(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