DUCK POND

THE CAUSES OF TERRORISM February 23, 2005

Prime Minister Balkenende (Government.nl)

In 2003 there was a conference on this subject on the causes of terrorism. I do not remember seeing or hearing much in the press. Maybe it was not news, although the war on terror is. Gerald Henderson was going on about how the common man and woman understood there was a real war going on. However the Dutch prime minister dealt with the issue, reported by Government.nl:

It is not poverty, religion or culture that is a major cause of terrorism, but alienation from rapidly changing societies. This was one of the main points made by Prime Minister Balkenende at a terrorism summit in New York.

In his speech, Mr Balkenende urged countries to identify the causes of extremism and terrorism as well as fighting terrorism.

Alienation
Poverty and lack of opportunity are not the main cause of terrorism. According to the Prime Minister, the terrorists behind the attacks of 11 September 2001 were neither poor nor poorly educated. Nor can terrorism be linked to a specific religion or culture.

Mr Balkenende regards alienation from a rapidly changing world as a major cause of terrorism. ‘Rapid development puts high demands on the ability of communities and people to adapt. Not being able to cope with a changing environment can cause distress and insecurity. This can alienate people from the societies they live in.’

In changing situations, people look for familiar ‘anchors’ to cling on to. ‘Religion, culture and traditions […] can provide stability, but in the hands of extremists they become a tool for radicalisation, hatred and resistance to change’, the Prime Minister claimed.

Societies must promote political and economic freedom in order to remain innovative and competitive. ‘If they don’t, differences in relative wealth and modernity will be catalysts of envy and friction.’

The Netherlands
Mr Balkenende also talked of the risks to Dutch society, for instance when feelings of injustice and despair develop into solidarity with a ‘broader struggle’. ‘Closed groups that do not fully participate in our society are vulnerable to extremism.’

He added that there is no easy way to solve the problem of terrorism. ‘We need to redouble our efforts to integrate people and to provide them with equal opportunities.’ At global level he called for a ‘sense of community’ between nations. ‘We need to be open and ready to assist each other. […] In openness and dialogue we can find out what unites us rather than what divides us.’

I was looking to find why the Dutch withdrew from Iraq. Some points:

1. The Dutch troops were under British Command.
2. The Dutch went in with reference to a UN Resolution.
3. The Dutch had an exit date.

This question, as to why the Dutch are leaving, was raised on John Quiggin’s post, where it has been totally ignored. My comment is number 53. I have not answered it. There is certainly an interesting comparison and contrast between the Dutch and the Australian commitment. I may be wrong, but I suspect, the Dutch case for involvement in post-invasion Iraq was arqued through their parliament. Unlike us, where Howard has ignored parliament.

I do not see us getting out of Iraq now, without the American’s permission.Despite what the editorials say, I reqard this commitment as grossly foolish. Our government does not appear to have thought about terrorism, as evidently the Dutch prime minister did back in 2003, and yet it is prepared to embrace police state methods and mentalities as we see in the case of Habib and Hicks.

HABIB’S LIFE AS A FAT MAN February 19, 2005

On the balance of probabilities, it appears to be that Mamdouh Habib was tortured and severely mistreated in captivity, and he was not Robinson Crusoe in that regard. It is likely because of his torture, that the Americans could not effectively charge him, and so they released him to the Australians.

In so far as the government has a case, it seems to rest with Habibs activities in Pakistan. He refused to give answers to related questions in the 60 Minutes interview on his lawyer’s advice. It seems that Habib troubles started when he intervened on behalf on two Germans. He was then arrested, and at some point soon after the Germans were let free.

ASIO and other government agencies claim to know now all about Habib’s activities in Pakistan. Did they know at the time or did they find out later? As the SMH article points out, the government seems to know what he was doing before his captivity and nothing after. A likely story.

Nevertheless, more details about Habib’s Pakistan escapades are given in today’s Sydney Morning Herald and The Weekend Australian. Since the sources are not attributed, it is reasonable to suppose there is speculation involved. Nonetheless, it is disturbing to hear an official advocate, or excuse, the use of torture. In my mind, this admission, assumed to be true, makes the case stronger for judicial oversight of officials behavior – in other words the rule of law.

AS PLOT THICKENS, THE STORY IS NO CLEARER February 17, 2005

Mamdouh Habib (60 Minutes – Channel Nine)

At some point soon, the ABC will again have it’s funding subject to review by this Government. The story told about the Australian involvement in post-invasion Iraq, and with regard to Mamhoud Habib is unravelling before our eyes. The tactics of the Government, beginning with the Prime Minister, are to do anything but accept responsibility. They are, I believe, engaging in the politics of denial of responsibility. The first step is always to blame somebody else for making mistakes – usually the bureaucracy. A secondary step, is to besmirch the messenger in a general way which is not linked to the particular case.

From the Senate Estimate Committee hearing, we learn that up to eight Australians have been directly involved with the process of eliciting information from Iraqi prisoners. The semantic dispute, on which the government is standing its ground is the distinction between interviewing and interrogating, which seems to be the role of good cop/bad cop routine. Defence Minister, Robert Hill endured seven hours of interrogation before the committee, following the ABC Four Corners programs interview with the former intelligence analyst, Rod barton. Hill contends that the Australians were only authorized to interview, despite the evidence that some subjects appeared before them hooded and accompanied by armed guards, which according to his argument is evidence that the process of entered into by the prisoners on a voluntary basis by which they could leave at any time. Sure. As I have said – the politics of denial in action.

Robert McClelland, the shadow defence minister, is surely right about the electoral motive for the government to keep these inconvenient facts under wraps. As reported by the ABC he observed:

“We were in an election year, our involvement in the war on Iraq was a highly sensitive political issue,” he said.”The public revulsion in how Iraqi prisoners had been treated was likely, or certainly had the potential, to influence our engagement in Iraq.”Quite frankly, the Government wanted to cover-up the extent of our involvement.”

This is true for any government. It is rare for governments to be caught out, and I suppose by the next election this incident will be forgotten. The Senate through the estimates committee is playing critical role in exposing liars and half truths that go with running the country.

Commissioner Mick Kelty, appearing before a Senate Committee was in effect running the government’s line with respect to Mamdouh Habib by saying he was making up stories of being tortured by “men in yellow uniforms” while he was in Pakistan. Habib’s story was not believed. The head of ASIO, Dennis Richardson, backed up the Commissioner’s story. He accused Habib of running around with cut throats.

(I assume that in both cases, these men are very competent. We rely on them to make judgements specifically concerning the potentiality for terrorism. Was it appropriate for Habib to be incarcerated and abducted? If warranted, at what point should it be independently assessed by the court, with Habib having the right to legal representation. Otherwise, as appears to be the case with immigration of “illegals”, there is rule by officials. This whole area requires elucidation and clarification, which I hope can happen. In my judgment, we seem to be throwing established standards away, rather than standing by them.)

Despite the testimony in the Senate, and the statements of the Attorney-General, the head of psychological medicine at Sydney University, Christopher Tennant, after examining Habib concluded, in effect, that he had been subject to torture on the basis of physical and psychological symptoms. Professor Tennant appeared on The 7.30 Report. His judgement effectively shoots down the government line that Habib was not tortured. (And, incidentally, opens up the question of compensation, in which possibility the government has nobody to blame other than themselves. There is something amiss with our political culture and health, that such a political climate can be created, despite the clear pay offs.)

Since Channel Nine cannot be attacked, and since the government will not make a general case against the Media, the ABC will be singled out, as it has been in the past. Afterall, the situation is ridiculous, it is the government station, and it is not taking the government’s media releases.

UPDATE: 17/02/2004

“These matters are very sensitive”, Habib’s lawyer is reported as saying in part in the Sydney Morning Herald today, while despensing with the services of Professor Tennant, who claimed that he had tried to get in contact with Habib or his lawyer before appearing on the ABC. Time will tell whether this action was wise.

Columnist Miranda Devine argues in the Herald that the focus of criticism on less popular and less significant matters, is giving the government a free ride. Howard, she reports, was chuckling in question time. I do not thing she is right, but I do want to diversify the opinions available at this blog.

IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE? February 15, 2005

Rod Barton says he told government of prisoner abuse in Iraq (ABC News).

Concern that Australians were involved with torture, or otherwise complicit in the practice of torture is now an issue raised in Federal Parliament. It has been given prominence by the now public evidence of Rod Barton, who seems to have been in a position to know, and his statement that he alerted the Defence Department. His evidence would suggest that some prominent Australian politicians have been caught out lying, provided Barton is a credible witness.

The Prime Minister meanwhile struggles to find the form of words which will provide for deniability and equivocation – and ideally the opportunity to blame somebody else. (While not balanced, this comment contains an element of truth. I do not despise the practice of politics, as some do.). The ABC gives the following account of the governments responses, and opposition reaction:

Labor has pursued his claims in Question Time but Mr Howard says Senator Hill and other defence officials will answer questions on the issue at Senate estimates hearings tomorrow.

“I am not in any way acknowledging that Australians were involved in the interrogation of prisoners,” Mr Howard said. “I repeat what has previously been said in this Parliament … that we, except in the early stages after 2003, we were not an occupying power, and Australia did not accept or detain prisoners.”

Mr Howard’s refusal to answer four questions on the matter has angered Labor’s Kevin Rudd.”The arrogance of this Government has begun to consume them – it has become in fact the death of Westminster,” he said.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has accused the Opposition of a smear campaign.
“It’s this kind of pedantic attempt to try to prove that Australians were involved in the Abu Graihb abuses,” Mr Downer said.

The comments and mentality of the Foreign Minister underlie again – at least this time he is not lying – what a star performer on the Australian political stage he has become.

NOW IT IS A POLITICAL SAGA February 14, 2005

Habib’s interview with Channel Nine last night and his prior interview with the NY Times has sent the hares running. It is notable that the Opposition is taking up the issues in Parliament.

The head of the Attorney-Generals department, Robert Cornall said catergorically, before a Senate Committee:

“No Australian official witnessed any mistreatment of Mr Habib in Pakistan.”

Cornall does not believe that Habib has a legal case against the Government, based on media reports.

The Opposition pressed the Government in Parliament during question time, which gave rise to the preposterous admission by Ruddock, that he was unaware as to why Habib had been released by the Americans – a likely story.

Bob Carr ran off at the mouth. He virtually described Habib’s lawyer as hopeless. He then went on to say that Habib was in effect a terrorist, and he had to account for his actions and the reasons for visiting particular places.

Meanwhile, the Government, in the form of the Prime Minister, proclaims that Habib has no entitlement to compensation. Given Ruddock’s admission this seems like a half formed judgement at best.

We have to see how these defenders of civic virtue stand as the facts ooze out from their darkened repositories, given an airing and rain down upon those who would condemn a man without a trial, or even the presumptions of natural justice. Is it now starkly obvious that human rights are more vulnerable in the absence of a Charter of Justice or Bill of Rights?

And out of left field, we have the report of a former weapons investigator(spy) stating that Australians were involved in the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. He actually warned the Government that Australians were aware of prisoner abuse before the story of Abu Ghraib broke.

UPDATE: 15/02/2005

The plot has gotten murkier. The head of the Australian Secret Intelligence Organization has confirmed that they knew that Habib was in Egypt. This news, or if you will intelligence, comes as big surprise, especially in the wake of government ministers claiming that they could not confirm this fact. Now the argument is advanced that Habib was mixing with murderers in Pakistan, without acknowledging that he may not have been aware of their background.

The Sydney Morning Herald gives a fuller explanation of the actions of the head of the Attorney-Generals. He apparently wrote to Habib’s lawyer to establish whether there were grounds for compensation to be paid.

Jumana Musa, Amnesty Internationals legal adviser, currently visiting Australia, has a striking simile to describe the military commission trial process of David Hicks. It is, she says, “where the surgeons have had no training in basic human anatomy.”

MAMDOUH’S STORY February 13, 2005

Mamdoub Habib with family – Regis Martin for the New York Times

The New York Times has today published an account of Mamdoub Habib’s experiences in Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. At every point, it appears, he was tortured. The worrying thing, for which action must be taken immediately his story is confirmed, is that at Australian officials were involved. If his story is true, then Australian officials lied about his incarceration in Egypt.

Foreign Minister, Downer denied there was any evidence of torture at Guantanamo Bay when asked by Channel Nine reporters according to the ABC and went on:

“I can only say that if you want an investigation done of another country’s agencies, they’ll have to do the investigation,” he said. “We can’t investigate into the inner workings of the CIA and the Pentagon ourselves.”We’ll have leave the Americans to do that and so far their investigations haven’t turned up anything.”

He is either lying or misinformed. Any reasonablly careful reader of a daily newspaper could draw this concluson.

UPDATE: 13/02/2005

The Independent reports that a British ministers are demanding that the torture allegations of a former British detainee, Moazzim Begg be reinstigated after his allegations were denied. Begg, not surprisingly, is undergoing psychiatric treatment. Beggs lawyers are claiming it is too little, too late.

In my view, it is never too late to investigate serious criminal behavior.

You have to wonder what the Federal Government is playing at, in their response to Habib and Hicks.