David Hicks

[bitingmidge]

Why is our press so fascinated with his position?

I don't remember them giving the same attention to the other poms in detention.

P
:cool: :cool: :cool:

[echnidna]

Well now that he's a pom by his own free choice I reckon our Government should refuse to give him a visa to enter Australia.

But it is obscene that he's been in Jail for 4 years and never been to trial.

[Grunt]

He became a pom ONLY because our government was happy to let one of our citizens rot in jail without the possibilty of a fair and timely trial.

[bitingmidge]

Oh I don't know, he seemed to be enjoying himself when he was an Afghani.

P
;)

[Grunt]

Maybe so but he still should be afforded a fair and speedie trial. It has been 4 1/2 years since his arrest and a trial is still not on the horizon.

The military tribunal he was going to be tried under was never going to be fair. The US Supreme Court has just ruled that there was no chance that David Hicks and the others would have a fair trial.

[echnidna]

I suspect he has a reasonable legal chance of walking free because his legal rights which are guaranteed to him under American constitutional law have been denied to him.

Our Government should be taken to task for acting to deny him a fair and impartial trial.

[Rowan]

He became a pom ONLY because our government was happy to let one of our citizens rot in jail without the possibilty of a fair and timely trial.


What a cynical view on life

in truth he beacame a pom only because he can play cricket:eek: :eek: :eek:

There is an ashes series coming up and they currently dont have a team that can stay out of hospital:D

[bitingmidge]

I don't get it.

How can any trial be fair when a bloke was picked up fraternising with the "enemy".

If he was an Afghani soldier on the wrong side what whould have happened? I imagine the trial would have been very swift indeed.

Surely one forfeits all normal rights when one takes up arms in another country other than in the name of one's own flag?

What possible reason could anyone have to train with a foreign force, and if one does why should they not be treated as a citizen of whatever regime they were supporting? Then the laws of that country would apply not ours.

Stuff like that used to be called treason.

Had these blokes been buying postcards, or lost on a backpakers trip, I'd have a different attitude.

Cheers,

P (the Unjust)
:cool:

[Greg Q]

He has no rights under the american constitution. None at all, because he is not an American, is not held on Amercian soil, and is charged as an enemy combatant. Whatever protections he has would stem from the Geneva convention.

David Hicks is at best a mercenary killer for hire, at worst a criminal psychopath who bounces from Kosovo to Afghanistan looking to insert himself into a situation where anarchy prevails so that he can dress in fatigues and brandish RPG-7's.

Just once I'd like to see the media describe him as "captive British hobby killer", which is more honest than "Australian captive".

Having said that, 4 1/2 years is too long to have to wait for trial.

[TassieKiwi]

True midge - but it still shouldn't take 5 yrs to come to trial, even if it is before an illegal tribunal that is not even recognised by its own country.

:eek:

Little Johnny - "David who?"

[Grunt]

Stuff like that used to be called treason.

Yes, he should be put to trial and if found guilty, punished appropriately.

[Grunt]

in truth he beacame a pom only because he can play cricket:eek: :eek: :eek:


That would be an insanity plea.

[echnidna]

Give him a fair trial,
then take him out and hang him.

[Bodgy]

I think insanity is where it's at. If you look at his adult life, he does display symptoms.

Yes, he should have had a fair and timely trial, but it's certainly not at the top of my agenda.

I think that the picture of him with a rocket launcher lost him any sympathy and erased most doubts.

Stupid, loony kid. Personally I'm more concerned about tonight's game. Can the Cane Toads do us?

[duckman]

Well now that he's a pom by his own free choice I reckon our Government should refuse to give him a visa to enter Australia.

But it is obscene that he's been in Jail for 4 years and never been to trial.

Hicks has dual citizenship and so can't be kept out of Australia.

[Sturdee]

Surely one forfeits all normal rights when one takes up arms in another country other than in the name of one's own flag?


Maybe not here anymore but it still ought to be as it was during WW2 and Vietnam. :mad:

In most countries you still automatically loose your citizenship when you enter a foreign country's armed forces. Hicks became an enemy soldier and thus lost IMO any rights to our protection or help, so let him rot where he is.

Don't forget that he fought for a regime that is still fighting our troops.


Peter.

[duckman]

I don't get it.

How can any trial be fair when a bloke was picked up fraternising with the "enemy".

If he was an Afghani soldier on the wrong side what whould have happened? I imagine the trial would have been very swift indeed.

Surely one forfeits all normal rights when one takes up arms in another country other than in the name of one's own flag?

George Orwell and numerous other people of note did just that in the Spanish Civil War and numerous other wars. Numerous American airmen were fighting in France during World War 1 long before America decided to fight. Are you suggesting that the Allies should have declined their offer to fight with us?




Stuff like that used to be called treason.

No it didn't. Treason is an act against ones own country. In what way did Hicks act against Australia?:confused:

[duckman]

David Hicks is at best a mercenary killer for hire, at worst a criminal psychopath who bounces from Kosovo to Afghanistan looking to insert himself into a situation where anarchy prevails so that he can dress in fatigues and brandish RPG-7's.

Just once I'd like to see the media describe him as "captive British hobby killer", which is more honest than "Australian captive".

Having said that, 4 1/2 years is too long to have to wait for trial.

Under Australian law a mercenary is someone who is paid to fight AGAINST the government of another country. Like them or loathe them, the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan and Hicks was fighting for them. He's not a mercecary. His most certainly is a dickhead however who clearly is too stupid to realise what he was getting himself into. I just wish they'd either try him before a court or let him go. The Yanks are their own worst enemies when they circumvent international law and conventional norms in the way they are.

[Groggy]

The Yanks are their own worst enemies when they circumvent international law and conventional norms in the way they are.Not sure what you are referring to here. If you mean the Geneva convention, the US did not agree to the whole thing and may not be in contravention.

But on another subject, why is it the nutters are not charging over to North Korea to complain? Surely if human rights are an issue worth complaining about then that is the best place to start.

[dazzler]

Coupla points

Australia was not at war with anyone when hicks got involved with the Taliban and he is hardly a brain surgeon.

Sadly, the greatest loss for the "war on terror" is losing him as a human source. Finding out how and why he ended up where he is and the routes/contacts that he had to get there would have been invaluable from a security point.

Better not mention how many australian serbs went back home during that conflict, and not all were on holidays:rolleyes: .

He is just a silly little kid, looking for adventure and an adventure is what he got.

Does anyone really swallow the "worst of the worst" label the US has put on him. :rolleyes: If he's the worst of the worst then we dont have much to fear really.

dazzler

[Christopha]

Coupla points




He is just a silly little kid, looking for adventure and an adventure is what he got.

.

dazzler

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"

[fxst]

I'm with Chris on this one. We have enough trash here now.
Pete

[bitingmidge]

Are you suggesting that the Allies should have declined their offer to fight with us?
No, but I am suggesting that they should have (and may have):
a) Obtained the permission of their own country to do so,
or in the event that permission was not forthcoming, and they felt strongly enough to fight-
b) Become a citizen of one of the countries that they were defending.

End of problem


No it didn't. Treason is an act against ones own country. In what way did Hicks act against Australia?:confused:
Perhaps that is what the court will tell us. In the meantime, if you aren't with us, you're against us.

If he wanted to fight, there are a couple of uniforms he could have slipped into here.

Cheers,

P

[dazzler]

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"

But we wasnt at war wif no one!:rolleyes:

And what was he doing when he was caught. Trying to get the hell out of there.:rolleyes:

Maybe silly little kid is too simply.....dumb a## maybe. :p

Fighting against Aussie Troops wouldnt even been on the horizon when he was there.

[AlexS]

He may be a stupid dirkhead. He may be a treasonous mercenary. He may be the worst of the worst. He may just be a very naughty boy.

Until he's put on open trial, we'll never know.

[dazzler]

No, but I am suggesting that they should have (and may have):
a) Obtained the permission of their own country to do so,
or in the event that permission was not forthcoming, and they felt strongly enough to fight-
b) Become a citizen of one of the countries that they were defending.

End of problem


Perhaps that is what the court will tell us. In the meantime, if you aren't with us, you're against us.

If he wanted to fight, there are a couple of uniforms he could have slipped into here.

Cheers,

P

The intel on hicks is that he was influenced by fundamentalist islam and willingly came to identify with the "cause", that being the supposed injustice against Islam. The fact that a kid from aus can be influenced in this manner is what is important from a national security perspective.

Why did this happen and how can we prevent it happening again. Shooting him does not make our lives safer nor add to our understanding of radical grooming. And that is where we lost out.

dazzler

[duckman]

No, but I am suggesting that they should have (and may have):
a) Obtained the permission of their own country to do so,
or in the event that permission was not forthcoming, and they felt strongly enough to fight-
b) Become a citizen of one of the countries that they were defending.

End of problem


Obtained permission? Geez... I thought here in the West we were all living in relatively free countries. If you're going to compel individuals to seek permission before acting like dickheads, you'll have to expand the public service by several orders of magnitude.:eek:



Perhaps that is what the court will tell us. In the meantime, if you aren't with us, you're against us.
To whom are you referring?



If he wanted to fight, there are a couple of uniforms he could have slipped into here.

Cheers,

P

My nephew was wearing one of those uniforms (HMAS Anzac) but we weren't at war with anyone then, so close, but no cigar.

Hooroo...:)

[bitingmidge]

Obtained permission? Geez... I thought here in the West we were all living in relatively free countries. Yes and we are free to defect if we wish. Think about this for a minute, hypothetically let's invent a new religion. Lets' call it football. Followers of football all wear the colours of their team and are clearly identifiable by that.

Now let's say a blue team follower was without reference to the team, to deface and iconic statue owned by the maroon team, or worse fly a plane into one or two of it's office buildings. I'd reckon the maroon team would want to do battle with the whole blue team and knock their socks off. That would happen even if the blue team didn't sanction any part of it, and they'd have to talk really quickly, specially if the maroon team had missiles ready to destroy their weapons of mass destruction.

So. A foreign national fighting an unsanctioned war could put his country at risk by his very action. He could be seen as a spy, part of a covert operation, or even a deliberate act of war mongering by his country. Not on, our country is free because we allow these dopes to leave, and stay left!!

To whom are you referring?
To anyone for whom the coat fits.


My nephew was wearing one of those uniforms (HMAS Anzac) but we weren't at war with anyone then, so close, but no cigar.
But correct me if I'm wrong, if you really are spoiling for a fight, there are ways and means of arranging exchanges or transfers to other countries where you'll get it?

Or you could always just go (excercising your rights in a free country) and seek asylum in a war torn country!

Cheers,

P:rolleyes:

[Eddie Jones]

"Treason is an act against ones own country. In what way did Hicks act against Australia?"

With Aussie troops in Afghanistan at the time - OK, no declared war, but our troops were "in harms way". I say that makes his actions "against Australia" and therefore treason. If ordered, do you think he would have refused to shoot an Aussie soldier? If you do , you also believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Shoot the dickhead and get it over with.

[E. maculata]

I don't think any one outside the inside few in the US intell circle & Hicks himself actually know what he was really doing at the time, I see it this way, Aussie Bloke whether a dixhead or not is held without trial & without recourse by Foreign power & we say he deserves it, bluddy great day & age ain't it, sorta Breaker Morantish, wonder what we'll all say about it in 10 years time, yeah the US intelligence agancies always been sticklers for truth in the past:( .

[Sturdee]

Bruce,

I have been known to be very critical of the USA, I totally agree with many of their foreign policies and I think that a lot of the world's hatred against them is brought about by themselves.

But in this case they can do what they like with him. When Hicks left and joined another country's army IMO he lost any rights to sympathy or support from us. He is IMO a traitor to this country and should be stripped of his citizenship.

The PC claptrap we keep hearing from the doogooders about how he was misguided, foolish and silly sickens me. Let him rot where he is.


Peter.

[bitingmidge]

I see it this way, Aussie Bloke whether a dixhead or not
Well you see Bruce, that's what prompted me to kick off this thread. We are the only ones stupid enough to call him Aussie.

He doesn't want to be one.

He wasn't all that good at being an Afghani it would appear, so he remembered he was actually a Pom.

Cheers,

P;)

[Grunt]

Well you see Bruce, that's what prompted me to kick off this thread. We are the only ones stupid enough to call him Aussie.

He doesn't want to be one.

He wasn't all that good at being an Afghani it would appear, so he remembered he was actually a Pom.

Cheers,

P;)

If his guilt is beyond doubt, why not give him a fair trial in a timely manner? He'll be found guilty and punished accordingly. It concerns me that the U.S. is bent on trying him in what amounts to a Kangaroo Court.

Having a photo of someone with a grenade thrower doesn't make him guilty. There was a photo recently of an AWB boss with an AK-47 in his mits when he was in Iraq. Did that make him a terrorist?

The reason why he won't be brought back to Australia for trial is that he hasn't broken any Australian law. We've since changed the law but at the time it was not an offence.

[Grunt]

I hope for those that are happy to have people kept in jail without charge, without hope of a fair trial that they or their children don't find themselves in in similar circumstances.

[Gra]

he remembered he was actually a Pom.
P;)

I dont think he remembered he was a pom, he just became one, because our govt is so far up the US govt !@##$, that it cant stand up to them, whereas the pommies did and their people are home now.

My thoughts are he was a @#$head, but no-one deserves to be stuck in a prison for an unlimited term with no trial. Give him an open and legal trial and then do what you like with him, these kangaroo courts they are looking at setting up are just wrong..

I am sure if he gets off, he can always suddenly dissapear, it isnt as if the US hasnt done that before...

[bitingmidge]

Now let's say a blue team follower was without reference to the team, to deface and iconic statue owned by the maroon team, or worse fly a plane into one or two of it's office buildings. I'd reckon the maroon team would want to do battle with the whole blue team and knock their socks off. That would happen even if the blue team didn't sanction any part of it, and they'd have to talk really quickly, specially if the maroon team had missiles ready to destroy their weapons of mass destruction.

What happens of course is the Maroon team gives the blue team a right old flogging, and so the miscreant has to sit it out for a year to see what will happen next year!

;)

P

[Groggy]

There was a photo recently of an AWB boss with an AK-47 in his mits when he was in Iraq. Did that make him a terrorist?No, but it does increase the odds somewhat...:rolleyes:

[E. maculata]

Unfortunately, while not being a cynic par se' I'm extremely cynical of mainstream populist media (been misrepresented grossly without permission or recourse once myself in a 15 minutes of fame sorta fiasco). And I absolutely do not and unless proven beyond doubt to be wrong, and will not believe any of the cwap that G.W & Bonsai are sprouting about the Afghani/Iraq operations (they were/are mongrels, but who financed & trained & installed them in trhe first place...Mmmmmm, hadta stop those pesky commies in the 80's), did anyone actually tell the afghani people we were at war with them?, how would they have known? radio, newspaper, TV. I'm not quite that stupid.
The superpower, powers that be in question will use any means to vindicate their "cause", one Australian, more or less is what? in the scheme of things?.

Don't like Bullies never will, no matter what the colours of the Flag they fly, Patriotism is also well documented to be the last refuge of scoundrels whom have no other defence for their actions.
Like the man says Give him a fair trial, lets see how big a wakka he is or isn't, so far all I see is his Dad, trying any trick he can think of to free his boy, wouldn't we all do the same.
Family before politicians anytime, especially the current crop of zealots from either side, racing to see who sacrifice their citizens rights first. Have always thought if pollies had to lead the charge from the bunkers there would always be "diplomatic" solutions to every problem.
This is my opinion I will stand corrected if history proves me wrong.

This is the crux of my argument G.W Bush is not a good & honorable person.

[Greg Ward]

Whenever anyone spouts religiosity, uses the word 'God' to show how honourable they are or believes they hold the high moral ground ...................... watch out.

And that refers to all sides of this argument.

Hicks.

Simple.
He is a prisoner of war and is being held as such. You don't release prisoners of war as they could possibly re-enter the action again.
........Yes I know....... The Genva convention......... Let's wait until the war finishes.

The war continues, so he and his fiends (sorry friends) can stay there until it is over.

That may take some time

Greg

[Zed]

im reluctant to enter this debate:D , but in a "war against terror" where the combatitants are zealots rather than nation states, the war could and I hazard a guess, will take forever. thus mr hicks and his ilk may spend a fair whack of thier breathing time in a cube, much of it without a trial. this is grossly unfair in any circumstance, try him and convict then select an appropriate punishment if relevant. dont let him rot without justice.

earth would be better off without humans. "Chimps for Dominant species!"

[bitingmidge]

try him and convict t

I thought we were doing that right now. (Not in any particular order)


The reason why he won't be brought back to Australia for trial is that he hasn't broken any Australian law. We've since changed the law but at the time it was not an offence.
And here was I thinking it was because he was captured by the Seppos. Note "captured" not "arrested".

Why should he be brought back here for trial? Why should he have a different status to any other tourist? Schapelle et al weren't brought back for trial!


I hope for those that are happy to have people kept in jail without charge, without hope of a fair trial that they or their children don't find themselves in in similar circumstances.
I've told all my kids that it's not wise to seek military training in remote camps of foreign powers that may one day be considered a threat to "the free world", and so far they seem to have listened.

If he'd been arrested outside Woolies Parramatta in broad daylight and held without charge, I'd have a different view.

Cheers,

P

[silentC]

Yep no one to blame but himself. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. He's made his bed, he can lie in it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. A rolling stone gathers no moss. Great oaks from small acorns grow. A bird in the hand is better than having to look at George W. Bush. You know I'm right.

[craigb]

I'm surprised that it's taken so long for this topic to pop up on the board.

IMO Hicks is a d'head who suffered from a bad case of Short Bloke Syndrome (SBS).

However, 4.5 years is too long to be held in custody without charge.
He should be charged tried before a fair court and if convicted punished accordingly.

What's that saying? "Justice delayed is justice denied"?

I also think that Midge is just indulging in that good old Aussie pastime of Stirring the Possum. :D

[silentC]

that good old Aussie pastime of Stirring the Possum
Let's hope they never make that a crime :eek:

[bitingmidge]

I also thing that Midge is just indulging in that good old Aussie pastime of Stirring the Possum. :D

Moi? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh no! If I'd been doing that, I'd have painted the picture of Hicks greeting those Seppo soldiers with a cry of:

"Thank God you're here!"

ooops!

P
:D :D :D

[Grunt]

Let's hope they never make that a crime :eek:

Let us charge Midge for crimes against The Bulletin Board.

The punishment could be 4 1/2 years naked with Zed. We don't have to worry about a trial, 'coz we all know he's been seen with Al so he has to be guilty.


I've told all my kids that it's not wise to seek military training in remote camps of foreign powers that may one day be considered a threat to "the free world", and so far they seem to have listened.

The problem is, if you let the rules be bent a case like this, then rules become more flexible.


Yep no one to blame but himself. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. He's made his bed, he can lie in it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. A rolling stone gathers no moss. Great oaks from small acorns grow. A bird in the hand is better than having to look at George W. Bush. You know I'm right.

Absolutlely, give him a fair and speedie trial. If he is found guilty, hang him by the balls.

If this was some third world country that had one of our citizens held in their jails for 4 1/2 years the government would be doing it's best to have him released.

[silentC]

The way I understand it, he isn't being held as a criminal, he is being held as a prisoner of war. The difference, again as I understand it, is that there is no such thing as a 'trial' for a prisoner of war. They are held in captivity until the end of the conflict and then they must be set free. So, technically, when the 'war' is over, he walks free. No trial, just a handshake and "on your way, son".

I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Why would the yanks care so much about him being a free agent again, what are they trying to hide? Does he know something that he shouldn't?

[bitingmidge]

Let us charge Midge for crimes against The Bulletin Board.

The punishment could be 4 1/2 years naked with Zed.

What's Zed done to deserve THAT? :eek: :eek: :eek:

P
:D

[Groggy]

If this was some third world country that had one of our citizens held in their jails for 4 1/2 years the government would be doing it's best to have him released.Very true Grunt, if it was Indonesia there'd be uproar.

[Eddie Jones]

"He is a prisoner of war and is being held as such. You don't release prisoners of war as they could possibly re-enter the action again."

Thanks, Greg. You and SilentC (sorry if I missed someone) seem to be the only ones to notice that small fact. During WW2, God-knows-how-many-thousands of our lads were locked up "for the duration" because they were "captured enemy combatants". We did the same to the Germans and Japs we captured. Remember Cowra? For pity's sake, you didn't even have to be a combatant! Being German in Australia meant incarceration for the duration of the war! All, BTW strictly a la Geneva convention.

Isn't that what's happening to Hicks?

[Groggy]

We did the same to the Germans and Japs we captured. Remember Cowra? For pity's sake, you didn't even have to be a combatant! Being German in Australia meant incarceration for the duration of the war! All, BTW strictly a la Geneva convention.

Isn't that what's happening to Hicks?There are important differences. There was a declaration of war between countries and the incarcerations were not specific to individuals.

Afganistan has not had war declared on it, the terrorists within the country have. It's more than a little confusing and taking a lot of time for the lawyers to work out - especially the rules of engagement etc.

Suffice to say, it two large buildings full of people in Oz were hit by hijacked planes we'd probably have locked up just about everyone from the country, including Afgan dogs and rugs to boot. Frightened people will do amazing things as a group.

[silentC]

There was a declaration of war between countries
So how do they handle it in the modern situation, where open warfare exists but where there was no formal declaration and one of the parties is an extremist religious group acting like a jilted ex-lover.

Always seemed a bit silly to me. A bunch of blokes agree to meet in the middle of a field at 1:15pm, after lunch, to slog it out, and whoever remains standing at the end of the day wins. All "honour on the battlefield" and drummers and silly uniforms. Hmm, sounds a bit like something else. Midge may be on to something.

[Groggy]

So how do they handle it in the modern situation, where open warfare exists but where there was no formal declaration and one of the parties is an extremist religious group acting like a jilted ex-lover.That's my point silentC, they are on uncertain ground legally. This is made worse by a need to "do something" about the guys crashing planes into their cities.

From their perspective, they're damned if they do and dead if they don't.

[silentC]

It's a bit hard when one party is expected to operate 'by the rules' and the other just does whatever it wants to. I don't envy their position, kind of glad the only things I have to worry about are more mundane.

[stevebaby]

As I understand it,Hicks did not join the taliban to fight the US or Australia.he joined to fight the northern alliance.He was captured by them while attempting to flee the field of conflict and sold to the us for the bounty offered,as were many other of the detainees held and subsequently released.
Surely if there were any evidence against him the US would be keen to publicly try him and justify his imprisonment?The fact that they have not suggests that they have no evidence.
The US was engaged in negotiations with the taliban over Unocal's proposal to build a gas pipeline across afghanistan and recognised them as the legally constituted government of afghanistan,3 weeks before 9/11.The US had supplied the taliban with arms finance and training,as had saudi arabia.
There were cultural reasons for the reluctance of the taliban to hand over bin laden.In their culture,they were obliged to protect,with their own lives if necessary,someone who had sought their protection.It was a matter of honour,something not to be taken lightly in those parts.
Hicks did not become a British citizen by choice.He became a British citizen at the moment of his birth,by virtue of the fact that his mother is a British citizen.
The Australian government has confirmed that he cannot be tried for any offence in Australia as he has not broken any Australian laws.
The US has recognised the right of every other country party to the conflict in afghanistan to have their own citizens released and returned to the country where they have citizenship.Hicks is the exception,due to the recalcitrance of the Australian government.
He should be either released and returned to Australia (or Britain,since he apparently has dual citizenship,like many other Australian citizens.),or given a fair and open trial.
If saddam hussein can be put on trial in his own country,why can't Hicks?
In the larger scheme of things,Hicks is unimportant.I don't sympathise with his beliefs any more than the US,for their own cynical reasons,did when they put the taliban in power.What is important is the principle of justice and in this case it has been denied.
Ironic,isn't it,that saddam hussein can get a quick and apparently fair trial,and Hicks cannot?

[stevebaby]

The way I understand it, he isn't being held as a criminal, he is being held as a prisoner of war. The difference, again as I understand it, is that there is no such thing as a 'trial' for a prisoner of war. They are held in captivity until the end of the conflict and then they must be set free. So, technically, when the 'war' is over, he walks free. No trial, just a handshake and "on your way, son".

I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Why would the yanks care so much about him being a free agent again, what are they trying to hide? Does he know something that he shouldn't?The US insists that Hicks is not a prisoner of war,since to do so would entitle him to the rights of a POW.
The US claims that he is an "enemy combatant".
As so many foreign policy decisions by the US have demonstrated,this is something else to "blowback" on them.

[silentC]

Saddam was not captured as an enemy combatant and made a prisoner of war, he was arrested and tried for war crimes against the Kurdish people and others. Subtle difference, I know.

[Grunt]

something else to "blowback" on them.

They used to call this Karma.

[Waldo]

G'day,

I'm going to wade in here and stir a 44gal drum full of possums.

Not long after Hicks came to notice for what he'd done and also Majum Habib (sp) Ch. 2 instigated two separate investigations into the story of where, what etc. and even by their own resources where able to find that the charges laid against them were credible and justified.

I'm sorry but if you get caught playing cricket with the other team then that's it baby, you can't hand back your bat and ball and say you don't want to play any more because your team lost.

No sympathy from me and you can't tell me they were just playing games and were going to come back inside when Mum had tea ready on the table.

[Toolin Around]

I also think that Midge is just indulging in that good old Aussie pastime of Stirring the Possum. :D


Let's hope they never make that a crime :eek:


If I were to take that literally I'd be surprised if weren't a crime. Don't they do that sort of thing in NZ with sheep?

[silentC]

My attitude to it is the same. If you want to play with the big boys, don't cry when you get hurt. What kind of an idiot would go over there looking for trouble anyway? What kind of trouble would he have caused here if he'd stayed at home. No sympathy from me either. Let the Brits work out what to do with him. Let's hope they keep him.

[Daddles]

So Waldo, I assume then that you think it's okay for a country to build a prison that is deliberately outside its own laws, to incarcerate anyone in that prison that they choose, to keep them manacled and isolated, to torture them physically, psychologically and emotionally in an attempt to gain intelligence, and to make the whole process open ended.

I'm afraid I'm about to be labelled the resident bleeding heart again, because I don't think that's fair and reasonable behaviour for a modern country. Regardless of any crimes Hicks may have committed, this is an of abuse of military power and our government's wholesale support of that abuse is an appalling embarrassment. America is only able to get away with this because they are the biggest bully in the playground.

Hicks? The man is a misguided fool. He is not and never was a terrorist. He wasn't even a member of the organisation that committed terrorist acts. That he chose to fight for another country is nothing new and there is nothing wrong with that, or should we now condemn all the Americans who travelled to England to fight Germany during WWII. And consider this, when he chose to do so, not only was that country not at war with Australia or America, it was effectively an ally of the people that have now imprisonned him. It also appears that he was trying to escape the fight in Afghanistan, he was not actively fighting against the Americans. Regardless of that though, his treatment, even as an 'enemy combattant', is appalling. Note the deliberate, pedantry use of labels so that America can avoid any sort of legal scrutiny of its behaviour?

This whole business does America no credit. Sadly, our own government has wholeheartedly supported this abuse of military might and as a result, we too are guilty of this abuse.

Richard

[Grunt]

Again, why don't they give him a fair and speedie trial? If his guilt is so beyond doubt, then the trial is monty and he'll be inprisoned for the rest of his life.

The longer it goes on the more I think the U.S. has something to hide.

[Greg Ward]

Prisoners of war get released when there is no possibility of them rejoining the conflict. Call them what you like at G Bay, they are still prisoners of a war.

If many at G Bay were released back to their homeland(s), in time, most would make tracks back to wherever they can again join the fray.

So what do you do with them?

You can kill them (naughty and not allowed) or lock them up until such time they can do no harm

When will that be?????

I think they'd better get used to prison life. most of them are lucky to be alive in any event.

Greg

[Waldo]

It also appears that he was trying to escape the fight in Afghanistan,

G'day Daddles,

But what was he escaping from? :confused: That can only leave one answer.

I will however agree that Guantanamo Bay isn't the right way to do it, especially as the US have gone out of their way to set up a prision for such purposes as to keep the likes of Hicks in but think it's legal because it's outside of US soil so therby giving themselves a legal technicality to justify it.

But he made his own bed so he can sleep in it.

[silentC]

Here's a thought. He's a european convert, not born into Islam. He probably has inside knowledge of the organisation that the US is fighting against. Maybe they think that they can get information out of him more easily than they could from one of his more dyed-in-the wool brethren. It's 4 year old information now though, so probably not much use. Or maybe they already got it but don't want him talking about how they got it?

Nobody knows all the facts, most of what people are saying here is speculation or cover story. We don't know anything about him. His old man wants him painted as a good boy with silly ideas. The yanks want him painted as a terrorist/mercenary. Lefties want him painted as a scapegoat. God knows what Bin Laden and his mates want him painted as. Who are you going to believe?

Shouldn't have been there. Can't blame anyone but himself for his predicament.

[Waldo]

G'day,

SlilentC is agree with you all the way on your above post.

[dazzler]

My attitude to it is the same. If you want to play with the big boys, don't cry when you get hurt. What kind of an idiot would go over there looking for trouble anyway? What kind of trouble would he have caused here if he'd stayed at home. No sympathy from me either. Let the Brits work out what to do with him. Let's hope they keep him.

But the Taliban was not at war with the US when he went there.:o


Here is a question?

I belong to a mainstream non-christian faith. Members of my faith are having thier human rights removed in Egypt. Some have been murdered by the regime.

now if i went there to help my people, by peaceful means such as demonstrating peacefully etc, and I was arrested, should the Govt help me?

I would think they should. I am still australian. Maybe a bit dumb to go there but a still australian.

Hicks went to afghanistan to help his "people" who he believed, rightly or wrongly, were being persecuted. While there the team he was on was declared war on by another team. He didnt shoot anyone, didnt engage in conflict, was left to mind a tank and then did a runner. master terrorist:rolleyes:

So if he has done something wrong then charge him. Just like we do in democratic countries.

Why is this so hard.......He is an aussie, he deserves the same protection and assistance that each of us has. he now has dual citizenship, as is his right, with UK.

[Greg Ward]

If you went to Egypt and indulged in fighting the Government and were arrested, don't expect any assistance from the Australian Govt. You do the time in the country where you commit the crime, unless there is a prisoner exchange programme.

So, go to Egypt if you must, but don't expect sympathy if you get caught.

Regarding the Taliban, and Afghan fighting; afghanistan was not the homeland of Hicks, did he request citizenship there?
If not, he was just a western adventurer sloshing around in a romantic notion of whatever indoctination Islamist group he became involved with.

The moment the US became involved, he should have caught the next train home, not stayed around for the fun.
Regards
Greg

[dazzler]

If you went to Egypt and indulged in fighting the Government and were arrested, don't expect any assistance from the Australian Govt. You do the time in the country where you commit the crime, unless there is a prisoner exchange programme.

Regards
Greg

Greg

Whose talking about fighting the govt?:eek: Reread what I wrote.

So who did Hicks fight?:confused: Who did he shoot at?:confused: Were our troops near him? :confused: Did he shoot at them?:confused:

Now if he did shoot at them then fine, I understand that to be treason, then drag his sorry butt back here and charge him.

If he didnt shoot at our soldiers or anything similar and we cant find an offence then drag his sorry butt back here, cancel his passport and let our security bros and sisters deal with it.:D

Aus cannot even use him as a human source now. After the amount of interrogation, and his little stayover on the way to US, He would tell you the moons pink if you asked him now.

cheers

dazzler

[Waldo]

was left to mind a tank

G'day Dazzler,

If he was left minding a tank, then in my books that means he was engaged in a military conflict, not some tourist who was walking by and got asked, 'Hey mate! Would you mind looking after my tank for me?"

You did say regime, which is a government of sort - it is still a party who hold power.

I don't know your curumstances or that back in Egypt, but Dazzler, by all means if you feel compled to protest, be it peacfully then do so, but like Greg has said, if that turns to a violent confrontation then that may open up to something else, and might well be a foolish thing to do.

[silentC]

by peaceful means such as demonstrating peacefully
Yeah, right. David Hicks was a peacenik who likes dressing in camo gear and handling large rifles. :rolleyes: ;)

[Sturdee]

Prisoners of war get released when there is no possibility of them rejoining the conflict. Call them what you like at G Bay, they are still prisoners of a war.


Actually they are prisoners of the country that captured them and can be held as prisoners for as long as that country deems appropriate. After WW2 the British and Americans kept the german POW's in prison for a couple of years after the war ended and only started to release them so early in order to bolster West Germany as a buffer to the Eastern bloc.

However Soviet Russia marched the POW's straight to Siberian labour camps and after West Germany had paid massive reparations for the damage caused by the war were ordinary soldiers released after 10 years, officers after 15 years and SS troops were never released. They died in Siberian labour camps.

So Hicks better get used to being in prison.


Peter

[gnu52]

The issue does not concern Hicks' innocence or guilt, but why he has not had a fair & speedy trial.
The US has sidestepped its own laws to avoid this and has lowered itself to the level of the nations it is in dispute with. Australia has followed by not pressing for a resolution.
Let a US main stream court make a fair & just decision, impose a punishment if appropriate and then move on. Until then the US comes across as hipocritical.
My 2 cents worth, Regards, Bill

[Sturdee]

Why is this so hard.......He is an aussie, he deserves the same protection and assistance that each of us has. he now has dual citizenship, as is his right, with UK.

Actually Australia, unlike some other countries, does not recognize the concept of dual citizenship. The High Court has ruled (in the case of a British born senator who was declared ineligible to be a MP) that to be an Australian you must renounce your previous citizenship.


So when Hicks took on British citizenship he no longer remained an Australian. By his actions he became a foreigner and in fact if released will not to apply for entry visas to come here. And his actions would stop him being granted a migrant visa.


Peter.

[craigb]

Actually Australia, unlike some other countries, does not recognize the concept of dual citizenship. The High Court has ruled (in the case of a British born senator who was declared ineligible to be a MP) that to be an Australian you must renounce your previous citizenship.


So when Hicks took on British citizenship he no longer remained an Australian. By his actions he became a foreigner and in fact if released will not to apply for entry visas to come here. And his actions would stop him being granted a migrant visa.


Peter.

That's not actually correct. Downer was quoted in the press the other day as saying that should Hicks be released that there was nothing the Australian Govt could do to prevent him returning to Australia.

Australia does indeed recognise dual citizenship. I could apply for a British passport (because my father was born in the U.K) and still retain my Australian one.

However, to be a member of parliament you MUST be an Australian citizen.
The case you are referring to involved a bloke that was naturalised after he was elected. Thus, he wasn't a citizen at the time of his election.

[bitingmidge]

Members of my faith are having thier human rights removed in Egypt. Some have been murdered by the regime.

now if i went there to help my people, by peaceful means such as demonstrating peacefully etc, and I was arrested, should the Govt help me?
No.

It is an implied (if not specific) condition of holding a passport that you will obey (even if you do not respect) the laws of any country you visit.

We have a diplomatic team to sort out that sort of stuff, that's how the system works round here.

P
:cool:

[dazzler]

Hey

I am NOT off to egypt, just a poor example brought on by the flu.:o
You're all still wrong of course:D

cheers

dazzler

[dazzler]

No.

It is an implied (if not specific) condition of holding a passport that you will obey (even if you do not respect) the laws of any country you visit.

We have a diplomatic team to sort out that sort of stuff, that's how the system works round here.

P
:cool:

Actually thats kinda what I meant. If i was silly and got into trouble I would expect our govt to stand up for my rights on my behalf.

Even if i'm a moron, stupid or even a terrorist. Just because I am one of these I would expect my govt to stand up for me within the laws of that country.

The US has been told by its supreme court that what they are doing is illegal. The UN doesnt support it, the red cross doesnt support it. Now if the red cross doesnt support it, one of the most honourable NGO, then something is seriously wrong.

For our govt to continue to allow him to be kept there is aborrant.

cheers

dazzler

[bitingmidge]

I think you misunderstood me. (Must be the flu! :D )

The diplomatic corp are there to deal with the political stuff, voicing our government's concerns on our behalf etc.

We have no business expecting them to try to bail us out if we take the law into our own hands, even though we may get a warm and fuzzy feeling by their presence.

In terms of the legality of the incarceration? Perhaps this article by Neil James (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4095) may provide a reasonably balanced view of a very complex situation.

Defining David Hicks (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4561)

I certainly found it rather interesting to say the least!

Cheers,

P:)

[Eddie Jones]

There are important differences. There was a declaration of war between countries and the incarcerations were not specific to individuals.

Afganistan has not had war declared on it, the terrorists within the country have. It's more than a little confusing and taking a lot of time for the lawyers to work out - especially the rules of engagement etc.

Groggy, cast your mind back to Vietnam. 500 odd diggers died there. Australia never declared war on Vietnam either. But let me tell you, it WAS a war. Prisoners were taken by both sides, and, at least as far as Australia/US is concerned, were treated according to the terms of the Geneva Convention. Now I will put this in bold type, so that you understand. That makes them PRISONERS OF WAR!

[Driver]

That's not actually correct. Downer was quoted in the press the other day as saying that should Hicks be released that there was nothing the Australian Govt could do to prevent him returning to Australia.

Australia does indeed recognise dual citizenship. I could apply for a British passport (because my father was born in the U.K) and still retain my Australian one.

However, to be a member of parliament you MUST be an Australian citizen.
The case you are referring to involved a bloke that was naturalised after he was elected. Thus, he wasn't a citizen at the time of his election.

From what I recall of that case, the law says that, to be a member of parliament, you must only be an Australian citizen and you must renounce any allegiance to any other country.

You're quite correct about dual citizenship, Craig. I hold citizenship of Australia and the UK.

Interestingly enough, on my last trip back to England, I offered my Aussie passport to the lady at Heathrow Passport Control. Because it lists my place of birth (in England), she asked me why I wasn't using my British passport. I told her that it had recently expired and I was about to apply for a new one when I needed to make an urgent trip to see a relative.

She got quite shirty with me and asked a lot of pointed questions about how long I would be staying and with whom etc. She told me in no uncertain terms that I could only stay for a month and I wasn't allowed to take up employment and a whole lot of other regulatory taradiddle. The clear implication was that I was some sort of traitor for becoming an Aussie and having the temerity to travel to England on an Australian passport. I didn't react (I've done a helluva lot of travelling and I learnt a long time ago not to argue with passport control staff).

Interesting, though. The lady in question had a Dublin accent as thick as the crust on an Irish loaf. Since she was only about 35, that means she must have been born in the Irish Republic. Last time I looked, that wasn't part of the UK, so she had obviously changed citizenship herself.

Col

[Dan_574]

its interesting to note that even the us supreme court says that G bay and the tribunals are illegal.

[stevebaby]

If you went to Egypt and indulged in fighting the Government and were arrested, don't expect any assistance from the Australian Govt. You do the time in the country where you commit the crime, unless there is a prisoner exchange programme.

So, go to Egypt if you must, but don't expect sympathy if you get caught.

Regarding the Taliban, and Afghan fighting; afghanistan was not the homeland of Hicks, did he request citizenship there?
If not, he was just a western adventurer sloshing around in a romantic notion of whatever indoctination Islamist group he became involved with.

The moment the US became involved, he should have caught the next train home, not stayed around for the fun.
Regards
GregThat's a pretty accurate description of David Hicks,but I don't think there were too many trains running
Nothing like Cityrail.

[E. maculata]

I don't know why but this makes me wonder, how we would've treated T.E. Lawrence in this day & age?

[Gumby]

I don't know why but this makes me wonder, how we would've treated T.E. Lawrence in this day & age?

The same as we'd treat any other arab who looks like Peter O'Toole. I don't discriminate. :D

[craigb]

I don't know why but this makes me wonder, how we would've treated T.E. Lawrence in this day & age?

Like the bloody P***'ter that he was, obviously.

[Waldo]

Well, I'm back inside. I like the way you've done the place up since I was away. :D

G'day,

Oi! I think there's a virus on my Mac! Or is Gumby inside my screen? :D

[ernknot]

What a waste of a thread, who cares about Hicks besides the press. Only got himself to blame.

[bitingmidge]

What a waste of a thread, who cares about Hicks besides the press. Only got himself to blame.

No one, but that's why the thread isn't wasted!

:D :D :D

P

[ernknot]

No one, but that's why the thread isn't wasted!

:D :D :D

P
OK, good call.

[Clinton1]

Just to drag up an old post by BM from the start of this thread....

Surely one forfeits all normal rights when one takes up arms in another country other than in the name of one's own flag?



There's also the matter of it being expedient in having David Hicks being an example of "what happens to those that p*ss off the wrong people".

No-one cares that young Australians are travelling to Israel, Greece or Turkey to participate in those country's national service obligations that they feel they must comply with.... and in the case of those serving in the Isreali military, actively engaging in offensive operations.

Tread on the wrong toes though, and its dragged 1/2 way round the world with a bag over your head and then locked in a cage for a couple of years while your country's elected members of parliment slag off at you.

Silly old David Hicks just couldn't work out which group he could fight for, and have a blind eye turned to his activities.

[dazzler]

Go Clinton!

Come on guys, its been an hour and no "he's a terrorist, the sky's fallin"
from the sheep.

baah baah
:p

[Greg Q]

He's a terrorist's friend. This sheep says "f*ck 'im. Feed him fish heads.

Greg, who tomorrow will have a day more complex than it needs to be because of Hicks' pals.

[DanP]

No-one cares that young Australians are travelling to Israel, Greece or Turkey to participate in those country's national service obligations that they feel they must comply with.... and in the case of those serving in the Isreali military, actively engaging in offensive operations.

Last I checked, Australia was not at war with people in Israel, Turkey or Greece.


Tread on the wrong toes though, and its dragged 1/2 way round the world with a bag over your head and then locked in a cage for a couple of years while your country's elected members of parliment slag off at you.

How do you reckon one of those Aussies fighting for Israel would go if captured by the Palestinians?

No person here knows what Hicks has or has not done. No person here knows how Hicks is or is not being treated. Only what they hear in the media, which at the moment is Hicks sympathethic. So at the moment we are getting all the crap spouted by his defence. Hardly going to be a reliable account. Nor, for that matter would be the crap from the other side. :rolleyes:

Dan

[silentC]

No-one cares that young Australians are travelling to Israel, Greece or Turkey to participate in those country's national service obligations that they feel they must comply with
I do. I think that if anyone leaves the country to do national service somewhere else, they are making it clear where their allegiances lie and they should be allowed to go and live there in perpetuity. ;)

[Christopha]

What a waste of a thread, who cares about Hicks besides the press. Only got himself to blame.

NO WAY! This has been a great thread, reasonable arguments and reasonable debating in a great spirit, NO anomosity and respect for the opinions of others.... good stuff! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Do we have an emotithing with its' tongue planted frimly in its' cheek?:confused:

[Daddles]

NO WAY! This has been a great thread, reasonable arguments and reasonable debating in a great spirit, NO anomosity and respect for the opinions of others.... good stuff!

Time to change your medication again mate ;)

Richard:D

[Gumby]

they should be allowed to go and live there in perpetuity. ;)

Where is that ? I think it's in Sth America, Brazil maybe :confused:

[Clinton1]

Its not the issue that Australia is not at war with Israel, Turkey, Greece.

I believe that the issue is that it is illegal to fight in the army of another country, unless you are a member of our Defence Forces and on exchange with an Allied Nation.

Fighting for those countries (in the case of Israel) when you are an Australian citizen is just as illegal as fighting for the Taliban. Any deaths caused by the Australian citizen would be classified as a murder.... just the same as if they were killing in the name of the Taliban/Hells Angels or just for fun.

The issue is, I believe, that a blind eye is turned depending on "with whom you break the law".

The issue is reasonably commonplace, at the very least, for a particular group that have ties to those countries mentioned. The ties usually are the fact that the Australian's parents immigrated from those country, or share a particular religion. Some countries compulsory national service extends to children of citizens that were born overseas.

Just another example of the hypocracy that surrounds the entire situation.


How do you reckon one of those Aussies fighting for Israel would go if captured by the Palestinians?
Pretty rough I reckon, after all you would be captured by an ethnic group that has been consigned to refugee camps for more than 50 years, had all their land and houses stolen and had funcky stuff happen to them - like having kids blown apart on a street by missiles fired at a "target" that was walking past. I reckon they'd be pretty bloody cranky.
After capturing you, a difficult task considering its AK-47's, home-made rockets and car bombs versus F111's, Blackhawks and guided missiles, I reckon that they would make their frustrations very well known.
;)