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!