“That war, against the terror-sponsoring government in Afghanistan, was authorised by formal resolution of the UN Security Council.”

INCORRECT – the Security Council Resolutions authorised nothing of the sort. The earlier SCRs were limited specifically to Kuwait (a country that was not even a member of the ‘Coalition of the Willing’!). Further, SCR 1441 does not allow the use of force to implement its contents but rather envisages further resolutions and discussions by the Security Council.

Koffi Anan himself has publicly declared that the action in Iraq was illegal. The action was in breach of the UN Charter which stipulates that countries shall refrain from the threat or use of force against other nations.

“Had Habib been captured in the uniform of an organised army, it would have been entirely reasonable to hold him for the past three years.”

Whatever... this whole fascination with uniforms is more than a little weird, and a entirely unsatisfactory argument for locking up suspects and throwing away the keys.

What is “entirely reasonable” about holding a suspect without charge in indefinite detention? What is “entirely reasonable” about denying a suspect access to legal representation? What is “entirely reasonable” about a fundamental breach of human rights? Nothing at all. It brings us all down to the level of common thug, and discredits the case for persecuting genuine criminals.

“But no one should be indignant that US authorities did not want to give him the benefit of the doubt. In an era when terror attacks can kill thousands in a few hours, it's not unreasonable to give higher priority to protecting potential terror victims - who are certainly innocent - than individuals captured in such suspicious circumstances as Habib.”

Well guess what? Plenty of us are very indignant that the US authorities did disregard the rule of law and breach of that that basic precept of innocent until proven guilty. True, in a few hours thousands can be killed by indiscriminate terrrorist attacks. In a few hours the civil liberties of tens of millions can also be killed by the beligerant, undemocratic decisions of Western leaders.

What the UN authorizes or does not, should be evaluated in terms of their response to Genocides. ie. they are irrelevant. The UN is nothing more than a talkfest reflecting a power balance of vested interests. To suggest otherwise is naivity in the extreme, or just plain culpable blindness.

This is the age of responsible nation-states. A time for them to take leadership against all manner of threat.

The suggestion of 'right to fair trial' is code for 'the leftist/liberal grandstanding/political opportunist industry' to further attempt to damage what they percieve as right wing governments.

For all those who are suggesting 'this' is the right way etc.. SHOW ME something which is greater than humanity itself which SAYS 'that' is the right way AND at the same time is not flawed by reason or logic or dripping with Disney/fantasyland tears. The only other alternative, is to look for some greater truth, and I suggest without the slightest apology that it is in the Law of Almighty God. Happy to interact about this, but I can pretty much predict the first 'wave' of replies.

avagoodone
BOAZ

In the event Mr Habib was or is a bad guy, we certainly screwed up any chance to prosecute him. We can't nail him and we let the French guy slip through our net as well. Put those two screw ups together with our commitment to the concept of WMDs in Iraq and strong links to Osama Bin Bad Boy we don't do too much right in national security/intelligence terms.It might be an area the government needs to give away; perhaps they should just get weekly briefings from Ms Rice.

The Habib fiasco and the current paranoia dominating the geo plotical landscape could get us into more trouble. It is unlikely that we will return to a real commitment to a rule of law; one developed with caution and deliberation. It is quite likely that we will persist with a legal environment developed in a knee jerk and hasty response to a few thousand Americans being killed in the 911 attack or Autralian deaths at the hands of the Bali bombers.

The jack boot appraoch has failed in the Habib case - clearly they failed to torture him enough or keep it secret enough. The odds of the suspicious therefore being "dissappeared" in the name of freedom and our government continuing to turn a blind eywe to the obvious is becoming a more likely prospect.

Read Luenig cartoon in the Age ( 27/01/05

Mr BOAZ_David, you dont mind then that we who disagree with you gather together and come around to your house and use a few "humane" methods to find out what you know and try to change your "right" way of thinking to a way of thinking that gives you greater liberty and more democratic ways?

I think the point of UN is that it is a body that gives legal sanction to murder. Without UN sanction, everybody can identify US action as being illegal, with UN sanction the action is still "illegal" but debateable by BOAZ_David and his cohorts.

These people use the legislative system they seek to destroy to attack us!!!

They fight as part of a system which cannot be described as a political or national entity & therefore has no method of accountability.

Yet the 'progressive left' (consigned to the dustbin of political relevance in Oz) continues to naval gaze on this issue, blind to the fact that we are at war.

Suggested reading for the ignorant:
Bernard Lewis, Dean of Islamic Studies at princton Uni. "The Crisis Of Islam" - Holy War & Unholy Terror.

RUBEN I value your comments and feedback ! With what do u disagree ?

Um... without God, there is no such 'thing' as 'murder' Its purely culturally relative. Your "murder" is my 'elimination of a rival' or.. 'increasing my chances of survival' just for the sake of discussion. You did not address my question, u just 'disagreed' with it. To 'what' do you point, to validate your disagreement ? If there is nothing 'bigger than us' then we are groping around in the dark, and we are simply watching meaningless history unfold, where it so happens 'today's winner is the US.

Lets not dance around the issues.. go for the jugular :) 'who' or 'what' gives any more moral validity to one course of action over another ?

As for your kind suggestion of 'bringing some buddies around' to persuade me to impart whatever I know about something. I don't think that addresses the fundamental issue either. In regard to Iraq, we both know 'who' is behind the insurgency. Its a combination of 'vested interest fearful of further losing privileged position' (which was at the expense of the oppressed majority of Shia) (i.e. Sunnis who unfairly benefited from Sadaam) and a mish mash of various 'outsiders' who are intent on what they see as holy war.

Take these issues one at a time ok :) then this discussion will be fruitful.

Grace and Peace
BOAZ