David Hicks

[Metal Head]

Hi,

Does anyone here have the same change of thought (as I) in that why does Schapelle Corby get all the headlines in trying to get her back to Australia and not David Hicks?. Is it because she is a good looking woman thus suits Media (both TV and magazines) getting extra $$$$$ revenue?.

My feeling is that her actions (if true) could have been more destructive to the human race (drug taking) than those by Hick's?.

Mind you I feel that the sentences in Indonesia are not consistant given that people involved in bombing are treated with more leniency.

Regards
David

[dazzler]

Hi david

My 2c is the govts did a good job on hicks

"worst of the worst" tag.

Plus being male does not get the "protect our women" syndrome.

As Ive said before in the orange room. Hicks would have been a fantastic case study / human source to help us understand how disseffected males can be groomed over to militant islam.

cheers

[ozwinner]

Hi,

Does anyone here have the same change of thought

NO.

The dickhead went to learn how to kill innocent people.
He deserves what he gets, he should rot in hell.

Al :mad:

[Greg Q]

Hi,

My feeling is that her actions (if true) could have been more destructive to the human race (drug taking) than those by Hick's?.

Regards
David

What? really? That's an interesting bit of calculus that led you to that conclusion. She was involved with what is widely considered a recreational drug with little if any fatal side effects and no proven link to other drugs.

Hicks is a hobby killer who went abroad seeking chaotic situations so that he might do violence unimpeded.

And yes, the sentences in Indonesia are a slap in the face to justice loving people everywhere.

[Bodgy]

Hi,

My feeling is that her actions (if true) could have been more destructive to the human race (drug taking) than those by Hick's?.

Regards
David

Think you're wrong here mate.

Marijahoochie is a pretty harmless recreational drug. No one forces anyone to smoke it.

Hick's mates blow innocent people out of the sky, send dopey, illiterate kids to expolde restuarants and school buses without even asking permission.

Very different.

I do agree tho that any Leb, Jew or other who shoots thru to fight for said country should instantly loose their citizenship and pzz off back to where their obvious allegiances lie.

Australians fight in the Australian military. Full stop.

[DanP]

I think that the comparison between Hicks and Corby is rediculous and agree with what Al said, but if you think Cannabis is harmless, you're kidding yourself.

Dan

[Metal Head]

Hi,

Well hopefully not too many people got upset with my theory. At least we can say what we think without being locked away for it as happens in many countries.

Regards
David

[ian]

I do agree tho that any Leb, Jew or other who shoots thru to fight for said country should instantly loose their citizenship and pzz off back to where their obvious allegiances lie.

Australians fight in the Australian military. Full stop.Ah only if it were so.
It's quite legal for Aussies to go and fight in other people's wars, PROVIDED they fight on the side of the legitimate government of the country they are fighting in, OR the side supported by the UN.
As far as I know, Hicks did both. In Kosovo, according to what I heard on the ABC last week, Hicks was training with a UN sponsored anti-Serb unit, in Afganistan he was fighting with the Taliban, who apart from being pretty woeful when it came to human rights or the protection of minorities, was at the time the recognised government of the country.

[maglite]

Now that "jihad jack" has been released because his captors didnt follow correct procedures, i wonder how long it will be before others of his ilk decide to follow the same path.

Seriously, i cant help wonder when his compatriots are going to follow the correct wartime procedures........like maybe never!!!
I fear that we have turned into a country of bleeding hearts too fearful to do the right thing for fear that our neighbours or contempories condemn us for doing the wrong thing.

As we pick up our dead and wounded out of buildings i guess that all of those that lose loved ones can consolate themselves in the knowledge the we, in australia, followed the correct procedures......even if our attackers did not.
That makes me friggin sick to be honest.

[womble]

Now that "jihad jack" has been released because his captors didnt follow correct procedures, i wonder how long it will be before others of his ilk decide to follow the same path.

Seriously, i cant help wonder when his compatriots are going to follow the correct wartime procedures........like maybe never!!!
I fear that we have turned into a country of bleeding hearts too fearful to do the right thing for fear that our neighbours or contempories condemn us for doing the wrong thing.

As we pick up our dead and wounded out of buildings i guess that all of those that lose loved ones can consolate themselves in the knowledge the we, in australia, followed the correct procedures......even if our attackers did not.
That makes me friggin sick to be honest.


The Spanish didn't kick the invading Islamic Moors out of their country centuries ago by being nice about it...

The reverse is also true, Saladin didn't kick the pesky crusaders out of the Holy land by being nice either...

[conjoe]

too all who comdem him with out a trail
what if i was your son /
and dont answer with my son never get in to anything,
if tried and found guilty different story
yet we let drug dealers leave this country arnet they killers too ?

[silentC]

Have you actually read any of the posts above?

[dazzler]

Now that "jihad jack" has been released because his captors didnt follow correct procedures, i wonder how long it will be before others of his ilk decide to follow the same path.

Seriously, i cant help wonder when his compatriots are going to follow the correct wartime procedures........like maybe never!!!
I fear that we have turned into a country of bleeding hearts too fearful to do the right thing for fear that our neighbours or contempories condemn us for doing the wrong thing.

As we pick up our dead and wounded out of buildings i guess that all of those that lose loved ones can consolate themselves in the knowledge the we, in australia, followed the correct procedures......even if our attackers did not.
That makes me friggin sick to be honest.

Hi Maglite

The AFP did not allow Thomas legal representation. This was always going to be an issue and the defence raised it during the trial however the Judge erred at law by making it admissable.

The access to legal representation is funadamental to Australian Law. The rights and oblegations of a person being formally interviewed is seven pages and takes about three minutes to get through. "You are entitled to the services of a legal practitioner of your choice" etc

The beauty of this is the very few Commonwealth matters get thrown out during trial because of the fairness shown to the accused. Threats, promises or inducements are out of bounds as well so its basically down to good police investigative techniques and preparing the evidence or case against them before starting an interview.

It is my guess that the AFP were more interested, and correctly IMO, to get information on potential attacks and other cells that Thomas may have had knowledge of.

Very similar to an "off the record" type of conversation. In can help the direction of your investigaton, but is inadmissable. You get the info you need but burn any chance of using it against the accused.

The problem that has ocurred is that all the evidence has been tainted because of an error at law. Not sure what they had before the interview but it would appear very little seeing that the false passport and recieving funds was thrown out as well.

An interesting case of the need for intelligence verse desire to prosecute.

cheers

dazzler

[DanP]

I knew we couldn't agree twice in one day :rolleyes:

It wasn't the AFP that denied the terrorist legal rep. The Pakis would let them. The dog was told of his right to a lawyer several times and HE WAIVED THAT RIGHT.

The conversation was a proper recorded interview and should IMO be fully admissable.

If a POS crook decides that he doesn't want a mouthpiece, as happens every day in local crimes, then that should be the end of the issue. Legal Representation should not be forced on any person who chooses not to exercise their right to it.

Another Judge with his head up his ar5e.

Dan

[Bob38S]

.........

Another Judge with his head up his ar5e.

Dan

Seems to be a common feat for [most] of those who occupy those high benches and for those who aspire to the same level.

Most of us ordinary types can't quite achieve the head up @*** status - the best most of us can achieve is pursed lips on the cheeks as we end up kissing it goodbye.

Ever notice how many "legal eagles" are in parliament.........

[Beerbotboffin]

I feel that the real issue has been missed.

I don't have an opinion on Hick's guilt or innocence.

He has not been charged or been given his day in court (not even a trumped-up US military one), and has been left to rot in Cuba for 4 years or however long it has been.

For me, the two real issues are:

a. Our elected government has done bugger all to help one of it's citizens.
b. The US government wanders around the world, beating up smallish (mostly oil-rich) countries in the name of freedom and democracy. How does stuffing around Hicks (and all the rest of his mates in Cuba) show the world how great and freedom loving the US is? Just goes to prove their point, sadly.

Doesn't reflect on us too well either, I should think.

[silentC]

I don't think anyone has missed that, in fact we've discussed it a lot in the preceding pages. Much of the debate hinges on whether you consider him a POW or not.

If you have been following it, you'll know that the US wanted to try him in a military setup but the US Supreme Court ruled against it. Now we're waiting to see what they'll try next.

[Greg Ward]

Read what has been scrawled over the past month.

David Hicks will probably be able to get elected as a green member to a council in Marrickville when he eventually returns after the war......

Again I repeat...... POW's or enemy combatants are kept locked up for the duration of a war to stop them rejoining the fight. Yes, our customs dept. may be able to stop Mr Hicks returning to Afganistan, however that's not the case for most of the interees as far as I understand, who are middle east born, so they will stay there.....

Tough perhaps, but talk to the Australian POWs of the Japanese and ask them whether they'd prefer to be in G Bay or Tokyo Bay.....

Regards
Greg

[DanP]

The Australian Govt has provided Hicks with legal representation and has been in touch with govt reps almost constantly. Other than that, what can they do? Lobby for his release....HA! Hicks MUST go through the process of the nation he has offended against. He was going to front a military commission, but the really smart lawyers got them banned and had the detainees called POW's. Now he waits for whatever new thing they come up with and if the US decide to hold them as POW's they will hold them till the war ends. How long do you reckon the war on terror will go for? All his idiot lawyer has succeeded in doing is getting him incarcerated for the rest of his life. Which is what he deserves anyway.

Dan

[bitingmidge]

Gee that 's a harsh call Dan. His "idiot lawyer" seems like a really nice bloke, and not that dumb either. The interview with Denton was interesting, although while always taking a humanitarian line, he did say that "David had made some poor life decisions".

I always wonder what's been left out. Read it here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1709428.htm

Cheers,

P

[silentC]

When I was watching that interview I started to wonder if Mori wasn't actually a part of an elaborate good cop-bad cop setup. It seems odd that an institution like the US military would tolerate someone who is as outspoken against parts of it as he is.

[himzol]

I've just caught up with this thread, bloody great discussion.

One thing puzzles me, If as DANP says above, that Hicks is now considered a POW then surely he doesn't need to be put on trial for anything. just put him there and throw away the key for the duration.
Then why does th US want to put him on trial ? :confused: Does it mean he really isn't considered a POW by them? if so why?

sorry I don't have a huge legal background so could somebody explain please?

Himzo.

[dazzler]

I knew we couldn't agree twice in one day :rolleyes:

It wasn't the AFP that denied the terrorist legal rep. The Pakis would let them. The dog was told of his right to a lawyer several times and HE WAIVED THAT RIGHT.

The conversation was a proper recorded interview and should IMO be fully admissable.

If a POS crook decides that he doesn't want a mouthpiece, as happens every day in local crimes, then that should be the end of the issue. Legal Representation should not be forced on any person who chooses not to exercise their right to it.

Another Judge with his head up his ar5e.

Dan


Section 23G of the Federal Crimes Act states unambiguously that the police must not question a person before allowing them to communicate with a lawyer and must arrange for the lawyer


to be present

during the questioning.

Are we a couple again;)

[ernknot]

Terrorists and others of that ilk should not be treated by the same laws that apply to everyday public misdemeanours and more serious crimes, the laws were nor written to cover this. We should have a seperate set of laws for terrorists and illegals. These people clog up our legal system and waste a huge amount of public money. As for that clown Hicks, well he wanted to be the tough guy now let him rot. He was caught in the act for crying out loud.

[Sturdee]

Our elected government has done bugger all to help one of it's citizens.


He is no longer one of our citizens but choiose to become a foreigner :mad: so our government shouldn't help him in any way whatsoever.

When he was still a citizen he fought against us in the war on terror, hence he is guilty of treason and in most countries he whould have been executed as a traitor.

As he now claims to be a POW he should be locked up untill the war agains terror is over, which IMO seeing the continual terror by Islamic fundamentalists will be never.

Peter.

[AlexS]

He was caught in the act for crying out loud.
At which trial did this come out?

[dazzler]

I've just caught up with this thread, bloody great discussion.

One thing puzzles me, If as DANP says above, that Hicks is now considered a POW then surely he doesn't need to be put on trial for anything. just put him there and throw away the key for the duration.
Then why does th US want to put him on trial ? :confused: Does it mean he really isn't considered a POW by them? if so why?

sorry I don't have a huge legal background so could somebody explain please?

Himzo.

Hi Himzol

He WAS a POW during the war in afghanistan. The hunt for binladen continues but is not part of the war. Now that the war in afghanistan is over and has moved to rebuilding/peacekeeping then they would normally all go home or to prison or wherever.

Unfortunately the US (and AUS by being its female dog) have disregarded the UN and the Geneva convention and made up thier own laws, outside of International law, to keep them whilever the 'War on Terror' goes on.

Oh, anyone seen Hambali :confused: . Remember him?

What a strange world, where the democracy that so many brave people fought for can be put aside so easily.:(

[dazzler]

At which trial did this come out?

Oh Alexs pls keep up.....ya gotta watch 'A current affair' or that other one:p , right after the dole bludgers and the real estate shonks:rolleyes:

[ozwinner]

What a strange world, where the democracy that so many brave people fought for can be put aside so easily.:(

My thought too, that democracy only applies to Anglo Saxons, owwh and the Jews. :confused: :confused:

Al :confused:

[journeyman Mick]

Terrorists and others of that ilk should not be treated by the same laws that apply to everyday public misdemeanours and more serious crimes, the laws were nor written to cover this. We should have a seperate set of laws for terrorists and illegals................

Great, and then if the government decides they don't like someone, say for being too outspoken, or maybe because they might lose an election to that person, al they need to do is to call him a terrorist/enemy of the state and toss them in jail. This already happens in a lot of places that we should be taking our cues from like China, Burma and tinpot dicatator ships in south America, lots of other places too, no doubt. Do you really want to live in a country that can throw youin jail without legal recourse Ernknot?

I know that it can be terribly frustrating looking at the law's seeming impotence in some cases, but although it's not perfect there's a lot of things that I wouldn't want to see lost.

Mick

[ian]

Terrorists and others of that ilk should not be treated by the same laws that apply to everyday public misdemeanours and more serious crimes, the laws were nor written to cover this. We should have a seperate set of laws for terrorists and illegals. These people clog up our legal system and waste a huge amount of public money.ernknot,
would you like to re-read your post substituting "jews" and/or "gypsies" for "terrorists"? The reason we now have international human rights standards is that the German government, democraticly elected in 1931, decided that certain groups, including opposition political parties, weren't entitled to the legal protections afforded "proper Germans". You need look no further than Belsen to see were that ended up.


ian

[DanP]

Section 23G of the Federal Crimes Act states unambiguously that the police must not question a person before allowing them to communicate with a lawyer and must arrange for the lawyer


to be present

during the questioning.

Are we a couple again;)

No.:p


23G Right to communicate with friend, relative and legal practitioner


(1) Subject to section 23L, if a person is under arrest or a protected suspect, an investigating official must, before starting to question the person, inform the person that he or she may:
(a) communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a friend or relative to inform that person of his or her whereabouts; and
(b) communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a legal practitioner of the person’s choice and arrange, or attempt to arrange, for a legal practitioner of the person’s choice to be present during the questioning; and the investigating official must defer the questioning for a reasonable time to allow the person to make, or attempt to make, the communication and, if the person has arranged for a legal practitioner to be present, to allow the legal practitioner to attend the questioning.

(2) Subject to section 23L, if a person is under arrest or a protected suspect and wishes to communicate with a friend, relative or legal practitioner, the investigating official must:
(a) as soon as practicable, give the person reasonable facilities to enable the person to do so; and
(b) in the case of a communication with a legal practitioner—allow the legal practitioner or a clerk of the legal practitioner to communicate with the person in circumstances in which, as far as practicable, the communication will not be overheard.

(3) Subject to section 23L, if a person is under arrest or a protected suspect and arranges for a legal practitioner to be present during the questioning, the investigating official must:
(a) allow the person to consult with the legal practitioner in private and provide reasonable facilities for that consultation; and
(b) allow the legal practitioner to be present during the questioning and to give advice to the person, but only while the legal practitioner does not unreasonably interfere with the questioning.

This is not quite as unambiguous as you suggest.

Para 1 says they must not be questioned before being informed of their right to speak to a lawyer and then must allow reasonable time for them to speak to said lawyer.

Para 2 says they must be given private acces to a phone to speak to the lawyer.

Para3 says if the crook arranges for the lawyer to come to the party he must be given a chance to speak to the lawyer in private and allow the lawyer to sit in on the interview.

ALL of this is subject to what the crook wants. If the crook agrees to proceed without a lawyer, as this terrorist did, the investigating official is under no obligation to make him see one.

The Judges head remains firmly planted in rectum.

Dan

[silentC]

Did you see his brother on Lateline last night?

First he said that Jack is not a violent person and is not interested in killing people. This begs the question why did he go to Afghanistan to participate in military training, including small weapons and demolition (blowing things up) - by his own admission? His only objection was that he didn't know it was one of Bin Laden's camps until he saw the man one day. Why would a peaceful person do that?

Then he went off about the media and the government portraying him as a terrorist and using this Jihad Jack tag. I liked it when Tony Jones pointed out that it was Jack who started calling himself Jihad! Oh, but he means Jihad in a peaceful, non-violent way, doesn't he?

[Bob Willson]

No.:p





This is not quite as unambiguous as you suggest.

Para3 says if the crook arranges for the lawyer to come to the party he must be given a chance to speak to the lawyer in private and allow the lawyer to sit in on the interview.

ALL of this is subject to what the crook wants. If the crook agrees to proceed without a lawyer, as this terrorist did, the investigating official is under no obligation to make him see one.

The Judges head remains firmly planted in rectum.

Dan

From paragraph 3 on you seem to have paraphrased a little bit and to have already ascertained the guilt of the detainee/accused. :D

[Eddie Jones]

ernknot,
........The reason we now have international human rights standards is that the German government, democraticly elected in 1931........
ian

Err, sorry, it was 30 January 1933.

[ian]

Dan look again at your parra (2)
(2) Subject to section 23L, if a person is under arrest or a protected suspect and wishes to communicate with a friend, relative or legal practitioner, the investigating official must:
(a) as soon as practicable, give the person reasonable facilities to enable the person to do so; and
(b) in the case of a communication with a legal practitioner—allow the legal practitioner or a clerk of the legal practitioner to communicate with the person in circumstances in which, as far as practicable, the communication will not be overheard.the case would seem to turn on that if a suspect is held by a foreign jurisdiction (or in the case of Australia in another state) how does an AFP officer (or even you if you wish to question a suspect in the Albury lockup) demonstrate that you can deliver on the obligation to allow a person to communicate with their lawyer?

From memory the "problem" with Hicks is that when originally questioned he was either not warned or was not provided access to legal representation so the interview record is inadmissible.


ian

[Bodgy]

It seems to me that all these gentlemen who 'wear the tea-towel' are hell bent on destroying this very democracy that is seeking to protect their rights. Rights that do not exist where they come from, nor will exist if they are successfull.

I can see Mr Bin Liner laughing himself sick as the hated Western system, with all its checks, balances and inherent common justice allows his boys to go scott free.

Unfortunately, in these historically unique times I'm afraid, for our survival, we need to allow the rules to be bent and occasionally turn a blind eye.

This doesn't necessarily lead to Fascism, WWII saw a general suspension of some common law in the UK, Oz and US but once the war was won, these rights were re-constituted.

Nobody wants to see this, but these fanatics use children as bombs, think nothing of slaughtering hundreds of their own to get a few Westerners, have introduced a degree of almost paralysis to our transport system and generally cost the West billions of $$.

They don't play by any rules, so neither can we.

[Sturdee]

They don't play by any rules, so neither can we.


Hear, hear.


Peter.

[himzol]

Hi Himzol

He WAS a POW during the war in afghanistan. The hunt for binladen continues but is not part of the war. Now that the war in afghanistan is over and has moved to rebuilding/peacekeeping then they would normally all go home or to prison or wherever.

Unfortunately the US (and AUS by being its female dog) have disregarded the UN and the Geneva convention and made up thier own laws, outside of International law, to keep them whilever the 'War on Terror' goes on.

Oh, anyone seen Hambali :confused: . Remember him?

What a strange world, where the democracy that so many brave people fought for can be put aside so easily.:(

Ahhhh I see,:confused:

[Clinton1]

A new convert to Islam is often encouraged to choose an Islamic (actually, an Arab language word) name.

Jihad would not be seen a common name, more often the names of some of the important figures from the beginning of the Islamic period are used. Basically its similiar to taking a personal role model.

I wonder where and when Jack Thomas got called Jihad?
I ask as I don't know. Was it in the Al-Qaeda training camp, a term used by the media or did he call himself that? Also, what was the 'meaning' of the use of Jihad?

Jihad - From the Arag root "j-h-d" (struggle), the word in its western form (Holy war) is not used.

There are three times that Jihad is used:
Jihad - literally "struggle",
Al-jihad Al-akbar - literally "the greater jihad" and this means the inner struggle against the self...i.e. "I will do al-jihad al-akbar against my swearing" (I will struggle with my self to not swear as it is not part of my religion)
Al-jihad Al-asghar - literally "the lesser jihad" and this means the physical fighting against an opressive regime.


Anyway, "Struggle" Thomas is pretty much on the mark... it will be a struggle for him to do anything much more than hang about at home and get family welfare payments. Can't see him getting a job and living a decent life... I think the community will pretty much reject him.

[himzol]

Great, and then if the government decides they don't like someone, say for being too outspoken, or maybe because they might lose an election to that person, al they need to do is to call him a terrorist/enemy of the state and toss them in jail. This already happens in a lot of places that we should be taking our cues from like China, Burma and tinpot dicatator ships in south America, lots of other places too, no doubt. Do you really want to live in a country that can throw youin jail without legal recourse Ernknot?



Mick

Precisely why my parents decided to move to this country from the former Yugoslavia.

[Clinton1]

back to David Hicks everyone! :D :rolleyes:

[dazzler]

Ahhhh I see,:confused:


Sorry to talk in riddles.

Hambali was an actual fair dinkum kill the west terrorist that was arrested over 18 months ago by the Malaysians (or indons:confused: ) and handed over to the CIA.

Havent seen nor heard of him since. No trial, no nothing:confused:. He should be put on trial and if found guilty sentenced, hopefully death.

So the leaders of democracy have not abided by the principals they espouse as the difference between 'us' and 'them'.

[maglite]

Sorry to talk in riddles.

Hambali was an actual fair dinkum kill the west terrorist that was arrested over 18 months ago by the Malaysians (or indons:confused: ) and handed over to the CIA.

Havent seen nor heard of him since. No trial, no nothing:confused:. He should be put on trial and if found guilty sentenced, hopefully death.

So the leaders of democracy have not abided by the principals they espouse as the difference between 'us' and 'them'.

WHY??
Why put him on trial??
Surely we can then give him the ultimate forum to espouse his veiws, let us not forget that even the remotest jungle camps have internet access these days, why do we offer him the chance of a trial on our values?
In most cases these pricks take responsibility for their actions via a web address or video sent to a news channel.
They have admitted their guilt by admitting their responsibility havent they?
Perhaps in our softly, softly democratic system he will be given the opportunity to recant that admission or even come up with some pissant excuse thatr our learned legal fellows will allow him just one more chance to make up for his mistakes.
Please!!!
As others have said, these guys do not wish to play by our socities rules but continue to insist that they are judged the rules of our socities.
The worst part about all is that we actually let them.
As for Hicks, when it is all said and done he was fighting for an enemy force in a foreign country, he got caught and all of a sudden he is an aussie, or that british subject and he and his family are looking for an easy way out.
I wonder wether he would be so rushed to claim said citzenship if his side had won!!!

[ernknot]

Precisely why my parents decided to move to this country from the former Yugoslavia.
If you are caught in the act you got nothing to bitch about. What your parents did was for another reason. You seem to get confused on this issue. Hicks is not a refugee, he is a terrorist.

[Clinton1]

First, Hicks is not a terrorist. Not yet, thats got to get to a court case and be determined by a panel of his peers. At the moment he is still innocent. Law stuff, good eh?

Second:
I wonder about the AFP and the Intelligence communities (including the CIA and the security forces of other countries) involvement in the Hicks and Thomas cases.
There are some smart cookies in those organisations, I cannot believe that the issue of them "getting off" (due to the evidence being collected in a manner that made it inadmissible) was not thought through.

I am sure there is a well thought through plan being put in action. Basically, some outcomes (like winning a court case) were sacrificed in order to reach other goals (collecting intelligence), IMO.

I don't think the minds working in this area were unaware that the evidence would not be able to be used.... however intelligence was gained, the 'evidence' was presented, thrown open to the public, thrown out of court, and is now being used to place restrictions on the goose involved. Not a bad way of doing business.

Unless you'd prefer to see a lot of the protections that were deemed to be a basic human right turfed out, just to jail some goose that can be controlled in an effective manner. A goose that would not have been returned to Australia if it was deemed necessary to lock him up for a long time.
Protections like not having the stuff you said when you were being threatened with torture, or being tortured (in the case of a lot of the humans sent to Egypt or Pakistan), used as reliable evidence and used against you. Important stuff, and a lot of people around the world would love those protections. In fact someone is probably screaming right now, and would like that protection. :(

I'm just guessing here, but if I were running the rock show, I'd have a well thought out plan and am guessing that there is one. :confused:
Of course, my plan would suck.... :D

[ian]

WHY??
Why put him on trial??
Surely we can then give him the ultimate forum to espouse his veiws, let us not forget that even the remotest jungle camps have internet access these days, why do we offer him the chance of a trial on our values?
In most cases these pricks take responsibility for their actions via a web address or video sent to a news channel.
They have admitted their guilt by admitting their responsibility havent they?
Perhaps in our softly, softly democratic system he will be given the opportunity to recant that admission or even come up with some pissant excuse thatr our learned legal fellows will allow him just one more chance to make up for his mistakes.
Please!!!
As others have said, these guys do not wish to play by our socities rules but continue to insist that they are judged the rules of our socities.
The worst part about all is that we actually let them.maglite,
what is the difference between what you say about Hambali and the following ...
Maglite, I don't like your political views, I consider you a threat to my group's continued exploitation of political power, you don't play by the "rules" of "our" society, so you have no right to a trial under those rules. "we" can therefore dispose of you as we see fit.

It was the justification used in Argentina in the late 70s and early 80s

It is the justification of all repressive regimes throughout history
As for Hicks, when it is all said and done he was fighting for an enemy force in a foreign country, he got caught and all of a sudden he is an aussie, or that british subject and he and his family are looking for an easy way out.
I wonder wether he would be so rushed to claim said citzenship if his side had won!!!I think you will find that the Taliban, the then recognised government in Afganistan, were never declared the enemy. A hostile regime maybe (Venezula and Cuba would fall into this category) but never the "enemy"

the following is from wikipedia

The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") (Public law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_law) 107-40) was a joint resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_resolution) passed by the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) on September 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_18), 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001), authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces) against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_September_11%2C_2001). The authorization granted the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) on September 18, 2001.

The AUMF was unsuccessfully cited by the George W. Bush administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_administration) in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld), in which the U.S. Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) ruled that the administration's military commissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission) at Guantanamo Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp) were not competent tribunals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competent_tribunal) as constituted and thus illegal
as I understand Military and International law what the above describes is what is known as "aide to the civil power" The military were sent into Afganistan so that those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9/11 attacks could be brought to justice in a US CIVIL court. The US does not recognise the International Court of Justice. There is an established principle that persons responsible for a criminal offence who are outside the boundaries of the country within which the offence was committed can be returned to face justice in the country where the offence occured. Forcibly removing the accused from the country of refuge is less well accepted. Arguably, to overthrow the recognised government of a country in order to install a regime more to your liking is a crime under International Law. As an example, in the Solomon Islands, Australia has been very careful to ensure that our police and defence force has been "invited" to assist the failed government.


So to Hicks, it's stretching the imagination that a foot soldier could fall into the category of "harbored said persons or groups". Possibly, you might do members of the senior command, but a foot soldier?

As to is Hicks a terrorist risk? We, the great unwashed, have no way of knowing.

[Daddles]

this post has been deleted because the author finds it difficult to express his horror at the abandonment of democracy and human rights espoused by some in this thread

[silentC]

I wonder where and when Jack Thomas got called Jihad?
I ask as I don't know. Was it in the Al-Qaeda training camp, a term used by the media or did he call himself that? Also, what was the 'meaning' of the use of Jihad?
'Jihad' chose that name for himself. I heard his brother say so on Lateline Monday night. He would have been pretty naive to choose the name Jihad without consideration for how it would be perceived in the non-Islamic world, so did he do it to prove a point, to stir up sh*t, or what?


the Taliban, the then recognised government in Afganistan
It's stretching things a bit to call them "the recognised government".

The Taliban Movement or just Taliban or Taleban (Persian and Pashto طالبان, Iranian, from the plural form of Arabic طالب ṭālib, "student"), is a Sunni Islamist nationalist pro-Pashtun movement which effectively ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. It gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the unrecognized government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.

[Eddie Jones]

First, Hicks is not a terrorist. Not yet.....

Oh no?

1. He was caught, carrying arms, by the Yanks, in a hostile area.

2. He didn't work for the Yanks, or any of their allies.

3. He was/is not an enlisted member of ANY nation's armed forces.

4. If he was not a terrorist, please tell us all what YOU think he was.

[himzol]

Oh no?

1. He was caught, carrying arms, by the Yanks, in a hostile area.

2. He didn't work for the Yanks, or any of their allies.

3. He was/is not an enlisted member of ANY nation's armed forces.

4. If he was not a terrorist, please tell us all what YOU think he was.

Ummm.. not a great authority on the subject but to be a terrorist don't you have to either have done or going to perform an act of terror, what you have discribed is a D1ck Head with a gun in the wrong place.

[Bodgy]

Anyone like to voluanteer another explanation as to why he was wandering around Afganistan?

Got lost going to get a 6 pack?
Thought he was an extra in a movie?
Too much Afgani Black, thought it was Katmandu?
Mother was raped by a man wearing sandals and a white headscarf, and Dave boy was looking for Daddy?
Nobody loved him as a kid?

Come on

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

[himzol]

If you are caught in the act you got nothing to bitch about. What your parents did was for another reason. You seem to get confused on this issue. Hicks is not a refugee, he is a terrorist.

No. I'm not confused on this issue at all, read what I highlighted before I made the statement. BTW my parents did not come over as refugees, they were allowed to emigrate out after a long interview process by governments on both sides and payed their way.

Himzo.

[himzol]

Anyone like to voluanteer another explanation as to why he was wandering around Afganistan?

Got lost going to get a 6 pack?
Thought he was an extra in a movie?
Too much Afgani Black, thought it was Katmandu?
Mother was raped by a man wearing sandals and a white headscarf, and Dave boy was looking for Daddy?
Nobody loved him as a kid?

Come on

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

What have you got against ducks !:)

[E. maculata]

this post has been deleted because the author finds it difficult to express his horror at the abandonment of democracy and human rights espoused by some in this thread

Hear Bleedin' Hear, in full agreeance, right is right wrong is wrong.
Unfortunately Richard, our Humanity has been by far the biggest casuality of this "war".

[Wood Butcher]

......our Humanity has been by far the biggest casuality of this "war".
Yeah, and so have our fuel prices:mad:

[Bodgy]

Not to mention the increased cost and even worse inconvenience of air travel.

I believe this is Bin Liner's greatest victory, far in excess of the Twin Towers, in terms of economic cost and effecting far more people.

[Clinton1]

Eddie,


First, Hicks is not a terrorist. Not yet, thats got to get to a court case and be determined by a panel of his peers. At the moment he is still innocent. Law stuff, good eh?


I'm sure that when he gets to court, the prosecution will bring up your points and the defence will argue them.
Thats the point.
Court, prosecution, defence, a presumption of innocence, panel of peers, transparent process, review... all the good stuff that makes countries decent, and ensure that human rights are protected... while still seeking to deliver justice.

Your statements deserve an answer - a court case would sort that out.
I don't know if he is a terrorist - a court case would sort that out, and I'd like to know.

Until he gets convicted in a court, he is innocent. Our presumption of his innocence is a basic human right.

I've got no time for terrorists, would like them locked up forever in the hope that they would eventually realise what they have done and spend decades hating every minute that they have to spend in their own misbegotten company.

I've also been on the ground and seen what happens when basic human rights are disregarded.

When we are willing to discard the basic human rights of others we have to accept that we have lost our own basic human rights.
Then we are just another mob of bloody terrorists.

Hope I've answered your question.

[dazzler]

Spot on Clinton

Its strange how we constantly bag out the court system.

We seem to have forgotten about Faheed Lodhi being sentenced to 20years for his acts in preparation for a terrorist act.

Good policework, good evidence and a good result.

All fair and just.

By the way there was more than 1 investigator in counter terrorism who was surprised at the length of sentence..

Courts work. Just give them a chance.

PS....Guantanomo bay dont count:rolleyes:

[ian]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The Taliban Movement or just Taliban or Taleban (Persian and Pashto طالبان, Iranian, from the plural form of Arabic طالب ṭālib, "student"), is a Sunni Islamist nationalist pro-Pashtun movement which effectively ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. It gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the unrecognized government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
It's stretching things a bit to call them "the recognised government"Not really.
There's a difference between recognition and diplomatic recognition. For example, after Pol Pot was over thrown in Cambodia (by a Vietmanese led invasion) very few countries afforded the new government diplomatic recognition but most countries recognised that Pol Pot was gone and the Vietmanese backed government was recognised as the government of Cambodia.
In the same way the Taliban were recognised as being in control of Afganistan prior to the US lending support to the Northern Alliance in late 2001.
This is the problem for the Government with Hicks. Australia has a law called (from memory) "The Foreign Investments and Incursion Act". In essence it says that if Hicks was fighting for the Taliban he was on the side of the recognised government and hence committed no crime. If on the other hand he had been fighting with the Northern Alliance he would have committed a crime under Australian law.

The detail gets a bit hairy, but my understanding is that the Northern Alliance effectively won when many of the Taliban supporting war lords swithched sides. Now if Hicks stopped fighting at that point or very soon after he should be in the clear (under Australian law) because he would not have been fighting against the recognised government.

ian

[ian]

1. Hicks was caught, carrying arms, by the Yanks, in a hostile area.As far as I recall Hicks was handed over to the Yanks by a group of Afgani in exchange for a bounty.
In other times and places this is called kidnapping for ransom.
2. He didn't work for the Yanks, or any of their allies.this we don't know. Given how the Afgan civil war ended, it's quite possible that Hicks was working with an Afgan war lord who after switching sides was a US ally, putting Hicks on the side of the angels so to say.
The point is WE DON'T KNOW and until Hicks goes on trial in a properly constituted court we can't know.
However, the fact that the UK released all their nationals who were detained in circumstances similar to Hicks, suggests, at least to me, that many of the foreign detainees ended up on the winning side
3. He was/is not an enlisted member of ANY nation's armed forces.While we think of Afganistan as a country, at the time (2001) I don't think there was such a thing as a formal Afgan Army. Just a bunch of war lords and their fighters who supported the Taliban led government. So your point is moot
4. If he was not a terrorist, please tell us all what YOU think he was.well according to the Oxford Companion to Military History terrorism is "the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or its threat" as the Oxford goes on to say the definition is very subjective and "one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, one man's bomber-pilot is another's terror-flyer" (think about how the British and Germans viewed the bombing of Germany in WW2.)
As to Hicks, what evidence do you have that Hicks was in the business of "creating and exploiting fear through violence or its threat"?

[DanP]

the case would seem to turn on that if a suspect is held by a foreign jurisdiction (or in the case of Australia in another state) how does an AFP officer (or even you if you wish to question a suspect in the Albury lockup) demonstrate that you can deliver on the obligation to allow a person to communicate with their lawyer?

Pick up the telephone. Same as when you're here.


From memory the "problem" with Hicks is that when originally questioned he was either not warned or was not provided access to legal representation so the interview record is inadmissible.

He was clearly warned with a formal reading of his rights, which he refused, he was then clearly told again of his right to speak to a lawyer, which he again refused. The legislated requirement was well and truly satisfied.

Dan

[Eddie Jones]

.....As to Hicks, what evidence do you have that Hicks was in the business of "creating and exploiting fear through violence or its threat"?

Posing for photos with an RPG launcher in the ready to go position does not suggest to you "creating and exploiting fear through violence or it's threat"?

[ian]

Posing for photos with an RPG launcher in the ready to go position does not suggest to you "creating and exploiting fear through violence or it's threat"?It might, but the photo was taken when Hicks was training with the Kosovo Liberation Army which at the time had been removed from the US State Department's terrorism list and was being trained and equiped by the German civil and military intelligence services. So when the photo was taken Hicks was on the side of the "good guys", ergo he was not a terrorist.

[ian]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by ian
the case would seem to turn on that if a suspect is held by a foreign jurisdiction (or in the case of Australia in another state) how does an AFP officer (or even you if you wish to question a suspect in the Albury lockup) demonstrate that you can deliver on the obligation to allow a person to communicate with their lawyer?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Pick up the telephone. Same as when you're here. Australian public phones are taken to be secure and private.
even if there not, there are compensating controls to prevent use of any information obtained by tapping the phone.
How do you demonstrate to an Australian court that the same applies to phones in Pakastani gaols?

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by ian
From memory the "problem" with Hicks is that when originally questioned he was either not warned or was not provided access to legal representation so the interview record is inadmissible.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
He was clearly warned with a formal reading of his rights, which he refused, he was then clearly told again of his right to speak to a lawyer, which he again refused. The legislated requirement was well and truly satisfied.

DanDan,
I think that you are confusing Hicks with Jack Thomas
I'm sure there was an admission back in 2001 that Hicks had been questioned by the AFP while he was in US custody without the AFP telling him of his rights.


ian

[Greg Ward]

1. Hicks wanted to have an adventure.

2. He wandered around Europe and Asia with various friendly (a) terrorists or (b) freedom fighters (Choose your own terminology)

3. He got caught up fighting on the wrong side against the Yanks.

3a. Ooops what an adventure life is!

4. He is lucky to be alive

5. Unlike others at G Bay, if released, he probably won't seek to return to Asia to take up his (a) terrorist or (b) freedom fighter activities, but like other at G Bay, there is however a chance he may want to return to the fray, so he will be kept out of the fighting by being locked up until his friends in The Taliban becomes a political group only..... which may take time

6. Therefore like others at G Bay he will stay locked up to keep him away from any potential return to fighting in Asia..

7. He may stay locked up for a while yet

Regards
Greg

[coastie]

I watched "The falling man" last night on ABC tv.
What a stark reminder this was of just why the yanks are fighting this war!
I think its gonna get down to us and them (Christians v Muslims)the way it's going!!:mad:

[dazzler]

I watched "The falling man" last night on ABC tv.
What a stark reminder this was of just why the yanks are fighting this war!
I think its gonna get down to us and them (Christians v Muslims)the way it's going!!:mad:

Hi Starkie

your right, it may very well get down to us and them. That is why debate and keeping our eyes on the ball is so important.

What started all this? A nutter living in a cave who has a fundamentalist belief in islam, and the shonky deals that the west made with him to fight battles on thier behalf.:rolleyes:

A nutter in a cave, who deserves to be dealt with, and a nutter in the white house with no idea how to deal with him.

Those poor people in the towers died not because of Islam but because of these stupid deals with a nutter.

Just like WW1, a war started by a small amount of stupidity that built until what the initial beef was about was well and truly forgotten.

The sad thing is that the country that spawned 96% of the 9/11 bombers has been totally left in peace, while the country that had 100% of nothing to do with it is reduced to rubble.

The saddest thing is that a split between Islam and Christianity is being fed by nutters on both sides.:(

Sad times ahead.

[dazzler]

Wow

He just plead guilty.

I was wrong all along:-

[ozwinner]

Wow

He just plead guilty.




Funny how mental torture can do that do a person huh?

Edit: I dont know if hes guilty or not and I dont care either way.

Al :(

[Sturdee]

He just plead guilty.


I don't think this proves anything, and not whether he's guilty.

I think this is part of the typical American practice of plea bargaining, whereby you plead guilty (guilty or not) and get an agreed sentence. So it may well be a minimum sentence and taking into account time held in custody be out very shortly. Quite understandable on Hicks part so that he doesn't face another 5 years while the yanks work out how to try the detainees.

So rather than remark on Hicks guilt or otherwise reflect on the American system of justice where this pernicious system of bargaining for your sentence involving the prosecution, defence and judge is common. Many people plead guilty in these kind of circumstances as they cannot afford to defend themselves or the time taken to get justice is way too long.

So wait until it is clearer rather than pontificate or pass judgement.


Peter.

[ernknot]

On "holiday" in Afgahnistan, photographed with a rocket launcher on his shoulder and caught in a terrorist cell. This does not require any pontification to understand his stupidity ( I am being kind). The media has most certainly distiorted the whole scenario just to get ratings or flog fish and chip wrappers.

[dazzler]

On "holiday" in Afgahnistan, photographed with a rocket launcher on his shoulder and caught in a terrorist cell. This does not require any pontification to understand his stupidity ( I am being kind). The media has most certainly distiorted the whole scenario just to get ratings or flog fish and chip wrappers.

Or

Training with terrorist camp

Photographed with a rocket launcher in Bosnia during that fight (lets not look under that blanket as there are a few aussies involved in that one)

and

Protecting an abandoned tank with an AK47:D

[Kev Y.]

I am well and truely OVER David bluddy Hicks.. He was caught red handed doing something his country was against.. even if it was on the say so of George dubbya.

He appears to have displayed a lack of judgment in what he wanted to be involved in.

Then just because he is/was an Australian citizen we, the taxpayers of australia, are expected to dip into our pockets AGAIN, to help bring this moron home!!:(( :(( :(( :~

What really gets right up my nose is that WE supposedly paid for his damn father to fly to see him:o :o

Were we consulted:? No Bloody way.. And NOW just because he has decided to plead guilty, we may get to have him back here for the term of his incaseration!:~ :~ I dont think so!.

More of my damned hard earned dollars going out to feed some useless P%^@K and house him for however long he will be in prison..

STUFF IT, between this clown and those other cretins in prison in Bali, I have absolutly NO sympathy for any of them.. I was taught to take resonsibility for my actions.. just what are we teaching people like this:? :? :? :?

Sorry IF I an ranting but enough is enough

PHEW [rant mode off]

[Grunt]

If his guilt was so obvious why did they give him a fair trial in reasonable time frame?

The military commission is a kangaroo court. They got the only result that was acceptable to the US government.

[sundowner]

Yep, thats right, just a littlr kid who would have cheerfully killed Aussie troops and just a little kid who was part of a regime which is one of the most inhumane on the face of the planet..... Sod the "little Kid", I hope they keep the piece of ##### right where he is......... or perhaps if he was shot "attempting to escape"

Lucky little shyte,pleads guilty and still keeps his head

[echnidna]

Lucky little shyte,pleads guilty and still keeps his head

After spending 5 years in the modern equivalent of a mediaeval dungeon complete with torture facilities many (if not most) people would plead guilty.

THE obsecenity about Hicks is that he was held in prison without ANY charges being laid for 5 years.

So the moral of the story is that if someone with power decides to dislike you they can lock you up without any fair hearing for the duration of their pleasure.

[johnc]

This isn't about David Hicks so much as about American Justice. The whole idea of having a prison on Cuba is to make sure that real American Justice cannot be applied.

This is all about the right to torture, and to use processes that strike directly against any idea of international justice. It is purely revenge using sadistic and brutal methods against people who are denied any right to prove their innocense or guilt.

The idea that an Australian government would allow one of its citizens to be caught up in this mockery of a legal process shows that our politicians couldn't give a stuff about us as individuals and lack the moral integrity to speak out against injustice. We have become apologists for the Bush camp of right wing nutters, who incidently have proved themselves hopelessly inadequate in Iraq

Regardless of what Hicks deserves this process proves nothing other than the superiority of Amercian beligerence against justice and reason.

John.

[martrix]

here, here John.

[DavidG]

What John said.

[Bleedin Thumb]

It was with a fair bit of trepidation that I looked back at this thread. I felt it would be safe as after all this time, some of the ignorant, bigoted ranters would have seen past their own noses and realised that David Hicks is a pawn in a big, ugly political game.

Alas no the same old ignorant, vengeful sentiments are still being vehemently regurgitated.

There really is no hope for humanity.:( :no:

And for all those that share the sentiments of Brudda et al... if your son or grandson ever accidently got caught up in the shyte that Hicks just has - you better pray that the Western Justice is improving - it just seems to be getting worse from where I'm standing.

[JackoH]

I'm with Brudda! Don't get me started, (Red mist descending) else we'll be on to flag burners, greenies, libbers(of all types) and all those other noisy minority groups whose lives seem to be dedicated to bringing this great country of ours down.
The b#^*#*ds seem unable to realise that this is THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. If they said and did in public almost anywhere else what they say and do in Oz they would be incarcerated so quickly that they would not know what hit them. What's more they would like as not, never be heard from again!
There,I feel better now.

[Grunt]

I'm with Brudda! Don't get me started, (Red mist descending) else we'll be on to flag burners, greenies, libbers(of all types) and all those other noisy minority groups whose lives seem to be dedicated to bringing this great country of ours down.
The b#^*#*ds seem unable to realise that this is THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. If they said and did in public almost anywhere else what they say and do in Oz they would be incarcerated so quickly that they would not know what hit them. What's more they would like as not, never be heard from again!
There,I feel better now.

One of the things that makes this country great is that we have a sense of a fair go. Allowing one of our citizens to be put through a trial that was plainly unfair diminishes one of the things that makes this country what it is.

[Sturdee]

Unfortunately this is about the alleged American justice system.

David Hicks is being tried by the Americans as a terrorist as a result of their unilaterally declared “War on Terrorism”. If this is indeed a war than he is and should be treated as a POW under the Geneva Convention of which the US is a signatory.


Under that convention the US is indeed allowed to keep imprisoned any POW until they wish to release them. For instance the USSR, after WW2, marched all their German POW’s into Siberian labour camps and only started to release ordinary soldiers after 10 years, some officers after 15 years and any SS was never released.


But the US does not acknowledge Hicks, or anyone else, as a POW. Instead it tried to cloak their detaining of their detainees under some kind of show justice, that even the US Supreme court ruled unacceptable. They even keep them in a foreign country in an attempt to by pass American law.


Then when it finally comes to trial two-third of Hicks legal team is refused admittance to the court and the remaining one is left to battle on alone. And they call that justice.


Then there is the issue of a 5 year wait before the trial. In our country he would have been released by the Supreme Court long ago because justice delayed is justice denied.


So yes it is a trial of the American justice system and in my opinion it stinks and our PM is supporting this.


Now I don’t know if he was guilty or not but at this stage in the show trial that the US is trying to do ( just like Stalin did in the 30’3 and 40’s) it is irrelevant. What they are doing is not justice and unless they want to hold him as a POW until the war against terror is over they should release him.


Peter.

[JackoH]

Tell all that to the people who died in the twin towers, in Bali and all the other bombing atrocities around the world fuelled financed and encouraged by terrorists.
I seem to remember that when he was caught the consensus at my watering hole was "String the b#^*#^d up. Too bloody good for him!"
How time dims and softens the memory.
Now he's pleaded guilty for whatever reason. Probably so that he can come home and serve his time in a nice comfy(comparatively) Aussie prison!
Then the Australian taxpayer can fund his stay.

[Poppa]

I'm not a fan of David Hicks. Seems to me that he was aiding the terrorists and planning to fight for them, if he had not started to fight for them already.

But, we live in a democracy, and our country supports a basic standard of human rights. One of these rights is the right to a trial. We do not allow people (nor should we) to be held indefinitely without charge or trial. The US does, which is a blight on their democracy and an indictment on the Bush administration. Hicks should have been charged and tried years ago. By all means, if he is guilty of a crime, incarcerate him. But it is wrong to lock him up indefinitely without charge or trial. This is one of the freedoms that we are supposed to be fighting for.

In our system Hicks is also entitled to a fair trial with legal representation. I'm pretty sure that he isn't getting that. I think our government should stand up to the US and demand that he be sent home, so that he can be tried here. I'm rather sick of Howard's toadying attitude towards Bush - who is a president who has proven his lack of intelligence and his complete self-interest to the point where the majority of people in his own country don't want him as president anymore and the majority of people in the rest of the world despise him. Why is our PM cow-towing to a man like that?

[Bleedin Thumb]

[quote=Poppa;486116]. I think our government should stand up to the US and demand that he be sent home, so that he can be tried here. I'm rather sick of Howard's toadying attitude towards Bush - quote]

The Americans were practically begging Howard to apply to get Hicks sent home last year because they feared his trial was going to be an embarrassment.
But for some unfathomable reason our government wouldn't change their stance.

I think that (Matrix?) may be right about the timing of all of this.

One could never question Howard's intelligence or his political astuteness - its just his ideology that scares me.

[Grunt]

Then the Australian taxpayer can fund his stay.

We do this for every criminal.

[Sturdee]

Tell all that to the people who died in the twin towers, in Bali and all the other bombing atrocities around the world fuelled financed and encouraged by terrorists.


Rather irrelevant and inflammatory.

David Hicks was fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan when he was caught by the Northern alliance of warlords in Afghanistan and handed over to the Americans. They paid a rather large bounty for this as it suited the yanks to have something to show to their people of how good they were capturing alleged terrorists. But Hicks wasn't a terrorist at that stage but a soldier in the Afghanistan army.

Don't forget the Taliban regime was the legal government of Afghanistan who because they refused to hand over OBL were invaded by the US. A sovereign country that did not kowtow to the yanks, unlike us, was invaded because Bush didn't like their policies. Hence he should be treated as a POW.

But how can you expect justice from the US when Bush, with our support, invades countries like Afghanistan and Iraq when he doesn't like their internal policies. And they wonder why the rest of the world dislike them?

They wonder why more than 50 &#37; of Iraqies think it is right to bomb the invading and occupying forces.

No wonder Hicks is using the plea bargaining to regain his freedom.


Peter.

[Metal Head]

Hi,

Now all those people who said Hicks is scum. Have any of you contacted the former managers of AWB who gave millions of $$$'s in back handers to Saddam and his merry men?. We know for sure that money (Australian) was used to purchase weapons (maybe not of mass destruction but weapons all the same) has resulted in deaths of innocent Australians, many hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of innocent lives.

Don't you think they were traitors and deserve to be locked away in conditions like Hicks. No course not or you would have done something about it - at least whinged here at WW. Instead they are living in luxury in comparison.

It won't be long before the yanks will be dragging us into war with Iran which they have wanted for at least a couple of years now.

MH

[Bodgy]

Have any of you contacted the former managers of AWB who gave millions of $$$'s in back handers to Saddam and his merry men?. We know for sure that money (Australian) was used to purchase weapons (maybe not of mass destruction but weapons all the same) has resulted in deaths of innocent Australians, many hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of innocent lives.

Stretching a bit of a long bow there, Metal

1. Without these 'commissions' AWB would not have got the business. The US or Canada would have
2. The commissions went into the personal pockets of the then regime bigwigs, none of whom would be fighting or financing the present unrest. Too busy on their yachts and Swiss mansions (or executed)
3. Many Australians would have experienced a drop in living standards, particularly in the bush, had the price of wheat fallen due to a surplus supply

It's not right, but it is the way things go in many parts of the world.

[DavidG]

Any one who has done business in Asia knows that you need to grease the wheels.
It is considered an insult not to.

[Big Shed]

Never thought I would agree with Kevin Rudd, but I reserve my judgement until the end of this military commission. Until that time most of what the media is reporting is pure speculation and hype.

Mr Hicks will have to explain what he is pleading guilty to and that will make an interesting story, unless he commits perjury perhaps?

At the end of the day there seem to be 2 camps, anti-Hicks and pro-Hicks and I wonder how many in the pro-Hicks camp are really using this for a bit of old fashioned Howard bashing?

About the only one I have any respect for is Terry Hicks, any man that sticks up for his son and stands by him despite public opinion deserves respect.

At the end of the day, the truth about all this was lost long ago in the "fog of war".

[Daddles]

Have any of you contacted the former managers of AWB who gave millions of $$$'s in back handers to Saddam and his merry men?. We know for sure that money (Australian) was used to purchase weapons (maybe not of mass destruction but weapons all the same) has resulted in deaths of innocent Australians, many hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of innocent lives.

Stretching a bit of a long bow there, Metal

1. Without these 'commissions' AWB would not have got the business. The US or Canada would have
2. The commissions went into the personal pockets of the then regime bigwigs, none of whom would be fighting or financing the present unrest. Too busy on their yachts and Swiss mansions (or executed)
3. Many Australians would have experienced a drop in living standards, particularly in the bush, had the price of wheat fallen due to a surplus supply

It's not right, but it is the way things go in many parts of the world.

AWB was the worst offender by a long way. If you want to justify behaviour like that on the grounds that 'if they don't, someone else will', you'd might as just scrap any ideas of justice.

Oh hang on, that is what's happened. :doh:

David Hicks was fighting for another country. He broke NO laws - the charges against him have been trumped up since. The fact that that country also harboured a terrorist organisation is no justification for the appalling suspension of human rights and justice by the American government. That our government seems to think this all really neat is no justification either.

America has made this world far less safe than it was before because is has shown to the world that there is no justice in America nor are they interested in justice - they are only interested in chasing their own purposes. Welcome to the law of the gun (or the nuke as the case may be). That may have been the case before, but now that is acknowledged openly (is even government policy) and that is always the precursor to unrestricted use of that power.

David Hicks may have been misguided. He may have been a fool. He may even be the complete tosser that many believe he is, but his (and other's) treatment at the hands of the most powerful country in the world was and continues to be, appalling. Those who believe that torture, imprisonment without trial, deliberate attempts to divert whatever safeguards are present under a political system should consider what their position now is in this world. We, citizens of one of America's closest allies now have fewer rights and protections than Americans. And you're happy with that?

The American military is growing stronger and now that it has proven the methods for bypassing American justice, will only go from strength to strength. America isn't far from the point where a military coup can be affected legally and if not, without risk of failure.

But hey, that's not scary. We're America's friends ... you can tell that by the way they treat us :C

Richard

[Metal Head]

Stretching a bit of a long bow there, Metal

1. Without these 'commissions' AWB would not have got the business. The US or Canada would have
2. The commissions went into the personal pockets of the then regime bigwigs, none of whom would be fighting or financing the present unrest. Too busy on their yachts and Swiss mansions (or executed)
3. Many Australians would have experienced a drop in living standards, particularly in the bush, had the price of wheat fallen due to a surplus supply

It's not right, but it is the way things go in many parts of the world.

But does that mean it is right Bodgy - sorry I meant Dodgy given your values. It sounds like you would rather sell your ethics & morals for money rather than stand up for what is right. Thus not much difference to David Hicks who you think is a scum bag, so you should take a look at yourself before judging others.

So you would be one of those people who would pay protection money rather than stand your ground?. So it's all right for Williams (HIH) to screw a lot of elderly people out of their life saving if it means people like him can live a life of luxury when they have served their punny sentences.

What this about the poor farmers doing it tough they are one of the biggest bluggers in this country - always crying wolf when something goes wrong. If it isn't viable then like other industries here (mainly manufacturing) then close and go into another line of work. No one is making them do what they choose to do. We were having to pay through the nose when the banana's plantations were damaged. Why could we get them from overseas for a third of the price?. No it wasn't the fear of pests coming in but the government doesn't want to lose their votes because it knows it is on borrowed time:wink:. When Australians start thiking about others rather than themselves then this will be the country it once was.

MH

[johnc]

MH,

Lay off the farmers, your comments show a bigoted attitude with no understanding of the issues which I might add are not relevent to this topic. One thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that America has made sure its soldiers cannot be tried by any other country, infact it went out of its way to ensure that a U.N. resolution to make troops accountable to international law would not be applied to them. We should also reflect on the fact that its own troops have been involved in brutal prisoner abuse along with the rape of a 14 year old girl and the murder of her and her entire family. To the credit of the U.S. those responsible will be tried and punished if found guilty. However they will be tried in American courts according to U.S. rules.

These same rights are not available to those held at Gitmo and the yanks would find what they are doing to foreign nationals totally unaceptable if the roles had been reversed. This is utter hypocrisy by those blinded by a right wing fervour to punish anyone they feel threatened by, and runs counter to the rules we need to live by to maintain a civilised society.

John.

[Groggy]

Gents, discuss the topic but don't attack each other please.

[dazzler]

Guilty or innocent, just or unjust, the saddest thing in the whole episode is that Australia lost the greatest chance to get inside the mind of a fairly normalish, somewhat naive, perhaps somewhat dim witted, young male who was successfully "converted" to militant islam.

As a willing human source (intelligence and MO of militant islamist recruiters), and lets face it there were deals to be made upon his initial capture to entice this, would have been immeasurable.

Thats where we lost it big. :doh:

cheers

dazzler

[dazzler]

But does that mean it is right Bodgy - sorry I meant Dodgy given your values. It sounds like you would rather sell your ethics & morals for money rather than stand up for what is right. Thus not much difference to David Hicks who you think is a scum bag, so you should take a look at yourself before judging others.

So you would be one of those people who would pay protection money rather than stand your ground?. So it's all right for Williams (HIH) to screw a lot of elderly people out of their life saving if it means people like him can live a life of luxury when they have served their punny sentences.

What this about the poor farmers doing it tough they are one of the biggest bluggers in this country - always crying wolf when something goes wrong. If it isn't viable then like other industries here (mainly manufacturing) then close and go into another line of work. No one is making them do what they choose to do. We were having to pay through the nose when the banana's plantations were damaged. Why could we get them from overseas for a third of the price?. No it wasn't the fear of pests coming in but the government doesn't want to lose their votes because it knows it is on borrowed time:wink:. When Australians start thiking about others rather than themselves then this will be the country it once was.

MH

Hi Metal Head

You are welcome to come work on my FIL's banana plantation anytime.

Its great, we just bludge all day and the fruit somehow grows, is fertilised, weeded, desuckered, bunches picked, seperated, packed and off to market. No idea how it happens but were all too lazy to see how. :2tsup:

Come on up :2tsup:

[DavidG]

Time for a beer break.:drink:

We are all woodies here. :beer:

Lets respect each others rights to disagree
and be thankful that we can.