Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah are in the international news again I see.
The UK Daily Telegraph had a piece that tells us that in RAK a 'power struggle threatens stability in wake of monarch's death'.
Soldiers are on the street it said: Sheikh Khalid al-Qasimi, the elder son of the late ruler, Sheikh Saqr bin Mohammed al-Qasimi, was on Wednesday night holed up in his palace, claiming to be the rightful successor, while troops were marshalled outside to enforce the claim of his younger brother, the Crown Prince Sheikh Saud.
Some of you are closer to the action than me right now - what's happening?
Then Dubai is back in the news with a parcel bomb destined for the US found at the airport, although naturally the main focus of the UK press is the discovery of another parcel bomb on a cargo plane at their East Midlands airport.
It makes life down here on the other side of the world seem very normal and relaxed.
Parcel bombs.
RAK excitement.
Showing posts with label terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terror. Show all posts
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Monday, December 29, 2008
Gaza: it was inevitable
Others are commenting about the massacres in Gaza, for example Moryarti has photos here which give a sense of what's happening.
I'll just say that it was entirely predictable. Huge onslaughts were inevitable before the end of the most pro-Israeli US administration in memory. The Israelis know full well that world opinion led by the US will support them whatever they do. But they weren't prepared to take a chance on the same level of support from the incoming administration so they were always going to attack at this time.
I think they were wrong in that uncertainty. Given the reality of the political equation in the US regarding Israel I don't expect a much different approach from the next administration. That scepticism has been supported by President-elect Obama's postures on the subject during the election run up and by his appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.
This is a man described by Israeli newspapers Haaretz as "Israeli Rahm Emanuel" whose father, previously a member of the Irgun terrorist group, said of the appointment; "Obama is a pro-Israeli leader and will be a friend to Israel." Maariv newspaper headlined the appointment "Our man in the White House"
Had I been American I would have voted for Obama. I believe he'll do a good job, and even has the potential to be a great president. He's the kind of inspirational leader the US needs after the disasters wrought by eight years of BushW extremism - although I'm not sure that even two terms are long enough to repair so much damage.
But I don't agree with everything he's doing, the appointment of Emanuel and Clinton being two decisions I'd prefer he hadn't made.
I think the Obama era brings much to look forward to, but a fair and equitable outcome in the Israeli/Palestinian catastrophe isn't one of them.
The Haaretz article is here.
'Our man in the White House' is here.
For reports from inside Gaza, check out Sameh Habeeb's blog Gaza Strip, the untold story.
I'll just say that it was entirely predictable. Huge onslaughts were inevitable before the end of the most pro-Israeli US administration in memory. The Israelis know full well that world opinion led by the US will support them whatever they do. But they weren't prepared to take a chance on the same level of support from the incoming administration so they were always going to attack at this time.
I think they were wrong in that uncertainty. Given the reality of the political equation in the US regarding Israel I don't expect a much different approach from the next administration. That scepticism has been supported by President-elect Obama's postures on the subject during the election run up and by his appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.
This is a man described by Israeli newspapers Haaretz as "Israeli Rahm Emanuel" whose father, previously a member of the Irgun terrorist group, said of the appointment; "Obama is a pro-Israeli leader and will be a friend to Israel." Maariv newspaper headlined the appointment "Our man in the White House"
Had I been American I would have voted for Obama. I believe he'll do a good job, and even has the potential to be a great president. He's the kind of inspirational leader the US needs after the disasters wrought by eight years of BushW extremism - although I'm not sure that even two terms are long enough to repair so much damage.
But I don't agree with everything he's doing, the appointment of Emanuel and Clinton being two decisions I'd prefer he hadn't made.
I think the Obama era brings much to look forward to, but a fair and equitable outcome in the Israeli/Palestinian catastrophe isn't one of them.
The Haaretz article is here.
'Our man in the White House' is here.
For reports from inside Gaza, check out Sameh Habeeb's blog Gaza Strip, the untold story.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Mumbai. I don't understand any of it.
I simply don't understand anything to do with the obscene killings in Mumbai.
I don't understand the mentality of people who randomly take innocent lives. The vast majority of the dead and injured are Indians, hotel workers, train travellers, people simply going about their daily business.
We're told that Americans and British tourists were specifically singled out in some instances. Yet many of them may well have opposed their governments' policies, so what does the simple fact of citizenship have to do with anything?
I don't understand how a country which has had so many terrorist attacks over recent years can have been so unprepared.
Mrs Seabee was in India at the time of the attacks, fortunately in Kochi so well away from the trouble spot. She was in Le Meridien hotel, a popular business & tourist hotel. She's also stayed in the Taj hotel in Mumbai in the past.
There is no security, no preventive measures taken. People simply wander around as they please. Only after the news from Mumbai reached Kochi was a hotel security man stationed on the entrance to check incoming vehicles and ask guests for ID.
In Cairo, which has seen terrorist attacks too, hotel security is strict, as it is around all tourist areas. Road barriers, sniffer dogs, metal detectors and ID checks on all entrances. Sharpshooters on bridges and high points keeping watch. Guard posts on bridges.
I don't understand how the intelligence services can be saying 'ten or a dozen' attackers were involved.
How could no more than twelve people have simultaneously attacked so many sites with so much firepower and caused so much death and destruction?
I don't understand the reports that say At least three gunmen battled India's best-trained commandos for two days in the maze of corridors in the Taj Hotel, setting fire to places as they moved from floor to floor.
How did they move from floor to floor so easily? Isn't the first thing to do sealing all exits? The stairs must have been left unguarded for the gunmen to be able to move from floor to floor. Or maybe they used the lifts. And they moved around at will for two days!
I don't understand how such a large, sophisticated attack, which apparently began with the hijacking of a trawler on the high seas, could have been planned with no intelligence being picked up. They couldn't have done it all by delivering messages by hand!
There was the financing, surveillance of the target areas, the training, the purchase and distribution of a large amount of weapons and ammunition, transportation. A lot of people involved over a long time, yet no word was picked up by any of the world's intelligence gathering agencies.
I don't understand how so many men - many more than the official dozen - carrying what must have been heavy bags of guns, ammunition, explosives, could move about the city to so many targets without arousing suspicion.
I don't understand how there is no trail to the many people who must be the brains, the finance, the trainers behind the attacks.
I don't understand how the Indian intelligence service and politicians can be saying it's all over, they've killed all the gunmen. There must be dozens of them who simply faded away and will strike again.
I simply don't understand any part of it.
TV news reports show people hero-worshipping the elite 'Black Cat' commandos. Sorry folks, the true heroes are not highly trained, heavily armed professional going about their jobs, even though some of them tragically lost their lives. Here are the true heroes, ordinary people showing extraordinary bravery. Untrained, unarmed, unprotected, ordinary hotel staff doing what they could to protect others:
They were heroes in cummerbunds and overalls. The staff of the Taj Mahal Palace hotel saved hundreds of wealthy guests as heavily armed gunmen roamed the building, firing indiscriminately, leaving a trail of corpses behind them.
Among the workers there were some whose bravery and sense of duty led them to sacrifice their own lives, witnesses said.
Prashant Mangeshikar, a guest, said that a hotel worker, identified only as Mr Rajan, had put himself between one of the gunmen and Mr Mangeshikar, his wife and two daughters.
“The man in front of my wife shielded us,” Mr Mangeshikar said. “He was a maintenance section staff member. He took the bullets.” For the next 12 hours, before Mr Rajan was finally taken out of the hotel, guests battled to stop the bleeding from a gaping bullet wound in his abdomen. It is not known if he lived.
You can read that story here.
I don't understand the mentality of people who randomly take innocent lives. The vast majority of the dead and injured are Indians, hotel workers, train travellers, people simply going about their daily business.
We're told that Americans and British tourists were specifically singled out in some instances. Yet many of them may well have opposed their governments' policies, so what does the simple fact of citizenship have to do with anything?
I don't understand how a country which has had so many terrorist attacks over recent years can have been so unprepared.
Mrs Seabee was in India at the time of the attacks, fortunately in Kochi so well away from the trouble spot. She was in Le Meridien hotel, a popular business & tourist hotel. She's also stayed in the Taj hotel in Mumbai in the past.
There is no security, no preventive measures taken. People simply wander around as they please. Only after the news from Mumbai reached Kochi was a hotel security man stationed on the entrance to check incoming vehicles and ask guests for ID.
In Cairo, which has seen terrorist attacks too, hotel security is strict, as it is around all tourist areas. Road barriers, sniffer dogs, metal detectors and ID checks on all entrances. Sharpshooters on bridges and high points keeping watch. Guard posts on bridges.
I don't understand how the intelligence services can be saying 'ten or a dozen' attackers were involved.
How could no more than twelve people have simultaneously attacked so many sites with so much firepower and caused so much death and destruction?
I don't understand the reports that say At least three gunmen battled India's best-trained commandos for two days in the maze of corridors in the Taj Hotel, setting fire to places as they moved from floor to floor.
How did they move from floor to floor so easily? Isn't the first thing to do sealing all exits? The stairs must have been left unguarded for the gunmen to be able to move from floor to floor. Or maybe they used the lifts. And they moved around at will for two days!
I don't understand how such a large, sophisticated attack, which apparently began with the hijacking of a trawler on the high seas, could have been planned with no intelligence being picked up. They couldn't have done it all by delivering messages by hand!
There was the financing, surveillance of the target areas, the training, the purchase and distribution of a large amount of weapons and ammunition, transportation. A lot of people involved over a long time, yet no word was picked up by any of the world's intelligence gathering agencies.
I don't understand how so many men - many more than the official dozen - carrying what must have been heavy bags of guns, ammunition, explosives, could move about the city to so many targets without arousing suspicion.
I don't understand how there is no trail to the many people who must be the brains, the finance, the trainers behind the attacks.
I don't understand how the Indian intelligence service and politicians can be saying it's all over, they've killed all the gunmen. There must be dozens of them who simply faded away and will strike again.
I simply don't understand any part of it.
TV news reports show people hero-worshipping the elite 'Black Cat' commandos. Sorry folks, the true heroes are not highly trained, heavily armed professional going about their jobs, even though some of them tragically lost their lives. Here are the true heroes, ordinary people showing extraordinary bravery. Untrained, unarmed, unprotected, ordinary hotel staff doing what they could to protect others:
They were heroes in cummerbunds and overalls. The staff of the Taj Mahal Palace hotel saved hundreds of wealthy guests as heavily armed gunmen roamed the building, firing indiscriminately, leaving a trail of corpses behind them.
Among the workers there were some whose bravery and sense of duty led them to sacrifice their own lives, witnesses said.
Prashant Mangeshikar, a guest, said that a hotel worker, identified only as Mr Rajan, had put himself between one of the gunmen and Mr Mangeshikar, his wife and two daughters.
“The man in front of my wife shielded us,” Mr Mangeshikar said. “He was a maintenance section staff member. He took the bullets.” For the next 12 hours, before Mr Rajan was finally taken out of the hotel, guests battled to stop the bleeding from a gaping bullet wound in his abdomen. It is not known if he lived.
You can read that story here.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Signage, fish and terrorism
Road signage, whale sharks and terrorism laws don't have anything in common except that they're subjects on my mind today, so this is a bit of a mixed bag of a post.
First the road signage and a detail related to our new address system which I've talked about previously.
Having road names and building numbers is obviously the best address system, as proven around the world for over a hundred years.
But to drag the directional signs on our roads into it is a huge mistake. As I've said before, the directional signs should remain as they are, to suburbs. Like this:
Instead, the RTA is changing the signs to things like this:
Where the hell is that?
It's hard enough trying to find our way around Dubai as it is, with the endless construction, diversions, new roads, moron drivers, without this confusing signage.
We know we want to go to, for example, Umm Suqeim 1 or Al Quoz or Al Barsha. We can't be expected to learn and remember thousands of street names.
I passed the sign to Al Rasaas Rd while driving along Sheikh Zayed Road earlier today. It was pointing to an exit in the direction of Jumeirah/Umm Suqeim...or it could have been to a flyover looping across to somewhere in entirely the opposite direction such as Al Barsha. I have no idea and the sign does nothing but confuse me.
So, feedback to the RTA. The new addressing system is great, but please don't confuse it with directional roadsigns. They are two totally different things.
And then the fishy business going on at Atlantis with the captive whale shark.
Gulf News has a major 'free the whale shark' campaign under way and it's getting an inordinate amount of radio air time. On Thursday the International Herald Tribune ran an Associated Press story about it, which you can read here.
I really don't need to say more about the subject than obviously the animal should be released the moment she's fit enough.
What interests me about it all is the appalling way the hotel has handled its PR over the issue. They've acted in the same way over the other negative stories in the media here and overseas, about rooms not being available, of no water, of running out of beer and wine, of no parking space. The PR strategy seems to be ignore it and it'll go away, which is absolutely the worst possible approach.
Look at this para from the AP story carried in the IHT:
Representatives of Atlantis resort, which is located on a man-made island built in the shape of a palm tree, did not return calls to the AP on Thursday. They also did not respond to AP's request to speak to one of the marine specialists the hotel says monitors the whale shark around the clock.
That kind of non-communication raises all sorts of doubts and questions.
They originally announced that the whale shark was in their aquarium for medical treatment after fishermen had found it in distress. But they fudged around the timing of her release in the one interview I've heard, since when they've gone completely to ground.
Full marks for helping the animal. But refusing to say even that she will be released leads to the suspicion that they intend to keep her as an attraction for the paying public.
That leads naturally to suspicions about the capture by fishermen, particularly as it was just before the hotel's opening. And to whether the announcement of it was nothing more than a sales pitch to let the paying public know she was in their aquarium.
The answer is simple - call a media conference, announce that the animal was in distress, that they're doing all they can to restore it to health and the moment it's recovered sufficiently they will release it. That gives the hotel nothing but good publicity.
Instead they've ignored the many opportunities they've been given. In this day and age I can't believe any company could handle their PR so badly.
There's an old truism. It ain't the problem that's the problem, the way you handle it is the problem.
And so to terrorism laws.
Again this is something I've talked about in the past. The terrorism laws introduced by our governments are open to mis-use and abuse by our own governments and their agencies. And they're doing it.
The latest example is the UK government using their terrorism laws to freeze billions of pounds of Icelandic bank assets held in the UK.
Here's what the Financial Times has to say:
Financial crime lawyers said the government's un-precedented decision to apply the freezing order for purposes other than tackling terrorism opened the way to its use in other cases centred on commercial and political interests.
The Treasury's action on Wednesday to protect the deposits of British account holders has highlighted broader concerns that some security-related laws passed since the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks are so widely drafted they are open to abuse.
I had many a debate when the laws were being introduced in the US, the UK, Australia and I seemed to be a voice in the wilderness. The general opinion was 'we need the laws to catch the terrorists' and 'our government can be trusted'. As I argued at the time, that's naive in the extreme.
I've talked before about the previous Australian government's use of terrorism laws in the case against Dr Haneef, which was thrown out of court. You can read about that here.
Of the UK government's threat to use terrorism laws against climate change protesters, which you can read about here.
Now we see the use of them against institutions of a friendly country, as reported in the Financial Times which you can read here.
I'll simply repeat a few things I said in those previous posts:
And worst of all the naive belief that only the bad guys are affected by the terrorism laws. That innocent people will not be caught up in the paranoia. The reality is of course that any of us could be caught up in it.
...everyone, should be dealt with in a way that is consistent with our established values of justice, of fairness...overly draconian new terrorism laws are open to abuse and they will be abused.
If we allow our governments to erode and gradually destroy our established values, we're going backwards.
Terrorists are laughing - our own governments are doing their work for them. The destruction of our way of life is coming from within.
Sorry, if you stayed with me this far that is, I seem to have rambled on for much longer than I intended.
Now it's almost time to go out for dinner, to a Chinese restaurant we like very much at the top of Beach Road. I should post about that tomorrow because if you enjoy Chinese food you should give it a try.
First the road signage and a detail related to our new address system which I've talked about previously.
Having road names and building numbers is obviously the best address system, as proven around the world for over a hundred years.
But to drag the directional signs on our roads into it is a huge mistake. As I've said before, the directional signs should remain as they are, to suburbs. Like this:
Instead, the RTA is changing the signs to things like this:
Where the hell is that?
It's hard enough trying to find our way around Dubai as it is, with the endless construction, diversions, new roads, moron drivers, without this confusing signage.
We know we want to go to, for example, Umm Suqeim 1 or Al Quoz or Al Barsha. We can't be expected to learn and remember thousands of street names.
I passed the sign to Al Rasaas Rd while driving along Sheikh Zayed Road earlier today. It was pointing to an exit in the direction of Jumeirah/Umm Suqeim...or it could have been to a flyover looping across to somewhere in entirely the opposite direction such as Al Barsha. I have no idea and the sign does nothing but confuse me.
So, feedback to the RTA. The new addressing system is great, but please don't confuse it with directional roadsigns. They are two totally different things.
And then the fishy business going on at Atlantis with the captive whale shark.
Gulf News has a major 'free the whale shark' campaign under way and it's getting an inordinate amount of radio air time. On Thursday the International Herald Tribune ran an Associated Press story about it, which you can read here.
I really don't need to say more about the subject than obviously the animal should be released the moment she's fit enough.
What interests me about it all is the appalling way the hotel has handled its PR over the issue. They've acted in the same way over the other negative stories in the media here and overseas, about rooms not being available, of no water, of running out of beer and wine, of no parking space. The PR strategy seems to be ignore it and it'll go away, which is absolutely the worst possible approach.
Look at this para from the AP story carried in the IHT:
Representatives of Atlantis resort, which is located on a man-made island built in the shape of a palm tree, did not return calls to the AP on Thursday. They also did not respond to AP's request to speak to one of the marine specialists the hotel says monitors the whale shark around the clock.
That kind of non-communication raises all sorts of doubts and questions.
They originally announced that the whale shark was in their aquarium for medical treatment after fishermen had found it in distress. But they fudged around the timing of her release in the one interview I've heard, since when they've gone completely to ground.
Full marks for helping the animal. But refusing to say even that she will be released leads to the suspicion that they intend to keep her as an attraction for the paying public.
That leads naturally to suspicions about the capture by fishermen, particularly as it was just before the hotel's opening. And to whether the announcement of it was nothing more than a sales pitch to let the paying public know she was in their aquarium.
The answer is simple - call a media conference, announce that the animal was in distress, that they're doing all they can to restore it to health and the moment it's recovered sufficiently they will release it. That gives the hotel nothing but good publicity.
Instead they've ignored the many opportunities they've been given. In this day and age I can't believe any company could handle their PR so badly.
There's an old truism. It ain't the problem that's the problem, the way you handle it is the problem.
And so to terrorism laws.
Again this is something I've talked about in the past. The terrorism laws introduced by our governments are open to mis-use and abuse by our own governments and their agencies. And they're doing it.
The latest example is the UK government using their terrorism laws to freeze billions of pounds of Icelandic bank assets held in the UK.
Here's what the Financial Times has to say:
Financial crime lawyers said the government's un-precedented decision to apply the freezing order for purposes other than tackling terrorism opened the way to its use in other cases centred on commercial and political interests.
The Treasury's action on Wednesday to protect the deposits of British account holders has highlighted broader concerns that some security-related laws passed since the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks are so widely drafted they are open to abuse.
I had many a debate when the laws were being introduced in the US, the UK, Australia and I seemed to be a voice in the wilderness. The general opinion was 'we need the laws to catch the terrorists' and 'our government can be trusted'. As I argued at the time, that's naive in the extreme.
I've talked before about the previous Australian government's use of terrorism laws in the case against Dr Haneef, which was thrown out of court. You can read about that here.
Of the UK government's threat to use terrorism laws against climate change protesters, which you can read about here.
Now we see the use of them against institutions of a friendly country, as reported in the Financial Times which you can read here.
I'll simply repeat a few things I said in those previous posts:
And worst of all the naive belief that only the bad guys are affected by the terrorism laws. That innocent people will not be caught up in the paranoia. The reality is of course that any of us could be caught up in it.
...everyone, should be dealt with in a way that is consistent with our established values of justice, of fairness...overly draconian new terrorism laws are open to abuse and they will be abused.
If we allow our governments to erode and gradually destroy our established values, we're going backwards.
Terrorists are laughing - our own governments are doing their work for them. The destruction of our way of life is coming from within.
Sorry, if you stayed with me this far that is, I seem to have rambled on for much longer than I intended.
Now it's almost time to go out for dinner, to a Chinese restaurant we like very much at the top of Beach Road. I should post about that tomorrow because if you enjoy Chinese food you should give it a try.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
EID MUBARAK
The moon sighting committee has done its job, Ramadan is over and we're into the Eid holiday.
That means the roads are reasonable to drive on and we're also moving into the great weather months. "Excellent weather for holidays" says the report in Gulf News.
The Met Office says we can expect a daytime maximum of about 37ºC and low humidity, evenings will be around 24ºC - 27ºC with no humidity, no dust, no clouds or rain.
So we're moving into the seven or eight months of perfect Mediterranean-style weather which more than compensates for the hot & humid summer.
Hopefully more good news - Atlantis say that the report in a British tabloid that they had received an Al Qaeda bomb threat is no more than a rumour. The police have said that 'there is nothing unusual in the country' while Atlantis say they have not been contacted by the police, which would have been the case if there had been any suggestion of a threat.
Oh, and some good news for those of us living in Dubai Marina. The first section of the new Interchange 5.5 is open, giving alternative exits onto Sheikh Zayed Road and on to Jebel Ali/Abu Dhabi or into Dubai.
When offices open again in a couple of days it should mean that the gridlock we've endured for weeks is at least reduced, maybe even removed with any luck.
That means the roads are reasonable to drive on and we're also moving into the great weather months. "Excellent weather for holidays" says the report in Gulf News.
The Met Office says we can expect a daytime maximum of about 37ºC and low humidity, evenings will be around 24ºC - 27ºC with no humidity, no dust, no clouds or rain.
So we're moving into the seven or eight months of perfect Mediterranean-style weather which more than compensates for the hot & humid summer.
Hopefully more good news - Atlantis say that the report in a British tabloid that they had received an Al Qaeda bomb threat is no more than a rumour. The police have said that 'there is nothing unusual in the country' while Atlantis say they have not been contacted by the police, which would have been the case if there had been any suggestion of a threat.
Oh, and some good news for those of us living in Dubai Marina. The first section of the new Interchange 5.5 is open, giving alternative exits onto Sheikh Zayed Road and on to Jebel Ali/Abu Dhabi or into Dubai.
When offices open again in a couple of days it should mean that the gridlock we've endured for weeks is at least reduced, maybe even removed with any luck.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
It isn't funny.
All of us here use aircraft, so I don't suppose any one of us will see the joke when a fellow passenger tells us he has a bomb which he's about to detonate and holds a mobile phone in each hand.
Brit MW is in court accused of doing just that on an Emirates flight into Dubai and he's admitted saying it and admitted being intoxicated.
A drunken passenger saying he's about to detonate a bomb. Great, that makes flying so much more fun.
You know what he told the court?
He told Presiding Judge Fahmi Mounir that he develops anxiety and when he consumes liquor he suffers from constant worry.
I hardly know where to begin.
If that's the effect alcohol has on him why does he drink? And why does he think it's a funny to to impose anxiety and worry on others?
I hope the court throws the book at him.
Gulf News has the report here.
Brit MW is in court accused of doing just that on an Emirates flight into Dubai and he's admitted saying it and admitted being intoxicated.
A drunken passenger saying he's about to detonate a bomb. Great, that makes flying so much more fun.
You know what he told the court?
He told Presiding Judge Fahmi Mounir that he develops anxiety and when he consumes liquor he suffers from constant worry.
I hardly know where to begin.
If that's the effect alcohol has on him why does he drink? And why does he think it's a funny to to impose anxiety and worry on others?
I hope the court throws the book at him.
Gulf News has the report here.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Be very afraid.
I've just been reading the Sydney Morning Herald and found this story.
The US Dunkin' Donuts chain has pulled an online advertisement featuring celebrity chef Rachael Ray, it says.
Here's the ad that had to be pulled:
Well, you would pull it wouldn't you.
Supporting terrorism as it does.
Uhhh?
Yes, "the ad offers symbolic support for terrorism."
What do you mean you can't see what they're frothing at the mouth about?
Here's a clue..."sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh"
Jihadi chic! I nearly fell off my chair.
Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf appeared to be traditional garb worn by Arab men. The ad's critics say such scarves have come to symbolise Muslim extremism and terrorism.
These people terrify me. More so because they come from the world's most powerful country, with armed forces that its government is happy to use on a whim.
It's not so much the far-right extremists, paranoid loonies frothing at the mouth when they see things that aren't there, who frighten me. Every country has some of them and they're best ignored. As are the far left fanatics, religious fanatics and fanatics of all persuasions.
But in the good ol' US of A a huge company like DD is running scared of them. What does that say about the climate of fear, where the society they live in finds itself?
The lunatic fringe makes a fevered infantile accusation and it's taken seriously. The company buckles at the accusation and pulls the ad.
They should have threatened legal action for the libel of accusing them of supporting terrorism, demanded a grovelling written apology acknowledging the crass stupidity of the accusation, and run a campaign in the media to expose and ridicule the loonies.
Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf appeared to be traditional garb worn by Arab men. So are sandals. Will wearing sandals come to symbolise extremism and terrorism to these people?
Concede to demands by fanatics and where will it end? The situation will worsen with every win they have.
And since the ad was withdrawn, Michelle Malkin has had this to say on her blog:
It's refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists...Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence -- unintentionally or not -- they matter. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. In post-9/11 America, vigilance must never go out of style.
At this point I'm speechless.
The story is here.
The US Dunkin' Donuts chain has pulled an online advertisement featuring celebrity chef Rachael Ray, it says.
Here's the ad that had to be pulled:
Well, you would pull it wouldn't you.
Supporting terrorism as it does.
Uhhh?
Yes, "the ad offers symbolic support for terrorism."
What do you mean you can't see what they're frothing at the mouth about?
Here's a clue..."sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh"
Jihadi chic! I nearly fell off my chair.
Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf appeared to be traditional garb worn by Arab men. The ad's critics say such scarves have come to symbolise Muslim extremism and terrorism.
These people terrify me. More so because they come from the world's most powerful country, with armed forces that its government is happy to use on a whim.
It's not so much the far-right extremists, paranoid loonies frothing at the mouth when they see things that aren't there, who frighten me. Every country has some of them and they're best ignored. As are the far left fanatics, religious fanatics and fanatics of all persuasions.
But in the good ol' US of A a huge company like DD is running scared of them. What does that say about the climate of fear, where the society they live in finds itself?
The lunatic fringe makes a fevered infantile accusation and it's taken seriously. The company buckles at the accusation and pulls the ad.
They should have threatened legal action for the libel of accusing them of supporting terrorism, demanded a grovelling written apology acknowledging the crass stupidity of the accusation, and run a campaign in the media to expose and ridicule the loonies.
Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf appeared to be traditional garb worn by Arab men. So are sandals. Will wearing sandals come to symbolise extremism and terrorism to these people?
Concede to demands by fanatics and where will it end? The situation will worsen with every win they have.
And since the ad was withdrawn, Michelle Malkin has had this to say on her blog:
It's refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists...Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence -- unintentionally or not -- they matter. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. In post-9/11 America, vigilance must never go out of style.
At this point I'm speechless.
The story is here.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Church security
At the weekend a reader e-mailed me about hightened security at St. Mary's Church.
"We were not allowed to park next to the church, and we had to be screened by guards with metal detectors (a la airport security)."
I'd seen nothing in the papers then, but yesterday there was a report in Gulf News about it.
Police are saying it's a 'routine security measure' and 'there is nothing to worry about' and I suppose it just could be, with Easter coming up.
It could also, of course, be that the authorities have received some intelligence that something untoward is planned.
One to watch.
Gulf News report is here.
"We were not allowed to park next to the church, and we had to be screened by guards with metal detectors (a la airport security)."
I'd seen nothing in the papers then, but yesterday there was a report in Gulf News about it.
Police are saying it's a 'routine security measure' and 'there is nothing to worry about' and I suppose it just could be, with Easter coming up.
It could also, of course, be that the authorities have received some intelligence that something untoward is planned.
One to watch.
Gulf News report is here.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Abuse of terrorism laws.
I've talked about this before, the mis-use and abuse of terrorism laws by governments and their agencies. The laws being used in ways and for events which have nothing to do with terrorism.
The Guardian today has another example.
"Police to use terror laws on Heathrow climate protesters
Government has encouraged use of stop and search and detention without charge
Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to "deal robustly" with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.
Up to 1,800 extra officers will be drafted in to prevent an estimated 1,500 people disrupting the airport over the period of the camp for climate change, which is due to begin on Tuesday."
Freedom of speech and the right to peacefully protest are hard-won vital components of civilised, sophisticated democratic societies.
These are the core values, vital parts of 'our way of life' that we're told terrorists are determined to destroy. Thousands of people are dying in wars which we're told are being waged to protect these values.
Terrorists are laughing - our own governments are doing their work for them. The destruction of our way of life is coming from within.
Earlier postings on the subject are here and here.
The full story in The Guardian is here.
The Guardian today has another example.
"Police to use terror laws on Heathrow climate protesters
Government has encouraged use of stop and search and detention without charge
Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to "deal robustly" with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.
Up to 1,800 extra officers will be drafted in to prevent an estimated 1,500 people disrupting the airport over the period of the camp for climate change, which is due to begin on Tuesday."
Freedom of speech and the right to peacefully protest are hard-won vital components of civilised, sophisticated democratic societies.
These are the core values, vital parts of 'our way of life' that we're told terrorists are determined to destroy. Thousands of people are dying in wars which we're told are being waged to protect these values.
Terrorists are laughing - our own governments are doing their work for them. The destruction of our way of life is coming from within.
Earlier postings on the subject are here and here.
The full story in The Guardian is here.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Spite and malice for Dr. Haneef
I have to talk about Australia again.
Of the many unpleasant features of John Howard's governments, two are in the news again over the Dr Haneef saga.
One is spite & malice, especially from the Immigration Department. That's been a feature of the department under successive ministers.
The second is childish stubbornness, particularly on the part of the Prime Minister himself.
I've posted two pieces on the saga over the last few days so I won't repeat myself with the details of the misuse, the abuse, of the terrorism laws by the government and its agencies. That of course is my point and my concern about the laws. That they would be misused, they would be abused by government. To believe otherwise is naive in the extreme.
In the first spiteful move Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled the doctor's visa immediately after a magistrate had released him on bail, so that he could be kept in detention.
Having eventually been exonerated, released without charge, we have a whole catalogue of spite and malice from the government.
Firstly, Dr Haneef will not have his Australian visa restored.
Then Kevin Andrews is continuing with the slurs, saying that Dr Haneef is "highly suspicious", that he, Andrews, has "secret information" and of Dr Haneef's perfectly understandable desire to leave Australia immediately he was released: "If anything that rather heightens, rather than lessens, my suspicions."
The 'secret information' can't be revealed says the minister. As William Maley points out in The Australian today: "...it seemed he still could find a lot to say: his press conference was simply the starting point in a frenzy of media activity, with Andrews doing separate television and radio interviews with Sky News, Seven News, Sunrise, 2GB, ABC 774, 3AW, ABC News Radio, ABC Radio National, 4BC, 2UE, 6PR and 2SM.
Virtually all these interviews were replete with insinuations against Haneef, augmented by the minister's claim that he would have "failed the Australian people" if he had not acted.
Only months out from an election, it is little wonder some observers smelled a rat."
It's no surprise to learn that Howard and the dreadful Phillip Ruddock, Attorney General, were part of national security committee reviewing the case before the visa was cancelled. They obviously gave the go-ahead for the visa to be cancelled, in what is blatant political interference in a legal matter.
True to form, John Howard is refusing to apologise for the treatment of Dr Haneef. There will be no apology.
He also insists there will be no official enquiry into the whole shameful episode.
And of course, he plays the terrorism card: ""When you're dealing with terrorism, it's better to be safe than to be sorry."
But we're not dealing with terrorism are we. We're dealing with a monumental cock-up, we're dealing with false evidence being presented to a court, we're dealing with a man who has in effect been deported after being exonerated of any crime, we're dealing with the cancellation of a perfectly legitimate visa, we're dealing with political interference in the legal process.
It won't be long before he's telling us 'the Australian people have moved on' so that the whole thing can be shelved. He's done it so many times in the past.
There's a third feature of Howard's modus operandi that's reappeared with the Haneef situation; win the election at any cost regardless of any standards or propriety. He's done it prior to previous elections, pushing the the fear factor with lies about asylum seekers, about terrorist attacks, about interest rates...this is transparently another of his pre-election tough guy acts, but this time it went pear-shaped.
Oh, and in a final example of the style and charm of our government ministers here's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer when asked about a government apology:
"What do you expect them to do - fall on the ground and grovel, eat dirt? I mean, get real," he told reporters at Sydney airport.
They're all class.
If you're interested in the details, the story is covered in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, the BBC,
here.
here.
here.
here.
Of the many unpleasant features of John Howard's governments, two are in the news again over the Dr Haneef saga.
One is spite & malice, especially from the Immigration Department. That's been a feature of the department under successive ministers.
The second is childish stubbornness, particularly on the part of the Prime Minister himself.
I've posted two pieces on the saga over the last few days so I won't repeat myself with the details of the misuse, the abuse, of the terrorism laws by the government and its agencies. That of course is my point and my concern about the laws. That they would be misused, they would be abused by government. To believe otherwise is naive in the extreme.
In the first spiteful move Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled the doctor's visa immediately after a magistrate had released him on bail, so that he could be kept in detention.
Having eventually been exonerated, released without charge, we have a whole catalogue of spite and malice from the government.
Firstly, Dr Haneef will not have his Australian visa restored.
Then Kevin Andrews is continuing with the slurs, saying that Dr Haneef is "highly suspicious", that he, Andrews, has "secret information" and of Dr Haneef's perfectly understandable desire to leave Australia immediately he was released: "If anything that rather heightens, rather than lessens, my suspicions."
The 'secret information' can't be revealed says the minister. As William Maley points out in The Australian today: "...it seemed he still could find a lot to say: his press conference was simply the starting point in a frenzy of media activity, with Andrews doing separate television and radio interviews with Sky News, Seven News, Sunrise, 2GB, ABC 774, 3AW, ABC News Radio, ABC Radio National, 4BC, 2UE, 6PR and 2SM.
Virtually all these interviews were replete with insinuations against Haneef, augmented by the minister's claim that he would have "failed the Australian people" if he had not acted.
Only months out from an election, it is little wonder some observers smelled a rat."
It's no surprise to learn that Howard and the dreadful Phillip Ruddock, Attorney General, were part of national security committee reviewing the case before the visa was cancelled. They obviously gave the go-ahead for the visa to be cancelled, in what is blatant political interference in a legal matter.
True to form, John Howard is refusing to apologise for the treatment of Dr Haneef. There will be no apology.
He also insists there will be no official enquiry into the whole shameful episode.
And of course, he plays the terrorism card: ""When you're dealing with terrorism, it's better to be safe than to be sorry."
But we're not dealing with terrorism are we. We're dealing with a monumental cock-up, we're dealing with false evidence being presented to a court, we're dealing with a man who has in effect been deported after being exonerated of any crime, we're dealing with the cancellation of a perfectly legitimate visa, we're dealing with political interference in the legal process.
It won't be long before he's telling us 'the Australian people have moved on' so that the whole thing can be shelved. He's done it so many times in the past.
There's a third feature of Howard's modus operandi that's reappeared with the Haneef situation; win the election at any cost regardless of any standards or propriety. He's done it prior to previous elections, pushing the the fear factor with lies about asylum seekers, about terrorist attacks, about interest rates...this is transparently another of his pre-election tough guy acts, but this time it went pear-shaped.
Oh, and in a final example of the style and charm of our government ministers here's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer when asked about a government apology:
"What do you expect them to do - fall on the ground and grovel, eat dirt? I mean, get real," he told reporters at Sydney airport.
They're all class.
If you're interested in the details, the story is covered in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, the BBC,
here.
here.
here.
here.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The sordid tale of Dr Haneef continues...
Update to my last post on the abuse of its own terrorism laws by the Australian government and its agencies.
The case against Dr Haneef has been dropped and he has been released.
Sort of.
The delightfully named DPP Damian Bugg had his spokesman, the even more deliciously named Alan MacSporran, tell the court that his review had revealed errors in the prosecution's allegations.
After more than three weeks in custody, most of which was without being charged, the eventual charges are shown to be false. 'Errors of fact' were put before the court. That's a polite way of saying the prosecution presented false evidence.
So, no charge. The DPP's office can't make a case against him, however hard they try. Innocent.
But in behaviour which stresses the point I was making about the abuse of the law by government, the Immigration Minister is sticking to his increasingly controversial decision to revoke the doctor's visa and confiscate his passport. He was put in 'residential detention', which means that although he can move about freely in the community he must report regularly to Immigration authorities. That is until his passport is returned to him, which will not be until his immigration status is decided.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, after consulting Prime Minister Howard and other ministers, cancelled Dr Haneef’s work visa immediately after a magistrates decision to grant him bail, ensuring that Dr Haneef was kept in custody. They were all party to the injustice.
True to the way in which the government under the guidance of PM John Howard operates, they're all running for cover and blaming everyone else. That's been a feature of Howard's governments over the years.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews and Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty are playing the game. It's reported that the AFP are privately blaming the minister, saying that his decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa complicated and inflamed the case. So it was his fault not theirs.
Mr Keelty said the AFP had acted on the advice of the DPP that there was sufficient evidence to charge the doctor. So it was their fault not his.
Mr Bugg said the AFP had provided his office with 'incorrect material', so it was their fault not his.
John Howard ran for cover as usual. The Prime Minister said it was up to Mr Keelty and Mr Bugg to explain. It was their fault not his.
Keeping his head well below the ramparts is the appalling Phillip Ruddock, Australia’s Attorney-General. He hasn't even popped up to blame anyone else, he's just trying to be invisible. He obviously doesn't want to comment on the fact that he laid into leading lawyers who highlighted serious flaws in the arrest and continued detention of Dr Haneef, describing their statements as 'regrettable'.
The leader of the Opposition hasn't come out of it well either. Kevin Rudd has been conspicuous by his silence, by not slamming the continued detention and harassment of Dr Haneef.
And a final twist in the story. The doctor was left homeless - his apartment had been trashed by police, 'rendered uninhabitable' in the official parlance. And to make sure: His landlord said that Dr Haneef’s lease had expired because he had failed to pay rent while in custody.
"He’s officially no longer a tenant here," Steve Boscher, manager of the apartment block, said. "I don't want to seem like some kind of arsehole but his lease has run out here."
Let's leave the final words with our deservedly highly criticised Immigration Department. Immigration Minister Andrews has said Dr Haneef would be allowed to leave Australia tonight but the Government would not reinstate his work visa - his passport would be returned to him but his visa remained cancelled.
Immigration made it a condition of his return to India that he did not participate in any media photo or interview opportunities, his lawyers said. They expressed disappointment that he was prevented from publicly thanking Australians who supported him during his detention.
What a sordid story this is. Not for the first time during Howard's reign, I feel I need a shower.
Stories in The Australian here, in the Sydney Morning Herald here.
And in The Times here and here.
The case against Dr Haneef has been dropped and he has been released.
Sort of.
The delightfully named DPP Damian Bugg had his spokesman, the even more deliciously named Alan MacSporran, tell the court that his review had revealed errors in the prosecution's allegations.
After more than three weeks in custody, most of which was without being charged, the eventual charges are shown to be false. 'Errors of fact' were put before the court. That's a polite way of saying the prosecution presented false evidence.
So, no charge. The DPP's office can't make a case against him, however hard they try. Innocent.
But in behaviour which stresses the point I was making about the abuse of the law by government, the Immigration Minister is sticking to his increasingly controversial decision to revoke the doctor's visa and confiscate his passport. He was put in 'residential detention', which means that although he can move about freely in the community he must report regularly to Immigration authorities. That is until his passport is returned to him, which will not be until his immigration status is decided.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, after consulting Prime Minister Howard and other ministers, cancelled Dr Haneef’s work visa immediately after a magistrates decision to grant him bail, ensuring that Dr Haneef was kept in custody. They were all party to the injustice.
True to the way in which the government under the guidance of PM John Howard operates, they're all running for cover and blaming everyone else. That's been a feature of Howard's governments over the years.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews and Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty are playing the game. It's reported that the AFP are privately blaming the minister, saying that his decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa complicated and inflamed the case. So it was his fault not theirs.
Mr Keelty said the AFP had acted on the advice of the DPP that there was sufficient evidence to charge the doctor. So it was their fault not his.
Mr Bugg said the AFP had provided his office with 'incorrect material', so it was their fault not his.
John Howard ran for cover as usual. The Prime Minister said it was up to Mr Keelty and Mr Bugg to explain. It was their fault not his.
Keeping his head well below the ramparts is the appalling Phillip Ruddock, Australia’s Attorney-General. He hasn't even popped up to blame anyone else, he's just trying to be invisible. He obviously doesn't want to comment on the fact that he laid into leading lawyers who highlighted serious flaws in the arrest and continued detention of Dr Haneef, describing their statements as 'regrettable'.
The leader of the Opposition hasn't come out of it well either. Kevin Rudd has been conspicuous by his silence, by not slamming the continued detention and harassment of Dr Haneef.
And a final twist in the story. The doctor was left homeless - his apartment had been trashed by police, 'rendered uninhabitable' in the official parlance. And to make sure: His landlord said that Dr Haneef’s lease had expired because he had failed to pay rent while in custody.
"He’s officially no longer a tenant here," Steve Boscher, manager of the apartment block, said. "I don't want to seem like some kind of arsehole but his lease has run out here."
Let's leave the final words with our deservedly highly criticised Immigration Department. Immigration Minister Andrews has said Dr Haneef would be allowed to leave Australia tonight but the Government would not reinstate his work visa - his passport would be returned to him but his visa remained cancelled.
Immigration made it a condition of his return to India that he did not participate in any media photo or interview opportunities, his lawyers said. They expressed disappointment that he was prevented from publicly thanking Australians who supported him during his detention.
What a sordid story this is. Not for the first time during Howard's reign, I feel I need a shower.
Stories in The Australian here, in the Sydney Morning Herald here.
And in The Times here and here.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Abuse of terrorism legislation.
Bear with me, this is long and complicated but important.
There's been much comment and criticism of various countries' terrorism legislation, in particular I'm aware of the US, the UK and Australia. I have been and continue to be a critic.
The criticism centres around the erosion of rights, the removal of checks and balances that have been hard won over centuries of struggles to advance human rights, to have a (reasonably) fair system of justice. Lady Justice's double-edged sword, scales and blindfold.
Those in favour of the laws typically deride critics as left-wing bleeding heart liberals, as traitors, as terrorist sympathisers.
The concern of critics is that the very foundation of our justice systems is being eroded. The very real fear is that government and government agencies will misuse or abuse the powers.
There's a case going on in Australia at the moment that proves we are right to be concerned.
Mohammed Haneef is an Indian doctor working in Australia, one of a group of doctors detained by police in connection with the recent failed bomb attacks in London and Glasgow. He was arrested at the airport in Brisbane, capital of the state of Queensland.
Dr Haneef was arrested on July 2 as he 'was trying to leave Australia'. Sounds sinister doesn't it, those words used in the reports. "Trying to leave Australia" with its suggestions of fleeing. His wife in Bangalore had just given birth to their baby who was very ill - the report could have equally well have said "as he was on his way to visit his wife and new-born daughter".
I've talked about the power of words before. The deliberate choice between using benign or sinister phrases depending entirely on how the subject is going to be depicted. In this case, early in the saga, the media decided that Dr Haneef should be presented in a bad light. Not for the first time, that changed as what was really going on became more apparent.
Dr Haneef was held without charge for eleven days, the police applied to extend his detention, then decided to withdraw the application. Australian anti-terrorism laws allow 24 hours of questioning of a suspect. After eleven days in detention Dr Haneef had only been questioned for twelve hours.
That's a major concern with the laws on both counts. One, the length of time someone can be held without charge. Two, that the time allowed for questioning can be spread so thinly over so many days.
Now we get to July 14. After twelve days in custody without charge Dr Haneef is charged with 'reckless support to a terrorist organisation'.
When Dr Haneef left Britain in 2006 - repeat, in 2006 - to work in Australia he left his SIM card with his second cousin Sabeel Ahmad.
It was alleged by prosecutors that the SIM card had been found in the Jeep rammed into Glasgow airport. They said that Ahmad had passed it to his brother who was alleged to be the driver of the Jeep. In fact it never had been, it was still with Ahmed hundreds of kilometres away in Liverpool where they arrested him - he has not been charged with terrorism but with 'withholding information'.
As the ABC commented: "It seems the facts were not as they were presented in court."
Stuff-up or something more sinister?
(When we visited Cairo recently, Mrs Seabee asked her company's agent there to buy me a SIM card so that we would have communication when we were out & about at different places. He'd never met me, but he handed over the card unquestioningly).
Now onto July 16, charged and finally in a court of law. The magistrate ordered Dr Haneef be released on A$10,000 (Dh32,000) bail, saying he had no known links to a terrorist organisation and that police were not alleging his SIM card had been used in the British terror plot.
Now we get the government doing just what all we bleeding heart liberal lefty terrorist sypathisers had been warning would happen. The government decided the law wasn't doing what it wanted it to do, so it over-rode the magistrate's decision.
Within hours of the court's ruling Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said he had cancelled Dr Haneef's visa and ordered him placed in Sydney's infamous Villawood immigration detention centre.
Just look at this: "I reasonably suspect he has or has had an association with persons engaged in criminal activity, criminal conduct, namely terrorism in the UK," Andrews said at a news conference. He said Dr Haneef had failed a "character test" and had used his powers under migration law to cancel his visa."
So much for fair justice for all. A magistrate in a court of law grants bail, based on all the facts before him. The government decides that isn't acceptable and throws the man straight into another jail.
Then the obviously deliberate attempt to blacken Dr Haneef's image further. Rumours were spread, picked up by tabloids, that he had been plotting to blow up a high rise tower on the Gold Coast south of Brisbane. The evidence? They'd found at his home what hundreds, maybe thousands of people have - a photo of the world's tallest occupied residential building, on the Gold Coast. A spokeswoman for the Federal Police said "We will not confirm or deny the allegations."
To the ill-informed, to the far right, to the bigots, that's as good as saying he's guilty. Just as his detention in Villawood had done.
(I have plenty of photos of the world's newest tallest building, Burj Dubai, at home).
It was then alleged that police had written the names of overseas terror suspects in Dr Haneef's personal diary. Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty was forced to deny those reports and also deny that Dr Haneef was being investigated for plotting to bomb the Gold Coast skyscraper.
By July 23 the press was reporting that the charges were about to be dropped. But that the government would deport Dr Haneef.
Innocent, but sentenced as guilty.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's description of the false evidence, blunders, rumours as making the Federal Police"look like the Keystone Cops" seemed pretty accurate to me, although it's far more serious than the link to slapstick comedy suggests.
And so to the last couple of days. Now that the true facts are being published, in many parts of the world, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has announced a review of all material relating to the case. Reports from legal sources in the UK and Australia say that Dr Haneef has not been a significant focus of the British investigation into the terrorist plots and they say that his name has barely been mentioned to his second cousin during questioning.
It's all looking like panic actions, the misuse of the laws, the government overriding the law, as well as lies, false evidence, spiteful rumour spreading. Tragically that all sounds so familiar from our governments and their agencies these days.
Since 9/11 really.
And it's happened over so many issues. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the illegal spying on Americans by their government, Guantanamo, the CIA's 'extraordinary rendition' programme, unnecessarily draconian laws which are open to abuse and misuse in the US, the UK, Australia.
I've had many debates and arguments over these laws and the probable abuse of them. Typical arguments against me have included:
'Our government wouldn't do that', a particularly naive comment.
'They (government) know things that we don't know' - I had that shouted at me when I argued against the invasion of Iraq before it happened. Yeah. What they knew that we didn't was that they'd falsified documents and deliberately lied to us.
'No smoke without fire' - those arrested are obviously guilty or they wouldn't have been detained.
And worst of all the naive belief that only the bad guys are affected by the terrorism laws. That innocent people will not be caught up in the paranoia. The reality is of course that any of us could be caught up in it. Just like the competely innocent Jean Charles de Menezes who wasmurdered by an out-of-control bunch of gunmen killed by eight gunshots by a team of highly trained anti-terrorist police at Stockwell Tube station in London. A completely innocent man on his way to work.
I'm not suggesting Dr Haneef is either guilty or innocent. But I am saying that he, and everyone, should be dealt with in a way that is consistent with our established values of justice, of fairness. That overly draconian new terrorism laws are open to abuse and that they will be abused.
If we allow our governments to erode and gradually destroy our established values, we're going backwards.
There's been much comment and criticism of various countries' terrorism legislation, in particular I'm aware of the US, the UK and Australia. I have been and continue to be a critic.
The criticism centres around the erosion of rights, the removal of checks and balances that have been hard won over centuries of struggles to advance human rights, to have a (reasonably) fair system of justice. Lady Justice's double-edged sword, scales and blindfold.
Those in favour of the laws typically deride critics as left-wing bleeding heart liberals, as traitors, as terrorist sympathisers.
The concern of critics is that the very foundation of our justice systems is being eroded. The very real fear is that government and government agencies will misuse or abuse the powers.
There's a case going on in Australia at the moment that proves we are right to be concerned.
Mohammed Haneef is an Indian doctor working in Australia, one of a group of doctors detained by police in connection with the recent failed bomb attacks in London and Glasgow. He was arrested at the airport in Brisbane, capital of the state of Queensland.
Dr Haneef was arrested on July 2 as he 'was trying to leave Australia'. Sounds sinister doesn't it, those words used in the reports. "Trying to leave Australia" with its suggestions of fleeing. His wife in Bangalore had just given birth to their baby who was very ill - the report could have equally well have said "as he was on his way to visit his wife and new-born daughter".
I've talked about the power of words before. The deliberate choice between using benign or sinister phrases depending entirely on how the subject is going to be depicted. In this case, early in the saga, the media decided that Dr Haneef should be presented in a bad light. Not for the first time, that changed as what was really going on became more apparent.
Dr Haneef was held without charge for eleven days, the police applied to extend his detention, then decided to withdraw the application. Australian anti-terrorism laws allow 24 hours of questioning of a suspect. After eleven days in detention Dr Haneef had only been questioned for twelve hours.
That's a major concern with the laws on both counts. One, the length of time someone can be held without charge. Two, that the time allowed for questioning can be spread so thinly over so many days.
Now we get to July 14. After twelve days in custody without charge Dr Haneef is charged with 'reckless support to a terrorist organisation'.
When Dr Haneef left Britain in 2006 - repeat, in 2006 - to work in Australia he left his SIM card with his second cousin Sabeel Ahmad.
It was alleged by prosecutors that the SIM card had been found in the Jeep rammed into Glasgow airport. They said that Ahmad had passed it to his brother who was alleged to be the driver of the Jeep. In fact it never had been, it was still with Ahmed hundreds of kilometres away in Liverpool where they arrested him - he has not been charged with terrorism but with 'withholding information'.
As the ABC commented: "It seems the facts were not as they were presented in court."
Stuff-up or something more sinister?
(When we visited Cairo recently, Mrs Seabee asked her company's agent there to buy me a SIM card so that we would have communication when we were out & about at different places. He'd never met me, but he handed over the card unquestioningly).
Now onto July 16, charged and finally in a court of law. The magistrate ordered Dr Haneef be released on A$10,000 (Dh32,000) bail, saying he had no known links to a terrorist organisation and that police were not alleging his SIM card had been used in the British terror plot.
Now we get the government doing just what all we bleeding heart liberal lefty terrorist sypathisers had been warning would happen. The government decided the law wasn't doing what it wanted it to do, so it over-rode the magistrate's decision.
Within hours of the court's ruling Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said he had cancelled Dr Haneef's visa and ordered him placed in Sydney's infamous Villawood immigration detention centre.
Just look at this: "I reasonably suspect he has or has had an association with persons engaged in criminal activity, criminal conduct, namely terrorism in the UK," Andrews said at a news conference. He said Dr Haneef had failed a "character test" and had used his powers under migration law to cancel his visa."
So much for fair justice for all. A magistrate in a court of law grants bail, based on all the facts before him. The government decides that isn't acceptable and throws the man straight into another jail.
Then the obviously deliberate attempt to blacken Dr Haneef's image further. Rumours were spread, picked up by tabloids, that he had been plotting to blow up a high rise tower on the Gold Coast south of Brisbane. The evidence? They'd found at his home what hundreds, maybe thousands of people have - a photo of the world's tallest occupied residential building, on the Gold Coast. A spokeswoman for the Federal Police said "We will not confirm or deny the allegations."
To the ill-informed, to the far right, to the bigots, that's as good as saying he's guilty. Just as his detention in Villawood had done.
(I have plenty of photos of the world's newest tallest building, Burj Dubai, at home).
It was then alleged that police had written the names of overseas terror suspects in Dr Haneef's personal diary. Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty was forced to deny those reports and also deny that Dr Haneef was being investigated for plotting to bomb the Gold Coast skyscraper.
By July 23 the press was reporting that the charges were about to be dropped. But that the government would deport Dr Haneef.
Innocent, but sentenced as guilty.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie's description of the false evidence, blunders, rumours as making the Federal Police"look like the Keystone Cops" seemed pretty accurate to me, although it's far more serious than the link to slapstick comedy suggests.
And so to the last couple of days. Now that the true facts are being published, in many parts of the world, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has announced a review of all material relating to the case. Reports from legal sources in the UK and Australia say that Dr Haneef has not been a significant focus of the British investigation into the terrorist plots and they say that his name has barely been mentioned to his second cousin during questioning.
It's all looking like panic actions, the misuse of the laws, the government overriding the law, as well as lies, false evidence, spiteful rumour spreading. Tragically that all sounds so familiar from our governments and their agencies these days.
Since 9/11 really.
And it's happened over so many issues. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the illegal spying on Americans by their government, Guantanamo, the CIA's 'extraordinary rendition' programme, unnecessarily draconian laws which are open to abuse and misuse in the US, the UK, Australia.
I've had many debates and arguments over these laws and the probable abuse of them. Typical arguments against me have included:
'Our government wouldn't do that', a particularly naive comment.
'They (government) know things that we don't know' - I had that shouted at me when I argued against the invasion of Iraq before it happened. Yeah. What they knew that we didn't was that they'd falsified documents and deliberately lied to us.
'No smoke without fire' - those arrested are obviously guilty or they wouldn't have been detained.
And worst of all the naive belief that only the bad guys are affected by the terrorism laws. That innocent people will not be caught up in the paranoia. The reality is of course that any of us could be caught up in it. Just like the competely innocent Jean Charles de Menezes who was
I'm not suggesting Dr Haneef is either guilty or innocent. But I am saying that he, and everyone, should be dealt with in a way that is consistent with our established values of justice, of fairness. That overly draconian new terrorism laws are open to abuse and that they will be abused.
If we allow our governments to erode and gradually destroy our established values, we're going backwards.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Putting Virginia Tech. into context.
Thirty-two victims and their killer die in one day at Virginia Tech., a horrifying tragedy.
America and much of the world is swamped with days of news coverage, pundits are wheeled out on TV and radio to disect the whole thing.
But. I always have a but.
Put it into context.
That many Americans are shot to death every ten hours. Of every day. Year in and year out.
An average of eight-five Americans die by gunshot every day.
The same number as were killed on 9/11 are killed every five weeks.
Thirty thousand are killed every year.
Go back over the last four paragraphs , read them slowly and think about them.
This is not just armed criminal street gangs, as is often suggested. It's estimated that there are about 250 million guns, from handguns to fully automatic army weapons, throughout American society. That's almost one for every man, woman and child in the country.
Americans For Gun Safety website gives figures for 1998, the latest quoted. In Virginia that year there were 295 homicides, 531 suicides, 33 fatal gun accidents and 13 'other gun deaths', a total of 872. At 12.29 per 100,000 population that's almost as bad as Dubai's road deaths that we complain so much about. That year, 30,708 died by gunshot nationally, a rate of 11.32 per 100,000.
The battle lines are drawn of course - gun control and no gun control spokespeople are out in force.
I was particularly taken with this quote from the Gun Owners of America, who call the school "a victim disarmament zone":
"The latest school shooting demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen. It is irresponsibly dangerous to tell citizens that they may not have guns at schools."
Pretty well sums up the thinking in what appears to be the majority of America, or at least by the only people who matter, the ones with power and influence.
And I can't see that the situation will get anything but worse. It's very difficult to change something that's been a part of a culture from its very beginning. It's not impossible, it's happened in other cultures through the millenia, but the people have to want the change.
America is a violent country, created by violence & the gun and it's all ingrained in the phsyche. So in the next decade over 300,000 Americans are going to die at the barrel of a gun.
Astonishingly, they're going to accept it.
Some reading:
Gun deaths per year.
Gun Deaths By State.
Gun Owners of America.
America and much of the world is swamped with days of news coverage, pundits are wheeled out on TV and radio to disect the whole thing.
But. I always have a but.
Put it into context.
That many Americans are shot to death every ten hours. Of every day. Year in and year out.
An average of eight-five Americans die by gunshot every day.
The same number as were killed on 9/11 are killed every five weeks.
Thirty thousand are killed every year.
Go back over the last four paragraphs , read them slowly and think about them.
This is not just armed criminal street gangs, as is often suggested. It's estimated that there are about 250 million guns, from handguns to fully automatic army weapons, throughout American society. That's almost one for every man, woman and child in the country.
Americans For Gun Safety website gives figures for 1998, the latest quoted. In Virginia that year there were 295 homicides, 531 suicides, 33 fatal gun accidents and 13 'other gun deaths', a total of 872. At 12.29 per 100,000 population that's almost as bad as Dubai's road deaths that we complain so much about. That year, 30,708 died by gunshot nationally, a rate of 11.32 per 100,000.
The battle lines are drawn of course - gun control and no gun control spokespeople are out in force.
I was particularly taken with this quote from the Gun Owners of America, who call the school "a victim disarmament zone":
"The latest school shooting demands an immediate end to the gun-free zone law which leaves the nation's schools at the mercy of madmen. It is irresponsibly dangerous to tell citizens that they may not have guns at schools."
Pretty well sums up the thinking in what appears to be the majority of America, or at least by the only people who matter, the ones with power and influence.
And I can't see that the situation will get anything but worse. It's very difficult to change something that's been a part of a culture from its very beginning. It's not impossible, it's happened in other cultures through the millenia, but the people have to want the change.
America is a violent country, created by violence & the gun and it's all ingrained in the phsyche. So in the next decade over 300,000 Americans are going to die at the barrel of a gun.
Astonishingly, they're going to accept it.
Some reading:
Gun deaths per year.
Gun Deaths By State.
Gun Owners of America.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Ladies & gentlemen, we got him.
So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to being responsible for all the terrorist attacks over the last ten years.
That's good then, BushW can declare victory and withdraw - from EyeRak, from Afghanistan, from the very War on Tear itself. The Good Guys won.
I might add that I'm surprised KSM didn't admit to assassinating JFK, pushing Jack down the hill and being the killer of Cock Robin too.
One of the reports is here
That's good then, BushW can declare victory and withdraw - from EyeRak, from Afghanistan, from the very War on Tear itself. The Good Guys won.
I might add that I'm surprised KSM didn't admit to assassinating JFK, pushing Jack down the hill and being the killer of Cock Robin too.
One of the reports is here
Monday, November 06, 2006
Sunday, November 05, 2006
The Best War Ever
This is worth having a look at. Turn your speakers on.
If you go to the page it's also worth clicking on 'Read an exclusive excerpt from the book'.
If you go to the page it's also worth clicking on 'Read an exclusive excerpt from the book'.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Spare us from fanatics!
I watched a documentary on Osama bin Laden yesterday.
He's doing what he's doing because God is telling him to.
I've heard George W. Bush say those exact words too.
Most people who do things because voices in their head tell them to are locked safely away...
He's doing what he's doing because God is telling him to.
I've heard George W. Bush say those exact words too.
Most people who do things because voices in their head tell them to are locked safely away...
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Skype is 'national security risk'.
All around the world when the authorities are trying not to tell the truth they hide behind two things these days - the 'war on terror' and 'national security'.
One of the most ludicrous is from our very own Telecoms Regulatory Authority, with a spokesman, who sensibly wished to remain anonymous, patiently exlaining to us that VoIP was blocked in the UAE partly because "...there are aspects of national security..." The report is in 7Days.
I can't even be bothered to comment on such breathtakingly ridiculous misinformation.
But it is symptomatic of the refuge officials and politicians are running to when they're caught doing something indefensible. Whether it's invading other countries, detaining people in jail without trial, illegal wiretapping, racial profiling, tearing up international conventions, removing hard-won civil liberties, blocking websites...it's all in the name of 'security' or the 'war on terror'.
As such no-one can ask questions. If you do you're either supporting terrorism or you're endangering national security.
Here's another doozie, from one of our leading banks.
Money, OUR money, is deposited in the bank. A while later we decide to pay cash for a car. Go to the bank and ask for some of OUR money.
Cashier: “What do you want the money for?”
Me: (Thinks: What the ***’s it got to do with you) Says: “What?!”
Cashier: “Sorry, it’s bank policy. I have to ask what you are going to do with the money.”
Me: (Thinks: I’ll tell her it’s to buy a containerload of Kalashnikovs) Says: “Spend it.”
Cashier: Funny look.
Me: (Thinks: She’ll call the guards, they’ll call the police…) Says: “To buy a car.”
Cashier: (Handing over money) “Sorry, it’s security.”
Security? Where the hell does security come into it. There was no check on me, I said it was to buy a car, it really could have gone to buy a containerload of Kalashnikovs.
One of the most ludicrous is from our very own Telecoms Regulatory Authority, with a spokesman, who sensibly wished to remain anonymous, patiently exlaining to us that VoIP was blocked in the UAE partly because "...there are aspects of national security..." The report is in 7Days.
I can't even be bothered to comment on such breathtakingly ridiculous misinformation.
But it is symptomatic of the refuge officials and politicians are running to when they're caught doing something indefensible. Whether it's invading other countries, detaining people in jail without trial, illegal wiretapping, racial profiling, tearing up international conventions, removing hard-won civil liberties, blocking websites...it's all in the name of 'security' or the 'war on terror'.
As such no-one can ask questions. If you do you're either supporting terrorism or you're endangering national security.
Here's another doozie, from one of our leading banks.
Money, OUR money, is deposited in the bank. A while later we decide to pay cash for a car. Go to the bank and ask for some of OUR money.
Cashier: “What do you want the money for?”
Me: (Thinks: What the ***’s it got to do with you) Says: “What?!”
Cashier: “Sorry, it’s bank policy. I have to ask what you are going to do with the money.”
Me: (Thinks: I’ll tell her it’s to buy a containerload of Kalashnikovs) Says: “Spend it.”
Cashier: Funny look.
Me: (Thinks: She’ll call the guards, they’ll call the police…) Says: “To buy a car.”
Cashier: (Handing over money) “Sorry, it’s security.”
Security? Where the hell does security come into it. There was no check on me, I said it was to buy a car, it really could have gone to buy a containerload of Kalashnikovs.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Mindset confirmed.
"We don't do body counts" was a memorable quote from Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the invasion of Iraq. A moment of truth that must have had the spin doctors in a real spin. Too late, he'd said what he really thought without, for once, the news being managed.
It set the tone, confirmed a suspicion - non-Americans simply don't matter. 'We can't even be bothered to worry about how many Iraqis are killed'.
That's been confirmed by actions over and over again, and now the latest revelation, from the LA Times & Washington Post in today's Gulf News. It clearly shows the mindset of the officers and the men they command. A sample of what it says:
Officer: Haditha killing normal
Los Angeles Times-Washington Post
Washington: Commander of the battalion involved in last November's Haditha killings did not consider the deaths of 24 Iraqis, many of them women and children, unusual and did not initiate an inquiry, according to a sworn statement he gave to military investigators in March.
It...provides a glimpse of the mindset of a commander on the scene who, despite the carnage, did not stop to consider whether Marines had crossed a line and killed defenceless civilians.
(Lt Col) Chessani told investigators he concluded that insurgents had staged a "complex attack" that began with a roadside bomb, followed by a small-arms ambush that was intended to provoke the Marines to fire into houses where civilians were hiding.
"I did not see any cause for alarm," especially because several firefights had occurred in the area the same day November 19, 2005 Chessani said. Because of that conclusion, the commander added, he did not see any reason to investigate the matter, or even to ask how many women and children had been killed.
Incidentally, notice that we have that 'he made me do it' nonsense of an excuse yet again..."intended to provoke the marines to fire into houses where civilians were hiding."
They couldn't win hearts & minds in Vietnam because of their disregard for non-Americans, it's continued ever since and I can't see it changing.
(The original Washington Post report).
It set the tone, confirmed a suspicion - non-Americans simply don't matter. 'We can't even be bothered to worry about how many Iraqis are killed'.
That's been confirmed by actions over and over again, and now the latest revelation, from the LA Times & Washington Post in today's Gulf News. It clearly shows the mindset of the officers and the men they command. A sample of what it says:
Officer: Haditha killing normal
Los Angeles Times-Washington Post
Washington: Commander of the battalion involved in last November's Haditha killings did not consider the deaths of 24 Iraqis, many of them women and children, unusual and did not initiate an inquiry, according to a sworn statement he gave to military investigators in March.
It...provides a glimpse of the mindset of a commander on the scene who, despite the carnage, did not stop to consider whether Marines had crossed a line and killed defenceless civilians.
(Lt Col) Chessani told investigators he concluded that insurgents had staged a "complex attack" that began with a roadside bomb, followed by a small-arms ambush that was intended to provoke the Marines to fire into houses where civilians were hiding.
"I did not see any cause for alarm," especially because several firefights had occurred in the area the same day November 19, 2005 Chessani said. Because of that conclusion, the commander added, he did not see any reason to investigate the matter, or even to ask how many women and children had been killed.
Incidentally, notice that we have that 'he made me do it' nonsense of an excuse yet again..."intended to provoke the marines to fire into houses where civilians were hiding."
They couldn't win hearts & minds in Vietnam because of their disregard for non-Americans, it's continued ever since and I can't see it changing.
(The original Washington Post report).
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Christian fascists?
Remembering this, President Bush said Thursday that an uncovered British terror plot to blow up planes flying to the United States was further proof "that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.", I wonder whether terrorists carrying out murderous attacks on behalf of their warped Christian beliefs, such as bombing abortion clinics and murdering the doctors, will be classified as 'Christian fascists'?
Or what about these Catholics:
Bomb discovery fuels fears of dissident republican revival
Owen Bowcott, Ireland correspondentThursday August 17, 20
The discovery of a partially detonated 70lb bomb in a house being built for the Ulster Unionist peer Lord Ballyedmond was blamed yesterday on dissident republican groups intent on launching a fresh campaign of terror.
The incident followed the Real IRA's claim of responsibility last week for fires in retail stores in Newry, County Down, and explosions on the nearby Belfast-Dublin railway line. More than £10m damage was caused.
In this week's attack on Lord Ballyedmond's house near Hackballscross, Co Louth, the detonator on the bomb, packed in a natural gas cylinder, exploded but failed to set off the main charge. Irish army bomb disposal experts eventually made it safe.
The Guardian
Just wondering whether being Christian makes a difference...
Or what about these Catholics:
Bomb discovery fuels fears of dissident republican revival
Owen Bowcott, Ireland correspondentThursday August 17, 20
The discovery of a partially detonated 70lb bomb in a house being built for the Ulster Unionist peer Lord Ballyedmond was blamed yesterday on dissident republican groups intent on launching a fresh campaign of terror.
The incident followed the Real IRA's claim of responsibility last week for fires in retail stores in Newry, County Down, and explosions on the nearby Belfast-Dublin railway line. More than £10m damage was caused.
In this week's attack on Lord Ballyedmond's house near Hackballscross, Co Louth, the detonator on the bomb, packed in a natural gas cylinder, exploded but failed to set off the main charge. Irish army bomb disposal experts eventually made it safe.
The Guardian
Just wondering whether being Christian makes a difference...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
