Hicks @ The Australian

This version to The Australian (Matt Price Blog) go through pretty much.
------------

What are The Australian 'team' (Phillip Adams exempted) struggling with on this matter ... some form of guilt or shame at being taken for the proverbial ride?

It is obvious that the cookie is crumbling from London, Washington and now through to Canberra (or should I say Sydney).

Generally you have collectively exposed yourselves to be an effective propaganda machine for vested interests – and strangely combine this with some actual good journalism. However, on the Hick case, you generally have missed the plot: too caught up in the miasma of the mental muffins we easily refer to as the three stooges: Bush, Blair & Howard.

In Paul Kelly’s story today [“Hicks case is not a black and white matter -- (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21777732-12250,00.html)] he neither the “Pentagon nor the human rights lobby come out looking credible in this story, writes editor-at-large Paul Kelly”.

Well I agree with the first half of the statement. The second is irrelevant and I personally disagree. However, this type of re-positioning of the newspaper is entertainment in itself.

Firstly, thank you for the book review. I now won’t be buying it. I expected more. Let me repay you through a quick review of your story – there are some good points and some obvious ‘issues’:

1. Hicks is not the issue – it is treatment he received by the USA military (Mori exempt) and the lack of support he received by our Australian government. That Howard has come out as the American toady of the decade is not only obvious but fits his mini-me Menzies’ profile – but this time it is the buns of a ‘Big Mac’ that he trying to crawl us through rather than the arches of the English royal house.

2. Secondly you fail to mention that Blair did the right thing for his citizens in respect to Gito-bay. End of story. Howard stands condemned and at risk in my opinion of future civil claims.

3. You of course seek to perpetuate the myths surrounding Hicks by mentioning training in three organisations. So, was that a crime? None. So, what is your point? I’m sure the terrorist organisation that finally became the (for some) legitimate State organisation called ‘Israel’ sets a nice precedent for all minority groups that seek to free their homelands. How do you know Hicks is best trained ‘white man’? Is ‘white’ something of a racial value here? So ‘black’, ‘brown’, yellow’ and ‘red’ men don’t count? And are you including the feral Australian army elements that become mercenary soldiers of fortune round the world – or even sell a few anti-tank missiles to Australian organised crime? Or are they all ‘non-white’?

4. Your thesis that there is war of civilizations is not proven – simply believed by any incredulous subservient to the latest public hysteria story. As you point out correctly – Hicks was fighting in Afghanistan, for the government of the day against a terrorist organisation called the ‘Northern Alliance’ – that same band of renegade thugs and drug traders that now largely run the country and the world’s expanding heroin trade I assume.

5. I note that we are not at war with any country that has tried to ‘invade’ us – but continuously hear from the media that we are about to be. Sorry, I beg to differ. What reactionary forces that are ‘out there’ seeking our demise are simply the results of these aggressive invasions that have been going one in recent times – since 1948 even. Why don’t the media argue for a change in public policy? Anything to do with media ownership by any chance?

6. I remind you that you should be accurate in your reporting: “9/11” was not an act of war. Acts of war are committed by States. It is about as sensible to say that the Melbourne underground criminal network does acts of war. It is simply crime – albeit on a larger scale. Please be more accurate in the future and stop perpetuating the ‘myth’.

7. I might point out that these organisations (which you refer to as ‘terrorists organisations’) are only fighting the US because the US is meddling in their localities. I suggest you draw us some simple correlation maps using oil or drugs and see where tin-pot puppet regimes overlap with such resources. Then is easier to see a more accurate description of piracy and plunder applies - since the end of WW1 even.

The issue here for me, and I’m sure a lot of others, is not about ‘honour’ or even ‘clueless ness’ -- it is about the abuse of the rule of law by Howard and Ruddock – I leave Downer out of this because I don’t think he has any serious contribution to make.

I point out on this subject:

1. Here in WA someone just left prison after a couple of years and he (it appears) was actually preparing to act against the Australian domestic law of the time. So why has David Hicks to continue through this farce another day? At our taxpayers expense as well! We are being treated as chumps. More punishment from the kangaroo court?

2. The only thing David Hicks did that has any meaning is take the smart road home after five and a half years of psycho-physical abuse and torture while being held without due court process. Have we invented a fourth arm of government here? Prejudiced media and corrupted military process. And largely not our own either. Have any Americans been through this Cuban experience? No. Was it illegal until a few months ago -- i.e. an illegal military commission process? Yes.

I look forward to Hicks writing his story and hope he and his family become wealthy through this suffering. What rubbish that these politicians make empty threats about denying him his rights.

It is quiet simple 101 stuff: (a) he did not commit an Australian crime while associating with the governing forces of Afghanistan; (b) he has suffered over five years of intense psycho-physical bullying and torture -- which is continuing in Adelaide -- albeit without the torture I assume; (c) he has elected, after standing his ground on principle for this time, to now take the quicker/easier way out and home (even Galileo did similar recanting, although the earth still continued to traverse the sun); and (d) this abuse of our legal system is an attack on us all and our freedoms – worse than any ‘bang’ that might happen in freeway traffic or a house of worship.

So why not give Hicks due respect for his rights – they are the same rights as yours and mine are they not? This is about rights. Get it? Not about Hicks.

I watched the Lindy Chamberlain saga windup and unwind: so, he we are again. It says more about the Australian culture (or lack of it) than any individual. That is the shame of it.

Hicks is only responsible for what he did or did not do. He is not a proxy’s for the ‘big war on everything’ that is going on in the minds of the ageing and infirm. This phenomena is more correctly diagnosed as related to culture – and the correct response is cultural, not war.