The idea that terrorists might be people after all, is beginning to seep in ... from Indonesia. Rehabilitation of terrorists is being considered as a real possibility.

This idea put forward by Police Commissioner Mick Keelty on telly last night, that the Australian government is considering a system of rehabilitating terrorists, is quite extraordinary.

"Thinking outside the chamber", road to surfdom, March 09, 2006

It is extraordinary because until now the kill, kill, kill approach has been adhered to so steadfastly by our political leaders.

MICK KEELTY: Well, it would require a policy change here and, to put it into some perspective here, if you take, for example, the problem of drugs, for many years people have thought, well, can we force people into treatment to get them to overcome their problem? Even in the jail system, can we impose a treatment regime on people and it's a policy question that really hasn't been addressed here and really certainly hasn't been imposed. There's nowhere in Australia where drug addicts, if you like, are forced into treatment to overcome their problem. So, essentially, it would be a threshold question in terms of policy as to whether we would engage in something that forces people into some sort of deprogramming or deradicalisation.

Tony Jones, "Keelty discusses reprogramming terrorists", ABC Lateline, 08/03/2006

US losing web war, says Rumsfeld
Daniel Trotta in New York
FEBRUARY 20, 2006

THE US lags al Qaida in getting out information in the digital media age and must update its old-fashioned methods, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said

Modernisation is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide who are bombarded with negative images of the West, Mr Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Pentagon chief said today's weapons of war included email, Blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras and blogs.

"Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but ? our country has not adapted," Mr Rumsfeld said.

"For the most part, the US government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world," Mr Rumsfeld said.

Mr Rumsfeld said US military public affairs officers must learn to anticipate news and respond faster, and good public affairs officers should be rewarded with promotions.

The military's information offices still operate mostly eight hours a day, five or six days a week while the challenges they faces occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mr Rumsfeld called that a "dangerous deficiency."

Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy immediately criticised Mr Rumsfeld as missing the point.

"Clearly, we need to improve our public diplomacy and information age communication in the Muslim world," Senator Kennedy said in a statement. "But nothing has done more to encourage increased al Qaida recruitment and made America less safe than the war in Iraq and the incompetent way it's been managed. Our greatest failure is our policy."

Mr Rumsfeld said that vast media attention about US abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq outweighed that given to the discovery of "Saddam Hussein's mass graves".

On the emergence of satellite television and other media not under Arab state control, he said, "While al Qaeda and extremist movements have utilised this forum for many years - we in the government have barely even begun to compete in reaching their audiences."

Reuters

seems everyone has an opinion on incitement these days. particularly in support of laws prohibiting it.

but just what is incitement? who gets to decide? and what is to be done about it that doesn't simply entrench the opinions it represents?

what happens if it is a government that is incitining? can a government incite?

A key problem for the UK in preventing terrorism in Britain's the government’s position as ‘pillion passenger’ to the United States' war on terror. Formulating counter-terrorism policy in this way has left the 'ally in the driving seat' to do the steering. This is one of the key findings of Security, Terrorism and the UK, a new, long-planned briefing paper to be published on Monday 18 July by Chatham House and the Economic & Social Research Council.¹

"The time for excuses for terrorism is over," he said. "The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq."²

The Chatham House report, written by Frank Gregory, of the University of Southampton, and Professor Paul Wilkinson, of the University of St Andrews, said: "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism."

They added: "The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States."³

1. saying the choices were wrong; or
2. justifying the associated risks; or
3. making excuses for anyone; or
4. wanking in public.

1. Chatham House, Press release: "New report on terrorism and the UK", Monday 18 July 2005.
   <http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=247>
2. James Sturcke and agencies, "Straw rejects war link to bombings", The Guardian Unlimited, Monday, July 18, 2005.
   <http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1531005,00.html>
3. Chatham House, Press release: "New report on terrorism and the UK", Monday 18 July 2005.
   <http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=189&pid=247>