Why do you always misrepresent the facts?

Your heading says the "Coalition condoned torture", and you have copied a headline which says "Documents show PM knew of Habib torture".

Yet the very first sentence contradicts you.  It says "Declassified documents have revealed former prime minister John Howard and other senior politicians knew in 2002 of Mamdouh Habib's claims he was tortured in Egypt".

Now I don't know how good your comprehension is but it's pretty clear to an English speaker that to know of a person's claims is quite different to knowing any events actually took place.

He did nothing to stop it, even though he was an Australian citizen and Howard had the authority to bring him home. That is condoning it.

All he had to do was ask Bush and he would have gotten him out. Other governments did - the ones who were concerned about the welfare of their own citizens.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2007 at 11:42am:


So as you have made no comment about John Howard's knowledge of Habib's claims only rather than any knowledge of any actual events I assume you are conceding you are wrong in your baseless claim he condoned torture?

And a request to have someone returned to Australia from captivity elsewhere is not 'authority' is it.  Do you acknowledge you are wrong to believe that John Howard had any authority over what the US does at all?

Aussie wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2007 at 9:09pm:


He asked me Aussie, and I assured him there was no truth to the silly claims.

from crikey:

That’s particularly significant given that former CIA officers have said Habib’s rendition could not have taken place without Australian complicity. Jack Cloonan, a former agent from the Bin Laden Unit, explained to the ABC in June: "It's impossible for me to believe that the Australian Government did not know that the Pakistani Government -- maybe at the urging of the United States and others -- didn't know that one of their citizens was being rendered to a third country. I can’t imagine under what circumstance the ASIO representative in Islamabad didn't know what was going on."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/11/1948035.htm?source=cmailer

Obviously, ASIO understood the reason why the US liked to transport prisoners to Egypt. So our spy agency seems to have agreed to hand a man over for torture -- even though they didn’t have any evidence against him.

If that’s not mind boggling enough, consider some of the other testimony from the case.

Apparently, an ASIO agent (known only as "Officer 1") did, in fact, visit Habib during his detention in Pakistan. He noted the curious fact that, during a break in questioning, Habib couldn’t walk unaided. Yet the prisoner’s mysterious incapacity didn’t seem to have bothered our man in Islamabad, since he flatly declined Habib’s repeated requests to talk privately away from his gaolers. Nor did he find out whether Habib had been given a phone call or understood his rights to refuse questioning.

Acid Monkey wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 4:09pm:


It is not semantic to state that 'claim' means 'claim'.  And claim means exactly that - an assertion of truth.  But it is not truth without evidence.

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 8:38pm:


Where may I find this observation?

deepthought wrote on Dec 5^th, 2007 at 9:02pm:


Freediver?  The link?  You said yourself that it is common courtesy to provide a link.  Let's be having it.

deepthought wrote on Dec 7^th, 2007 at 8:15pm:


Um freediver?  Where is your courtesy?

deepthought wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 9:35am:



I dont think you are getting a link DT..

Quote:





Well that particular trait [lying]is not confined to one side of politics..

I will give him the benefit of the doubt. It is the weekend and he probably doesn't have time to reply at this point in time.

Wait till he gets back to work in his govt or uni funded place of employment so he can do it on the clock.

deepthought wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 7:26pm:


I think he,s out on the river catching Groper..tropical shower came down and shrunk his hat and gave him brain cramp.

Youll have to wait until mum comes back to camp to yank it offa his head..that will free his brain up . ThEN I think you ll get a link.

Many have before.

So he should just fade away and join the ranks of those who have been proven to be wrong or liars because they cannot back up their arguments?

That's kewl. I take a non-response to pertinent questions as an admission of 'I have no idea what I'm arguing about'

So be it.

It says in the original post where it is from. If I had a URL I would have given it.

freediver wrote on Jan 31^st, 2008 at 5:25pm:


You reckon the coalition condoned it and now you say no one saw anything?  What's happening freediver?

No doubt if this is proved in Court, we will be up for massive compensation payouts to victims.  There are many people who suffered injustices under the Howard government and they will all be asking for money, particularly in regard to coverups in immigration and terrorism.

We have got a government now who says they will argue for human rights, and this is the price we will have to pay to unravel the damage caused by the former government.

You just love twisting words, don't you. 

This:

Quote:
......

does not equal this:

Quote:

Is "John Howard" = to "The Howard Government?"

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2008 at 12:57pm:


So you agree that John Howard's name should not have been used in this context?


mantra wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2008 at 1:17pm:



And the list of the many people who suffered "injustices"?  I'm afraid an allegation of someone doing something without any attempt to support the allegation seems like bitterness about something to me.  Back yourself, stop making empty claims.  Give us substance.

Just saying that something occurred does not make it so.

Deepthought - obviously you haven't been keeping up to date politically with the problematic Howard cabinet, or maybe it's because  like all Howard huggers, you are blind to the failings of the now defunct coalition.  

Nice edit to take out your personal attacks Mantra 

More obfuscation from you. How...predictable 

mantra wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2008 at 4:21pm:


Why not list all those injustices though mantra?  I am well aware of political happenings which is why I am so puzzled that you make such false allegations of injustices.

mantra wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2008 at 6:44pm:


It ain't up to me to list the justices, you're the one making the baseless claims about injustices.  So let's look at the examples you give.

It seems we have two women who gave inadequate, insufficient or downright deceptive information to the immigration department who acted according to that information and (wrongly it transpired) deported them.  Both the examples you give had peculiar beginnings with Vivien Solon apparently found seriously injured claiming she was Vivien Alvarez and was here on a spousal visa.  Cornelia Rau, similarly, claimed she was a tourist from Munich and her name was both Anna Brotmeyer and Anna Schmidt.

What are immigration officials to do?  Disbelieve everyone and investigate them?  There are thousands of visa overstayers in Australia, how big do you want the public service to be?  And your chums, the Liebor Party are reducing services so it can only worsen.

Incidentally mandatory detention was a legislative act of your mates - the Liebor Party.  In detaining people the former coalition government was simply following the law created by its predecessors.

And both Habib and Hicks were arrested overseas - this is not Australian jurisdiction.

Quote:


Yet, your Tin God, hayseed, apologised in both cases.  Why would he do that, unless his Government's stooges buggered up?

Hey DT, what is Amanda raving on about here:

Quote:

For what?

Answer in real, established terms, not your dream time poo.

I just had to delete a couple of posts from here. There is no need to make this personal.

Someone walks into the authorities and tells them a fictious name and details, makes out that she's a foreigner with no visa - straight away you lefties are calling for millions of dollars worth of compo for her lying to the authorities.

It's not surprising- lefties are always after taxpayers dollars for doing nothing- a case like this furthers your cause.

Well, if according to Amanda, they ended up in detention etc etc etc through no fault of their own, it leaves only one alternative.

DT.....this is a pointless and redundant debate.  The people have spoken..............kid's overboard, the pacific solution, these two ladies, hicks, haneef.........................and on and on and on.

Hayseed, and his Government was shown the door, and not one respected political historian has yet anointed hayseed as Australia's greatest PM (as you proclaimed him to be) since he had to pack his bags and bugger off.

Quote:


I am no great fan of Rudd - DT, although he can be likened to the Messiah in comparison to Howard.  I wasn't aware of fresh allegations of torture in Afghanistan, but if this is the case, Rudd has a legal and moral duty to demand Bush ban all forms of abuse during interrogation in Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere else the US holds people in custody as it only leads to further atrocities and of course increased retribution.  Howard didn't have the guts, but as Australia is a member of the "Coalition of the Willing", we have a responsibility to uphold the following laws and ensure our partners do the same.

I. International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions 
II. Human Rights Law 

The US also have their own human rights laws, which they appear to ignore.

Rudd has only been in government for a couple of months.  I believe he will protest to the US government in relation to these torture allegations, but we may not hear about it immediately due to diplomatic relations.

In regard to other forms of torture condoned by the previous government - these can be said to be irrelevant by some and on a different level, but the coalition revived the defunct live animal export trade during their time in power and has stood by mutely while the Japanese have slaughtered our whales.  The Rudd government has made a small positive step in the right direction by using surveillance to gather evidence for the next moratorium, but one small step is better than nothing.

As the confidence of this new government grows, we can hope to see focus once again on human rights and humanity in general.  Basic human decency was swept under the carpet during Howard's reign and many of us are looking forward to its revival.

It is obvious deepthought that you voted Liberal.

mantra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 6:49am:


Yes I did vote Liberal because I care about people.  In Australia Liebor has a terrible record of treating the plebs like fodder for the enrichment of their own and of corporate Australia.  In fact they are happy to extoll that fact.

Kim Beazley boasted about their record of increasing company profits at the expense of ordinary Australians when he said in 2005

Quote:


Of course I don't care for that attitude towards working Australians.  Who would?  I vote Liberal because only the coalition cares about workers.

Allegations of torture are coming from all over the world - from Sudan, Egypt, Afghanistan, North Korea, China and Iraq.  I haven't heard Little Kevvy say a thing about it.   I guess you have an apology for that?  Too early for him to care yet?

You're wrong about Australia's actions with regard to whaling.  Australia has consistently led the way at the accords - I have posted that fact on here before.  What they did not do was incite illegal actions by pirates and threaten Japan with armed vessels so they had to go and back peddle alarmingly with their caps in their hands when visitng Japan.  They had some sense of international diplomacy and the rights of sovereign nations.

Liebor cares nothing for people.  If they cared they would not be driving the economy into reverse.  This will have a major impact on the well being of this country and its poor inhabitants.  If they cared they would not be promising to spend all the savings on a useless broadband cable, or on computers which will cost billions and will create nightmares for the education department budgets.  If they cared they would not be winding back public services which will become overstretched as the consequences of Liebor actions impact on those left behind.

Of course I voted Liberal.  Anyone who cares for their fellow Australians would.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 10:59am:


There's a degree of difference to confessing to a crime and stating you are a visa overstayer.  Wouldn't you agree?  A crime needs to be solved whereas a visa overstayer just needs to be gone.  I'm surprised you did not know that.

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 7:59pm:



She had schizophrenia old son.  I don't class that as retarded.  It is an illness.  But unless amongst Amanda's 'mob of morons' there is a mind reader how can they know she is bulltesticulating when she says she is a tourist on a visa and her name is Anna Somephuqer?   Are immigration people to assume everyone is really a citizen with a fibbing disorder?

Just how does anyone know?  As I recollect it she was arrested and wound up in a hospital where no one amongst that mob of morons worked her out either.

I suspect you think immigration officials have super powers - somewhat akin to X Ray vision - for seeing through lies and arriving at the truth - despite the declarations of the 'retarded'.

Answer me this, how would they know they are right and the detainee wrong?

mantra wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 5:06pm:


Yes but the Howard Government launched an inquiry into the issue of Cornelia Rau and others in a humanitarian effort to improve the suituation.

This differs from Liebor who covered their catastrophes by introducing legislation to legitimise their heavy handed tactics with illegal immigrants.

I vote for the party who cares about correcting mistakes, not one who after a period of inappropriate actions towards immigrants hides behind legislation.

Aussie wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 9:01pm:


Perhaps you are not aware that the Rudd government is not the only Liebor government this country has suffered under.   I was referring to the horror of the last one.

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 9:41pm:

That wasn't even a good backpedal...

I didn't.  You just agreed you did.

Quote:

CIA chief says legality of "waterboarding" now uncertain

http://news.smh.com.au/cia-chief-says-legality-of-waterboarding-now-uncertain/20080208-1qzv.html

The head of the CIA said Thursday it is uncertain whether the use of waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning widely condemned as torture, would be lawful if used today against Al-Qaeda detainees.

General Michael Hayden, the CIA director, said the legal landscape has changed since the technique was used nearly five years ago in interrogations of three top Al-Qaeda detainees.

"It's not a technique that I've asked for, it's not included in the current program," Hayden told members of the House Intelligence Committee.

"And in my own view, and the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered lawful under current statute," he said.

Hayden's comments contradicted the White House which earlier this week defended the practice and said it could be used again in a situation where an attack was believed to be imminent.

Attorney General Michael Mukasy, meanwhile, said the Justice Department would not investigate the earlier use of waterboarding as a potential crime.

He said its use by the CIA "cannot possibly be the subject of a criminal, a Justice Department investigation, because that would mean that the same department that authorized the program would now consider prosecuting somebody who followed that advice."

Hayden publicly admitted to the CIA's use of waterboarding for the first time on Tuesday in testimony before a Senate committee.

---

Waterboarding qualifies as torture: UN

http://news.smh.com.au/waterboarding-qualifies-as-torture-un/20080209-1r7h.html

The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding and used by the United States qualifies as torture, the UN human rights chief said on Friday.

Violators of the UN Convention against Torture should be prosecuted under the principle of 'universal jurisdiction' which allows countries to try accused war criminals from other nations, Arbour said.

"There are several precedents worldwide of states exercising their universal jurisdiction ... to enforce the torture convention and we can only hope that we will see more and more of these avenues of redress," Arbour said.

The US Congress is considering banning the practice, in which prisoners are immobilised and water is poured into their breathing passages to simulate drowning.

Arbour referred to an arrest warrant issued in 1998 by a Spanish judge for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who died in 2006, on charges of torture, murder and kidnapping in the years that followed his 1973 coup.

Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s were known to use waterboarding on political prisoners.

---

US Senate votes to forbid waterboarding

http://news.smh.com.au/us-senate-votes-to-forbid-waterboarding/20080214-1s6s.html

The US Senate passed legislation Wednesday to bar the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods including waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique denounced by rights groups as torture.

The Democratic-led Senate voted 51-45 in favor of a bill calling for the Central Intelligence Agency to adopt the US Army Field Manual, which forbids waterboarding and other types of coercive interrogation methods.

---

Habib loses newspaper defamation bid

http://news.smh.com.au/habib-loses-newspaper-defamation-bid/20080307-1xqp.html

Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib has lost his high-profile defamation case against Nationwide News, publisher of Sydney's Daily Telegraph newspaper.

A jury in the NSW Supreme Court had earlier found that an article published in The Daily Telegraph in 2005 defamed Mr Habib by implying he had made false claims about torture.

But Nationwide News mounted a detailed defence of justification, challenging the former terror suspect's credibility over weeks of hearings last year.

Justice Peter McClellan ruled in favour of the media company, finding Mr Habib was "prone to exaggerate", "evasive" and had made claims about mistreatment in Pakistan and Egypt which could not be sustained.

---

'Torture-tainted evidence' mars US legal image: rights group

http://news.smh.com.au/torturetainted-evidence-mars-us-legal-image-rights-group/20080311-1yli.html

The use of torture to extract evidence from detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has tarnished the US legal system's image and alienated allies in the war on terror, a rights group said Monday.

"The use of evidence tainted by torture and other inhuman treatment is pervasive and systematic in the cases of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, and has already infected legal judgments made there," Human Rights First said in a report titled "Tortured Justice."