www.newmatilda.com.au/home/articledetail.asp?ArticleID= -
[Cached Version]
Published on: 5/30/2007
Last Visited: 6/20/2007
Janet Albrechtsen began composing pieces for the Australian media around 15 years ago.In that time, she has never managed to write the words ‘habeas corpus' in any of her columns.
This was perhaps understandable back in 1992, when she was writing in the Sydney Morning Herald about how bus companies break highway safety rules (‘Coach Lines Break New Safety Laws,' 15 January), or about the woes of the Tokyo stock market (‘Tokyo Trauma Is Likely to Continue,' 23 January).But by the time she began writing for The Australian in September 2001, Albrechtsen was moving on to weightier matters like Western civilisation and how to defend it.
Nowadays, Albrechtsen regularly instructs her readers that the rule of law is a central and non-negotiable part of Western values.Given that the most fundamental guarantee of liberty under the rule of law is indisputably the right of habeas corpus, her failure to mention it is very curious.
What is going on here?
...
Albrechtsen asserts that neither Habib nor Hicks was entitled to the protection of the rule of law or the benefit of Western values, on two grounds: first, that both Habib and Hicks were terrorists; and secondly, that neither is a very nice person.
...
Albrechtsen initially broached the topic of the detention of Hicks and Habib in a column in The Australian in early 2002. (‘Soldiers of Terror Don't have Rights,' 13 February) From this first column, through to her most recent discussion of Hicks's return to Australia two weeks ago, Albrechtsen has pronounced that neither Hicks nor Habib was entitled to judgment by their peers in a court of law, and that the presumption of innocence had no role to play in their fate.
...
By some power superior to that of a court of law, Albrechtsen was able to discern what the ‘facts' of the matter were in both cases, long before any charges had even been laid.
...
Albrechtsen, in her column in The Australian ( ‘Brown Blind to Immoral Reality,' 29 October 2003), promptly retorted: ‘ No, Senator, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib are precisely where the facts show they belong' - that is, in indefinite detention at Guantánamo Bay.
...
In the same piece, Albrechtsen went on to make various allegations about Hicks's record, adding, ‘According to intelligence sources, as bad as Hicks's record looks, Habib's is worse.' The evidence?
...
According to Albrechtsen, ‘a spokesman for Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has told The Australian that Habib was in fact training with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before September 11.' Albrechtsen concluded Habib and Hicks ‘are illegal combatants and have been treated as such' - handily delivering her verdict before any examination of evidence in a legal proceeding.
...
According to Albrechtsen, ‘a spokesman for Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has told The Australian that Habib was in fact training with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before September 11.' Albrechtsen concluded Habib and Hicks ‘are illegal combatants and have been treated as such' - handily delivering her verdict before any examination of evidence in a legal proceeding.
...
As a lawyer, Albrechtsen would know that none of this stew of unattributed allegations, unnamed witnesses, and one too many trips to Pakistan would last five minutes in a court.
...
Albrechtsen also really knows David Hicks better than anyone else.Two weeks ago, when Hicks was returned to Australia, Janet pushed to the front of the media line, saying, ‘let me be the first to welcome home David Hicks.' She also offered to help him write his memoirs because his friends don't know him like she does.
Albrechtsen went beyond Hicks's guilty plea to the US military commission and rehearsed his earlier ‘admissions' - such as when he called himself a ‘well-trained and practical soldier' in letters to his father.
But the clincher for Albrechtsen was a passage from a letter Hicks had written from Guantánamo Bay to former flatmate, Louise Fletcher:
...
If any real doubts remained that Hicks's admissions to the US military commission provide an ex post facto justification for his disentitlement to the right of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence, then Albrechtsen believes that Hicks's desire to fuck good-looking women with big tits should dispel them.
...
Arguments about the rule of law need a more serious and considered forum than Albrechtsen provides.