Sarah Stephen &
Aaron Benedek, Sydney
Consider this scenario: an Australian citizen travels to another country, is kidnapped by the military of a third country, receives absolutely no assistance from the Australian government, is imprisoned for three years at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay without charge and suffers repeated torture.
Eventually, this citizen is released due to lack of evidence and allowed to go home. Rather than apologising for its lack of action and offering compensation for his ordeal, the Australian government announces that the man will be kept under surveillance.
"Other governments whose nationals were so detained fought for, and often secured, their citizens' release" from Guantanamo Bay, Waleed Aly, a Melbourne lawyer and executive member of the Islamic Council of Victoria, pointed out in the February 4 Age. "Mamdouh Habib's government fought nothing but calls to defend its citizens' most basic rights."
To deflect attention from its inaction, the Australian government has come up with a range of allegations and insinuations that Habib is guilty of terrorist offences.
When news of Habib's release from Guantanamo Bay was made public, attorney-general Philip Ruddock explained that the release came despite "the strong view of the US" that Habib had prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks and had trained with al Qaeda. It wasn't significant to Ruddock that the US couldn't charge him — casting doubt on legitimacy of these claims.
Then on January 25 — three days before Habib's arrival in Australia — Ruddock declared that the government may use proceeds-of-crime legislation to prevent Habib from receiving any money from telling his story.
In his opinion piece, Aly pointed out the absurdity of Ruddock's call: "Proceeds-of-crime legislation is aimed at preventing criminals obtaining financial reward for their illegal activities by selling their stories. Habib has not even been charged with a crime, much less convicted." Ruddock knows he couldn't use such legislation, but simply by talking about it he strengthens the impression that Habib has committed a crime.
A January 28 press release issued by foreign minister Alexander Downer and Ruddock stated: "The specific criminal terrorist offences of being a member of, training with, funding or associating with a terrorist organisation such as al Qaeda did not exist under Australian law at the time of Mr Habib's alleged activities ... it does not appear likely that Mr Habib can be prosecuted."
Habib has never had such allegations tested before a court of law, therefore they remain just that — allegations. However, this statement implies that there is evidence that would, if the laws had been in place at the time, have convicted Habib.
Pro-Israel propagandist Ted Lapkin added to the government's slander campaign in a February 1 opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, arguing that it is "likely" the US government had evidence to convict Habib but avoided releasing it because it would reveal too much about how it conducts its war on al Qaeda. "If the criminal prosecution of Habib would pose an intolerable threat to national security, then it is little wonder that the Americans chose to cut him loose rather than charge him." Despite admitting that he has no access to classified intelligence material relating to Habib, Lapkin declared that Habib "played at jihad and he paid the price".
Habib's lawyer Stephen Hopper maintains that there is documented evidence of how an Australian official stood by as Habib was tortured by US authorities in Pakistan and dragged onto a plane.
On February 3, independent journalist John Pilger wrote that "no government calling itself democratic has so completely collaborated with the Guantanamo regime as that of John Howard".
"It was only when it seemed the US Supreme Court would examine his case that Habib was hurriedly sent home. Ruddock, whose job is to resist the abuse of liberties bestowed by the law, has allowed a mockery of the judicial process to be used brutally against Australian citizens."
Straight after his arrival, Habib and his family spent some time in Palm Beach with William Morrison, a former defence minister in Gough Whitlam's Labor government.
Morrison told the February 3 Daily Telegraph that, while he was still a card-carrying member of the Labor Party, his party was, like the Howard government, "devoid of principle" and had failed to take a stand against the jailing of Habib and the other Australia citizen still detained at Guantanamo Bay, David Hicks.
"I am appalled by the performance of both Australian political parties, both parties unfortunately. I think the Labor Party, the leadership of the Labor Party, has just let this thing go on without any protest, without any active intervention."
Labor leader Kim Beazley said on January 31 that he wouldn't support calls for compensation for Habib, explaining that he didn't want to turn him into a hero. Speaking to Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, Hopper condemned the ALP for "jumping on the government bandwagon".
Habib has applied for the return of his passport, which was seized by the government on his return to Australia. The February 4 Australian reported that, as a condition for his return to Australia, the US military "insisted that he not be allowed to turn up anywhere in the world connected to the war on terror".
The "war on terror" is the guise under which governments, such as those in the US and Australia, are trying to normalise the most outrageous violations of human rights. While claiming that its aim is to provide security for Australians, the hysteria about "terrorists" and "jihad" obscures the fact that the "war on terror" has not only allowed Habib's rights to be violated, it has set a precedent where the government could, without any evidence, point the finger at any one of us.
From Â鶹´«Ã½ Weekly, February 9, 2005.
Visit the