As I understand it Habib has been with terrorists overseas, now whether these were strong links or maybe the man was only a dreamer. He has, by reports I have seen, been close enough to barbaric, blood-thirsty, criminal, gutless terrorists to perhaps, I stress perhaps be a danger to us all. A man like him if told to would he strap on a bomb? Would' or did,he gather information for the cowardly islamic killers? I do think it better to be safe than sorry as one decent bomb can do a lot of damage. Of course hicks is far more dangerous yet we have 'trembling, bleating,bleeding hearts' demanding his release also. PLEASE read about terrorism, read about islam, especially about their hudna.Check up, read for yourselves that islamics are allowed and told to lie to any heretic or non-moslem NO!! I do not hate islamics only their brutal religion as practised by the hard liners. Regards, numbat

Numbat so you don't hold to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, what crime has he committed under Australian law and if he has committed a crime why has he not bee charged. I think you've are happy to see his rights trampled because he is not of the same faith as you if he was a Christian and was suspected of being in the IRA wouldn't condemn him so quickly. Anyway to my mind flying planes into buildings is no worst then dropping a bomb on it.

kenny: I feel the same about IRA terrorists.To be a member or associate of a bloodthirsty terror organisation is to be suspect in this world I'm afraid.Many said in the past that the nazis were fine people, they turned out very bad eh? kenny please read about militant islam their aims and eventual goals. Read what they have planned for all non moslems.By the way dropping bombs on terrorists, though not nice, is a little different than flying a plane into buildings and killing innocent, un-armed civilian men women and children. regards, numbat

I agree with Christopher Michaelson. Give Mamdouh Habib a break and give him the chance to tell his side of the story which so far has been distorted by assumptions of guilt sponsored by American paranoia about terrorism and echoed by the Howard Government Ministers who abandoned an Australian Citizen on their say-so.
The whole saga demands an independent Inquiry to inform us all of the truth.
The matter is not well served by Christian fanatics presenting hypothetical fantasies spawned by their prejudice.
This is not the Australian way.I understand that our judicial system is based on the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.
Maracas, Darwin 4.02.05

maracas: NOT!!! a christian fanatic, NOR a predudiced Christian and how you arrived at that is beyond me.I have read about islam and extreme islam I have seen just what terrorists do. Please do not be blind to moslem ways, that is the fanatics. Yes we have christian - so called - terrorists and I see these people in the same way. I have no problem with the ordinary pious moslem. With gutless terrorists who hate and want to bring down all religions and have islam reign supreme yes I do have a problem with them. NO! definitely NO!! I am not a lying rodent fan nor a rudock or lying deceitful liberal fan.
Regards, numbat

kenny,

In other posts you have mentioned Australia's lack of an official freedom of speech law but here you make a similar assumption.
Nothing in Australian law (based on common law) says there is a presumption of innocence.
That too is an american invention - just like the freedom of speech.
not a criticism, just an observation:)

Keep up the good opinioning.

t.u.s

Numbat, Methinks thou protesteth too much !!

maracas: I protesteth not enough mate, just wait&watch.regards, numbat

I have been appalled by the Fed Gov. attitude since the spectre of Guantanamo Bay arose to disintegrate our legal process of innocence until proven guilty. Whether Habib or Hicks actually fraternised and were actively involved with terrorists has become entirely moot. Rapists, murderers and serial killers receive more justice than these men. All I see from many of my fellow posters is hatred every bit as fanatical as the terrorists they decry, as well as alot of vitriol aimed at Islamic people. Habib has not been charged - if our Australian legal process is to remain impartial, then he must be given the benefit of the doubt.

Not only has Mamdouh Habib returned to a 'hostile Australian Government desperately trying to downplay the political significance of his release' but also to a weak-kneed, complicit media that defies credulity.

Today's The Weekend Australian editorialises that 'Habib should not pass our ports' (05/02/2005). Murdoch's editor tells us that 'Nobody should be especially upset or surprised if Mr Habib's application for a new passport is rejected. On his past form it is impossible to assume that he would not seek to slip away to meet with Islamic extremists who wish the West harm if he were able to leave the country.'

I have already written to the editor detailing my utter disblief at their stance. My letter will not be published. Nothing critical ever does get published by Murdoch papers these days.

Last night I saw a play at Griffin Theatre called 'Myth, Propaganda and Disaster in Nazi Germany and Contemporary America'. It's a hyper-critical account of the US government's pannicked pursuit of freedom and liberty in a post 911 world while increasingly narrowing the freedom and liberty of their own people. When I read this morning's editorial (see above) I had a horrible feeling that the boundaries between drama and reality had become disturbingly blurred and overlapped.

As far as I can tell, if this guy Habib was ever going to be found guilty as charged then it would have happened at Guantanamo Bay. A place far away from the rule of law, where the odds would have been stacked a mile high in favour of the US authorities. However, they failed to substantiate any of the charges. To my mind this means he is an innocent Australian who's human rights have been violated - he has been incarcerated without having committed a crime.

The Australian, it seems, wants to continue the campaign of indefinite incarceration of Habib. Their tone is more fitting of comic book writers who are trying to develop a new conspiracy theory for their Dr Evil and Captain America characters to become embroiled in; i.e. '... it is impossible to assume that he woould not seek to slip away to meet with Islamic extremists who wish the West harm ...'

Who the f#%k do these editors think they are kidding! Others out there must surely be tired of being imposed upon by Murdoch's smug, patronising media with this kind of bullsh!t. The real NEWS here is the way 'democratic' governments since 911 have all too conveniently side-stepped the rule of law and procedural justice based on their 'gut instincts' and personal moral dispositions.

Well said, Instant Ramen. Perhaps you also watched "Outfoxed" on TV the other night, about Rupert Murdoch's right wing activities in the US Fox media. We can only wish for such a forthright exposure of Murdoch's ratbaggery here in Australia, where our major national newspaper should be renamed "The Yankee".

By contrast, the Sydney Morning Herald should be congratulated for the publication of a couple of lacerating opinion pieces on the Habib matter in the last week, particularly the following: SMH, 31 Jan 2005, "Nation's guardian of liberty turns his back", by Ian Barker QC and Robert Toner SC; and SMH, 4 Feb 2005, "Two toadying first officers of the law", by Richard Ackland.

And the Canberra Times editorial (presumably Jack Waterford) of 3 Feb 2005, entitled "An Illegal and Immoral Policy" is a masterpiece. It begins as follows:

"Yet another decision from the United States court system has confirmed what has at all times seemed clear to all but the most one-eyed supporters of the Bush administration - that the American strategy of denying all forms of civil rights to its prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was fundamentally illegal, impossible to justify as any form of emergency measure and bound to call into question the commitment to human rights and personal liberty that our side on the war on terror was supposed to represent. Alas, the one-eyed supporters of the Bush administration have included the Australian Government, who are now not only tarred with their acquiescence in a legally and morally unjustifiable policy, and their apparent indifference to the rights of Australian citizens, but who may yet achieve for the victims of that strategy a hero status that they probably do not deserve. It was all too predicatable - indeed it was predicted all along. Britain, by contrast, manifested some spine (if by no means enough) in standing up to American unilateralism on this matter, but the stand of Australia's Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, of our Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer and of our Prime Minister, John Howard, can only make most decent Australians squirm with shame..."

Here is a prediction of sorts. Murdoch's newspapers will continue to ramp up the reporting of sinister allegations against Habib's past activities (which may or may not be true), and the radio shock jocks will bellow louder and lounder about muslim extremism, encouraging more fear and hatred in the community (some of which is reflected on this website). This will serve to drown out any rational and responsible dissection of our government's disgraceful conduct in this matter. And Howard will get off scott free, again

You guys seem to be looking at the Habib Issue purely from the legal standpoint. "He was not charged, therefore he must be innocent"
I really know next to zero about this case apart from what has been reported here. All I have heard is that he was suspected of involvment in Al Qaeda training camps.
Has anyone thought of the possibility that this may be true and he was released without charge for strategic reasons ?

Unfortunately Numbat has swallowed the general Howard Government/Mass Media line in relation to Habib. Numbat’s not alone of course. Many voters did the same in regard to the lies told about interest rates preceding the last election.
It seems a majority of callers to the wastelands of talkback radio can’t analyse the crucial points in the Habib saga, and have already fallen again for the misinformation and outright deception pedalled by the Government/Media manipulators.

All of this – especially Weekend Australian’s "Guilty because we say so” editorial fantasy on Habib - only shows how untrustworthy most mass media has become in Australia, and this unreliability is probably the main reason for the success of Online Opinion and other news & opinion websites like Crikey and Newmatilda. We live in a time when government’s furtive duplicity is almost as widespread as the recent tsunami, when media honesty and integrity are crucial for our democracy to thrive. People in search of in-depth, truthful reporting, investigative journalism, and informed opinion supported by factual relevance, are forced to abandon newspapers. I cancelled my subscription to The Australian 9 months ago for these reasons.

jayjaz

ringtail: You said that 'whether habib or hicks fraternise with or were involved with {lunatic-my term)terrorist is moot...'You really mean that if habib and/or hicks could/would meet and train with the nasties that this would not worry you at all??? Boy I am glad you are not a member of a Police Force in this country with views like that! By the way there is NO hatred from me to moslems.I just do not want to be bombed by barking mad basque, IRA or moslem terrorists.Fair enough sport.

instant ramen: murdock will print lttle that is anti howard. Don't forget howard's new media bill will be out soon then murdock will get his "wages".
what should western democracies (there are NO pure islamic democracies only brutal dictatorships) do?? Pat the brutal sods on the back give them passports and import licenses for their bombs and armaments?? Have you read what the saudi's - the main backers of terrorists - think of us in the west, have you read of their plans for us - if they were powerful enough. Open your eyes sport! Should they start exploding bombs in this country neither you nor your family will be immune you know. I do not hate moslems but you seem to hate those of us who have differing opinions. By the way using foul language does nothing for your argument at all. Regards, numbat

jayjazz: NO!! I have not swallowed anyone's line and you know it!! but it looks good to demonise someone eh??especially if their views are different from yours. Yet you have the hide to accuse others of demonising gutless, cowardly, bloodthirsty terrorists -get a life curly. Note that I have not accused you of peddling someone else's thoughts. I totally agree with your comments on the 'australian'It is just a lying liberal rag. No journalists just paid one-eyed obedient, compliant hacks or prostitutes of the press. murdock is not doing this for nought either. regards, numbat

Boaz, you say that those of us who are deeply concerned about the abrogation of human rights in Habib's case, must believe the following, "he was not charged, therefore he is innocent".

No Boaz, you are wrong. Most people who share my concerns are making no judgement whatsoever about Habib's guilt or innocence. That is for a court of law to decide, not the court of public opinion.

There is an old story from the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw in WW11 that goes something like this. When they came for the grocer down the road, I made no complaint. When they came for my neighbour, I made no complaint. When they came for my best friend, I made no complaint. When they came for me, who was there to complain?

Grace and JayJazz, don't know what you know about the influence of the media but it is not wide reaching. Studies show the media may be able to sway the opinions of about 3 per cent of the population.
The other 97 per cent use the media to confirm their own beliefs.
Like you said, The Oz had a piece you didn't like so you reject it, the SMH had something you like so you agreed with them.
This is what most people do.
Even on OLO very few people change their mind - they get their opinions reinforced.

t.u.s.

Usual suspect, interesting study that you have quoted. I wonder what "media" was covered in that study. Did it include talk back radio and television, as well as newspapers? Did it distinguish between reading editorial opinion and reading news information? What does "sway opinion" actually mean? Was the study conducted in a particular time frame, say during an election period, so that it related only to changing voting intentions? Do you think we deserve media in this country that honestly and fearlessly reports the facts and holds government and other powerful interests to account on our behalf?

Grace. I'm away right now, but when i get home i'll try to find some references for the research i was using. There have been a few studies - usually from America, but also including UK and Oz.
We do deserve journalists who report without fear or favour - but unfortunately nearly everyone has some bias and this is reflected in the way things are reported. Journalists are people too remember not heartless robots with 100 per cent objectivity.
And most papers, radio programs and television in Oz is biased some way.
You mentioned Murdoch press which leans to the right, Nine and seven probably do as well.
The ABC and the SMH lean a little left.
I think for the most part they all tell the truth - just from a different angle.
You only have 35cm or two minutes to tell the story, so not everything goes in, only what the journo thinks is the most important.
Both sides selectively use the truth.

t.u.s.

Thanks usual suspect, I look forward to further information on your quoted survey at another time. Incidentally, I have nothing at all against hard working journalists in the mainstream media. And I do not believe that pure "objectivity" is necessary or possible in journalism. This is an old furphy that has thankfully been put to rest.

But let's not confuse reporting the news, which is mostly done to a high professional standard, and the opinion pieces on the editorial pages of newspapers and on television news (not to mention radio talk-back). So long as readers and listeners understand that such opinions might often reflect the interests of the powerful and not their own, then there is no problem. But I am not convinced that is always the case. And with the concentration of media into fewer and fewer hands, we are increasingly denied the full spectrum of opinion, and we are the poorer for it.

My contempt is reserved for those higher up in the media hierarchy in this country. The Murdochs, the Packers, and yes even the ABC board, stacked as it is with political cronies. These are the real movers and shakers, who set the "frameworks" within we all must try to discern the truth, journalists included. But that is another story.

Habib does not have much support outside of the usual assortment who hate Howard on principle and who even if Habib had been welcomed back to Australia with a public reception fronted by John Howard and given a pension for life, would now be condemning Howard for not going far enough. So it is perfectly reasonable for Howard to say stuff-em and to give Habib bugger all.

Also unfortunately, for Habib he made such a pain of himself in his local mosque before he had his unfortunate brush with the Pakistani authorities that he does not really have any real support even among his fellow Muslims. A few half-hearted comments welcoming him back and that is about it.

Habib should really count his blessings, and thank the good lord that his stupidity hasn’t cost him his life.

The Habib supporters might also turn their attention to getting the Pakistani and Egyptian governments to provide Habib with some compensation. However, I suppose that Egypt and Pakistan get a free pass on this issue from the multiculturalists in the Habib camp. After all, it is so much more rewarding to stay with what you know and to keep on condemning Howard and Bush. Supporting Habib is so much more satisfying for Bush and Howard haters then say protesting about the abuses of women in Egypt and Pakistan.

Howard is on safe ground—the hypocrisy of the Habib supporters is so egregious that Howard can literally tell them all to get stuffed.

JB1 - I am not sure that Pakistan has anything to answer for in the Habib case, apart from letting american operatives drag visitors off buses without charging them and then spiriting them out of the country. I suspect the legal system there would just shrug its shoulders at any compensation claim.

Habib was then taken by the americans authorities to Egypt with its international reputation for brutal torture. Any country that routinely uses torture to extract confessions is unlikely to possess a legal system that we would recognise, and through which compensation claims could be made. In fact, that's why the americans took him there in the first place.

By taking Habib on to Guantanamo Bay, which the Bush administration had constructed as a legal vacuum where torture could continue, the american authorities were hoping that once again Habib would have no recourse to the law. That is also why the americans did not let Habib fly over american airspace on the way home. Unfortunately for the Bush administration the american court system has now lifted the veil on the legal status of Guantanamo Bay, deciding that it is indeed subject to american law, and Habib now appears to have recourse to a recognisable legal system that will listen to his complaint.

Both the american and australian legal systems have evidence laws that disallow the use of torture in extracting confessions. Any confessions that Habib might have made under torture are not worth the paper they are written on. That's why the americans were unable to charge Habib with any crime, and why the australian government cannot either (apart from the absence of any relevant laws in force at the time of his alleged terrorist activities).

On the other hand, both countries are possibly liable for compensation claims for the cruel and inhumane treatment metered out to Habib. And further, those american operatives who interrogated Habib and Hicks are now likely themselves to face a court of law for breaking the law. What a farce.

As to the claim that Habib was released without charge in order not to compromise the intelligence sources that led to his kidnapping as an "enemy combatant" three years ago, anyone who believes this must ask themselves why Habib not released three years ago. The intelligence would have been just as much compromised then as now. No, the americans wanted Habib tortured for further information, and with the acquiesance of our government, we are now all guilty of condoning lawless barbarism, no better than any terrorist. Unless we complain.

You can reduce all this to hypocritical "Howard-hating" and "Bush-hating" if you like JB1, but by doing so you really miss the point.

Take the hypothetical case of an australian (white) christian missionary in the southern Philippines who is suspected of assisting an islamic insurgency, just because he happened to be muddling around the same area at a crucial time. This person has made a nuisance of himself on previous occasions in the local area, and he happens to have some professional skills in electronics, which suggest he might have been involved in signals intelligence. He is kidnapped by american operatives who take him to Egypt where he is tortured, and then to Cuba, where he is given similar treatment. He is incarcerated for three years without the australian government making any protest. How would you feel about that, JB1?

Thanks Grace, JB1 has entirely missed the point, you are correct in saying that the case of Habib is about a denial of civil rights. We should all very concerned, I wonder if JB1 was ever caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and was placed under indefinite arrest, how he would feel then? I don't know if Habib is innocent or guilty I do know that our legal system is under threat as a result of the methods used to detain Habib.

"rights" ... interesting concept :) there is no such thing apart from a power relationship. "I am strong, u may do this and that, but no more" <== that is a right.
Unless u can point to a power bigger than all of us, who can determine that there ARE rights applicable to all humans and which have enduring, eternal applicability, I have to follow the logical atheist view that the concept of rights is an artificial one. But then, I'm not an atheist :)

BOAZ_David, always pointing the bone (or the crucifix) at atheism, saying things like atheism doesn't have rights and that it's all about power etc etc, and saying that we need a higher power to give us these rights... maybe you should let your fellow christians in the white house know that they are bound to the rights and morals as allegedly told to all of you christians by your little abstract idea in the sky :-)

What this also shows is that you have no faith in humanity and in having this lack of faith you have gone looking for somewhere where you can place your faith. What becomes interesting is that you have decided to place your faith in a book which you are told (by people - gasp ) was written by (yet again) more people who were supposed to be writing through the guidance of god. Your lack of faith is startling, to renew your faith I suggest the Lord of the Rings as a good book which may restore your faith in Humanity.

What ever Habib makes out of his story is of little consequence as is most of the stories relating to this hapless gadabout.I have had cause elsewhere to state his guilt or innocence at this moment is irrelevant, whether he has a passport is irrelevant, whether he gets an apology from any one in governemnt is irrelevant ( sorry is a word that does not pass through their lips easily at the best of times); he can spend the next twenty lunches with Ray Martin having us gasp at anec dotes of horror and inhumanity. All of that has little meaning any longer, if it ever did - the average Autralian really doesnt care any way. The last two election results suggest that as he is swarthy he is worthy of suspicion of the highest order

What is at issue is the fact when it comes to national security we really are the Keystone cops:- we have either blown any chance of prosecuting a real bad guy or, with an equivalent degree of breathtaking ineptitude and indifference have permitted yet another Australian citizen to languish in endurance vile for several years. This Government is so cowered by the United States at the moment none of us are safe.

Habibs comrade in incarceration , Hicks, is unlikely to see the light of day any time soon - he is the subject of revenge so he will stay put for a very long time and our government is pleased with that.

And even now our governments indifference to fundamental human suffering has been demosntrated by further ineptitude with Rau case -a tragically mentally ill woman, where again an Australian has spent months unjustly in on of our own Gulags. Early reports of mistreatment and abuse should be of no surprise - remember our government was very tardy in responding to any reports of mistreatment of prisoners in the Iraqi prison. They have a history of complacency when it comes to inhumanity.

These are the features of the current Australian political landscape that need commentary. Not whether or not Habib should get some cash for comment. This government has shown it self incapable of protecting us, with very few exceptions, from any one who threatens us with terror. And equally incapable of offering us reasonable protection from the excesses of government in this increasingly paranoid atmosphere.

Inkeemagee

Matt
its interesting to note the rationalizations which emerge in the light of some truth. I'm not so much pointing the bone or the crucifix. I'm stating the same philosophical reality that has been addressed by pretty much every major philosopher of note over the past couple of millenia. Have a read of "The history of Western Philosophy" edited by Bertrand Russell.
Bear in mind, "you" are viewing all this stuff from probably your own life and national perspective. You were most likely brought up in peace, and hence u may think that to not have it is preposterous.
If u look back from the end of just WW2 and see how many years have gone by, and the various 'interesting concepts' which have arisen "Human rights" "International Law" and then see how many years went by in the past from the end of one conflagration to the next, you will recognize that our present situation is the exception rather than the rule. Even Israel had such similar periods of peace, but then..... some upstart king got tired of paying tribute and it was 'on' all again.
If you are really honest, you would agree that 'rights CAN only be conferred by a more powerful to a less powerful' there is nothing 'innate' about such things in a god rejecting world. This is not an opinion, it is a philosophical fact, if such a thing can exist.
Please don't argue with 'ME' about this, argue with the atheist philosophers who themselves decided it.

So, it seems you ended on 'believe things written by people etc'.. yes, I grant you this, agreed. My position is one of faith. But on the balance of probabilities, its a reasonable position. We could wax long and eloquent about the relative merits of oral tradition, and in this connection a good read of the Islamic Hadith is quite instructive, where the various 'chains of narrators' result in some interesting results in terms of the information transmitted.
There are other issues, but this is not the place for a complete introduction to the Hebrew scriptures, nor of the New Testament.

I don't have any more faith in humanity than history shows I should. Again, this is a reasonable position based on the available evidence.
I'd be interested in your 'source' for suggesting humanity has innate qualities of goodness and fairplay etc, which of course you will justify from specific examples, yes ? Have u ever witnessed what 2 ethnic groups faced with a 'shortage' of any important resource will do ? I've not just watched it, I've experienced it. So, my faith in humanity is that it will act in 'predictable ways'.

Your further interaction is eagerly awaited

Boaz, the idea of rights has been around much longer than the years after WWII, a small exampl can be found here: http://www.cfimetrony.org/hitchens.html

Sure, I have been brought in times of peace and prosperity (in my part of this country anyway) but i'm not as naive as you think that I can understand why parts of the world are not in a state of peace. What i see from you though is a defeatist attitude, look at Europe, India, parts of South America for exmaples of where peace has developed. You dont think peace can last anywhere in the world? Another example of your lack of faith which may or may not be justified, depends on how much faith you have in your fellow man :-)

Rights can only be handed down by a higher power? take a look at the chiapas peoples of the zapatista movement in mexico, their style of democracy isn't a top down approach, and yes their 'citizens' have rights endowed to them.

Have I seen two ethnic groups face a shortage and find a peaceful means to an end? That depends on whether you can show me an instance where two ethnic groups have come to live together not as a result of an invasion? At this point in time i cant think of any. Can you?

As an aside though, do you think the US had the right to make a prostitute menstruate on habib? or is this just a matter of the US being more powerful than habib therfore they have the right to do this. remember their commander in chief (pres Bush) is a devout christian and is supposed to adhere to all of the morals that go with that belief. An to preempt a point it is not naive to think that he isn't ultimately responsible for the actions of the interrogators in camp x ray.

Its interesting to note the logical fallcy that... absence of proof to the contrary proves the original assertion. ie no proof to support the detention proves the presumption of innocence. Or no evidence to assert innocence proves guilt. Bzzzz... that's a D- for that Logics class.

Notwithstanding the logical fallacy of that contention, that tact is irrelevant. The way our system works is if they have no/insufficient evidence, then you walk. The presumption of innocence is critical to the rule of law. The burden of proof is with the accuser not the accused. What sort of society do we build if you have to prove you are not a witch by dying at the stake?

A central plank of democrazy is The Rule of Law. This outcome is an example of that. Clearly, there are important ramifications if they got it wrong in the of case Habib, hence the onerous limitations on his movement. Its a pity that the very things we value about our system are being undermined by the beauru-rats. That this could be the beginning of the slippery slope. Maybe, maybe not. l think it is something of an awakening about the true nature of our alleged freedom and the nature of governance.

As someone mentioned in a previous post, there is a certain insightful symbolism to the question... if they come for my neighbour, will they come for me? It is also an interesting insight into the view that our government has regarding its own citizens. All their rhetoric regarding protection of Australians is exposed for the spin sell that it is, in light of how they treated this fellow. We are expendable fodder.

Why would the government wish to sensor Habib's first hand story? Let all the detail out into the cold light of day and let us decide for ourselves. Dont hide behind smoke screens of national interest/security to keep us in the dark. We are not children and the government is not our nanny. l suspect that the government doesn't want another 'children overboard' scandal, this time magified a thousand fold

Matt.. I'll tackle your 'aside' first.
When it comes to the treatment of people. "do for others as you would have them do to/for you" is a pretty good rule and would immediately prevent all of the 'bad' things people do to each other..right ?
So, I can in no way justify such treatment of people on Biblical grounds. Don't worry.. part of our belief is that God IS judge :)
What goes around comes around.
I'll look up your reference happily and try to comment meaningfully on it soon.

MATTBYRNE (this is off topic, but is a response to what you said )

Now for mr PAINE in the butt :)

1/ EXCEPTION rather than the RULE.
The first thing I note, is how many people of his day OPPOSED him and his ideas. If nothing else, this should tell you that he was the exception rather than the rule in terms of his approach to the organization of society.
2/ HIS IDEAS FROM WHERE ?
The second point is to ask 'from where' did his ideas about social justice etc come ? Is it not possible that he inherited them from an upbringing which included a reasonable degree of Christian ideas? I don't know, I'm guessing on this one.
3/ VALIDITY. Even if his ideas have a 'nice ring' about them, are u not able to see that they could only ever be implemented (and subsequently protected) by.. FORCE :)
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see the situation of the day, he had opponents. Why are his views more valid than theirs ? To what authority does one look for this final validation ?

Around this time there were the 'chartists' who advocated for increased powers for the working class. Among them wre the 'moral force' chartists and then the 'physical force' chartists. Which was 'morally right' ? :)
Of note also is the considerable number of Christian churches involved in the Chartist movement.

Interestingly enuf, he even quotes from major philosophers of the day as follows:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now many people have argued, Karl Marx argued, Hegel argued, Nietzsche argued that the concept of right is a ridiculous one. It's invented out of whole cloth, it's sucked from the thumbs of a pathetic, grizzling humanity and humans who want to have special treatment or who have a solipsistic view of themselves. Well, that all might turn out to be true, as a matter of fact.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, against this, Paine asserts his own opinion, which was clearly not shared by all others, yet to the powerless it would sound most agreeable due to its beneficial overtones.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“No, if there's to be right, it must be human and it must transcend property and, in a happy phrase, include the pursuit of happiness.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I confess, I'm reminded of Jesus words

John 10:10 "....I came, that they might have LIFE, and have it abundantly" :)

John 8:31
“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free"

Its as though Paine just could not concieve of a world without the 'right' to persue happiness. But again, what is needed for this 'right' to be workable ? is it not violence ? is it not power ?
Who will defend the walls of Jerusalem while the Roman Battering Rams pound and snarl at the gates ? Thus it is with all our societies.

Oh.. I just found a possible source of Paines ideas :) "HE WAS A DEIST"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I'm sorry to say that I cannot claim Thomas Paine as a brother atheist, let alone as a brother anti-theist, which is what I am. Deism was as far as he could go"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had a look at the chiapas and Zappatista. Sounds a lot like most pre-revolutionary idealism. You can absolutely BET, that if they achieved their major goals, they would enforce them with the same brutality that Castro has done, and the early soviet union, and that given time, they would develop a ruling elite, which would feel quite comfortable with its newfound privilege and power, just like the Russians, and the Chinese who have now discovered the real benefits of 'one party rule' i.e. u convert the economy to a capitalistic one, except that only YOU (the ruling elite) benefit from it.

DEFEATIST ? ME ?
Ha! no way Matt.. I have no illusions about human movements, or human nature. I'm absolutely convinced of the idea of original sin.
I know that when people are set free by Christ, they have values which are enduring, and they dont depend on a human structure to be maintained, they depend on your own relationship with Christ on a daily basis. When Stephen was being stoned, he died with a smile on his face. "as an angel" goes the report, and 'they laid his garments as the feet of a young man named SAUL ==> who God took hold of, and turned him from persecuting the christians, renamed him PAUL===> Most of the New Testament. Have a read of how this impacted social life. Acts 2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Inkeemagee, good on you for raising the Cornelia Rau case in the context of the Habib case under discussion here. Many Australians will rightly deplore what happened to Cornelia, but unfortunately some of them will not make the connection with Habib. Two letters to the editor in the newspapers today are worth repetition because they draw attention to the abrogation of human rights made explicit in both cases:

"There was a time when, if you were found wandering in the remote bush, babbling and obviously mentally distressed, you were given appropriate medical treatment and mental assessment. Now they hand you over to contractors running refugee camps who keep you isolated for months. You start out treating refugees with contempt for their human dignity and after a while you treat your own citizens the same way." (Blair Hunt, Qld, published in The Australian.)

"How are we protected from arbitary detention? By the separation of powers between Parliament, the executive and the courts. Our laws and constitution give the courts control over imprisonment. When Parliament passed mandatory detention laws, it took away the power of the courts and gave the executive power to lock up non-citizens. This short-sighted policy to deter asylum seekers took away the checks and balances that are part of the foundation of our freedom in a democratic society. We acquiesced in this, thinking, "They're illegals, they deserve it", but we were not just consenting to inhumanity to outsiders, we were opening the isolation cell doorway through which Cornelia Rau was pushed." (Paul Bately, NSW, published in the SMH.)

Those who believe that "human rights" are somehow dispensible when inconvenient, or only available to those with the right colour skin or the right religion, or that we should meet the forces of oppression on our bended knees, have lost sight of the meaning of democracy, and betray our predecessors who fought so hard to win our freedoms.

Yes.. the Cornelia Rau case was a sad evidence of a system gone wrong.
It appears that people were trying to help her for months, and it all fell on arrogant deaf ears.

Mattbyrne uses the 'floored logic of the left'.
According to him it's a FACT that some Ho menstrated on Habib. It's a fact because the legal defence team of the TERRORIST said so...

For the dummies.....There is LESS evidence to support this then to substantiate the charges bought upon him in the 1st place.

Why is it fact when lying Terrorists state something, & Right Wing propaganda when it's refuted? Numbat is right, in Islam it is 'not a sin to lie to the infidel'..

I REPEAT:

in Islam it is 'not a sin to lie to the infidel'..


If only the Left weren't so stupid as to realise the errors of their ways, Geneva Convention, give me a break.
The Geneva has no clause for 'flying aircraft into buildings to kill thousands of innocent Westerners whilst participating in a military operation disguised as civilians'.
But then again maybe it does.....It would go along way to explain some of the opinions expressed here by the 'obsessed left'.

Keep up the good work Numbat.

sayeret "Why is it fact when lying Terrorists state something, & Right Wing propaganda when it's refuted? Numbat is right, in Islam it is 'not a sin to lie to the infidel'.." aren't you falling for the same thing you accuse me of lets see

Why is it fact when lying Right Wing media state something, & Terrorist propaganda when it's refuted? Good question.

Sayaret and Numbat.. good call.

The only thing wrong with the idea of 'patient application of human rights and due process' when it comes to suspected terrorists, is that these days, if u don't get vital information in time, it may be the last breath u ever take. (notes the mushroom cloud rising over New York).

The thing I find difficult to understand (and to justify) is the degree of physical ill-treatment dished out to these guys. I dont think its needed in order to get the truth out of them, I've seen some doco's on how brain wave analysis can be used to determine if someone is lying. Also, simple sound wave stimulus of the brain in certain areas can give a person the impression of a particular experience. If u find valuable info, they are unhurt as a result.

Matt..... you need to take more of a middle ground approach. As someone said "Most people come here to have their pre-existing opinions validated" rather than be changed. You should know its neither the one or the other.

Matt....
u haven't said anything about my response to Paine.
any reason ?

sorry Boaz, doijg this whilst working, will be on to it soon enough though, you're one of the more interesting conservatives on this forum...

David,

I'm quite busy here so my response wont be as in depth as id like it to be - sorry 'bout that:

You were very quick to write off the chiapas, give them time...

Sure paine was a Deist, i'm afraid atheists weren't very numerous back in the 1700's, reasons include persecution, lack of secular education and the fact it was bad for business. The issue that he was in the minority view: sometimes it is the minority that has to convince the majority about what is right, i'm still not buying your might is right point of view (even though in the big scheme of things this is the case for a while, but eventually might loses out to reason and realism see womens suffarage, racial rights, peace activists against vietnam, fall of georgian pres. etc)

I was a Catholic until i woke up to what i believe to be the truth (reason, science etc.) so iam aware of the writings of the new testament and the effects they have had on social policy (especially the effect it had on my fave philosopher TH Green), although i find many parts of the book hypocritical...but thats for a debate that is too different from the topic of this thread, although i think we are really stretching it anyway :-)

iam afraid that i'm going to have to leave this intersting debate though, i'm finishing up work and then moving to canberra were i wont have 'net access for quite some time and this debate will have died off by then, so it has been interesting, we will in the main scheme of things have to agree to disagree, but it has been fun...

so i bid you adieu

MATTTT...
I might be able to squeeze one more in b4 u go :) (I can't resist this one)
"womens suffrage" and 'might it right'


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suffragettes.htm

"It is possible that the Suffragettes would have become more violent. They had, after all, in February 1913 blown up part of David Lloyd George's house - he was probably Britain's most famous politician at this time and he was thought to be a supporter of the right for women to have the vote"

Take care and enjoy your new surroundings. I'm sure our paths will cross again (better paths than swords eh :))......

Matt B -

FACT - Habib was detained in Pakistan, by Pakistani intelligence. This is documented.

CONJECTURE - "They got whores to menstrate on us"
This is not documented & is soley the opinion of the accused, which according to some must be treated as absolute truth.

better to take different paths than having to cross swords, well met.

It's all well and good to go on about Manboobs Habib and the concept of innocent until proven guilty, but the reality could make the practicality of this concept very dangerous.

Who knows why the US didn't charge him? Perhaps to fully prosecute Habib they would have needed to reveal very important sources of intelligence that provide them with vital information about terrorists and their activities? Perhaps when weighed up the prosecution of Habib was not as important as protecting these sources? Does this mean that Habib is not dangerous? I wouldn't bet on it.

I don't care if he gets paid ten million dollars for his story, as long as he isn't allowed to do harm to this country. Perhaps all the lefties should treat this issue seriously instead of just using it as a weapon with which to bash the Howard government.

BOZZIE !!!!!!
exACTLY !
the trouble with the 'due process' etc etc.. is that its fine during peace time. THIS IS NOT THAT TIME.
Well said.

I'm wondering if anyone has read the L.A.R.K Program letter instituted by the Whitehouse. LARK means, Leftist Accomodation program for Religious Killers.

It's quite a laugh.

Sayaret... not bad. I had a read.