Mamdou Habib has been making headlines in Australia recently. Habib is an Egyptian-born Australian who was arrested in Pakistan soon after September 11, 2001, on suspected terrorist links, and transported, via Egypt, to Guantanamo Bay. After more than three years in detention at the concentration camp, Habib was released without any charges by the American government, and repatriated to Australia. His wife, Maha, an exceptional woman by any account, has stood by him, kept her head, and taken able care of their four children ? the youngest of whom Habib hadn?t seen till his return.

Both the American and Australian governments seem to be hellbent on crucifying Habib, without taking the risk of submitting their allegations to a court of inquiry. The Americans say that they prefer not to charge Habib because they would have to compromise sensitive sources to bring the case to court. This is in spite of the fact that the Guantanamo guests are being tried (if at all) by a military tribunal, and the government insists that they are outside the purview of American law because Guantanamo is not on American territory. It would be difficult to convince the independent observer that the Americans actually have enough evidence to put together a case.

The Australian government has been doing its bit, too. The prime minister has not ruled out the fact that the government may bring charges against Habib. Till a few days ago, the government had maintained that it had no knowledge of Habib?s whereabouts ? between when he disappeared in Pakistan and when the Americans informed that he was at Guantanamo. Australian agents did not visit him in Pakistan, nor interrogated him, as Habib claims. Habib had been under suspicion for some time before he disappeared, and at least before 9/11, he had been an open supporter of Osama bin Laden.

The Australian prime minister, John Howard, has also said that Habib ?may be prevented? from selling his story to the media. This is particularly harsh given that this liberty is regularly availed of by criminals in Western countries. One may even argue that the greatest attraction of a conviction in a capitalist democracy is that the criminal can charge large sums to lecture others on his crime.

Justice did squeak in Habib?s case, if only by omission, when he was allowed to appear last week in a paid interview on 60 minutes, a popular news show. He answered some questions, and pointedly refused to answer others. He had been in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but what he was doing in the latter country Habib was not willing to elaborate. His stand is that he may yet have to defend himself in court, and if so, he would want to withhold some information at present. No, he did not call his wife on the eve of 9/11 to warn her of the event, as has been alleged. He was tortured ? in Pakistan, in Egypt and of course in Guantanamo. And yes, he says, Australian officials visited him and interrogated him there, and they were aware that he was being tortured.

For those willing to convict Habib before the hearing, his refusal to give details of his activities in Afghanistan is proof of his wrongdoing. Even the more level-headed commentators agree that he was, in all likeness, involved with the dark side of the force, at least in small ways. He may have trained with Lashkar-e-Toiba in Pakistan, and his presence in Afghanistan is indeed suspicious.

On the other hand, it would be difficult to believe that he was not extensively tortured, both in Egypt and in Guantanamo. The Americans have never seriously tried to convince anyone that prisoners there are not being subjected to mind-breaking measures; perhaps to send a warning to their potential enemies.

The holes are obvious in the Australian government?s position. It now seems that Australian agents did speak to Habib in Pakistan. However, they had not ?interrogated? him, only ?interviewed? him. They may well have known about his presence in Egypt. And the government?s stand has been downright disingenuous in its justification for not intervening with the Americans when Habib was in Guantanamo. Habib is an Australian citizen, even if the government feels that he is not a model one, and entitled to the corresponding privileges.

The government may yet bring Habib to court, and have him tried for well specified charges. If he is severely guilty, he should be treated accordingly. If he is only guilty of minor offences or none at all, he should be heavily compensated for the inhumanity he has been subjected to. If there is no evidence, the government should declare this outright, compensate him, and let him go about his life.

The strategy that the defenders of virtue seem to have adopted, however, is less virtuous. They seem to be determined to damn Habib in the public eye by repeating their suspicions instead of resorting to the judiciary. Repeated assertions can be a handy substitute for proof when it comes to convincing the common stock, a realization that was once heavily exploited by Goebbels.

Surely, the brand of terrorism that has been let loose by 9/11 is an unmitigated evil, and must be combated. If it were to succeed, it would lead to the destruction of the very liberties and freedoms that have become the hallmark of modern democracy. The visionary general of the forces of good against evil, George W. Bush himself has urged that this is the objective of the terrorists. ?They hate us,? he has said, ?for our freedoms.?

It is useful to recount the central freedoms that modern democracies guarantee ? those of thought and expression and pursuit of happiness and a variety of others. If these pursuits are in conflict with the freedom of others, and the matter is brought for adjudication, then the ultimate protection against wrong is guaranteed by the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. As conflict is inevitable so is resolution necessary, and so too this right is central. The ?civilized? West must be careful that it does not concede this highest of moral grounds to terrorists in its eagerness to persecute them.