What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

McGentrix wrote:

dlowan wrote:
One of the Australians is to be released after two and a half years of confinement and torture without charge......hmmmmmmmmmm....

unfounded and baseless.

Well, Habib has been alleging torture since he was - very belatedly - allowed any communication with the world - as has Hicks, and the British folk who are to be released - and numerous others. Given that your own government attempted to make these people without rights, extended what was allowable in the way of torture, and what has come out in Abu Ghraib - plus the American habit of sending prisoners to countries in the Middle east where torture is routine - I think your baseless is both baseless and ridiculous. Still - none so blind.....

Australian officials to watch Habib
By Leigh Sales in Washington and staff reporters

Guantanamo Bay inmate Mamdouh Habib is likely to remain under surveillance after his repatriation to Australia.

The US Department of Defence has announced it is releasing Mr Habib without charging him, on the grounds of assurances given by the Australian Government.

At the same time, the US announced it was releasing the last four Britons being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Details of Mr Habib's transfer to Australia are still being worked out but he is not expected to set foot on US soil after he leaves Guantanamo Bay.

US and Australian authorities are discussing whether he will be sent home on a military or a commercial flight.

The US Government says the Australian Government has accepted responsibility for preventing Mr Habib from engaging in terrorist activities in the future.

US officials say they have received security assurances from Australia that were important to the transfer.

"These [the British and Australian] detainees are enemy combatants who had been detained by the United States in accordance with the laws of war and US law," the Pentagon said in a statement.

"The governments of the United Kingdom and Australia have accepted responsibility for these individuals and will work to prevent them from engaging in or otherwise supporting terrorist activities in the future."

A spokesman for the Australian embassy in Washington refused to detail the specific assurances, citing security reasons.

However, it is understood Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies will closely monitor Mr Habib after his return home.

He may also find his ability to travel outside Australia limited.

Damages

Despite his looming release, Mr Habib may yet have his day in court, as his legal team is considering seeking damages for alleged mistreatment in custody.

His lawyers allege Mr Habib was mistreated by a group of men with American accents in the presence of an Australian official when he was first captured in Pakistan.

They say he was then put on a plane to Egypt, where he was tortured repeatedly. And they allege he suffered mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay after he arrived there six months later.

Mr Habib's lawyer, Stephen Hopper, has described his treatment as a disgrace. "There's nothing that's a precedent to this, subsequent to the star chambers and the inquisition," Mr Hopper said.

Mr Hopper says his client's release shows that the allegations against him are groundless.

"The US Government's case has collapsed," Mr Hopper said. "There were orders for them to deliver up various documents and things, under orders from the US District Court next week.

"It's obvious that they couldn't produce those documents or things, or those documents or things had things that were overwhelmingly prejudicial to their case, and everything's fallen down like a deck of cards.

"It's a great day for justice. This proves we were right all along."

Mr Habib's release means Adelaide man David Hicks is the only Australian still detained at Guantanamo Bay.

He has pleaded not guilty to aiding the enemy, attempted murder and conspiracy to commit war crimes, and will face trial by a military commission in early March.

Hicks's lawyer, Stephen Kenny, has welcomed the news of Mr Habib's planned release.

Mr Kenny says Hicks should also be allowed to return to Australia.

"I think it's now untenable that David Hicks should continue to be detained in Guantanamo Bay," he said.

"The Australian Government has consistently said he has committed no offence known to Australian law and I doubt that includes international war crimes that the Americans are purporting to try him under."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1280377.htm

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If that's not against the law, how are we legally holding them?

It is not a violation of CRIMINAL law. However we do have a right to make war on those who make war on us. We also have a right to confine those of the enemy's soldiers whom we capture in battle.

0 Replies

Quote:

His lawyers allege Mr Habib was mistreated by a group of men with American accents in the presence of an Australian official when he was first captured in Pakistan.

They say he was then put on a plane to Egypt, where he was tortured repeatedly. And they allege he suffered mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay after he arrived there six months later.

Imagine that. A criminal whining about being mistreated...

Why is it allegations like this are always believed, but allegations of Habib being a war criminal aren't?

Like I said. Baseless.

0 Replies

Lol - America attempted to make it ok by placing them outside the reach of the law. To make them, in effect, sub-human legally in terms of the human rights stuff that the US believes it has the right to attack others for not upholding. I am unsure if the attempt to be able to hold people for life without any trial or formal charging is to go ahead or not????

Now that your own courts are not upholding this outrageous nonsense, (just as the military legal people considered it preposterous and damaging to the structures and standards they had struggled to set) they are being released in droves.

I say again - hmmmmmmmm.....

Doubtless some are guilty.

I would have thought though that, if your people felt there was any kind of case - especially given the great unfairness of the structure of the military kangaroo courts they are/were to be tried by, they would have kept anyone they thought they had a shred of a case against.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
His lawyers allege Mr Habib was mistreated by a group of men with American accents in the presence of an Australian official when he was first captured in Pakistan.

They say he was then put on a plane to Egypt, where he was tortured repeatedly. And they allege he suffered mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay after he arrived there six months later.

Imagine that. A criminal whining about being mistreated...

Why is it allegations like this are always believed, but allegations of Habib being a war criminal aren't?

Like I said. Baseless.

I have no reason to believe, or not believe, that Mr Habib is a war criminal - just as you do not.

He has never been formally charged, or tried.

Generally, civilised nations consider a form of trial a pre-requisite to deciding a person's guilt.

Clearly you, Mc Gentrix, have some form of omniscience not granted to ordinary mortals which allows you to know that he is guilty without knowing a single fact?

Well, be guided by your prejudice if you will.

I prefer to withhold judgment until I know a fact or two,

Shrugs...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

dlowan wrote:
One of the Australians is to be released after two and a half years of confinement and torture without charge......hmmmmmmmmmm....

unfounded and baseless.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The original charges certainly appear to have been.

LOL! And that within the minute. Not bad, Cyclo ;-)

0 Replies

As for the torture charges being baseless, McGentrix, as I understand it, the Bush government has admitted that the "rules" about what was acceptable to do to prisoners were changed to make permissible behaviour that would, seconds before, have been called torture - and which the US would most certainly (quite rightly) CALL torture if done to your troops.

Sorry - if it was torture and unacceptable on Monday, it still is on Tuesday, I believe - Bush and co notwithstanding.

I think the torture case is well- supported.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

As for the torture charges being baseless, McGentrix, as I understand it, the Bush government has admitted that the "rules" about what was acceptable to do to prisoners were changed to make permissible behaviour that would, seconds before, have been called torture - and which the US would most certainly (quite rightly) CALL torture if done to your troops.

Sorry - if it was torture and unacceptable on Monday, it still is on Tuesday, I believe - Bush and co notwithstanding.

I think the torture case is well- supported.

I'm sorry, but you do not get to believe that.

If you "have no reason to believe, or not believe, that Mr Habib is a war criminal", then you have no reason to believe or not believe that Mr. Habib was tortured.

I mean, unless you have some form of omniscience not granted to ordinary mortals which allows you to know that he has been tortured without knowing a single fact?

0 Replies

Lol - try reading what I wrote....

0 Replies

Looks like McG quoted your one post, but was still answering to the other ... it's tough sometimes, to keep track.

But anyway, on the Habib guy and all, you obviously dont understand, dlowan.

The US army, the government, put this man into the detention camp because they suspected him of something. That alone means we should assume him guilty. I mean, what, you don't trust your own army, your own government?

Then they released him. Apparently they werent able to formulate any case against him. But that doesn't mean he isn't still guilty! What do you think, that the army just puts innocent people into detention!?

Are you with the terrorists or something? Would you rather nothing be done about Al-Qaeda?!

Or something.

0 Replies

I think, it's really a good dead that they now will start building blocks of a long-term stay -- a 12-bed psychiatric ward, the 200-cell concrete prison and state-of-the art, sensor-monitored fence.

They really could have left them much longer in those crude 7-by-8-foot cells: three years is nothing!

I only wonder, who will get the contract for those buildings.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Doubtless some are guilty.

I would have thought though that, if your people felt there was any kind of case - especially given the great unfairness of the structure of the military kangaroo courts they are/were to be tried by, they would have kept anyone they thought they had a shred of a case against.

Do you have any knowledge or experience whatever with the military justice system of the UNited States? Or is this what passes for a thoughtful assertion in your world view?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Doubtless some are guilty.

I would have thought though that, if your people felt there was any kind of case - especially given the great unfairness of the structure of the military kangaroo courts they are/were to be tried by, they would have kept anyone they thought they had a shred of a case against.

Do you have any knowledge or experience whatever with the military justice system of the UNited States? Or is this what passes for a thoughtful assertion in your world view?

The tribunals judging the alleged terrorists at Guantanamo are not standard US military tribunals.

The alleged terrorists have less rights than they would under either a proper court process, or with normal military tribunals.

The information re this is available in countless places - and is no secret.

If you bothered to read what I write, you would know I was not speaking of the normal US military justice system.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Looks like McG quoted your one post, but was still answering to the other ... it's tough sometimes, to keep track.

But anyway, on the Habib guy and all, you obviously dont understand, dlowan.

The US army, the government, put this man into the detention camp because they suspected him of something. That alone means we should assume him guilty. I mean, what, you don't trust your own army, your own government?

Then they released him. Apparently they werent able to formulate any case against him. But that doesn't mean he isn't still guilty! What do you think, that the army just puts innocent people into detention!?

Are you with the terrorists or something? Would you rather nothing be done about Al-Qaeda?!

Or something.

Lol! I get it all right.

McGentrix's amusing, but alarming, habit of assuming guilt in everything he writes about these people is, sadly, reflected, as far as I can tell, in US government "thought".

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

The US army, the government, put this man into the detention camp because they suspected him of something. That alone means we should assume him guilty. I mean, what, you don't trust your own army, your own government?

Then they released him. Apparently they werent able to formulate any case against him. But that doesn't mean he isn't still guilty! What do you think, that the army just puts innocent people into detention!?

Are you with the terrorists or something? Would you rather nothing be done about Al-Qaeda?!

Or something.

Have the Dutch courts ever aquitted someone who was very likely the perpetrator of a crime because the case against him/her under the law was inadequate?

This individual was captured bearing arms in combat operations against our forces in Afghanistan. He was a very long way from Australia, and he was no tourist. Ws were fighting against a regime (Taliban) and a fairly well organized terrorist network(al Qaeda) that had declared and was making war against us. He was a combatant in their army. He is fortunate to be alive.

The unique problem here is that the organization that is at war with us is not a nation in the usual sense, so there are no modalities for either concluding hostilities or deciding when to release prisioners. That however does not mean we should simply release him to resume his fight. This is a matter involving war - not criminal law.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

The alleged terrorists have less rights than they would under either a proper court process, or with normal military tribunals.

The information re this is available in countless places - and is no secret.

If you bothered to read what I write, you would know I was not speaking of the normal US military justice system.

But they have been given more rights to judicial process (even under the the "military kangaroo courts" to which you referred) than prisioners of war.

They are not criminals in the usual sense; their situation is far more like that of a prisioner of war -- this is a new situation and the government of the United States has been struggling to find an appropriate new way to deal with it. There is much more at stake here than just the supposed rights of this "Australian" who chose to join al Qaeda. Perhaps we should have taken fewer prisioners - lesson learned.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Have the Dutch courts ever aquitted someone who was very likely the perpetrator of a crime because the case against him/her under the law was inadequate?

If a prisoner turns out to have been held in prison for two and a half years on an allegation the authorities turn out to never actually be able to prove, it's sure considered a big stink.

And that's a Dutch prison. They got TV and everything.

Besides, this is not an isolated case, either. How many Guantanamo inmates have had to be released by now, with no follow-up accusation or court case? And how many have been found guilty thus far? What's the rate we're talking about?

georgeob1 wrote:

This individual was captured bearing arms in combat operations against our forces in Afghanistan. He was a very long way from Australia, and he was no tourist. Ws were fighting against a regime (Taliban) and a fairly well organized terrorist network(al Qaeda) that had declared and was making war against us. He was a combatant in their army.

So you mean to say he was essentially a prisoner of war?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Looks like McG quoted your one post, but was still answering to the other ... it's tough sometimes, to keep track.

But anyway, on the Habib guy and all, you obviously dont understand, dlowan.

The US army, the government, put this man into the detention camp because they suspected him of something. That alone means we should assume him guilty. I mean, what, you don't trust your own army, your own government?

Then they released him. Apparently they werent able to formulate any case against him. But that doesn't mean he isn't still guilty! What do you think, that the army just puts innocent people into detention!?

Are you with the terrorists or something? Would you rather nothing be done about Al-Qaeda?!

Or something.

For someone that seems to have a firm grasp on things, posts like this confuse me.

The US Army did not arbitrarily pick Mr. Habib up off the streets of Kabul and ship him off to Gitmo. He is an al Qaeda operative who admitted to knowing of the 9/11 plot. He was interogated in Afghanistan and was sent to Gitmo so he could pose no further risk to anyone.

I do trust my government and I do trust the US military. I trust them a thousand times more than I trust a known al Qaeda operative and his lawyer.

As far as his being released with no charges? Too bad. They should have charged him and kept him locked away for the rest of his life. I suspect, though, that doing so would do more harm in demonstrating what the US knows about active terror cells and active plots than it would in keeping a single terrorist locked up. I am sure they could formulate a case against him, they simply chose not to.

0 Replies

Now I'm confused. If he's "a known al Qaeda operative," why wasn't he charged? Is our gov't in the habit of letting such people walk?

This war on terrorism gets more bizarre by the moment!

0 Replies

"The US Army did not arbitrarily pick Mr. Habib up off the streets of Kabul and ship him off to Gitmo. He is an al Qaeda operative who admitted to knowing of the 9/11 plot. He was interogated in Afghanistan and was sent to Gitmo so he could pose no further risk to anyone.
"

He says these are false admissions - gained under torture.

0 Replies

What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know