David Hicks

So James do I need to link that or can you read it yourself? Habib was the Guy I couldn't remember, as bells said the government, THIS government settled. It wasnt to save the government from embarrassment because its a different government.
 
Thanks, Bells.

So, the basis of Habib's case was that the Australian government was complicit in his torture and therefore legally liable (presumably because torture is illegal under Australian law).

Presumably, then, Hicks could make the same argument and expect a similar settlement. It will be interesting to see whether he does or not.
 
James R said:
Thanks, Bells.

So, the basis of Habib's case was that the Australian government was complicit in his torture and therefore legally liable (presumably because torture is illegal under Australian law).
Click to expand...

The Australian Government knew Habib was being tortured. In fact, Australian consular officials were said to have been present for some of it.

And yes, torture is illegal under Australian law. And what we had was the Australian Government knowing he was being tortured and officials being present while it was happening.
 
Bells are you arguing that the government didn't know what was happerning in gitmo when you had his lawyer, the FBI and others screaming it publicly? Hell bush himself said the were waterboarding people there while arguing it wasn't illegal under US law. Or are you saying it wouldn't be under our law?
 
Asguard said:
Bells are you arguing that the government didn't know what was happerning in gitmo when you had his lawyer, the FBI and others screaming it publicly? Hell bush himself said the were waterboarding people there while arguing it wasn't illegal under US law. Or are you saying it wouldn't be under our law?
Click to expand...

:confused::bugeye::confused:

Here is what I said:

The Australian Government knew Habib was being tortured. In fact, Australian consular officials were said to have been present for some of it.​

In answering James, I also pointed out that torture is illegal in Australia and under Australian law (not to mention US law).

So we had a Government who knew a citizen was being illegally tortured and sent officials to watch some of the torture. Said Government then attempted to deny they knew, when US and Egyptian officials said they knew and were present for a lot of it. Documents also supported the US and Egyptian officials, not to mention Mr Habib's statements. New Government takes over and Mr Habib sues the Government for its role and knowledge of the torture. This went to Federal Court, who heard the evidence and cleared the way for Habib to sue. Labor Government reviews the evidence against itself and settles, so long as Habib drops his suit against them.

That settlement money will now be used to sue the US and Egyptian Government respectively for his rendition and torture, all illegal under International law and US law.
 
I know what you said, my question was in relation to what it had to do with jame's asking if they are similar or different, I know the history of that case as well as I can I was questioning your reasons for the post
 
S.A.M. said:
I can read, which is why I asked; he was handed over by some Afghans in exchange for US dollars. That doesn't sound like a battle field, more like a bounty hunter, except that for a bounty hunter to catch and bring someone - there actually needs to be a case against the criminal. There was no case against Hicks just as there was no case against hundreds of others who were similarly sold to the US for dollars.

So I repeat, which battlefield?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do agreements made under torture hold water in court? According to his statements he had been tortured for several years and would have said anything, he was so desperate to get out of Gitmo; doesn't the Australian government have any recourse for subjects who are detained without trial by foreign states, tortured and indicted by kangaroo courts, especially when said courts are deemed illegal?

edit: according to this article on civil liberties in Australia

see also:
Click to expand...

You answered your question with your first post. The entire country of Afghanistan is considered a combat zone/battle field. People battling in an active fashion is not necessarily a requirement when gorilla warfare is in play as it is in Afghanistan and Iraq. The country itself is considered to be battle field because trouble can spring up literally at anytime and anywhere (i.e. IED).
 
"Do agreements made under torture hold water in court? According to his statements he had been tortured for several years and would have said anything, he was so desperate to get out of Gitmo; doesn't the Australian government have any recourse for subjects who are detained without trial by foreign states, tortured and indicted by kangaroo courts, especially when said courts are deemed illegal?" @S.A.M


I would oddly say that yes, an agreement made under torture would hold simply for the fact that many, many agreements that are made in relation to these types of things are made under duress. For example when given the choice between 20 years in prison or ratting out your friend is that not a decision that is also made under extreme duress? I would honestly rather water boarded at Gitmo then do time at a federal pen here in the US with all the butt rape and what not.
 
Just to add on the issue of jurisdiction that SAM raised...

Consider the case of the former IMF chief who has been arrested for rape in New York. Here we have a case of a French citizen committing a crime on a victim who may not be an American citizen (not sure about that - probably she actually is, but let's say she isn't for the sake of argument). The alleged crime was committed on US soil.

Question: which country would have jurisdiction to try this case?

Clearly, the US courts are quite happy to try the case, on the basis that the relevants acts took place on US soil. They consider that this single factor is sufficient in this case, even if all parties involved are not US citizens.

But you might also find that the courts of France would have been willing to prosecute the case had the US courts chosen not to do so. This would be on the basis that the accused is a French citizen.

These kinds of jursidictional issues arise in all kinds of contexts. Another one is wikileaks. The US, it seems, would like to prosecute Julian Assange, and Australian citizen, for acts carried out in collaboration with Bradley Manning (athough they'd have to prove that fact). At the relevant time the alleged crime was committed, Assange was not on US soil. He is not a US citizen. If he assisted Manning, then he probably did so over the internet. But that is still enough under US law to give US courts jurisdiction. As a practical matter, though, they need to get Assange onto US soil to try him. If he comes to the US voluntarily, they can arrest him on arrival. If not, they might ask another country that has an extradiction treaty with the US to arrest Assange and send him over.
 
Gustav said:
please substantiate
i want an image of the check or a bank statement
both notarized
thanks :p
Click to expand...

If only we knew that exact balance... Mr Habib is not allowed to tell and the Australian Government didn't tell either. The only thing they did say was that it would have saved the tax payers later on down the track.. But it is enough to fund his legal fees for him to sue the US and Egyptian Government's for his torture and detention. Unless he's hiring the a 'Troy McClure' type, I'd imagine it ran into quite a bit.
 
Bells do you personally have a problem with non disclosure agreementz in cases settled against government? If its a company or a person sure but if the government is negligent in an action surly the taxpayers have a right to know what Ans how. After all say there was a Senate hearing on the matter could he even testify because if not settling EVERYTHING out of court would become a cheep way to shut Senate witnesses up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top