Horus wrote, apparently concerning David Hicks: "...even when one of our more prominent mujahideen had written letters proudly describing his attacks on villagers in Kashmir & Bosnia, and is caught at the scene of the crime(s), his family, & CL supporters, were still able to maintain `NOTHING WAS EVER PROVEN.'"

Nothing was proven because no charges were laid, notwithstanding that the actions in question were punishable by 10 years' jail under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978.

And why were no charges laid? Because (a) the final decision on whether to lay charges rested with the Attorney-General, and (b) the Government, in order to fabricate an excuse to leave Hicks in U.S. custody and thereby avoid offending its great and powerful ally, had claimed that Hicks could not be charged with anything under Australian law. This claim was always a lie, and always known to be a lie; and charging Hicks with anything would expose the lie.

No civil libertarian would have complained if Hicks had simply been hit with the full force of the criminal law. But he wasn't; and THAT was the problem.

Horus
> "It would be inspiring to see civil libertarians in front line positions living and dying by their principles rather than in protect back rooms watching others die...while they heap criticism."

That's meaningless, because you're defining civil libertarians as armchair critics and everyone at the sharp end as an advocate of torture.

Don't you think there are plenty of people actively involved in military and intelligence operations who are appalled by the use of torture (and/or believe it's ineffective)? And while you're supporting torture, are you out there dealing with terrorist suspects? Or are you sitting in your living room, watching foreigners being tortured and heaping criticism on sticklers for the rule of law?

I'm very interested to know what you think civil liberties are. Conservatives seem particularly prone to the equity and democracy are somehow intrinsic to western nature, and that we can abuse our freedoms without fear, although history is full of nations which have gone from freedom to dictatorship in the space of a generation once the people started rencouncing their rights in exchange for the illusion of protection.

And, well, we're Australian, and we're told that torture is necessary to protect Australia. If that's not the case, why are you giving it the green light? Or, if there's no jurisdiction, do you also champion the right of the Mahdi Army to torture Australian soldiers in order to protect Iraqi ctizizens? And that's the crux of it: either you oppose torture absolutely, or you permit it for any particular group which feels it necessary for protection, whether friend or foe.

Oops. Fourth paragraph should read:

I'm very interested to know what you think civil liberties are. Conservatives seem particularly prone to the equity and democracy are somehow intrinsic to western nature, and that we can abuse our freedoms without fear, although history is full of nations which have gone from freedom to dictatorship in the space of a generation once the people started rencouncing their rights in exchange for the illusion of protection.

Sancho summarizes the moral principal correctly in his last post. Thank you.

Grputland,
Whether DH should have been charged in the USA or Aust is immaterial.
i) His case would have been brought to finality, &
ii) He would have likely have received a heavier sentence

If CLs had not at ever step, politicised the process.

Sancho,
I am not suggesting that CL are one monolithic group, much of what passes for high minded concern is merely careerism by political & legal drones.

You cannot make a blanket statement that ‘torture’ does not work.
i) There is evidence from security operatives that certain torture practices work– in certain circumstance –with certain individuals, and
ii) Game theory predicts that the most effective responses are often not ‘nice’ strategies but tit-for-tat strategies.

You imply that our behaviour will determine how we inturn are treated.
( do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy & Santa Claus?)
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Mahdi army, Alqueda , Hamas & their ilk, may play our media & our CL, but they have no intention of playing by our/your morality.

Our defence forces have never been so scrutinised, so supervised, so accountable (perhaps, I should just use the term so emasculated) as they have today.
As Cowboy Joe pointed out & as I have heard myself , many activities occurred in the past conflicts which suburban CL would frown on

(continued)
It is also interesting that much of the current noise arise from CL circles has centred around the processing of suspects .One could get the impression that the rules that Aust has in place are exceptionally draconian . But such paragons of proper behaviour as France & England have far tighter controls, yet have not ‘gone from freedom to dictatorship in the space of a generation’.

The only thing that says activity A is wrong, is your conviction.
And if we sign a new convention tomorrow, activity B may suddenly become immoral too ( And by the by have you noticed that many of our great statesmen were once great terrorists –and many are now the darlings of the most proper people in the most proper places )


Sancho, how do you know that your code of conduct isn’t as flawed as Bin Ladin’s?
No doubt you have a warm fuzzy feeling deep in your soul –but then, so does Bin Laden( and Bin Laden has an ace up his sleeve- he can look forward to 16 virgins in the after life!