Tony Blair is coming to Australia and he wants to hold an audience.....

In July 2011 former British prime Minister and alleged war criminal Tony Blair is coming to Australia to do a little revenue raising in Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney and Perth.

Wonder who will actually admit to paying these prices to meet him or which Australian corporations (besides Visy) might actually believe that being associated with this man will enhance business reputations?
Will someone try to claim Monbiot's bounty by performing a peaceful citizen's arrest?

An Audience With Tony Blair: Lessons in Leadership, Negotiation and Innovation

TICKET PRICES

$1,000 per person
Ticket includes a full sit down banquet meal and attendance at the pre-event cocktail party

$10,000 per Table of Ten
Tables of ten include a full sit down banquet meal and attendance at the pre-event cocktail party

$1,500 VIP Ticket
Includes a seat at one of "the best tables in the house", one ticket to private pre-event "meet and greet" cocktail party and individual photograph with Tony Blair

$15,000 VIP Table of Ten
Includes "the best seats in the house" table of ten, ten tickets to private
pre-event "meet and greet" cocktail party and individual one photograph
with Tony Blair, full page advertisement in the program, logo recognition in the program and on the screens at the event

"Sh* t happens": Did Tony Abbott just illustrate a lesson never learnt from Viet Nam?

With Tony Abbott’s relaxed and laid back “sh*t happens” reassurance to Colonel Jim Creighton (US sector commander directing military operations in which Australian troops were deployed) making the news recently, one has to wonder if the explanation he so easily accepted that fire support of Australian troops was “more than adequate” should have been explored further.

Given that the American penchant for fudging facts has apparently survived intact beyond the Viet Nam debacle (a war which blundered on from the early 1960s to 1975) and now allegedly rears its head again in Afghanistan in this decade.

The US Center for Public Integrity on 6 February 2011 stated that an investigation found that Civil Affairs reservists tasked with winning the hearts and minds of locals have died disproportionately in Afghanistan and Iraq. The statistics offer a grim picture. Though these soldiers only make up about 5 percent of the Army’s reserve forces, they account for 23 percent of the combat fatalities among reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We also found that generals in the field, unable to obtain sufficient Civil Affairs units, sent reservists into harm’s way without hardened vehicles, protective plates for their armored vests, and machine guns. Further, the Army inflated the number of active-duty Civil Affairs soldiers to give Congress the appearance of a fully-staffed division.

According to U.S. Government Assange not a journalist or a whistleblower, but a biased anarchic political actor with an 'agenda'

There is an awful fascination in watching a geo-political giant set out to eliminate one individual and website from any visible presence in cyberspace.

The fascination is heightened by the fact that Julian Assange was born in Townsville, Australia and spent some of his primary school years living in the NSW Northern Rivers region at Lismore.

The latest censorship effort resulted in the whistleblower website losing its U.S. domain name according to an Associated Press report.

In what may be considered the first World Wide Web information war, www.wikileaks.org appears to only be available in Google Cache at the time of writing.

However, this is cyberspace we are talking about and Wikileaks can now be accessed at http://88.80.13.160/ and Cablegate specifically at http://213.251.145.96/cablegate.html. While Wikileaks at Twitter is at http://twitter.com/wikileaks.

From the daily press briefing at the U.S. Department of State on 2 December 2010:

QUESTION: From your perspective, what is WikiLeaks? How do you define them, if it is not a media organization, then?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, as the Secretary said earlier this week, it is – one might infer it has many characteristics of some internet sites. Not every internet site you would call a media organization or a news organization. We’re focused on WikiLeaks’s behavior, and I have had personally conversations with media outlets that are reporting on this, and we have had the opportunity to express our specific concerns about intelligence sources and methods and other interests that could put real lives at risk.

Mr. Assange, in a letter to our Ambassador in the United Kingdom over the weekend, after documents had been released to news organizations, made what we thought was a halfhearted gesture to have some sort of conversation, but that was after he released the documents and after he knew that they were going to emerge publicly. So I think there’s been a very different approach. And Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist.

QUESTION: What is his political objective?

QUESTION: The same letter --

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: What is his political objective?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, his – I mean he could be considered a political actor. I think he’s an anarchist, but he’s not a journalist.

QUESTION: So his objective is to sow chaos, you mean?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, you all come here prepared to objectively report the activities of the United States Government. I think that Mr. Assange doesn’t meet that particular standard.

QUESTION: But just so I understand, P.J., what – I mean you just said the – that you thought he was --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, but I mean – let me – he’s not a journalist. He’s not a whistleblower. And there – he is a political actor. He has a political agenda. He is trying to undermine the international system of -- that enables us to cooperate and collaborate with other governments and to work in multilateral settings and on a bilateral basis to help solve regional and international issues.

What he’s doing is damaging to our efforts and the efforts of other governments. They are putting at risk our national interest and the interests of other governments around the world. He is not an objective observer of anything. He is an active player. He has an agenda. He’s trying to pursue that agenda, and I don’t think he can – he can’t qualify as either a journalist on the one hand or a whistleblower on the other.

QUESTION: Sorry. What is that agenda, that political agenda? Can you be more --

MR. CROWLEY: I’ll leave it for Mr. Assange to define his agenda. He has been interviewed by some of your news organizations. He has the ability to talk for himself. But you asked -- I was asked a specific question, “Do we consider him a journalist?” The answer is no.

* In an allegedly unrelated matter Interpol released this:

_____________________________________________

Sweden authorizes INTERPOL to make public Red Notice for WikiLeaks founder

---

ASSANGE Julian Paul

LYON, France - INTERPOL has made public the Red Notice, or international wanted persons alert, for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the request of Swedish authorities who want to question him in connection with a number of sexual offences.

The Red Notice for the 39-year-old Australian, which was issued to law enforcement in all 188 INTERPOL member countries on 20 November, has now been made publicly available by INTERPOL following official authorization by Sweden.

All INTERPOL National Central Bureaus (NCBs) have also been advised to ensure that their border control agencies are made aware of Assange's Red Notice status, which is a request for any country to identify or locate an individual with a view to their provisional arrest and extradition.

Many of INTERPOL's member countries however, consider a Red Notice a valid request for provisional arrest, especially if they are linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty. In cases where arrests are made based on a Red Notice, these are made by national police officials in INTERPOL member countries.

INTERPOL cannot demand that any member country arrests the subject of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

___________________________________________________

UPDATE:

Wikileaks now has a Torrent download of its 1.38GiB Cablegate file at:

http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance.5723136.TPB.torrent

Eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month: Lest We Forget

Lest We Forget
Field of poppies in France

Die a wrongful death in Oz and you're worth something, die in Afghanistan and.....

The Herald-Sun yesterday:
"THE going rate for a life in Afghanistan's war is about $US1200 ($1230).
That's the figure the Defence Department and Federal Government are secretly paying to civilian casualties of war.
Australian soldiers paid $US10,200 to compensate for the lives of six civilians, five of them children, accidentally killed in a night raid just north of the Tarin Kowt base on February 12 last year."
While here in Australia:
"A Woolworths employee who injured his lower back while lifting a tub of meat has won a compensation payout of more than $82,000."
and
"CHRIS Hurley - the policeman acquitted of manslaughter over a Palm Island death in custody, only to face a civil claim from the victim's family - received a confidential $100,000 payment from the Queensland Government after the incident."
and again
"In August 2005, Mr Yousefi lodged a claim in the Supreme Court of NSW for compensation due to permanent psychiatric damage suffered as a result of his experiences in detention. He was awarded $800,000 compensation for wages, and lifelong medical care. As a result of his ordeal in detention, Mr Yousefi could never work again and would require medical care for the rest of his life."
and again
"The widow and four children of Mr Ward, whose first name cannot be published for cultural reasons, will receive a total $3.2 million as an ex-gratia payment from the state government for his death.
It includes an earlier $200,000 interim payment.
Mr Ward, 46, of Warburton, died in January 2008 while being transported 360 kilometres from Laverton to Kalgoorlie to face a drink-driving charge."
and yet again
"Andrew Mallard has been offered a $3.25 million compensation payment by the WA Government after being wrongfully jailed for 12 years over the 1994 murder of Mosman Park jeweller Pamela Lawrence.
The ex-gratia figure includes an earlier payment of $200,000 that Mr Mallard received in December 2006."
What's wrong with this word picture?
Well it seems that compensation for death, injury or loss suffered at the hands of Australian governments or corporations is worth more if it actually occurs within national boundaries. Heck, even a person allegedly responsible for a death gets the moola.
On the other hand - if a life is wrongfully taken in Afghanistan then it's only chump change which will be handed out by the Federal Government.

Personal political perspectives debating the Afghanistan War

Statements made by Federal MPs with electorates on the NSW North Coast, during the Afghanistan War debate in the Australian House of Representatives.

Janelle Saffin, Member for Page [Hansard, 26 October 2010]

I also have had a conversation with a constituent who is the mother of a serving soldier in Afghanistan, and she feels quite passionate about it. She talked to me about when we will be able to leave and things like that, but at the same time she wants us there and wants the job well done. There is a conflict around it. Like a lot of members, I have been contacted by a whole range of groups from around the country, particularly social justice groups. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, ACFID, the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition, Pax Christi, Jason Thomas, who is a commentator, and all sorts of people and organisations have contacted us.

My local newspapers have been talking about the issue. There was an editorial in the Daily Examiner by David Bancroft, the editor, with the headline 'Keeping the Peace'. I would like to put on record the last two sentences from an article that Chris Masters wrote:

There is no question that our soldiers should leave Afghanistan, and leave sooner rather than later. But only once the job is done.

That is the overwhelming feeling that comes from the community. That is the commitment of the government and the opposition and the message of most of the comments that have been made in this place.

There is currently talk about whether or not we should talk with the Taliban. My information and experience leads me to the view that we always have to talk to those that we seek to make peace with in some way, whether that be through military or other means. But it should always be done strategically, for some sort of strategic advantage. The Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan was toppled in 2002, but the Taliban are certainly a part of life in Afghanistan. There has been quite a lot of commentary about that recently. I always remember very well what the wonderful President Nelson Mandela said: ‘We don’t make peace with our friends.’ We make it, obviously, with our enemies.

Rob Oakeshott, Member for Lyne [Hansard 21 October 2010]

We have now found ourselves in one hell of a bind. If we leave, like when the 120,000 Russian troops left in 1989, there will be a void. There will be civil unrest and there will be blood. The bad elements of the Taliban would push back and potentially again gain control. The implications for being a 'base for terrorist groups' would potentially re-emerge. On the upside if we leave, however, our 1,550 Australian troops are safe, our tight budget has less strain and our ability to engage on both domestic and regional defence matters arguably increases. Importantly, we must also recognise that article 4 of the ANZUS treaty would be tested if we left.

Compare this with our military staying; there would be more Australian deaths and wounded. The 'base for terrorism' would continue to move to alternative locations such as Pakistan, the Horn of Africa, several Asian hot spots and even into locations such as London. We would continue to work on peace and reconstruction, with gun in hand—'shoot and talk' as General Petraeus recently put it—and we would continue the work of clear, hold and build for at least another 10 years.

Importantly, however, if we are operating in Australia's sovereign interests, we have to leave sometime and we cannot delay the inevitable void that will follow—not now nor in 10 years time. It is this issue—the one called Australia's sovereign interests—that should be central to this debate. We will leave sometime so that we do not spend another $6.1 billion on questionable return. We will leave sometime so we do not continue to lose Australian soldiers for a corrupt regime. We will have to at some point accept a lesser democracy than ours and we will have to at some time recalibrate to focus on our international obligations to our region, to the many challenges that religious extremism and terrorism pose and to what we can and should be doing to develop peace and development in our own region.

Luke Hartsuyker, Member for Cowper

Has not yet risen to his feet in the Afghanistan War debate in the House of Representatives, according to Open Australia records.

Justine Elliott, Member for Richmond

Has not yet risen to her feet in the Afghanistan War debate in the House of Representatives, according to Open Australia records.

Around the traps in the last few days.....

A bit of free promotion APN didn't need?
With the euthanasia debate heating up, I was amused to see that APN Outdoor received a bit of free promotion on the nightly news last week after one of its outdoor billboards advertising in Yagoona ran a large advert promoting the pro-choice position. Probably won't please the bishops.

Fine print on the back of that NBN envelope?
NATIONAL Broadband Network users will not be able to use their telephones in a power failure unless they pay for a back-up system.
Telstra copper lines will be replaced by NBN fibre as part of the $11 billion deal with the federal government.
NBN Co has a hands-off approach to ensuring lines will be available at all times.
Customers will rely on the fibre network for broadband and fixed telephone services. Each home and business will need a network termination unit for power.
The unit needs a standard 240 volt, 10 amp power outlet and without that it cannot work.
If the unit loses power, telephone lines will not work unless NBN users have a back-up battery system, an optional item under NBN Co guidelines.
The peak electrical body says NBN Co and the government must ensure service providers guarantee basic telephone services or people's lives could be in danger in emergencies.
The company says it will not supply, install or maintain the battery back-up. That means network users will have to purchase a back-up unit and battery, and ensure the unit is next to a power outlet.
Users must buy the back-up unit from their NBN service provider. The 12V 7.2Ah sealed lead acid battery for the back-up costs about $50. {The Australian 22nd October 2010}

NSW water raiders using #agchatoz to tweet their displeasure....
nswirrigators: 464 pages of Volume Two of #basinplan just released online. Saving the environment by ruining a forest? http://tinyurl.com/3x4umuw #agchatoz
nswirrigators: 3.30pm on the day #basinplan volume two was meant to be released and nothing yet. These people do not learn... #agchatoz #abcrural

A victim of friendly fire
"This is a debate that Australians need to have about the future of banking, and the banks now are clearly ignoring the government," Mr Hockey has said. "The Australian people need to know where the banking system is going."....
Liberal MP Don Randall launched into a withering attack on Mr Hockey's suggestion, labelling a "typical lunatic fringe idea" from the Greens - until it was pointed out that it came from the Coalition's top money man. "It's really going to have a negative effect on our economy ... it's really a worry". {news.com.au 21st October 2010}

Ad astra takes on Tony
Take the attack on the Government by Tony Abbott over the contemporary court martial of three Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. In a particularly contemptible assault he accused the Government of ‘stabbing the soldiers in the back’ and not giving them the support they deserved, of abandoning these men fighting as they are for their country. It was a powerful and aggressive strike. Yet what did the mild-mannered Stephen Smith say? He said Abbott’s words were ‘unfortunate’. Too right they were, but in the hurly burley of politics, words hardly like to make headlines, hardly likely to effectively rebut the Abbott charges.
I would have preferred him to say to Abbott: “How dare you have the temerity to make such outrageous accusations. It was the Howard Government, in which you were a minister that created the process for such trials of servicemen thought to be in contravention of the rules of engagement, and it had bipartisan support from Labor. You know perfectly well that in this process Government has no part to play, nor have politicians or politics. You know that this Government wants the process YOU established to bring about a considered outcome and that it wishes to play no part in it. Yet you come along with this completely illegitimate accusation which you know is dishonest, in order to score political points. And you were only too willing to enlist Alan Jones to promulgate this deception, something he was only too ready to do. Worse still, you allowed him, without contradiction, to denigrate the female prosecutor for laying the charges, even although you knew that she was acting completely in accordance with the process the Howard Government established. How dare you behave in this disgracefully disingenuous way, cast aspersions on those involved, and the Government too, although it is NOT involved. This is worse even that the usual low standards of political discourse which you employ. You are a disgrace.” {The Political Sword 22nd October 2010}

Too much fiction in Pollieville, U.K.?
A BRITISH MP enraged her constituents and her party after letting slip that her blog, which tells people how hard she works, is "70 per cent fiction".
Nadine Dorries, a Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire in southern England, made the admission to investigators during a sleaze inquiry that cleared her of abusing the Government's expenses system but found that she misled voters. {news.com.au 22nd October 2010}

Abbott gave a reshuffle party and nobody came

Surely this14 September 2010 media release would have to heralded one of the quietest reshuffles in Coalition history:

The reshaped Coalition frontbench that I announce today is a strong and experienced team that will hold a weak Government to account. The new Shadow Ministry is a team with deep connections to the community, ensuring that we will continue to put forward practical policies that help Australian families get ahead.

There was little mention of this change to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's team of shadow spokespeople, but quite a few media observations on his attempt to censor video and photographs (below) and his ill-advised interview with Alan Jones.

Leaving one thankful that this man is not the Australian Prime Minister.

State sanctioned assassination: and you thought the world was scary enough as it is..........

Ever since the 11 September 2001 terrorists attacks in the United States of America started a global hysteria and two unlawful wars, the minds of Australian legislators and the legislation they enact have been quietly converging towards a point where they march in tandem with repressive excesses found in American law.

So this latest example of how insane the US Federal Administration has become is disturbing in the lead it gives Australian politicians of all political persuasions:

But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

The legal arguments can be found at Scribd in Alaulaqi v Obama Complaint* and at FireDogLake in NASSER AL-AULAQI, on his own behalf and as next ) friend acting on behalf of ANWAR AL-AULAQI v. BARACK H. OBAMA, President of the United States; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense; and LEON E. PANETTA, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency**:

* 4. Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. The summary use of force is lawful in these narrow circumstances only because the imminence of the threat makes judicial process infeasible. A targeted killing policy under which individuals are added to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and remain on these lists for months at a time plainly goes beyond the use of lethal force as a last resort to address imminent threats, and accordingly goes beyond what the Constitution and international law permit.
5. The government's refusal to disclose the standard by which it determines to target U.S. citizens for death independently violates the Constitution: U.S. citizens have a right to know what conduct may subject them to execution at the hands of their own government. Due process requires, at a minimum, that citizens be put on notice of what may cause them to be put to death by the state.
6. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that the Constitution and international law prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings outside of armed conflict except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury; and an injunction prohibiting the targeted killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi outside this narrow context. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring the government to disclose the standards under which it determines whether U.S. citizens can be targeted for death.

** This case is a paradigmatic example of one in which no part of the case can be litigated on the merits without immediately and irreparably risking disclosure of highly sensitive and classified national security information. The purpose of this lawsuit is to adjudicate the existence and lawfulness of alleged targeting decisions and to compel the disclosure of any "secret criteria" used to make those alleged determinations. Plaintiff's complaint alleges (i) that the United States has carried out "targeted killings" outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, Compl. ¶ 13, (ii) and has specifically targeted Anwar al-Aulaqi, Compl. ¶¶ 19-21, and, in particular, (iii) that Anwar al-Aulaqi is allegedly subject to the use of lethal force "without regard to whether, at the time lethal force will be used, he presents a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life, or whether there are reasonable means short of lethal force that could be used to address any such threat." Compl. ¶ 23. At every turn, litigation of plaintiff's claims would risk or require the disclosure of highly sensitive and properly protected information to respond to allegations regarding purported secret operations and decision criteria. Even if some aspect of the underlying facts at issue had previously been officially disclosed, the Government's privilege assertions demonstrate that properly protected state secrets would remain intertwined in every step of the case, starting with an adjudication of the threshold issue of plaintiff's standing (i.e., whether or not there is an alleged "target list" which includes plaintiff's son, and whether he is being subjected to the threat of lethal force absent an imminent threat or a reasonable alternative to force), and the inherent risk of disclosures that would harm national security should be apparent from the outset.

The now retired Hon. Justice Michael Kirby's early words of caution have largely gone unheeded by successive federal and states attorneys-general in this country and, there is no guarantee that a Gillard Government would be anymore respectful of the human rights of citizen's than the Obama Government in America.

AUSTRALIAN LAW - AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, 11 October 2001:

It is impossible for Australian lawyers to collect in Canberra and to proceed in these next few days as if nothing has happened. It is impossible for us to see our Constitution as if it speaks only to Australia and Australians. It speaks of us to the world. It is impossible to pretend that the comfortable topics of the legal profession have the same priority as this moment. It is necessary for us to reflect upon the moment. But to do so keeping our priorities and viewing recent events in the context which our Constitution, our institutions, our law and our tradition of human rights demands that we take.....
In the course of a century, we, the lawyers of Australia, have made many errors. We have sometimes scorned those who, appearing for themselves, could not reach justice. We have gone along with unjust laws and procedures. We have been instruments of discrimination and it is still there in our books. We have not done enough for law reform. We have often been just too busy to repair every injustice. Yet in some critical moments, lawyers have upheld the best values of our pluralist democracy. In the future, we must keep it thus. To preserve liberty, we must preserve the rule of law. That is our justification and our challenge.

Monckton gets legal letter from university threatening to sue and then calls up flying monkeys

Viscount Monckton is not amused and this is the commentary which had him so hot under that ermine collar: Abraham presentation.
While this piece by his lordship is part of the reaon the University of St. Thomas is riled and threatening legal action {see above image}.

Watts Up With That has since published Monckton's call to the flying monkey brigade to make Abraham retract or the uni takedown the critique.

A spectacularly unsuccessful move on his part.

If you want to back the scientific view go to Support John Abraham.

Of course Monckton has troubles with his claims in other areas and the House of Lords has very firmly shot down his claim to be a non-voting member of the house here and here.

The sad fact of the matter is that his father was one of the Lords tossed out when the House was reformed and even though he is an hereditary peer the Lords themselves firmly rejected Monckton when he tried to join their numbers via Crossbench Hereditary Peers’ By-elections in 2008 and 2009.

About that war in Afghanistan.......

Photograph of Afghan war orphans from Flickr gallery

Remember when the media was full of concerns raised about the legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan and whether Australia should even be part of Operation Enduring Freedom or the War on Terror?

That debate appeared to die away over the years - now media and politicians barely mention the war except in terms of troop deployments or casualties. While as an election issue it is a non-event so far this year.

However, many ordinary Australians still hold to their views if the Essential Report on 21 June 2010 is any indication:

61% of respondents think Australia should withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, 24% think we should keep the same number and 7% think we should increase numbers. Support for withdrawal of troops has increased by 11% since this question was asked in March last year.
There was majority support for withdrawal of troops across all demographic groups and voter types. 55% of Liberal/National voters, 61% of Labor voters and 75% of Greens voters support withdrawal of Australia’s troops.

Click on image to enlarge

Round the online traps....

Unflattering pic of Tony Abbott alongside ABC News article about his
Budget Reply 13th May 2010

IanLoveridge: Missed the budget reply on purpose. I like my new TV and I didn't want to harm it!
Orcisano: Tony Abbot spent at least 35 minute of his budget reply attacking the government and praising the Howard government.
{Twitter 13th May 2010}

"Accused war criminal "Captain Dragan" Vasiljkovic spent the night in police custody last night in a Coffs Harbour police station after 43 days on the run."
{The Australian 13th May 2010}

"Electronic Frontiers Australia and Australian Privacy Foundation asking the company [Google] to clarify its reasons for collecting personal Wi-Fi network data from Australian homes."
{The Sydney Morning Herald 13th May 2010}

"For Australia's sake, we need to ban the bikini"
{En Passant 11th May 2010}

"Health authorities are warning of the dangers of eating slugs as a Sydney man battles a rare form of meningitis."
{ABC News 13th May 2010}

"Freud signed, but added in his own writing, "I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone."
{Jonathon Glover "Bits and Pieces"}

"THERE is good reason why the North Coast Area Health Service (NCAHS) doesn't want the public to read a report by an emergency medicine expert about the state of the Grafton and Maclean emergency departments (EDs).
Alleged shoddy clinical practices by certain GPs, bullying of nursing staff by senior Visiting Medical Officers (VMOs), bad relations with Coffs Harbour hospital's ED and a culture of overspending on unnecessary pathological tests are just a few of many inflammatory findings of the report."
{The Daily Examiner 7th May 2010}

"Six Things You Need to Know About Facebook Connections"
{Electronic Frontier Foundation 4th May 2010}

Google receives takedown request for multiple Blogspots offering "direct links to files containing soundrecordings for other users to download"
{Internet Anti-Piracy 14th April 2010}

"How Many Bad Assumptions Can You Make In A Single Article About Content Creation And Copyright?"
{Techdirt May 2010}

"A MAN has pleaded guilty over an armed siege at a Port Macquarie McDonald's restaurant last year."
{Port Macquarie News 14th April 2010}

A genetic test will be offered Friday at Walgreens drug stores, but the FDA warns that "consumers are putting themselves at risk if they use a test not approved" by the federal agency. The test, offered by Pathway Genomics, already is offered online. So are similar tests from other companies. The FDA has not previously intervened.
{WebMD 12th May 2010}

"Prominent economist Ross Garnaut says China has shown more leadership in tackling climate change than Australia."

{ABC News 13th May 2010}

Babies!

{Slate 7th May 2010}

Abbott's warmongering ways show he's just another pollie willing to advance his own interests on the backs of the fallen

It's almost obscene the way Opposition Leader Tony Abbott seeks every thoughtless opportunity to get his phizog on the screen or his name in print.

Nicely timed in the lead-up to Anzac Day, Phony Tony had this to say to a Lowy Institute audience:
"It's no secret that the Americans would like additional Australian forces in Afghanistan and have refrained from making a formal request only because they have been told that it would be unwelcome. The Government should explain why it's apparently right that NATO countries should commit more troops but not Australia. Putting more troops at risk is not a decision that any Australian government should lightly make but the near certainty of higher casualties has to be weighed against the consequences of failing to shoulder extra responsibilities and the ramifications of any collective loss of nerve by Western powers. How fair is it to leave Australia's security so much in the hands of other countries' soldiers or to expect America and Britain to do nearly all the free world's heavy lifting? If satisfied that the role made strategic sense and was compatible with our other military commitments, a Coalition government would be prepared to consider doing more.
Should it be made, a commitment to do more in Afghanistan would be one sign that Australia is entirely serious about its overseas responsibilities. It would build on the reputation Australia established during the Howard years as a power that well and truly "punched to its weight". "

Yeah, not content with his War on Wimmin, Dole Bludgers and Boat People, Tony lusts to spill some more real blood if he gets into The Lodge and like most pollies the blood he wants to let will not be his own.
Not content that 90,000 international defence personnel from 46 countries are currently deployed in Afghanistan, this poor excuse for a pollie even slips in a suss question about why NATO's supposedly bearing the burden of increased troop commitment in Afghanistan.
NATO of course is quite clear as to why it's in Afghanistan. It took command of the very un-UN International Security Assistance Force in 2003 after the Coalition of the Willing had finished with its invasion of that country and its member countries were expected to increase troop numbers on the ground in order to impose political and social order.
The same day that Abbott posted his p#ss horn speech on the Liberal Party website, the NATO foreign ministers were announcing their intention to hand back more power to the Afghan Government and its own military.

Oh and by the way, cobber. Australia has been punching above its weight in war and peace keeping missions and doing a great deal of heavy lifting ever since we first sent military contingents overseas to assist Britain and her allies.
Just go ask those marching in remembrance today.

Iraq Inquiry damned in twenty sentences

AA Gill at The Times Online captures that moment when the British Iraq Inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot dropped its pants and flashed its flaws:

"Lord, I thought, he's finally gone and done it. He's left parochial politics and gone into intergalactic diplomacy and had a severe facelift. The skin was drawn tight, the mouth tugged into a morticised grin. It wasn't a good look.

Fear is nature's cosmetic surgeon. It had grabbed Tony Blair by the back of the neck, pulled and twisted.......

We were looking at a man who was looking at what he thought might just be his own personal Nuremberg trial.

Then Sir Roderic Lyne, one of the interrogating panel, stumbled into his warm-up question. Couched in the avuncular curlicues of academic politeness and mumbled deference, he propped himself up on the pillows of sub-clauses and caveats and something astonishing happened.

Across the table, like a CGI trick, a coup de théâtre: Blair's old face reappeared, emerging relaxed and confident, the eyebrows arched. It was the familiar mug the protesters outside in the rain were wearing as masks. The angst let go. Ladies and gentleman, fear has left the building.

He knew this wasn't going to be a war crimes tribunal: this wasn't even truth and reconciliation. This was the wine committee of his club, the senior common room of a honeycoloured college. He was on top of this. He was all over this......

The hours slid by and Blair grew more confident, flicking the pages of his notes, uncannily finding the date, the mot-juste he needed. The questions became woollier and thinner. Blair allowed himself the occasional smirk of disdain as he did keepy-uppies with the simpler lobs."

But who will arrest John Howard?

On 25 January 2010 Monbiot.com announced a new website called Arrest Blair: for crimes against peace.

The new site is dedicated to the concept that Blair must face justice for his part in the Coalition of the Willing's unlawful invasion of Iraq:

This site offers a reward to people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, for crimes against peace. Anyone attempting an arrest which meets the rules laid down here will be entitled to one quarter of the money collected at the time of his or her application.
Money donated to this site will be used for no other purpose than to pay bounties for attempts to arrest Tony Blair. All administration and other costs, apart from any charges added to your donations by Paypal, will be paid by the site's founder.
The intention is to encourage repeated attempts to arrest the former prime minister.

The U.K. Brown Government is at the moment in the middle of its Iraq Inquiry.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared before the inquiry on 29 January (his video evidence here) and although any reference to his now infamous and classified July 2002 private letter to then U.S. President George W. Bush (sent after their earlier April private meeting) could not be explored, the 23 July 2002 Downing Street Memo is on the public record.

In Australia we apparently think it is acceptable that the man who played a similar role in dragging this nation into a breach of international law - former prime minister John Winston Howard - is allowed to enjoy retirement without one serious question being asked of him.
Why is that so?

Times Online publication of the Downing Street Memo, May 2005 (red emphasis is mine):

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

• The Iraq Inquiry: So what did the then Australian PM John Howard know and when did he know it?

The truth revealed? Uncorrected transcript of former British Pm Tony Blair's evidence to the Iraq Inquiry

Evidence taken on 29 January 2010 by the U.K. Iraq Inquiry was a rather pointless exercise at times - for the most part questions carefully walked around a former leader rather than confronting issues head-on.

The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair was allowed to interrupt committee members and drag out his political soap-box at length almost unchallenged.

However, what clearly comes through is the fact that Blair:
(i) was probably heavily influenced on a personal level by George W. Bush;
(ii) was determined on regime change in Iraq;
(iii) held a desire for change which was never predicated on Iraq as a hive of international terrorism;
(iv) was aware U.N. sanctions had effectively 'contained' Saddam; and
(v) presented a supposedly intelligence-driven policy position to the British people in which any identified breaches of U.N. sanctions or allegations of weapons of mass destruction were only the smoke screen behind which the Coalition of the Willing had agreed to advance their invasion agenda.

Full uncorrected 249-page transcript here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 January 2010, British press shocked at Blair's no regrets on Saddam

The Iraq Inquiry: so what did the then Australian PM John Howard know and when did he know it?

The Brown Labor Government has convened an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the unlawful invasion of Iraq by Britain (as part the Coalition of the Willing) and lack of evidence supporting the reasons given for going to war.

This coalition included Australia, but thus far former Prime Minister John Howard and his Cabinet are escaping scrutiny at home, with the exception of an October 2003 censure motion passed by the Senate.

Perhaps the Chicot-led inquiry (which is still conducting public hearings through 2010) will give some indication as to Howard's role in staging the invasion, given he was so publicly proud of this role and his association with then British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush on 28 March 2003:

Prime Minister John Howard held a lengthy discussion late last night with United States President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the war in Iraq.

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski also joined in the four-way, 20-minute conference call, a spokeswoman for Mr Howard said.

Mr Bush and Mr Blair, both at Mr Bush's Camp David, said they were pleased with the progress of the conflict and thanked Australia for its contribution.

The four leaders also spoke of the need for post-war reconstruction in Iraq and the role of the United Nations in the rebuilding.

"They had a brief discussion about how the military campaign is going," the PM's spokeswoman said.

"Mr Bush and Mr Blair expressed great satisfaction with the progress being made.

"They expressed thanks and admiration for Australia's contribution."

Howard of course picked up the ball and enthusiastically ran with it without too much urging as he had earlier told the National Press Club on 13 March 2003:

I did speak to him [President GW Bush] yesterday. He didn't ask me to lobby anyone, but if you want to know, I have already spoken to a number of countries and I hope to speak to others. I had a conversation with President Musharraf of Pakistan last week. I'm pleased to say that part of the conversation was an indulgence by both of us in our common love of a particular sport. And I spoke two nights ago to President Fox of Mexico, and I hope to speak to one or two other leaders over the course of the next day or so. But I have not been asked to lobby by President Bush. I have not been asked to lobby by Tony Blair. There are somethings that I can usefully do, and I'm doing them, but we haven't been sent a list of countries to lobby. It doesn't work that way, whatever may be the view.......
In the end, all of these things involve questions of judgement. We're not talking about proving to the, beyond reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of a jury at the Central Criminal Court in Darlinghurst, if you'll excuse my Sydney origins, I mean if you wait for that kind of proof, you know, it's virtually Pearl Harbour. You've got to make judgements, and judgements are made and I have given you the judgement of the [inaudible] and I've given you our judgement. I mean, people are saying well, you know, where is the further proof? I mean, what I am saying is you have Iraq with weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's terrible track record, refusing to disarm, the world in effect buckles at the knees and doesn't disarm Iraq....
Iraq is demonstrably, to use my language, a rogue state. If we don't make sure that Iraq is disarmed, that of itself will encourage other rogue states to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction....

Of course the British inquiry may never reveal any information on the part Howard played, as it is well within the realms of possibility that as soon as this inquiry was mooted the Australian Government made representations to the effect that all mention of our involvement should be kept to a minimum during proceedings. The Rudd Government would not enjoy talk of war criminals and national culpability in an election year, given its current tacit support of the War on Terror.

From The Iraq Inquiry website:

The Prime Minister announced on 15 June 2009 that an Inquiry would be conducted to identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict. The Iraq Inquiry was officially launched on 30 July 2009. At the launch the Chair of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, set out the Inquiry's Terms of Reference:
"Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country."
The Inquiry committee members are Sir John Chilcot (Chairman), Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar.
The Inquiry will take evidence over a number of months, with as many hearings as possible held in public. Hearings will begin in the autumn and continue into the New Year. A report of the Inquiry's findings will be published at the end of this process, but as the Inquiry has such a complex task ahead of it the report is unlikely to be ready for publication before summer 2010. The Inquiry committee intends to include in the report all but the most sensitive information essential to our national security. The report will then be debated in Parliament.

So far over sixty witnesses have been heard in sitting days spread over seven weeks. Evidence presented so far is posted on the website as transcript or video.

• John Howard and George Bush 2002
• John Howard and Tony Blair 2006

Classic Bob Ellis musing about the so-called War on Terror

Bob Ellis starting the year well over at ABC The Drum:

We bomb Afghanistan so well-educated Nigerians don't blow up aeroplanes over Chicago. Or that's the theory, it seems.

We bomb Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan so well-educated American-born Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers in Fort Bragg. We bomb Iraq, and Gaza, and Afghanistan and Pakistan so well-educated British Muslims don't blow up Glasgow airport.

We have no alternative to this, it seems, in this necessary war, this just war on terror. This is why we're in Afghanistan, and why we have to be there for five or 15 more years, to stop well-educated people with exploding powder in their underpants from getting on planes in Oslo, or Paris, or Shannon, or Kingston, or Honolulu, or Cairns.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it. They clearly go to Afghanistan to learn how to put exploding powder in their underpants, and unless we bomb them there, they'll come over here, they'll get on a plane in Oslo...and they'll... Well, they'll...So we have to bomb them in...We have to bomb them in...Let me read that again.

Why are we in Afghanistan?

The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month - Lest We Forget

In remembrance of the many who fell and all who suffered during war

Poster from Zazzle

Will someone shove a cake of Sunlight down the throat of John bluddy Winston bluddy Howard.....

For a man who stated that he was going to refrain from political commentary after he retired was tossed from office, former Aussie prime miniature JW Howard is forever popping up in the media with yet another observation on world affairs or national politics.
This time he combines both (along with some gratuitous brown-nosing) by calling for an increase in troop numbers in Afghanistan.
Yer, right.
Let's send more young men into a region where no invading First World power has 'won' a war in living memory.
Where temporary victory is inevitably followed by successful insurgency, until the 'foreigners' finally take their military bat and ball and go home. Just ask Russia.
And where Australia is supposedly fighting for democracy by supporting a corrupt Afghan government which only holds power because it could rig a national election on a grand scale right under the West's nose.
So will someone do the world a favour and stuff that arrogant little man's gob with Sunlight soap or lock him away in a backroom at Wollstonecraft where his stupidity will only be heard by four beige walls.

Of course if it comes to L'l Johnnie's own hip pocket nerve, he is not as quick to front the microphone.
The media attention was suddenly unwelcome when asked if he is to have a well-paid role in a restructured NRL.
Last Wednesday ABC News Radio reported that he would not comment because he was travelling.
Tha's right! The same 'travelling' he was doing when he opened his mouth about Afghanistan.

Image of the wee richardhead from Pop Culture Caricatures and Cartoons