Mr Habib released (1 Viewer)

joujou_84

GoOOooOONe
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
1,410
Location
in cherry ripe heaven
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
jameseginton said:
This may in fact be reward from the Americans for Australia's support, however obscure this is.

. As far as i can see he can still be considered at terrorist.
the first point is stupid....they wouldnt release a "terrorist" as a reward to australia....its not like australia cares anyway.....john howard couldnt give a shit abt him and if it wasnt for his wife making such a scene they probably wouldve left him there to rot.

secondly..u are innocent until found guilty...end of story....he is not a terrorist until it is proven with evidence that he is....
 
Last edited:

braindrainedAsh

Journalist
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
4,268
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
I mean, if there is nothing they can pin on him, what the hell have they been doing for the past 3 years? I don't know if Habib is guilty or innocent.... basically the public hasn't been given any of the "evidence" so you can't really know (however I believe that the US mustn't have been able to get any firm evidence to prove his guilt, and isn't it innocent until proven guilty?)...

But what does three years of your life mean to you? How much money do you think Habib should get for his wrongful imprisonment? He missed seeing his kids grow up.... was possibly tortured.... I think he has every right to compensation. He was denied his human rights. He was locked up in a manner which violates international law. If this was a "mistake" and he truly isn't guilty of the crimes that have been pinned on him, then this is an absolute disgrace. The Australian government and the US government should be very ashamed.

Of course John Howard isn't going to say sorry.... everyone should realize now that it isn't a word that rolls easily off his tongue....but his press conference made him seem quite red faced and embarassed about the whole thing.... also kinda resentful.

I don't understand why the US is above international law? We should be very careful, and people of the global community should be calling for the US to be pulled in to line..... by allowing crap like this to happen, we are allowing ourselves to become puppets (or victims) of American hegemony.
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
joujou_84 said:
huh? that dosent make sense.......anyone could just be picked up off the street and taken to guantanamo bay where they are held for 3 yrs without charge....why dont they have any rights??
He was classified as an enemy combatant. A random person wouldn't be. Futhermore as an enemy combatant, he was not a member of any group that gives him rights under the Geneva convention, and it isn't hard to be identified as a member.

I wonder, why if they USA had nothing did they pick him in Pakistan. It makes no sense, if they had nothing. Overall their evidence may not be admissible in a court due to legal reasons. If they stuffed up badly, it would probably be better to let him rot in prison from their standpoint. He wasn't locked up in a way that violated international law. He could have been executed without a trial and it wouldn't have been violating international law, he fell under no known convention not being a member of an identified fighting party with a recognisable symbol.
 

Monkey Butler

Pray For Mojo
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
644
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
He was picked up in Pakistan because he was, allegedly, an "al Qaeda sympathiser". And while the beliefs of al Qaeda may be disgusting/offensive/unconscienable to us, arresting somebody for merely supporting them goes against everything that the law stands for. If we don't follow the rule of law, what do we follow? Whether Habib was an enemy combatant or a terrorist or merely a sympathiser should be irrelevant - what the US government did in detaining him and quite probably torturing him for 3 years is a very telling example of their lack of respect for the individual, and everything the law stands for.
 

Chand

Reflect the lights
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Messages
871
Location
In the heavens
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
braindrainedAsh said:
But what does three years of your life mean to you? How much money do you think Habib should get for his wrongful imprisonment? He missed seeing his kids grow up....
I agree..his whole family was affected. He was the money provider, and suddenly his oldest teenage son had to take over the responsibility of providing for the family and mature very quickly. I saw them once, and thought that its strong as a family, to cope with all this, a father that was indefinitely imprisoned and experiencing who knows what, its could be a worser feeling than knowing that someone's passed away.
 

Mumma

Member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
586
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Agreed. In america, you slip on a wet floor and you sue for millions in compensation. Fucking ridiculous.
 

malkin86

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,266
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
It's fantastic that Mr Habib can come home now.

Also that Mr Howard isn't apologising doesn't come as a surprise to me somehow...
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
sladehk said:
he should sue the americas to hell
With what grounds. They did nothing to defame him or otherwise violate his rights.
 

joujou_84

GoOOooOONe
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
1,410
Location
in cherry ripe heaven
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Xayma said:
With what grounds. They did nothing to defame him or otherwise violate his rights.
well theyve labelled him a terrorist and now the guy probably cant get a job anywhere and hell neva have a normal life again.........he missed out on 3 yrs of his life and his families.......i really dont understand where ur coming from with ur whole "he has no rights" thing.......
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Did you see ACA last night, running a story on him?
Fuck I hate ACA, they spin so much shit.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
The Chinese are.
Havent you heard of their plans for world domination?
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
joujou_84 said:
well theyve labelled him a terrorist and now the guy probably cant get a job anywhere and hell neva have a normal life again.........he missed out on 3 yrs of his life and his families.......i really dont understand where ur coming from with ur whole "he has no rights" thing.......
They labelled him as an enemy combatant. It was the papers that defamed him.

He was not a member of any group that would afford him rights that are attributed to Prisoners of War. If he was a member of an armed resistance with a clear symbol he would be a Prisoner of War, but he wasn't.
 
Last edited:

miaomiao

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
292
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
You really have mastered the art of waffle because what your saying is crap.

Youre missing one vital point: that human rights isn't about loopholing ones way out of the situation. So he wasn't a member of an armed group and suppossedly couldn't be classified as a prisoner of war and therefore they could do whatever the hell they liked with him? That doesn't seem right to me or any other decent member of society. Besides, In this fucked up day and age with the 'war on terrorism', the classification of prisoner of war has completely changed. They suspected him of being a terrorist, they are fighting a war on terrorism, he is a prisoner of that war! Fuck oath!
 

miaomiao

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
292
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Of course he was innocent! Presumption of innocence- that is innocent until proven guilty- underpins our legal system and they didn't have shit on him let alone enough to convict the guy. The one i really feel sorry for is Hicks. he ain't getting out until people stop voting for the right which may not even happen in our lifetime.
 

braindrainedAsh

Journalist
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
4,268
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
I don't know how you can say that the papers defamed him by calling him a terrorist when the government basically called him that... they didn't call him an enemy combatant, they called him a suspected terrorist. He was imprisoned because governments thought he was a terrorist. So why are the papers wrong for reporting what they were told? You can't blame it on them. The governments locked him up. They should be paying the compensation.
 

miaomiao

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
292
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Yeah but the media has all the power and they always swing to the right. It gets blamed alot because in the end its the stuff people buy and beleive. i guess we have our own stupidity to blame if anything but yeah Howard should pay and all those who vote for him should hang their heads in shame.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
neo_o said:
While I do appreciate your attempts to troll, may i politely suggest that you think up some new material? This kind of crap became outdated months ago.
I would rep you just for having Kristin Kreuk in your avatar, but I must spread my love around first :D
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
miaomiao said:
You really have mastered the art of waffle because what your saying is crap.

Youre missing one vital point: that human rights isn't about loopholing ones way out of the situation. So he wasn't a member of an armed group and suppossedly couldn't be classified as a prisoner of war and therefore they could do whatever the hell they liked with him? That doesn't seem right to me or any other decent member of society. Besides, In this fucked up day and age with the 'war on terrorism', the classification of prisoner of war has completely changed. They suspected him of being a terrorist, they are fighting a war on terrorism, he is a prisoner of that war! Fuck oath!
Not according to the Geneva convention.
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
 

miaomiao

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
292
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Listen: Like I said before they cant hide behind the Geneva Convention and claim they aren't violating human rights on some language technicality.

Also why would you use international law to defend what your doing when youve plainly broken it in the first place? Or has everyone forgotten a little place called Iraq?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top