have. More than 2400 'visitors' have died in this land during the past seven years alone, including some 25 children, according to the Bureau of Statistics :

Between 2003 and 2005, 28 tourists drowned while 65 were killed in car crashes and another 276 died of natural causes.

Heat stroke claimed the lives of three tourists, seven died scuba diving or snorkelling, two died hiking, one died parachuting and another died after being bitten by an animal.

Men, apparently, are three times more likely to lose their lives while visiting Australia than women are.

Remember blow-ins, you're not the Crocodile Hunter, leave the animals alone. They've got a taste for the blood of foreigners, and they like it.

...The Australian Reptile Park's Craig Adams said tourists should admire native wildlife without touching. They should also know first aid, he said.

"Going bush here is a far cry from the urbane European lifestyle," he said.

"Crocodiles can be found in the most unlikely areas, a mud pool can hold a 4m or 5m crocodile.

"People don't realise a koala will give you a nasty bite or carve you up with its claws, a wombat can knock you over but that does not mean they are going to attack."

Of course, the stats on dead and injured visitors are actually quite small in comparison to the millions of tourists who visit Australia and suffer nothing worse than brain-melting hangovers and skin-peeling sun burn.

Or is that just what we want the rest of the world to think?

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

More Blogs By Darryl Mason


Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War' Blog

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Bird Flu Blog'

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Last Days Of President Bush'

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

He Stood Up, He Put His Hands In The Air, He Sat Down Again

Then The Police Threw Him Out Of The Cricket Ground



22 year old Mathew Newtown was escorted from a cricket match in Sydney yesterday for standing up and then sitting down again.

Has Australia become that much of a police state? How can a person be ejected from a public event for standing up and sitting down?

Newtown was doing 'The Mexican Wave'.

And Mexican Waves are now banned at all Melbourne Cricket Ground matches and events. In fact, the Cricket Australia has implemented a "No Wave" policy at all its matches.

Newtown was at the New Zealand V Australia match with protest on his mind. He decided he would engage in civil disobedience to make a point - that banning the Mexican Wave at the cricket was fun-policing gone too far.

Newtown said :

"The MCG is the people's ground. Cricket Australia seems to have forgotten that but the people here certainly haven't. The Mexican wave will survive."

While many spectators were keen to be part of any wave, most were unwilling to risk ejection for instigating one. And those who did take part were keen not to be too rowdy as police warned the public that plainclothes officers were ready to hand out $210 on-the-spot fines to those caught throwing objects.

Victoria Police Superintendent Stephen Leane said that while his officers did not want to take the fun out of watching the cricket, "there is serious risk of injury because of the throwing of missiles".

Some at the Melbourne Cricket Ground were happy about the ban. Melbourne mother Pamela said :

"I'm delighted that steps have been taken to ban such an abhorrent act..."

Abhorrent act?

Others were not happy :

"It gets everyone involved,...If it starts up I'll get involved. But I wouldn't get caught starting one. And I wouldn't throw anything in the air. That's why the problem has started."

Friends Thea and Jo from Camberwell said they were forced to consider whether they wanted to attend yesterday's game once they heard that the Mexican wave had been outlawed.

"It's only dangerous when people throw things in the air, otherwise it's the whole crowd united."

You can't smoke at the cricket, you can't drink excessively, you can't hurl random abuse, you can't stand up and sit down too quickly, and you can't even throw paper airplanes.

You just have to sit and watch people occasionally hit a ball with a stick, no matter how mind-numbingly tedious it gets.

And we thought the crowd-surfing ban at rock gigs was beyond a joke.

The "No Wave" Cricket Australia policy is beyond the beyond.

It is still legal, however, for the Melbourne Cricket Ground to charge $5, or more, for a meat pie.

That abhorrent act is unlikely to be banned any time soon.

New Charges Against David Hicks Announced

Is That All They've Got?

New charges against David Hicks, an Australian held hostage in Guantanamo Bay for more than five years, have been announced. He is set to be charged with attempted murder, and supplying material support for terrorism.

If convicted Hicks could face life in an American prison.

But is that it?

Is that really all they've got on him, if the charges even stand up to the scrutiny of a trial?

After all these years, that's it?

The attempted murder charge is serious enough, but it's going to be all but impossible to prove, even in the highly questionable processes of a military tribunal.

Material support for terrorism is a meaningless charge, with no precedent under the rules of war, if that's how the US military actually intends to actually pursue such a charge against Hicks.

But these charges have only been announced. They are only in draft form for now.

Hicks still hasn't actually been formally charged with anything.

That process alone could take weeks longer. The charges have to be thoroughly reviewed before Hicks is formally charged with attempted murder and 'aiding' terrorism.

And before Hicks is formally charged, the accusations could be tossed out during the review process.

Hicks may be home sooner than most may think.

From smh.com.au :

Colonel Morris Davis, the chief prosecutor for the upcoming military commissions, announced Hicks and two other Guantanamo Bay inmates would be the first three to be brought to trial.

Hicks's American-appointed military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, questioned the validity of both proposed charges in light of comments made by Col Davis in a recent media interview with Australia's ABC.

"The old charge of attempted murder has reappeared even after the chief prosecutor has admitted to the ABC that there is no evidence that David shot at anyone in Afghanistan," Maj Mori said.

"The charge of material support is not part of the law of war and does not appear in any US or Australian military manual as a law of war offence.

"What is most disturbing is that while Australian ministers have consistently said that creating a new law and applying it retrospectively to David Hicks is inappropriate, the same ministers are encouraging the US administration to apply a new law created less than four months ago retrospectively to David Hicks.

"This is something the United States will not do to Americans."

Col Davis' proposed charges will be handed to US military judge Susan Crawford who has been appointed the military commission's Convening Authority.

Judge Crawford may approve the charges, or she could reject them.

Charges approved by Judge Crawford would then be the charges Hicks faced at a military commission trial held at the US naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Hicks and other inmates are housed.

Prime Minister "Glad" New Charges Have Been Drafted Against Hicks

Federal Justice Minister : "Five Years Without Trial Is...Totally Inappropriate"

Australia's Defence Establishment Calls For Hicks' Release

Was David Hicks Shown Imagery Of Saddam Hussein's Hanging In An Attempt To Drive Him To Commit Suicide?

John Howard's Heart Of Stone : Sudden Interest In Hick's Five Year Long Illegal Detention Brought On By Suprise Polls That Show 7 Out Of 10 Australians Want Hicks Charged Or Released

Boxer Anthony Mundine Likens The Decimation Of The Australian Aboriginals To The Jewish Holocaust

By Darryl Mason

There's a few Australians, including the NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, who would prefer that Anthony Mundine just shut the hell up and do what they say he's supposed to be doing - preparing for a title boxing match due in a few weeks time.

And he is one hell of a boxer. But world champion Anthony Mundine is also an Aboriginal, and he's a Muslim. Plus, he's getting mouthy. He's got plenty to say, on behalf of Aboriginal Australians, whether most of them want him to speak on his behalf or not.

But an Aboriginal Muslim with high media exposure spells 'Danger Zone' for those who live in fear of the day coming when Islam becomes the predominant religion of Australian Aboriginals.

You can read a previous story here about the music video Mundine's made, where he tries out his chops as a rapper-storyteller, while Redfern Aboriginals shred photos of the prime minister, John Howard, and a Union Jack flag goes up in flames.

But it's the words Mundine spoke today that are likely to set off fires in the media far bigger than his controversial video.

Mundine has claimed that the decimation of the Aboriginal population under the invasion and occupation of the British, from the 1770s onwards, is comparable to what Nazi Germany did to the European Jews in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

Governors of the early colonies estimated the Aboriginal population of Australia at around 200,000 in the late 1700s. By the early 1900s, there were fewer than 80,000, by most reputable estimates.

Aboriginals have lived on the Australian continent for 60,000 to more than 100,000 years. Although there was never a written language, Aboriginals developed incredibly complex social, tribal and family structures, and used a language of symbols, paintings and rock carvings to communicate with other tribes, and to leave markers for where to find the best hunting and food stocks in thousands of areas across the continent.

Some of the hundreds of Aboriginal tribes that lived and thrived in Australia for thousands of generations worshipped the sun as a creation entity, tens of thousands of years before Ancient Egyptians came up with the concept of Ra.

From the late 1700s onwards, Aboriginals were massacred, hunted for sport, exposed to alcohol (close to a deadly toxin for many Aboriginals), decimated by viruses brought in by colonists and treated as slave labour, sometimes in conditions that led to a premature demise.

There has been a rigorous attempt by the extreme right wing of politicians and historians in Australia, in the past two decades, to whitewash such facts out of our collective history. Prime Minister John Howard dismissively refers to "the black arm band" of Australia's history, as though we are supposed to forget what happened here, as though it is unimportant to the state and fate of the nation.

But as the reconciliation movement of the late 1990s and early 2000s showed, along with the unofficial 'Sorry Day', most Australians would agree with Mundine's words below : that there was a Holocaust of Aborigines, and it was conducted under the Union Jack.

Or as some Indonesians still call it, 'The Butcher's Apron.'

From the AAP :

Boxer Anthony Mundine has likened the British treatment of Aborigines to the murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust.

"John Howard has got to step to the plate, admit he is wrong, just like the Germans did back in the day and admitted under Hitler what they did and then moved forward," Mundine told Channel Nine.

He said the Union Jack was not a symbol to be proud of.

"It symbolises murder, raping, pillaging of the native people of the land," he said.

"The burning of the flag, we burn it, or the people burnt it, because they want to wash away with the dark side, with the dark past that Australia's got in its history and let's move forward, get a more unified place for the people."

Story continues below...

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

More Blogs By Darryl Mason

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War' Blog

Go Here For The Latest Stories From 'The Last Days Of President Bush'

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


Mundine is right.

The majority of Australians are waiting for a true reconciliation, but John Howard refuses to let this become part of his political legacy, even though in decades to come such a move for reconciliation would feature more prominently, and positively, in the history books than just about anything else he has done in his decade in office.

Mudine waits, Aboriginal Australians wait, as we all wait.

Australia is not a British colony anymore, we're not an outpost under the Union Jack. And the sooner we truly, officially, recognise what has been to the original people of this land, the better.

For everyone.

John Birmingham Gives One White Man's Response To Mundine: Shut Up And Box

John Howard's Image And Union Jack Torn To Shred And Burnt In Mundine's Video

Former Gitmo Detainee In Run For State Parliament, Claims Anti-Terror Laws Are Pointless

Habib : "We Have No Terrorists In Australia"

Australian Mamdouh Habib spent three years in Guantanamo Bay, after being renditioned through Egypt from Pakistan, a time during which he claims he was repeatedly tortured, and abused, before he was released without charge in early 2005.

Now he's making a controversial run for the NSW State Parliament.

Habib has certainly got his independent campaign off to a headline-worthy start, claiming that Australia's new, and extremely broad, anti-terror laws are not necessary because, "We have no terrorists in Australian, I believe."

"The terror laws are if you have terrorists....This country is a peaceful country," Habib said of his adopted homeland. "I believe Australia is the best country in the world."

Habib is running for the seat of Auburn, home to thousands of Muslims, and long regarded as a "safe seat" for the State Labor government.

He said he is not concerned that his chances of winning a seat in parliament are not great, only that the voice of the local people is heard, and that human rights for Australian citizens are protected.

Habib's announcement that he was stepping into politics was greeted with a near hysterical reaction by the NSW's premier, Morris Iemma. He called Habib an "extremist" and said his campaign was "lunacy".

Habib is unfazed.

"I don't care about Morris Iemma or (prime minister) John Howard, I worry about myself," he was quoted here as saying :

"I have no answer to anyone saying Mr Habib is an extremist. We're here to focus on what we must try to do in our area. Whatever anyone says, I have no problem."

He said he would be campaigning for free speech and human rights,

"....the right of freedom of expression and in opposition to the anti-terrorist laws, state and federal".

"The right to fight racism, the end of scapegoating of Aborigines, Muslims and migrants...The right to oppose Australia's involvement in Iraq."

Habib's campaign is supported by the Auburn Human Rights Group.

Campaign manager for the Auburn Human Rights Group, Raul Bassi, said Habib's campaign had won the group's support because he believed the Liberal and Labor parties had nothing new to offer the citzens of Auburn :

"All they have to offer is more privatisation, less money for people's needs and lots of empty promises with hidden agendas," Mr Bassi said.

"The aim of the campaign is to reclaim our diminishing human rights, negated every day by the state and federal governments, and to organise people who are prepared to fight for them."

Crocodile 'Catches" Man On The Run For Police

Deputise That Croc

Every time the police got close to the man's house, he would bolt into long grass on the edge of a crocodile infested Daly River, south of Darwin.

The police wanted to talk to the man about why he had, allegedly, breached his bail conditions.

But he always saw them coming, and he always pulled off the long grass disappearing act.

The police tried again last night, around 8pm, and again the man bolted to the riverbank. The police searched for him in the long grass, but no luck.

A few hours later, the man re-appeared at a neighbour's house. He had wounds to his head and one hand, the blood flowed.

He claimed he had been attacked and bitten on the head by a crocodile.

He is now in Darwin hospital.

The police can see the "funny side" of the attack.

Acting Police Superintendent Tony Fuller told ABC Radio the police wouldn't mind hearing from the crocodile. They might even have a job for it :

"The crocodile, we want to hire the crocodile...he catches them for us doesn't he?" he said.

Authorities say the man's injuries are not serious and he is in a stable condition.

Prime Minister Banned From Visiting Fiji

Australia's prime minister, John Howard, has had his name put on a "watch list" held by immigration officials, of persons now barred from entering Fiji.

The dramatic action follows the Australian government's loud opposition to the recent military takeover of the island nation, and calls from Australia's foreign minister for unarmed locals to rise up against the well-armed military.

The ban also includes the prime minister of New Zealand, Helen Clarke, and restricts the exit of certain people from Fiji. Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, is also believed to be on the list.

"...trade union officials, civil rights activists and (certain) businesspeople" have also made the "watch list" of those who can enter and leave the country :

The move against the two leaders - both vocal critics of coup leader Frank Bainimarama - followed Canberra's decision to ban the military chief, who is Fiji's interim Prime Minister, and his supporters from coming to Australia.

Australia and New Zealand have also imposed sanctions on the military regime after it overthrew the elected government on December 5.

As we reported on December 7 :

Despite explicit warnings from the military leaders now in control of Fiji not to interfere, Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has again urged unarmed Fijians to engage in a resistance against military.

Downer's calls for resistance, aired also for a third day in federal Parliment, follow warnings from Commodore Frank Bainimarama that "...should we be forced to use force, let me state that we will do so very quickly."

In an interview, Downer said of his call for civilian resistance against Fiji's military : "It is wise...Of course it's difficult for them and my heart goes out to a lot of them."

There was no organised resistance to the military takeover of Fiji, and the military dictatorship said it is now committed to rooting out the institutionalised corruption that it claims forced it to overthrow the government late last year.

December 2006 : Australia's Foreign Minister Urges Insurgency In Fiji Against Military

Hiding Out In The Jungle

Accused Assassin Lays Low As Howard Denies Involvement In Plot To Assassinate Solomon Islands' Prime Minister

A follow-up to our story here on the alleged conspiracy to kill the Solomon Islands' prime minister by an Australian ex-pat.

The Australian prime minister, John Howard, dismissed claims that his government was somehow involved in the plot, or had offered a $50,000 bounty for a successful slaying of the Solomon Islands prime minister.

"Did we try and get anybody to assassinate the prime minister of the Solomon Islands? Of course not," Howard said.

"It is preposterous to suggest that the Australian government had any involvement in this alleged assassination attempt," read a statement from his office.

"We would expect that these allegations would be rigorously and fairly examined, that innuendo would be dismissed and the facts would be established."

From news.com.au (excerpts) :

An accused assassin hiding in the jungle in the Solomon Islands is allegedly involved in a plot with an Australian war veteran to murder the nation's Prime Minister.

Police today said they were hunting for former Solomons police sergeant Edmund Sae in relation to an alleged conspiracy to kill Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare.

They believe Mr Sae – an alleged double murderer – plotted with Australian Vietnam war veteran Bill Johnson to kill Sogavare last month.

Mr Sae has been on the run since escaping from a Solomons jail, before he could be tried for the February 2003 assassination of former police commissioner Frederick Soaki. He is also accused of murdering a second police officer following his escape.

Mr Sae has remained in hiding in the jungles of Malaita island, where Mr Johnson has his home.

Police allege that in early 2003, Mr Sae donned a mask and walked up to commissioner Soaki at a restaurant in the Malaitan capital, Auki, and shot him in the head at point blank range.

Police have claimed Mr Johnson conspired with four others, including Mr Sae, to assassinate Mr Sogavare some time between January 18 and 23.

It's alleged the plot was hatched during a drinking session at a Honiara motel, but it is unlikely the fugitive Mr Sae, if he was involved, would have dared enter the Solomons capital.

Mr Johnson, 61, is the only one of the group located and charged so far, but Honiara residents who know him have scoffed at suggestions he was involved in a murder conspiracy.

They say he is a "harmless drunk" who is nicknamed the Mad Major and is known for his binge drinking sessions when he visits Honiara from his island home.

"He gets on monumental benders that last for days and his mouth just runs away with him," said Honiara businessman Alastair Martin, a New Zealander, yesterday.

"It's pathetic that someone has taken his ramblings seriously."

Australian Vietnam Vet Accused Of Plotting To Assassinate Solomon Islands PM For $50,000 Bounty