Skip to main content

Who are they kidding?

The SMH is reporting this morning on the wrap-up of the David Hicks "trial" - still not concluded at the time of writing this. It all seems rather too pat.

Most disturbing is this:

"He also agreed that he had "never been illegally treated by any persons in the control or custody of the United States".

Now, why would the Americans, and the Australian Government, have almost certainly insisted on this statement by Hicks? Will anyone really believe it, given that Hicks has alleged how he has been mistreated over the years - as has every other person taken into custody by the Americans.

Another dimension to the Hicks fiasco and disgrace is raised by Mike Carlton in his weekly column in the SMH:

"But a question hangs in the air. If Hicks is guilty of providing material support to terrorism, where does this leave those gun-toting executives of the wheat export monopoly AWB who so cheerfully shovelled $300 million of sanction-busting bribes into the coffers of the Saddam Hussein regime? Thanking their lucky stars, I imagine."

As Carlton reminds us - which makes the above statement by Hicks even more questionable:

"Naturally, this travesty has been greeted with smug triumphalism by the Howard Government and the toadying bloviators. It is so convenient. Hicks's guilty plea means he cannot now testify under oath to the brutality inflicted upon him in captivity, acts of violence and sadism which, he has said in written statements, included bashings, the forcible injection of drugs, constant sleep deprivation and, in one instance, the insertion of a plastic object into his anus."

PM Update: The SMH brings things up to date, including the "sentence" meted out to Hicks. As the piece says, it appears to all have been "designed" with an eye to the political scene in Australia. How cynical! Look to for Hicks' dad's comment about the "paper" the US wanted him to sign [see above].


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as

Climate change: Well-organised hoax?

There are still some - all too sadly people with a voice who are listened to - who assert that climate change is a hoax. Try telling that to the people of Colorado who recently experienced horrendous bushfires, or the people of Croatia suffering with endless days of temps of 40 degrees (and not much less than 30 at night time) some 8-10 degrees above the norm. Bill McKibben, take up the issue of whether climate change is a hoax, on The Daily Beast : Please don’t sweat the 2,132 new high temperature marks in June—remember, climate change is a hoax. The first to figure this out was Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who in fact called it “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” apparently topping even the staged moon landing. But others have been catching on. Speaker of the House John Boehner pointed out that the idea that carbon dioxide is “harmful to the environment is almost comical.” The always cautious Mitt Romney scoffed at any damage too: “Scientists will fig