Not since Suleyman the magnificent...

The threat from the north, of course, has been immense: an invasion of 14 wet and weary Turkish Kurds on a leaky fishing boat.

Not since Suleyman the Magnificent expanded the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century has the world seen such a terrifying army on the march. A desperate effort was required to stop the interlopers, lest they cleverly forced us to honour our own laws.

and:

The Wahabis' radical beliefs have led to members being banned from visiting the mainstream Lakemba mosque. It is presumably one of the most-under-surveillance buildings in the country.

Did ASIO wonder about this muscular and dreadlocked French convert, suddenly hanging around, and already in breach of his three-month visa?

Did they ask the French about his background? No. So then Brigitte marries a local woman, and does so, according to one report, in that same Wahabi hall. Brigitte's bride is a recent convert to Islam. She's also a former soldier in the Australian military.

Any questions yet? No. None. Just what does it take to make ASIO curious? It's as if Brigitte is jumping up and down, trying to get himself noticed. He's like Kath, from Kath & Kim, yelling: 'Look at moi, look at moi.'

It's not until the French authorities contact the Australians that ASIO finally makes inquiries, and we get the usual statesmanlike speeches from the Prime Minister and the Premier about our excellent security services.

National security is a great thing. But instead of swaggering talk, and the occasional bashing of boat people, most of us may prefer the real thing.

The government, when they finally arrested Brigitte, immediately sent him back to France like any harmless overstayed visitor. That did not stop Ruddock claiming that they had squashed a major terrorist attempt or that laws passed as drafted by the government stopped them doing whatever it is they should have done to Brigitte for whatever it is that he was doing if only Labor had agreed to the laws they actually agreed to.

Frankly I am beginning to dread the day when Grand Inquisitor Ruddock rises in the house, unzips himself and starts bellowing that when it comes to national security, size does matter.

Talking Points Memo

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And if you're already pretty corrupt when you get the power ... well, then things can really get bad pretty quick, as we're seeing.

What a great, great line...

Reg the dog might be happy, but we're trading in our culture

As I understand it, the world's largest economy, with most of its largest corporations, will get free and unfettered access to our markets, and the world's 40th or so largest economy (that's us) - whose locally owned corporations now consist entirely and solely of the management company responsible for licensing Puppetry of the Penis - will get free and unfettered access to a market which has dealt with the problem of wages cost by increasingly drawing on the services of a casual employment provider known as Mexico.

The free trade agreement has been offered to us as a consequence of our participation in the war on terrorism, the war on Iraq and next year's invasion of Spain - and given that it is seen as a reward, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that had we not gone, the US would have rebombed Darwin.

The major setback so far has been the attempt to rally the public behind Australian artists and the protection of local content, especially in the world of cinema. There are two reasons for this. One is the postmodern transformation of the nature of national identity in a globalised context, and the other is that Australian films suck.

Actually, I suspect the USFTA is dead on its feet. Any changes to the PBS, the cultural diversity rules or the single wheat desk in the FTA would need legislative action to bring them into force and they are not going to pass the Senate. The Hanson release has probably made a double dissolution (at which Hanson would need only half the quota she would need at a regular senate election) the very last thing John Howard wants. The US agriculture lobby is violently opposed to free trade in agriculture and unlikely to agree to any trade openings. 2004 is an election year and the electoral college empowers special interests.

The FTA has already left the building.

President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. (Applause.)

Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)

We can all look forward to US pressure to ensure that Israel observes human rights in the Occupied Territories and that Egypt releases members of the Islamic opposition from jail and lets them run for parliament.

I notice Human Rights Watch has some recommendations for both Egypt and Israel.

On the other hand, cynics might see this as yet another Bush speech that says a lot but has absolutely zero, zip, nada results in action or programs. I say let the cynics bark, Bush's phone calls demanding action on human rights to Mubarak and Sharon will give them the lie.

Innocent, but not as pure as it is painted

The appeal court - in a technical judgement - found that the confused procedures used for signing up members of the two groups - Pauline Hanson's One Nation and the Pauline Hanson Support Movement - had in reality made many of them full members of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, with voting rights.

In her judgement overturning the convictions of Hanson and Ettridge, the president of the Court of Appeal, Margaret McMurdo said: 'When all the evidence is considered, the prosecution was unable to negate the inference reasonably open that those on the list given to the Electoral Commission were members of the political party, Pauline Hanson's One Nation, and that the statements made by Hanson and Ettridge to the opposite effect were simply misinformation intended to confuse the membership and to entrench the management committee's grip on power under the constitution.'

So much for Pauline Hanson's belief in grassroots democracy.

John Quiggin blogs that Hanson's conviction was 'unfair and unjust'. I disagree. The judgment says that the conduct of proceedings by the trial judge were completely lawful. I also think Geoff Kitney is wrong to say that the judgment was 'technical' as if that somehow vitiated the acquittal.

The court did not find that Hanson should not have been prosecuted, only that the PHSM members were also (without their knowledge) PHON members. That point was not argued at trial. The law does not know any offfence of denying party members their voting rights in party affairs and running a political party as a dictatorship. Perhaps it should.

His own private Guant�namo

Always eager to keep up with the Bushes, the Howard government has created a watery Guant�namo off Melville Island in the Northen Territory.

The [NT] Supreme Court in Darwin has been told that 14 suspected Turkish asylum seekers are no longer in Australia.

Lawyers in Darwin lodged an application to allow the asylum seekers to apply for refugee status

However, lawyers for the Federal Government have told the court the asylum seekers are now outside Australia, are not in custody or detention, and are free to go anywhere they like except Australia."

According to John-Pierre Fonteyne, professor of international law at the Australian National University:

'That is essentially the upshot. We can pretend as much as we want that they haven't reached Australian territory, but in terms of international law they have. Therefore our obligations under the convention apply. You can't use your domestic law to simply pretend that an international obligation under the 1951 Convention on Refugees doesn't apply because you've passed a domestic law which says 'it doesn't apply to us.' As I have suggested in an article previously, why don't we just excise the whole of Australia from the Australian migration zone, and we would have no problem at all. Wouldn't matter where they arrived, we wouldn't have to process them.'

What the NT Supreme Court does with the government's attempt to exclude its jurisdiction should be interesting.

Legal doubts over banning Greens

Senate staff were ordered to defy an official demand to use force against Greens senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle to prevent them from attending last month's parliamentary address by Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Harry Evans, the veteran Clerk of the Senate, told an estimates committee yesterday that there was no constitutional basis for the conduct of joint sittings of parliament to hear speeches by foreign leaders.

According to Mr Evans, a security directive jointly signed by Speaker Neil Andrew and Senate President Paul Calvert to apprehend senators Brown and Nettle was possibly unlawful. Both Greens senators were banned from parliament for 24 hours after standing to heckle US President George W. Bush and refusing to accede to the chair.

The next morning, before Mr Hu's speech, Mr Andrew and Senator Calvert issued a directive to senior parliamentary staff saying: 'We hereby authorise you ... to take appropriate measures, including in the event that it is necessary, preventative force, to enforce the suspension.'

But Mr Evans said he had instructed Senate attendants under his control to defy the directive. 'It would be highly undesirable to have Senate officers assaulting senators,' Mr Evans told the estimates committee.

He said it was 'extremely dubious' whether the presiding officers had the authority to ban the senators from Mr Hu's address. Asked if the presiding officers' directive was lawful, Mr Evans said this was 'a very moot question'.

I am still hunting through the chaos of the parliamentary website to see if I can find a transcript.

Update

The Estimates Committee hansard (PDF) has Evans testimony on the dubious legality of both the suspensions and the steps taken by the Speaker and the President of the Senate to enforce them.

Senator FAULKNER�Do you as Senate Clerk have a view as to whether it is competent for senators to be named and excluded?

Mr Evans�The resolution of the House of Representatives agreed to by the Senate says that the rules of the House of Representatives shall apply so far as they are applicable. That is one of those phrases that drafters of things put in when they are not sure what the situation is, what the interpretation should be and how the rules are going to apply. They put that in and keep their fingers crossed that they do not have to interpret it. You can argue a great deal about what that expression means and how far the rules were applicable. There is a great difficulty with having, simultaneously, a meeting of the Senate�which this is�and a meeting of the House of Representatives in the House of Representatives chamber and saying that someone else�the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives voting on the question�can decide whether a senator is permitted to attend a meeting of the Senate. You can say that that is a question so significant to the Senate and so exclusively for the Senate to determine that that adoption of House of Representatives rules cannot possibly extend to that question. If it were a legal question before the High Court, a great many QCs would receive a great deal of money for arguing it. But it is very dubious that that sort of expression in that resolution covers that sort of situation.

Senator FAULKNER�Has the Department of the Senate given any consideration�again, in the broad� to the actual constitutionality of such a joint meeting?

Mr Evans�Not again. These questions were raised when this procedure was first adopted. They have not been revisited in any systematic fashion. But there are great potential difficulties with the two houses having simultaneous meetings and then providing that someone else will preside over what is in effect a meeting of the Senate and that members of the House of Representatives will be voting about what goes on in a meeting of the Senate. There is a great difficulty with that situation. All this was raised back in 1991. I raised it with everybody who was willing to listen to me, and a good many were not. Some were and some were not. There has been no systematic revisit of it.

CHAIR�Senator Brandis, I think you had a few questions.

Senator BRANDIS�Do you mind if I pursue this same issue, Senator Faulkner?

Senator FAULKNER�Not at all, Senator Brandis.

Senator BRANDIS�Mr Evans, what do you say was the constitutional character of the proceedings in the House of Representatives chamber for President Bush and President Hu? Mr Evans�On one view it had no constitutional character because it is not provided for in the Constitution but, theoretically, it was a meeting of the Senate which happened to be taking place in the House of Representatives chamber at the same time as a meeting of the House of Representatives was occurring there. This is the way in which it was framed in the resolutions. The Senate, in its resolution, agrees to meet for that purpose�for the purpose of receiving the address�and it agrees to meet simultaneously with the House of Representatives in the House chamber.

Senator BRANDIS�So it was not a joint sitting?

Mr Evans�No. I have been very careful and I have tried to persuade other people to be careful about calling it a joint meeting rather than a joint sitting to distinguish it from the joint sitting, which is a particular arrangement occurring under the Constitution.

Senator FAULKNER�I think the Hansard record of these particular hearings will show that I am one at least who is convinced on that point.

Mr Evans�Section 57 of the Constitution refers to a joint sitting where the members of the two houses will meet and vote together, so it is a different body constituted under that provision of the Constitution. It is not a meeting of the Senate, it is not a meeting of the House of Representatives; it is an entirely different body consisting of the members of the two houses meeting and voting together. As a purist I take the view that it is not open to the two houses to authorise that sort of different body to meet for any purpose other than under section 57 of the Constitution.

Senator BRANDIS�Is that because the joint sitting contemplated by section 57 operates under the circumstances provided for by section 57�that is, after a double dissolution election and not otherwise?

Mr Evans�Precisely.

Senator BRANDIS�There is nowhere else in the Constitution is there which provides for a joint sitting?

Mr Evans�No. There is a provision in the Constitution, section 50, which says the two houses can provide rules for their proceedings either separately or jointly with the other house, or some words to that effect. Some people take the view that that authorises the houses to hold joint meetings on all manner of things if they want to; other people take the view that that refers specifically to the joint sitting under section 57 and nothing else, which is the only constitutionally authorised joint proceedings.

I am not sure embarrassment is a good enough reason to override the constitution. The whole mess has now been referred to the Senate Privileges Committee.

Bonobo Society: Amicable, Amorous and Run by Females

Nature's raucous bestiary rarely serves up good role models for human behavior, unless you happen to work on the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange. But there is one creature that stands out from the chest-thumping masses as an example of amicability, sensitivity and, well, humaneness: a little-known ape called the bonobo, or, less accurately, the pygmy chimpanzee.

Before bonobos can be fully appreciated, however, two human prejudices must be overcome. The first is, fellows, the female bonobo is the dominant sex, though the dominance is so mild and unobnoxious that some researchers view bonobo society as a matter of 'co-dominance,' or equality between the sexes. Fancy that.

The second hurdle is human squeamishness about what in the 80s were called PDAs, or public displays of affection, in this case very graphic ones. Bonobos lubricate the gears of social harmony with sex, in all possible permutations and combinations: males with females, males with males, females with females, and even infants with adults. The sexual acts include intercourse, genital-to-genital rubbing, oral sex, mutual masturbation and even a practice that people once thought they had a patent on: French kissing.

Bonobos use sex to appease, to bond, to make up after a fight, to ease tensions, to cement alliances. Humans generally wait until after a nice meal to make love; bonobos do it beforehand, to alleviate the stress and competitiveness often seen among animals when they encounter a source of food.

I think I'll take the bonobo approach over octopuses, baboons, capuchin monkeys and Homo Crawfordensis any day.

Number of troops in Iraq to expand

Washington The Pentagon has decided to dispatch thousands of Marines to Iraq early next year as part of a revised troop rotation that will swell the size of the US occupation by up to 50,000 troops during critical months when the United States hopes to hand off greater security responsibilities to Iraqis, senior defense officials said yesterday.

Pentagon officials say the new plan is aimed at adding manpower to improve security in the short term -- when troop numbers will increase from the current 130,000 to as many as 180,000 -- but also meeting President Bush's goal of shrinking the force to 100,000 by the middle of next year.

Two Marine brigades -- with a total of between 12,000 and 20,000 active and reserve troops -- will be heading to Iraq beginning no earlier than January, the officials said. They will join a force that, under an existing rotation plan, will be temporarily increased by about 30,000, by having more troops arrive before others go home.

The plan will be announced today, officials said.

Yesterday, Marine Corps General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a congressional hearing that the Pentagon would be 'issuing orders tonight' that 'include a call-up of reserves. It does include use of land forces. It does include the Navy and Air Force.'

I have no idea how this fits in with Rumsfeld's Iraqification claims last Sunday. I guess a week is a long time in making stuff up as you go along.

Britain is furious with America

It is no good for British supporters of George Bush to accuse his critics of anti-Americanism. It is a plain statement of the facts that the allies are today in a dreadful mess in Iraq, as a direct consequent of culpable blunders by Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their friends, who understand everything about American military power and nothing about the human behaviour of societies other than their own.

They were told again and again, long before the war, that Iraqi celebration and gratitude for the fall of Saddam would last five minutes, to be followed by a huge requirement for troops to maintain security, and vociferous Iraqi demands to make the sewage system work. In 1945, the Germans and the Japanese did not show themselves penitent, but they knew that they were defeated, and abased themselves accordingly. The Iraqis, however, have been told that they are not enemies, but victims. In consequence, they are today behaving with the extravagant petulance of all other paid-up members of the compensation culture. They treat the allies as if they were political leaders who have failed to deliver on election promises.

The British urged the Americans not to disband the Iraqi army, but to keep it in being and continue to pay its soldiers. They advised strongly against President Bush's Leninist policy of telling Iraqis that 'he who is not for me is against me'. They urged that it would be wiser instead to treat as a potential friend any Iraqi who did not take up arms against the occupiers. All this was ignored.

The British have no confidence in Paul Bremer, the American overlord of Iraq, whose political process is advancing at a snail%u2019s pace. As for the American military performance, four years ago I attended an Anglo-French conference in Paris on peacekeeping. The unanimous view of the soldiers and diplomats assembled, who shared great experience of failed societies, was that the Americans should never be asked to do peacekeeping, because they are so bad at it.

Go read the whole thing.

Erectile tissue found in octopus 'fingers'

In most octopus males, the tip of one of their eight arms is used to pass spermatophores, little packages filled with sperm, to females during mating. Thompson and Voight found the extra modification in one species of shallow-water octopus.

Thompson, who called the finding weird, said biologists have looked for erectile tissue in other molluscs but not found them.

It is not surprising that no-one has noticed this before, Thompson said.

Octopuses, known for their intelligence and complex behaviour, are shy animals. Observing their mating is difficult and often the females attack and eat the males during courtship.

And you thought baboon males have it bad. It was almost certainly a Liliputian octopus. Blefuscan octopuses are far too well-behaved.

Wedged into the heartless zone

This first rise in rates for 18 months begins to change the political landscape. If it is followed by others, it could transform it. The choices facing voters would become much more stark: the wedge or the wallet?

Recent history gives a clue to the impact of these fear factors.

The last time interest rates rose - in two 0.25 percentage point steps in May and June last year - the polls started to turn Labor's way within six weeks. By mid-July, Labor had gone from 4 points behind to a rare, narrow two-party preferred lead.

But in mid-October - after the Bali bombings and amid swirling fears of possible terrorist attacks on Australian soil - the Coalition snapped back to a 10 per cent lead.

It's easy to see why the Howard Government is again whipping up national security and border protection. And if rates continue rising, watch that whip crack a lot harder.

The issue the opposition and minor parties should be arguing a lot more is that the Howard government is not terribly good at the War on Terror. Why was Brigitte sent back to France without any serious investigation? And why did Attorney-General Ruddock then claim that the drastic powers which went through parliament unamended were too weak because of Labor's intransigence? And, for that matter, why were the Taliban and al-Qa'ida not proclaimed as enemies of the Commonwelath so that Hicks could be prosecuted for treachery in Australia?

Hanson freed after winning appeal

One Nation co-founders Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge were set free today after a court overturned their convictions for electoral fraud.

Queensland Chief Justice Paul de Jersey told a stunned courtroom the Court of Appeal had acquitted both Ms Hanson and Mr Ettridge.

They had served 11 weeks in jail since a Brisbane District Court jury found them guilty in August.

Ms Hanson and Mr Ettridge embraced soon after their release tonight.

A tearful Ms Hanson called for reform of the justice system and urged retired judges and lawyers to join a campaign to assist those who were wrongly jailed.

'The system let me down like it let a lot of people down,' she said outside the gates of Brisbane Women's Prison.

'I've learnt from this experience and I do think I'm wiser for it.'

This is a first. I was moved by what Pauline Hanson said on here release, especially the clear solidarity with those she described as failed by the system and left behind bars.

The dripping sound you can hear in the background is law ploggers salivating while they read R v Hanson, R v Etteridge.

Labor smells a new Tampa

The day he was appointed Attorney-General, it was obvious Philip Ruddock had been anointed as a central player in the run-up to next year's election. John Howard knew the Government had to keep national security up in lights as an issue and Ruddock had the toughness and political skills to do that.

That was the plan at reshuffle time but in politics, chance is important too. For Ruddock the matter of Frenchman Willie Brigitte, accused of being a terrorist with al-Qaeda connections, has come as a stroke of good political timing. It has given an early focus to his mission.

Just as Labor thought it was making ground on bread-and-butter issues, especially health, it is back in trouble. Yesterday's Newspoll, showing the Coalition getting a big bounce from the Bush/Hu visits, is less important for itself than for its likely effect in feeding back into perceptions about Simon Crean and the morale of the party.

Let's see, Ruddock blames Labor for Brigitte's release, even though the sections under which Brigitte should have been prosecuted passed the aprlaiment unchanged. Those sections are exactly as the government drafted them.

The French laws which Ruddock apparently finds more desirable allow terrorist supects to be held for up to 3 years without trial. There could be advantages to apssing such a law - given 3 years, even this government and this attorney-general might be able to work out what to do with a suspect.

As for the unopposed and unamended sections, Ruddock's spokescreature answered that question by saying it was 'moot'. Were they amended or were they not? Even in these exciting pomo times it should be possible to answer yes, or no.

The Green Man: Harry Potter And The Kyrgyzstan Body Parts.

The post hasn't got anything to do with Harry Potter actually but my hits have been dropping off a bit lately so I thought it was time to give him a mention.

I unequivocally condemn those bloggers who try to inflate their hit count by mentioning people like Harry Potter...

Process asylum seekers, UN tells Australia

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) met with federal government representatives yesterday who assured the agency Australia would apply the refugee convention to the asylum seekers who reached the island aboard an Indonesian fishing vessel.

The government immediately moved to excise Melville Island and thousands of others from the migration zone to prevent the Turkish asylum seekers from applying for refugee status or accessing Australia's legal system.

But UNHCR regional representative Michel Gabaudan said the asylum seekers were Australia's responsibility and any attempt to return them to Indonesia was concerning.

Ho hum...

Death by Optimism

Evidence suggests that Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney may have actually believed that our troops would be, as Mr. Cheney predicted, 'greeted as liberators.' The administration chose to rely not on intelligence but on wishful thinking, and it became intoxicated by the siren calls of Ahmad Chalabi, a silver-tongued charlatan.

I wish administration officials were lying, because I would prefer hypocrisy to delusion - at least hypocritical officials make decisions with accurate information.

At last, if not by intent, someone has captured the exact distinction between the Howard and Bush governments

Latest Sun Flare Likely Strongest of Modern Era

A flare released by the Sun on Tuesday could be the most powerful ever witnessed, a monster X-ray eruption twice as strong as anything detected since satellites were capable of spotting them starting in the mid-1970s.

The strongest flares on record, in 1989 and 2001, were rated at X20. This one is at least that powerful, scientists say. But because it saturated the X-ray detector aboard NOAA's GOES satellite that monitors the Sun, a full analysis has not been done.

The satellite was blinded for 11 minutes.

The aurora australis gets another chance. On the other hand, if you're starting to obsess about sun storms, keep an eye on them.

Rumsfeld's new model army

While the manpower crisis on the ground is bad - there are just not enough troops available to match the administration's imperial sprawl - it is likely to get a whole lot worse. A recent poll by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes found that only 49 percent of the reserves intend to re-enlist.

So is this blind folly? Or does 'transformation' offer an unseen benefit? 'The arguments in support of technological monism echo down the halls of the Pentagon,' Major-General Robert Scales (Retired) told the House Armed Service Committee on October 21, 'precisely because they involve the expenditures of huge sums of money to defense contractors.'

In the 2002 election cycle, US arms corporations' political action committees spent US$7,620,741, two-thirds of which went to the Republican Party. 'Transformation' might not work well once the initial 'shock and awe' of battle is over, but it can be a formidable re-election machine.

When the 'Young Turks' of the French army adopted the doctrine of elan, they were certain it was a formula for victory. The battle of the Marne convinced them otherwise, and the French abandoned the tactic. Of course the French general staff wasn't running for office.

Elan was supposed to save the French army from German technological superiority (no-one asked why the Germans would not have the same �lan). The Bush administration has a new version. It is the now to be the �lan of the civilian leadership, embedded in the White House, that determines the outcome of wars.

Australia's 'regional sheriff' policy

A clear mandate and robust rules of engagement, as in the case of East Timor, are perceived as significantly contributing to the success of any intervention. Therefore, Australia also secured a clear mandate and robust rules of engagement before intervening in the Solomon Islands. This was the reason Canberra wanted a resolution passed by the local parliament.

The third step to be followed in future multilateral interventions will be to devise an exit strategy. In 1999, in order to intervene in East Timor, Australia demanded that the multinational force should be replaced as soon as possible by a UN peacekeeping operation. For several reasons, Canberra did not wish to be trapped in a long-term commitment in Timor. Medium-to-long-term commitments by the Australian Defense Forces (ADF) are not only costly, they also threaten to overstretch the troops. For these reasons, Howard did not wish to be trapped in a long-term police and military commitment in the Solomons. Thus, as soon as law and order were restored, Australia started to scale down its police and military presence.

In sum, Australia may well play the role of the regional sheriff again in the future. But under current policy, Australian-led multilateral interventions will likely occur only when explicit authorization, a clear and robust mandate, and an exit strategy are all guaranteed.

The sheriff policy and the Howard doctrine are actually different things. the sheriff policy is thoughtful, multilateral and consistent with international law. The Howard doctrine of unilateral preemptive strikes is none of those.

The Howard doctrine, of course, is not intended to be implemented, ever. Proclaiming it loudly has major domestic advantages, but actually following it would not. The 3 tests the Howard government uses for its intervention strategy were not applied in Iraq, and that's a great pity.

Even the exclusion of the UN from the intervention policy is likely a temporary feature that will fade with time.