Australia goes Gitmo

An Indian doctor working in Queensland, where I live, whose cousin was involved in the failed bombing plot in the UK, was detained apparently because he lent his prepaid SIM card to the cousin.

He was held without charge or bail for 13 days, under a magistrate's orders, which is barely acceptable. But the Australian Federal Police leaked information to the media that incriminated him. Then he was brought before a magistrate, who allowed him bail. Got that? The legal system worked to assess his alleged crime and the evidence offered to support the charge, and a magistrate decided the charge was able to go to trial but that he could be bailed.

So the federal minister for immigration took away his visa to be in Australia and he is now in detention. Gitmo detention, with 23 hour a day cell time and no interaction with other prisoners. At least, unlike Gitmo prisoners, he has free access to his lawyers, one of whom is accused of leaking information creditable to his client. It's only OK to leak incriminating evidence.

The reason for the rule of law is to prevent those in power from ordering the arbitrary detention, arrest and condemnation of accused people, whether or not they are citizens, but this government has done an end run around the rules for political reasons. There's nothing much offered to suggest that the accused really was involved, or at least nothing to convince the legally empowered official - the magistrate - that he really was and it transpires that he in fact claims to have tried to contact British investigators to clear the air.

This is appalling. The minister for immigration has no role to play in this. It's not his business. The only reason for this is obviously political interference. We are moving away from a democratic rule of law to arbitrary arrest for political reasons. This must be opposed. The laws are strong enough - there's no reason to allow police and politicians to overrule them.

There's more than a whiff of racism here too. He's brown and has an Islamic sounding name. But given the way our government failed to defend the rights of a white Australian who had joined Islamists and who was detained by the US government in the real Gitmo, with no access to legal representation for years, maybe it's just anti-Islamism.

This is my 500th post here. Yay.

?

More like this

'Democracy' and 'the rule of law' are not necessarily complementary. The former can pretty much eliminate the latter if it feels like it. Ie. I'm sure this policy is very popular among the Australian people.

By cuchulkhan (not verified) on 18 Jul 2007 #permalink

I thought I'd heard that on the news here, but did a double take and thought that I must have misheard.

This at least explains why he is still in custody even though he has been granted bail.

Taking his passport I could understand but the Visa rescinding is simply the minister thumbing his nose at the courts. He should be done for contempt of court.

By Chris' Wills (not verified) on 18 Jul 2007 #permalink

This is my 500th post here. Yay.

Congratulations.

May you post many more.
Though it is the quality, not the quantity, that counts.

By Chris' Wills (not verified) on 18 Jul 2007 #permalink

What makes modern democracy different from the mob rule of Athens is rule of law. Lose that and it's all over for rights, equality, freedom and eventually the vote. Judicial independence is the cornerstone for a free society.

I agree. This government must be removed.

Although, I've been disappointed with the opposition response. I understand the politics involved. By giving support they allow the government to take almost all the heat, while avoiding becoming the issue themselves. Still it is a sad state of affairs, and they've fallen even further down my preference list.

The magistrate was incompentent to have bailed this man. Apparently there are other factors, like an e-mail allegedly suggesting that this man would have to make a quick exit from Australia, implying he had something to hide.

If he is a terrorist, he will likely do a runner, and the Government will cop the blame for letting him get away - and cannot win.

If it uses every means at its disposal to prevent this scenario, it will be condemned, as you are doing - again, it cannot win.

Until the matter is sorted out in the UK, he should stay where he is - in prison.

The problem with playing the racism card is that the terrorists get a free ticket from it. Most Islamist (note, not Muslim) terrorists so far have been brown-skinned people with "Islamic-sounding" names. While this does not mean that all brown-skinned people with "Islamic-sounding" names are terrorists, it does mean that the arrest of a brown-skinned person with an Islamic-sounding name on terrorism-related charges does not automatically constitute racism.

BTW: as far as I am concerned:

Islam = the religion founded by Mohammed.

Islamism = the perversion of that noble religion in order to justify terror, mass murder, the suppression of the rights of women, anti-semitism, and numerous other disgusting agendas, and to rally the unwise and the disenfranchised to this appalling cause.

The fact that David Hicks - as white a white boy as you can possibly get - was also (deservedly IMO) thrown to the wolves indicates that the matter was Islamist terrorism, and not simple skin-colour racism.

Terrorism is (or should be) a matter for the military; the rules of a civil court do not apply. There are things about this man which possibly cannot be revealed in open court without blowing somebody's cover - an act which, given the nature of the enemy, could cost that somebody their life.

By Justin Moretti (not verified) on 18 Jul 2007 #permalink

Justin, I do not agree. Terrorism is nothing new - we have had it for centuries. In the late nineteenth century it was called "anarchism", and during the Irish Troubles also. In all cases, when the rule of law was overriden by political interference the outcome was injustice and loss of freedoms, not increased safety. Any society that must surrender freedoms to protect itself will ultimately end up a dictatorship, and most probably a military dictatorship at that. The rule of civil court must always apply, or it will end up not applying when it counts.

Terrorism is (or should be) a matter for the military

That's a truly scary sentiment, opening the doors to all sorts of abuses and potentially ending, as John points out, in military dictatorship. The ultimate power for dealing with terrorism must always be subject to the same checks and balances as other aspects of the legal system. Any other way and you end up with the likes of Gitmo and the dreadful human rights abuses which inevitably accompany such situations.

By the way, happy 500th John. You don't look a post over 400 :-)

"Judicial independence is the cornerstone for a free society."

Right. For this reason I find the phrase 'democratic rule of law' very fuzzy, almost incoherent. The rule of law must come first. Hitler, after all, was democratically elected. These anti-terrorism laws, even if they infringe on basic rights, are REALLY popular with the electorate.

By cuchulkhan (not verified) on 23 Jul 2007 #permalink

Terrorism is (or should be) a matter for the military; the rules of a civil court do not apply. There are things about this man which possibly cannot be revealed in open court without blowing somebody's cover - an act which, given the nature of the enemy, could cost that somebody their life.

What makes an Islamist terrorist any different than, say, a lunatic that goes on a shooting spree or a serial killer?

Or, another way to put it is this; what makes a terrorist something different than every other violent criminal?

We don't demand the military courts involve themselves with serial arsonists, though these guys can cause just as much damage and death as a suicide bomber.

Courts are precisely the place for criminals to be tried. Secret trials, secret charges, unlimited detention and limited access to counsel all smack of the kind of judicial abuses of the past which political theorists spent so much time demonstrating to be not only violations of liberty, but often leading to outright injustice.

Every accused individual deserves their day in court, and it is infamy and tyranny personified to use "national security" or "public safety" as excuses to deprive an individual of what those in the Anglo-Saxon tradition have seen as our most inalieable of rights.

How can we go into countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and brag about our liberal governmental systems, when we're using some of the same despotic techniques used by those who we claim to be overthrowing?

By Aaron Clausen (not verified) on 24 Jul 2007 #permalink