Michael Dante Mori, Major, United States Marine Corps Defense Counsel, has been assigned defence counsel to Australian David Hicks currently held in Guantanamo Bay.



In Adelaide on 17 March 2004, St Patrick's Day, Dr Fredrick Töben and Major Michael Mori facing the camera with a smile!


Major Mori is a likeable, open and approachable fellow whose somewhat ruthless honest remarks about the unjust process facing David Hicks has astounded many Australians. It has also brought him admiration, and this he will take back home with him. 

All those who made contact with Major Mori speak admiringly of his willingness to fight a hopeless fight - to fight the system from within. He even expressed regret if some would see his actions defending Hicks as validating the system. 

"He's a good Aussie, he's just 5ft3, and he's not terrifying", he said.

It is his frankness about the impossible task of having a just military trial that Major Mori addressed during his time spent in Adelaide visiting David Hick's 'Umfeld'.

Major Mori points out that his comments are not a criticism of any persons or policies as such but he is merely criticising the legal process, the rules and procedures under which he is expected to mount an effective defence. Local barrister, Stephen Kenny, is ably assisting in this impossible unjust legal battle.

Major Mori also said that labelling someone a 'terrorist' becomes a powerful propaganda tool, something that "should not be used if it lowers the standards of justice". But nothing beats the fact that this trial will not have any appeal mechanism, nor review, etc. 

The precedent on which this trial rests is the precedent set in the 1942 Commission when German soldiers turned themselves in in New Jersey. They were labelled 'unlawful combatants - not POWs - and thus lost all protection that would guarantee a fair process. Those who turned themselves in were released after the war and those found were shot.

Hicks did not violate Australian laws and so he should be brought back, something the Prime Minister and other politicians refuse to do. Hicks is thus in a bind because were he returned to Australia he would have his immediate freedom, something the politicians are not willing to do, thereby doing David Hicks an injustice. 

Major Mori also advised that the photograph shown in the media is a staged photo of David Hicks with friends posing with a gun. 

He stressed that even the worst person in the world should be given a fair trial but Hicks never committed any crime. 

Asked if David Hicks is again writing poetry, the constraint came in, i.e. that he cannot say anything personal about David Hicks' life.

Asked whether he would liken the upcoming trial to that of the witch trials, he responded: "No comment!" To date Hicks has not yet been charged of any crime.

Asked if he had to date been pressured in any way, he responded: "No comment."

Major Michael Dante Mori, you are an honourable US Marine!

Mamdouh Habib, the other Australian held by the USA at Guantanamo Bay has as yet not been charged, and is thus in total limbo.

Revisionists are reminded what General Eisenhower did to over a million German soldiers at the end of WWII - as depicted in James Baque's Other Losses - also declaring them non-combatants, etc.



----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 9:41 PM
Subject: ABC - NewsMail


*PM open to indefinite detention push*

Prime Minister John Howard says he is seriously considering a proposal to remove the precise time limit on detaining terrorist suspects and instead say they can be held for a "reasonable" period.

Mr Howard discussed the move with the state and federal police commissioners at a meeting in Sydney today.

The police chiefs say the current time limits are too restrictive.

They have urged the Federal Government to follow Victoria's lead in leaving it to the courts to determine what a "reasonable" detention is.

"I'm sympathetic to what the police commissioners put to me and I will take that matter up with the Attorney-General and my colleagues next week," Mr Howard said.

The Civil Liberties Council is concerned about the push to allow terrorists suspects to be detained for an unspecified period.

Council president Terry O'Gorman is urging the Government to reject the idea.

"It's hard to see why such a change in the law is needed," he said. "The ASIO Act - which allows ASIO to detain people including non-suspects for questioning - was passed only a little over three or four months ago.

"It has a sunset clause which permits review of the law after a period of two years. There's just no indication that that particular law isn't working."


Meanwhile, Mr Howard says Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty can "express his views as he sees fit", and says he has his full confidence.

Mr Howard and other senior ministers criticised Mr Keelty after he appeared to link the Madrid bombings to Spain's support for the war in Iraq in a television interview. Mr Keelty later said his comments had been taken out of context.

Mr Howard and Commissioner Keelty met in the Prime Minister's Sydney office this morning.

Mr Howard denies that he has politicised the issue of terrorism and has described the pair's discussions as "good".

"We're both very keen that the very good work that he's been doing in charge of the federal police continue," he said.

"He does, as he always has, enjoy my full support and my full confidence. He will be allowed to express his views as he sees fit."


Pilger, Indymedia branded "Anti-Semitic"

Imre Salusinszky: We should nix Hicks flick

The Australian, Sydney, March 18, 2004

CURTIS Levy, the director of The President v David Hicks, which will screen on
SBS tonight, has never tried to conceal the point of his documentary. ...

Levy's film leaves us in far less doubt than we were before that Australian
Taliban fighter David Hicks is a vicious fundamentalist who trained with
al-Qa'ida. ...

But what is most disturbing, and raises most unanswered questions, is just
where this film stands on Hicks's virulent anti-Semitism.

In his letters to his family, Hicks tells them his training in Pakistan and
Afghanistan is designed to ensure "the Western-Jewish domination is finished,
so we live under Muslim law again". He denounces the plots of the Jews to
divide Muslims and make them think poorly of Osama bin Laden.

After reading aloud a letter from his son warning him to ignore "the Jews'
propaganda war machine", Terry Hicks smiles affectionately and says: "I think
David's told me off in his way there."

Given that this film is unashamedly advocating for David Hicks, and that in
promoting it Levy has said it exists to counter the "demonisation" of Hicks,
shouldn't the film-maker have given us a hint about what he thinks of these
racist comments, or pressed Terry Hicks to do so? Once upon a time, we would
not have wondered where those on the Left stood on such a question.

But in an era when virulent anti-Semitism erupts daily on such "progressive"
websites as sydney.indymedia.org, or when John Pilger can claim without
embarrassment that the "Jewish establishment" will never allow the true causes
of September 11 to be known, all bets, and all assumptions, are off. ...

Imre Salusinszky, a Wry Side columnist and editorial writer with The
, is co-editor of Blaming Ourselves: September 11 and the Agony of
the Left
(Duffy & Snellgrove, 2002). 


John Pilger speaks of " the Jewish establishment ", 

says Islamic peoples its victims

John Pilger :13 Sep 2001


If the attacks on America have their source in the Islamic world, who can be
surprised? ...

Far from being the terrorists of the world, the Islamic peoples have been its
victims - that is, the victims of American fundamentalism, whose power, in all
its forms, military, strategic and economic, is the greatest source of
terrorism on earth. This fact is largely censored from the western media. ...

I was writing about Palestine and censorship when the attacks in America took
place. A friend, a distinguished American photojournalist, told me how he had
stood up at a debate on media censorship in New York the other day and asked
why Israel's oppression of an Arab nation, a construct of American power, was
not recognised in American political life and the media. He was called an
anti-Semite. It is not quite as bad in this country. 

The censorship is more
subtle: the collaborative silence of the Jewish establishment, together with
the BBC's promotion of moral equivalence between oppressor and oppressed while
adhering essentially to Israel's and CNN's news agenda. The Times, says its
former Middle East correspondent Sam Kiley, routinely censored his reports in
Israel's favour.

It is left to a courageous few to tell the truth. Among them are two Israeli
dissidents: the poet and novelist Yitzhak Laor and the journalist Amira Hass.
With the recent death of the indomitable peace campaigner Israel Shahak, they
represent an endangered species in their own country. In the current issue of
New Left Review, Laor exposes the liberal Zionists "whose voices are heard
over and over again".  ...


Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 4:22 AM


burning books before they are printed

House Resolution 3077 Passed the House…Will the Senate Save our First Amendment, or will debate in our Universities become the Occupied Territory of a foreign government?

By Laura Dawn Lewis

Consider the ramifications of a foreign country dictating what you are permitted to learn about that country, what your children can learn and even what you can write and debate about that country in the United States. Your university's funding, its curriculum and even its ability to debate issues currently effecting our national policy, our tax dollars and our foreign policy gagged, banned and prevented from discussion.



1 . International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

2 . International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003 (Reported in House)

3 . International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)

As an American citizen or college student attending school in the United States, your needs are irrelevant; this foreign power determines which issues are truth, their pertinence or relevancy. Its truth, not the truth, this is the evil of censorship. 

This scenario finds its origin in fact, not fiction.  Republican Representative Peter Hoeksta of Michigan, the sponsor of HR 3077 serves our higher education system on a platter to the interests of a foreign country financing and lobbying this resolution.  In effect, our education system becomes occupied territory and our professors the puppets of a foreign regime prevented financially from exercising free speech, effectively censoring the  classroom, community and press. 

On September 17, 2003 the House Subcommittee on Select Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077, the International Studies in Higher Education Act.  Known as "Title 6," after the article in the Higher Education Act empowering the government to fund selected international studies and foreign language centers at universities. Its grants, up to $500,000 are used to train experts for national security, government service and educate the public on international affairs. This act advocates a seven-member advisory board, similar to a Warren Commission with the power to recommend cutting federal funding for colleges and universities that are viewed as harboring academic critics of the foreign power lobbying this resolution. Simply put, if this foreign power finds the professor to be teaching anything failing to fit the agenda or cultivated image that country wants, the professor may be censored and the school eligible for fines through the removal of federal funds.  TOP

Our House Representatives agreed through their passing of HR 3077, on October 21, 2003 the truth constitutes an acceptable casualty in favor of this foreign power's vanity.  In passing this resolution, congress blessed a foreign country with the right to ignore the first amendment rights of Americans and determine what we teach, speak and write in the United States.

1st Amendment
(Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press, Assembly & Petition)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  (1791)

And they did this semi-secretly by not registering who voted for it and who voted against, protecting the McCarthyites from their constituencies. Intrinsic to this resolution, now heading for the Senate are three very serious issues aside from simple curtailment of speech: Dual Loyalties, Treason and the influence of Special Interests on our Educational System. TOP

1. Dual-loyalties:  The House of Representatives is willing to strip Americans of their Constitutional Rights, transferring those to a foreign power with the ability to mold our opinions. 

This is not a grassroots resolution brought about by US citizens concerned over curriculum.  Its supporters and underwriters are lobbing groups for a single foreign country. Our professors of political science, history and international law are bound by our own laws not to lie, defame or purposely mislead.  We have laws that prosecute persons for this. The professors angering this foreign government speak and teach the truth based upon international law, documentation, footage and current events. It is a truth this foreign government does not like. Knowledge of this truth exposes the multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity, policies once realized and understood result in Americans hacking the financial umbilical cord for good. Americans have a history of opposing morally abhorrent behavior.  TOP

Like most attempts at control, this is about money, keeping it flowing to foreign coffers and back into the campaign funds of those in our government unquestioning in their support. Our House prefers to relinquish American rights for foreign favor, an objective residing in anarchy: stifle public debate and discussion about its policies at the root. The professors and educators responsible for teaching America's leaders critical thinking, factual information and a sound understanding of all affairs, foreign and domestic provide this information, insight and varying opinions.  Place them on mute and the questions stop. 

When a country invades another, its leaders, educators and clergy find themselves endangered species.  Educators, academia assist the masses in understanding their areas of expertise. Kill them or their message and the population becomes easily manipulated to the message of those orchestrating the information.   With this censorship through HR 3077,  much more is at stake than appears.

The question to our congress:
Mr. Congressman, how does this resolution, which keeps information from the public, censors public debate and requires a foreign government approve our curriculum and opinions strengthen the United States and our people? 

We see how it strengthens this foreign country by letting them continue to hide the truth, but how does it help the American people if our  future leaders in national security and government service are only allowed to  learn what a foreign country wants them to learn?

2. Treason:  Congress, the Senate and The President of the United States have one job and one job only: support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. TOP

US Federal Oath of Office: 

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Every Congressman, Senators and the President of the United States swears this oath of office, drafted in the 1860's.  Its principles as set forth in the US Constitution drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress are worded specifically with the intent of ensnaring traitors within our government.  Resolution 3077 patently violates this oath and shows the interests of those in our government pushing it through egregiously failing in the only job they have: Protect and Defend the US Constitution.  Foregoing American interests in favor of a foreign agenda is treason. Our House of Representative sacrificed our rights in favor of the needs and desires of a foreign country. 

Keeping information from the American public never helps us.  We have the right to decide what is good information and what is bad information.  No foreign government, special interest or lobby, under our Constitution is allowed to circumvent this fundamental right. Any government official who sells our rights to others, neglects his office and places us as a nation in peril is committing treason.  Allowing another country or its proxy to mold our thoughts and what we learn is placing us as a nation at risk. Nobody has the right to tell an American how to think! Nobody has the right to tell us what or how we learn.


The question to our congress:  
How does passing a resolution abridging the freedom of speech and our right as citizens to openly debate issues support and defend the First Amendment of the United States which states: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech? 

According to your oath of office, Mr. Congressman, failing to protect this right from enemies domestic and in this case foreign, constitutes treason.  Please explain to the American people why you are sacrificing us by allowing a foreign government to nullify the US Constitution. 

3. Undue influence of Special Interest on our Education System: Freedom of education represents a fundamental American value, the cornerstone and bedrock of a republic.

The strength of a people directly relates to the level of education, whether formal or acquired, and its awareness of all aspects surrounding decisions. Information represents the single most valuable asset for any country, company or individual. Stifling education and debate is oral book burning, destroying the book before it can be written.  It is mind control in the most basic sense.  The ability to learn and exchange ideas in a free society is a right, not a privilege.  This country was not built on gag orders and intimidation.  It was built on ideas and ideas need freedom to flourish. TOP

The fact that this resolution exists illustrates how seriously warped our government's values have become. We the People no longer exist and if we do, we are an after-thought, a piggy bank or the building materials of our representative's power and wealth, the means to their hedonistic ends. The fact that the interests of a foreign government supercede American rights is astonishing! The fact that a foreign power holds enough clout over our representatives for them to consider HR 3077 a good idea, willingly violate their oath of office and commit treason to satisfy this single lobby is terrifying.

Does it surprise anyone to discover this foreign country does not want us discussing this power in any terms other than those it agrees with?

Will it now require that political sciences, law and international studies in Universities be funded by outside sources, simply so Americans can decide what we learn without being influenced by the agendas of those out to destroy our Constitutional rights? 

The question to our congress: 
Why Mr. Congressman are you allowing a foreign government to dictate what we teach in our schools?

 Why does this single country have the power to ignore the US Constitution and enough influence to persuade you into breaking your oath to us?

HR 3077 isn't the first resolution to destroy our rights.  Capps II and the Trusted Traveler violate our 4th and 5th Amendment rights and many others precede these.  Their passage as well, according to the oath of office is treason.  Our rights, the foundations of democracy fall by the wayside, more every day.  In January 2004, the United States achieved a new milestone.  We now fulfill all fourteen points of Fascism.  This resolution, HR 3077 Orwellian in nature fortifies these points through the limitation of information and extraction of meaningful debate. TOP

Now HR 3077 heads to the Senate and this foreign government continues to lobby hard and ruthlessly for its passage.  They usually get their way.  The last time they didn't involved the sale of jets to Saudi Arabia in the early 1980's.  The question is, will our senate support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic by destroying this attack on our First Amendment?  Or will our Senate remain the pawn, the mouthpiece and Occupied Territory of this foreign insurgent so many already accuse and believe it to be.

The groups & individuals behind HR 3077 are:

The Country: Israel

It's Lobbies in the US on this Resolution
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith,
The American Jewish Congress
American Jewish Committee

Martin Kramer, a professor of Arab studies Tel Aviv University
Stanley Kurtz, a contributor: (anti-) Arab National Review Online
Daniel Pipes: Campus Watch, (This group conducts witch hunts against professors.  See our article: Killing the First Amendment for a graphic example of its purpose and what they want to censor)

The Congressmen who drafted and Championed the Resolution: Rep. Peter Hoekstra (MI), Rep. John A. Boehner (Ohio), Rep. John R. Carter (Texas), Rep. Tom Cole (Oklahoma), Rep. James Greenwood (Penn.), Rep. Howard (Buck) McKeon (Calif.), Rep. Patrick J. Tiberi (Ohio), Rep. Joe Wilson (South Carolina)


Top | Home

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute