Helen - Bravo!

Bravo again Helen, If the Australian were serious about their tagline about informing the nation then perhaps they could get you a column along side Janet each day to provide a balanced and informed view. Keep it up!!

No land should be without laws and so it is with the USA. In a 1942 case known as Ex Parte Quirin, a USA court ruled that enemy soldiers may be detained and tried by the military. No limits were placed on the detention period. Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation offers his opinion when he says that indefinite detention seems to flow from the Quirin case. As if to highlight the utter confusion surrounding detention Samp is a blasted attorney. His opinion would seem to be at odds with that of Helen Pringle so we are about to witness theomachy.

Helen, I think if you check you’ll find Janet Albrechtsen’s column appears under the heading of ‘Opinion’. Janet does have her fantasies but you too Helen take the occasional trip to oneirataxia.

We need politicians who take the responsibility of governing which involves the true interpretation of democratic law. Australian citizens deserve to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This CANNOT be disputed. No journalist should be involved in publishing material in the public domain which counters this basic right. Respect is earned by treating people fairly - this is true at a personal level and at an international level.Australia has had its international reputation tarnished by the Hicks and Habib affair. Please give us leaders who are more concerned with proper governance than with gaining political power.

Sadly Janet has a huge superiority complex which leads to convienient ignorance on most occassions. The first rule of Australian law is "innocent until proven guilty" I can't speak for anyone else, but I would have confessed to anything to get out of that hell hole after being held for 5 long years without trial.

Sage says Janet Albrechtsen’s column appears under the heading of ‘Opinion’. So what? Why is an opinion worth publishing? Surely you aren't implying that one opinion is just as good as any other opinion (whether it be about David Hicks, global warming, habeas corpus or any other matter of public importance)?

You would assume that to have your opinion regularly printed in a national newspaper you would be required to provide high quality and serious opinion pieces. So, apart from expressing your opinion elegantly and engagingly, you would surely need to demonstrate that you base that opinion on a set of verifiable facts and that your article is not only coherent and logical but also insightful - that is, your are able to shed new light on a topic that's been well worked over. You might also be expected to take account of contrary facts and explain why your opinion stands in the face of those alternative facts.

If you can't meet those straightforward criteria, you are really engaging in something close to self-serving idelology or mere prejudice.

Janet Albrechtsen writes elegantly and engagingly at times; but she is often caught short on the facts and rarely considers awkward facts which challenge her opinion. Perhaps it's because she comes from a legal training background where truth is subservient to winning your case. Perhaps that's why John Howard found it convenient to give her a sinecure on the ABC Board.

The problem with your argument FrankGol, is the underlying assumption that Albrechtson and the commentariat in general are interested in facts. Clearly that's not the case.

In real life opinion columnists are given space to spout whatever garbage they like with the minimal provisos that they can string words together and that they stir up controversy.

If it's facts you're looking for you're wasting your time reading any of them. If your tastes tend towards bile, conspiracy and hysteria you're well catered for in Australian print media.

Chainsmoker,

While I have some sympathy with your assessment of media commentators - Albretchsen, Ackerman, Bolt, Devine Pearson, Sheridan and some others fit your description, including Jones on radio and Donnelly and Flint as regulars on OLO - there are some journalists who don't produce just 'bile, conspiracy and hysteria'.

Commentators like Michelle Grattan, Muriel Porter, Peter Harcher, Hugh Mackay, Shaun Carney, David Marr and - on radio – Jon Faine are interested in assessing facts and often wrestle with contradictory facts and opinions.

I must concede that when I thought about your comments on writers of opinion pieces I realised it was easier to apply it to the right than to the left of the political spectrum.

The problem is that people like Albrechtsen get readers riled up and they respond in kind by writing letters to the editor. Albrechtsen and her colleagues have then done their job. Moreover, I get the impression that columnists usually thrive on hostility and really enjoy getting a negative reaction.

Difficult as it may seem, it's best to avoid reading such malarky trotted out by Albrechtsen et al. Let them die from indifference. And if you really have to read their rubbish just read the last paragraph. It saves valuable time.

As with Hicks, Ruddock and Downer have again been caught out trading the rights of an Australian for the US Alliance.

Four Corners last night traced the Government’s knowledge of Habib’s abduction by the US and torture. As the alleged case against Habib seems to rest on his confession under torture Janet apparently chooses to believe those Americans who outsource torture.

The Four Corners transcript is at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1947389.htm In it Ruddock and Downer deny they knew about Habib’s rendition by the US from Pakistan and about his torture in Egypt:

- “JACK CLOONAN, SENIOR SPECIAL AGENT, FBI'S BIN LADEN UNIT, 1996-02: We share things with the Australian Government, intelligence-wise, and so we would tell ASIO as a matter of courtesy, they would have been involved in this, one of their citizens, they're the lead agency”

- “BOB BAER, FORMER CIA OFFICER AND AUTHOR "SEE NO EVIL": If you want to get a good interrogation you send a prisoner to Jordan, and the prisons are full in Jordan of American prisoners.
If you want somebody tortured to death you send them to Syria.
If you never want to hear from them again, send them to Egypt. That's pretty much the rule.“

- “JACK CLOONAN, SENIOR SPECIAL AGENT, FBI'S BIN LADEN UNIT, 1996-02: This is a willing partner, we're married to each other. So to think that we, the United States, would just say don't tell them and we'll tell them afterwards and don't worry about it, we'll clear it up, you know, baloney.

This was done in a co-ordinated way. Now it may not be popular in Australia and there's probably people looking to jump in a hole some place because they don't want to acknowledge this, but believe me, there's an audit trail and somebody is just not telling you the truth if they are denying this.“

Its unfortunate that ASIO, the AFP and DFAT had been ordered not to FORMALLY advise their Ministers than an Australian has been abducted by the US and then sent off for torture by the US. These agencies usually do better.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

FrankGol,

Mostly no argument from me there, but the left is not entirely innocent of mindless frenzy itself. Maybe we'd be better off we classified such things as either "moderate" or "immoderate" - "immoderate" being a polite way of saying "nutter extremist" at both ends.

Pete,

Watched it, was totally horrified and have been waiting all day for some response. Check the media today. No questions, no comment. I'm not sure what's worse, the possibility that Australia has been complicit or that nobody in a position to ask questions appears to care.

What is happening to this country? Not sure I want an answer to that.

Why would Janet Albrechtsen, former lawyer and now resident bitcher in the Australian know anything about the law, anymore than she knows anything about broadcasting, but shes on the ABC board.

One should not expect anything of substance from her.

Ten years of Howard has given birth to some of the most intellectually barren public intellectuals ever.

And she's not the worst of them!

Ouch!

It is shameful when drivel is published in a newspaper. I no longer waste my time reading JA. It's disappointing that money is paid for garbage but it seems that is what the editors and publishers want. Terribly sad.

Chainsmoker, watched the 4corners programme as well.

Those of us who were asking questions about how the Americans are treating, not only Australian, terrorism suspects are horrified that what is suspected is very likely true.

In Europe the scandal of prisoner rendition, CIA secret flights, and torture are a pretty big issue. Not so here. Is it any wonder the USA does not want anything to do with an International Criminal Court?

The likes of Albrechtsen have managed to marginalize anybody who asked questions re Hicks and Habib. We're Hicks supporters, Left wing Chardonnay sipping do-gooders, anti-Western and self-hating. It could not have anything to do with actually believing in our legal and political system. That our system is the best.

Interesting isn't it how many of the Right have so little faith in the Western political and legal system we are supposed to bring by force to 'barbarians'. Most of them would be much more comfortable in a dictatorship like Sadam's Iraq. If you've nothing to hide, behave 'as the Romans' do life can be pretty good. You wouldn't even have to vote anymore for those lousy moneygrubbing politicians!

Fantastic article.

Rule of law exists in any place of the globe-the question remains WHAT is LAW?

I think an article perfectly testifies to de-facto triumph of the law in a Guantanamo case.

Really, unemployed father of five travels upon two-three years far away oversea and live there-although sponsor is unknown a notion is obvious: none pays for nothing.
Already famous for his illegal entering Kosovo and participating in partisan activities had been provided with funds and training to benefit an internationally-operating terrorist organization.
No prove that money had been given for something different than on air tickets-and to-be-terrorist is freed.

This is rather examples of a perfect rule of democracy to extent of the dis-functioning of the very logical basis of court system, which is a punishment for a crime.

Dear everyone, thank you for your comments! I would just like to reply to Sage, and more broadly, on the question of the Quirin case (so people can check for themselves, it is readily available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=1). I am well aware of the case. Albrechtsen also has heard of it, as she flourishes the case in one of her opinion pieces that I cite above (“Brown blind to immoral reality”, Oz, 29 October 2003), although she does not note the name of the case. She also gives a slightly inaccurate account of the facts in the case, as well as a very abbreviated version of the Court’s holding.

Sage also notes the upshot of the ruling inaccurately in saying that “a USA court [this suggests that Sage might not have read the case yet, as it was the Supreme Court, hardly just “a USA court”!] ruled that enemy soldiers may be detained and tried by the military.” It was not said by the Court that enemy soldiers could be tried by the military, rather: “Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.” I have read the case again tonight, and I find no evidence in it to support Sage’s claim that “No limits were placed on the detention period.” The length of detention was not in contention in the case, as I read it, and actually, the period of detention turned out to be very short indeed (the detainees in this case might perhaps have preferred a slightly longer detention before being executed).

And I'll have to finish this in another post, ran out of words!

(continued) I don’t know what “a blasted attorney” means, or why Sage gives Richard Samp such authority on this issue.

Ex Parte Quirin is an extremely controversial case (as are other cases on detention like Korematsu), and it was controversial when it was decided; there are intriguing discussions about how the decision was reached, and who “bullied” whom into unanimity, and so on – I can forward the references to anyone who is interested, including some audio material from the wonderful Oyez site. What Quirin means today is also controversial, for one thing because it was decided before the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The various Guantanamo cases in the Supreme Court are well worth reading in this context, as is the case last week in which two military judges dismissed charges of war crimes against two Guantanamo detainees, and as is the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit yesterday (these latter two cases are of course subject to (probable) appeal.

So it is advisable not to wave Quirin around as if its meaning or significance is clear.

But at any rate, what has Quirin got to do with Mamdouh Habib?

helen

isabelberners

The nuances of America's barely legal rendition/detention regime may be interesting. But I think its basically a legal artifice masking a habit of armslength torture that the US now justifies.

Are you a little bit worried how Habib (actually Australian) was offered up by American intelligence to Eqyptian torturers and with Australian knowledge? See my Four Corners link and quotations above.

Habib may be no saint after all (no Court evidence no proof) but our Government should be ashamed that it didn't speak up when yet another Australian was being sent off to be tortured (indirectly) by its American ally.

Pete

If someone could be ashamed, it is for intentionally letting millions of habibs into Australia for mere greedy need in biologically inferior in generations while busily sustaining a pool of an available semi-slave work-force, and own factual incapability to manage own resources as an England-colonial appendix:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/i-want-to-die-in-the-independent-republic-of-australia/2007/06/12/1181414295905.html?page=1

Both of this Australian passpot h o l d e r s are very lucky to be back for mere political games.

I do not read Janet's drivel as a rule I see her as a subservient lackey and constantly grovelling to her boss lying little johnie. Her "reward" a nice little earner on the ABC board which she has no talent for and no background in radio or TV. In short I think she has prostituted herself for sordid gain.
Having said that I do tend to agree with what I have gleaned here to what the howard hugger wrote. This Hicks of his own violation joined and trained as a terrorist - pagan moslem of course, are there any other? He also expressed a wish to become a suicide bomber now had this dangerous trained terrorist exploded a bomb say in the Sydney underground killing, as these pagan clowns like to do, innocent men, women, children and babies. I just wonder if these "bleeding hearts" would have other views if this self-confessed terrorist did blow himself up or would he still be a poor unfortunate, misunderstood follower of this despicable, death loving pagan religion of peace.
Having said that I still will not read Janet's column knowing that whatever she writes would be passed by howard before publication. Regards, you know who - yes - numbat

NUMBAT,

As understood from The Herald Sun (Melbourne), a newspaper’s columnist, Mr. Bolt far remote from leftists and definitely in a close socio-political proximity to PM, exercises a steady resettlement towards Janet A.

Therefore, any sort of prostitution she offers presumably you had mentioned above of is a very Australian way of making living as a mere thievery (gambling business) and sex-industry are the greatest instant employment opportunities in this part of a British Commonwealth.

Dear Pete/plantagenet, I am with you in your concern on the "rendition" of Mamdouh Habib, and sorry if I gave the impression that I was not (very) concerned with this question.

Here is the link to the recent Court of Appeals decision (al-Marri v Wright, mentioned in my Forum comment), it is likely to be appealed:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/067427.P.pdf

And MichaelK, I am not sure I quite understand your points?

helen

No worries isabelberners.

We each have our own interests and approaches. Looking at several comments you've made over the months you are as concerned as any and are providing a useful service following the court treatment of Guantanamo detainees in general.

I'm more diectly interested in the Australian seen on this - including Hicks, Habib or Thomas particularly focussing on Ruddock's/AG's legal approaches and the performance of ASIO and the AFP.

So I think our interests complement each other.

It will be interesting to see how Habib's legal action progresses and how Ruddock might react/retaliate.

You may be interested in checking out my website on Hicks at http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/search?q=Hicks

Regards
Pete

Helen,

I am not surprised if you did pretend not understanding context of my post: we have been to different countries if even sitting near the same table.