Stephen Keim,

You are a lawyer, as such, you are meant to have read a Constitution, any Constitution of any country that has got one, and should have noted that within it lies the cause of that inhumanity to which the attention of people is now directed.

This ‘Lie’ is intrinsic in the postulate that power is divisible. (Montesquieu).

If it were so, and Judges held Power on their own right, ‘Habeas Corpus’, meant to over-ride all other ‘legal provisions’ enacted under a Constitution, could be called into play.

Sir,

Isn’t it a paradox that under a constitutional Monarchy (English) the subject had the privilege of Habeas Corpus and in a so called Democracy this provision is neutralized and the power holder can get away with murder?

Wouldn’t it be time, Sir, to put a stop to this charade about ‘Human Rights’ and urge people to hold their power away from murderous charlatans called politicians?

I won't take people like Stephen seriously until they apply their criticisms of the US to our own backyard.

We now have detention without trial in federal law, attributable to terrorism laws. But for a courageous newspaper journalist, Haneef would be rotting in jail on trumped up charges.

State laws, based either on terrorism or catching drug criminals, are worse. The NSW Crime Commission is truly a Star Chamber.

Then, despite the High Court finding the NSW bikie gang legislation unconstitutional, the state government is talking about reinstating it with tweaks.

We can't criticise the US unless our own hands are clean. That's far from the case.

DavidL:
We can't criticize the US unless our own hands are clean .

Why not ?

Stephen, a good and interesting article.

The whole thing can be boiled down to this. Either rights are whatever states say they are. This is obviously just an open-ended warrant for endless and protean abuse.

Or a right is only what you are justified in using violence to defend. This means everyone has a right to his own body, to the fruits of his labour, and to voluntary relations with others. It means no-one has a right to free handouts paid for by government taking the means from someone else. And thus it means a political state is a criminal association.

DavidL, did you ever find out who the lawyer was who defended Haneef? That's right--Stephen Keim.

Peter Hume--you need to read some of the literature on rights. Your either or dichotomy is mistaken. Try the Stanford online Enclopaedia of Philosophy for a start.

ozbib
Instead of appealing to absent authority and assuming what is in issue - two fallacies - why don't you tell me what you think the mistake is?