David Hicks

[martrix]

I will drink to that.:wink: And while your at it, ponder these stats below. They are the 2 most replied forums here.

<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><THEAD><TR align=middle><TD class=thead align=left width="100%">Forum</TD><TD class=thead width=175></TD><TD class=thead>Threads </TD><TD class=thead>Posts</TD><TD class=thead></TD></TR></THEAD><TBODY></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY id=collapseobj_forumbit_6><TR align=middle><TD class=alt1Active id=f11 align=left>GENERAL WOODWORK (http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=11)





</TD><TD class=alt2 noWrap>






</TD><TD class=alt1>5,085</TD><TD class=alt2>59,133</TD><TD class=alt1>





</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY id=collapseobj_forumbit_73><TR align=middle><TD class=alt1Active id=f43 align=left>NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WOODWORK (http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=43)





</TD><TD class=alt2 noWrap>






</TD><TD class=alt1>3,139 </TD><TD class=alt2>55,546</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[dazzler]

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.

But drinking beer gets rid of woodies....thats no answer :D

[Metal Head]

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:

Thanks for the offer Dazzler but I don't get out of bed for anything less than $30 an hour:wink:. Or are you paying more than peanuts up there?.

When I was doing some fruit picking down here in the early 90's, we were paid less than $14 per hour for a 10 hour day with tempertures often hitting the mid 40's. Even then the owners were whinging about how hard it was to make a buck - even though they often were driving around in brand new vehicles:?. Some people are never happy even when they are on a good thing.

[Greg Ward]

At last we have a supporter of freedom in Mr Metal Head.

It's great to hear wisdom from one with wise whiskers, a sage who in his youth managed to exploit poor but honest farmers to be paid a $14/hour wage for fruit picking (free fruit thrown in as an extra but not counted).

You're the type of worker I'd really enjoy having work for me on my farm. I reckon you'd really put in a solid days toil and never grumble or seek the shade.

Thank you for your mature well thought through non emotional nationalistic non combative forgiving and caring comments. I look forward to more pearls.
Regards
Greg

[Santalum]

And so it comes down to this, this reporter has nailed it.http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/guilty-puts-end-to-the-hicks-myth/2007/03/28/1174761563330.html

[Daddles]

And so it comes down to this, this reporter has nailed it.http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/guilty-puts-end-to-the-hicks-myth/2007/03/28/1174761563330.html


That's easily the most biased piece of reporting I've ever read :((
Gees, and people think the pro-Hicks camp are off with the pixies :doh:

Richard

[martrix]

And so it comes down to this, this reporter has nailed it.http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/guilty-puts-end-to-the-hicks-myth/2007/03/28/1174761563330.html
...in your opinion.

Journalist Miranda Devine (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s906791.htm)is another spanner in the 'tool' kit which also contains other jewel's such as Andrew Bolt from the Murdoch shock jock club......wake up to yourselves people.!

I'm not allowed to air so called vitriolic 'left' biased opinions, so in the name of fairness and impartiality, the vitriol sprouted from the extreme 'right' should also be deleted.

Surely this thread has run its course.:wink:

[HappyHammer]

IMO he's guilty as charged of providing material support I think the charge was. He's a convert who reported in to Al-Queda in Afganistan shortly after 9-11 he's obviously a little lost and if he was prepared to join in then he deserves the punishment. 5 years in Gitmo plus another 10 over here should do the trick....

HH.

[martrix]

IMO he's guilty as charged of providing material support I think the charge was. He's a convert who reported in to Al-Queda in Afganistan shortly after 9-11 he's obviously a little lost and if he was prepared to join in then he deserves the punishment. 5 years in Gitmo plus another 10 over here should do the trick....

HH.

Get the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks) before passing judgment.

[silentC]

That's easily the most biased piece of reporting I've ever read :((
Gees, and people think the pro-Hicks camp are off with the pixies :doh:

Richard
I would say it's naive. Except Miranda Divine couldn't be that stupid.

[Bodgy]

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?......

Metal Head

Chill mate. We're meant to discuss the issues and opinions raised, not trash each other.

I'll only make one comment on your post, and that is that the world is a far more complex place than you suggest.

[witch1]

i dont give a stuff about david hicks, guilty or innocent, i am deeply concerned about our governments gutless attitude in the entire matter.
witch1

[Daddles]

i dont give a stuff about david hicks, guilty or innocent, i am deeply concerned about our governments gutless attitude in the entire matter.
witch1

Amen. Sadly for the man involved, David Hicks himself is a side issue in this. No-one can feel safe in a world that believes that what the American government has done to him and others is right or justified or a 'good thing'. No, that isn't supporting the terrorists either - they need to be hunted down, their organisations destroyed and those promoting such appalling behaviour treated to some genuine justice. The sad fact is, that 'justice' no longer exists.

Richard

[Studley 2436]

I don't know that the SMH article was anything beyond a bit of inflamatory language. Egg on their faces and the like.

Couple of things though. The reason it took so long is because Hick's defence delayed it for this long. They needed time to stir up public emotion.

He didn't look skinny and starved to his father in spite of what the media said.

This small fish got to meet Osama Bin Laden.

What to do about the whole thing? Well that is the question. Under Geneva if captured you get sent to a POW camp where you get a certain level of care. Bedding food etc. BUT Hick's didn't wear a uniform or markings as Militia so Geneva doesn't apply. Mind you to just imprison him until the end of hostilities could be much more than a life sentence.

It's a messy situation where the law has been left behind. I think there is a good arguement that things such as the presumption of innocence do not really apply here, more of a are we wasting our time putting this guy behind bars or might he be a risk let out rule.

What do you do with the guy? It's a different war and different to what he law has had to deal with in the past. Myself I am not that concerned with what happens to David Hicks as much as I am concerned that we find a way to manage this struggle with those that wish to destroy our way of life.

I think we have made ourselves weak by being too much about rights and not enough about responsibilities.

Studley

[Bleedin Thumb]

What your saying Studley is that it is OK and even nessecary to bipass the laws and rights we have because of this new war on terror.

I cant accept that because that is exactly the end result of what these terrorist ( on both sides) want.

The Islamic extremist want the downfall of their own countries/region's political systems so they can be replaced by their own one eyed vision of how the world should be run according to Allah. They are using fear so that they can curtail the rights of their citizens because they feel that personal freedoms of the individual in society is dangerous.

And the right wing Christian extremists want to bypass democracy by using fear so they can curtail the rights of their citizens because they feel that personal freedoms of the individual in society is dangerous.

War on terror = War of fear. This is not a real war.

It is a trans global outbreak of ignorant, bigoted dogma being thrust upon us by some very unbalanced people who will go to any lengths to achieve their own sick visions of how we as humans should live.
IE they want to curtail our freedom and our personal rights - it is the only way that can exist in our world.:((

Who would have thought that George Orwell's novel 1984 was going to be so premonitory.

[Santalum]

I would say it's naive. Except Miranda Divine couldn't be that stupid.
No she's not, thats why she has the national ear and were posting our 2 cents worth in a forum very few will ever read, the guy has admitted he is guilty, you can argue the case until the cows come home and it wont change the fact.:tdown3: My last comment on the subject.

[Daddles]

My last comment on the subject.

Bet it's not :D

Richard

yes, having a shot at the poster, but a nice shot and I hope he takes it that way - anyone concerned enough to post here will feel the urge to do so again. The sensible ones won't of course, but there's nothing in the rule book that says you have to be sensible is there :wink:

[Studley 2436]

The Geneva convention was about governments and formalised war and men in uniforms serving the wishes of their respective governments. Terrorists do not fit this convention.

I don't think we should toss the lot but obviously our traditional interpretation of war and how it should operate does not really fit the current situation.

I don't know if there ever used to be any trials of combatants in wartime. We do know Hicks was fighting for the other side does there have to be a trial? In the old days of name rank and serial number that was admission enough you were fighting for the other side so lock you up and that's that. It is more complicated now.

How do we jail and manage terrorists without doing the same thing to normal people? We don't want normal people to lose their rights or ability to defend themselves against their accusers, but surely we want terrorists to be very quickly locked up or placed in a position where they cannot do harm to society? How do we balance this? So my thinking is that we should be prepared to move the lines a bit rather than toss the whole lot out. This is a long way from saying bypass laws and rights and I never said war on terror as that is just a spin doctors way of telling the story.

If you look at this more in the way of being civil unrest that needs to be contolled for the ultimate good of all law abiding citizens that might be better.

How should the law work or be allowed to operate to have the maximum impact on terrorists without infringing on the lives and rights of the law abiding majority?

That is a tough question that deserves thorough examination.

Studley

[silentC]

the guy has admitted he is guilty, you can argue the case until the cows come home and it wont change the fact
Do you think he's pleaded guilty because he done it and was caught bang to rights, or do you think he has pleaded guilty because he's been told that's the only way he'll ever get out while he's still young?

[dazzler]

No she's not, thats why she has the national ear and were posting our 2 cents worth in a forum very few will ever read, the guy has admitted he is guilty, you can argue the case until the cows come home and it wont change the fact.:tdown3: My last comment on the subject.

Seriously, why bother posting and then packing your toys away :?

[Bleedin Thumb]

That is a tough question that deserves thorough examination.

Studley

It sure is. And its made even harder by the misinformation that we are constantly fed and the fact that our own government has been duplicitous with us not only about Hicks and Iraq but about this whole "war"

Terrorism isn't a new phenomena its just that the world is smaller and lethal weapons easier to purchase - (thanks to many Western nations)
I don't find this a reason to abandon our rights as citizens, rights that our forefathers fought for ( in wars and social unrest )

I don't feel denying a person their rights is a way to combat global terrorism and I sure as hell don't want my rights infringed in anyway by some over zealous politician who wants to shore up his own power base.

I also fear that every time parliament passes a Bill that erodes our rights we will never get them back.




Global terrorism is like a disease and IMHO I think that it is best to find a cure for what is causing the problem instead of trying to fight it by invading countries and interfering with peoples rights .

[Studley 2436]

my assumption is that people do a plea bargain because they assume that if they go to court there is a decent risk they will go for more than they are plea-ing to.

Studley

[HappyHammer]

Get the facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks) before passing judgment.

That has just re-inforced my view....where's the rope?

HH.

[HappyHammer]

Do you think he's pleaded guilty because he done it and was caught bang to rights, or do you think he has pleaded guilty because he's been told that's the only way he'll ever get out while he's still young?

Toss a coin it could be either...my moneys on heads he did it....:2tsup:

HH.

[Bob38S]

It sure is. ...


I also fear that every time parliament passes a Bill that erodes our rights we will never get them back.

.


I'm sorry to say, your fears are well founded.

The really big fear, of course, is that when people are placed in a position that they no longer have anything to lose - then it becomes a revolution type of situation.

[silentC]

Toss a coin it could be either...my moneys on heads he did it
It doesn't matter either way, that is not my point. He wants out. It's not like he has seen the error of his ways, or he has been tortured into submission. He has simply been told that if he accepts the guilty plea he can be out by this time next year (or whenever). I would do the same in his position, guilty or not.

[HappyHammer]

Me too..the question is really how much time will he do when he's sent back and will we be safe when he gets out?:o

HH.

[Bleedin Thumb]

Me too..the question is really how much time will he do when he's sent back and will we be safe when he gets out?:o

HH.


Once he's been released I doubt that even ASIO will need to keep tabs on him. That will be done by ACA and 60 minutes etc.
The torture he received at Guantanamo Bay will pall into insignificance.

[silentC]

And Miranda!!

[HappyHammer]

Once he's been released I doubt that even ASIO will need to keep tabs on him. That will be done by ACA and 60 minutes etc

"And tonight a David Hicks exclusive......Concerned neighbours in Mascot complain about the personnel carrier and anti aircraft gun in his garden being an eyesore and the camoflague colour clashing with their curtains":o :o

HH.

[Bleedin Thumb]

:D LOL I can only imagine the spin the press will put on him.
reminds me a bit of ......was it Tim Anderson? remember him Ananda Marga, Hilton bomber etc

[Sturdee]

What to do about the whole thing? Well that is the question. Under Geneva if captured you get sent to a POW camp where you get a certain level of care. Bedding food etc. BUT Hick's didn't wear a uniform or markings as Militia so Geneva doesn't apply. Mind you to just imprison him until the end of hostilities could be much more than a life sentence.




Two points to consider.

1. He didn't wear a uniform as a Militia because none of the Afghanistan (Taliban) army did, so that doesn't apply.


2. The war in Afghanistan against the Taliban has been over for years, what they are now fighting is a civil war amongst the war lords and their tribes as the country disintegrated as a result of the American action.

This is similar to the war in Iraq, where the Sadam regime has been toppled and defeated. Again what we are now fighting to stop is a civil war amongst the various ethnic groupings of that country who woiuld prefer to split up and divide the country into its natural three parts. Something America don't want because it would affect its relationship, and military bases, with Turkey and the oil supply.


Hence he should have been released already if held as a POW.


Peter.

[coastie]

12 months in the pen if he is lucky,at taxpayers expense

[Studley 2436]

Fair point Sturdee the only thing I see is that it is not clear that he was a Taliban soldier. He did have dealings with Al Quaida. If he were released would he resume hostilities against us?

There are a lot of murky sort of angles on this one. I still think the question remains what to do next. What is best for Australia and her citizens.

Studley

[Sturdee]

I still think the question remains what to do next. What is best for Australia and her citizens.

Studley

That raises other points.

When he is released and no doubt deported, will the yanks deport him to England as he is now one of their citizens. Seeing as he renounced our citizenship and became British.

As a Brit does he need to migrate here in order to live here, if so will our government grant him the necessasry visas and residency permits.

If they do then until such time that he breaks one of our laws he should be allowed to go on his lawfull business, like everyone else.


Peter.

[Bob38S]

Just wondering "out aloud"

He has plead guilty.

If/when he gets back here, If he claims he only plead guilty because he wanted to get out of Gitmo, does this then mean, he has committed perjury????

Can anything he then says be treated as truthful???

The way his father has stood by his son [guilty or innocent] I think is admirable in the light of all that has gone on.

[dazzler]

Just wondering "out aloud"

He has plead guilty.

If/when he gets back here, If he claims he only plead guilty because he wanted to get out of Gitmo, does this then mean, he has comitted perjury????

Can anything he then says be treated as truthful???

No. you would need to prove that he had committed perjury using facts other than his testimony.

Need to remember in this country we dont base our entire legal system on "confessions". The US has this great system where if u plead guilty you then have to state what u did and they use this against you. Even if later it is proven that you were innocent then you are not released as you have confessed to it.:doh:

[Sturdee]

He has plead guilty.

If/when he gets back here, If he claims he only plead guilty because he wanted to get out of Gitmo, does this then mean, he has committed perjury????



Different jurisdiction, he wouldn't have committed perjury here.


Peter.

[Daddles]

Considering the prosecution is allowed to use evidence gained under duress (ie torture with a nicer name), I can't see how a bit of perjury would ever be an issue.

Richard

[fred.n]

The Yanks caught him

The Yanks have him in gaol

The Yanks will convict him

Let the Yanks have him......simple! Seems to me it's there problem, so let them deal with it.

[Sturdee]

Let the Yanks have him......simple! Seems to me it's there problem, so let them deal with it.

Can't agree with that attitude.

That's the same kind of attitude that the west took with Stalin's Russia and 20 million russians died under his rule. Similarly the US isolationist policy in the early 40's allowed Hitler to gass millions of jews. Need I go on with further examples.

We all have a responsibility to stand up for injustice where ever it occurs. Especially if it is someone born here and held by our supposedly closest ally.


Peter.

[Big Shed]

Whatever we think of Mr Hicks' predicament, he has his eye on the main chance.

Can't wait to write his "memoirs"

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21472765-910,00.html

And we can hardly equate the imprisonment of one man, false or otherwise, with the killing of millions of Jews, or millions of Russians, can we?
I'm sure the families of those people would see that in a different light.

Let's keep things in perspective!

[Sturdee]

Let's keep things in perspective!

Principles stay the same only the extent and scope of the details vary.

Injustice is injustice where ever it occurs, and to say that because the US is the one doing it we should stay out of it is wrong.


Peter.

[martrix]

Whatever we think of Mr Hicks' predicament, he has his eye on the main chance.

Can't wait to write his "memoirs"

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21472765-910,00.html



Hicks father Terry called in from Gitmo this morning, saying to John Faine that David had no wish to make money out of his story. In this day and age I find that hard to believe. However, if he remains a criminal he is not allowed to reap any profit from his crime......just like Corby.

[Sturdee]

However, if he remains a criminal he is not allowed to reap any profit from his crime......just like Corby.

Again different jurisdiction so that rule doesn't apply. Once Corby is out of jail and returns here no doubt she'll write her memoirs and keep the profit.


Peter.

[DavidG]

Sturdee
Sorry to say but the Au law has an overseas application.
No matter where the crime the Gov will take the money.

[martrix]

Again different jurisdiction so that rule doesn't apply. Once Corby is out of jail and returns here no doubt she'll write her memoirs and keep the profit.


Peter.
Hi Sturdee, so does that mean if he is to serve a sentence of say 5 years here in Australia,

• he can sell his story for $1 million straight away and keep the profits?

• after 5 years he can sell his story for $1 million and keep the profits?

• If he is tried and convicted once again under Australian law, he can never profit from his crime?

I don't profess to know much about the law.:-

[Sturdee]

Hi Sturdee, so does that mean if he is to serve a sentence of say 5 years here in Australia,

• he can sell his story for $1 million straight away and keep the profits?

• after 5 years he can sell his story for $1 million and keep the profits?

• If he is tried and convicted once again under Australian law, he can never profit from his crime?

I don't profess to know much about the law.:-

I would have thought that he would keep the profits as the crime has not been committed in Australia and in fact we don't even have any laws to charge Hicks under, so in the eye of our laws he could not even have committed his alleged crime.

The agreement to take and allow overseas convicted prisoners to serve their sentence here is a federal international agreement with specific overseas countries and has nothing to do with our legal system so it wouldnt apply to stop him publishing.

However DavidG thinks the law on this has overseas application, so I may be wrong.


Peter.

[Clinton1]

There are two polarised viewpoints here, and neither camp is able to comprehend the perspective of the other. Sad, really.... I myself know where I stand, and cannot comprehend how others simply "don't get it' ....

To quote myself:



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.


This desire to get revenge and lock David Hicks up regardless of the cost to our own basic human rights and freedoms... i.e. the Aus Govt acceptance of Hick's treatment sets a dangerous precedence.... puts all of us on a perilious path.
Something about cutting your nose off in spite of your face?

So, now there is the precedence for all of us to be treated in this same fashion.... i.e. suspected of something, incarcerated for years without trial, threatened with an unacceptable 'legal system', told there is a plea bargain, cop a plea bargain and punishment from your captors (not from an independant judge/jury) to try to get out of jail while still alive.... what a great gift for our children. AND people support this???
Bloody humans, most intelligent animals on the planet, and we apply our intellect to obtain such unacceptable outcomes. :((

[Studley 2436]

I don't know if there is such a thing about getting Hicks. His own people made him a public figure/issue. Part of their strategy was to delay any proceedings against him for as long as possible. They had no problem distorting the truth at all. Witness the reports they put out that he had lost weight was haggard bony and starved looking when he had in fact been putting on weight.

I don't think Guantanamo is such a bad prison. Hicks could have been tried and punished in Afghanistan but that would have been a lot tougher.

I think this goes to show what happens when lawyers try to bypass the courts and attempt to achieve their desired outcome by other means.

The Tribunal set up was formally approved by the US Supreme Court as being legal. When someone is captured as Hicks was the civilian courts are not really suitable for their trial. The Military is subject to the law however because of issues such as national security intel and the like there are problems with things such as having an open court and so on.

So back to what I said earlier, we might have to be prepared to adjust where we put the lines how much we consider the rights of the accused compared to how much we consider other peoples rights and so on.

I think that is the central issue but the shame is it is too much in the middle and most people are argueing around the edges so ignore that alltogether.

Studley

[DavidG]

Criminal Confiscation

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), in partnership with other federal law enforcement authorities, has a central role in taking action in the area of criminal confiscation.
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POC Act 2002) establishes a comprehensive scheme to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime against Commonwealth law. It can also be used to confiscate the proceeds of crime against foreign law.

The POC Act 2002 operates in addition to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (POC Act 1987), which applies to proceedings which were commenced before 1 January 2003.

[dazzler]

I don't know if there is such a thing about getting Hicks. His own people made him a public figure/issue. Part of their strategy was to delay any proceedings against him for as long as possible. They had no problem distorting the truth at all. Witness the reports they put out that he had lost weight was haggard bony and starved looking when he had in fact been putting on weight.

I don't think Guantanamo is such a bad prison. Hicks could have been tried and punished in Afghanistan but that would have been a lot tougher.

I think this goes to show what happens when lawyers try to bypass the courts and attempt to achieve their desired outcome by other means.

The Tribunal set up was formally approved by the US Supreme Court as being legal. When someone is captured as Hicks was the civilian courts are not really suitable for their trial. The Military is subject to the law however because of issues such as national security intel and the like there are problems with things such as having an open court and so on.

So back to what I said earlier, we might have to be prepared to adjust where we put the lines how much we consider the rights of the accused compared to how much we consider other peoples rights and so on.

I think that is the central issue but the shame is it is too much in the middle and most people are argueing around the edges so ignore that alltogether.

Studley

Hi Studley,

I am on two sides of the fence (that could hurt:p).

Firstly - What is Hicks. A POW or a terrorist. He was caught in a theatre of war as an enemy soldier. Forget what he may have been going to do or had trained to do, concentrate on what he did and can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The geneva convention takes precedence. Is the war he was invovled in over. Perhaps. Was he involved in "the war on terror" the answer is no. Maybe he wanted to be a part of it but did not get the chance. Still he did not take part in it. He was guarding a tank in Afghanistan.

I would suggest he is a POW and as such should be treated exactly as the Geneva Convention states he should be. Think of one of our soldiers being captured by the enemy. How would we want that person treated. Exactly as the geneva convention dictates. I doubt that would happen with the taliban however we dont as civilised people lower our standards in war.

After capture he should have been asked the standard questions and then imprisoned until the Taliban war was over. He would then be repatriated, just like all POW's back to Australia. If our govt could charge him with an offence then charge him, if not he would definately be a candidate for a control order. There would be absolutely no danger to us from him if this was the case. Control orders/surveillance/ASIO can deal with this.

So this is where I dont agree with the treatment.

Secondly - If decided that he is a terrorist then there needs to be reasonable grounds to believe he has committed a criminal act and afforded the same rights as you and me. A presumption of innocence, right to silence, the right to legal representation with legal privelidge. If argued that he is a terrorist then he committed the criminal act within Afghanistan and should be tried there. It has nothing to do with the US or any other country. I dont think he would have enjoyed being tried there but thats how it should be. That is the law.

As has been shown in the media, our police have charged and convicted a number of people within this country while maintaining the rights that we so often on ANZAC day celebrate. It is a very slippery slope to develop a sliding scale of human rights.

It is also a bit rich to suggest that his legal team had any bearing on the length of time. The role of the defence is to defend as strongly as possible and they did that.

So in short - If he is a POW then treat him as one. (CORRECTLY)
If he is a criminal then treat him as one. (CORRECTLY)

But dont make up a new group of people and treat them differently as they have down with the &#235;nemy combatant charge and throw out all the rules and make your own up. And that is exactly what the US, and our Govt did through acquiscence, did to one of our citizens (dopey, stupid or evil as he may be)

cheers

dazzler

[Big Shed]

Aren't we forgetting here that Mr Hicks trained with a terrorist organisation, which by definition isn't too concerned with legal niceties?

If your enemies then retaliate, perhaps they aren't so concerned with legal niceties either.

In other words if you are prepared to fight dirty, don't be surprised if your enemy fights dirty too.

From where I sit Al Qaida isn't too concerned with human rights and is quite prepared to kill 4000+ innocent people to further their aims, if you belong to that organisation don't expect too much sympathy from the nation you attacked.

Oh, just in case you are wondering, I am neither for or against Hicks. All I am saying is that if you are going to kick someone bigger and more powerful than you, you have to expect to get kicked back.

[dazzler]

:fixed:



iFrom where I sit Al Qaida isn't too concerned with human rights and is quite prepared to kill 4000+ innocent people to further their aims, if you belong to that organisation don't expect too much sympathy from the nation you attacked.




Just remind me, which country did DAVID HICKS attack? :?

[Big Shed]

Just remind me, which country did DAVID HICKS attack? :?

To quote that sentence in full, and not just the bit that suits you:

From where I sit Al Qaida isn't too concerned with human rights and is quite prepared to kill 4000+ innocent people to further their aims, if you belong to that organisation don't expect too much sympathy from the nation you attacked.

In other words, what I was trying to say, perhaps not very well, is that Mr Hicks belonged to a terrorist organisation that attacked the US.

But tonight Mr Hicks will tell the world what he is pleading guilty to and we can all stop wondering about what the spin doctors on both sides would want us to believe. It siad on the ABC News that there are another 80 people waiting to appear before the military commission, they don't seem to have many friends sticking up for them do they?

[johnc]

History is littered with those who went to the aid of another country as individuals to defend against what ever they saw is wrong. Be it the Alimo, the Spanish civil war, or those who acted as partisans (often in other countries) during world war 2. Hicks got himself on the loosing side, and ended up paying a price for doing so. I don't defend merceneries any more than American (and they do not stand alone) aggression or interference in countries such as Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador, or the arming of thugs in Afganistan to fight the Russians, and those thugs included Bin Laden. If Hicks had of been on the "right side" he may have been branded a hero rather than a terrorist, but like a dill he got in with right wing zeolots who had lost the plot.

Taking a narrow view and applying aggression to beat down and destroy a threat gets us no where, we need standards to protect human rights, civilised society and those rights extend to political, religous, economic, and above all individual security and freedom from oppression.

Every side is guilty of getting it wrong the west has a long history of pursuing its economic interests against the rights of weaker countries. We have in part provided the fuel to help the ratbags that are causing this mayhem, and we do have an obligation to think more widely than the individual.

Once a powerful nation sacrifices basic standards to impose an over zealous set of rules on the ratbags it raises the chances that it is feeding the hate that keeps these animals going and giving them more reason to keep going.

If instead of pouring billions into a futile war we had of spent it earlier raising the living standards of poor nations we may not be facing some of the issues we face today. The other half of this is our support of oppressive regimes and allowing their brutality to continue with our support, after all we supported Sadam until he attacked Kuwait, we didn't give a stuff while he wasted the lives of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians in a brutal war. When do we learn our lesson.

Hicks is a non issue, but the commission, which does not have the support of the supreme court is not and should not be acceptable. The Supreme Courts role in this is to decide if the American President has the power to set up such a commission, if it was on Amercian soil the Supreme Court may well decide it breaches the basic rights enshrined in the Amercian Constitution, but todate it has not needed to look at that point.

Lets not dwell too long on Mr Hicks, we do not know enough of his story and may never find out what motivated him and led him to Gitmo, but for him it is a path for which he is paying a price. It is the same type of foreign mercenary that is currently killing so many in Iraq, and they do not deserve much sympathy.

John.

[dazzler]

:2tsup:

[RETIRED]

I think on that note, this thread will be closed.