US Army to release kidnapped Australian.

[Zep]

While Egypt questioned him he said some things that convinced the Egyptians he was a person of interest to the United States. Namely that he had advance knowledge of 9-11, that he had trained with Al-Qaeda, and that on this recent trip he was making contacts with enemies of the US for some vague but nefarious purpose.

But how did he get to be in Egypt after being detained in Pakistan? And why would the Egyptians turn a known Australian over to the USA? Why not turn him over to Australia, your close ally in the war? In fact, the Australian consulate tried to have Habib turned over to them, but somehow he still ended up in US custody...

The basic question here is: By what right does the USA and/or Egypt have superior jurisdiction over Pakistani laws? And does this self-assumed "super-legal-power" extend to other countries too? England? France? Australia? Why isn't this "authority" being used to acquire all the really nasty terrorist people in the world - there's thousands to choose from...

That a man has legal problems of an international nature that takes three years to resolve? Well, that doesn’t seem unlikely to me. Kafka didn’t write his book completely without inspiration from the real world, many legal matters take a very long time to resolve.

Are you saying you believe the USA has the right to detain anyone they wish in close custody indefinitely, without charge or trial, on the excuse that there are "legal matters to be resolved"? Would Kafka agree? Does the US constitution agree? (Ah yes, but this applies only to Americans. Whoops, no it doesn't...)

Is it "not right" that he wound up in Gitmo at all? Well, the history of this person is that he’s worked very hard to be identified as being with and supporting exactly the sort of jihadist who should end up in Gitmo. That in the end he seems more like a harmless crank than an actual terrorist threat is not from his lack of trying. I think sympathy towards him is misplaced.

The question is: Was he REALLY an al-Quaeda jihadist? What evidence is there of that? I mean beyond what the Pakistanis and Egyptians managed to "persuade" him to say, or that they just made up.

And don't try to play the "misplaced sympathy" card - we have said many times above that if there is evidence of Habib's wrong-doing, get it out in front of the lawyers now and let's have at it properly.

Is it "not right" that it took three years to figure out he wasn’t worth keeping? I could agree with that. At the same time, this kind of warfare is new so it’s natural if we don’t have everything figured out yet.

"New warfare" is hardly an excuse for apalling legal process towards a non-combatant. Yes, non-combatant - he was not uniformed nor carrying a weapon, nor attacking US forces. Was he making or carrying bombs? No evidence. Was he recruiting terrorists? No evidence. Was he an anti-US loud-mouth? Possibly, but that's hardly unusual or illegal, even in the USA.

It appears to me that they were simply trying to label this guy as "bad" in the context of "The War on Terror" so that they had an excuse to deal with him according to some totally abitrary and whimsical legal process made up on the spot, to be an attempt at good PR. But that wouldn't ever happen in America, would it...

 

[Elind]

It appears to me that they were simply trying to label this guy as "bad" in the context of "The War on Terror" so that they had an excuse to deal with him according to some totally abitrary and whimsical legal process made up on the spot, to be an attempt at good PR. But that wouldn't ever happen in America, would it...

Arrghh! Everything is whimsical and arbitrary to you, when you decide to second guess those you clearly don't like, as in the US military. Mycroft has answered you much more patiently and specifically than I have time for, but if you intend to hold that all these people (Americans) are just bored and looking for bodies to mess around with because they actually don't have anything serious to do, then there really isn't much to debate. Give Habib a nice party when he comes home and tell him how much you admire his faith and perseverance, and don't forget to apologize.

 

[The Fool]

but if you intend to hold that all these people (Americans) are just bored and looking for bodies to mess around with because they actually don't have anything serious to do

I don't remember ZEP saying this...is this your next theory on why he was held for years and you just want to unselfishly share the credit for its origin?

How about I tell you my unsubstantiated theories? After 911 Bush wanted to show the American people a lot of Al Qaeda in prison...perfectly understandable. Unfortunately he ran out of people he had evidence against before he ran out of prison cells, this may have concerned him for a while until he realised that all his supporters probably don't give a rats arse if there is any evidence anyway.....

 

[gnome]

The work of the policeman is different from the work of the soldier. In a time of war, the man suspected of attempting to carry out an attack on a military base does not get the presumption of innocence.

Ok, you've just laid out the philosophy... you would have no problem with it being used in this way against you?

If you say no, you're full of it, so why not just move on to the next question, what prevents it from being used in this manner?

 

[Zep]

Arrghh! Everything is whimsical and arbitrary to you, when you decide to second guess those you clearly don't like, as in the US military. Mycroft has answered you much more patiently and specifically than I have time for, but if you intend to hold that all these people (Americans) are just bored and looking for bodies to mess around with because they actually don't have anything serious to do, then there really isn't much to debate. Give Habib a nice party when he comes home and tell him how much you admire his faith and perseverance, and don't forget to apologize.

Gee wizz, Elind. I suggest you try a strawman attack or two next time...that'll really show me.

No, not everything is whimsical and arbitrary. But this particular situation sure is to me.

No, I am not second-guessing anyone. If they had good legal reasons to keep this person locked up, I'm asking, begging, that they be shown to the world. Let's see a good example of US justice in action.

I have no idea what you are waffling on about with this "bored Americans looking for bodies" stuff. Really. But I'll not second-guess you - would you care to explain? I'm all ears...

And finally, what have I said that would indicate that I feel that Habib is some sort of hero and prodigal son? I have only said that there appeared to be huge problems following his arrest and subsequent incarceration. Nothing made sense, and now he's simply being let go without charge. What the F was going on??

You know, they make epic films about this sort of thing...

Incidentally I do happen to like many people in the US military. They tend to have a sense of REAL purpose and an understanding of what life is REALLY like at the sharp end. Unlike their political masters. Our friend Hal Bidlack is an Air Force Lt. Col. and he seems quite sane and human to me. So far.

 

[Elind]

quote:Originally posted by Zep
It appears to me that they were simply trying to label this guy as "bad" in the context of "The War on Terror" so that they had an excuse to deal with him according to some totally abitrary and whimsical legal process made up on the spot, to be an attempt at good PR. But that wouldn't ever happen in America, would it...

You read this one way, I read it at face value.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Zep
The basic question here is: By what right does the USA and/or Egypt have superior jurisdiction over Pakistani laws?

Given that US troops didn’t forcefully invade any Pakistani or Egyptian prisons to take Habib, I presume it was the result of some voluntary negotiation (sometimes called diplomacy) and has nothing to do with something called "superior jurisdiction" which I’ve never heard of until now. If you have information (as opposed to speculation) to the contrary, please feel free to introduce it into the conversation.

Originally posted by Zep
Are you saying you believe the USA has the right to detain anyone they wish in close custody indefinitely, without charge or trial, on the excuse that there are "legal matters to be resolved"? Would Kafka agree?

Are you saying the USA did not have the right to detain this man? If so, could you state which body of law should have protected him?

Originally posted by Zep
Does the US constitution agree?

He is an Australian/Egyptian citizen in Pakistan arrested by Pakistani police. During his detainment he never became a US citizen or set foot on US soil. At what point does the US Constitution enter in there?

If you believe the US Constitution has something to do with Habib, please state how.

Originally posted by Zep
The question is: Was he REALLY an al-Quaeda jihadist?

No. The question is: Could he reasonably have been suspected of being an al-quaeda jihadist. Given that he went out of his way to look and act like one, this is a no-brainer.

This is why the distinction between police work and soldiering is important. The US army is not responsible for protecting the rights of Australian citizens found in Pakistan. They are responsible for protecting the USA and implementing her foreign policy. They had good reason to think Habib either was or was linked to illegal combatants and had information that might have been valuable. It was their responsibility to get that information, not to put him on trial.

Originally posted by Zep
And don't try to play the "misplaced sympathy" card - we have said many times above that if there is evidence of Habib's wrong-doing, get it out in front of the lawyers now and let's have at it properly.

The evidence is the statements he made while in the custody of the Egyptians, his activities while in Australia, and his behavior to the Pakistanis that had them arresting him to begin with. All of these gave the US reason to believe Habib was linked to international terror.

Originally posted by Zep
"New warfare" is hardly an excuse for apalling legal process towards a non-combatant.

Why not?

It is new. The Geneva Conventions assume uniformed soldiers acting for a centralized government, so he doesn’t fall under those laws. Our constitutional protections don’t cover him, and there isn’t really any other body of international law to cover the gap.

The truth here is that the law hasn’t been written to cover this. You talk about "appalling legal process" yet can’t come up with what the legal process should be. Your argument really is, "I think his treatment is unfair" not, "I think his treatment is illegal, and here is the law it breaks."

Maybe someday soon a bunch of nations will get together and come up with a list of rules for handling extra-nationalist organizations including legal rights and procedures and the US will sign on, but until that happens there is no protection of law for Habib.

 

[Mycroft]

Ok, you've just laid out the philosophy... you would have no problem with it being used in this way against you?

If you say no, you're full of it, so why not just move on to the next question, what prevents it from being used in this manner?

I recognize that in war, soldiers of different armies try to kill each other. That doesn't mean that if I were a soldier in war that I would have "no problem" with other soldiers trying to kill me. The truth is I wouldn't like it at all.

I also recognize that most nations try to arrest their criminals and put them in jail. That doesn't mean that if I were a criminal, I would have "no problem" with being arrested, put on trial, and imprisoned. I wouldn't like that either, and would do everything in my power to avoid it.

Similarly, if I were a wanna-be jihadist who spent my spare time trying to recruit other jihadists, collecting money for jihadists, and trying to make contact with real jihadists, I wouldn't like it at all if while I was traveling out of country I was nabbed by allies of the folks I wanted to wage jihad against and wound up in a prison camp for several years. Nope, just because I recognize that such a thing could happen doesn't mean that I would have "no problem" if it happened to me. The truth is I think spending three years in a prison camp is a big problem, and I wouldn't like it at all.

So…what prevents "it" from being used in this manner?

Well, I’m not sure I understand your question. I think Habib should have been detained. I think given his history, the US or Australia would have been insane not to take him in and question him given the chance. It’s too bad they didn’t get better information from him (I presume, I don’t really know) but they didn’t know what they would or wouldn’t get before hand, did they?

So what prevents "it" from being used in this manner?

I suppose you would have to check Pakistani law to find out what prevents you from being arrested while traveling to Pakistan. It might be something really simple like don’t travel to the wrong places without the right permits, and don’t work so hard to look like a murderous fundamentalist jihadist who wants to wage wars against the allies of Pakistan.

 

[gnome]

I recognize that in war, soldiers of different armies try to kill each other. That doesn't mean that if I were a soldier in war that I would have "no problem" with other soldiers trying to kill me. The truth is I wouldn't like it at all.

I also recognize that most nations try to arrest their criminals and put them in jail. That doesn't mean that if I were a criminal, I would have "no problem" with being arrested, put on trial, and imprisoned. I wouldn't like that either, and would do everything in my power to avoid it.

Similarly, if I were a wanna-be jihadist who spent my spare time trying to recruit other jihadists, collecting money for jihadists, and trying to make contact with real jihadists, I wouldn't like it at all if while I was traveling out of country I was nabbed by allies of the folks I wanted to wage jihad against and wound up in a prison camp for several years. Nope, just because I recognize that such a thing could happen doesn't mean that I would have "no problem" if it happened to me. The truth is I think spending three years in a prison camp is a big problem, and I wouldn't like it at all.

So…what prevents "it" from being used in this manner?

Well, I’m not sure I understand your question. I think Habib should have been detained. I think given his history, the US or Australia would have been insane not to take him in and question him given the chance. It’s too bad they didn’t get better information from him (I presume, I don’t really know) but they didn’t know what they would or wouldn’t get before hand, did they?

So what prevents "it" from being used in this manner?

I suppose you would have to check Pakistani law to find out what prevents you from being arrested while traveling to Pakistan. It might be something really simple like don’t travel to the wrong places without the right permits, and don’t work so hard to look like a murderous fundamentalist jihadist who wants to wage wars against the allies of Pakistan.

You've missed my point completely, and I'm disappointed because I thought you were sharper than that.

My point is that a completely innocent person whose only crime was to be of annoyance to the government, could be picked up and labeled an "enemy combatant" and never get the chance to prove that they didn't lift a finger against the US.

Would you have a problem with, having committed no crime at all, you were labeled an enemy combatant and had your right to prove otherwise stripped away? Or do you think that, given the power the Bush administration has asked for, this could not happen?

 

[gnome]

Maybe someday soon a bunch of nations will get together and come up with a list of rules for handling extra-nationalist organizations including legal rights and procedures and the US will sign on, but until that happens there is no protection of law for Habib.

Do you think there should be? And what do you think such a law should say?

 

[a_unique_person]

I recognize that in war, soldiers of different armies try to kill each other. That doesn't mean that if I were a soldier in war that I would have "no problem" with other soldiers trying to kill me. The truth is I wouldn't like it at all.

I also recognize that most nations try to arrest their criminals and put them in jail. That doesn't mean that if I were a criminal, I would have "no problem" with being arrested, put on trial, and imprisoned. I wouldn't like that either, and would do everything in my power to avoid it.

Similarly, if I were a wanna-be jihadist who spent my spare time trying to recruit other jihadists, collecting money for jihadists, and trying to make contact with real jihadists, I wouldn't like it at all if while I was traveling out of country I was nabbed by allies of the folks I wanted to wage jihad against and wound up in a prison camp for several years. Nope, just because I recognize that such a thing could happen doesn't mean that I would have "no problem" if it happened to me. The truth is I think spending three years in a prison camp is a big problem, and I wouldn't like it at all.

So…what prevents "it" from being used in this manner?

Well, I’m not sure I understand your question. I think Habib should have been detained. I think given his history, the US or Australia would have been insane not to take him in and question him given the chance. It’s too bad they didn’t get better information from him (I presume, I don’t really know) but they didn’t know what they would or wouldn’t get before hand, did they?

So what prevents "it" from being used in this manner?

I suppose you would have to check Pakistani law to find out what prevents you from being arrested while traveling to Pakistan. It might be something really simple like don’t travel to the wrong places without the right permits, and don’t work so hard to look like a murderous fundamentalist jihadist who wants to wage wars against the allies of Pakistan.

Well that's part of what makes this interesting. As he is an Australian citizen, who lived a large part of his life here with a family, all they had to do was question him here. Now, if the US wanted to have access to torture him in the hope of getting more information out him, that couldn't be done here.

They didn't just want to 'talk'. That is clear.

 

[Elind]

You've missed my point completely, and I'm disappointed because I thought you were sharper than that.

My point is that a completely innocent person whose only crime was to be of annoyance to the government, could be picked up and labeled an "enemy combatant" and never get the chance to prove that they didn't lift a finger against the US.

Would you have a problem with, having committed no crime at all, you were labeled an enemy combatant and had your right to prove otherwise stripped away? Or do you think that, given the power the Bush administration has asked for, this could not happen?

Which person are you talking about here? Habib? By all accounts we have seen, and any reasonable interpretation of circumstantial evidence, he is almost certainly not innocent of those issues. Lifting a finger against civilization (you think it's only a matter of the US do you?) isn't the issue, conspiring to lift a finger is the issue.

As I said before if he was KKK or skinhead Nazi you would no doubt have difficulty making your point, but a poor defensless Muslim on pilgrimage to check out Madrassas recommended by OBL for his Aussi kids is another matter, is it?

Of course you think none of that could be true. Others think it most likely is. Hey you guys have your faith, others have theirs.

I had hoped you were sharp enough to see that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Which person are you talking about here? Habib? By all accounts we have seen, and any reasonable interpretation of circumstantial evidence, he is almost certainly not innocent of those issues. Lifting a finger against civilization (you think it's only a matter of the US do you?) isn't the issue, conspiring to lift a finger is the issue.

As I said before if he was KKK or skinhead Nazi you would no doubt have difficulty making your point, but a poor defensless Muslim on pilgrimage to check out Madrassas recommended by OBL for his Aussi kids is another matter, is it?

Of course you think none of that could be true. Others think it most likely is. Hey you guys have your faith, others have theirs.

I had hoped you were sharp enough to see that.

That is the whole point of having a legal system. It no longer is a matter of faith.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by gnome
You've missed my point completely, and I'm disappointed because I thought you were sharper than that.

No, I got your point. I just don't agree with it.

Originally posted by gnome
My point is that a completely innocent person whose only crime was to be of annoyance to the government, could be picked up and labeled an "enemy combatant" and never get the chance to prove that they didn't lift a finger against the US.

Habib is not innocent. He just hadn't yet lived up to his ambitions to be as guilty as he wanted to be yet. The guy wanted to be a jihadist, he tried to recruit for jihadists, the only reason he didn't become a jihadist is because he drew enough attention to himself that the real jihadists didn't want to have him around.

In a normal system of justice, not being able to throw guys like him in jail before they kill someone is the price you pay for having a legal system that protects a citizens civil rights.

Originally posted by gnome
Would you have a problem with, having committed no crime at all, you were labeled an enemy combatant and had your right to prove otherwise stripped away?

Of course I would have a problem with it. Guilty or innocent, I would have a problem with it.

If I were a fundamentalist nutcake jihadist who hadn't yet had the opportunity to commit my big crime and was thus by all legal definitions "innocent", then yes, I would have a big problem with being labeled an enemy combatant and being hauled off to a prison somewhere for three years.

I don't know how to drive this point home to you. Being hauled off to a military prison camp under any circumstances and no matter who you are is a problem. Guilty or innocent, with or without due process, no matter what the due process is, it's still an unpleasant experience, a bad thing, something to be avoided if possible.

 

[Mycroft]

Do you think there should be? And what do you think such a law should say?

Like any law, it should strike a balance between protecting the rights of the individual while still allowing the nation to pursue it's interests.

 

[gnome]

No, I got your point. I just don't agree with it.

Just to be sure, could you kindly explain my point as you see it?

Habib is not innocent. He just hadn't yet lived up to his ambitions to be as guilty as he wanted to be yet. The guy wanted to be a jihadist, he tried to recruit for jihadists, the only reason he didn't become a jihadist is because he drew enough attention to himself that the real jihadists didn't want to have him around.

In a normal system of justice, not being able to throw guys like him in jail before they kill someone is the price you pay for having a legal system that protects a citizens civil rights.

Here is why I think you misunderstand me: I'm not talking about Habib. My example is someone that has done nothing wrong, and has planned nothing wrong, and who is an inconvenience to someone in power. The ability to take away someone's rights by officially labeling them an "enemy combatant" without due process, can be used to simply remove the inconvenience. If you feel that this power could not be used in this way, kindly reassure me of how.

Of course I would have a problem with it. Guilty or innocent, I would have a problem with it.

If I were a fundamentalist nutcake jihadist who hadn't yet had the opportunity to commit my big crime and was thus by all legal definitions "innocent", then yes, I would have a big problem with being labeled an enemy combatant and being hauled off to a prison somewhere for three years.

I don't know how to drive this point home to you. Being hauled off to a military prison camp under any circumstances and no matter who you are is a problem. Guilty or innocent, with or without due process, no matter what the due process is, it's still an unpleasant experience, a bad thing, something to be avoided if possible.

Ok, I wasn't asking if you'd LIKE to be in a prison camp. I was asking you to make a decision on principle, something I assume you're capable of. Really, Mycroft I think you're being deliberately obtuse here, and I don't know what you hope to accomplish by it. IS IT RIGHT? That's the question you haven't answered.

 

[gnome]

Like any law, it should strike a balance between protecting the rights of the individual while still allowing the nation to pursue it's interests.

Great! How would you write it? Where do you think that balance lies?

 

[rikzilla]

Here is why I think you misunderstand me: I'm not talking about Habib. My example is someone that has done nothing wrong, and has planned nothing wrong, and who is an inconvenience to someone in power. The ability to take away someone's rights by officially labeling them an "enemy combatant" without due process, can be used to simply remove the inconvenience. If you feel that this power could not be used in this way, kindly reassure me of how.

Maybe Mycroft hasn't answered you because your point is so far-fetched. It's a variation on the old "slippery slope" fallacy. So, in order to put an edge on that so called point of yours you will need to give us an example of someone so rail-roaded. Can you? Has it happened? Ever? If so please illustrate your point.

I for one doubt that such a scenario is likely in the real world. If I am a member of a government friendly in the WOT with the US and I am burdened by a troublesome person who I decide to arrest and hand over to the US as a jihadist I have just wasted alot of people's time. These people are not stupid...and government official X will have destroyed his credibility and perhaps gotten himself into trouble with his fellow government officials.

Honestly, if government official X is a member of the Pakistani, Afghani, Iraqi, Egyptian, or Indonesian governments he certainly has far more options for making problematic people "go away" than mislabelling them as an enemy combatant and wasting the time of important allies.

-z

 

[a_unique_person]

Maybe Mycroft hasn't answered you because your point is so far-fetched. It's a variation on the old "slippery slope" fallacy. So, in order to put an edge on that so called point of yours you will need to give us an example of someone so rail-roaded. Can you? Has it happened? Ever? If so please illustrate your point.

I for one doubt that such a scenario is likely in the real world. If I am a member of a government friendly in the WOT with the US and I am burdened by a troublesome person who I decide to arrest and hand over to the US as a jihadist I have just wasted alot of people's time. These people are not stupid...and government official X will have destroyed his credibility and perhaps gotten himself into trouble with his fellow government officials.

Honestly, if government official X is a member of the Pakistani, Afghani, Iraqi, Egyptian, or Indonesian governments he certainly has far more options for making problematic people "go away" than mislabelling them as an enemy combatant and wasting the time of important allies.

-z

Rick, thanks for the laugh.

These people are not stupid, but the say there are WMD where there are none. They arrest taxi drivers and release them without charge. They arrange toruture and get caught at it. Yes it is just a slippery slope, so it must be false. Only we have already seen what is really happening further down that slope. Do you recall Franklins words about giving up an essential liberty for a temporary safety.

 

[gnome]

Maybe Mycroft hasn't answered you because your point is so far-fetched. It's a variation on the old "slippery slope" fallacy. So, in order to put an edge on that so called point of yours you will need to give us an example of someone so rail-roaded. Can you? Has it happened? Ever? If so please illustrate your point.

Does an abuse of power have to happen before we can decide, intellectually, that a power of government has too much potential for abuse? And I don't think it is so far fetched... given this power, what is to stop the US government from, TOMORROW if they wanted to, picking up anyone they liked, telling the press some completely fabricated information that causes the detainee to be painted as a terrorist in most people's minds, calling them an "illegal combatant" and denying them any access to legal assistance or the court system? Please explain how such a scenario would play out in the real world.

I for one doubt that such a scenario is likely in the real world. If I am a member of a government friendly in the WOT with the US and I am burdened by a troublesome person who I decide to arrest and hand over to the US as a jihadist I have just wasted alot of people's time. These people are not stupid...and government official X will have destroyed his credibility and perhaps gotten himself into trouble with his fellow government officials.

Honestly, if government official X is a member of the Pakistani, Afghani, Iraqi, Egyptian, or Indonesian governments he certainly has far more options for making problematic people "go away" than mislabelling them as an enemy combatant and wasting the time of important allies.

-z

Another misunderstanding of my position. I don't trust Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, or Indonesia to respect human rights. I do, however, expect the US to. And it is a proposed power of the US government that I am objecting to.

The simple problem is this: supporters make a good case why ACTUAL illegal enemy combatants have no right to counsel. My problem is the ability to slap that label on anyone.