Mamdouh Habib is being tried ,convicted by the press and punished by the executive branch of government.You obviously choose to believe those who have lied and continue to lie,distort facts and fabricate evidence. Get your head out of the sand and at least give this man the opportunity to test his accusers "evidence" not the innuendo that you submit.
Maracas

Yes Ted don't worry about rehashing your crud if the man has broken an Australian law then charge him if not then shut up.

So if I shot Ted Lapkin in the war against Zionist terrorism would I get rewarded? It seems that using Lapkin's logic you can call a situation you don't like "war" and then apply your own rules.

I just had a read of a number of Ted's articles. The arguments present a quandry we all should take seriously. Whilst I accept that those we are dealing with are nasty pieces of work I get concerned about the impact on our society of making the hard choices to deal with them. If my enemy is lawless should I become lawless to get a level playing field?

On the one hand we are fighting against an enemy who does not obey rules we understand. Who will use every weakness in our laws against us. As a society we choose to "try" and err on the side of befefit of the doubt in our legal system. We deliberately constrain the arms of justice to try and ensure that it is not society which is hurting the innocent. Concepts such as the Burden of proof, the presumption of innocence are important.

Should we drop that approach when dealing with terrorists and if so where do we draw the line?

As for myself I get knid of scared when the side I'm on starts to give the appearance of not following process as closely as it possibly can? I know the others are the bad guys because they do bad things (well stuff I don't like anyway). What happens when my side holds people for years without charge and out of valid contact with legal representation? What happens when my side hides behind secrecy and then does stuff which borders on torture all seemingly without adequate checks and balances? What stops us from becoming the bad guys?

I don't have the answers to these questions, I do think they are ones we need to include in the debate more often.

Rob
the 'line' is usually drawn based on a subjective assessment of all the factors. I'm sure they get it wrong at times, being too early or too late.
Why condemn 'them' (not you, the others like Kenny and Maracas) when we probably could not do better. 'They' have much more information than us.
Thank God Kenny and Maracus are not running the country or their would be no country to run. (not by us anyway)..
cheers kenny and maracas

Ted Lapkins essentially argues that we should hand over our hard won freedoms to the military and intelligence services in the Habib case, and dismisses the judicial system as being irrelevant in a time of war. Burma is ruled by a junta of generals, how inspiring. Whither Australia?

Maracas, Kenny, DavidJS and Robert understand the importance of the rule of law, going right back to Magna Carta, that distinguishes us as the civilised from the barbarians.

When we turn a blind eye to arbitrary detention by the executive instead of the judiciary, torture in concentration camps, trial by the media and public opinion, and ignore the presumption of innocence when it is inconvenient, not to mention engaging in a war of aggression based on blatant lies, we become the barbarians.

We might as well bring back the stocks, public floggings, the dipping stool, and string 'em up by the neck in the town square. Might suit your biblical view of the world Boaz, but not mine. Although I am not sure how the moral relativity that you espouse, one rule for us and one rule for "them", is very christian.

As I understand it, it was Ted Lapkin who first floated the proposition that Habib was released by the americans (to the evident surprise of our government) because his trial might compromise intelligence information. Many people now believe this to be true, although it has no official endorsement to my knowledge. A very handy piece of disinformation in the war on truth that we are now witnessing.

I also note that Lapkin chooses to blame Clinton for the rise of Al Qaida but makes no mention of Bush being AWOL at the ranch in the lead up to 9/11 despite clear briefings that Al Qaida was gathering its forces for a major assault. And I am still unable to understand how, in bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age, the american forces were unable to capture bin Laden. Some fewer noisy bombs and a bit more quiet intelligence might have helped.

Habib might or might not be guilty of something or other, but let him have his say in court.

So BOAZ_David do you think we should throw our rule book away if we don't like what other people are doing but we have no laws that prohibit their behavior?

If you don’t stand by your principles even when it could mean your destruction what are you fighting for mere survival? BOAZ_David you should know this but maybe your like your biblical namesake and need some assistance. What principles of your Christian belief system would you drop merely to stay alive. The issue we are facing today is not new the Christians, Jews and the Muslims have been at each others throats for 1000 years the difference now is technology has allowed a same number of people to make a big impact. As any fire fighter will tell fighting fire with fire can be effective but some times the back burn becomes more of a problem then the fire you were trying to put out.

If the Gaza pull goes as planned and the right wing Jewish extremist do what they say they’ll do will the word be as hash on them as some have been to the Muslims?

Kenny said ==>"If you don’t stand by your principles even when it could mean your destruction what are you fighting for"

Kenny.. u want to put principle above survival ? The only principle I will give that status to is the denial of Christ and many believers have died for just that reason.
Our principles.. ???? which ones ??? The principles of which you speak COME from the Bible. But one principle which is above all (except for denying Christ) is the one which looks after his own before others. (speaking of family in that case, but could be applied to the national family one is responsible for)
But when it comes to the Habib/terrorism issue, the principle being applied is clearly that where a strong case against him exists (if the media is right.. and we are all subject to that source) then they are clearly playing it by strategic decisions. I cannot justify "torture", but I can accept aggressive persuasion if it saves the nation. Remember, he was picked up in the context of a war zone, not specifically in a place of war, but his attendence at training camps is being testified to by witnesses, and that would be my starting point. (true or false) if true, then aggressive interrogation is in the interests of national survival. (I'd go for chemicals myself... or brain wave analysis)

Kenny, when it comes to "Principles and survival" I thoroughly recommend a reading of Josephus account of the fall of Jerusalem, its most enlightening.

~~~

http://members.aol.com/FlJosephus2/warChronology6Factions.htm#Chronology

"Daily desertions from Jerusalem hampered by Zealots guarding the roads, who kill and leave the bodies unburied. "Every dictate of religion was ridiculed by these men, who scoffed at the oracles of the prophets as impostor's tales." But the preditions of destruction would prove accurate. (4.6.3 377-388)

~~~

War is hell

The implication that Habib is guilty by association with groups that "deliberately attack civilians" makes me a little uncomfortable. Civilians are the greatest casualties of any war, terrorist or conventional modern style of warfare. It is a common fact that more civilians have died during the war in Iraq than soldiers on both sides. So-called smart bombs decimated schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and essential servies in Iraq, Bosnia and Serbia, but were categorised as 'mistakes'.

We have laws because humans, by nature, need consequences to their actions. Why should those consequences be removed because a nation is "at war"? I agree that they may need to be moderated somewhat to reflect the reality of the changed environment, but that needs to be regulated, eg by the Geneva Convention.

Torture, abuse, murder, degredation, rape? As mature individuals, can we actually imagine our military representatives undertaking such acts? Can we imagine ourselves condoning it, just because "they did it first!"
I hope not

OCEAN.. he is guilty OF association with terrorists.. if the intelligence is true.

Habib plays on a Western sense of fair play and legal nicities to hide his agenda.

To anyone who wants to defend him - when it is your friend, child or parent who is killed of left arm or legless by a bomb left in a nightclub by a Muslim terrorist remember you have defended him and hang your head for shame - you did nothing to stop him.

Bali happened overseas - but it happened because some terrorist exercised his "legal right" to be proved a terrorist before being stopped.

I notice the Irish Police have arrested a member to Sinn Fein as part of the robbery gang on the Northern Bank in Ireland.

Alot of people would argue that the Sinn Fein is a political organisation - I say it is just "the politically correct" face of a terrorist organisation which has crippled social progress in Ireleand for almost a century.

Alot of people would demand fair and judicial process for terrorists - far fairer and more judicial than the street bombs the IRA planted in London.

What has this to do with Habib - simple

The IRA too are terrorists. You can fight them or be destroyed by them.

Imagine that the rolls were reversed and I was suspected of planning a jihad against the Muslims in Saudi Arabia.Would I be still be drawing breath today?Now we are going to let Mr Habib muddy the waters using our legal system.Remember our legal system deals in legalities not reality,thousands of our own criminals get off on legal techicalities.Our Govt deoesn't want criminals in gaol.It costs too much.It better for them that we pay higher insurance to cover our losses,then they can happily grow their bureauracies.

Imagine the roles are reversed.....
Imagine you are being accused of something you did not do.
Imagine you are arrested,beaten,tortured and jailed for 3 years
Imagine how you would feel if everyone condemned you without trial.
Imagine that !!
Maracas

MARACAS
or.. imagine he IS given a trial, found guilty and setenced to a kazillion years in jail or executed.
I think he got off pretty good given the background.

Democracy and the rule of law still has something about "presumed innocent", fortunately.
During the Spanish Inquistion, it was assumed that if you were innocent, God would not let you suffer torture. Fortunately, views on human rights are a little further developed these days. Or are they?
However, it is possible do act upon intent. Law enforcement or Intelligence/ the Military has done that before.
Of course, evidence of intent needs to be a little better than the WMD stuff that was used prior to the American led Coalition of the Willing going into Iraq. No wonder the Americans do not like the International Criminal Court, any more than politicians like investigative journalism or Freedom of Information Acts.

Then again, confused people like Rau get locked up in solitary, but potential terrorist just get interviewed if I understand the PM right. Go figure.

The tragedy of this discourse is that Ted Larkin is as much a fundamentalist as those (like Habib) who he hopes to permanently silence through the tools of fascism and arbitrary government. Taking a quick look at his bio, Ted has strong military credentials, having served with distinction in the Israeli Army, strong political affiliations, acting as a Republican political lobbyist before acting as communications director for Rick Lazio in the 2000 senate election. Ted frequently speaks on behalf of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, an intensely partisan Zionist association.

His history screams extreme partisanism, with a zealous disregard for notions of reasoned argumentation. Preferring vitriol and emotive fervour to analytic discourse. Most striking in the above article is his blatant mischaracterisation of the legal profession, the legal system and the rule of law.

"Moreover, when the rules of the barrister are misapplied to the realm of the bombardier, real injury can result."

I think that when Ted refers to the 'rule of the barrister' his is, in fact, referring to, preciously, statutory rules of procedural fairness and, generally, constitutional conceptions of judicial review of executive action. Although he make no effort to define, with any precision, the legal rules that he believes should not be applied to terrorists Ted sees no obstacle in denouncing the futility of their operation during peacetime.

I can, as any reasonable, legally educated, reader could, only conclude that Ted's fractured attempt to characterise the legal system as an inappropriate forum through which to 'deal' with radical Islam is motivated by ignorance of the legal institution, and, at base, a misconception of constitutionalism and democracy.

The most disturbing incident of this fundamental misconception is that it if Ted does not understand what democracy is, then for what is he arguing, so emotionally, to safeguard? All his history can suggest is blind nationalism, which is in no way diluted by humanitarianism.

Perhaps Ted is not the most instructive, nor the most qualified, critic of the appropriateness of judicial responses to citizens charged with terrorist offences.