The Daily Mirror broke a story yesterday, picked up by the Sydney Morning Herald today, that Bush wanted to directly attack al-Jazeera’s headquarters but Blair managed to talk him out of it.

The US President, George Bush, planned to bomb the pan-Arab television broadcaster al-Jazeera, according to a British newspaper that cited a Downing Street memo marked “Top secret”.

The five-page transcript of a conversation between Mr Bush and the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, published in the Daily Mirror yesterday, reveals that Mr Blair talked Mr Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the newspaper.

I suppose it’s not that shocking really, given what we now know about Bush and his cronies, and given that The Mirror has been gagged by the Official Secrets Act, it’s obviously on to something.

An excellent article on Surveillance and Oversight by Bruce Schneier illustrating the differing approaches of US and Dutch law enforcement when faced with a need to obtain information. It’s particularly relevant since Australia seems to be heading down the US path towards secrecy and underhandedness.

These differences illustrate four principles that should guide our use of personal information by the police. The first is oversight: In order to obtain personal information, the police should be required to show probable cause, and convince a judge to issue a warrant for the specific information needed. Second, minimization: The police should only get the specific information they need, and not any more. Nor should they be allowed to collect large blocks of information in order to go on “fishing expeditions,” looking for suspicious behavior. The third is transparency: The public should know, if not immediately then eventually, what information the police are getting and how it is being used. And fourth, destruction. Any data the police obtains should be destroyed immediately after its court-authorized purpose is achieved. The police should not be able to hold on to it, just in case it might become useful at some future date.

The ABC‘s 7.30 Report had a great interview with Chris Patten last night on his thoughts on the Iraq War which included the following snippet:

KERRY O’BRIEN: Why do you dislike Dick Cheney?

LORD PATTEN: I think he gives conservatism a bad name. I think he associates conservatism with making rich people even richer, with more perks for the corporate world, with the most assertive sorts of nationalism. If you look at things – the arguments at the moment, America 2001 had the huge sympathy of the world after the attacks on New York and Washington. Now, three years down the road, four years down the road, we see the Administration, particularly Vice-President Cheney, trying to prevent Senator McCain writing into American law the fact that Americans don’t torture people. So America is on the back foot on human rights issues. America, which stood for and argued for Helsinki and the sort of approach to human rights which eventually helped us sink the Soviet Union. How have they got themselves into this mess? They’ve got themselves into this mess because of that implaccable ultra-conservative presence at President Bush’s right hand and I think that it’s a pity that the President doesn’t listen more to his father and less to Vice-President Cheney.

With both the Catholic Church and the Dalai Lama admitting that science provides a better explanation of the origins of the world than religious texts, you’d think it would sound a death knell for ID proponents of ID.

Oh how the mighty have fallen…

Certain binding legal principles, affirmed unanimously by the UN, emerged from the Nuremberg trials . . . It was made absolutely clear that law must apply equally to everyone. Putting the captive enemies on trial was seen by America’s Chief Prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, as “the greatest tribute that power has ever paid to reason.” His successor General Telford Taylor, my chief and later law partner, was more succinct: “Law is not a one-way street.”,1),
(

Nuremberg Prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz

Remarks on the International Criminal Court

March 11, 2003

From billmon

Der Spiegel has a long article on how Abu Chraib has altered two lives; one of a prisoner, and one of a guard. It’s a fairly detailed look inside what went on inside the prison. Given that the prisoner is sure that he’s the one in the famous photo of a hooded prisoner wired for electricity and standing on a box, it’s woth a read.

“Wake up! Wake up!” When Javal Davis walks through the corridors with his megaphone, all he sees are creatures, driven wild by rage and hunger, people who have nothing left to lose, who are as unpredictable as dogs, who have been driven into a corner and are capable of anything if you let them out of your sight for only a moment.

Well I got fired up enough to write a letter to the Premier of NSW:

Mr. Iemma,

I would like to register my extreme disappointment that you agreed to the Federal Government’s request for special anti-terrorist powers. None of the agreed to powers would have made the slightest bit of difference to either the WTC or London bombings, as in neither case were the terrorists being actively monitored by the security services.

Since 2001, we have been repeatedly exhorted by government to continue our normal, everyday lives, as to do otherwise would mean that “the terrorists have won.” Meanwhile, the very same government has been drawing up plans to further curtail our civil liberties, which apparently does not signify a terrorist victory? Given that you’ve been party to these decisions, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what exactly it is the terrorists are trying to destroy? I always thought that our civil liberties, freedom from government intrusion and right to a fair trial were what made Western civilisation great?

To quote Benjamin Franklin, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I think your actions in this regard have been a disgrace and you have been party to an agreement which moves Australia one step closer to the edge of the slippery slope towards a police state.

Regards,

Donncha Redmond

Vaucluse,

NSW 2030.

If I disappear for a while, I’m being held without trial for 14 days ;-)

Look’s like the state Premiers gave in to the government’s wishes and granted all the special “anti-terrorist” powers, and think they’ve done a fantastic job because they managed to get Howard to agree to a sunset clause after TEN years. Whoop-dee-fucking-do! What I love is the fact that the powers that be bleat on and on about how these powers will make us safer, while in actual fact they would have made absolutely no difference to either the WTC or London bombings.

The new powers allow police to detain someone without charge for up to 14 days. The UK started off with a 14 day limit as well, but recently increased it to three months, so I’m sure we’ll follow suit. Detainees will be allowed to know why they’re being held, but not see any evidence against them. They’ll be allowed to contact family “solely for the purposes of letting them know they are safe, but are not able to be contacted for the time being”.

A control order on a suspect that could put him or her under house arrest for a year, without charge, without trial, and without criminal standards of evidence, can be granted by a judge operating in a closed court, under the proposals the premiers agreed to.

The leaders emphasised that the powers would be subject to “judicial review”. But what this means is vague. The reviews will be limited and probably conducted behind closed doors.

The Sydney Morning Herald has the story.

A good article from The Guardian on what happens when you get arrested for being a terrorist suspect in the UK. Note the following logic the police used to figure out he was a suspected terrorist!!

They handcuff me, hands behind my back, and take my rucksack out of my sight. They explain that this is for my safety, and that they are acting under the authority of the Terrorism Act. I am told that I am being stopped and searched because:

- they found my behaviour suspicious from direct observation and then from watching me on the CCTV system;

- I went into the station without looking at the police officers at the entrance or by the gates;

- two other men entered the station at about the same time as me;

- I am wearing a jacket “too warm for the season”;

- I am carrying a bulky rucksack, and kept my rucksack with me at all times;

- I looked at people coming on the platform;

- I played with my phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.

Particularly relevant in light of attempts here to introduce laws which would allow people to be detained without legal representation, or even being informed what they are being detained for.

.. I went to Florida a few days after President Bush did to observe the damage from Hurricane Andrew. I had dealt with a lot of natural disasters as governor, including floods, droughts, and tornadoes, but I had never seen anything like this. I was surprised to hear complaints from both local officials and residents about how the Federal Emergency Management Agency was handling the aftermath of the hurricane. Traditionally, the job of FEMA director was given to a political supporter of the President who wanted some plum position but who had no experience with emergencies. I made a mental note to avoid that mistake if I won. Voters don’t chose a President based on how he’ll handle disasters, but if they’re faced with one themselves, it quickly becomes the most important issue in their lives." Bill Clinton, My Life (p. 428).

Via: Brad DeLong

While he was being interviewed on TV, live on the ground in New Orleans, someone walks past as tells him to go fuck himself. Freedom of speech in action. Priceless ;-)

<a href-“http://www.emsnetwork.org/artman/publish/article_18337.shtml”>An article written by two Californian paramedics who were trapped in New Orleans describing how inept the relief operation was.

An interesting account of the devastation in New Orleans written by a local professor of Middle-East history.

Via Juan Cole

Update: Another interesting article on New Orleans.

First the US insisted on fingerprinting visitors, now they want to issue RFID cards to visitors so they can be scanned more easily. Of course the logicel next step is to track them around the US by scanning at transport hubs, or walking the streets etc.

It shouldn’t be too long before Australia tries this shit too. Since London we’ve already had plans to introduce a national ID card, plans to introduce random searching of people’s bags in public, and plans to make the ‘special powers’ awarded to the police post-911 permanent. If it all slots into place, and with the Liberals (hah!) having a majority in both houses of parliament it’s almost a certainty, we’ll be well on our way to a police state.

So the official line is that we shouldn’t change our daily behaviour because that would be ‘giving in to the terrorists’ but it’s OK to gradually have all sorts of common freedoms and rights sacrificed in the name of security? Sounds like ‘giving in to the terrorists’ to me.

The most powerful man in the world, George W. Bush, thinks that schools should teach ‘intelligent design’ alongside evolution (Source: MSNBC). Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like the idiots are taking over the asylum, with a desire to wind back anything which marks us out as an advanced civilisation – education, tolerance of other lifestyles, some semblance of peace etc.? Maybe it’s time to look for a cave and fashion myself a club….

Juan Cole has a nice synopsis on how we got to be where we are today: Background to the War On Terror

Was out for dinner last night when news came through of the bombings in London. Thankfully all my friends there are OK. Watched a bit of coverage when I got home and the one thing which struck me was how calm and ordered things appeared. The emergency services were going about their jobs in a well-organised fashion and there were no hysterics or bewilderment from witnesses and surviors. I know London has a long history of dealing with terrorism thanks to the I.R.A. and the attack wasn’t as shocking as the images of the WTC collapsing, but even still it was impressive.

Still, I couldn’t help noticing that after almost four years of the ‘War On Terror™’, Bin Laden, its main protagonist, is alive, well, active and no nearer to being caught. Focused on the wrong problem perhaps?

Update: this Guardian article lists the major I.R.A. bombs which went off in London and gives a good idea of why they were so prepared.

Ireland is now the second richest country in Europe (per capita GDP), behind Luxembourg.

From The New York Times:

“Ireland’s advice is very simple: Make high school and college education free; make your corporate taxes low, simple and transparent; actively seek out global companies; open your economy to competition; speak English; keep your fiscal house in order; and build a consensus around the whole package with labor and management – then hang in there, because there will be bumps in the road – and you, too, can become one of the richest countries in Europe.”

“Everything I said about Iraq turned out to be right, and you turned out to be wrong, and 100,000 people have paid with their lives…”,1),
(

“Have a look at the real oil for food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad when $US8.8 billion [$11.6 billion] of Iraq’s wealth went missing on your watch…”,1),
(

“Have a look at the other American corporations that stole not only Iraq’s money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

”Have a look at the oil that you didn’t even meter, that you were shipping out of the country selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where.“,1),
(

”http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-guilty-of-oil-for-food-scandal-not-me-Galloway/2005/05/18/1116361569660.html">George Galloway’s testimony to the US Senate

It’s about time someone told it like it is. Good on ya George.

Ever wonder how bad things reallly are in Iraq? Have a read of this Rolling Stone article. Not good.