Bhutto's Death

I don't think the image will ever leave my head but whenever I read that Scotland Yard is on the case I picture a bunch of Sherlock Holmes types carrying magnifying glasses rushing to the scene of the crime. Much too little too late for Benazir Bhutto.

It's clear now that she was shot, at least that's what the footage appears to reveal, and that this is what is likely to have killed her. What's hard to understand is how they came to announce that she'd died from her head impacting on the car, and that she in fact WASN'T hit by a bullet. How could such a "blunder" be made? The bodies got holes or it doesn't.

If the outraged crowds of PPP supporters needed any more reason to feel suspicious about the government's involvement in the killing they need not have looked for long. Unfortunately it's most likely to have been al-Qa'ida and such "mistakes" only serve to distract anger from the likely killers:

Mr Zardari has rejected officials' assertions that al-Qa'ida was behind the assassination.

"I dismiss the Government's claims of al-Qa'ida involvement," he reportedly said.

"The officials are trying to cover up and compare it to the death of John F.Kennedy. I think soon the chickens are going to lay their eggs and we will blame them on al-Qa'ida. Al-Qa'ida has nothing to fear; why would they fear us? Are they our political opponents?"

This statement from Bhutto's widow strikes me as the height of naivety. The very fact that Benazir Bhutto was an educated women with power was cause enough for al-Qa'ida to kill her. It seems that some are still not listening to what these extremists are saying.

Stormin' Norman Podhoretz At It Again

It seems that Norman Podhoretz is intent on spinning himself completely and utterly out of all relevance, as his recent debate with Fareed Zakaria has demonstrated. I'm sure that we're all familiar with Podhoretz; he's the one who had this to say about the Iraq War:

'it's an amazing success' and.. 'There were WMD (weapons of mass destruction), and they were shipped to Syria ... This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn't have gone better.'

And when probed about the fact that (at the time) polls were saying that 80% of Iraqis wanted the U.S out of Iraq he replied:

"I don't much care,...nobody was tortured in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo"

Now Norman is having his say on the next mission, Iran, and as you might imagine, considering how well the Iraq War has gone, he's all for an attack:

'...only one terrible choice, which is to bomb those facilities and retard their program, or even cut it off altogether, or allow them to go nuclear. US senator John McCain is right to say: "The only thing worse than bombing Iran is to allow Iran to get the bomb." '

Zakaria replies:

'Well, there is a third choice, which is the choice we have used for pretty much every other country that has developed nuclear weapons. That is deterrence. We allowed Mao Zedong to get a nuclear weapon and have used deterrence against the Chinese. We allowed the Soviet Union to get nuclear weapons and used deterrence against the Russians. We've allowed the North Koreans to get nuclear weapons and have used deterrence against them.'

Podhoretz responds in a manner that's become far too predictable for U.S foreign policy hawks:

'This attitude represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early 1930s of the intentions of Adolf Hitler, which led to what Winston Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough.'

The attempts at painting all opponents as potential Chamberlains has always been tempting for such Hawks, but it's a massive twist of today's reality. Saddam may have been an evil son of a bitch but he was no Hitler. Hitler, Stalin etc... were the heads of major powers in their day representing a colossal threat. Saddam and Ahmadinejad were, and are, leaders of minor powers by international standards. The threat wasn't, and isn't, even comparable to Hitler's Germany. Iraq was a basket case before it was made into a.......well.........basket case.

Of course Podhoretz makes the claim that Iran's Islamic rulers may be fanatical enough to use the bomb regardless of the repercussions:

'The reason deterrence can't work with Iran is that there's a different element involved here than was involved with Mao or Kim or Joseph Stalin, and that is religious fanaticism. With a religious fanatic such as Ahmadinejad and the "mullahcracy" ruling Iran generally, there is no assurance that the idea of self-preservation or the protection of the nation will deter them.'

Zakaria destroys this position by looking at the history:

'"If the worst came to worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain, while imperialism would be razed to the ground." This is what Mao said. And it wasn't just his words. It was his actions. He was actively aiding revolutionary movements and killing Americans all over the world. So the question about Iran's rationality rests on this: The mullahs have been in power for nearly 30 years. What have they done? Iran has followed a pretty rational, national interest-oriented foreign policy. Look at how they opposed al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, another Islamic revolutionary movement. You'd think that they would have been sympathetic, but no, the Iranians were the sworn enemies of al-Qa'ida and they helped the US depose the Taliban in Afghanistan. They've been fairly calculating, they have followed their national interest. When it has bumped up against the US, they have worked against us. When they have thought that our interests were in common, as in Afghanistan, they've worked with us.'

Iran's Ahmadinejad is a racist wanker, and the Mullahs rule is tyrannical, but Zakaria's reply above is correct which makes Podhoretz's appraisal rubbish.

The scary thing about Norman Podhoretz isn't that some still take him seriously after his comments on the Iraq invasion, it's the fact that he's a foreign policy adviser to Republican Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani. The world simply can't afford another one of these nut jobs whispering into the ears of another stupid President.

Call An Inquiry

The dirt on the Haneef affair appears to be leaking with the contents of an e-mail revealed today. The key passage of the document reads like this:

"Contingencies for containing Mr HANEEF and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it is the case he is granted bail on Monday, are in place as per arrangements today."

What an incredible revelation! So the fact that Andrews' decision to revoke Haneef's visa coincided with the magistrates decision to grant him bail actually wasn't a coincidence!

I feel so violated.

Hall, The Greatest Acrobat There Is

Every now and then there is a man, a man so absolutely blinded by his politics and hatreds that he'll fail to see a bigot when it's before his very eyes. That man today is Iain Hall.

For a long time I've been pointing out to Iain that his association with blogs such as AWH and Crusader Rabbit isn't wise as these particular blogs belong to bigots of many varieties: religious, sexual and racial. But alas, he has never seen "proof" I was told. So even though I was able to provide comments such as these from KG at Crusader:

'You dishonest, slimy piece of dog excreta--the "stormy times" we're going to have are due to people who hate the identity your culture has (well, what's left of it anyway) and what you're saying is that you want to see the little that's left handed over to the primitive goat-humpers on a platter. Why not bend over and beg 'em to do to you what they do to goats? *spit*'

'Tell the whole goddam story about the "honour" killings and the radical imams and the vast army of primitive bastards who are living on welfare even as they destroy your culture--that's the only story that matters. You cowardly piece of shit.'

'Introduce an islamoloathing award, you retarded goat humpers and a lot of us would be lining up for one.'

Iain would cry NO!, this wasn't bigotry: 'In the context of the post KG’s anger is directed at the author he is critiquing and I’ sorry to say the Goat humping epithet is clearly not focused upon every Muslim at all, only those who want to re-create the world in a seventh century idiom.'

If he's not focused on every Muslim then what is this "vast army" that KG refers too? And considering that KG believes that there are no "moderate" Muslims then why would he differentiate between them? Iain had no answer.

Of course this is just one exchange in a long string. Iain has had to perform many a triple back flip to explain the behaviour of these friends he appears intent on defending to the end. The problem is that the problems just keep on a coming for Hall's position as demonstrated devastatingly by Hap recently.

Hap easily pulls back the bullshit "libertarianism" that people like KG and John Ray at AWH use to justify continually pushing the boundary deep into the realm of bigotry. These guys have abused the liberalism, as voiced by old conservative Gods like Hayek, by peddling overtly racist drivel in it's name. It's a telling feature of these people who've bent over backwards to out Hitler as a leftist that they, as rightists, have come so close in manner to the blatant bigotry that so epitomised The Third Reich. Billions of people are denounce due to their religion just as a whole race was dehumanised by Hitler. They peddle a vicious form of anti-leftism which can only be equated to that of Adolf. Anyone who strolls onto these blogs to give a dissenting opinion is abused and booted. They're lovely places.

Now I'm no appeaser of Islamic terrorists, but to distinguish between Islamic criminals and innocent Muslims is absolutely essential, yet I can't find a single entry at either of these blogs that does this. On the contrary, though Iain argues otherwise, they clearly state their belief that ALL Muslims are suspicious. In an environment where political correctness is so intensely loathed the forum is one where he who offends the most, garners the most praise. So if one feels hatred towards Islamic terrorists then why not accuse Islam in general? Why not accuse it's followers? Why not call them names like "goat humpers"? Why not blame everything on them (just as Hitler did with the Jews) and denounce every feature of their culture, religion and being? I mean, why not? It's is an expression of freedom of speech after all and they do hate them.

But the funny thing is that they don't appreciate liberalism at all. Just look at Crusader Rabbit's header:

'Radical islam has two allies here in the West - leftism and political correctness. The fight is with all three.'

So essentially the fight is against "leftism" and "PC", which are thrown in with "radical Islam" (it's amazing considering the content that they didn't just say "Islam", maybe they were more moderate in the beginning) as things which need to be equally fought. Which means that the fight is against divergent views as well as terrorism. I found out first hand:

'There's a lefty in comments seething and whining that we don't like debate.He's right, at least where lefties are concerned. This blog wasn't established to debate with leftists, it was founded to expose them for what they are, to ridicule them and heap derision on their empty heads.Comments by the occasional leftist are tolerated until we lose patience with them and that usually doesn't take very long.We've seen you lot for what you are--the enemy. As much as the jihadist with a bomb or the scumbags of Beslan. I'd be as happy to see you swinging by the neck as I would any other traitor or terrorist, since you lot have done more to undermine Western society than anything or anybody else in history.Now, piss off.'

Hitler would be proud as I'm sure Hall is.

WTF?: The Death Penalty 2

To view more evidence of the acrobatics performed by some conservatives on the death penalty one only needs to read Alan Howe in today's Herald Sun:

'Unless the Indonesian Government wavers, marksmen will, one morning soon, dispatch Bali bombers Imam Samudra, Ali Ghufron and the giggling Amrozi to meet the many virgins that are theirs by Koranic promise.'

'I have opposed the death penalty previously, but this is different. Indonesia is an unsettled democracy in which there is a resentful Islamic push for it to become a theocracy.
Should that happen, a living Bali bomber would likely be liberated, hailed a hero and doubtless given some senior official post in which they would set to work on murdering more of us.
The three of them need to be killed.'

So Howe's reasons for wishing the death penalty on the Bali bombers are different. He believes it likely that an Islamic theocracy will spring up in Indonesia and thus these criminals will be given an official post, Ministers for the Killing of Infidels maybe.

After spending the last two weeks there talking to locals and reading much of the media this suggestion strikes me as hilarious. Exactly how did Howe come up with this pathetic appraisal? It seems to me that his lust for their deaths warranted an excuse considering he's previously opposed capital punishment, and this is the best he can come up with. Rather than outwardly state that he is now pro-death penalty he prefers to amend his position to accommodate his call for their killing. It's just weak.

You're pro-capital punishment Alan, just say so.

The Labor Loathers And The Death Penalty

It's only been two and a bit weeks but I fell like I've been missing out on all sorts of commotion. Andrews and the Gov have further disgraced themselves by ceasing to accept African migrants (just what is going on there!?) and now the death penalty is back in the headlines. So rather than play catch up on everything, I'll only comment for now on that last, and more recent, issue.

For the record, I'm totally opposed to the death penalty. Not only am I not convinced that it works as a deterrent, but I view it as barbaric, an echo from a less civilised time when raw emotion dictated punishment rather than cool, calm consideration. Some view it as a just punishment for killers considering that they themselves have killed, in short, an eye for an eye. But not only is this view too close to Biblical or Koranic dictations for me (therefore stuck in the past), it doesn't actually make sense when considering where it take us, an assault for an assault? A rape for a rape maybe? Clearly this position isn't well thought through for not only does state sanctioned murder stand alone as a punishment inspired by the crime, but it makes the punisher a killer also. So death creates more death and death alone.


So when one is against the death penalty one should stand by it as a principle and voice their opposition to it whenever the subject is raised as you would in regards to any fundamental principle, and this is all Robert McClelland said. For some to take issue with the timing of his comments is fair enough, but some of the criticism directed at Labor by the usual suspects has bordered on the ridiculous. Take the predictable Labor loather Iain Hall for example:

'The Labor party are without doubt far too soft when it comes to justice for terrorists'

This is quite simply an absurd comment often repeated by other conservative parrots. Because Labor wish to speak their opinions on the death penalty whenever the subject arises they are "soft on terror". Hall's eagerness to see more death in the name of "justice" and his hate for Labor have blinded him to the silliness of his comment.

'...they are far to soft when it comes to the idiots who have been caught trying to smuggle drugs from Asia.'

Here he appears to be suggesting that death is an appropriate sentence for drug trafficking even, and that Labor are now soft on drug trafficking because they similarly oppose capital punishment for the Bali nine!? This may not be what he meant by his comment but it at least shows tacit approval for their deaths. He goes on in this vein but I'll spare you the pitiless rationale. Hall's firmly of the opinion that death is an appropriate punishment at times, indeed sometimes he even relishes in a slow death:

'The revelation that there have been further arrests in relation to this latest bombing campaign certainly is good news. As is the news that one of Glasgow’s would be bombers has burns to 90% of his body. People with such extensive burns seldom survive their injuries and usually have a slow and very painful death, usually succumbing to shock and infection. It could not happen to a nicer bloke now could it?'

How can Hall distinguish himself as the opposite of these criminals when he makes comments like this?

Today in The Australian on another brilliantly balanced opinion page edited by culture warrior Tom Switzer, James Allan has a go at Labor even though, strangely enough, he opposes the death penalty:

'The same holds if, for most Australians, capital punishment is in all circumstances considered to be unarguably the most obnoxious of the many practices on offer in neighbouring countries: worse than female genital mutilation, say, or chopping off hands for theft, or shooting monks who want democracy, or building nuclear weapons, or whatever your pick is from the fairly extensive list on offer.'

Here he's playing that old conservative card where you point out a bunch of other horrible crimes and say "why aren't you campaigning against these also" with the intention of belittling the campaign against crime one. Firstly, some of them aren't state sanctioned activities and are outlawed already. Secondly, Labor do speak out against many of them consistently eg: shooting monks, nuclear weapons. Thirdly, chopping off hands for theft is comparable to capital punishment in that the crime dictates the punishment. So if Allan thinks this is beyond the pale then why isn't the death penalty on his list also?

'For one thing, there is nothing inconsistent in saying you support capital punishment for murder (and even more so for terrorists who detonate bombs in bars, thus murdering hundreds), but not for drug smuggling or indeed anything short of murder. On that basis there is all the difference in the world between the Bali bombers and the Australian drug smugglers.
Second, it is not inconsistent to say, "We don't support capital punishment even for murder here in Australia, but at the same time we do not condemn it elsewhere where it is used against murderers who were given a fair and open trial." '

What a confused position!! Allan is clearly having trouble defending Howard's stance here as to oppose capital punishment is to OPPOSE IT!!!! We don't say "well we don't like it but if you guys want to kill people then we'll support you". Coming from a Howard fan such relativism should strike all other conservatives as worrying.

And finally The Australian's pathetic editorial:

'Kevin Rudd was quick to criticise Mr McClelland's speech yesterday as insensitive on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Bali bombing. Yet the fact is that Mr McClelland was articulating Labor policy. Mr Rudd did not support the death penalty for Saddam or for the Bali bombers, and on October 10 last year shadow health minister Nicola Roxon said that "Australia needs to continue to strongly and clearly state its opposition to the death penalty, whenever and wherever it arises", and not just when Australians are involved.'

And so what!? Labor OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY. This is what you do when you oppose capital punishment.

'While there is bipartisan opposition to the death penalty in Australia, Labor's notion that the Government should state its opposition every time someone, somewhere in the world, is executed is absurd. With more than 1500 executions last, year that would amount to four or five representations every day.'

What a ridiculous comment! Labor don't propose to state it's opposition every time someone is executed, merely every time the subject arises. A consistent position is what they proposed not the rag tag flexible ground we currently occupy. This editorial is a perfect example of the weak conservative stance on capital punishment. In order to look "tough" it's required of them to not mention too sternly that they don't support capital punishment, rather they add it as a side comment before they rail on about the justifications for it.

Just let us know guys, death or no death? Don't duck and weave with your pussy footed anti-Labor moaning.

I Don't Get It

Can anyone tell me what the point is to the bizarre refugee exchange program we have struck with the U.S? I mean if refugees are fleeing persecution and wish to find sanctuary in the west what difference will it make whether that sanctuary is here or in the States? The whole thing is just confusing!!

After seventy-two Sri Lankans were deemed to be genuine refugees:

...the men will not be allowed to come to Australia and could instead be sent to the US under a controversial exchange arrangement that would involve Cuban refugees from Guantanamo Bay being resettled here in return.'

Great, how incredible spiteful Australia has become. If conservatives need any more proof of the long argued nastiness of the Howard Government here it is. I've long found our treatment of genuine refugees (because most of those who've arrived on boat have been found to be so including the vast majority of those on the Tampa) to be the most embarrassing aspect of current day Australia. The deliberate attempts to demonise them since 2001 have been transparent and appalling, they've been called everything from "que jumpers"and "illegals" to potential terrorists. But now things are just getting pathetic.

"The reduction in the number of people seeking to enter Australia unlawfully has been a direct result of the Howard Government's clear policy that persons who seek to enter Australia illegally will not be settled in Australia," Mr Andrews said.

They have no idea whether asylum seeker levels have dropped because of their "clear policy". The fact is that world asylum seeker levels declined immediately after the U.S invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, so in announcing their policy as victorious they've deliberately ignored large and important parts of the equation knowing full well that the vast majority of Australians won't bother to look up the whole truth. (I was hoping to show a graph here but I can't seem to get it working, see the above link) Nor am I certain that refugees entering Australia are actually "illegal".

The government's continuing line on asylum seekers is an echo from its 2001 election shame where it pitted Australians against desperate refugees using misinformation and smear, and it's just ridiculous that they continue to carry on in this fashion.

Does The Palestinian Israeli Conflict Even Shock Anymore?

While reading of yet another Palestinian attack on Israel, and the subsequent Israeli response, I noticed how tired I am of the whole thing. Most of us have spent our whole lives knowing of nothing else but conflict between the two camps, which makes you realise how utterly hopeless the situation is. Worsening the problem is the relatively new division between Gaza and the West Bank, with Hamas is control of Gaza and Fatah the West Bank. And when the rockets into Israel just keep on a coming what hope is there?

'At least 57 soldiers sleeping in tents were wounded when the homemade rocket landed smack in the middle of the Zikim base in southern Israel not far from the border with Gaza, an army spokesman and medics said. It was the bloodiest rocket strike from Gaza in months and came days before the start of the Jewish new year, increasing the pressure on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's cabinet to take action to stop the fire. Many of the troops were conscripts due to complete their basic training the following day. Thirty-nine of the soldiers suffered only light wounds, with those suffering more serious injuries evacuated to nearby hospitals by ambulance and helicopters, officials said. In Gaza, the military wing of the radical Islamic Jihad group - which launches the majority of rockets from the territory into Israel - claimed the attack.'

Well they're getting better you might say as the victims were nearly soldiers this time, but geeez, what do they think this will achieve!? Their lot will never improve as long as they continue these attacks. The constant attempts to kill civilians (or whoever they can) merely highlights them for what they are, murderous, and it'll never win them any concessions from Israel. The only path to their own viable state is through dialogue as violence has given them nothing but violence in return.

And has anyone noticed that Israel just can't seem to hit the right targets:

'Hours later, a Palestinian man and three of his children were wounded when an Israeli tank shell landed on their house in the northern Gaza city of Beit Hanun, medics said. The army said it had struck an area in northern Gaza from where the rocket that hit Zikim was allegedly fired, but it was not immediately clear whether this was a separate incident.'

Either the Palestinians have an impressive propaganda machine or the IDF is bloody hopeless!!

The Chaser At APEC

How angry many conservatives and ministers are. How eager Today Tonight was to attack The Chaser once again merely because they excel at exposing the show as the pathetic beat-up vehicle it is. How outraged is the NSW Police Minister David Campbell:

'He said the prank was inappropriate and he "did not see the funny side at all''.'

In fact, they could have been SHOT!!! But at least it:

'showed the security system worked.'

And black is white. The fake motorcade passed through at least one police checkpoint where the crew showed their fake security passes, which clearly stated so, and contained their real names. Furthermore, the only reason they were found out is because Chas got out looking like Osama bin Laden alerting the police that something was up.

So I guess if this is the definition of our security system working then, yeah, it worked. Why don't they just admit that they're embarrassed that The Chaser exposed such flaws. Funnily enough The Chaser has had some fun with this glaringly obvious fact:

'Yesterday, three members of the Chaser team, Craig Reucassel, Chris Taylor and Dominic Knight, were taken away by police after they "drove" through a police line at the APEC forum wearing black cardboard cars bearing Canadian flags and wheels made of paper plates.'

What a pisser!

Is Australia Racist?

I know, it's a far too general question. But even though it's a question that can't be answered with a simple yes or no without generalising, it's a question commonly asked and answered definitively. You get your garden variety conservatives drawing on their evidence of choice to prove it's not, then you get some on the Left doing the same to claim it is. But it's not that easy. Furthermore, are we supposed to compare it to other countries to formulate our opinions or judge ourselves what would make it deserving of the title?

A new study has shown that racism against kids of Islamic or Arabic parents has been common in our schools:

'Research by Deakin University's associate dean of research, Fethi Mansouri, found that since the 2001 terrorist attacks, students of Muslim or Arabic background had increasingly become associated with such negative things as terrorism and war.

This had had a detrimental effect, with students not only feeling more ostracised at school, but experiencing higher absenteeism and lower academic achievement.

He said racist behaviour had increased since 2001,and included verbal taunts, humiliation, exclusion and physical aggression.'

This is terrible news, and surely if most Australians can agree that it is then we are on the right course. The horrible thing is that I'm not so sure it would be universally agreed upon. These days so much rubbish is circulating about Islam, and Muslims (what they believe) that some Australians have been radicalised against them. Who would actually think that those behind blogs like Crusader Rabbit or A Western Heart would lament this poor treatment and it's detrimental effects? I'm not jumping to the conclusion that Australia is an especially racist place, but to ensure it doesn't head that way attitudes like those at the above mentioned blogs should be ridiculed as the simple minded rubbish they are. Take this:

'Speaking at Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said, ‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Crusader has used this quote to denigrate all Muslims as somehow extreme. In doing this they have demonstrated a terrible lack of understanding. As Waleed Aly has explained in People Like Us "Moderate" and "fundamentalist" are Christian terms that don't apply effectively to Islam. Erdogan is insulted by "moderate" because it implies that he is somehow half a Muslim, not because he is a "fundamentalist" or that Muslims are an homogeneous group of extreme fanatics who all follow the same course. This example is typical of where many seem to be going wrong.

More understanding is needed and less outright hate.

Ouch! A Bad Day For Andrews

It's a double whammy for Kevin A. First it turns out that Haneef's "contact" in England probably had no prior knowledge himself of the attacks and now a judge has ruled that Andrews was wrong to cancel Haneef's visa on character grounds (you know, because he knew his cousins who were involved in a crime).

Time to leave Andrews.

The Right On The Rise

Who would have thought that one of the biggest threats facing Russians these days comes from the Right, that's right, not the Left, the Right. The Partisan was right (confused yet?), Neo-nazi groups are growing ever more radical and committing constant violent abuses against migrants. One of these crimes was filmed recently:

'The video, viewed by the Reuters news agency, shows two men with their mouths gagged and hands tied behind their backs, kneeling in front of a swastika flag in a forest.
To a backing track of heavy metal music, the video appears to show a masked man hacking off the head of one captive with what looked like a hunting knife. In another section, a man could be heard shouting "Glory to Russia", then firing a handgun at the head of a second captive kneeling next to a shallow grave.'

This sickening scene is reminiscent of the now infamous Al-Quaeda videos that have circulated the globe time and again. What's interesting is the similarity of cause to some popular and regular Australians:

'Neo-Nazis have been involved in at least 92 murders and 760 attacks on immigrants in less than two years, according to an independent group that monitors racially motivated crimes.
The youngest victim was Khursheda Sultanova, a nine-year-old Tajik girl who bled to death on the outskirts of St Petersburg after being stabbed by skinheads chanting "Russia is for Russians". '

And Cronulla is for Aussies!!!!!! Pauline would no doubt blush, but where does she think her anti-immigrant politics will eventually lead? And similarly, what do all those lovely anti-Muslim blogs think their tirades will produce? Take this from Crusader Rabbit:

'So in the interests of muslim awareness...The man is a Hindu and he's being beaten to death.His crime? To have been walking past a mosque after Friday prayers, when the faithful have been whipped into a frenzy.The Religion of Peace.To the organisers of the awareness week: fuck you! You're apologists for this filth.'

Can you see the rationale? Extreme Muslims elsewhere behave violently and aggressively therefore the whole religion and all within it are to be blamed and their friends abused. I'm sure this flawless reasoning also resides in the minds of Russia's Neo-Nazis but do CR even notice the similarity? The bashing of a hindu man for such a 'crime' is deplorable and there's no reason to think that all Muslims would support such a thing but this fact doesn't matter to such minds, all Muslims are guilty by association, full stop. This is not dissimilar to fascist attitudes towards Jews in Hitler's Germany, yet once again, they don't realise how close they are to the line. Instead they believe the Left are closer merely because it's the "National-Socialist" party (don't you know?). So without fear they post things like this:

'"Muslims are being put on trains and sent to concentration camps, gassed and buried in mass graves I suppose."

We can only dream.'

And still they fail to see the connection. Incredible.

So as you can see, it's not the Left killing migrants to keep Russia pure, or lumping all adherents of Islam in the same bag for discrimination, it's YOU Crusader, it's the Right.

Keelty's Losing It!!!!!

Mick Keelty earlier today:

'"For all that's been said about the SIM card, the SIM card is still in the vicinity of London at the time that the devices were attempted to be exploded,"

"The SIM card is still at Glasgow, at the airport at the time that the attempted bombing happened there. There's been a lot of focus on exactly where the SIM card was, as I've said, in these sorts of investigations, information changes very quickly, there's a high volume of information to be got through very quickly. "

What!? In two places at once! And not one of those places is where Scotland Yard said they found it. A spokesman later clarified:

'"The SIM card was considered significant in the UK investigation and was identified as being in contact with individuals alleged to have been involved in both the London and Glasgow attack."'

So what!? Don't we already know all this?

It just demonstrates how desperate everyone is to paint Haneef as guilty, of anything at all. This whole episode is becoming hilarious!

Andrews Gives Us The 'Goods'......Sorta.

Kevin Andrews has given us some of the 'secret' information he based his decision to cancel Haneef's visa on, and it doesn't seem to have impressed many. Once again even Andrew Bolt isn't swayed by this attempt at political resuscitation:

'Of course, even these tidbits prove little against Haneef, even if Andrews said it made the Australian Federal Police "highly suspicious". As you'd expect.
After all, the brothers seemed confused about what their second cousins had really done, and how they'd used Haneef's card.
As Andrews himself told it: "The brother added that, 'Auntie told him brother Kafeel used it; he is in some sort of project over there'."
It seems the card was not used for the bombing.
But if Haneef -- a Muslim foreigner in Australia with mad cousins who'd gone bombing - felt it was a good time to go back home, I'm not surprised. '

Only those determined to see him gone regardless of evidence, or lack there of, have cheered the 'new' revelations, but let's look at them.

Hannef's brother appears concerned for him when he writes: "Tell them that you have to (leave) as you have a daughter born. Do not tell them anything else." If I'd just found out that my brother had been linked via his SIM to a crime commited by my family members I think this kind of talk would be typical, it certainly doesn't implicate Haneef with the crime. He also says: "Aunty told me that brother Kafeel used it: he is in some sort of project over there." This sentence suggests that the attack had caught them both off guard, meaning that they knew nothing about a planned attack. It also shows that Kafeel's mother is merely recycling public information, incorrect information, as the SIM was not used by the brothers.

The further nail in the argument that these exchanges are evidence of prior knowledge or guilt is the fact that after this exchange Haneef called Scotland Yard four times to clear up the matter. Would he have done this were he guilty?

The exchange proves that they were nervous of the connection that police had drawn between the attackers and Haneef, but not much else. If you knew you were going to be attached to a crime such as terrorism while in another country wouldn't you try and leave?

Andrews seriously needs to give us the full evidence. These selective tidbits released for the sole purpose of vindicating the minister and incriminating Haneef aren't good enough, in fact he's made it worse for himself. If Haneef's guilty and they have evidence to prove it, release it!

Andrew's Is Losing It!!!

When you in the Howard governemnt and even Andrew Bolt has turned against you, you know you're in trouble:

'When the case against Haneef collapsed, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews nevertheless ruled he wouldn’t reinstate the visa of Haneef, who had to leave Australia:

"But unless there is some material difference in the information provided to me by the Federal Police, then obviously my decision continues to stand and that is that doctor Haneef failed the character test and should be removed from Australia."

But when Haneef indeed leaves Australia Andrews concludes this must be a sign of his guilt:

“If anything, that actually heightens rather than lessens my suspicion,” he said.
Heads you lose, tails I win.

If Andrews really does have secret information implicating Haneef as an extremist, he’d better release it fast. Right now he’s looking like a dill.

And the 60 Minutes interview with Haneef last night makes Haneef seem not just an innocent guy, but a lovely man. '

Indeed he did. While watching Haneef's interview I thought that if this guy's a terrorist, I've been picturing them all wrong. Do terrorists cry over how the parents of terrorists might feel after watching their children commit, or attempt, atrocities?

And how can Andrew's suspicion be 'heightened' because Hannef chose to go home to see the daughter he's has never seen due to his incarceration? Would anybody in their right mind find such an act suspicious!?

Andrews needs to fess up with the inside info or it's time for some government accountability.

Albrechtsen In A Bind

Janet Albrechtsen's column today was a pisser.

She's clearly uncomfortable with the way the Haneef case is unfolding, yet appears even more uncomfortable with being on the same side as the civil libertarians:

'ONE need not venture anywhere near the intellectual wasteland of civil libertarians and their academic, legal and media boosters to believe that there is something dreadfully wrong with the unravelling case against detained terrorist suspect Mohamed Haneef.'

And in case you had any doubts:

'If the Howard Government fails to grasp that the growing unease over the handling of the case against Haneef is not confined to the lunatic libertarians, it risks undermining the case for anti-terrorism laws, destroying the Government's credibility on national security and weakening its claim on the next election. '

So she agrees that in this instance they have a point and that the case has been a travesty so far, but she's at pains to remind us that she despises the 'lunatic libertarians'. Her usual audience need not fear because her siding on this with such lunatics is an anomaly. Once again she hammers it home:

'Australia was on the verge of becoming a totalitarian state, said the civil libertarians who appear more concerned with the liberty of terrorists to go about their bomb-making business than the right of the rest of us to go about our more mundane pursuits.'

What's this got to do with Haneef? Nothing! But it reminds us that she hates those civi libis.

'But for progressives, the "out of control" Government was "exercising a monstrous abuse of power and public faith". Recalling parliament was, said Greens leader Bob Brown, "a black day in prime ministerial abuse of the people of this nation. It is disgusting." '

Again where's the connection? Nowhere! They're crap that's all.

'So far we have Haneef's SIM card, which authorities claimed was used in the failed Glasgow bomb attack, turning up hundreds of kilometres away in Liverpool, and other major inconsistencies between the police record of interview, leaked to The Australian, and material presented by the Australian Federal Police to a Queensland magistrate during Haneef's bail hearing. And, ouch, Britain's Metropolitan Police is laughing at the AFP for overseeing such a "major cock-up". '

Oh that's right you agree with the lunatics on this one don't you Janet.

'The same goes for the headline-hunting and opportunistic band of lawyers who peddle schlock horror stories about anti-terrorism laws. After all, these guys would be the first to launch class actions against the Government and authorities in the event of a terrorist attack. You can't win these people over. They have been waiting to dance on the grave of Australia's terrorism laws since those laws were enacted. '

Yeah we know, but you hate them anyway.

Haneef So Far

This story has been incredible so far. Let's go through the events and false claims, let me know if I've missed any.

1) Haneef's arrested apparently fleeing the country with a one way ticket without informing his place of work.

False. He did inform his work after all and gave the completely acceptable explanation that his wife had just given birth and he wanted to see his family. His father had booked the one way ticket as well, and this was after Haneef had called police in Britain to explain why they had his SIM.

2) His SIM was found in the car which crashed into Glasgow airport. The accusation was hence made that the SIM was intended to trigger a bomb.

False. The SIM was found in his cousins apartment with the person Haneef admitted giving it to. He had also explained that the reason he gave the SIM to his cousin was because it was still active and he did not want to waste it. Also, it appears there's no evidence that it was at all intended for use in the attack, let alone Haneef actually being aware of this possibility.

3) Police made the claim that Haneef used to live with his two second cousins in England.

False. As Haneef had informed them in the interview he had never lived with the two men.

4) The Murdoch tabloids splashed all over their front covers that Haneef was surveying a possible target on the Gold Coast. Pictures of buildings foundations were found etc....

False. As Keelty informed everyone yesterday this accusation is wrong.

5) Police claimed that Haneef had Kafeel Ahmed's details in his diary and asked Haneef the hand writing was his own.

False. The hand writing wasn't his and neither were Kafeels details in his diary. Keelty has recently come out to deny that police had written in the diary which makes it an odd exchange. I can't for the life of me grasp what that conversation means given this denial.

Haneef may be guilty of something, but this episode so far is just ridiculous. It surely isn't instilling faith from the public in the AFP or our new terror laws. Gerard Henderson attempts explain it all:

' The events which took place in Britain are of utmost seriousness. There could have been many hundreds or thousands died as a result of those attacks, which didn't succeed.
At a time of acute awareness about national security both in Britain and also to some extent in Australia, it's not unreasonable that the federal police should act cautiously in relation to these matters, should put someone up on trial, they have to produce the evidence. This is not unusual. In the criminal jurisdiction, these matters go on every day. There are people being put away tonight, against whom there is some evidence and some disputed evidence, they'll go up on trial, have a bail application. There's nothing unusual about Mohamed Haneef, except he's created a lot of media attention. '

Also except he was granted bail then had his visa revoked as a consequence but other than that he might be right. A good explanation for this circus was given by Waleed Aly today:

'Only last week, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock neatly encapsulated this democratic impulse when interrogated about the fairness of Haneef's treatment, responding: "You would be asking me different types of questions if we found out later that there were avenues of inquiry that could have been pursued ... and some terrible event happened in Australia."
Ruddock is undoubtedly correct, which only demonstrates that it is politically safer in the face of a terror threat for a democratic government to overreact, even if it is strategically unwise. Even the Opposition is hamstrung, and supports the Government's conduct at every turn. It wouldn't dare do anything else.
Western politicians assure us of their toughness on terror. They have little choice. It is harder in a democracy to show strategic restraint. If only politicians were rewarded for being smart on terror. '

Twisty, twisty

Sometimes you can hear Sheridan think. In the case of Dr Haneef he's written a detailed defense of....Oh... go on...... guess:

'If any part of our system has performed badly here, it is the courts for refusing to implement the intention of the legislation, which is that bail should be rare in terrorism cases. This judgment of the legislature is shared by Howard and Rudd. So is the civil liberties section of the legal profession telling us not only that they are well motivated, whereas the politicians are malevolently motivated, but that they, the lawyers, understand the threat of terrorism better than the political system understands it?'

I'd say that in this case the lawyers understand the law better than the 'political system' understands it. As far as I'm aware, bail in a terrorism case is able to be granted in exceptional circumstances. Well I'd call a fundamental lack of evidence pretty exceptional, as did the magistrate when she noted that no evidence was provided that implicated Haneef with a terrorist act. But that doesn't matter to Sheridan:

'These included that Haneef was charged with a serious crime and was a known associate of people Andrews had reason to believe were engaged in criminal activity. There were also reasons Andrews could not disclose, but we know that these involved AFP investigations that showed Haneef was in frequent and elaborate contact with people at the centre of the British terrorism investigations. There is other material that, despite the best efforts of a robust media, we have not yet found out.'

So he was charged with 'recklessly' giving his SIM to his second cousin because it still had credit, though there's no evidence this SIM was used, or intended for use, in a criminal act. He 'was a known associate' of people 'Andrews had reason to believe were engaged in criminal activity'. In other words he's known to have known his second cousin who may have been involved in a crime. There's also some other unreleased 'reasons' that we'll have to just take Andrew's word for, but we know he kept in 'frequent and elaborate' contact with his second cousin, the last such time being after the birth of his child and prior to that in March or April.

As you can see, the case is open and shut.

Thankfully Mike Steketee talked some sense:

'When AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty announced on Saturday that Haneef had been charged with providing resources to a terrorist group, he said: "The specific allegation regards recklessness rather than intention, the allegation being that he was reckless about some of the support he provided to that group (in Britain), in particular the provision of his SIM card for the use of the group." In other words, the allegation against Haneef is that he didn't know but should have known that he was dealing with terrorists.'

'Even if you accept that, the resources that he provided were not bomb components or a suicide vest: it was a British SIM card, left behind when he came to Australia.
The group or organisation mentioned in the charge refers to brothers Sabeel Ahmed and Kafeel Ahmed, who are Haneef's second cousins and two of the suspects in Britain. Haneef effectively stands accused of failing to be his cousins' keeper, a notion that should frighten relatives everywhere.

One of the documents used by Andrews says that Haneef and one of the brothers corresponded in online chat rooms, most recently "following the birth of Haneef's child" on June 26. The previous occasion had been in March or April. That hardly suggests active involvement in a terrorist plot.

As reported on Tuesday, Cameron Stewart of this newspaper was told there had been more frequent contacts. Keim says police did not put this to Haneef in interviews. "There can be no operational reasons to keep it secret," he says. "Why would you keep secret evidence that you have showing that there are greater links between the two brothers and the cousin when all of them are in custody?"

Keim also points out that when Haneef tried to leave the country, he was travelling in his own name and he was going to Bangalore, where his wife and newborn child live.

The Andrews documents add that he informed his employer at Southport Hospital where he was going. Even if the timing of his departure raises suspicions, his actions were hardly those of a person desperate to avoid detection.

As Donald Rumsfeld once famously put it, perhaps there are things we don't know we don't know. Haneef's lawyers are appealing to the Federal Court against Andrews's decision and the Government has the option of providing further information. Although this opens up an avenue of independent review, it is on the narrow grounds of whether Haneef passes the character test under the Migration Act. The court will not rule on whether he should have received bail on a criminal charge, let alone on the merits of the charge against him.

So far, the prosecution has constructed a case based on guilt by association. As we learned in the McCarthy era, when many innocent people were smeared as communists, that is a slippery slope. Sometimes democracy does not provide an adequate safeguard against sliding down it, as Kevin Rudd's unwillingness to say boo about any aspect of the handling of this case demonstrates.

Crap!!! He Got Out On Bail!!! Oh Well, Put Him In Villawood

Australia is the lucky country. Because it's lucky that when the courts fail us and don't lock up what are obvious terrorists we can always fall back on our immigrant detention system.

After being granted bail in a court Dr Mohamed Haneef has had his visa revoked because he failed a 'character test' and is now being removed to Villawood. Apparently, even though the court determined that 'there was no evidence to suggest Haneef had any direct association with a terrorist organisation, or that the SIM card he had given to the brother of one of the accused UK bombers had been used in a terrorist attack' he's still such a threat that he must be instantly dealt with and shipped to detention.

Immigration Minister Andrews said:

'"Based on information and advice I have received from the Australian Federal Police I reasonably suspect that Dr Haneef has had or has an association with persons involved in criminal conduct namely terrorism,"'

I'd better watch out considering that I've had an association with someone who later became involved in criminal conduct, though I wasn't aware that he was planning it when we were 5 years old and unlike Haneef we weren't related so there's no excuse!!!!! Not that that helped him any.

This is a joke. Either he's committed a crime and they've evidence of this or he hasn't and they don't. They've thrown everything at this guy, they've sack his house and held him for days without charge, the media's spread many a false fact concerning the manner of his arrest and thrown his face around the nation and this is what it comes to.

What's becoming of the West? Are we sacrificing our long held liberties on the alter of security?

UPDATE:

For those who watched Andrews on the 7:30 report last night it was devastatingly clear that he was far from certain whether Haneef's association with his second cousin was 'sinister'. This is terribly illuminating.

UPDATE 2:

They've figured it out. Ms Payne is one of those magistrates!!!!! A judicial activist maybe? A possible 'lefty' with a history of disagreeing with police! Shocking!

UPDATE 3:

This is what's it all comes down to:

'ALA national director and Perth barrister, Tom Percy, QC, said when the Government was able to usurp the decision of a magistrate, the rule of law no longer applied.
"A judicial officer has heard the case in regards to Dr Haneef and has granted him nominal bail," said Mr Percy.
"The magistrate heard both sides of the case and the minister should not circumvent that.
"The separation of powers must apply. If there was any evidence presented to the court that this man was a significant risk at any level he would never have been granted bail.
"If the prosecution disagreed with the decision to grant Dr Haneef bail, they could appeal that decision in the Supreme Court but we have seen no evidence of that taking place.
"Instead, the Federal Government has taken away this man's right to a fair hearing."'

No doubt those of us who've expressed concern at the government's actions will be labelled as terrorist appeasers of the 'chattering classes' (you know who you are), but it's not about whether he's guilty or innocent. It's about the precedent in that any migrant may now be deported once any tenuous link is found between themselves and possible criminals. How is this fair?

Ideological Sleeper Cells

What the hell is an "ideological sleeper cell"?

A Mr Kara-Ali was quoted in The Australian today as stating that he believes there are up to 3'000 Muslims in Australia in "ideological sleeper cells".

No it's not people who have infiltrated Australia lying in wait until triggered when they'll attack us with new political parties, freshly penned letters to editors etc.... He clarifies:

"I believe in Sydney alone there's about 2000 and 3000 young Muslims vulnerable to being radicalised," he said.

"There are ideological sleeper cells waiting to be completely radicalised. Because radicalisation ... is to act upon your extremist teachings."

Now there's clearly nothing funny about what he's saying if it's true, but "ideological sleeper cells"? Either they're in real sleeper cells or they aren't. The general community are already scared shitless at the prospect of there being real sleeper cells amongst them, so do we really need to create sub-categories in order to keep them vigilant?

The Australian's editorialists clearly love the idea:

'He estimates there are between 2000 and 3000 radicalised Muslims in Sydney alone and possibly double that in Australia, who are ideological sleeper cells and who could become extremists.'

You think it'll catch on?