Red Rag

Evil Pundit’s latest post disappears in a puff of logic…

The front page of today’s West carries an absolutely disgraceful story of police abuse of American students at my university:

The West Australian was told some drinkers at the Orient Hotel last Tuesday were Notre Dame University students but the abuse of the US students erupted after a fight at the Zanzibar nightclub.

During that incident, one of the seven WA officers, who are all from the Fremantle district, was allegedly assaulted by one of the American Notre Dame students and had a tooth knocked out.

Enraged, some of the drunken officers tracked the American down to the university’s student accommodation.

It was there that several American students, including some who had nothing to do with the clash at the Zanzibar, were made to kneel on the ground and were humiliated.

It is understood the taunting included comments such as “Yankies go home”, “What are you doing in our country” and “What are you doing in Iraq”.

Frightened students called the police.

Judging by the report’s description of the cops’ behaviour before they arrived at Zanzibar, it’s not at all surprising that someone ended up belting them one.

Rumour has it that a similar incident occurred earlier this year: a group of bikies from a well-known gang followed the students back to their dorm, kicked down the door and threw someone down a flight of stairs.

Who would have thought that two gangs who wear leather jackets and club colours would behave so similarly?

Well, it didn’t take long for the Fairfax papers to confirm that Uncle was wrong. As I pointed out, Major George O’Kane helped draft the Coalition’s official response to an ICRC report on its visit to Abu Ghraib in October 2003. As the Age says:

The letter Major O’Kane helped draft begins: “Thank you for your letter dated 12 November, 2003, enclosing the confidential work papers relating to visits to Camp Cropper and Abu Ghraib in October.”

In other words, O’Kane clearly knew about the serious prisoner abuse claims by (at the latest) early November. I’d like to see how Uncle spins this one.

Now, Robert Hill is going to prevent the Senate Estimates Committee calling Major O’Kane to give evidence. That would truly be a cover-up: I, for one, would like to know how closely Australian troops have been working on bypassing the Geneva Convention.

Hearing about the mistreatment of prisoners is one thing, actively legitimising it is far worse.

Good old Uncle. I haven’t watched the watcher for quite some time now, but since I’m hard up for blog fodder I might as well take one of the free kicks he so regularly offers.

His latest post is about allegations that an Australian officer in Baghdad, Major George O’Kane, heard about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse late last year.

Uncle gets off to a bad start:

Small problem for the Henny commune. It’s not true.

The army has now interviewed over 290 personnel, according to tonight’s PM programme, and concluded that no-one had heard of any reports of the abuses that have been the subject of recent headlines.

If you look at the PM transcript, it specifies that the 298 personnel interviewed were those “whose duties may have involved contact with Iraqi prisoners.” Nobody has suggested that Major O’Kane might have come into contact with the prisoners, just that he was privy to a Red Cross report written by people who had.

Next, Uncle tries to tell us what it’s really about:

What the army knew was what we all knew earlier this year: the Red Cross had reported prisoner complaints to the Red Cross about discomforts in Iraq prisons. (Original emphasis.)

This comment is based on the ludicrous view that the ICRC’s February report was somehow fundamentally different to the reports it had been making on a regular basis since March 2003. We know that’s a ludicrous view because the Red Cross told us it was a summary of the information they had already passed to the Coalition:

This report summarizes a series of working papers handed over to coalition forces. ICRC delegates’ findings were based on their observations and on private interviews with prisoners of war and civilian internees during the 29 visits the ICRC conducted in 14 places of detention throughout Iraq between 31 March and 24 October 2003.

So what kinds of “discomforts” might the ICRC have been reporting on by October 2003? Well, a quick scan of the February report (pdf) shows that several extremely serious incidents of the kind portrayed in the infamous photos had been logged by the Red Cross in September and October:

16. One allegation collected by the ICRC concerned the arrest of nine men by the CF [Coalition Forces] in a hotel in Basrah on 13 September 2003. Following their arrest, the nine men were made to kneel, face and hands against the ground, as if in a prayer position. The soldiers stamped on the back of the neck of those raising their head. … The suspects were taken to Al-Hakimiya, a former office previously used by the mukhabarat in Basrah and then beaten severely by CF personnel. One of the arrestees died following the ill-treatment ([Name deleted], aged 28, married, father of two children). Prior to his death, co-arrestees heard him screaming and asking for assistance. … An eyewitness description of the body given to the ICRC mentioned a broken nose, several broken ribs and skin lesions on the face consistent with beatings…

17. During a visit of the ICRC at Camp Bucca on 22 September 2003, a 61-year-old person deprived of his liberty alleged that he had been tied, hooded and forced to sit on the hot surface of what he surmised to be the engine of a vehicle, which had caused severe burns to his buttocks. The victim had lost consciousness. The ICRC observed large crusted lesions consistent with his allegation.

[…]

27. In mid-October 2003, the ICRC visited persons deprived of their liberty undergoing interrogation by military intelligence officers in Unit 1A, the “isolation section” of “Abu Ghraib” Correctional Facility. Most of these persons deprived of their liberty had been arrested in early October. … During the visit, ICRC delegates directly witnessed and documented a variety of methods used to secure the cooperation of the persons deprived of their liberty with their interrogators. In particularly they witnessed the practice of keeping persons deprived of their liberty completely naked in totally empty concrete cells and in total darkness, allegedly for several consecutive days…

The ICRC documented other forms of ill-treatment, usually combined with those described above, including threats, insults, verbal violence, sleep deprivation caused by the playing of loud music or constant light in cells devoid of windows, tight handcuffing with flexi-cuffs causing lesions and wounds around the wrists. Punishment included being made to walk in the corridors handcuffed and naked, or with women’s underwear on the head, or being handcuffed either dressed or naked to the bed bars or the cell door.

So the ICRC knew about the Abu Ghraib abuse by late October.

Now let’s turn to the specific claims made by the SMH:

Major O’Kane worked at US military headquarters with the office of the US staff judge advocate, Colonel Marc Warren, the senior legal officer in Iraq, for six months to February.

[…]

Major O’Kane was involved in drafting a letter responding to the concerns of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) which argued that some prisoners were not subject to the full protection of the Geneva conventions.

The ICRC said in a November report that during visits to Iraqi jails in October its staff had witnessed and documented ill-treatment including physical violence, verbal abuse, enforced nudity and prolonged shackling in uncomfortable positions.

It is almost certain, then, that he knew about the abuse in November. It is highly plausible that he would have known about it sooner, because “the ICRC conveys its findings and recommendations to the detaining authorities by making an immediate report to the authorities on the spot and then presenting its findings and recommendations in writing to their superiors”. If I had received the initial, verbal report, I would certainly have contacted the Coalition’s lawyers, knowing that they would want to start preparing their response before the written report arrived.

But hey, all this guesswork is unnecessary, because Uncle kindly points us to this defence from Howard:

Mr Howard acknowledged that Major O’Kane had seen a Red Cross report in October, but he said it was “quite nonsensical” to suggest that he or the Australian Government were aware of the more serious claims made by the ICRC in a February report.

It’s a good line, because most people won’t hear that the February report is a summary of its previous reports, including the one from Abu Ghraib in October.

But for Uncle, denying the plausible suggestion that an Australian had heard about the abuse allegations is not enough. He goes on to suggest that the abuse itself might never have happened. He quoted this passage:

“Defence has publicly stated that no Australian Defence Force member witnessed any mistreatment of detainees,” he thundered.

Hello? No one said they were involved or that they witnessed it - just that they were told about it. (Uncle’s emphasis.)

… and then asked, “do you see how the allegation, about which “doubts remain”, has become a simple fact - ‘it‘.”

The allegation (”it”) is, of course, “any mistreatment of detainees”. I thought any remaining doubts about whether that occurred were dispelled by photos like this:

Apparently not — at least in the vortex of Uncle’s parallel universe.

Update: In his previous post, Uncle tells us we should have left the Timorese at the mercy of the Indonesian military and a genocidal militia.

Michael Brissenden: What about the suggestion from the Labor Party that you appoint an independent auditor to look into this, to take it out of the hands of politicians altogether.

What’s wrong with that?

Eric Abetz: I don’t think too many Australians would be putting up their hand as the auditor of those sorts of things.

Are you kidding? Just because you are not prepared to scrutinise what MPs are doing doesn’t mean nobody else is! I bet there are thousands of people who want to be paid quite a lot of money to tell politicians not to rort their entitlements!

Ragging on MPs who rip off the system is a national sport. Isn’t it about time it turned professional?

Yesterday I argued that “we don’t need new rules to prevent Draper-style rorts — we just need someone who’s capable of enforcing the existing rules.” Today, John Howard decided I was right:

[H]e has told a meeting of Coalition MPs that after discussing the matter with his senior colleagues, the Government has decided not to change the laws.

Instead, it will ensure stricter enforcement of the rules.

If politicians travel with someone else at taxpayers’ expense, MPs will have to certify in writing that that person is their husband or wife, or that they live under the same roof.

This is surely an admission that Trish Draper broke the rules, and that Eric Abetz failed in his responsibility to ensure that they were complied with. After all, if (as Howard, Abetz and Draper maintained) her actions were within the current rules, then mere enforcement of those rules would not prevent her from rorting again. Will we hear the three of them apologise for misleading parliament by claiming she was innocent? Not bloody likely.

Meanwhile, Crikey is hinting that another serious travel-related problem is about to blow up for the Libs. I don’t mean David Tollner’s drunk and disorderly conduct recently, either. Apparently someone’s been using their taxpayer-funded charter plane to ferry Liberal hacks to party functions. Tut tut.

John Howard has done a really good job making sure that undesirable advice doesn’t reach him. The latest example is the Draper Affair:

The Prime Minister, John Howard, appears to have misled Parliament by saying the Liberal backbencher Trish Draper had not breached parliamentary travel rules by taking her lover on a $10,000 overseas study trip.

Mr Howard’s office said he had relied for his defence of Mrs Draper on information given to him by the Special Minister of State, Eric Abetz.

The information appears to misrepresent the rules for politicians’ domestic travel as being applicable to overseas travel.

The correct guideline, according to the Remuneration Tribunal, confirms that Mrs Draper was not entitled to take a casual lover on her trip.

Howard should sack Abetz. He should know what the guidelines are, or at least be able to look them up before writing a letter of exoneration to Draper.

Abetz has also been caught printing Liberal Party propaganda on his Senate entitlements. There might be a case for bringing the rules into line with the House of Representatives, but until then Abetz should follow them as they are — especially since he’s responsible for administering them.

It’s important to remember, too, as Howard craps on about tightening the rules relating to MPs’ travel, that we don’t need new rules to prevent Draper-style rorts — we just need someone who’s capable of enforcing the existing rules.

You know, like an independent auditor.

So, Howard’s scared that Draper will lose her seat, and has ordered her to pay back the money she rorted to take her boyfriend on a round-the-world trip.

And the Libs are going to tighten the rules. Apart from the fact that — ministerial stonewalling notwithstanding — Draper is in clear breach of the current rules, the new ones won’t address a major flaw in the system:

Last week, the office of the Special Minister of State, Eric Abetz, admitted there was no system for checking who politicians took with them on taxpayer-funded jaunts overseas, so long as they were heterosexual couples.

[…]

Asked if gay parliamentarians would gain the same rights as others, he said: “I’m not sure I understand. First [our critics] say eligibility should be tightened, then that it should be expanded. I thought one of the criticisms made was that lovers shouldn’t go.”

So Brian Greig’s live-in partner of eighteen years is a “lover”, while Trish Draper’s fling is a “spouse”? Puh-lease.

Punishing monogamy, rewarding promiscuity: forgive me if I consider your “family values” perverse.

(I should also add that the injunction that sparked my interest in this scandal has been quashed. The initial judge’s decision that comments linking the boyfriend to a murder investigation were unacceptable was overturned.)

I’m quite pissed off by the Victorian “Labor” Government’s latest threats against the labour movement:

Energy Minister Theo Theophanous said he would seriously consider invoking the Emergency Services Act [sic — it’s the Emergency Management Act] if talks this week failed to solve the dispute over demands for a 36-hour week and new apprentices.

Mr Theophanous said bans by the Electrical Trades Union had prevented power being connected to almost 400 new businesses, which was becoming a problem for the Victorian commercial community.

A problem for the “commercial community”, and the Labor government wants to invoke its emergency powers against the union.

What a disgrace.

I had the pleasure of meeting one of my favourite bloggers yesterday: Christopher Sheil. We had an interesting chat about the upcoming federal election, trade unionism, Iraq, and the meaning of blogging. Lots of fun.

I’ve met quite a few interesting people through blogging: Gareth Parker, Jason Soon, Alan Anderson, Vaara, and now Chris. And I’m going to meet a bunch more next month…

In my previous post on the Draper injunction, I wrote:

If this decision (which is not yet available online) suggests that the Courts are moving towards a more stifling approach, then I sincerely hope that it is overturned on appeal.

Thankfully, I don’t think that’s what happened. The ABC has revealed a detail that was not mentioned in initial reports:

Judge Tony Bishop said he would not have imposed an injunction if the story was just about a travel rort.

He said he was concerned Channel Seven referred to Mr Sands as a murder suspect.

An injunction to prevent the publication of material that might prejudice an ongoing criminal proceeding is entirely justifiable, in my opinion. However, it would have been possible to grant an injunction about that specific information, leaving Channel Seven free to discuss the other issues surrounding Trish Draper’s entitlements.

On that matter, the Libs seem to have gotten themselves into a bit of a tangle.

First, there’s this:

Prime Minister John Howard says the trip was within the rules because a spouse does not have to be a live-in partner.

Likewise, a spokesman for the Minister responsible, Eric Abetz, said:

You don’t have to be married. You can take a de facto on overseas travel and a de facto doesn’t have to be living with you in the same house.

But that’s not what the Department says. On the contrary: if you’re not married you must be cohabiting:

The Department of Finance defines a spouse as someone living in together on a genuine domestic basis.

Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Howard should enforce his Code of Conduct — but (as usual) he won’t.

I wouldn’t be so annoyed about this except that it’s taken five years for Brian Greig to be given the same entitlement for his partner of eighteen years that Trish Draper is given for a boyfriend who doesn’t even live with her. It’s a question of fairness.

(By the way, the timing’s delicious. Here’s Costello telling us how important the South Australian marginals are to the upcoming election; here he is defending travel rorts by the holder of one of those marginals…)

Career righties like Richard Alston and Andrew Bolt lead the offensive, levelling charges of bias at the ABC. This speaks volumes.

Also witness Bolt, whose (much) less-than-weekly appearance on Insiders has cost the Australian taxpayer $30 000 over the last couple of years, railing against the use of taxpayers’ funds to push ideological cant.

All very interesting.

(Welcome back, Gareth.)

This is a disturbing situation:

The Liberal Party MP for Makin, South Australia, Trish Draper, obtained an injunction at the weekend to stop Today Tonight from airing details of a $10,000 overseas trip she took almost four years ago with a man who is not her husband.

Courts are traditionally reluctant to grant interlocutory injunctions to prevent the publication of defamatory material where freedom of speech is concerned. This is especially true where the matter involves allegations of impropriety against a Member of Parliament.

The general principle was outlined by Hunt J in the Scientology v Readers Digest case:

I accept as the settled law that the power to grant interlocutory injunctions in defamations must be exercised with great caution and only in very clear cases. A plaintiff must establish that a subsequent finding by a jury that the matter complained of was not defamatory of him would be set aside as unreasonable, that there is no real ground for supposing that the defendant may succeed upon any defence of justification, privilege or comment, and that he is likely to recover more than nominal damages only. In particular, questions of privilege and malice are not normally appropriate to be decided upon an interlocutory application. Nor will an injunction go which will have the effect of restraining the discussion in the press of matters of public interest or concern.

Although in a subsequent case (Chappell v Channel 9) a certain amount of flexibility was introduced, it was nonetheless held that the “independent and overriding principle” is the primacy of “the right of the community in general to discuss in public matters of public interest and concern and to be informed of the different views held by others.”

From the limited facts that have been published, the Today Tonight story seems to centre on the definition of “spouse” as it relates to the travel entitlements of federal members of parliament. I find it very difficult to believe that this is not a public matter of public interest and concern, or that it would be unreasonable for a jury to find that no defamation had occurred.

If this decision (which is not yet available online) suggests that the Courts are moving towards a more stifling approach, then I sincerely hope that it is overturned on appeal. We certainly can’t rely on Philip Ruddock’s intervention, as he seems to favour abrogation of the debate that is essential to the proper functioning of our democracy.

Well, Six Apart have altered their licensing arrangements faster than I thought.

They’ve removed the “one CPU” restriction, saying it wasn’t meant to be included in the first place. It seems like an odd thing to accidentally include, but whatever: these things happen.

They’ve changed the definition of “weblog” in the license so that it doesn’t mean the same thing as “weblog” in the software. While it’s a fairer arrangement, using the same word in two different senses is not a good idea — it’s only going to confuse people.

And most importantly, they’ve increased the limits on authors and weblogs for each of the license options — except the free one. And US$100 for the cheapest personal edition is still very steep when there are good (and improving) free alternatives available — which will stay free.

Six Apart have pissed off their community. Even Scripty Goddess, one of those tireless volunteers who helps out newbies in the support forum, is angry. Not because she’s not willing to pay, but because Six Apart betrayed her (and others): “MT PRO should be the ‘pay’ one and MT 3.0 remain free. (Isn’t this what we were lead to believe all along?)”

And there is still nothing more than a rhetorical “commitment to a free version”. The free version still comes with no “guaranteed pathway to future versions”. And there’s another little betrayal, too:

The implication here still is that MT 3.0 is the last free version. There’s also that restriction requiring MT upgraders to sign up for TypeKey to download the product, when we were assured that TypeKey would not be required for MT. This is a complete reversal from an earlier Six Apart communication. Why a MT upgrader must have TypeKey makes no sense.

This is not really about the money involved: it’s about building a community to support your work and your product, making promises about what the future of the product will be, and then pulling the rug out from under everyone.

Unless Six Apart makes some more changes, next time I want to upgrade this site I’ll be going elsewhere. I’ll chuck them a donation for the time I’ve spent using their excellent software, but I’m really quite pissed off by the way they’ve handled the transition to a fee-based structure.

Fucking capitalism… ;-)