27 September 2001

Mamdouh Habib’s house in Sydney is raided by Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) officers.

J. Kidman, ‘ASIO swoop in hunt for bin Laden link’, Sun Herald, 30 September 2001.

5 October 2001

Mamdouh Habib is arrested and detained in Pakistan. He is transferred first to Cairo and held in Egyptian custody and then to Bagram air base in Afghanistan where he is held in US custody. However, no advice is given on these movements to Australian officials.

C. Kremmer, et al., ‘Australians in dark over held “terrorist”’, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 April 2002.

9 December 2001

An unnamed Australian twenty-six year old Caucasian male (later known to be David Hicks) is reported to have been captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.

The Hon. Daryl Williams, MP, Capture of Australian by Northern Alliance, media release,
12 December 2001.

14 December 2001

David Hicks is to be transferred to US custody. The Australian Government intends to ‘do whatever is necessary to bring him to justice’ if Mr Hicks ‘has committed a crime against Australian law’.

The Hon. Daryl Williams, MP, and Senator The Hon. Robert Hill,  Australian national in Afghanistan—transfer to US custody, joint news release, 14 December 2001.

17 December 2001

The Northern Alliance transfers David Hicks to US forces.

The Hon. Daryl Williams, MP, and Senator The Hon. Robert Hill, David Hicks transferred to US forces, media release, 17 December 2001.

24 December 2001

A joint team of AFP and ASIO officers begins interviewing David Hicks aboard a US naval ship.

The Hon. Daryl Williams, MP, Interview of Mr Hicks, media release, 24 December 2001.

2 January 2002

Australian officials complete their week-long interrogation of David Hicks on board the USS Peleliu in the Indian Ocean.

AAP, ‘Hicks interview ends after a week’, Canberra Times, 2 January 2002.

3 January 2002

David Hicks is transferred from the USS Peleliu to the USS Bataan, an amphibious naval assault ship.

K. Hughes, and D. Peters, ‘Hicks moved off from USS Peleliu’, Canberra Times, 3 January 2002.

11 January 2002

The Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, says that he thinks the US would want to hand over Mr Hicks and see an Australian citizen prosecuted by Australians in Australia under Australian law.

Senator The Hon. Robert Hill, Doorstop interview, Washington DC,
10 January 2002.

12 January 2002

Senator Hill says that Australia would not make a formal request for David Hicks’s return until the Attorney-General’s Department decided what charges Mr Hicks would face.

G. Alcorn, ‘Australia pledges to help US fight terrorism in the region’, The Age,
12 January 2002.

12 January 2002

Civil libertarians and senior legal figures protest against the continued detention without charge of David Hicks.

C. Banham, and G. Alcorn, ‘US detention sparks call to protect citizens’, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 January 2002.

David Hicks arrives at Guantanamo Bay

13 January 2002

Mr Hicks is confirmed as having landed yesterday at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

C. Aldinger, ‘Terrorist suspects jailed in Cuban army hell hole’, Sun Herald, 13 January 2002.

17 January 2002

The Australian Government confirms that David Hicks is being held in US military custody and accepts that this is appropriate. Access to Mr Hicks is assured and advice is given that he is held in humane conditions.

The Hon. Daryl Williams, MP, Welfare of David Hicks, doorstop interview, Perth,
17 January 2002.

19 January 2002

Mamdouh Habib, who has dual Australian and Egyptian citizenship, is believed to be detained in Egypt. However, Egyptian authorities refuse to confirm to Australian officials that they are holding Mr Habib.

C. Kremmer, ‘Second man linked to al-Qaeda’, Sydney Morning Herald,
19 January 2002.

22 January 2002

In relation to the open-ended period of detention those at Guantanamo face, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says, ‘[A]t some point they will either be charged or released’.

US Department of State, ‘Rumsfeld defends treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay’,
 22 January 2002.

23 January 2002

An article outlines a biographical sketch of Mamdouh Habib as a Sydney father seeking a pure Islamic education for his children in Pakistan.

C. Kremmer, ‘Mystery deepens over Australian’s school trip that ended in detention’, Sydney Morning Herald,
23 January 2002.

28 January 2002

The Bush administration decides that al-Qaeda and Taliban members who are prisoners at Guantanamo Bay will not be accorded prisoner-of-war status. The captives from 30 nations are to be regarded as ‘unlawful combatants’ as they engaged in terrorism, not military combat.

Ari Fleischer, White House Press briefing, 28 January 2002.

7 February 2002

President George W. Bush says:

While the United States has not recognized the Taliban regime as the legitimate Afghani government, the Taliban members are covered by the conventions, which Afghanistan is a party to. Al-Qaida detainees cannot be considered prisoners of war as they are not a state party to the Geneva Conventions, and their members are not entitled to POW status.

M. D Kellerhals, Jr, ‘Bush says Geneva Convention applies to Taliban not al-Qaida’, Department of State, 7 February 2002.

J. Garamone, Geneva Convention applies to Taliban not Al Qaeda, American Forces Press Service, 7 February 2002.

19 February 2002

Attorneys associated with the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), leading capital defense lawyers, and prominent lawyers in Australia and the United Kingdom file a petition in the US District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus⁽¹⁾ in the case of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and David Hicks, who are currently being held at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Habeas corpus: ‘a prerogative writ directed to someone who detains another in custody, commanding them to produce the other person before the court. It is mainly used to test the legality of an imprisonment’, A. Delbridge, et al. (eds.), The Macquarie Dictionary, 3^rd ed., The Macquarie Library, Macquarie University, Sydney, 1997.

Human Rights NOW.org/Center for Constitutional Rights, Writ of Habeas Corpus sought for Australian and British nationals held on Guantanamo Bay, press release, New York, 19 February 2002.

Mr Hicks and Mr Habib are being treated well according to the Australian investigation team that visited Guantanamo Bay.

Mr Hicks and Mr Habib claim to have been maltreated. Mr Hicks’s lawyer, Stephen Kenny, says a bribe of early release was offered to Mr Hicks in return for his cooperation. Mr Habib claims to have been blindfolded for the last six months.

The US Ambassador to Australia, Thomas Schieffer, compares Mr Hicks and Mr Habib to Nazi war criminals.

Mr Habib’s lawyer, Stephen Hopper, confirms a Wall Street Journal article which claimed that Mr Habib tried to help two terrorist suspects.

Professor Don Rothwell states that in 99 per cent of situations, an Australian national being investigated like this would have seen outrage both from the Government and the Australian public. Alexander Downer and Daryl Williams comment that this detention is an inevitable consequence of being involved in terrorism.

Speakers on The 7.30 Report include:  Maha Habib (Mr Habib’s wife), Professor Don Rothwell, Prime Minister John Howard, Alexander Downer (Minister for Foreign Affairs), Daryl Williams (Attorney-General), Thomas Schieffer (US Ambassador) and Stephen Hopper.

US judge rejects ‘the bid for a writ of habeas corpus’ as brought by Joe Margulies (Mr Hicks’s and Mr Habib’s US civilian lawyer) and other American attorneys. This means that Mr Hicks has also lost his application to meet with lawyers and family.

The Australian Bar Association and the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights accuse the Federal Government of failing Mr Hicks and Mr Habib, who have been held captive for the last nine months without charge or access to lawyers.

The International Transfer of Prisoners Scheme commences in Australia.

Lawyers acting for Mr Hicks and Mr Habib launch a legal bid against their clients’ indefinite detention without trial.

After almost a year since Senator Hill said the US would like to see Australia prosecute its own citizens in Australia under Australian law, a spokesman for the Attorney-General says investigations are continuing and it is not appropriate to speculate about when the investigations will finish.

The Shadow spokesman for Justice and Customs, Daryl Melham, says that the Australian Government has abandoned the fundamental legal and human rights principle of not detaining a person without charge.

Concern is raised that western values like access to lawyers and interrogation without torture, are being sacrificed to provide adequate security.

Simon Longstaff, Executive Director of the St James Ethics Centre, says there is ‘“no greater challenge” for Australia and like-minded countries than the “need to provide adequate security without sacrificing the central values that make us who we are”’.

US ambassador, Thomas Schieffer, says it is likely that Mr Hicks will be detained until the war on terrorism is over.

Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, responds to eleven questions on notice submitted by the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, on 4 February 2003 regarding the military detention of David Hicks.

Australian Greens Senator, Kerry Nettle, calls for the release of Mr Hicks and Mr Habib in light of the release of 19 Afghan detainees. She also calls for Australia to demand that Geneva Conventions apply both in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

The Report on Military Commissions for the Trial of Terrorists authored by the American College of Trial Lawyers, raises issues about Military Commission procedures.

The President of the Law Council of Australia accuses the Federal Government of acquiescing to the apparent US Government view that legal process is ‘an unwanted constraint on government power’ when it comes to terrorism.

The US Department of Defense issues eight Military Commission instructions that will facilitate the conduct of possible future Military Commissions.

Democrats Senator, Brian Greig, repeats call to release Mr Hicks. He claims there is a double standard regarding the use of the Geneva Convention principle by the Government.

Mr Hicks and Mr Habib are not expected to be among 13 Guantanamo Bay detainees to be released. According to Mr Downer, Mr Hicks is alleged to have been ‘involved with both
al-Qaeda and the Taliban’.

An editorial claims that the Australian Government has failed Mr Hicks and Mr Habib. It states there have been reports that the US is willing to release Mr Hicks and Mr Habib into Australian custody, but that Australian authorities are reluctant to receive them because they would not be able to prosecute them.

Military Commission officials are announced.

A columnist laments the apparent disregard for the September 11 and Bali attack victims by Mr Hicks’s supporters who decry the Military Commission form of justice. He claims there is enough evidence to show that Mr Hicks was an al-Qaeda member, if not a member of the Taliban.

The Law Council of Australia urges the Federal Government to seek a normal criminal trial for David Hicks, noting that an American captured in Afghanistan, John Walker Lindh, has been tried in the US under normal criminal law and sentenced to 20 years jail for helping the Taliban.

The Shadow Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, questions the Attorney-General’s claim that every possible effort is being made to ensure ‘the fundamental guarantees of normal criminal processes’ will apply to Mr Hicks.

The following persons appear on a radio programme, Background Briefing, to talk about their response to the news that Mr Hicks is one of the six detainees who will be tried by a Military Commission process:

• Lt.-Col Barry Johnson, spokesperson for the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay, who describes detainee facilities and aspects of detention and admits there have been 28 suicide attempts by 18 detainees;
• Ruth Wedgwood, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, US, who says the Military Commission process is sound; and
• Joe Margulies, Mr Hicks’s US civilian lawyer who claims there is a core of evidence that may be used in the Military Commission process that could be unknown to the detainee and his civilian lawyer.

Other speakers include: Hilary Charlesworth (Director, Centre for International and Public Law, ANU); Terry Hicks (David Hicks’s father); Prime Minister John Howard; Stephen Kenny (David Hicks’s Australian lawyer); Daniel Cavoli (former Head of Mission, Guantanamo Bay); David Cole (Professor, Law Centre, Georgetown University, US); Carl Crips (friend of David Hicks); Kerry Crips (friend of David Hicks); Louise Fletcher (friend of David Hicks); Adam Roberts (Professor of International Relations, Oxford University).

Prime Minister John Howard does not expect that the Australian detainees will be repatriated as there may not be laws to prosecute them in Australia. He is confident of ensuring that the Military Commission procedures will be compatible with Australian processes.

A Freedom of Information request by The Australian in April to view government documents and cables relating to the Hicks case is denied. The Government claims that the information, if released, could damage relations with Washington.

The General Counsel of the US Department of Defense meets with an Australian delegation led by Justice Minister, Chris Ellison, to discuss and review potential options for the disposition of Australian detainee cases.

The Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister for Justice and Community Security, Robert McClelland, calls on the Government to resolve allegations against Mr Habib in a prompt and fair legal process, as it is over 20 months since Mr Habib was originally detained.

The Forum on Australia’s Islamic Relations (FAIR) is planning to raise support from other Islamic groups to pressure the Government for Mr Habib’s and Mr Hicks’s release. It is also reported that:

…the NSW Police Protective Security Group, which shares information with ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, had cleared Mr Habib as a violent threat to government authorities, one month before his detention in Pakistan in October 2001.

In interviews with Amnesty International, former detainees of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Bagram air base in Afghanistan claim that they were subject to ill-treatment which included hooding, blindfolding, shackling and sleep deprivation.

US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, comments:

Our interest is not in trying them and letting them out – Our interest is in – during this global war on terror – keeping them off the streets, and so that’s what’s taking place.

The Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, says that the Australian Government is in discussions with the US about Mr Habib’s future.

The Shadow Minister for Justice and Community Security says that the allegations of torture of detainees in Guantanamo Bay should be investigated.

Australian lawyer, Richard Bourke, who works with detainees in Guantanamo Bay, says the detainees are being tortured.

Australian Democrats spokesperson for Attorney-General and Justice, Senator Brian Greig, says Mr Howard should convince President Bush, during his visit to Australia, to send Mr Hicks and Mr Habib home.

Mr Habib’s wife, Maha, has written an open letter to President George Bush urging him to either charge her husband or free him.

Immediately following President Bush’s address to a joint sitting of the Parliament, Richard Bourke, the Australian Human Rights lawyer assisting David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, elaborates on torture claims he previously made. He also disputes the Government’s claims that Mr Habib and Mr Hicks cannot be tried here.

The Australian Government reaches an understanding with the US about procedures that would apply to possible Military Commissions for Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib.

The US Department of Defense announces that Australian detainee, David Hicks, has been assigned a military defense counsel, Major Michael Mori.

The Pentagon appoints a retired army general, John Altenburg, to oversee the Military Commission process, including approving the charges against accused persons. This is the last major step in the process before a detainee can be brought to trial before the Military Commission.

Eighty-five British MPs and fifty Peers are to file an unprecedented brief in the US Supreme Court in support of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Sixteen detainees are seeking to have their cases heard in an impartial civilian court.

The Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, responds to a call by the Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, to bring Mr Hicks and Mr Habib back to Australia, saying that:

The Government has been advised that Mr Hicks and Mr Habib could not be prosecuted successfully in Australia in relation to their activities in Afghanistan or Pakistan under Australian laws that applied at the time.

In a Senate Estimates hearing, the Assistant Secretary of the Security Law and Justice Branch of the Attorney-General’s Department, Keith Holland,  responds to several questions from Senator Bolkus about the Australian detainees’ health and detention arrangements. In particular, in answer to question 130 it was stated that on 23 October 2002, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) advised that neither Mr Hicks nor Mr Habib could be prosecuted for their activities in
Pakistan and Afghanistan. On 2 February 2004, the CDPP advised that Mr Hicks could not be prosecuted for his activities in Kosovo.

The Attorney-General announces that the International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997 will be amended to facilitate the transfer to Australia of any Australian citizen detained at Guantanamo Bay who is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment by a US Military Commission.

The US advises Australia that the charges against Mr Hicks and Mr Habib would mainly revolve around their alleged training activities with al-Qaeda.

Australian Democrats Senator, Brian Greig, asks why five British detainees have been freed while Mr Hicks and Mr Habib remain in Guantanamo Bay.

An appeal is received by the US District Court from detainees at Guantanamo Bay who are appealing the question of whether or not Guantanamo Bay is within the jurisdiction of the US.

It is reported that harsh interrogation methods were approved for the interrogation of Guantanamo Bay detainees by senior Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Attorney-General claims that the Federal Government has no knowledge of torture having been used in the interrogation of the two Australians at Guantanamo Bay.

The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, dismisses fears that the abuses that happened in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq could be happening in Guantanamo Bay. Representatives of many of the countries with detainees have visited from time to time.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, says the Prime Minister and he have gone out of their way to check that there have been no abuses in the interrogation of Mr Hicks and Mr Habib. He says he welcomes any information that Major Mori (US lawyer for Mr Hicks) has on the issue.

Mr Hicks’s Australian lawyer, Stephen Kenny, expresses surprise that Alexander Downer and the Prime Minister are not aware of the details of the Red Cross reports that have been a source of information about alleged abuses at Guantanamo Bay.

Freed Britons Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal say they were subjected to torture while detained in Guantanamo Bay. They claim to have been subjected to threatening dogs and freezing temperatures, and made to stand naked.

Prime Minister John Howard dismisses claims that Mr Hicks and Mr Habib have been subjected to torture as he has had confirmation of their well-being from the Australian ambassador and the Consul-General in Washington who visited them at Guantanamo Bay. This contradicts claims by the men’s lawyers, Stephen Kenny and Stephen Hopper.

An annual review introduced by the Pentagon could result in Mr Habib being released. However, this policy would not apply to Mr Hicks, who is one of the six enemy combatants to be subject to a Military Commission trial.

A Pakistani witness makes new allegations of assaults that took place on David Hicks in Afghanistan in 2001. However, Prime Minister John Howard is sceptical about these allegations as there has been no mention of this issue by the Red Cross or other visitors to the detainees. The abuse was apparently videotaped and Stephen Kenny wants a Congressional enquiry.

In Washington, President Bush assures Mr Howard that David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib would be treated fairly.

The US Department of Defense announces that three charges have been approved against David Hicks, who will be tried by Military Commission: conspiracy to commit war crimes; attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent; and aiding the enemy.

The US Department of Defense releases documents detailing the discussions and decisions on issues relating to torture in the War on Terror, including a Department of Justice memorandum on torture to White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales.

The US Supreme Court asserts the right of judicial review for some 600 foreign inmates held at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay and states that Americans and foreigners held as enemy combatants in the War on Terror cannot be held without some right of appeal.

The President of  the Law Council of Australia, Bob Gotterson, says:

This [Supreme Court] judgment puts to rest US Government arguments that the Guantanamo Bay detention centre can operate outside the supervision of the US court system and beyond the reach of US law.

The US Department of Defense announces the formation of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. This tribunal will serve as a forum for detainees to contest their status as enemy combatants.

Mr Ruddock says that US authorities have been urged by Mr Howard, the Justice Minister, the Foreign Minister and himself to pursue a fair trial for Mr Hicks and Mr Habib. Investigations into allegations of torture against the two have been commenced by the US Government.

The Pentagon responds to Red Cross concerns by creating an Office of Detainee Affairs. Red Cross reports were previously dealt with at field level but now they will be forwarded to this Office to be reviewed by a committee.

The Attorney-General sets out the reasons why Australia accepts the Military Commission trials for David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib and why Australia’s response differs from the UK’s response.

At the military commission proceedings in Guantanamo Bay, Mr Hicks pleads not guilty to the charges of ‘conspiracy to attack civilians and civilian objects, murder, destruction of property and terrorism’.

Through his attorneys, David Hicks files an amended petition against President Bush and others for habeas corpus and other relief.

Lex Lasry, QC, independent observer for the Law Council of Australia at David Hicks’s initial hearing, releases a report which states that there is virtually no possibility of a fair trial through a Military Commission process at Guantanamo Bay.

The Director of an International Law project at the University of New South Wales, Devika Hovell, says David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib can be tried in Australia under the International Criminal Court Act 2002 which expanded the offences recognised by the Australian Government.

US Brigadier General Martin Lucenti, the deputy commander of the US military unit that runs the base at Guantanamo Bay, announces that there is not enough evidence to prosecute most of the 550 detainees and that they are likely to be released or extradited.

The US releases documents claiming that Mamdouh Habib trained some of the September 11 hijackers, but Mr Habib’s lawyer, Stephen Hopper, rejects this.

Mr Hicks argues unsuccessfully that the President’s Military Order is unlawful on the grounds that Congress alone has the constitutional authority to establish Military Commissions and that therefore the Military Commissions should be dismissed.

As a result of challenges made by Mr Hicks’s lawyers in pre-trial hearings, the US Military Commission Panel at Guantanamo Bay is reduced from five members to three members.

US District Court judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, rules that Guantanamo detainees should have access to their lawyers and that their conversations should not be monitored—although the ruling applies only to three Kuwaitis.

An article states that 202 Guantanamo Bay detainees have been returned to their homelands. Of that group, 146 were freed outright, and 56 were transferred to the custody of their home governments. At least 10 of these have been recaptured or killed in clashes with Coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The reduction in panel numbers is a disadvantage according to Mr Hicks’s US civilian lawyer, Josh Dratel, as it gives more power to the presiding officer.

Comments and analysis by Devika Hovell, Director of the International Law Project at the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of New South Wales, include the claim that the Australian Government has been wrong to insist that David Hicks cannot be tried in Australia.

The Military Commission panel denies Mr Hicks’s request to bring in expert witnesses on international law before the trial scheduled for January 2005 commences.

Lawyers for Mr Hicks gain more time for his defence, to allow ‘full and fair’ proceedings. The trial scheduled for 10 January is now to be held on 15 March 2005.

A US Federal Court Judge rules that a Guantanamo Bay detainee, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, should be treated as a prisoner-of-war unless a ‘competent tribunal’ determines he is not entitled to POW status. This is perceived as a boost to Mr Hicks’s defence team because it is believed to back up the view that Military Commissions cannot be supported.

Lawyers for detainees in Guantanamo Bay request that the US Supreme Court intervenes quickly to settle the legality of the Military Commissions. It could have the consequence of putting on hold the trial against Mr Hicks and causing the Military Commission process to be abandoned.

A report by the International Committee of the Red Cross concerning allegations of torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees is leaked to the New York Times.

Details of ‘torture’ are obtained by the New York Times. It is described as a system devised to break the will of prisoners through humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes and use of forced positions.

The Australian Government is accused of turning a blind eye to torture.

It is suggested that Mr Hicks may be delayed for years in detention because of complex legal arguments in the US courts.

Mamdouh Habib tells military panel officers that during interrogations, he made statements under torture that could be used as evidence.

Mr Hicks’s US lawyer says the validity of the Military Commission trial should be questioned in an enquiry in Australia. It is claimed that evidence obtained during torture can be used against detainees in a military system, and Australia is the only country that has not questioned the validity of this system.

Mr Ruddock continues to accept the US statement that David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib have not been subject to torture and have been treated humanely at Guantanamo Bay.

A senior FBI official claims in a letter that the Pentagon has not acted on FBI complaints of mistreatment and aggressive interrogation of Guantanamo Bay detainees since February 2002.

Arrangements are being made for longer term detention of ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ at Guantanamo Bay. According to White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan:

…the Defense Department is making the living conditions at Guantanamo ‘more suitable for longer-term detention’ which he described as a ‘different phase’ in the holding of what he termed ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ in the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

It is reported that White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, helped draft a legal review as to how much pain and suffering can be inflicted on a prisoner to extract intelligence without an officer being in breach of laws which prohibit and penalise the use of torture. As a result of the review, a ‘torture memo’ authorising certain actions was drafted.

Mr Ruddock states that no Australian official witnessed any abuse or torture of Mamdouh Habib.

In a Declaration to the United States, District Court for the District of Columbia signed 23 November 2004, Mr Habib’s American lawyer, Joe Margulies, outlines claims of ‘brutality’ suffered by Mr Habib in Pakistan and Egypt.

Mr Ruddock announces the decision by the US not to charge Mr Habib, despite him being regarded as an enemy combatant. Instead, he will be repatriated to Australia as requested by the Australian Government, but will remain of security interest.

President of the Law Council of Australia, Stephen Southwood, says the Australian Government cannot claim to have dealt with Mamdouh Habib’s case expeditiously and fairly. He says Mr Habib and his family have a right to feel aggrieved at his treatment by both Australian and US authorities.

Mr Ruddock responds to accusations of having failed in the duty of care for an Australian citizen abroad who was detained for three years with no charges being laid against him. In justifying Mr Habib’s long detention, Mr Ruddock says:

The US considers Mr Habib to be an enemy combatant who has been detained in accordance with the laws of war.

The trial of David Hicks may be delayed by up to three years, according to his lawyer Stephen Kenny, because of expected appeals to the ruling in the case of Osama bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan. The appeal to the US Supreme Court will cause further delays.

Professor Don Rothwell, Director of the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law at the University of Sydney and Professor Peter Bailey, international human rights law expert at the Australian National University, say Mamdouh Habib has no chance of winning compensation from the Australian Government.

Mr Ruddock and Mamdouh Habib’s Australian lawyer, Stephen Hopper, comment on whether Mr Habib should be able to live free without constant monitoring.

Prime Minister John Howard says that Mr Habib will not be receiving an apology or compensation.

Stephen Hopper and Joe Margulies (Mr Habib’s Australian and American lawyers respectively) explore the possibilities of seeking damages for injustices suffered by Mr Habib.

An editorial outlines what it claims are violations of legal principles by the US and Australian Governments, some of which date back to the Magna Carta.

Lawyers for David Hicks, Major Michael Mori and Stephen Kenny, call for Mr Hicks to be freed.

In December 2004, the Bush Administration released a June 2004 report by the FBI on torture of prisoners under interrogation in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan. Now an Australian journalist suggests the report has implications for the Howard Government.

In a pre-prepared written answer to a Question on Notice just received by the Opposition, Mr Ruddock states that charges are expected to be laid against Mamdouh Habib by the US soon—later the same day, he announces Mr Habib’s impending release.

It is suggested that the release of Mamdouh Habib will raise questions the Howard Government must answer—exactly why was he arrested, what knowledge did the Australian Government have of his rendition to Egypt and why are the US authorities letting him go?

An editorial criticises detention at Guantanamo Bay.

The Attorney-General states that Mamdouh Habib will not be on a scheduled commercial flight home as there could be an issue if, as an unrestrained person, Mr Habib claims asylum in another country where the plane lands.

Mr Ruddock is to seek advice on whether the Proceeds of Crime legislation could be used to stop Mr Habib profiting from his detention at Guantanamo Bay.

US officials confirm self-injury and suicide attempts by detainees at Guantanamo Bay:

In total there were 350 "self-harm" incidents at the camp during 2003, the military said. Last year there were 110 self-harm incidents.

Mr Habib’s lawyer, Stephen Hopper, details for the first time the atrocities his client claims to have endured while in detention at Guantanamo Bay.