Category: War on Terror

As expected, the British Home Secretary Charles Clarke has launched an appeal against a High Court ruling that David Hicks, who has been in US captivity since late 2001 when he was captured fighting for the Taliban, was entitled to British citizenship and that it should be conferred without delay. The Brits show bipartisan displeasure at the High Court decision and call Hicks for what he is…deeply undesirable and an opportunist Pom.

Labour and the Tory opposition are united in opposing the citizenship move. Opposition homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer labelled Hicks “deeply undesirable”. “He only starts showing an interest in being British when it is to his advantage,” Mr Mercer said.

Meanwhile, The Sun newspaper carried an editorial praising Mr Clarke for his decision to appeal the citizenship bid.

“British citizenship should be reserved for those who have a burning desire to serve this country – not take advantage of it,” the paper said.

Damn right and there could be a case to reserve Australian citizenship for those who have a burning desire to be Australian. Too many come here because we have the best Social Security and medical services in the region.

MELBOURNE’S 10 terrorism suspects are spending Christmas in solitary confinement, dressed in “Guantanamo Bay orange” and banned from touching their loved ones. With about 23,000 prisoners in gaol over Christmas, some of whom are incarcerated for victimless crimes, I am less than sympathetic about a brace of potential mass murderers being deprived of liberty in a society where they were planning to deprive people of their lives. I just wonder why the Age feels a need to take on the roll as witness for the defence.

I have included a link in the left hand column that is the script of a speach given by Haim Harari, an Arab with perhaps more credibility than most of the armchair warriors of the Left who espouse the theory that it’s all the US’s fault. It’s a short pdf file (10 pages) and well worth the read for those seekers of knowlege and opinions of those who have been there and have no bias. Read it before Christmas and celebrate tomorrow knowing the world is heading for a better future even though it will be a rocky road for some time yet. Via reader Bob Buick.

The best indicator yet of imminent success in Iraq is the fact that the left have gone totally quite about the war. It’s like the Left collectively said…Uh uh… Iraq is looking more and more like a winner…we’ll have to find something else to make Bush and the US look evil before people start to doubt our superior wisdom I know! Lets recycle the “US is spying on their own citizens” line. Of course we couldn’t mention it when Clinton was doing it but now there is a Republican in the White House…well let’s attack. The good news is that Iraq will keep on progressing towards a democratic society and by Australia Day in January people will have realized the ‘spying’ red herring is just that and will have moved on. 2006 could be a better year than ’05 and that was pretty good for us conservatives.

JUST when President George W. Bush was expecting to bask in the success of the Iraqi elections, revelations that he secretly authorised telephone taps on Americans without court warrants has plunged his administration into another crisis. I just can’t come to grips with the lack of security in the media in relation to the War on Terror. They seem to have an agenda to put all the nations secrets on the front page to impede the nation’s ability to fight the war. I’m surprised they don’t publish the Order of Battle and deployment schedules for the US military involved in Iraq. The article originated in the New York Times and has grabbed the Lefts interest as another stick to beat Bush with Tim Dunlop makes a mountain out of it;

This one is a shibboleth: if you won’t condemn the president on this and hold him to account, you have lost any perspective and are nothing more than the worst sort of apologist. What’s more, you are no longer fighting terrorism but enabling it, doing exactly what they want, which is to undermine the legitimacy of one the most robust bulwarks against tyranny ever conceived, the Constitution of the United States.

Different stroke for different folks I suppose but applying to a court for a wire tap takes the surveillance out of the Top Secret box and puts it too close to the public arena. I simply wouldn’t trust any of the US infrastructure at the moment with every step being analyzed as to it’s potential to do Bush harm by activists all too ready to photocopy any memo or court order and send it to the media. How did this get leaked for instance and under what motive? I for one do not care a fig for the rights of those who would do our society severe damage. They have abrogated all rights by their acts and clandestine covert ops are an acceptable answer. The Terrorists can do what they like and seldom get called to order by the media but Bush is expected to telegraph all of his intentions to the enemy via the media or, goddammit, they will seek out and tell the enemy themselves. The media, afer all, are defending the high moral ground and it is they who will decide what is right and what is wrong; not the people elected to defend society. Who’s side are they on? UPDATE: Another viewpoint from Defense Tech

That’s all assuming, of course, that the wiretaps in this case are the same as in any other. But maybe they’re not. Maybe there’s something different about this surveillance. It could be in its scope, as Laura suggests. But I’m guessing — and this is just a guess — that the real difference is in the technology of the wiretaps themselves.

Another reason for it not to be in the public arena.

AUSTRALIAN terrorist suspect David Hicks, held in the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has won his court battle for British citizenship, which could pave the way for his eventual release. The High Court handed down its decision in London. I presume there is an avenue of appeal but we’ll just have to wait and see if the Brits use it. I feel a bit uneasy about the High Court forcing the Brit government to accept our trash. They have enough problems of their own. The Times Online carrys the story as well

WAVING a finger and pounding his desk, Saddam Hussein has told the judges in his trial to “go to hell” and vowed not to return to court.

I noted on TV last night that the judge said the trial would go on without Saddam if necessary. Some legal reader may enlighten me here…how on earth does Saddam have a choice as to whether he attends or not.

I would’ve thought he would be dragged off to court every day it sat.

I also note Saddam has redefined terrorism. Not for him the old definitions of terrorism that included beheading of innocents, blowing up woman and children and police on duty.

Oh no, Saddam now complains that;

… he and the seven other defendants were tired and had been deprived of opportunities to shower, have a change of clothes, exercise or go for a smoke.

“This is terrorism,” he declared.

It would appear he has caught the bug that affects his supporters in the Left. Anything can be defined as terrorism, just like torture.

Change the rules to suit the arguement.

PARLIAMENT today handed the Federal Government sweeping new powers to crack down on home-grown terrorists after months of heated debate over civil liberties. Naturally their was an outcry from the usual suspects

The Australian Greens, the Democrats and the Law Council today accused Labor of selling out civil rights by supporting the Bill, which will give unprecedented powers to police and spy agencies.

The main points in the anti-terror laws: * CONTROL orders to monitor terrorism suspects; * PREVENTATIVE detention of suspects without charge for up to 14 days; * 16 to 18-YEAR-OLDS suspected of terrorism can be subject to control and detention orders; * SEVEN-YEAR jail terms for urging violence against the government or sections of the community; * TOUGHER police stop, search and seizure powers; * POLICE and ASIO powers to examine passenger and business information; * BROADER use of surveillance cameras at transport hubs; * OMBUDSMAN to oversee police use of new powers; * PARLIAMENT to receive reports on police powers; * TEN-YEAR expiry date and five-year review of laws; * LAW Reform Commission to review sedition laws in 2006. The Greens can worry about selling out civil rights, I’m just pleased that we are taking the terrorist matter seriously. The only people who have anything to worry about are those who would seek to harm our citizens and put simply, I don’t care about the rights of any such murdering thugs.