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