Posted on 01/20/2005 12:46:52 PM PST by dead
The return of Mamdouh Habib was being delayed because of US authorities' demand that he be shackled on the flight to Australia, it was reported.
Unnamed Australian diplomatic sources told the Washington Post newspaper US military officials were concerned that if Mr Habib, whose release without charge was announced on January 11, was not shackled he could not be prevented from leaving the plane during refuelling stops.
The report said Australian authorities had declined to shackle Mr Habib, who had been held in detention for more than three years without charge on suspicion he knew about the September 11 terrorist attacks and trained with al-Qaeda.
But Australia had agreed to an American demand for the aircraft transporting the Sydney man to avoid US airspace.
US authorities said they would be obliged to arrest Mr Habib if he set foot on American soil because he was still considered to be an enemy combatant.
The federal government has said it wants Mr Habib back in Australia within the next two weeks.
Mr Habib's American lawyer, Joe Margulies, told the Washington Post the US's demands about Mr Habib's return were preposterous.
"If they believed he were dangerous, they wouldn't be sending him home," Mr Margulies said.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said this week that Mr Habib's flight home would cost taxpayers around $500,000.
© 2005 AAP
"If they believed he were dangerous, they wouldn't be sending him home," Mr Margulies said.
We ain’t sending him to our home!
Australia wants him back so badly, they can unshackle him once he is safely back amongst Australia's citizens.
How about the following compromise. He is shackled while in US airspace.
Or drop him out of the plane at 20,000 feet.
This just in- Babs Boxer wants him in First Class!
Send him on Quantas.
how about this compromise. They shackle him while he's breathing that way if he doesn't want to be shackled all he has to do is stop breathing.
The should unshackle him and put all lawyers on the flight.
The way I read this, they don't want him getting off the plane in some third county at a re-fueling stop. If that happened, there might not be a legal basis for forcing him back onto the plane, and he might escape whatever justice is waiting for him back home. I could be wrong. If this is the concern, then he should be shackled until after the last refueling stop -- or he should be on a military aircraft that can be refueled in flight.
Yeah, that's a good idea. If he's such a nice, lovable character maybe the Australians will transport him home on one of their commercial passenger planes.
How about this compromise. We send along three or four six foot linebacker types and let them loose on this guy if he moves.
Shackles not needed but take a nice supply of Band Aids in case he falls down or something.
Sounds fine to me. But I guess our government has reasons to be extra careful with security in this matter. I trust their judgment -- not because they're always right or always smart (Lord knows they're not), but because I don't want to take chances with these freaks, especially when it comes to aviation.
Dunno. It sounds to me like petty bureaucrats being petty. I guess what would argue against that view is that the American government has never, not once in the history of this nation, acted that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.