Article

2003-11-12 Down Under

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Alex Davidson 2003-11-12 1:04:50 AM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Boy, I miss Mike Rogers, his wife Yuko, Stevey Robinson and the rest. Do we have a new Kiwi troll? Welcome!

Try to keep your posts a little shorter. (By the way, Aris and Murat are not trolls. They occasionally make good points, despite ideological blindness and occasional partisan shouting matches).

Mr. Davidson sounds a tad concerned about the erosion of basic rights. This Zaoui case hardly sounds like the first step down the slippery slope towards a Kiwi Police State. Do you really not care if he is a terrorist or not? Do you see no problem whatsoever with providing top-secret intelligence info. to him and his lawyer? I can just imagine what you would have to say about Guantanamo.

Posted by Tokyo Taro 2003-11-12 1:50:53 AM|| 2003-11-12 1:50:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Cheeky bugger, is our Zaoui.
Here's a bit of form on him.
Needless to say the Anglican Church is pulling out all stops to get him released.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3047160&thesection=news&thesubsection=general

The name Ahmed Zaoui is linked to terrorist cells that have carried out bombings, beheadings and throat slitting from Algeria to France.

The name crops up in connection with Osama bin Laden's suspected Southeast Asian army, and a book published this year links the name indirectly to suspects in the assassination of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance leader, Ahmad Shah Massoud.

Ahmed Zaoui's terror activities appear to have begun in the bloody and brutal Algerian civil war, which began in the early 1990s and has claimed 100,000 lives.

The militant Muslim is listed in various internet articles as one of the leaders of the shadowy Armed Islamic Group (GIA), although a BBC report said he had denied being part of this organisation.

The GIA was formed in 1992 after the Algerian military refused to accept the results of the first free parliamentary elections, won by the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), and staged a coup.

While the West supported the military, political parties formed and split and extremists wreaked havoc.

The GIA is said to have carried out numerous assassinations, and not only of political figures.

Among their targets were journalists, intellectuals, a psychiatrist, a singer, priests, other Christians, foreigners and many more.

The 1995 issue of the Executive Intelligence Review said the trademark terror signatures of the organisation were throat-slitting and beheading. Mass attacks were usually carried out by bombing.

It listed Abou Houdhaifa Ahmed Essaoui as a leader, and said his alias was Ahmed Zaoui.

He went into exile after an Algerian court condemned him to death for supplying weapons from Europe to guerrillas in Algeria.

It appears Zaoui slipped out of Algeria in the early 1990s - he was reported to have been arrested in Belgium in 1995.

He was also reported to be not only the head of the GIA for Belgium but also for Europe.

Some reports say he fled from Algeria via Saudi Arabia to Belgium.

In 1995 a series of bombings in France, three at Metro rail stations, were attributed to the GIA, apparently in response to the arrests of militants.

That year Zaoui was given a four-year suspended sentence by a Belgian court.

In 1997, he slipped out of Belgium and into Switzerland, where he sought political asylum.

Switzerland deported him to the African state of Burkina Faso, allegedly because it was a safe country for him and because it had agreed to take him.

The Swiss Government is said to have paid for him and his family to live there.

A BBC report about his deportation from Switzerland said he was questioned in 1997 by a French magistrate in connection with alleged terrorist activity in France.

It said he admitted being a member of the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front, but not the GIA.

A report from the North Africa Journal in 1999 said he met with representatives of Amnesty International and complained he and his family had been treated like "rubbish" and were "buried" in Burkina Faso.

He claimed it was not safe, that his life was in danger and that he could be a target of Algerian special forces.

The report also said he was one of Algeria's most dangerous Opposition figures and had opposed a truce agreed to in the late 1990s: "He prefers a continuation of the conflict."

Last year, he was linked to Osama bin Laden and activities in Southeast Asia, allegedly fronting a new group called FIDA, or Sacrifice, and was being investigated in Malaysia.

FIDA is linked to a coalition of Islamic groups the Asian Post reported as being investigated for links to the September 11 attacks on the United States.

A book, Who Killed Massoud? published in France in May this year, links Zaoui to a man called Tarek Maaroufi who is said to be a supporter of the GIA and who was suspected of helping to plan the bomb attacks in France.

The book says Maaroufi is in turn linked to a man involved in the death of warlord Ahmad Shah Massoud in Afghanistan.

"Names and addresses of GIA members in Europe are found in his address book. When he is arrested he is with Ahmed Zaoui, a member of the GIA."

Posted by tipper. 2003-11-12 2:07:37 AM|| 2003-11-12 2:07:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Someone CHOP THIS or delete it - its WAY too long and rambling.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-12 2:32:29 AM|| 2003-11-12 2:32:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I have to commend your website for it's willingness to engage in dialogue over this case. However, I believe and most of the posters are woefully under-informed on this case.

I would recommend anyone to read the Refugee Status Appeal Authority decision on the case.

To those unfamiliar with this case - with all the 'facts' you hear about this case, you must remember that Mr. Zaoui is the subject of a dedicated campaign of misinformation by the Algerian military dictatorship.

This campaign has been very sucessful. It is ironic that a website that seems to be so hard-line on terrorism, is inadvertently aiding terrorism by repeating lies disseminated by a terrorist regime.

The information repeated by 'tipper' can be traced back to forged press releases, faked media statements. This information is then repeated through various media, including this website, and in the process the sheer volume seems to lend some kind of legitimacy to the information contained.

Although given the length of the RSAA report, I guess none of you will actually read it - I can assure you that if you read it, you will have to concede, that the very least, it raises serious questions about the allegations levelled at Mr. Zaoui.

I do care about whether or not Mr. Zaoui is a terrorist - Although it is not the key problem with the case. The information I have studied (including the allegations) leads me to beleive very strongly that he has always advocated peace over violence.

There are problems in revealing top secret information to the accused and his lawyers, but the NZ Government will not even reveal a summary of the accusations. Even so, if it is not considered OK to hide the charges in a criminal trial, why is it allright to do so just because the person is refugee?

To answer your remark on Guantanamo - I have not studied the case in enough detail to comment here, but Amnesty International has a major campaign.

This case is part of a slippery slope of 'security' legislation that is steadily increasing government control, and intelligence agency power. If we don't stand up at some point and object, they certainly won't stop.

To the person who complained - I will attempt to keep any future posts down in size - it looked smaller before I posted it.

Posted by Alex Davidson 2003-11-12 3:21:02 AM|| [www.freezaoui.org.nz] 2003-11-12 3:21:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Is zaoui kiwi for mumia?

Posted by mjh 2003-11-12 8:29:05 AM|| 2003-11-12 8:29:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 To answer your remark on Guantanamo - I have not studied the case in enough detail to comment here, but Amnesty International has a major campaign.

And AI is full of shit. The Gitmo detainees have no legal status, under any law or treaty.

But, hey, AI's all about funding, not human rights. You can bet their "worries" about Gitmo are more prominent in their brochures than any concerns over Castro's concentration camps, or the North Korean gulag.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-12 8:35:58 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-12 8:35:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 RC, the Gitmo detanees are having their case heard before the Supremes. Not one US citizen is among the defendants either.

Which is puzzling, because I wasn't aware Foreigners had the rights of a US citizen.

Posted by Charles 2003-11-12 9:01:09 AM|| 2003-11-12 9:01:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Murat not a troll???????????? Have you seen any of his posts in the last two months?

Posted by Dan 2003-11-12 9:24:12 AM|| 2003-11-12 9:24:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 "Which is puzzling, because I wasn't aware Foreigners had the rights of a US citizen."

-Charles, their not supposed to but the ultra-left believes the constitution gives them the right while on U.S. soil. Bunch of b.s. "We the people" is for we, the citizenry of the U.S.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-12 9:34:31 AM|| 2003-11-12 9:34:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 charles - Of course foreigners have rights (though not the rights of citizens, like voting rights) on US soil. The question is what rights apply to foreigners detained on foreign soil. They do have rights (under the Geneva convention) the govt maintains (I think with some justification) that are being upheld in Gitmo. The question is not whether the detainees have rights, but whether US courts have jurisdiction in this situation - IE while the US has treaty obligations to respect the rights of foreigners abroad, thats for the Executive branch to self-monitor under the treaties - not for domestic judges to get involved in. IIUC the lower courts have all held that the judiciary has NO jurisdiction over foreigners detained abroad.

There is some controversy, IIUC, as to whether Gitmo is legitimately overseas, or is in fact US territory - I mean the bearded cigar smoker has for years wanted us out of there, and we havent left. Is Gitmo really Cuban territory?

Why is the SC stepping in?
1. They disagree with the lower courts, and will declare Gitmo IS US territory (for this purpose). The likely result is that the Gitmo detainees would have to be transferred to Bagram. Very inconvenient for DC based interrogators, but not fatal.
2. The agree with the lower courts, and feel this is important enough that the SC must affirm the lower courts.
3. They will basically agree with the lower courts, but are uncomfortable with the way things are handled at Gitmo, and they will try to press the govt to make SOME changes, but less than would be required if Gitmo were US soil.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-12 9:44:54 AM|| 2003-11-12 9:44:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 They do have rights (under the Geneva convention) the govt maintains (I think with some justification) that are being upheld in Gitmo.

Illegal combatants such as terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions that the US is party to. They could all be shot at dawn tomorrow, and it would be perfectly legal.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-12 9:56:31 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-12 9:56:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 RC wrote: Illegal combatants such as terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions that the US is party to.

The fly in the ointment is that one has to confirm that the people you're holding don't enjoy the protection of the GC's. That means a tribunal, and one can't delay that forever. As I recall the GC doesn't specify the elements of a tribunal, but most military folks know what it means so we can't try anything clever.

It may be that the USSC will order the President to convene tribunals, and that will be the extent of their involvement.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-12 11:41:09 AM|| 2003-11-12 11:41:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I would respectfully counter that AI is not "full of sh**" - The people released as result of their work might well agree.

As regards Guantanamo - My limited understanding is that people accused must either be treated as crimminals or under the Geneva Convention. Powell has been quietly pushing to have these men treated in accordance with the convention. The point is, if you don't apply the GC to the enemy, you should hardly be suprised if the enemy responds in kind.

Calling them illegal combatants is just convenient excuse to do what they like with them - under international law, many actions taken by developed countries could be viewed as 'illegal' and therefore their soldiers could be described as 'illegal combatants.' However, in all cases, human rights can be maintained while finding, judging and punishing criminals.

Posted by Alex Davidson 2003-11-12 1:51:40 PM|| [www.freezaoui.org.nz] 2003-11-12 1:51:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Alex, you are quite simply wrong. You actually answer yourself with this:

The point is, if you don't apply the GC to the enemy, you should hardly be suprised if the enemy responds in kind.

EXACTLY!

Al'Qaeda violated the Geneva Conventions spectacularly on 9-11-2001. You might remember what happened that day; it was in all the papers. So, no member of al'Qaeda is due the protections of the GC. This is what "illegal (or unlawful) combatants" means -- someone who has violated the GC.

To give terrorists the protections due a lawful combatant is to say that an honorable soldier is no different than a thug that shoots a child in her bed. It's a lie, it's immoral, and it's dangerous.
under international law, many actions taken by developed countries could be viewed as 'illegal' and therefore their soldiers could be described as 'illegal combatants.'

Only if you have a warped and incorrect idea of what the rules of war state.

However, in all cases, human rights can be maintained while finding, judging and punishing criminals.

This is not law enforcement; it's war.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-12 2:48:54 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-12 2:48:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 This thread is bigger than New Zealand...

Posted by Grunter 2003-11-12 2:51:52 PM|| 2003-11-12 2:51:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 The poster is new... does he know Rantburg charges $23/column inch?

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-12 3:54:24 PM|| 2003-11-12 3:54:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Re: Robert Crawford
Illegal combatants such as terrorists are not protected under the Geneva Conventions that the US is party to. They could all be shot at dawn tomorrow, and
it would be perfectly legal.

Assuming that enemy combatants have no right uhnder the convention this does not answer the question of who should decide their status.
If the military can detain and execute persons based only on its own say-so the protection afforded by the convention is meaningless.
United States citizens held on United States territory are protected by the Constitution, but the government alleges that its designation of persons as enemy combatants is essentially not reviewable by the courts. If the treatment of Jose Padilla is defensible, gone is due process and basically democracy.
Under the government's policy, where courts would have either no meaninngful power to review designations of persons as enemy combatants, the president would also have the right to designate members of the opposition party as enemy combatants. If this seems far fetched, remember that's exactly the government's position -- that it's constitutional to lock up persons without lawyers and due process.
Or could you suggest any limiting principle.
And no, the argument that we don't have to worry because the executive should be trusted on his own words is not tenable. The reason for amending the Constitution with a Bill of Rights was precisely distrust of government and the potential for abuse.

Posted by John G. 2003-11-12 3:59:54 PM|| 2003-11-12 3:59:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 "If the military can detain and execute persons based only on its own say-so the protection afforded by the convention is meaningless."

It depends what "its own say so" means. If they have a reasonable, standardized way to make the call (which, BTW, need not be the same as the military tribunals to determine crimes and punishments) Im not sure that isnt acceptable under Geneva.

In any case, IIUC, that is STILL not what is it issue in the appeal to the Supreme Court, but rather the question of jurisdiction.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-12 4:24:48 PM|| 2003-11-12 4:24:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 "If the military can detain and execute persons based only on its own say-so the protection afforded by the convention is meaningless."

-It's a little broader then that. If I get shot at while on a patrol by someone not in uniform, they can be construed as an enemy combatant. There's a couple requirements that need to be met (or anyone of them).

1) irregulars or combatants dressed as civilians 2) weapons on hand or in the vicinity
3) intent to harm U.S. personnel or aid & abet the enemy (i.e. old lady or young kid running an rpg to an enemy position).
4) Occuring on foreign soil or on U.S. soil by non-U.S. civilians.
-I'm not sure if Padilla falls into this last category. Was he a U.S. citizen, a former citizen who renounced his American citizenship, or dual citizen? I thought he was a Mexican national. I could be wrong. Some of you more familiar w/him may know. I think Walker-Lindh could've been seen as someone renouncing their citizenship. I will say this (& I'm not the only who feels this way) - if I am shot at by combatants dressed as civilians (i.e. illegal combatants), unless they can be reasonably detained for intel purposes - they're dead.

I'd have to read the formal jargon for the rest of the policy J.G. mentions, I'm not sure that it can be twisted as far as he says in order to allow opposition political party members to be arrested by the president.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-12 5:45:33 PM|| 2003-11-12 5:45:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I'm for getting up early. Let's shoot them all before dawn.

Posted by Sgt.DT 2003-11-12 7:01:44 PM|| 2003-11-12 7:01:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Adding to what Jarhead said: People who are not associated with a country, but wage war against the people of that nation, are not 'combattants' under the rules of the Geneva Convention, but criminal combattants, and may be shot. People fighting against a government in a rebellion or coup must meet three criteria before being accepted as "lawful combattants": They must wear a distinctive uniform, they must act in a lawful, military manner (I.E., no rounding up and shooting civilians, no looting and burning, etc.), and they must have a military organization that accepts responsibility for the actions if its members. Otherwise they're just a bunch of loonies with guns, and fair game for anyone with a gun. If captured, they are NOT protected by the Geneva Convention, which ONLY applies to "lawful combattants". Al-Qaida is a criminal organization, not an organization of "lawful combattants". Anyone captured as a member of Al Qaida can be treated just about any old way the capturer wishes, including milking them dry then hanging them. AI wants to change that. The proposed changes would significantly increase the ability of terrorists to operate, and hamper the ability of "lawful combattants" to engage them. Until AI can understand that some people just like to kill people, and need to be wiped from the face of the earth, they have no credibility.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-12 9:07:50 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-12 9:07:50 PM|| Front Page Top

01:15 Bayan Elashi
22:46 alaskasoldier
23:08 Atomic Conspiracy
23:01 Old Patriot
23:01 Laurence of the Rats
22:55 Bomb-a-rama
22:49 Old Patriot
22:46 Atomic Conspiracy
22:37 Old Patriot
22:30 Old Patriot
22:28 Atomic Conspiracy
22:23 Old Patriot
22:23 War46
22:22 Bomb-a-rama
22:14 Atomic Conspiracy
22:12 Old Patriot
22:11 Rawsnacks
21:51 Old Patriot
21:46 Old Patriot
21:29 IceCold
21:25 Anonymous
21:15 Jarhead
21:13 Tony (UK)
21:12 debbie