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 My letter will not be published.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 ?