Mamdouh Habib released

[Millane]

Im not sure how this went with the media overseas but its been a pretty big story in Australia, and im curious to hear peoples thoughts on this whole incident. I was having a talk with one of my mums friends whom i dont particularly like, and i was also reading todays newspaper and so i mentioned how ****ed the whole concept of him losing 3 years of his life for nothing, and her response was while i still dont believe he's innocent, and that comment just made me flip. Regardless of whether he has done something wrong or not either come out and say he's done something and he's going to be charged or let him go... Quite a few human rights activists have kicked up a fuss, and rightly so. Normally id be skeptical about torture claims and that but in this case i really dont find it that hard to believe.
Info anyone? the only thing the newspapers have been reporting is **** like the flight back to australia cost taxpayers $500 000 (im sure he's to blame for that too ), and as for supposed "Crimes" it was alleged that he knew that sept 11 was going to happen beforehand, and he was assosciated with known terrorist... A friend of my mums was "assosciated" with known terrorists (ie they had lived near her and she'd spoken to them while working as a nurse overseas) and it played havoc with her trying to get permanent residence in aust. It just all seems a bit dodgy anyway...

[Nurvingiel]

So he was arrested and held without being charged for 3 years?

I haven't heard that story. It reminds me of people who were held at Guantanamo Bay without being charged a couple years ago now. Are they actually similar cases?

Do you have a link to a news story?

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

So he was arrested and held without being charged for 3 years?

I haven't heard that story. It reminds me of people who were held at Guantanamo Bay without being charged a couple years ago now. Are they actually similar cases?

Do you have a link to a news story?

yes he was held Guantanamo Bay for three years without being charged... Habib to be released well this sheds a bit more light than i got out of the newspaper today, but its from the 12th so ill try to find something a bit more recent...
a lot of people have now used Habib's release to try and free David Hicks, another australian currently in Guantanamo Bay...
Theres also been talk of possible compensation claims Habib can make, i wonder what the going rate of 3 years of your life is now, maybe they can spare a few dollars for his family who have suffered aswell.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Millane

a lot of people have now used Habib's release to try and free David Hicks, another australian currently in Guantanamo Bay...
Theres also been talk of possible compensation claims Habib can make, i wonder what the going rate of 3 years of your life is now, maybe they can spare a few dollars for his family who have suffered aswell.

The question is - what was he doing in afganistan then. Were at war - and that thing was usual during WWII and other wars (although they're not being considered actually POWs since they are associated with terrorist groups - not a national army). You should be lucky he got out - in England they can hold someone for 4 - 5 years with no charges (I think it's 4 years).

I'm not goinig to register to the news site so I can read it - it's been on the news here - at least a couple of times.

Oh - by the way - Hicks is due to face criminal charges March 29th

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The question is - what was he doing in afganistan then. Were at war - and that thing was usual during WWII and other wars. You should be lucky he got out - in England they can hold someone for 4 - 5 years with no charges (I think it's 4 years).

I'm not goinig to register to the news site so I can read it - it's been on the news here - at least a couple of times.

days, not years and thats only since david blunkett's laws, used to be 36 hours, and should not be full stop

on another note, 4 men, who were held at camp torture, oops, i mean guantanamo bay, are coming back to britain

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

days, not years and thats only since david blunkett's laws, used to be 36 hours, and should not be full stop

NO - under the UK terroristm law - they can be retained for 4 YEARS.

on another note, 4 men, who were held at camp torture, oops, i mean guantanamo bay, are coming back to britain

Yeah - whatever.

[jerseydevil]

Britain: Broad proposal would expand power to detain suspects
Lizette Alvarez, New York Times
January 27, 2005 BRIT0127

LONDON -- The British government announced a plan Wednesday to overhaul its anti-terrorism laws, proposing broad new powers to monitor and control terrorism suspects without having to detain them indefinitely without charges, a policy that was declared illegal last month by Britain's highest court.

The measures, which must be submitted to Parliament, would give Home Secretary Charles Clarke the authority to give suspects curfews, tag them with electronic bracelets, limit their access to telephones and the Internet, restrict their communications with "named individuals" and, as a last resort, place them under house arrest.

The new "control orders" would apply to foreigners and to British nationals, addressing the court's judgment that special treatment for foreign detainees was discriminatory and violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The orders, the government said, could be applied if there are "reasonable grounds" for suspecting terrorist activity. Prosecuting a suspect on charges would require a higher threshold.

In announcing the plan to the House of Commons, Clarke said that the suspects now in detention -- the number is thought to be between nine and 12 -- would remain in custody until the control orders were in place. Some of the men have been in detention for three years.

"There remains a public emergency threatening the life of the nation," Clarke said. "The threat is real, and I believe that the steps I am announcing today will enable us more effectively to meet that threat."

The plan would revise the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, passed shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States. Reaction was mixed, with some opposition politicians questioning whether the measures might create resentment and stoke terrorism, rather than fight it.

Human rights lawyers said the plan, while better than indefinite detention in jail, still raised considerable concerns, particularly since house arrest is a serious measure and suspects should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I'm trying to find where it says that it is actually4 years - that's what frtench news had said a couple of weeks ago. But as it says here - some men have been detained for 3 years so fa - they haven't been charged.

[jerseydevil]

Here is one that STATES that Britain has been holding people for 3 years without charge. So if the maximum is 4 days as you say - then how are they doing this?

Britain proposes new powers to monitor terrorism suspects
By Ed Johnson, Associated Press | January 27, 2005

LONDON -- Prime Minister Tony Blair's government yesterday proposed sweeping new powers to tackle terrorism, including electronic tagging, curfews, and house arrest for terror suspects without trial.

The measures provoked swift dissent from civil libertarians and opposition politicians.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the new ''control orders" would apply to both foreigners and British nationals, and he promised to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

Eleven foreign terrorist suspects who have been held for three years without charge would not be released until the new powers were in place, he added.

''There remains a public emergency threatening the life of the nation," Clarke told the House of Commons. ''The threat is real, and I believe that the steps I am announcing today will enable us more effectively to meet that threat."

Many Britons disagreed, however, expressing fears that extending the government's power would upset the balance between individual rights and the need for security.

The British government tried internment, locking people up without trial, in Northern Ireland, but abandoned that as a failure.

''I am very well aware that the proposals . . . represent a very substantial increase in the executive powers of the state in relation to British citizens who we fear are preparing terrorist activities and against whom we cannot proceed in open court," Clarke told lawmakers. ''This will be contentious, but I believe the need for us to protect ourselves against the threat justifies the changes I propose," he added.

Clarke said the government preferred to try terrorist suspects in court. But he said in some cases prosecution was impossible ''given the need to protect highly sensitive sources and techniques."

Instead, the new restrictions could be imposed if there were ''reasonable grounds" for suspecting terrorist activity, a lower standard of proof than is required in trials.

Measures would include bans on meeting certain people, restricting access to telecommunications including the Internet, curfews, and electronic tagging.

The proposal also included a new power to place suspects under house arrest without charge or trial.

But Clarke argued that telephone taps should continue to be excluded as evidence, because they may compromise the work of intelligence agencies.

A government review of the issue had found that ''evidential use of intercept would be likely to help secure a modest increase in convictions of some serious criminals but not terrorists," Clarke said in a written statement.

International investigations in the European Union are often hampered by differences in national legislation. Laws on phone tapping differ among the 25 EU nations; legal systems in EU states also are not uniform.

Blair's official spokesman denied a suggestion that the new measures were designed to deal with the four Britons who returned home Tuesday from the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. They had been arrested on their return, but were released without charge last night.

The spokesman said Clarke was responding to a ruling last month by Britain's highest court that it was illegal to indefinitely detain without charge 11 foreign terrorist suspects.

The men, from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan, have been held for three years under antiterrorism legislation rushed through Parliament shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The House of Lords ruled that indefinite detention was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and said the law was discriminatory because it only applied to foreigners. Clarke said the government accepted that ruling.

While the Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the announcement, as it heralded the eventual release of the 11 detainees from Britain's ''own mini Guantanamo Bay," others feared the sweeping new powers the government would hold over British citizens.

''The government wants draconian new powers," said the group Human Rights Watch. ''House arrest on the say-so of the home secretary has no place in a democracy."

The Law Society, the professional body for solicitors, said tagging and monitoring might be appropriate in some cases.

''If there is surveillance evidence, no matter how it has been obtained, it should be admissible in court," said Edward Nally, the society's president.

The opposition Conservative Party said the proposals could backfire. ''Unless the process is clearly just, the home secretary could find himself confining one known terrorist only to recruit for our enemies 10 unknown terrorists," said David Davis, a Conservative spokesman.

© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

[jerseydevil]

Nurv - here is an article from the CBC -

Guantanamo prisoner returns to Australia
Last Updated Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:13:24 EST
CBC News

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA - Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib is back in Australia after spending three years in an American military prison cell.

Habib, a 48-year-old former coffee shop owner, arrived in Sydney on board a chartered plane Friday.

He was later reunited with his wife and four children, whom he hadn't seen since October 2001.

That's when he was arrested near the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and sent to the American military base in Cuba, along with hundreds of other suspected al-Qaeda operatives and sympathizers.

Habib's lawyers claimed he was coerced into confessing that he knew in advance about the al-Qaeda plot to hijack four American airplanes and send them crashing into high-profile targets on Sept. 11, 2001.

Reports from Guantanamo Bay also indicated he had admitted providing martial arts training to some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

Australian Attorney General Philip Ruddock said Friday that federal authorities still consider Habib a security concern, despite his release.

"He was in Afghanistan by his own admission and he trained with al-Qaeda, according to people who trained in al-Qaeda training camps," Ruddock said.

He added that Habib is free to talk to the media but must not profit from it by accepting payment for interviews.

American authorities agreed two weeks ago to release Habib, as long as Australia agreed to monitor his actions.

At the same time, they announced they would also send four British prisoners back to the United Kingdom.

A Canadian teenager is still being held in Guantanamo Bay.

Toronto-born Omar Khadr was arrested in Afghanistan in 2002.

U.S. military documents released in September said he had admitted to training with al-Qaeda and throwing a grenade that killed an American soldier.

with files from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

[Nurvingiel]

That just isn't right, for the USA or the UK. Either someone has commited a crime, or there's enough evidence to suspect them of a crime, or they have not done anything wrong. If the latter, it is wrong to detain them for three or four years! If they have done something wrong, then charge them and give them a fair trial. (Once it has gone to trial, I'm sure the UK and the USA would be fair about it. But detaining someone for more than a month without charges is wrong IMO.)

I find this a bit scary actually.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That just isn't right, for the USA or the UK. Either someone has commited a crime, or there's enough evidence to suspect them of a crime, or they have not done anything wrong. If the latter, it is wrong to detain them for three or four years! If they have done something wrong, then charge them and give them a fair trial. (Once it has gone to trial, I'm sure the UK and the USA would be fair about it. But detaining someone for more than a month without charges is wrong IMO.)

We're at WAR Nurvingil - this is NOT a criminal case when it comes to people being detained from Afganistan. We can not give them a fair trial without risking the lives of millions of people - because then evidence has to be presented which then lets the enemy know exatly where and HOW we got the information. So I don't think it is terrible. YOu look at it as a criminal case - I look at it as a war. Al Qaeda declared war on us in the 90's - we ignored it - we tried handling it through the court systems. That got us no where - on 9/11 we finally woke up to this being an all out war. It seems as if some people are juyst slow to catch onto what the goals of Al Qaeda and the islamic terrorist groups are after.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

We're at WAR Nurvingil - this is NOT a criminal case when it comes to people being detained from Afganistan. We can not give them a fair trial without risking the lives of millions of people - because then evidence has to be presented which then lets the enemy know exatly where and HOW we got the information. So I don't think it is terrible. YOu look at it as a criminal case - I look at it as a war. Al Qaeda declared war on us in the 90's - we ignored it - we tried handling it through the court systems. That got us no where - on 9/11 we finally woke up to this being an all out war. It seems as if some people are juyst slow to catch onto what the goals of Al Qaeda and the islamic terrorist groups are after.

so in war you can take people prisoner and never charge them and keep them prisoner indefinitely based on the possibility they may be in cahoots with terrorists then? wouldnt you say thats a fairly dangerous precedent to allow the government to make? basically you are saying to the government go ahead and do whatever you want to do and we'll trust you that its all on the up and up. seems really unamerican to me. we are supposed to be weary of free ranging government powers that take away our civil liberties arent we? its a tough situation to handle I think. There doesnt seem to be an easy answer. Either way you risk a lot.

The British government tried internment, locking people up without trial, in Northern Ireland, but abandoned that as a failure.

how is this a defense of your statement that its ok to do this?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so in war you can take people prisoner and never charge them and keep them prisoner indefinitely based on the possibility they may be in cahoots with terrorists then?

Actually you can. The government during time of war can also suspend the constitution.

wouldnt you say thats a fairly dangerous precedent to allow the government to make?

Not really - because it has occurred in any war - and this war is actually one of the most liberal when it comes to detaining prisoners.

basically you are saying to the government go ahead and do whatever you want to do and we'll trust you that its all on the up and up. seems really unamerican to me. we are supposed to be weary of free ranging government powers that take away our civil liberties arent we? its a tough situation to handle I think. There doesnt seem to be an easy answer. Either way you risk a lot.

C9ontrary to your belief - the Constitution extends only to the US border - it does NOT protect the rest of the world. Also - as I said - the government reserves the right during war time to suspend the Constitution - I believe that has happened ONCE in the history of the US. We have not suspend the constitution. These are foreign prisoners who were captured on foreign soi8l - in the middle of WAR.

how is this a defense of your statement that its ok to do this?

Where did I say that was in defense of my statement saying it was okay? I merely quoted that to show LCoU that contrary to his beliefs - the UK government does detain people without charges. It even occurred in the fight against the IRA. However - the fight against the IRA is not anything like Al Qaeda. The IRAs gaol was NOT to destroy england - was merely for the liberation of Northern Ireland. Alk Qaeda's stated goals is the overthrow and downfall of western countries.

I'm wondering - did anyone bother looking at the PBS thing I posted or wathc the show - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/front/view/

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

We're at WAR Nurvingil - this is NOT a criminal case when it comes to people being detained from Afganistan. We can not give them a fair trial without risking the lives of millions of people - because then evidence has to be presented which then lets the enemy know exatly where and HOW we got the information. So I don't think it is terrible. YOu look at it as a criminal case - I look at it as a war. Al Qaeda declared war on us in the 90's - we ignored it - we tried handling it through the court systems. That got us no where - on 9/11 we finally woke up to this being an all out war. It seems as if some people are juyst slow to catch onto what the goals of Al Qaeda and the islamic terrorist groups are after.

I see your point, but it's not a "conventional" war as I'm sure you realize. It's not nations attacking other nations. You don't know who Al Quaeda are exactly, they aren't a nation.
Now, wars in the past haven't exactly been simple, but still, no one is invading the United States. Terrorists will attack other nations and members of their own nation (whether it's the Unibomber or Al Quaeda).
When does the war on terrorism end? A prisoner of war can expect to be released some time near the end of the war, but there will always be terrorists, and by extension, a war with them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I see your point, but it's not a "conventional" war as I'm sure you realize. It's not nations attacking other nations. You don't know who Al Quaeda are exactly, they aren't a nation.
Now, wars in the past haven't exactly been simple, but still, no one is invading the United States. Terrorists will attack other nations and members of their own nation (whether it's the Unibomber or Al Quaeda).
When does the war on terrorism end? A prisoner of war can expect to be released some time near the end of the war, but there will always be terrorists, and by extension, a war with them.

Well you see that's the problem with your view. See - Al Qaeda is NOT just against the US - it's against the WHOLE western world. Their ultimate goal is the destruction of the west - so you're comparison to the unibomber is completely ridiculous.

The war on terrorism ends - when Al Qaeda is so weakened and the middle east has the freedoms to where the radicals aren't strong enough to recruiit or attack the west anymore. It's either that - or else you better go out and buy your hijab right now and start to pray to allah - because THAT is what Al Qaeda wants.

[Nurvingiel]

The unibomber comparison isn't perfect, but it isn't ridiculous. Al Quaeda and the Unibomber are both terrorists that attack civilians with somewhat comparable means. It falls down where the Unibomber is one man who had no larger goal IIRC. (I did know Al Quaeda was against the whole western world, the USA was just an example.)

I think I can hold off on buying that hijab just now. To acheive their aims, they would have to overthrow our respective governments, and they are very far from doing that.

I think there should be a way to weaken the terrorists without imprisoning people without charges.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The unibomber comparison isn't perfect, but it isn't ridiculous. Al Quaeda and the Unibomber are both terrorists that attack civilians with somewhat comparable means. It falls down where the Unibomber is one man who had no larger goal IIRC. (I did know Al Quaeda was against the whole western world, the USA was just an example.)

Do know what the unibomber did? he was more like serial killer - in NO WAY shape or form was the unibomber like Al Qaeda. YOu obviously don't knwo what he did.

I think I can hold off on buying that hijab just now. To acheive their aims, they would have to overthrow our respective governments, and they are very far from doing that.

So was Germany far from doing that in 1937 - but with the lack of world effort - he was very close to it come 1943. Now we can either sit here hoping for al qaeda to go away like europe did prior to world war II - or we can take offensice action against them. I choose the latter - the world came pretty damn close to losing it all with Hitler.

I think there should be a way to weaken the terrorists without imprisoning people without charges.

They are not american citizens and they were captured on foreign land fighting us. Thsi isn't a damn criminal case - this is a WAR.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

C9ontrary to your belief - the Constitution extends only to the US border - it does NOT protect the rest of the world. Also - as I said - the government reserves the right during war time to suspend the Constitution - I believe that has happened ONCE in the history of the US. We have not suspend the constitution. These are foreign prisoners who were captured on foreign soi8l - in the middle of WAR.

But you are missing my point... if they can do this to an innocent "foreign prisoner" whats to stop them from doing it to you and me for whatever reason they want? Nothing. Thats my point. You conservatives love to rail on and on about slippery slopes. Seems as if yer missing the biggest one of all right in front of your face.

Fruthermore, I think this whole notion of "war" on terrorism might be beginning to do us more a deservice then anything else. If its a war then how is there any hope to end it? there will always be SOME two bit nobody blowing crap up in the name of their religion. And if its a war then why arent we invading every country that has ever had a "terrorist" group in their midst? We are instead picking and choosing. Shouldnt we call this a "war on Al Quaeda" if anything?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But you are missing my point... if they can do this to an innocent "foreign prisoner" whats to stop them from doing it to you and me for whatever reason they want? Nothing. Thats my point. You conservatives love to rail on and on about slippery slopes. Seems as if yer missing the biggest one of all right in front of your face.

Well tell me - what stood in the way when we rounded up Japanese and Germans and put them into internment camps during WWII? Did the Constitutuion fall apart after that? - no it didn't. We haven't gone that far - nor do I think we should go that far./ But the Constitution stops at our borders - and I see no reason why it should protect some foreign asshole killing our soldiers and who is taking part in bombing our country. Just the way I feel.

BTW - just so you know- it is this fact that I think the Patriot Act should only be renewed and never be made permanent. I don't think we will need it for ever - but I do think at this time that it is necessary.

Fruthermore, I think this whole notion of "war" on terrorism might be beginning to do us more a deservice then anything else. If its a war then how is there any hope to end it? there will always be SOME two bit nobody blowing crap up in the name of their religion.

You've got to be joking. So I guess what you're idea is - just stop fighting Al Qaeda and terrorists because there will always be some "two bit nobody blowing crap up". The problem is - that Al Qaeda is using the middle east as a breeding ground and their goal is the overthrow of the west. They aren't just blowing things up like the IRA did.

And if its a war then why arent we invading every country that has ever had a "terrorist" group in their midst? We are instead picking and choosing. Shouldnt we call this a "war on Al Quaeda" if anything?

Basically it is a war on Al Qaeda - but you see the problem is that Al Qaeda joins up and supports a lot of different terrorist groups.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Do know what the unibomber did? he was more like serial killer - in NO WAY shape or form was the unibomber like Al Qaeda. YOu obviously don't knwo what he did.

Heh... oops. I was thinking of Timothy McVeigh. He was a domestic terrorist too, but this whole analogy doesn't matter that much anyway.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

So was Germany far from doing that in 1937 - but with the lack of world effort - he was very close to it come 1943. Now we can either sit here hoping for al qaeda to go away like europe did prior to world war II - or we can take offensice action against them. I choose the latter - the world came pretty damn close to losing it all with Hitler.

Yeah but as I pointed out before this isn't a case of nations attacking nations. We can't defend ourselves against an invading army. I'm not saying do nothing at all, but personally I draw the line at detaing people without charges.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

They are not american citizens and they were captured on foreign land fighting us. Thsi isn't a damn criminal case - this is a WAR.

Though extreme circumstances are often called for in a war, I don't believe in the suspension of human rights. As I stated above, this includes detention for an extreme amount of time without charges.