David took a wrong fork in the road and went a bridge too far. Where is Rudd when Hicks needs him?
Labor politics, Security, Terrorism laws, Torture - - Posted on December, 6 at 7:20 am by Aussie Bob
UPDATE: from News.com just now. The Federal Court’s saying, “Bring It On”:
“THE legal team for Australian terror suspect David Hicks has been granted an urgent hearing in the Federal Court in Sydney in a bid to bring him home by Christmas.”
This is a bandwagon Labor had better not miss out on riding.
Perhaps Rudd could ask, in a nuanced way of course with full debating skills and incisive, analytical mind that will leave Howard begging for mercy:
How many fucking David Hicks’s can fit on the head of a pin, Prime Minister?
What is it With David Hicks?
What’s the problem Howard has with releasing him?
Today in The Herald a news report told us the following:
“Four Liberal MPs, including NSW backbenchers Danna Vale and Bruce Baird, raised concerns at the weekly meeting of Coalition MPs yesterday that Hicks would never receive justice at the hands of the United States.”
This is certainly correct, but misses the point.
The point is that David Hicks is having trouble receiving justice at the hands of the Howard government. Members of that government know that and are prepared to stand up and be counted, putting pressure on Howard. But Kevin Rudd is not prepared to add to that pressure.
Hicks could be back into the hands of his loving and inspiring father in days at the stroke of a pen. The time is right.
Why is Howard so obsessed with keeping Hicks in prison in Guantanamo?
A “rebel” band of Coalition MPs are making waves, the State Attorneys-General have already demanded Hicks’ repatriation, and even the Age is running a campaign. Yet Howard refuses - absolutely - to budge on the matter. Why is he so scared of little David Hicks?
We’ve had excuses, ranging from this being a problem for the Americans, right through to the disgusting assertion - given with a straight face by our so-called “leaders” - that we can’t have Hicks back because he hasn’t done anything wrong, and therefore we’d have to release him. But what’s at the core of all this?
My own theory is a combination of the Howard inability to admit a mistake, plus fear that Hicks - who has surely been defamed by Howard, Downer and Ruddock - might try a “Habib” and sue them (and Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph, which famously once labelled Hicks a “TRAITOR!”, for one) if he ever got back.
Mixed in with this is the certain knowledge that there is a deep well of untapped hatred ready to be spewed out from the usual reliable redneck sources within our community, and that this little pocket of poison works well for Howard, maintaining a reserve of nastiness among us that can be drilled into and exploited at will.
After all, wowsers - those who relish judging others from a position of their own, imagined moral superiority - need to get their kicks too. But they’re only a tiny minority with regards to Hicks, hardly worth all the trouble. What kind of megalomania is our Prime Minister afflicted by, that he finds himself incapable of showing the slightest mercy in such a deserving and obvious case of “justice” gone wrong, presumably because it would involve admitting he’d made a mistake once, or had issued a Howard Declaration that no longer applied?
Beazley tried to take this up and got nowhere. In that he was not, and is not alone. Might this not be a good thing for Rudd to campaign on over Christmas? If he’d come out and said one of his priorities as new leader was to get Hicks out of Gitmo, it might have been worth twelve “forks in the road” and nine “bridges too far” as far as deliniating the Opposition’s human compassion from the Government’s cruelty. Does Rudd have to leave the moral agenda in our society again to the Coalition “rebels”? What is Rudd scared of?
With the news of recent days that there is a Release Hicks campaign from within Howard’s own government ranks, for Christ’s sake, is it not worth even one question in Parliament from Labor?
On the other hand, is Rudd being smart? Would it just set Howard’s intransigence regarding Hicks even more in concrete if Labor - gasp! - actually proposed, and ran on, something more than just a dry economic agenda?
Posted in Labor politics, Security, Terrorism laws, Torture |
December 6th, 2006 at 8:32 am
Bannerman doesn’t believe the Howardian reticense to act on the Hicks issue has anything at all to do with the government’s inate inability to admit fault. It has much more to do with not yet having received permission to start making noises which look as though they’re actually standing up for a citizen’s rights. Permission? Yes indeed…..permission from its US masters. Hicks is the last chance for the Bush administration to point at a non-muslim ‘terrorist’ and claim a non-biased approach to fighting terrorism.
The postulation that Hicks might sue the government and individuals within it goes without saying. In fact, Bannerman is quite surprised that Habib has not yet enacted legal action.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:53 am
“Why is Howard so obsessed with keeping Hicks in prison in Guantanamo?”
IT’S THE WEDGE, BABY! And, as far as Labor is concerned, it’s working.
The rodent, as usual, sees a political advantage in abandoning Hicks in Gitmo.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:08 am
I don’t buy that, Bannerman.
The government is already claiming to have made noises to the Yanks regarding Hicks. They even claim - via Ruddock - to have had Habib released, when the truth was that they were the last to know, and had to scramble to provide a jet to get him back home.
What I can’t figure out is why Labor doesn’t jump on this obvious wedge issue (as well as it being the morally correct thing to do).
December 6th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Maybe, Mars, but now it’s his own side that are pushing. Does Labor need to lose a share of the running on this?
December 6th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Nah, what Bannerman said, except in the 1st person.
I doubt it’s even considered a particularly big deal (Perhaps Eric can tell us how much news coverage Hicks has been getting in the land of the free). All it would take would be for some page to say to Howard Junior the Republican Work Experience Kid “Hey, tell your dad that between gropes my boss said The Party doesn’t need another tiny slap in the face right now”, and it’s the star chamber for David.
Howard is part of a group that adheres to “unimportant nation theory” re their own f***ing country, and part of the logic is that we must remain a client state of an important nation. Plus he clearly has no principles whatsoever.
PS: “crown immunity”.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:32 am
I can’t quite figure it out either AB. Then again I don’t listen to talk-back radio or read the tabloids so Hicks might have some symbolic importance that I don’t get.
Tim had a thread about it at blogocracy a few weeks ago and I was stunned at the ferocious tone of some of the comments, along the lines of “Hicks is a murdering terrorist he should rot in hell for what he did”. Maybe the grub doesn’t want to have the rednecks turn on him. And of course if he brings Hicks home now and he gets released without charge, it would demonstrate the massive injustice of keeping him locked up for five years.
On a related point, I saw those kids arrested weeks ago by in Yemen have been released after being found free of any wrongdoing. Yeah the kids who were going to blow up a Sydney underground railway station, according to News Ltd. I missed the front page “We were unforgivably wrong and we humbly apologise” story but like I said I don’t read the tabloids.
December 6th, 2006 at 9:44 am
“But Marge, he’s guilty. Listen to the muuusiiic!”
The unsurprising existence of gullible rednecks aside, I still reckon it’s about not embarassing the President.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:00 am
“My own theory is a combination of the Howard inability to admit a mistake, plus fear that Hicks - who has surely been defamed by Howard, Downer and Ruddock - might try a “Habib” and sue them (and Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph, which famously once labelled Hicks a “TRAITOR!”, for one) if he ever got back.”
All this, and Sean’s point about not embarrassing the president are very true.
There’s another big one though: just IMAGINE how bad the government will look when Hicks gets back to Aus and is released. Straight to Today Tonight, straight to the newspapers, it will be a PR disaster for the government. Who knows what’s been done to him? All it will take is a couple of David Marr and Marian Wilkinsons to put together a few interviews with Hicks, about what happened to him when, and line it up with what comments Howard, Downer, Ruddock said at the time and BOOM, bestsellers all over. It will just look SO BAD for them.
The problem is, Howard should have bloody well stepped in years ago, but couldn’t bring himself to go to his hero Dubya with his hat in his hand and ask for one of his citizens back. So he put it off. And put it off. And put it off. And now it’s at the point where it’s gone so long, that letting him go makes the government look like monumental fools and cowards. And worse, this is an issue that affects every Australian citizen, even the least switched on will hear about what happened to Hicks and think “bugger it, if the government can’t protect its own, I guess it can’t protect me either”. This is the Man of Steel remember, and this more than almost anything else highlights the extent to which he is WEAK.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Firstly, David Hicks is a muslim.
This inaction by Howard and Co is all about saving face for his government and that of the US. Howard suffers from a severe form of hubris. Another case where he can’t admit he was wrong and do the right thing. This is made even harder because as we all know he can’t help sucking up to Bush on everything.
Of course Labor should attack the government about their handling of David Hicks. It’s a case of gross injustice. No doubt Rudd will get there.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Good topic Aussie Bob, and gives you a chance to slap Rudd around a bit after your disappointment last week on Beazley. Fair enough I suppose. But Rudd has only been there three days and still has not got a front bench. Let the dog see the rabbit!
I agree Hicks is a running sore for the government (not to mention the crass inhumanity of it all) and the ALP should take up the cause seriously. Then again, perhaps standing back allows Howard to look like the arse-licking prat he is for longer. Not much fun for Hicks though.
Actually, I thought Rudd’s performance on his first day in Parliament was a ripper, a blizzard of difficult questions that had the PM fronting the box without anything new, useful or interesting to say in response. He trotted out all the well-worn cliches or otherwise just said “no” to complex questions. Brilliant.
As for Costello, how anyone can believe the man has a sense of humour, or is the master of witty repartee, is quite beyond me. Cheap derision based on farmyard analogies, with the peanut gallery behind him howling with laughter, is not remotely clever.
Rudd’s subdued, polite, classic debating style tone (very much out of Howard’s book) threw the press gallery, whose major complaint seemed to be that Rudd did not sound like Latham. Also a lot of huffing and puffing about how boring fed/state relations are - bit more complicated to analyse than reading books to kids - the press gallery is going to be on steep learning curve by the looks of it.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Aussie Bob,
Good on you for raising the Hicks issue again: it is the morally correct thing to do, and of course Labour should be all over it.
But unfortunately, mud sticks. Hicks has been tarred and brushed as a terrrrst, and in they eyes of most Australians that is what he is. Human rights? Rule of law? Nice concepts. But this is meat and veges politics, as Howard knows full well.
Hicks is our version of Jose Padilla, and look how slowly that case has played out in the USA. Rudd wont get too vocal on this issue until we, the people, take the lead and generate a bit more momentum. It’s building slowly…
Also worth saying: seems to me that Hicks real “crime” has been his loose cannon temperament, which got him labelled “worst of the worst” and probably explains why he was over there in the first place. That’s the same reason Howard is scared to bring him back: hard to do a hush-hush deal with guys like that.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Yep, even those who fervently believe Hicks is a terrrrst will be outraged, because their much-loved leaders have set this terrrrst free on our streets.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Grace said,
Grace, Rudd asked for the chance, now he’s got one.
I don’t want to see all this hoopla over getting rid of the “lazy” Beazley go for nothing. No more intellectual position play, or exquisite diplomatic posturing, or incisive questions in Parliament about how many angels on the head of a pin. Rudd is Leader Of The Opposition now. He’d better start acting like one and show some passion as a dividend for all the trouble he’s caused.
Whether you like it or not, Commonwealth-State relations are boring. The have zero traction in the community, no matter how fundamentally important they might be.
The people want a show. Not necessarily a circus, but at least a show that Rudd stands for something besides debating a man - Howard - who does not debate, but merely chucks slogans around like frisbees. You may be able to see through him, Grace, but out in the checkout queues, the public couldn’t care less.
You can go on all you like about one man’s intelligence against another man’s spin, but spin is what counts, ultimately, out there in the media. There is no point having a message if no-one’s listening, or if they are being told the message is boring. There has been many a technically good boxer who finds himself flat out on his back counting tweety birds when a slugger king-hits him in the first round. This is a bare-knuckle fight. Rudd and his backers had better realise the Marquis of Queensbury rules don’t apply.
This is not an anti-intellectual position that I take. I admire Rudd’s intelligence, education and ability to debate. But debating isn’t enough. Taking a purely intellectual feather duster to Howard will not stop him coming back with a baseball bat.
As to gandhi’s point that no-one cares: I provided a link to this article from a couple of months back regarding public opinion on Hicks’ plight. Click on that link, and then come back and tell me whether this isn’t an issue that doesn’t have some legs in it.
Hicks is plainly innocent of any crime, here or anywhere else. Even Howard admits the former, and the latter is patently true or else he would have been convicted by now. In fact, Hicks’ innocence is the foundation of the government’s argument against Hicks’ repatriation. Howard is leaving Hicks to rot in a 12 foot square cell without windows and with little sensory input from the outside world merely to avoid having to admit that he was wrong when he said Hicks would be treated fairly, and perhaps to keep a half a point at the margins out in the electorate happy. And perhaps to avoid being ruined with a defamation case upon Hicks’ return.
Australians who care about justice for Hicks - and the poll cited above suggests that is up to 90% - realise Hicks has had more than his fair share of it. The move to free him before Christmas is on, no matter that this is unlikely to happen. For Labor to leave the running to the government is not only moral cowardice, but rampant political stupidity.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:54 am
As I said, Aussie Bob, let the dog see the rabbit.
I agree with all you have said re Hick’s detention, but as others have pointed out, the opposition cannot free him. That’s Howard’s job as PM and it would appear from today’s reports that his own back bench is revolting. That’s worth a lot of political capital in eventually unseating him. And I suspect the pending cabinet reshuffle will see a newly energised front bench (Turnbull, Robb et al) that will shine a spotlight on how old and out of touch Howard really is. Then Rudd will have a limping, damaged target that will allow for some real fireworks in the new year.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Again I ask you Grace: can Labor afford to be out of this fight? To let the running on morality fall to a few disgruntled government backbenchers, a gaggle of QCs and - of all things - the Age newspaper’s latest official campaign to get Hicks free?
You put so much store in nuance and position play. This is a ready-made issue for Labor, shadow cabinet or no shadow cabinet in place. A wedge among wedges. They should be hammering it home.
And they are not.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Grace, balls. The Liberal back bench are not ministers & therefore not members of the executive either. If they revolt in favour of the rule of law and the ALP members sit on their hands whistling, it just shows the electorate that the only people with any moral courage are in the Liberal Party, and hey presto welcome to Sunday, Prime Minister Costello.
Was it not you who spoke of Rudd & Gillard’s fearlessness? They’d better get on the front foot.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:56 am
UPDATE: from News.com just now. The Federal Court’s saying, “Bring It On”:
This is a bandwagon Labor had better not miss out on riding.
Perhaps Rudd could ask, in a nuanced way of course with full debating skills and incisive, analytical mind that will leave Howard begging for mercy:
December 6th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
AB and Grace, I think you guys both agree that this Hicks issue should be addressed by Rudd, it’s just a question of when.
Sadly, Labour has sat on this issue far too long, to the point where it becomes embarrassing for them, too. And methinks that might be partly to do with ex-Defence Minister Beazley’s close links to US boys like Richard Armitage.
It actually is a good issue for Rudd to pick up on, if only to differentiate himself from his predecessor. Rudd has actually been the most vocal Labour member calling for Hick’s release, so maybe it’s an issue he will get back to very soon.
As for the URL AB provided above, it is just 2 months old (wasn’t there a GetUp.org.au campaign about the same time?) and it specifically says Aussies want to see Hicks get a fair trail as soon as possible. That’s aside from whether they think he is guilty, or whether they want him back home, or whether they would support compensation payouts.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Thanks ghandi, I was indeed trying to make a point about timing, and the fact that Rudd has been leader for all of three days and does not even have a front bench yet.
BTW AB and Sean, I was in Cuba in 2004 but could not get close enough to gitmo to free Hicks myself - sorry about that!
December 6th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
AB,
Your are right about Hicks and it would establish Rudd as fearless if he brought that one on, before Christmas. On Commonwealth State relations, I disagree they are boring now. I think people are listening. health education etc; are a mess partly because of the blame and cost shifting. People understand that, and they don’t give a rats for states rights (even the tories have given that one up to jesus -I mean Workchoices ) they just want things fixed. Now.
National solutions and clear agreements on who does what and who pays whom, is not only good policy, it is also good politics. If the labor states play ball, Rudd will be able to go to the election with something Howard just can’t deliver. A national agreement on the two key things that mark the ALP out from the coalition.
I think people will both listen, and also applaud.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
“…Rudd has been leader for all of three days and does not even have a front bench yet.”
Ever heard of Question Time, Grace?
Rudd’s been in three days and you’re making excuses for him not even asking questions? He’s already ask over twenty. Why not one or two more on a matter of national pride, fairness and justice. Isn’t that what he’s rabbiting on about anyway?
On the benches opposite Rudd, if he should ask such a series of questions, there would be a dozen Liberal MHRs quietly saying “Good on you, Kevin.” And Howard would know they’re at his back.
I’ll give him the first one for free:
It’s easy Grace. Rudd just has to stand up and say the words. No Shadow Ministry required, only backbone.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
AB
Labor stepped up its own pressure, with foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd describing Hicks’ treatment as a “national obscenity”.
“Guantanamo Bay should be shut, and David Hicks should be given access to a fair trial, because he’s not going to get one under the current arrangements. It is a disgrace … (Hicks) should be treated in this fashion,” Mr Rudd said. (Brendan Nicholson November 10, 2006 Age)
‘Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says it’s time for Mr Howard to demand US President George Bush bring Hicks to trial or send him home.’ (November 11, 2006 Age)
Well said grace.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
So Aussie Bob, do you believe that Rudd does not care about Hicks at all? Really? Could he not have some sort of political strategy behind the ordering of his question time attacks? Could it be that he wants to play out a large canvas first, covering as many bases as he can, before he hones in on the particular? I don’t know. But I do not think you have the evidence yet, after three days, to label him spineless.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
AB,
Beazley is gone - get over it and embrace the new guy.
BTW, Beazley could have done a lot more for Hicks as well - and didnt.
Unless you want Howard for another 3 years, Ruddy needs our support.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Its also worth mentioning that the Hicks case has now made it into the Federal Court, and its not considered good form for pollies to jump up and down through the media, or even in parliament, while a case is in progress, just in case a cranky judge tosses it right out the window - perhaps both Howard and Rudd are mindful of this.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Geez, who’s been opposition leader for most of the time that Hicks has been locked away in that hell hole? Think we all know the answer to that question, so can we stop the bickering. Please.
Aussie Shiela is right about Commonwealth State relations unless you consider most of the electorate to be morons who can’t see the connection between it and the state of their hospitals, schools etc. It could really be a key issue of differentation between the parties, and highlight Howard’s ineptitude. He’s been there for 10 years and done SFA about it.
Also it heads off the scare campaign that’s bound to come in relation to wall to wall Labor governments throughout the country.
I would have thought that most Labor supporters would be pleased that Rudd is pushing this issue and by implication treating the electorate with a degree of respect conspicuously missing in recent years.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
I think Adrian might be on to something. The grub will try his usual scare tactics of ‘OMG if Labor is in power everywhere they’ll increase the GST and change the flag and trade unionists will destroy the economy and god knows what.’ It might be a very smart outflanking move to argue that Labor governments everywhere would be a positive development. It’s the only way we’ll ever fix a lot of the problems that everyone must now be aware of.
A lot will depend on the premiers saying the right things … can Morris Iemma rise to the challenge? I have my doubts ….. damn you Bob Carr, why couldn’t you hang on for one more election.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
My point wasn’t about Beazley. My point was that Rudd should be pushing this issue for all its worth, what with all the recent stories and campaigns to get Hicks back home.
If Rudd does not get involved real quick, there’s a chance that the government would release him and claim the credit. And please don’t tell me what he said in early November. That’s about as impressive as Beazley’s “Look it up on our web site.”
Ruddock has form on appropriating credit where credit is NOT due: he claimed the credit for having Habib released, when it was the Yanks who threw Habib out and told Ruddock and Howard: “Catch!”.
How could he get away with this?
Because Habib was a forgotten cause, or a non-existent one for Labor. That was years ago and real chances of having anyone released were too apparently remote to bother arguing for in any other than general terms. The Yanks sprang a surprise on Ruddock and Ruddock sprang a surprise on Labor and took (and are still taking, as recently as last week) the credit for Habib’s release. He thought - rightly - that most would forget his acute embarrassment at the time. We didn’t even have transport arranged. Why? Because we didn’t know he was being released.
If you want the credit, you should be part of the game.
And don’t be so sure Labor would get the credit for bettering relations between Commonwealth and States. It was Labor that freed up the markets and deregulated the banking industry, got rid of tariffs etc. and all they’re remembered for is “Keating’s Interest Rates”.
You have to understand that Howard is a past master at stealing the policies (and hence the credit for those policies) from others: Global Warming being another recent example, for which Howard is taking FULL credit without the slightest acknowledgement that Labor set this policy up. When he leaves Iraq, he’ll take the credit for that too.
I’m continually amazed at how so many of you believe that Howard will play fair in all this. He has to be nailed down and a stake driven through his heart before you can be sure you’ve beaten him.
If he can get Hicks out without quesions and activity on the subject from Labor, right now, he’ll do it and steal the credit. It will be the government’s “compassion” that got Hicks back home, not the Opposition’s agitation. And thus it will be printed.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
AB I don’t think you’re seeing this one straight … the time has long since passed when the grub can get any credit whatsoever from David Hicks being released. Regardless of Rudd’s personal views, it would have been tactically silly to make Hicks one of the new leadership team’s big talking points. It would risk anything else they have to say being drowned out by the hysterical howling of the “Let that traitor Hicks rot in hell” wolf pack.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Labor could definitely be better on this, but maybe they are moving in the right direction?:
December 6th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Aussie Bob,
Ma-a-a-a-ate…!
All hail thee, Master of Righteous Fury and Furious Anger (or something like that)! Your cause is indeed just and if we all had our ‘d’ruthers you would be the undisputed heavyweight Opposition Leader today, challenging Johnny “Shrivelled Heart” Howard on this fundamental question of Australian law, Australian compassion, Australian mateship and Australian independence. No doubt you would chew the sinewy little rodent to shreds with your mighty jowls and spit his entrails out onto the sidewalk for the shocked Murdoch media to disect.
Your mighty compassion and passionate might has a place, albeit no longer Pride of Place, in the national pantheon of Everything That Is Good About US. Indeed, I used to be just like you. Just last week, I think it was.
But.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Like Tony Blair, Rudd has embraced the Devil of Spin and sought to master it. Maybe he was waiting for this:
Suddenly the issue is in the news of it’s own accord, which is when the media will actually who what Rudd and Howard have to say about “the news”. Maybe Rudd knew this was coming and was just waiting for the decision? Looks like a good hook on which to hang the Fed Govt blame.
December 6th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
= “the media will actually report on“.
How’s that for the World’s Biggest Typo?
December 6th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Now don’t panic, OK? But… Bring Hicks home, say Liberal MPs:
The fact that minor backbenchers are openly defiant of Howard on this is a good thing IMHO. The time is ripe. Go for it, Kev.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
I feel like Ugly&Single sometimes, or maybe Wronny, but from the other side.
Gandhi, all your points are covered in my post. I was aware of them when this thread started. They are still good points.
My main concern is that Howard and Ruddock will claim credit for this. I live in Ruddock’s electorate, rang his office this morning to complain. The woman (in tired voice) said, “I think you’ll find he could well be released soon,” and tried to hang up without taking an address or any other I.D. I pulled her up on this and insisted she take my details and register the complaint formally. She then asked me whether I was a member of the electorate, which I said I was.
This tells me two things.
1. They’ve been getting a lot of complaints.
I know the Tennis Mums around here are outraged at the treatment Hicks is getting.
2. Something’s in train.
Don’t know what, but something’s in the wind in the zombie-like brain of Ruddock. His electorate secretary wouldn’t be letting things like that slip if there wasn’t “a plan”. It mightn’t get up, because Howard’s dug in. But maybe they have a way of getting Hicks home.
I just don’t want to see Ruddock and Howard get the credit.
Ken, I know you think I’m paranoid but I have history on my side.
Let’s take your words:
“… the time has long since passed when the grub can get any credit whatsoever from David Hicks being released.”
Now substitute the following for the words in bold.
* “attacking the problem of Global Warming”
* “wages policy, ensuring workers are better paid.”
* “interest rates”
* “alternative energy schemes”
* “the management of Medicare”
* “dealing with the AWB crisis”
See what I mean? I’m not saying that he’s done anything much for the good of those policy areas, but he is claiming it. Remember Howard saying, “The Australian Worker has no greater friend than the Howard government”? Or his current boasting about all the funding he is providing for climate management and energy alternatives?
The man will steal ideas and take the credit for them wherever he can. The media make his claims stick, while tut-tutting about how Labor (even though they have not been in government… a minor point, presumably) didn’t do a thing.
I can hear Ruddock now.
If you think they won’t try to turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse, aided and abetted by the media, you’re not studying the history of these crooks in government.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
OTOH who cares as long as Hicks gets justice, right?
It shouldn’t be a political football.
I know! I know! … But, but, but…!
December 6th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
I don’t think it will play out as you predict, AB but really, who cares who gets the credit as long as he’s released.
You’re assuming that their absurd claims re global warming etc are working. Nobody can be certain, but I reckon a large section of the electorate don’t believe a word they
spinsay. The question is will it be a large enough proportion to get the crooks kicked out.December 6th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Yeah I’ve no doubt they’ll try to make a virtue of necessity, I just don’t think a single soul would give them any credit for it. It’s too transparent.
I think the grub and Laughing Phil have been blindsided by the admirable Major Mori. Operators like the grub have trouble with the Major Moris of this world because their mental models can’t cope with individuals who act out of principle even though it’s against their own personal interests.
Which is not to say the grub’s cheer squad won’t parrot everything he says, of course they will, I just can’t see him persuading anybody apart from the blindly loyal.
December 6th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
“I don’t think it will play out as you predict, AB but really, who cares who gets the credit as long as he’s released.”
Well, I care. Because you can be sure that if they can be arseholes, and then get some undeserved glory, they’ll just keep being arseholes.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
I don’t know mars, perhaps we’re buying into this whole Howard invincibility rubbish a little too much. The point is that nothing will change the arsehole factor, but who is going to buy it?
The fact that Labor’s been consistently ahead in the polls suggests to me that more and more people are sick of buying bullshit from this particular arsehole.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
… anybody ever read ‘The Permit’ by Donald Horne?
December 6th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Aussie Bob: “I’m continually amazed at how so many of believe that Howard will play fair in all this.” Nope, I don’t think we believe that, remotely.
I think Howard is running scared on Hicks, because he has dug himself a hole so deep he cannot climb out with any dignity. Shows how “brilliant” he is at politics, what a “master” of the game (shhh, don’t tell News Ltd).
But now, I suspect Howard is breathing a big sigh of relief that the matter has finally got into the courts. Tactically, this means he can deflect any questions about Hicks by claiming sub judice (which Rudd probably knows full well).
And it also means that he can shrug off any responsibility for the outcome - its all now in the hands of the judiciary etc.
If the court says it cannot intervene, then Howard has bought more time and will spin the decision to suggest that the judiciary thinks Hicks is a terrrst. OTOH, if the court does make a decision favourable to Hicks, then Howard can say, its the court that did this, not me (dog whistling to his talk-back constituency).
The trouble for Howard is that Rudd is now on deck, and he won’t get away with this sort of contemptuous behaviour for too much longer.
Any chance that Ruddock will be looking for a little rest on the backbench soon?
December 6th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
“You put so much store in nuance and position play.”
Now, now, AB. It’s only a few weeks since you were applauding Beazley’s ‘Aussie values’ ploy of making tourists and migrants sign oaths of allegiance to Aussie values. You justified that on exactly those grounds.
Rudd has at least spoken out in the recent past. But he’s entitled to a little time to set his agenda and priorities first.
Of course it’s an appalling injustice and it needs urgent action.
Ruddock, perhaps, may attempt to try to steal some credit. But from Howard’s point of view, the less said about this and the quicker it’s forgotten the better. Has he ever issued ANY statement on Habib?
Rudd’s still estblishing a national agenda and identity. Since Hick’s incarceration Beazley, Crean, Latham, Beazley and now Rudd have been federal ALP leaders. None have really taken up the issue at any length, probably for fear of Howard exploiting the redneck supporters.
The good news is that that time may be ending, as we have seen with immigration detention.
December 6th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
I’m continually amazed at how so many of you believe that Howard will play fair in all this. AB
I think you’ll be hard pressed to find too many here who believe that, AB.
…the time has long since passed when the grub can get any credit whatsoever from David Hicks being released. KL
Exactly.
If you think they won’t try to turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse, aided and abetted by the media, you’re not studying the history of these crooks in government. AB
Of course they will try, but it is way too late for them to now be given serious credit for doing the right thing for Hicks. Quite the contrary, any attempt by them now to paint themselves as Hicks’ saviour could (and probably will) backfire very badly and be seen as the opportunistic self-serving crap it is.
I don’t know mars, perhaps we’re buying into this whole Howard invincibility rubbish a little too much. The point is that nothing will change the arsehole factor, but who is going to buy it?
The fact that Labor’s been consistently ahead in the polls suggests to me that more and more people are sick of buying bullshit from this particular arsehole. Adrian
Yup. Howard et al are on the nose. No one (outside of political parties) in my diverse electorate is openly supporting them anymore.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Just on Habib, Bob…..don’t you recall that his legal team were about to dump a load of nightsoil on the Supreme Court steps, re: his treatment, torture, lack of medical care, etcetera? Amazing that soil never arrived, y’know. But what did arrive, was Mamdouh Habib, at Mascot, on a Gulfstream IV. Join the dots and you’ll get the picture. It’s also why we’ve not yet heard the whole nasty story now that he’s home. Just summising, but I get the feeling there’s so very, very much more to his and Hicks’ tale than we’ll ever find out.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:04 am
I reckon David Hicks is one nasty tasting piece of candy for the US & Australian Governments right now. Initially he was a “sweet” for Howard’s World…his arrest could be used as ‘diversion’ in the media when required…a warning to anyone who even thought about going against the War trend…or as an Aussie had the tenacity to criticize the Government’s behaviour & motivations from Overseas…added a cherry to the ‘fear’ cake…a less than subtle attempt to deter White Aussies from goin’ Muslim…& demonstrated to the US Government, being the good lackeys we are, that we’re willing to play Deputy to their Sheriff, Head Honcho…”you think it’s the right thing to do, keep that little Muslim worm in yer grand ole prison system, we’re right w/ ya Boss…just remember we did ya this favour…pleeeeze…”
But as time passed Hicks became a negative diversion…& the longer he was imprisoned, tortured & brain raped the more he became an ICON representing the failure of this Government to stand on its own two feet…& demonstrated that Howard’s End is not about freedom & the value of a Human Life…but rather playing puppet to a Regime controlled by con artists, weapons traders & oil giants…& in the process abandoning its CITIZENS to the whim of this CORPORATE ARISTOCRACY…more concerned about earning easy bucks & owning the next energy era, by way of sacrificing the poor & the patriots in BOGUS WARS, than protecting the RIGHTS of EVERY MAN & WOMAN.
The Howard & Bush Governments are WAR CRIMINALS (no wonder Bush Daddy broke down, weeping for his wrecked Dynasty I imagine)…David Hicks is a witness…& a victim of their abuse. Of their crimes. He probably knows many stories of suffering…may even know some interesting facts about Al-Qaeda & its phantom leader, UBL…& the connections to scary characters in Saudi, Pakistan & the US. Who knows?
Imagine if this Anglo-European Aussie from a primarily Anglo-European dominated Country was released & told all? Considering the racial stereotyping that goes on in Australia…would he be likely to be believed more than an Aussie from another ethnic background? Would he be more likely to get a Current Affair’s deal?…a Book deal?…sadly, I think we know the answer to that. It tells us heaps about why this man is so problematic for the Howard Government.
And in turn, about Australia’s history.
If David Hick’s dies in custody…John Winston Howard’s legacy will be trashed…what little is left. I guess it’s up to him whether he wants to take the risk…be the MAN for once…show some guts…& get our Aussie boy home.
Better to stand up to bat…& take the flack me thinks…than to be remembered as the PM who let the side down.
Get Hicks home…
NOW!
December 7th, 2006 at 7:04 am
OK, youse all have convinced me that Howard’s pretty-well terminally on the nose re. Hicks. A glance at the letters pages and newspaper blogs around town for corroboration helped.
Why, there were even three or four letters urging Rudd to intervene.
And yes, I read Rudd’s maiden speech as Leader and was impressed. It seems The Australian was, too. They’ve held the link on the front page of the web site for a couple of days now.
Anecdotally, a South African friend of mine, newly franchised after a recent citizenship ceremony, rang to say he would vote Labor with Rudd in charge. I sent him the speech (which I had just read myself), and he came back and said, “If he can give me half of this, he is the owner of my vote”. I think this is a way for him to make the transition from being an ex-South African army type, now living in Australia, bitching about what the blacks are doing to his erstwhile country, to fully-fledged Aussie. I always knew he had it in him.
Damn… I thought I already had him though, with Bomber in charge. Oh well… I guess he was just being polite… but now he’s definitely onside.
So it seems that Beazley has successfully made the party competitive again after the 2004 Latham election loss, slowly increased the lead as far as his abilities allowed, flushed out Howard into mild panic, and has now passed the baton to Rudd without a fumble involved in the exchange.
It’s a pity we don’t all get to swim the final lap, but in a relay everybody’s performance counts. Beazley has held up his end, and more. I am proud of him for that.
Rudd now has the task of keeping the lead handed to him - and winning the race. I now like to think he can do it. One thing: he’s no Latham.
I’d like to see him stand up for more than economic justice. I’d still like to see him ask some questions on Hicks. I know the government will say it’s sub judice - and I realise that some sort of order from the Federal Court might even be doing them a favour, getting them out of a jam - but Rudd should point out, via some pointed questions in Question Time, that they can short circuit all the legal palaver and just request repatriation for Hicks right now.
This time I think the public would be with him, just about all the way, except for a few rednecks who feed off the misfortunes and bad choices of others (as if they hadn’t made any themselves).
December 7th, 2006 at 7:44 am
Congratulation AB, good to see you are an honest and good man.We now have a ‘Winning Team’ to take Howard on and bring the voters with them.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:23 am
With regard to Hick’s cause a lot of the credit to the change of mood in the public goes to Major Mori as well as David’s father. Major Mori came to Hobart a few months ago to a packed meeting and next morning wandering through Salamanca market he received rock star treatment. Couldn’t even stand in the cash machine line without people wanting to rush up & shake his hand.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Just about everyone involved on Hicks’ side - pre-eminent among them Major Mori and Hick’s father - should be beatified.
They define “morality”.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Said it well, Bob. You are a passionate man, such a valuable thing in today’s Australia. So none of us are seriously complaining when it takes a different turn from us others on some priorities.
We also need to acknowledge that you are generous enough to accept the validity of other views, and even adjust yours accordingly. I’m glad you’re on our side.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Spoken like a true gentleman AB.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Do I get a bunch of Gladdies?
December 7th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Dear AB
You deserve a bunch of gladdies with bells on!
As a person with a mobility disability and involved in academic research I spend an inordinate amount of time on my computer and listening to the ABC/SBS radio/tele etc. etc. As a mother of sons; retired adult educator and previously a psych nurse, I have a feeling for and have worked with restless/ dissafected/quest searching young men. Also as a resident of Adelaide, I have been a keen observer and admirer of David Hick’s father, his step-mother, Major Mori, his first and second solicitor based here in Adelaide. They are all fine, upstanding, compassionate and doughty fighters - the sort of people any family would be proud and grateful to have on their side.
That they have constantly shown up Howard and Co. for the undemocratic idealogues that they are, goes without saying.
BTW I have been an avid supporter of Kev and Jules for some years now. I was a fortunate member of an enormous audience that witnessed the performances of Downer, Rudd, Stott Despoya prior to the last Federal election. These pollies had come together to discuss current/future Australian foreign policy, particularly where our involvement in Iraq was concerned.
The passion and commitment displayed by the audience made it one of the best political meetings I had had attended since the glory days of the early ’70’s. The first booked theatre had to be ditched for a larger one, and even that was crowded to the rafters, with a hundred or so disappointed people not allowed in due to the over-crowding.
Dolly demonstrated his usual sneering, dissembling and cliched self, however Kevin and Natasha were knowledgeable, clear and cogent. Kevin’s global analysis of Australia’s place in the world was absolutely gobsmacking. He literally wiped the floor with Dolly, who generally only attracted gasps of disbelief, groans and jeers. His glee club was comprehensively overwhelmed.
Once Latham imploded, as many suspected he would, and dear old Kim was resurrected, I knew it was only a matter of time before Kev and Jules (who has always impressed so many of us) would be required to take the leadership. I cannot tell you how this athritis ridden old woman is celebrating today - my gin and tonic has never tasted so good.
Now, without more ado, lets see off Gollam and his dreadful band of acolytes. Yeehaaa!!!
December 7th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
I’m glad, AB.
It was getting pretty scary in here.
Glad everyone’s calmed down.
Glad to see such fierce loyalty.
Glad to see enthusiastic support for Team Rudd.
Glad we’re going to be seeing more of Julia.
Glad Major Mori has achieved pop star status.
Glad about the possibility David Hicks might eventually see daylight again.
Glad to see Howard twitching his left shoulder.
Glad to see Kerry O’Brien on fire last night.
Is that a big enough bunch?
December 7th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Yes, once again, well said, AB.
You’re a smart man, AB, and I agree with most of your observations, but just thought you were wrong on the Labor leadership issue. Rudd/Gillard are far more likely to galvanise the electorate than Beazely. It’s unfortunate, but Beazely’s chance has passed. If only he had taken the election where he won the popular vote but lost due to the nature of our electoral system. Oh, how different our country could have been.
Beazely deserves considerable credit for (1) Labor’s recent strong showing in the polls, at the very least he managed to not stuff it up seriously, which is no small feat these days, and (2) for his generous and gracious stance in defeat, that was one of the smoothest leadership transitions I have ever seen in politics, and I think it bodes very well for Labor.
December 7th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Good on ya AB for your attempt to suggest that Rudd and Gilliard need to get up to bat with alacrity. If they are not ready, willing and extraordinarily able to clobber Howard and his smug ministry for six on this issue, then we’re on the road to another calamity ala Latham.
For those defending the new Labor Leadership with the old “He’s only been in the job _______ days” excuse, I fell for that throughout 2004. So, I now know that the same people will be employing that excuse to save Rudd’s hide if he stuffs up the election campaign and gives Howard another easy victory in the House and perhaps even an increase of his Senate majority. If Rudd and Gilliard do maintain the lead Beazley had built up thus far and actually win the election, I’ll be the first one to come in here and say that each and every one of you Rudd/Gilliard fans is a genius. However, if they blow Beazley’s lead, in the words of the immortal Aussie Bard, Paul Hogan, it’s not going to be pretty.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
For those in Brisbane inspired to support Hicks:
The National Day of Protest is on Sat Dec 9 in Queens Park at 2pm. (Queens park is on the corner of George and Elizabeth Sts in the city.)
Claire Moore from the ALP, Terry O’Gorman from Civil Liberties and Andrew Bartlett from the Dems are among the speakers.
See you there.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:19 am
Well said Herindoors…w/ weapons of choice & diversity we move out…glad yer w/ us AB…we need yer insight & wicked humour…tough times ahead…still those mountains of madness to cross…but in our minds we can see the lights in the very rooms of parliament…can almost touch them…
now, we move on thru dry, parched land…drought ridden…sun drained…always alert for the unexpected…the long, hot summer…
NP: the palindromic titled EP ‘AnimaminA’…by Sigur Ros mates & support band. I’m a lover of contemporary Icelandic music & film…the ice melts…fractures & cracks everywhere…not much time…
December 8th, 2006 at 9:19 am
[AB, do you actually live in Ruddock's electorate? I started life out there.]
December 8th, 2006 at 10:31 am
If there were just one reason for voting Howard out, for me it would be his treatment of Hicks.
It is beneath contempt that Dear Leader has allowed this to happen, and it diminishes us all.
It’s also a good reason for me not to take up Australian citizenship, along with laziness.
December 8th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
[...] David took a wrong fork in the road and went a bridge too far. Where is Rudd when Hicks needs him? - Aussie Bob wastes no time in slagging Kevin Rudd for failing to support David Hicks. He also plugs a forthcoming day of protest and discusses the just-launched Federal Court challenge on Hicks’ behalf (which incidentally has Buckley’s Chance of success IMO). [...]
December 8th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Yes, but only just. I’m in Beecroft.
I looked up the boundaries a few days ago and found we were the second-last house before the boundary.
Don’t know what would have been better: to live with Ruddock or die inwardly with Howard as my local member (he’s next door in Bennelong).
Beecroft is actually pretty Bolshie. Last election we were Ruddock’s worst result: only 52% primary, almost preferences territory.
Lots of people in the check-out queues at the famous Beecroft Franklins today were publicly hopeful re. Rudd.
Then again, the same phenomenon was apparent the day after Latham got elevated.
But there is a certain mood…
December 9th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
I’ve just returned from the Melbourne rally for David Hicks. There were thousands of people - probably 3-4. They were not just lefties but all sorts - all ages and backgrounds. Whether this rally will receive the coverage it merits, i don’t know, but i think it can be called the biggest civil rights rally in Australia in modern times.
I am encouraged by Rudd’s strong statement on Hicks and Guantanamo. Let’s hope that the PM and Attorney general, who Rob Stary today called the only lawyers in the country who believe US military commissions are legitimate, are moved by the obvious public sentiment to end this man’s torture and bring him home. Problem being, it kind of puts a spanner in their terror myths. I think the political pressure will soon be too much - over a quarter of MPs have called for Hicks to be freed.
Let’s get Hicks home first, we’ll deal with the war crimes later.