PM welcomes new charges against Hicks

Prime Minister John Howard says he is glad the US military has drafted new charges against Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.

The US military has revealed details of the drafted charges that include attempted murder and providing material support for terrorism. Mr Howard says he is pleased there has been some progress in the case against Mr Hicks. "I'm glad it's now come to a situation where charges are being laid, and I would encourage in a very public way, and will be doing it privately, for the trial to be brought on as soon as possible," he said. "They are very serious charges and I believe that is why they should be dealt with as soon as possible."

Mr Hicks's US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, has questioned the charge of attempted murder, pointing out that the US military prosecutor has acknowledged that Mr Hicks never fired a shot in anger.

But Mr Howard says he will not comment on the finer details.

----------------

As far as Rodentus Howardii, Hicks is guilty as not- charged of whatever, no matter what, and this common Johnnee Ratus is "glad" that these very serious manufactured charges of not firing a shot are being laid thick like tar on the road as if Hicks did murder 3 million people, so that the gallows can be assemble now and Mr Hicks can hang yesterday...  Howard Ratus should hold his head in shame but he won't. He's not got enough ethics for that.

I'll wager no-one is permitted, or voices the need, for Dick Cheney to stand up to open questioning from the press during his brief visit to fortress Adelaide.

It won't be questions about David Hicks that would set Cheney's teeth on edge. He could dismiss those with a snarl, and rely on the National Giggle to press home the point.

No, the Bushitos must be nervous about this kind of assessment, from Martin Indyk:

• It's quickly becoming conventional wisdom here that this is the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of the United States.

Kevin Rudd is now using similar language:

• Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says the Howard Government's engagement in Iraq has proven to be Australia's greatest foreign policy failure since the Vietnam War.

Shaun Carney stepped up the pace:

• It's not so funny now. We have seen, since September 11, 2001, what can happen when an unworldly political leader falls under the sway of a bunch of true believers and a spectacularly manipulative deputy — military adventurism leading to foreign policy disaster.

The next step, Shaun, is for our fearless fourth estate to forgo the free lunches, and demand real time with the Veep.

"Excuse me, sir, Mr Cheney sir, but doesn't your own security assessment say the prospects in Iraq are getting worse? And we don't understand why you are hell-bent on bombing the crap out of Iran."

• The intelligence report did conclude that Iran is providing “lethal support” for Shiite groups that is intensifying the violence. But it portrayed the violence as essentially “self-sustaining,” and suggested that the involvement of outsiders, including Iran, was “not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability.”
  

"Arrrgh! Go #$%^ yerselves."

"Thank you for your time, sir. We are sorry to have offended, and promise not to do it again. We have our reputations as gutless twerps to uphold, after all."

From How the press can prevent another Iraq:

• Listen to and quote the people who got it right last time: The intelligence officials, state department officials, war-college instructors and many others who predicted the problem we are now facing, but who were largely ignored.
  

Could be difficult, when Rupert Murdoch admits manipulating the media…Surprise…Surprise.

Perhaps, after the next round of capitulation, journalists will be allowed to bury their own dead.

From Cranberg wants a serious probe of why the press failed in its pre-war reporting:

• Now is an opportune time for behavioral experts to study these and related aspects of Iraq war coverage while memories are fresh and the actors are readily available. A team of social scientists needs to be convened to design a study and probe the gate-keepers who determined what Americans were told about the lead-up to the Iraq war.
  

But they are still at it. From Support for jihadists is hardly confined to the margins (Murdoch):

• Question: If the radicals are so proficient and widespread, why have we not had more 9/11s since what happened 5 1/2 years ago?
  Pipes: Because you're assuming that all Islamists want to engage in terrorism. I think in the long term, what we're seeing here is the radicalisation of society, something perhaps more effective than engaging in terrorism. In other words, there are many different ways of establishing Islamic law. One is through violence. Another is through working the system, getting politicians elected, influencing the schoolbooks, working with the media, and so forth.