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.