When you stuff up undoing what you have done gives ammunition to the enemy - fair call but that does not negate the need for the rule of law to apply in those countries fighting extremist Islam. Most of the public comment I have seen suggests that Camp Delta neither complies with criminal or war related laws and conventions.

I have no sympathy for Hicks if he was fighting on behalf of the Talliban but I do object when our own side thinks that it is OK to break our own rules.

Yes there is a risk if we allow these extremists to go free but a much greater risk when we hold people without trial and when we abandon our own values.

R0bert

Rather than Ted Lapkin's beliefs about what is happening in Iraq, I prefer to give credence to the reports of correspondents such as the SMH's Paul McGeough who is on the ground there, http://smh.com.au/news/world/the-boy-who-saw-too-much/2006/03/17/1142582522183.html

As for the terrorists locked up at Gitmo, too dangerous to democracy to ever be released, The New York Times (call it a neo-Marxist Leftist rag bent on destroying civilisation as we know it, if you want), wrote in its lead editorial on March 8:

QUOTE
THEY CAME FOR THE CHICKEN FARMER

This has been our nightmare since the Bush administration began stashing prisoners it did not want to account for in Guantánamo Bay: An ordinary man with a name something like a Taliban bigwig's is swept up in the dragnet and imprisoned without any hope of proving his innocence.

A case of mistaken identity's turning an innocent person into a prisoner-for-life was supposed to be impossible...

But it has long been evident that this was nonsense, and a lawsuit by The Associated Press has now demonstrated the truth in shameful detail. The suit compelled the release of records from hearings for some of the 760 or so men who have been imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay... Far too many show no signs of being a threat to American national security. Some, it appears, did nothing at all. And they have no way to get a fair hearing because Gitmo was created outside the law.

Take the case of Abdur Sayed Rahman... Mr. Rahman... was arrested in his Pakistani village in January 2002, flown to Afghanistan, accused of being the Taliban's deputy foreign minister and then thrown into a cell in Guantánamo Bay. "I am only a chicken farmer in Pakistan," he said, adding that the Taliban official was named Abdur Zahid Rahman...
END QUOTE

Gitmo is certainly sending a message to Arab Street. But it is not the one that Lapkin thinks.

The NYTimes seems, rather, to think that the United States is doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

There is little point arguing with Ted Lappin, as he is one of God’s chosen people who are entitled to the same land in the Middle East that they claim David and Solomon’s empire covered 3000 years ago.

However, for the rest of us: can someone explain the difference between a Palestinian suicide bomber and Baruch Goldstein, who in 1994, killed 29 and injured 125 Palestinian civilians at the Cave of the Patriarchs?

And the value of the life of civilians was taught to the Palestinians by the ‘raid’ on the village of Qibya on 14 October 1953, where 69 civilians were murdered in an act of ethnic cleansing and revenge by an Israeli army unit under the command of that great pacifist Ariel Sharon. For all those who say that the massacre didn’t occur please remember that even the USA issued a statement of sympathy for the victims and a call for the perpetrators to be held to account.

There is only one country – I will repeat that – only ONE country that has increased its size or moved its borders outwards since 1945 as a result of aggression. That country is Israel. Even Jewish historian, Eric Hobsbawm, in his ‘Age of Extremes’ compares Israel’s military successes to Prussia’s wars of expansion in the mid 1800s.

I have no time for Palestinian terrorists either, but they were taught how to be terrorists by the Israelis.

Military historian and genius, Israeli Martin van Creveld was one of the first to propose a security wall for Israel, however he was initially decried and insulted, because to build such a wall is to delineate a border, which is something that Israeli politicians do not wish to do.

It should also be remembered that ‘the occupied territories’ prior to be occupied, and settled upon by Israeli settlers, was land that formed part of sovereign states, so not only have the Palestinians been displaced, but neighbouring states have been treated as Prussia treated Alsace and Lorraine between 1870 and 1918.

Both sides are guilty, but Israel started it.

Fellow Human believes that Hamas came to power as a result of Israeli practices and corrupt Fatah leadership.

The change will not affect Israeli practices, so it must be that Palestinians prefer terrorism to corruption. It’s seems extreme to vote in a terrorist organization to get rid of a corrupt one

I'm sure that Ted has noticed that not one of the people detained in "Gitmo" has been tried and found guilty of any crime. I'm sure he has also noticed that the American's closest ally in "Operation Iraqi Freedom", the British, had such serious doubts about the methods of internment and justice delivered at Guantanamo Bay, that they demanded the release of their citizens.

I'm sure Ted knew that the prisoners returned to Britian received a hearing under British law, and that more than half of them were released without charge, after 3 years behind the razor wire. He must also be aware that those who were not released are now recieving a fair trial under British law, where, if convicted, they will face harsh penalties.

Perhaps Ted was also aware of the fact that the US has disregarded it's obligations under the law, relating to the treatment of prisoners, and that many remain in Gitmo, still without charge, or being charged with offenses relating to confessions produced under duress or even torture.

But I'm certain Ted also believes in the Western ideal of "innocent until proven guilty"

Mr Lapkin,

What amuses me about Right-Wing crusaders like yourself is that you constantly bang on about the measures we need to take in order to protect our freedom - little realising that those measures that you're endorsing actually destroy our freedom a lot quicker than any bunch of angry terrorists could.

When we are finally living in the Orwellian society that your ilk seem to long for, will you still be there fighting for our freedom? Or do you think it's alright for governments to strip us of our freedom?

Do you honestly think that governments are risking their reputations with such corrupt, unethical practices in order to protect us? No. They're taking advantage of a situation that furthers their agenda; a situation sparked by an event that was every neo-conservative's dream - September 11th 2001. Yes it was just what they needed to frighten the public again, especially since no one was afraid of Soviets, Communists, black people, The Devil or an angry God anymore. After all, how else would we surrender our freedom so easily - a passive-aggressive approach - enslavement without military intervention. It's so perfect that many like yourself don't even see it happening. Instead, you're playing right into it.

Anyone who endorses methods that will eventually lead to a totalitarian society is as equally threatening to freedom and democracy as any terrorist is.