'Terror' Books And Movies To Be Banned Under Extraordinary New Censorship Law

If You Don't Know What "Glorifying Terrorism" Means, Just Look At The Empty Book And DVD Shelves To Get An Idea

A significant new layer of censorship will be introduced in Australia, where books and DVDs that "glorify" and "advocate" terrorism will be banned outright, and removed from store shelves.

The Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, is clearly aware that this will be controversial, but he is aiming to cut off any debate on what books and DVDs should disappear through this censorship by claiming that public safety overrides any issues relating to free speech.

In short, debate all you want, freedom and free speech freaks, it won't make a lick of difference :

Books and DVDs glorifying terrorist acts will be pulled from the shelves and prevented from entering the country under new Federal laws to be unveiled today.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has declared a "zero-tolerance approach" to material that "advocates" terrorism.

Under the existing Classification Act, material can only be removed from sale if it is deemed likely to "promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence".

But the amended law - to be discussed at a meeting between Mr Ruddock and the state attorneys-general in Canberra today - makes it an offence to circulate material that "advocates" a terrorist act.

"We are not going to allow material to be out there saying terrorism is a good idea," Mr Ruddock told The Daily Telegraph yesterday.

"This is a zero-tolerance approach to terrorism. Terrorism acts are a specific and highly dangerous threat to Australian society. Material that advocates people undertake such acts should not be available for this reason alone."

Ruddock intends to change the laws about material that could be seen to "advocate" or "encourage" terrorism because the post-9/11 sedition laws required "a very high standard of proof."

Ruddock intends to change the laws about material that could be seen to "advocate", "encourage" or "glorify" terrorism because the post-9/11 sedition laws required "a very high standard of proof."

Curse those standards of proof.

It was too hard to find and prosecute the people who produced the targeted DVDs and books before, so instead, they all come off the shelves and/or be seized by customs.

"This proposal is intended to get inflammatory material inciting terrorism out of circulation without having to conduct a criminal prosecution."

Yeah, why bother with criminal prosecutions? It's refreshing to hear such talk coming from the attorney general himself.

You should probably pick up a copy of Stephen Spielberg's film 'Munich' while you still can.

While I think it is a brilliant and powerful movie, it clearly advocates and glorifies the use of terrorism, and also provides information on how to form a terror ring, set telephone bombs and stage ambushes.

Damn shame that, but the Attorney General has spoken.

Next thing you know they'll be telling us books and movies that "advocate" and "glorify" war, or discuss the long-term benefits of firebombing civilian-filled cities, or just plain nuking them instead, are going to be taken off the shelves as well.

They'll clearly have to be, eventually. You only have to look at war-related death tolls and the destruction of infrastructure to know that even the smaller wars of the 20th century proved to be a greater risk to society and humanity at large than the biggest acts of terrorrism ever committed.

What we obviously need is a federal government-approved list of books and DVDs that are acceptable to read and watch in these troubled times.

Well, actually, we don't. What the government decrees is unacceptable will simply disappear. And you won't know any different.

Hilali: Howard Runs "An Almost Saddam-Like" Dictatorship

Australian Politicians Love Free Speech, Just Not Too Much Of It

Australia's most controversial religious figure, Sheik Al-Hilali, has done it again. With his media profile in Australia rising faster than Paris Hilton's, the mufti has opened his mouth and a torrent of fresh headlines have poured forth.

When Hilali speaks his mind, politicians and columnists line up to vent their outrage, horror and stuttering disgust. They can't resist. He's the religious leader every loves to hate, and can openly hate, without being accused of being anti-religious.

Hilali is a perpetual, self-generating headline machine.

If he stood in front of 5000 Muslims and read out his shopping list, just what the sheik picks up from his local Franklins would become yet more news that would occupy another half page of a newspaper that could have been filled with...I don't know...real news?

Government ministers, backbenchers, politicians you didn't even know existed, stampede to get in front of the cameras every single time Hilali says something dopey, dangerous or derogatory.

They do this because they believe that just about everyone in Australia must hate Hilali's guts, and they have to be seen to be siding with the majority of the public.

But what they all fail to comprehend is that most Australians wonder what the Hilali fuss is all about, and likewise wonder why the hell his near every utterance gets front page headlines or a spot in the opening minutes of the evenings news.

Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd don't agree on much, but they certainly agree that when it comes to Hilali that, yes, while free speech is a great and precious thing, sometimes one can have too much of it.

When Hilali recently spoke out in support of Iran, a country Australia is not currently at war with, both Rudd and Howard and an assortment of politicians and perpetually outraged media drones encouraged, demanded and suggested that Hilaly either quit being mufti, get the hell out of Australia, or both.

Now comes today's entry in What Crazy Thing Did Hilali Say Now? :

Sheik Hilali said he had spent 50 years promoting peace and accused the Prime Minister of running a dictatorship.

"It's a disgrace for the leader of a democratic country to be picking on religious people, especially one who is practising a form of dictatorship that could almost be Saddam-Hussein-like," he said.

"I respect Australian values more than he does. Australian people like peace and they like humanitarian welfare and they are attracted to just causes."

For once Hilaly has said something that a growing number of Australians probably agree with, particularly about Australians liking humanitarian welfare and peace and just causes.

The response from the Australian Attorney General, Philip Ruddock, to Hilali's support for Iran is particularly interesting :

"I would be concerned if any Australian was offering support and succour to Iran, particularly as it is intent on pursuing the development of the nuclear fuel cycle outside international scrutiny," Mr Ruddock said.

So any Australian who offers support, or succour, to Iran while they are intent on defying the international community over their nuclear energy program raises the "concern" of the Attorney General?

Well, what can you say, but this : How long now before we go to War On Iran?


Australian Islamic Federation : We Did Not, Will Not, Sack Hilali

Why Hilali Must Go, And Go Now

One Rule For Hilali, Another Rule For Shock Jocks

Politicians' Furore Over Hilali "Related To His Unpopular Political Opinions"

All Hail Hiali - When The "Mad Mufti" Helped Save An Australian Trapped In Iraq

A True-Blue Aussie Larrikan - Give Him All The Rope He Needs

Wanna Smoke? Get In The Cage

Are cigarette smokers at the footy now a "security" risk? The management at Sydney's Telstra Dome thinks they are. Any fan who wants to smoke at the stadium could once duck outside, not anymore. Now they're herded into a cage.

Once they're caged, there's no passouts, so fans can't go outside to buy food from non-Dome vendors while they're having a smoke. That in itself might explain why smokers are now being treated like cattle :

Dome management blamed the move on security fears, but fans said it was to force them to buy food inside the venue at inflated prices.

They said one doughnut seller had resorted to selling his wares through the smoking fences.

"It's like being at school and you've got to ask permission to go to the toilet," said one disgruntled fan.

(Fans) were unable to meet...friends arriving later to give them tickets, or to buy food outside.

"Why should you be forced to eat their horrible food? You don't have a choice."

Yes, it's always about security, isn't it?

Never anything to do with stopping all the people at a huge venue like the Telstra Dome from leaving the venue to buy food, drinks and water elsewhere, at far cheaper prices.

Australia In The Year 2020

2500 Scientists Agree Land Down Under Is Facing Climate Change Devastation

Seen The Great Barrier Reef Yet? Don't Wait Too Long...

Just how completely wrong could 2500 of the world's leading scientists be when it comes to severe climate change and Australia?

It might be time to start slaughtering a few animals to honour your God Of Choice and get busy praying.

The news about what is likely to happen to Australia between now and 2020 is not good. In fact, it's downright shocking. No doubt this is exactly the kind of reaction the scientists who put together this report were hoping to score. Mission accomplished!

You can find a summary of the predictions and projects from the IPCC below, but there is little to report today on what the federal government, or the opposition, are planning for how to combat these expected, very dramatic changes to our climate and environments.

An important argument now entering the debate in Australia about the impact of climate change is centred around how we are going to adapt to fast, dramatic changes to almost every aspect of Australian life, rather than just concentrating on lowering greenhouses gas emissions. It's an important part of the debate, and well overdue.

In short, the changes are coming, and while lowering greenhouse gases will help in the long run, the public is going to want to know how are we going to cope with the changes that are expected to be all but irreversible.

Here's some of the predictions from the world's leading climate scientists on what we can look forward to in Australia, with 13 years :

* More cyclones, a greater risk of tsunamis striking the east coast.

* 300,000 Australians could be exposed to the dengue virus each year.

* Coastal communities left "vulnerable".

* Critical fresh water shortages for eastern and southern Australia.

* Deaths from hotter temperatures in our capital cities expected to rise from some 1100 per year to more than 2500.

* Coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef to increase dramatically, placing its future and viability as a tourist attraction at risk. Where there is now some of the world's most beautiful coral expanses, there may soon be seaweed. 1C to 2C rise in temperatures will leave the Great Barrier Reef devastated. A 3C rise is predicted to all but wipe it out.

* "Significant loss of biodiversity", with massive damage to World Heritage sites like Kakadu, vast stretches of rain forest, and even ski resorts in alpine region seeing dramatic drops in annual snow fall.

* Species extinction "virtually certain" to increase, threatening populations of possums and koala bears.

* Emergency services and transport systems under increased strain.

* Increased danger to lives and homes from more extensive bush fires, across longer bush fire seasons.

* An increase in power blackouts during summer months in east and south Australia.

* Sea level rises to impact on coastal communities and beachfront properties and resorts through tidal surges and eroding coastlines.

* Forestry and agriculture significantly impacted through increased drought, lower annual rainfalls across vast regions of the country.

So does an Australia 2020 scenario including most, if not all, the climate change effects listed above constitute a national emergency?

More than 70% of Australians listed Climate Change as their greatest worry, well above increased interest rates or the threat of terrorist attacks.

The Howard government has been hammered for months for having left it to the last minute to start taking climate change and global warming seriously.

And deadly serious, very valid questions are now being asked about just how prepared the Howard government is to deal with the monumental changes to Australian society and lifestyles that climate change looks set to wrought.

Climate Change may well be the most important issue of all for voters at the coming federal election. At the very least it will be the Top Three of all the major issues.

The Kevin Rudd led Opposition is ahead of the government when it comes to who the general public thinks will move faster and more effectively to deal with the effects of climate change, and to mitigate its future impact, if that's actually possible.

But if the Australia 2020 predictions listed above take root in the greater public mind as being the New Reality for their children, both Howard and Rudd may find themselves in a position where the general public thinks that neither is going to do enough, or do it fast enough, to Save The Future for the next generation.

The general fear of severe climate change may well leap ahead of the plans now being put together by both Howard and Rudd, leaving the public at large feeling that neither leaders will measure up to the kind of visionary they expect to lead the country until 2010. The kind of visionary they believe they will need.


CODA : Projections for Australian in 2050 are, not surprisingly, a hell of a lot worse, and you'll be hearing plenty about those horror stories soon enough. Hell being the appropriate word.
Actually, 2050 is expected to be very hell-like for many areas of Australia that aren't currently regarded as stinking-hot, desert-blown, dengue infested, cane toad overrun, hellholes.

Plant, Animals And People All Feature In Dire Climate Change Predictions,
Estimates

Good News For Cockroaches, Cane Toads And Kangaroos, Not So Good For Possums And Koalas

Island States Close To Australia May Become Uninhabitable Due To Fresh Water Shortages

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change

Army Captain And Army Officer Arrested For Stealing, Selling Ten Anti-Tank Rocket Launchers

Rocket Launchers Sold On To Suspected Terrorist, At Least Seven Still Missing


UPDATE : A Commonwealth prosecutor claims police covertly recorded one of the two former Australian Army men accused of stealing and selling anti-tank rocket launchers as he threatened to kill anybody who revealed they were trying to sell the deadly weapons on the Sydney blackmarket.

Suddenly, once the alleged weapons thieves are before a court, the number of rocket launchers stolen has risen to 10, from the original seven that police and the Australian Defence Force claimed earlier this year had been stolen.

Previously....

Police made the unusual move of announcing to the media that they were going to arrest a captain in the Australian Defence Force for allegedly stealing and selling military rocket launchers hours before the arrest took place earlier today.

The Army captain's alleged partner in the thefts of the rocket launchers is a former officer in the Australian Defence forces.

Eight rocket launchers were stolen from an Army depot between 2002 and late 2006, but only one has been recovered by police.

A court heard earlier this year that five of the anti-tank weapons had been sold to a 'terrorist suspect' in Sydney, via a reputed arms dealer. Police believe the two men arrested had tried to sell the rocket launchers for $5000 each.

The rocket launchers were anti-tank M72s. They can pierce armour almost one foot thick, and are capable of completely destroying civilian vehicles, killing everyone inside.

The search for the seven missing rocket launchers is growing more intense. A critical deadline looms. The APEC summit of world leaders to be held in Sydney in September.

Australian Federal Police and the nation's chief intelligence agency, ASIO, are believed to be under pressure from American and Russian secret services to find the missing weapons, as preparations begin on security details for the APEC summit.

Russian president Vladimir Putin and US president George W. Bush are amongst the dozens of world leaders expected to attend the two day series of meetings and conferences.

The NSW government has already announced that the Friday before the weekend meeting will be a public holiday for city workers, and all roads in and out of the central business district are expected to be closed down. The security operation surrounding APEC will be the biggest in Australian history.

Despite the connection to organised crime and a suspected terrorist, the two Army-linked men accused of stealing the rocket launchers are expected to only be charged with breaches of firearm laws and the theft of Commonwealth property.

From news.com.au :

Their arrests bring to four the total number of people arrested over the weapons theft.

Abdul Rahman was arrested at a house in Leumeah, in Sydney's southwest, late last year and charged with 17 offences over the stolen rocket launchers.

Police allege Rahman, 28, had supplied five of the weapons to one of the men arrested in anti-terrorism raids in Sydney in November 2005.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW.....
--------------------------------------------

More Blogs By Darryl Mason

Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War'

Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality'

Latest Stories From 'Planet Of Strange Things'

----------------------------------------
STORY CONTINUES....


From a January 4, 2007, report on this blog :

A massive investigation involving the Australian Federal Police and the nation's chief spy agency has led to the arrest of a 28 year old man in Sydney for allegedly trying to sell rocket launchers believed to have been stolen from the Australian Army to a man now being held on terror-related charges.

The man now facing charges - a known gun dealer and convicted double-murderer - also believed to have been in possession of 20 kilos of Power Gel explosives, was already under investigation following a sting operation where undercover detectives paid him $50,000 in a failed attempt to recover one of the deadly weapons.

It would appear there is plenty more to this story that has not yet been made public. The 28 year old man was described by one investigator as one link in a chain involving stolen Australian Army weapons and ammunition and powerful underworld crime figures.

But were the rocket launchers part of a terror plot? Or some powerful weaponry for crime gangs out for explosive revenge attacks?

The police refuse to confirm one story or the other.

When the story of the missing rocket launchers broke last month, police and Army spokespersons refused to confirm to journalists that the launchers had been stolen from Australian Army stockpiles.

A theory that the launchers may have been smuggled into Australia was floated instead.

No wonder. Now serious questions are being raised about why private security companies are being used to patrol Australian military bases and, presumably, are tasked with securing stockpiles of rocket launchers and explosives.

Incredible. Who defends the Australian Defence Force bases after midnight? Private security guards.

The fact that rocket launchers, capable of destroying vehicles or even taking down airliners, were missing somewhere in Australia triggered one of the biggest joint ASIO-Federal Police investigations in years.

As the APEC summit draws nearer, it is expected that US Secret Service and CIA agents will become involved in the hunt for the missing weapons, as they are unlikely to allow President Bush to visit Sydney when such a massive security breach remains unresolved.

'Rocket Man' : I Forgot I Left Ten Rocket Launchers In The Boot Of My Car - Decorated For Work In Iraq, May Now Face Treason Charges

December, 2006 : Rocket Launchers Go Missing, Intelligence Agencies Join Investigation

January, 2007 : The Enemy Within? Australian Air Force Engineer Charged With With Possessing Bombs And Explosives

Rocket Launcher Found On Sale At Rubbish Tip, For $2!

Arrested Army Captain Was A Munitions Expert

Smuggle Drugs Into Bali, Get Busted, Become Media Sensation, Sell Your Story For $350,000 And Counting

If Schapelle Corby had actually managed to sell the 4kg of cannabis she was busted trying to smuggle into Bali in late 2004, she may have earned around $40,000.

Now serving 20 years in a Bali jail, Schapelle Corby's incredible legal adventure has spawned autobiography and media rights sales to her story worth more than $350,000. And that's before the movie rights to her life story are sold, and long before she makes another half million, or more, for the inevitable Schapelle Corby : Free At Last memoir, due sometime after 2024.

The autobigraphy, My Story, written by a journalist, Kathryn Bonella, from extensive interviews she conducted with Schappelle inside Bali's Kerobokan Prison, has been the Australian publishing phenomenon of the year.

The 'memoir' has sold more than 100,000 copies, and recently two Australian current affairs shows engaged in a week long war over unproven allegations that Schapelle's sister, Mercedes, and even her own mother, Rosalie, were dope smokers and drug dealers/smugglers.

It's the story that refuses to die, or so the Australian tabloid media hope.

But behind the incredible success of Schapelle's book is a remarkably seedy story of how an Australian publishing company tried to get around laws that prohibits a convicted criminal from profiting from their crimes, by writing books or giving paid interviews or selling their life rights to a movie producer.

Publisher Pan MacMillan has been exposed, through confidential court documents filed in Queensland, as having forked over some $350,000 to members of the Corby family for the rights to Schapelle's story.

But they weren't the only media to drive truckloads of money up to the front door of the Corby's Brisbane home.

The Australian Women's Weekly paid $110,000 to run an extract from My Story.

News Limited handed over $2000 for the rights to run an exclusive photo and book extract.

New Idea Magazine paid Mercedes Corby and journalist Kathryn Bonella some $15,000 to write an exclusive story.

As this story explains, the trial and jailing of Schapelle Corby sparked, literally, a media feeding frenzy, and there's still plenty of blood in the water :

The publishing contract shows that Schapelle's sister, Mercedes Corby, is entitled to 85 per cent of the $350,000 publisher's advance and any future royalties earned from the book...

The documents reveal the protracted and complex negotiations among the Corby sisters, Bonella and Pan Macmillan.

An email from Bonella to publisher Tom Gilliatt reveals that the writer had concerns about losing the money to the Australian Government through the proceeds of crime laws long before the Court of Appeal froze the book's profits.

In the correspondence last October, Gilliatt reassures Bonella she would face no problems.

"My understanding is that you're at no risk since the act is to stop those convicted of a crime profiting from it (and even that's arguable in court)," he says.

Gilliatt indicates it would be best for Mercedes Corby to send an invoice to the publisher so she can be "paid before the book becomes public knowledge".

Bonella also reveals to the publishers she is using an alias while staying in Indonesia and that documents should be addressed to "Lisa".

The Australian Federal Police seized the emails and tracked the movements of Bonella and a number of Pan Macmillan employees through the Immigration Department.

The AFP argues that the amounts should be refunded under the act. However, there are questions concerning how much money is left in Widyartha's Indonesian account.

The publisher wired $76,500 to Widyartha's account at the Bank Negara Indonesia 15 months ago and the balance of $191,250 arrived two months before the court order.

The Corbys have argued the money will be used to fund on-going legal action.

Mercedes Corby, meanwhile, is now suing the 'current affairs' program Today Tonight for defamation in the NSW Supreme Court, after the show aired an interview with a former friend of Mercedes, Jodi Powers, who claimed the Corby family were no strangers to cannabis before Schapelle was busted in Bali.

Jodi Powers was paid more than $75,000 for the interview and was given a lie detector test in a ridiculously staged attempt to add credibility to her questionable claims. Powers failed the first set of lie detector tests.

Mercedes Corby became aware three months before the story aired that Jodi Powers was going to make such allegations and repeatedly tried to contact the producers of the show so she could respond on air.

Today Tonight ignored her phone calls and then waited until she left the country so they could claim they tried to contact Mercedes for an interview but got no response.

If Mercedes Corby's defamation suit is successful, she could be awarded damages of more than $500,000.

Schapelle Corby is the tabloid sensation that simply will not die.

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

Howard To Form Global Coalition To Save Ancient The Forests

Except For The Ones In Tasmania



Australian prime minister, John Howard, has announced that his government intends to spend more than $200 million planting trees and trying to wind back deforestation in developing countries as a way of combating global warming.

Howard wants to form a "global coalition" to tackle deforestation in South East Asia, in particular the massive illegal logging now underway in Indonesia.

The government claims it has the support of countries like the US and the UK for their forests plan, but neither country has officially signed up, or committed to help funding the fight against deforestation.

This is the latest attempt by Howard to position himself well out from the federal election as a full-blown, forest-focused conservationist. If the look of distaste on his face when he announced the plans is any indication, Howard is still having a hard time adjusting.

"...20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from clearing the world's forest and that's second only to emissions from burning fossil fuels to produce electricity and it's more than all the world's emissions from transport," John Howard said.

The plan will be John Howard's counter to the Kyoto Protocol, aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions in an attempt to slow down global warming.

The more new trees planted, goes Howard's theory, and the less old trees are cut down, the less carbon and/or greenhouse gases go into the atmosphere.

Howard believes that if you can cut the rate of deforestation in half, and plant enough trees, you can notch up reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on the order of 10 times greater than would come from signing onto the Kyoto Protocol and meeting their projected targets for cuts.

The forests plan, announced on Thursday, is yet another example of how John Howard wants other countries to pick up the carbon slack so Australia doesn't have to shut any coal-fired power stations or dive too deeply into the renewable energies revolution sweeping through China and EU countries.

He claims Kyoto, and emissions targets proposed by the Labor opposition - cuts of 30% by 2020 - will cost Australia thousands of jobs and destroy the economy. His plan is better, he claims, because it will lead to great emissions cuts than those offered up by Kyoto without the loss of any jobs or the vast profits (and taxes) spawned by Australia's coal-rich resources boom.

But the vague proof Howard offers to back up his claims that emissions cuts of 30% by 2020 will cause an economic catastrophe in Australia is as questionable as the doom-mongery spouted by the most evangelical of global warming true believers.

By shouting in Parliament that Australia's economy and mining industry workforce is at dire risk from hard emissions cuts, Howard indulges in exactly the same kind of fear mongery that he accuses climate change alarmists of spouting.

"History is littered with examples of nations having overreacted to presumed threats to their great long-term disadvantage," Howard said, but did not cite one such example.

Primarily because the most obvious example of a nation overreacting to "presumed threats" is the United States under his good mate President Bush. The presumed threat being Saddam Hussein's non-existent WMDs.

Greens senators and Labor both picked up on the fact that Howard allows vast deforestation via clear-felling of ancient forests in Tasmania at the same time he is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to wind it back across South East Asia :

Greens Senator Christine Milne says it is hypocrisy to focus on South-East Asia when clearfell logging and regeneration burns continue in Tasmania.

"It's absolutely a last minute coming to recognise what we've all been pointing out for years, a loss of forests, deforestation, a major driver of climate change - start in Tasmania, Prime Minister," she said.

While few would argue against planting more trees and preserving ancient forests, John Howard is clearly still having a hard time adjusting to hearing such talk coming out of his own mouth, after a solid decade of mocking and attacking conservationists and green-orientated politicians.

But Australians are green-minded now in the vast majority, and global warming and climate change rank high as decisive election issues.

Howard must now be hoping he can make it to the next election without having to come clean on the fact that carbon trading, particularly centred around coal mining, coal exports, and coal-fired power stations, is already becoming the unofficial world currency. Australians are going to have to pay, and pay big, for getting wealthy off coal.

The World Bank is a key backer of Howard's forests plans, and their involvement adds another layer of credibility to the carbon credits as "world currency' theory.

Australia will eventually have to pay the rest of the world, probably via a carbon trading system run through the World Bank, to mine, export and burn coal at the rate we do today, and that price will see electricity costs skyrocket.

Howard has no one to blame but himself for the fact that he now has to play catch up and quickly re-brand himself as somewhat of a radical new conservationist, despite how distasteful he finds it all to be.

His own government's scientists and climate change specialists were trying to warn Howard & Friends for eight years that severe climate change was a reality, and global warming was likely to be most responsible for the coming changes. There were hundreds of reports that were locked away from the public, and the greater scientific community.

The Howard government successfully kept the views and warnings of their own scientists out of the public debate (for the most part) and locked up the government's own scientific agencies from having access to the media, and the public at large, to warn them of the horrors that they could all but verifiably prove were becoming an alarming, and dangerous, reality.

Howard left his conversion to climate change "realist" very late in the game, no doubt hoping that new, undeniable proof would emerge that humans are not responsible for global warming, but the proof never came.

Or, at least, the humans-are-responsible theory behind global warming became common currency and widely acknowledged as The Truth. Howard bet big that global warming would be exposed as a myth, a conspiracy theory, and he lost that bet.

Australia will soon have to pay for those savage losses, long after John Howard has retired to the United States and a cosy boardroom chair in Washington DC.

Telling Indonesia to do more to stop deforestation, while allowing it to continue in Tasmania is as ridiculous and hypocritical as playing down Australia's solar-powered future while demanding Australians accept that dozens of nuclear power plants will be needed to keep the country energy sustainable.

From 'The Australian' :

....the $200 million Australian initiative will operate outside the Kyoto climate change protocol and will be funded by other developed nations to help developing nations preserve forests.

Germany, Britain and the US are expected soon to contribute to the fund, which will have Indonesia as its prime target. The UN has identified Indonesia as having the world's highest rate of forest clearing.

The new world fund - with a similar structure to the six-party Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate created early last year - will give John Howard momentum on the climate change issue as Labor paints him as negative and reluctant on global warming.

The forest fund, to be managed by the World Bank, is designed to help developing countries start sustainable forest industries, plant new forests, stop illegal destruction of rainforests, provide monitoring of forest production, education in forest management and help communities dependent on illegal rainforest timber find alternative jobs.

Deforestation accounts for 20per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and it is estimated that a tonne of CO2 can be sequestered - or taken out of the atmosphere - through tropical reforestation for just $US2, a fraction of the cost of other technologies.

The World Bank has estimated the mismanagement of forests costs the global economy $US10billion a year and says 85 per cent of the world's forests are not managed in a sustainable way.

From the ABC :

Mr Howard has rejected British economist Sir Nicholas Stern's proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent in 13 years, saying it would damage Australia's economy and cost thousands of coal industry jobs.

He says combating deforestation will make a real difference, but will not harm the economy.

"What this initiative will do in a shorter period time is make a greater contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions than in fact the Kyoto Protocol," he said.

It should be noted that while John Howard and government ministers talk up their forests plan as having "the support" of England, the US and other key countries, they are yet to get anything close to a firm commitment of additional funding, and signatures to this new protocol are a long way away, probably on the other side of the coming federal election.


Howard Talks "Global Warming Nonsense" - 75% Rate GB As A Personal Concern
April, 2004 : In The Tasmanian Forest With The Men Who Cut Down Ancient Trees

Green Groups Welcome Plans To Reduce Asian Logging, But Claim It Is Hypocrisy To Not Do The Same In Australia - "Our Prime Minister Is A Forest Fool"

Indonesia Struggles To Fight Organised Crime Involved Illegal Logging - Estimates Of $4 Billion In Losses To Indonesia Every Year

'Mutant' Cane Toads Spreading Fast Across Australia

'Toadzilla' Caught During "Breeding Frenzy"



It's more than 20cm long. It weighs near on a kilo. The people who caught it weren't far wrong when they described it as being "the size of a small dog".

This is one of the largest cane toads ever found in Australia. A volunteer group called 'Toadwatch' picked it up during a cane toad "breeding frenzy" in the Northern Territory.

'Toadwatch' night patrols see groups of locals hunting down the cane toads and destroying them, as they fight a front line war against the invasion.

So far 'Toadwatch' have had some great successes, capturing and killing hundreds in only a few hours of patrols. In total they've eliminated tens of thousands. While it may be all but impossible to completely eliminate the toads, the volunteers, including mums and dads and kids armed with torches, plastic bags and heavy gloves (the toad's skin is toxic), have managed to keep the toads out of a number of pristine Northern Territory environments.

But the toads are moving in on Darwin. They've reached near plague proportions in some areas of Northern Queensland - where 'toad golf' has long been popular (you simply smash the toad with a golf club) - and the toads have also been spotted just outside of Sydney.

Perth and Adelaide are now said to be within reach.

From the Sydney Morning Herald :

The 861-gram monster male is the largest to be caught anywhere in the Northern Territory, according to environmental group FrogWatch.

The warty pest was picked up by local volunteers during a community toad bust at Lee Point last night.

Measuring 20.5cm in length, the colossal male was one of 39 toads caught in the middle of "a breeding frenzy", said FrogWatch coordinator Graeme Sawyer.

He said NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) ToadBusts were finding low numbers of toads in the city, except for Lee Point and the Coastal Reserve.

First released in Queensland (in 1935 - ed), cane toads have since multiplied and marched across Australia, poisoning millions of native animals, including crocodiles in World Heritage-listed Kakadu.

Northern Territory crocodiles haven't had any natural enemies for millions of years, until the toads arrived. Cane toads are extremely poisonous, and if eaten the toxins are strong enough to knock even a crocodile in a coma-like state. And if you're a croc in the rivers of the Northern Territory and you can't move fast, you're a goner. Other crocodiles will eat you.

A new study from the University of Sydney claims cane toads have "rapidly adapted" to Australian climates over the past 70 years.

Put simply, the toads have evolved, and they've done it fast. It was once believed cane toads didn't have a chance of surviving, or spreading, through environments that were different to the South American habitats from which they originated.

Not so. 'Toadzilla' and his friends are surviving, and evolving, just fine. And they'll spread faster, the more non-tropical Australian environments get warmer, and wetter.

Blame Global Warming. Blame Climate Change.

You might as well. As the 'Toadzilla' story grips the nation, and the world, an GB/CC expert is right now putting together a research paper claiming exactly that.

Does anyone know how to turn cane toads into biofuel?

From news.com.au :

One of the researchers, Professor Rick Shine, said the toads had evolved incredibly quickly because of the rich genetic diversity bestowed by a reproductive cycle in which they lay 30,000 eggs in a single clutch.

Their body shape has changed to enable them to move more quickly and they have become more resilient to cope with much higher temperatures.

“The toads at the invasion front are long-legged, very fast-moving animals and they move every day in pretty much straight lines,” Prof Shine said.

“Compared to the ones in the old populations, which have got relatively short legs and are much less active and tend to meander around.”

There you have it. 'Mutant' Cane Toads are now on the move across Australia.

Arm yourself with a golf club before it's too late.

David Hicks : The Friendly Terrorist

Public Will Lose Interest As Feuding Over Justice Vs Injustice For Hicks Enters More Shrill Phase

David Hicks became the first 'terror' suspect to face what passes for justice at the Guantanamo military tribunal, and he will go down in the history books for that reason alone.

In the end, the military tribunal hearing, which was supposed to be the start of the first Gitmo terror trial, wasn't much of a show at all. It barely lasted a few hours in total.

Despite the charges against him, such as they were, it's hard to go past the convincing argument made by his father, Terry Hicks, that his son would plead guilty to just about anything if it meant he would be set free from his "living hell".

A huge slice of the Australian public would appear to be in agreement with Terry Hicks, if the thousands who commented on talkback radio and on media news blogs are to be believed.

In the long-term, Terry Hicks' argument for why his son pleaded guilty will over-ride the "justice delivered" claims now being made by the Australian and American governments.

That he pleaded guilty to get out of Gitmo and will settle in the long-term memories of most Australians as the reason why Hicks 'confessed' to giving material support to the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The US has now re-paid an Iraq War support favour to the Australian government by running Hicks through the military tribunal and allowing him to return to Australia before the Australian federal election campaign begins.

Hicks could be back home and in an Australian maximum security prison to serve out what might be a few months or a few years in a matter of weeks, if not days.

It's taken five years to get to this stage. But Hicks did exactly what the US and Australian governments hoped he would, or knew he would, if he was locked away without a trial for long enough. Hicks pleaded guilty to a terror-related charge. Come his sentencing on Friday, Hicks will officially be a convicted terrorist.

The Americans wanted the whole David Hicks fiasco to be over with years ago. That's why they offered Hicks back to the Australian government to do as they so wished, as they had offered to allow Saudi and UK suspects to go home without a trial.

But the Australian attorney general, Phillip Ruddock, refused to let Hicks return home to Australia without being tried by the US military.

The Howard government wanted the Americans to deal with Hicks because, as Ruddock repeatedly admitted, there were and are no laws in Australia to convict a suspected terrorist for undertaking actions in Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

Hicks' legal limbo lasted until the vast majority of the Australian public, surprisingly, started to back Hicks (to varying degrees) in mid-2006.

Prime minister John Howard then realised Hicks was going to be a dangerous liability at the next federal election, due towards the end of this year.

Howard publicly demanded action from the Americans, claiming he had talked to President Bush about Hicks by phone, but White House officials told the media Bush and Howard hadn't talked "in months".

In an attempt to placate the growing public anger and frustration, foreign minister Alexander Downer started complaining about how long it was taking for justice to be done. Downer's damp-down effort only ramped up the public's dismay at the US, and at the federal government.

When Howard heard Hicks was about to formally charged in February, he announced he had "set a deadline" for the American military to either charge Hicks or release him.

Naturally, they charged him, just as they were planning to do. Howard thought Australians would believe that he had shouted "jump" to the Americans and they had replied, "How high, sir?" He was wrong. Nobody believed him.

The US military charged Hicks with giving material support to terrorists, and it turns out this was the very least of his alleged crimes.


STORY CONTINUES BELOW....
-------------------------------------------------

More blogs by Darryl Mason

Read Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality'

Read Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War'

Read Latest Stories From 'Planet Of Strange Things'

Read Latest Stories From 'The Last Days Of President Bush'

------------------------------------------------
STORY CONTINUES....

For years, Australians were told that Hicks had tried to kill people, that he was Osama Bin Laden's "mate", that he had tried to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, that Hicks had conspired to commit acts of terrorism, and that he wanted to blow up his fellow countrymen back in Australia. Some of those claims came directly from government ministers like Alexander Downer, who never bothered to say "allegedly".

But despite the hype from the Australian and US governments, Hicks only ended up pleading guilty to to the lesser part of a double charge of providing material support for terrorism, and the US military prosecutor accepted this to get Hicks out of Guantanamo Bay and get him off the front pages of Australian newspapers.

The charge Hicks pleaded guilty to was a serious enough charge by itself. But it's a long way from earlier claims by President Bush, Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer and a cacophony of pro-torture, pro-war opinionists in Australia and the US who collectively claimed Hicks was "the worst of the worst" and an incredibly dangerous man.

But thanks to the (eventual) intervention of John Howard, David Hicks could now walk free within a matter of days.

If he is so dangerous, so virulent a jihadist bent on destroying Western society as they all had claimed, and such a threat to all, aren't John Howard and Bush Co. now putting Australian citizens at risk by allowing David Hicks to walk among us a free man?

The military prosecution were claiming as recently as four days ago that once the trial began, they would present evidence of Hicks' terror adventures that would change forever the opinions of those Australians who supported Hicks, and/or demanded he be given a trial or set free.

All that evidence will now, most likely, never see the light of day.

For the US military tribunals, this may turn out to be a good thing. For Hicks at least, the tribunal won't have to try and use evidence collected under torture and duress.

Providing material support for terrorism is serious, but it's also a weak and immaterial charge, compared to what he was alleged to have done.

Compared to claims he had attempted to murder American soldiers, and that he had intended to take an active part in terrorism, the charge of providing material support for terrorism is the kind of charge you might cop if you're a Muslim in the UK who has donated money to dodgy Palestinian charities and you've been busted with copies of John Pilger and Michael Moore DVDs next to your TV, and been spotted hanging hung out at mosques frequented by pro-jihadists, and written "We must destroy President Bush" at a few internet chat rooms.

Providing material support for terrorism is the kind of vague charge that is wide open to legal interpretation, and it's no doubt meant to be.

But regardless, Hicks is now a convicted, self-admitted terrorist.

So let the feuding begin :

The pro-Hicks crowd is right because the US Military decided to go with what amounts to a plea bargain, to get a victory for Bush and his war tribunal system, instead of having Hicks face the full charges they had long promised. Was justice delivered? No. Was there evidence of serious war crimes? No. Was Hicks tortured? Oh yes. Was what happened in Gitmo yesterday a farce of a trial held in a kangaroo court? You bet.

The anti-Hicks crowd is right because David Hicks pleaded guilty to a terrorism-related charge, he propagated Jews-Control-The-World conspiracy theories, he'd met Osama Bin Laden, praised Sharia law in Afghanistan under the Taliban and expressed his desire to die for Allah. And don't forget Hicks had also converted from being of the Christian faith to being of the Muslim faith back in the 1990s. And don't forget he also changed his name, from a Christian one to an Islamic one.

The arguments from both sides are about to get a whole lot more heated, louder, and more shrill, but not for long I suspect.

Once Hicks is home, and his requisite Major TV Interview is over and done with, interest in this story is likely to fade fast, even if Hicks' Australian lawyers work the local courts to try and get his American conviction dismissed, or recognised as legally null and void.

Nobody can expect this story to occupy the front and centre attention of most Australians for much longer. We all know the story, and know we all know the ending.

Hicks The Terrorist Vs Hicks The Victim Of Injustice has been relentlessly flogged by both sides for more than eighteen months solid now, and frankly I'm surprised that the public interest level has stayed so high, for so long.

It won't last. It can't last.

And after a short grace period, perhaps a day or two, you can expect Howard and Downer and their media mouthpieces to relentlessly ram home the fact that Hicks was charged with terrorism, and that he pleaded guilty.

Just as those who think Hicks was denied justice and used as a political tool in a dodgy war will bullhorn their version of what happened.

And on and on it will go.


Some details on the charge Hicks pleaded guilty to from The Australian :

Hicks’s US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, entered the plea to the charge of material support for terrorism which was broken into two counts or specifications.

Major Mori rose and said Hicks pled guilty on specification one, and not guilty on specification two.

Specification one of the charge detailed at length Hicks's links to terrorist organisations and his activities in Afghanistan where he met Osama bin Laden and completed al-Qa'ida training courses.

Specification two simply alleged that Hicks entered Afghanistan from about December 2000 to December 2001 to provide support for terrorism and that he did so in “in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict namely al-Qa'ida or its associated forces against the United States or its coalition partners”.

The Age has a good story on the long-awaited father and son reunion :

Terry Hicks has told of his emotional reunion with his son, hours before David Hicks told a US court at Guantanamo Bay he was guilty of a terrorism charge.

"We shook hands, hugged and cried," Terry told reporters during a break in proceedings.

Terry and his daughter, Stephanie, today spent three hours with Hicks before today's first military commission hearing.

The 31-year-old was shackled by an ankle and was in his pale green prison uniform during the reunion.

"It was hard at the start because of all the emotions," Terry said. "Once we got going it was OK."

Asked if there were tears, Terry replied: "Too right, yeah. Of course there was. It's good to have emotions."

Many topics of conversation were covered, as Terry and Stephanie had not seen Hicks for almost three years.

Hicks was especially keen to hear how his children were.

"He just wants to try and get back to Australia, see his kids and have a normal life," Terry said.

John Howard and Alexander Downer spin the news with enthusiasm.

From the ABC :

"I'm pleased for everybody's sake that this saga has come to a conclusion," Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said.

He said Hicks could be back on home soil soon, under a prisoner exchange deal with the United States.

"We have an arrangement with the Americans whereby he can serve any residue of his sentence in an Australian prison," Mr Downer said.

Mr Downer admitted that the US legal process took too long.

"First of all there was the view that Hicks clearly couldn't have done anything wrong, and we hate the Americans and all of that," he said.

"There were people who thought David Hicks should just be strung up, he was obviously a horror.

"And there were people in the middle, which is where I was, really. My view was always that the legal process had just taken far too long."

Prime Minister John Howard has told Parliament the plea is welcome but he is still not happy the process has taken this long.

"The Government remains concerned at the length of time that has passed before reaching this point," he said.

"However, the Government does welcome the progress towards resolution of Hicks's case. It has always been our view that Hicks should face justice but we have been very concerned about the time that it has taken."

Howard and Downer claim they were concerned about the length of time the justice-facing took to become a reality.

Of course they were.

It was dragging the government down in the polls, giving highly flammable fuel to the Opposition to attack Howard and Downer, and Bush Co. and was making the government look like they were letting The Americans smack around a young, white Australian who didn't deserve what was he copping.

Last year, Howard and Downer were "concerned" at the time it was taking for Hicks to be charged and tried.

But they've been extremely concerned since polls earlier this year said at least six out of ten Australians thought Howard should demand the Americans try Hicks or release him.

It was the monumental shift in public opinion, and the fact that the David Hicks story was a media event that would not die down, that forced the Howard government to act.

They didn't want to. But they had to.

CODA

Despite the guilty plea from Hicks, the news that the first military tribunal hearing gained a "positive" result has not exactly set the American media on fire.

It will be interesting to see how Bush Co. try to capitalise on what happened yesterday, and if the public gets behind the military tribunals, which at the moment seems highly unlikely.

Coming Soon : David Hicks Arrives Home In Australia, Quickly Fades Into Relative Obscurity


Father And Son Reunited Before Military Tribunal Hearing

Hicks Will Be Home This Year, Suggest Prosecutor

Downer Claims He Was "Always In The Middle" On Hicks Guilt

Prosecutor Says Deal Cut For Hicks Was Not A Plea Bargain

Foreign Minister Downer Welcomes End Of Hicks '"Saga", Says Bush Co. Made Mistake In Not Creating Military Commission By Act Of Congress

'Tourist' Mementos From Guantanamo Bay

Commenters From 'The Australian'

Commenters From The Sydney Morning Herald

Commenters From Blogocracy

Commenters From The Road To Surfdom

Government To Bombard Australians With "Patriotic" Recruitment Propaganda

"Conscription" Raised As Way Of Fixing Defence Force Recruitment Crisis

Australia To Double Special Forces Troops In Afghanistan

Prepare yourself, Australia. You are about to get bombarded by an intensive propaganda campaign designed to guilt trip you into joining the Australian military.

Defence minister, Brendan Nelson has announced that igniting patriotism will be "an extremely important part" of a vast new military recruitment campaign. Nelson has long promoted his theory that the Australian soldier, or digger, is the defining iconic image of the Australian identity.

The Australian Defence Force is having enormous trouble finding new recruits in the midst of a booming economy. Young Australians may be thinking about joining the Army, or Navy, but they don't like the pay, the conditions, or the very real likelihood of being deployed into a warzone. Many simply want to go to university instead.

Tens of millions of dollars will be spent in the coming months on the extended series of television, print, internet and radio military recruitment ads that will dispense with trying to interest young people in joining the Army, the Air Force or the Navy because they want to be soldiers, pilots or sailors, and will attempt, instead, to rouse their sense of patriotism and a desire "to make a difference."

Nelson : "...we need to get away from just promoting defence jobs, to promoting the key values of the three service uniforms, and putting those in a contemporary environment so young people especially understand if you want to make a difference, there's no better way to do it than join the navy, army, or air force..."

It'll be interesting to see exactly what the "key values" Nelson mentions will turn out to be, and what exactly he is asking young Australians to "make a difference" to.

At the same time, Nelson has announced that Australians as old as 56 will now be able to join up, and the compulsory retirement age will be raised from 55 to 60 years old.

The ADF will no longer be so fussy when it comes to education qualifications in new recruits. In fact, you won't even have to finish high school if you want to get into the defence forces now.

"...we'll look at their aptitude, work and life experience," Nelson said. "We'll provide them with the necessary education and get them up to that sort of standard...."

Nelson gave a preview of what we can expect to see in the advertising blitz during an interview last Sunday :

"There is no group of Australians that has done more to shape our values, beliefs and identity than those men and women who have worn and today wear the uniform of the navy, army and air force..."

But do the majority of Australians really believe their "values, beliefs and identity" were formed by the Australian military's more than 100 years of international war-fighting? A long and brutal series of campaigns that killed more than 100,000 men and boys , disabled and injured hundreds of thousands more and robbed generations of children of their fathers and grandfathers?

Nelson is going to be treading on mine-filled ground if the coming recruitment ads try to rewrite the shocking fallout that World War 1, World War 2 and the Vietnam War had on Australian society.

ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day are not about celebrating victories in war for the vast majority of Australian, but are instead sombre, extremely sad occasions when we remember just how deeply successive wars have scarred and shattered Australian families and communities, particularly rural communities.

With a focus on "patriotism" and "values", the coming ads will also be in danger of drifting close to the kind of American-style cheesiness, flag-saluting and gung-ho militarism that makes most Australians laugh in dismay, or shake their heads in disbelief.


On a busy Sunday for Brendan Nelson, he also committed Australia to doubling its troop commitment in Afghanistan to almost 1000, most of whom are expected to be special forces.

Nelson, like prime minister, John Howard, refuses to acknowledge that the pullout of most Australian troops from Afghanistan in the second half of 2002, in preparation for the illegal invasion of Iraq, set the scene for a revival of Taliban strength which now has to be dealt with and is likely to result in Australian troops being killed and wounded.

"We believe there is a need (to redeploy)...we think that the Taliban will be mounting a very strong offensive shortly," Nelson said.

The Prescription For Conscription

In an interview with ABC News, influential defence industry expert Neil James, said that while improved wages and conditions will help to increase overall defence forces recruitment, national conscription could prove necessary should a serious conflict erupt in our region :

"It would depend on the likely duration of the problem. You'd have to say that conscription would have to be one of the things that would need to be considered," he said.

Rest assured that if Neil James is saying that, conscription is already being considered.


In a final bit of news related to the Australian Air Force, a new video flight simulator game is to be launched via Windows Live Messenger.

From 'The Australian' :

The game, Supreme Air Combat, developed for defence force recruiting, was launched at the Avalon Airshow by the RAAF's deputy chief, Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn.

The game features multi-player aerial combat, in which each player controls a small flight group and tries to outmanoeuvre an opponent to win.

It is based on fast turns, which its designers say is designed to encourage quick decision-making using a simulated F/A-18 jet fighter.

The game was also intended to emphasise that a career in the Australian Defence Force was "cutting edge", general defence force recruiting chief Brigadier Simon Gould said.

"It's demonstrating to young Australians that the ADF is fresh, innovative and involved in high technology. It will encourage people to join the team and "have a look at all the possible jobs we have to offer", he said.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson : "We Are Not Going To Risk Our Own People" - Why Australia Turned Down American Request To Join Baghdad Troop "Surge"

Talibanisation - What Australian Troops Will Be Fighting In Afghanistan\

Tim Dunlop On Iraq Vs Afghanistan : John Howard's Dilemma