A one-year investigation surface just the day of the terrorising laws debate...

Smoke-screen but no fire-screen...

There's a lot of speculation about why Scooter Libby is taking his case to open trial, including this from Juan Cole:
... If Libby were primarily concerned about protecting his old boss, he could have pleaded guilty. ...

Whether or not he blows the whistle on Cheney and Bush, remains to be seen. But our latter-day 'conviction politicians' (Bush, Blair and Howard) are singing from the same book of hymns. So, John Howard's disgraceful attempt to misuse soft information, to distract from the fine-print problems with his IR laws, may be linked to Bombers 'tracked before July 7'.
... The BBC did not specify who its sources were or from which agencies they came, though they appeared to be from the counter-terrorism community. ...

Politicians have wilfully interfered with the operation of surveillance operations, and ex-employees (like Andrew Wilkie) have come out to tell tales.

ABC TV ran the last of Auschwitz: The Nazis And The Final Solution on Nov 3rd. This appears to be the same as BBC - History - Genocide Under the Nazis. While waiting for the book and the DVD, it's useful to review 3 or 4 of the main characters, who appeared throughout the series. Some victims, and some ex-SS, gave fascinating interviews. (I haven't got their names at hand, because the transcripts are not available.)

An ex-SS, who was on the office staff at Auschwitz, lived for decades in a kind of denial about his connection to the mass murdering that was the daily schedule at the camps. He held highly regarded positions in society, and made a good living for his family. He came out, finally, he said, because he wanted to say to the holocaust-deniers that those things really did happen. It's as though he found a solution to his puzzle - why wasn't he charged with war crimes and put on trial with the others? A lot of the SS did get away, but the post-war authorities knew what he did, but let him go. Now, 50 years on, he can afford to be partially honest. It's just too bad, that if he'd submitted to the trials, he would have been able to give solid information about others who were higher up the tree, and escaped justice. Good for him, he can try to say his conscience is now clear. And good for Eichmann's mates, who enjoyed liberty in South America.

Rudolf Höss (Hoess) was the commandant at Auschwitz, and the plumber who did the mechanical work of efficiently killing and disposing of more than a million people. When Hoess was waiting for trial, he wrote his memoirs. His only regret about the whole business, he said, was that he wished he'd spent more time with his family. (We may say it's a good thing, otherwise there would have been more chance for him to imprint his morality on his offspring.) Look at it, though - he was a family man! Just goes to show, the last refuge of the truly evil is behind the white picket fence. Hoess went to his personal gibbet unrepentant. But he was kind to his wife, the children and his dogs.

One of the subjects in the series was an Israeli from the Jewish Brigades, it could have been Meir Zorea, but I'm pretty sure it was one of the others. This man was in the party that snatched Eichmann. He said he could easily have strangled Eichmann in the ditch and saved a lot of expense. But he clearly didn't mean that, for the whole object of the exercise was to capture Eichmann in one piece and let the whole world see him at open trial. The men chosen for the snatch were clearly capable of killing a person without undue fuss, because this man testifies that some of the Jewish Brigades did set out to exact swift vengeance on war criminals who were on the loose.

Whatever kind of cloak-and-dagger nonsense John Howard has let himself get mixed up in, eventually true justice calls on evidence. If he thinks he can impose house arrest on a noisy imam, or lock away another David Hicks, and that will be enough to see off our version of London's July 7th, he is a fool. It's more likely he's playing out his political convictions, in which case the unravelling will have to wait until someone blows the whistle.

What about the psychology of underlings and subordinates who are swept up in a confection that's distorted in order to persuade others? When is the right time to excuse oneself? That is, can one tell when the point of no return has been crossed? What language does Howard use in Cabinet? "We are all in this together"? "You just have to trust me"? "Shoot the swine, or I'll shoot you"?

‘Charles Clarke, the British Home Secretary, has admitted that MI5 did not request a new law allowing terror suspects be detained without charge for up to 90 days - directly contradicting Tony Blair, the Prime Minister.  

 

Mr Clarke's admission, confirming advice first revealed in The Scotsman last month, came as government insiders admitted he is increasingly at odds with Mr Blair over whether to water down the controversial 90-day plan.  

 

The battle comes as Mr Blair turns his 90-day proposal into a litmus test of his authority - after postponing a Commons vote on the issue on Wednesday through fear it would be defeated.’  

 

Clarke Admits MI5 Did Not Ask For 90-Day Terror Law

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brian Toohey, in Financial Review (Labor's role in killing our rights; subscription required) wrote:
... The general thrust of the new bill is to move towards punishing people on the basis of intelligence information and away from the need to produce evidence that stands up in a criminal trial. This doesn't bother Labor leader Kim Beazley or the Labor premiers. Indeed, Beazley said on Wednesday: "I accept the things that are said to me by intelligence agencies. They are reliable people." His adulation of the secret world of intelligence is so powerful that it would be no surprise to hear him admire the quality of the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which, despite being entirely false, formed the basis of an act of aggression that has turned into a nightmare. ...

On the opposite page, in the new spirit of electorate-sensitive bipartisanship, Michael Danby (Labor MHR for Melbourne Ports) in National security must come before politics (subscription required) wrote:
... I was not privy to those briefings, but I willingly voted for the bill - not because I was afraid of being "wedged" by John Howard but because I trust Kim Beazley and the integrity and professionalism of the security services. ...

Mr Danby also gesticulated with a typical Howard straw-man:
... I reject the view that all Australian Muslims are potential terrorists. ...

If someone put forward, as a substantial argument, "I reject the view that all Australian Jews are potential [insert favourite perjorative]", it would be howled down for the dangerous nonsense that it is. It's surprising that Danby implies he allows that kind of belief is worthy of being held by any sensible person. It's the same belief system that gives permission for the extermination of the 'other', on the grounds that 'they' are all unfit because of their 'blood', or genetic makeup.

But as a debating ploy of the lowest and cheapest kind, it puts Danby well into the running as alternative PM, on current measures.

I was mistaken about Michael Danby. I thought he was made of sterner stuff, not capable of being spooked by preselection hints.

Toohey ended with:
... Those who still have some regard for the 800-year-old principle of habeas corpus don't always accept what they are told by an intelligence agency as grounds for locking someone up - unless it can be tested in a criminal trial.

There's the problem. Justice is expensive. Seven, eight or nine slugs into the head represents a much more economical dispensation of the will of the state. Perhaps that's what Howard is getting at - making justice more affordable. A dead informant is a winner on three counts: one more potential terrorist out of the way; no need for the hire of barristers; all secrets buried forever.