<< POST IN VENGEANCE MODE ~ MAIN ~ UNITED FORCES OF LUNACY >>
WILL VISIT TERRORISTS FOR FOOD
60 Minutes didn’t exactly get value for money with its Mamdouh Habib interview:
Mr Habib refused to answer questions related to whether he was in Afghanistan or what he was doing there before he was detained or how he funded repeated trips to the region.
Incidentally, I’m fine with Habib being paid. For one thing, it’ll mean he’s able to return his welfare overpayments:
Freed Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib has applied for a disability support pension but has been told he owes the Federal Government thousands of dollars for previous welfare overpayments.
Centrelink is yet to decide if it will pursue the money from Mr Habib, who may be eligible for up to $470 a fortnight if his application is accepted.
Mr Habib previously received the benefit, which is paid to people who are not able to work or be retrained because of illness, injury or disability, but failed to notify Centrelink about leaving Australia, as required.
Payments were made when he was allegedly visiting al-Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “People will ask if he was well enough to allegedly fight with al-Qaeda, why were we paying him the disability pension,” a source said.
Yes. They will ask that. Not that Habib appears willing to answer ...
CORRECTION: The questions about visits to Afghanistan were asked during an interview with the New York Times.
Maybe he can file a claim based on the female interrogators nearly putting his eye out with one of those things…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 13 at 05:20 PM • permalinkIt was one of the worst interviews I have seen and it was channel 9.
I think you will find he was cut off benefits and thus he won’t have recieved any benefits this financial year.
This means that he can keep his money and has no benefits to pay back.Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 02 13 at 07:36 PM • permalinkThe 60 Minutes interview was hopeless. I would have thought that the fact that Habib was on Disability benefits would have been relevant to his funding of his multiple Pakistan excursions but there was no mention of it.
They paid this germ big money to let us hear the “truth” and they failed to disclose basic background information.
Surely research into his background would have turned up this information yet it was absent from the story.
Was this piece designed to show the Australian and US governments in the worst possible light?
On the most critical questions, Habib was let off scot free by saying he will answer before a Court of Law.
There was no mention that he is unlikely to face such a court because there were no such offences on the statutes at the time of his trips to Pakistan.
Such background information was vital to the context of the story yet it was left out.
Follow up will be interesting.
Credibility Alert!!!
This was the guy who was said by the Haldon Street Mosque (you know, the one where Willy Brigitte went to get married) to be undesirable as a member.
Call me old fashioned, but a kind and loving family man should be at home with his family, not doing a bizzaro reffo trip to seek a better life in ... Pakistan?Janet Albrechtsen:
“Habib’s supporters say it’s all bunk because his confessions were extracted by torture. “Torture does render confessions bunk. Conditions concealing potential torture do the same. If Janet needs this explained to her, she must have sufferred brain damage since passing the bar.
Janet Again:
“The presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle in our legal system…” and here is why I don’t want to think about it. A simple concept is misunderstood. What medication is J.A. taking?I don’t doubt that Habib is a terrorist, and he should have been arrested properly, charged under the applicable laws (which were in place at the time) and left to languish in gaol. You wanna-be torturers earnt his freedom for him, and now you’re bitching about it. That’s funny.
Why isn’t Centrelink and Customs databases linked?
How could Habib receive benefits when he was on his overseas jaunts?
I want more Big Brother…On another note, Habib the Ratface resembles Ivan Milat a lot, especially with the new gay mo.
Posted by Honkie Hammer on 2005 02 13 at 09:14 PM • permalinkIs it “Wopat” or “Wombat”?
Posted by Karl Fidel Adams-Kingston on 2005 02 13 at 09:16 PM • permalinkHabib says an Australian was present while he was tortured in Pakistan. This is true. One of the guards has a friend whose cousin married an Australian. The nation is shamed. Ruddock must resign
Posted by Happy John on 2005 02 13 at 09:30 PM • permalinkYou can go overseas if you are on a disability pension.
A confesson gained by torture is not recognised.
Habib recognised the OZ paki ‘diplomat’ by photo.
The said person has stated he never met him bt only sent him his card.Unles his photo was on his card how did Habib recognse him?
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 02 13 at 09:43 PM • permalinkTom Wopat
You see this is where it becomes obvious that whilst people like me are still here on earth, people like you are in orbit around a small moon in the Alpha Centauri system.
Do you understand the following?
1. THIS IS A WAR.
2. IT IS NOT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION/PROSECUTION.
3. THE COURTS AND CRIMINAL CODE ARE NOT DESIGNED OR EQUIPPED TO FIGHT WARS.
4. THE JUDICIARY AND CITIZEN JURIES CANNOT POSSIBLY BE EXPECTED TO OVERSEE THE PROSECUTION OF MEMBERS OF A WAR FIGHTING ORGANISATION. THE REASON FOR THIS SHOULD BE CLEAR BUT FOR YOU I WILL EXPLAIN: JURIES AND THE JUDICIARY NEED TO BE ABLE TO CONDUCT A TRIAL WITHOUT THREAT OF VIOLENCE.
5. LAWS APPLY WITH REGARDS TO THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR.
6. THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS DO NOT APPLY BECAUSE HICKS/HABIB AND CO. ARE NOT RECOGNISABLE AS LEGITIMATE COMBATANTS.Comprende?
I’m glad that Homer is back, I was worried that when Iron Mark clutched his chest and resigned like the girl that he is, old Homer would have still been sobbing and wailing about his hero, the evil media and the injustice of it all.
But no, like a true lefty, discard and move on, anything and anyone is useful in the lefts quest to “get Howard”
Of course you can go overseas on a pension but he went to Pakistan 6 times and Afganistan and is yet to explain his actions, if he was truly innocent then he should have no quams about spilling the beans.
As for his claims about torture, why would we believe him? IF we shouldn’t believe the government then why automatically believe him? He is yet to produce a scrap of evidence to support his claims so we apply the same criteria to him as the left does to the government and we get self serving claims without foundation.
I also think you’ll find that the diplomat never met Habib and in fact his card was given to an third person who handed it to Habib, so can we then assume that he may have been told what that person looks like?
If you want to have a look at how prisoners were treated in Gitmo then have a look at this address, http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html
Compare this to the treatment of hostages in Iraq and then tell me whos getting the rough end of the pineapple Homer?
Happy John:
“Habib says an Australian was present while he was tortured in Pakistan. This is true. One of the guards has a friend whose cousin married an Australian. The nation is shamed. Ruddock must resign”
It’s true because Habib said it was true? I’m usually sceptical about the US Government’s statements of fact but I’ll take their word over a narcissistic jihadi wannabe’s any day of the week (I presume you saw that Four Corners segment). What other evidence do we have to substantiate these claims besides the “shocking” allegation that the US allowed an Egyptian born terrorist to be interviewed by Egyptian authorities?The odds are, Habib probably confessed to helping a pair of terrorists beat the shit out of an air crew, had prior knowledge of the planned kamikaze hijackings and is thus indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths. If you’re just going to discount these confessions due to unsubstantiated allegations of torture, you’re using the same demented logic that David Irving uses to explain why Nazis confessed to killing millions of Jews during post war trials.
Legal niceties aside, there are simply some people such as Habib and ‘Jihad Jack’ that we can’t have walking the streets. Having ASIO keep a tap their phone calls and follow them around once in a while simply isn’t good enough. All a terrorist attack takes is one free, determined individual with a homemade batch of Potassium Chlorate and various other things available at any suburban supermarket.
Don’t you love knobs who think their CAPSLOCK key carries gravitas? Is that so you can type one-handed, murph?
There are laws in war, but the Geneva convention doesn’t count. ( It just doesn’t, because murph says so. )
So, what LAWS lead to David and Mamdouh’s detention?That’s right. None! The correct term for their arrest was ‘extra-judicial detainment’, which is, ironically, illegal.
They were deliberately held outside anybody’s jurisdiction. (No jurisdiction means no laws, by the way, so your whole ‘legal detention’ argument is worth so much molten feaces.)You wouldn’t allow this of any nation outside your coalition, so you know where you can shove your ‘comprende’, puta.
Nuffy,
has anyone ever told you that the rule of law is a conservative bulwark?
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 02 14 at 01:33 AM • permalinkWopat before you start referring to the Geneva Convention, check first to see if al-Qaida have complied with the Geneva Convention, and are covered by same.
I think Habib is lucky he was caught by the US, lucky he wasnt shot, lucky he still has hois uead on, lucky he can claim welfare benefits and lucky the plane was on the ground when he disembarked.
I heard some drip on talk-back radio this morning saying she was convinced Habib must be on the up and up because he was so quick and clear with his answers and could look right at the camera without blinking or anything. Well, what would you expect after 3 years of questions.
How would all the nellies be if he was a suspected child molester or (worse) an alleged polluter!
Homer
I’m happy for the rule of law to apply, however as you should know, the law is very subjective.
You say that Habib was detained unlawfully and I’m sure that the US government has legal advice to say that their actions are lawful, so whos right?
Consider however that Habib has form dating back to 93, whilst proclaiming his innocence is yet to explain his Pakistan / Afganistan contiki tours, has been fingered by other known AQ operatives, was kicked out of a Syd based islamic community over his extremism, and is bludging on welfare and you expect people to accept his claims on face value?
You apply a unachievably high level of scrutiny to the governments actions and your intrepretations of them whilst allowing Habib a unbelievable amount of latitude in his assertions and claims.
Concerning the Geneva convention (and this is directed at Tom), it is irrelevant as AQ are not abiding by it nor are they covered by it.
Surely the actions of the terrorists in Iraq and their attitudes in dealing with Nepelese truck drivers and Irish aid workers shows that the Geneva convention is irrelevent when dealing with this enemy.
If the US was acting in the way that the Islamic terrorists are, then there wouldn’t be a Gitmo and Habib wouldn’t be on 60 minutes, his execution would have been broadcast on CBS with a Dan Rather overdub.
Its funny that the left criticise the actions of the US and Aust governments but are the same people who supported the North Vietnamese and their brutal treatment of US POWS without so much as a peep!
It just doesn’t, because murph says so
Listen you silly little Wombat - Did Habib or Hicks have so much as a rank or serial number? Were they part of a recognisable command structure? Are their targets confined to military targets? No, no and no. This means that the GC cannot be applied and other laws and precedents, which apply to unlawful combatants come into effect.
The Geneva Convention defines very, very clearly the conditions under which combatants are recogised as lawful. Al Qaeda (and its members) in no way fits these conditions. Therefore they forego their protection.
While we’re at it: There is plenty of historical legal precedent for simply catching the dirty little fuckers, getting info out of them by any means and then tossing them off a cliff. The British, Australians and Americans did it to Nazi sabateurs captured during WW2.
Sorry to have to say this Wopat:
Your concern for the rule of law is probably political or just for the sake of argument (hope it makes you feel good) rather than practical, and the guys we are up against do not give a toss about the law, or about conventions, or about whether you are an erudite secular humanist rather than a jew or a christian or a hindu, etc.
They hate you anyway.
Conventions and laws will not win this one.
You are one the wrong side of the argument. Unless you can do better than snidely commenting on the breakdown of peoples rights (which along with truth has been known to be a casualty of war) you are part of the problem.
Real solutions only, please. No more Geneva Conventions, presumtion of innocence, bail given to alleviate stress.
And if we are to have presumtion of innocence it will have to be allocated all round. To authorities, spooky Australian Officials, US Guards and Interrogators. But it won’t help at all. Dont bring a knife to a gunfight, and dont bring your civil liberties sensibilities to a no holds barred conflagration.Nuffy, I think you have my comments confused with somone else.
If the US had evidence to charge Habib then they would have.
They didn’t which means either they had no evidence oe the evidence was tainted. Probably the latter giving timing of the dropping of the charges and habib not being allowed over US airspace.What exactly are you protecting?
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 02 14 at 04:57 AM • permalinkHabib, I am advised using my best rudockism, would be able to sue the US government if that happened.
Posted by Homer Paxton on 2005 02 14 at 05:10 AM • permalinkWombat…. are you actually Margo?
Posted by Karl Fidel Adams-Kingston on 2005 02 14 at 07:53 AM • permalinkIt is not only Habid now to watch it’s the next generation -those sons he was so eager to enrol in a ‘boarding school’ in PAKISTAN or Afghanistan-helloooooooo!!-How many Citizens send their kids to overseas schools and does it really take 6 trips ,wish I had known might have been cheaper for my kids schooling.
I commented about this on Andrew Bartletts web site- he stated, “Habib should be commended for his achievements?”.Habib can do all this, pay rent in Sydney! feed and clothe his family of 5 kids and his wife- he should set up an advisory service so we can benfit from his experience. Andrrw Bartlett a great rep’ of Australian interests. Torture is what happened to Nick Berg and Margaret Hassan- I have one suggestion for torture- I am suffering from a a mite infestation thanks to friends overfriendly dog -can’t think of a better way to extract a confession!Why was he not made tolist the schools he visited and inspected to send his sons-I would guess that they were either madrassas or terror camps ready to continue Jihad. His sons will marry young have numerous kids and they too will be on welfare- His daugters will be forced into marriage with Islamic Husbands at a young age and they too will breed numerous little Muslims by the time they are 25 years- It won’t take long to outbreed the Western type Aussie- glad I’ll be dead, and for the first time glad not to have grandchildren- I weep for Australia- a people who nevertugged their forlock to authority might soon be ass upwards 5 times daily- god help your great grandkids unless you all waken up now
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I have a disability and cant work = I can afford to fly to Pakistan to traipse around there.
My son needs a school= A nice madrassa in a war zone.