more politics

[darren_stranger]

Some interesting quotes from Attorney General Phillip Ruddock, from Four Corners' story on Mamdouh Habib's arrest and detention at Guantanamo:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1157599.htm

As to why, while two Germans arrested with Habib (the ones the Pakistanis were apparently after, with Habib arrested along with them for speaking up) were released after their government intervened on their behalf, the Australian Government has made no effort to have him brought home:

"PHILIP RUDDOCK: The United States sought advice from us as to whether we could successfully prosecute Hicks and Habib and the advice they received from us is they could not be. Um, so our view has always been that if there were serious issues to be tried and the United States believed they were in a position to pursue those matters, it would be foolish for us to be seeking their return to Australia in the knowledge that they would have to be released."

So.. the fact that two Australians hadn't committed any crime under Australian law is a reason not to lobby for their return.  Better to leave them in the custody of the US, even though it's taken them over two years to come up with grounds to charge them with something.

Not that that really matters, since the outcome of any criminal charges may not affect whether they're released, as they may apparently be held indefinitely as long as the 'War on Terror' continues:

"PHILIP RUDDOCK: The argument that the United States has taken is that, in this war in which they're engaged, they don't wish to release people that they believe are likely to go back and resume hostilities.

SALLY NEIGHBOUR: But that would blow away one of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law, would it not, if they were to do their time and still not be released?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: As I understand it, one of the...one of the accepted principles in the conduct of war under Geneva Conventions is that prisoners of war are held until the end of hostilities."

Okaaay.. so when we talk about them having rights under the Geneva Convention, that doesn't apply because they're "illegal combatants", not prisoners of war. But if they're found not to have broken any law, or have served their time for any law they have broken, then the Convention suddenly applies so that they can continue to be held as prisoners of war.
Yet another acrobatic feat of having it both ways, comparable to the US's 'Guantanamo is Cuban territory and not under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction' argument.

Bear in mind that this is our Attorney General, the man in charge of overseeing the laws of our fair land.

Bring on this election already.

Edit: Remind me not to use this %@^&$# rich text mode again - it never works out right.