David Hicks

[himzol]

Oh no?

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

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

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

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

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

[Bodgy]

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

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

Come on

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

[himzol]

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

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

Himzo.

[himzol]

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

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

Come on

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

What have you got against ducks !

[E. maculata]

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

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

[Wood Butcher]

......our Humanity has been by far the biggest casuality of this "war".

Yeah, and so have our fuel prices:mad:

[Bodgy]

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

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

[Clinton1]

Eddie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope I've answered your question.

[dazzler]

Spot on Clinton

Its strange how we constantly bag out the court system.

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

Good policework, good evidence and a good result.

All fair and just.

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

Courts work. Just give them a chance.

PS....Guantanomo bay dont count

[ian]

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

It's stretching things a bit to call them "the recognised government"

Not really.
There's a difference between recognition and diplomatic recognition. For example, after Pol Pot was over thrown in Cambodia (by a Vietmanese led invasion) very few countries afforded the new government diplomatic recognition but most countries recognised that Pol Pot was gone and the Vietmanese backed government was recognised as the government of Cambodia.
In the same way the Taliban were recognised as being in control of Afganistan prior to the US lending support to the Northern Alliance in late 2001.
This is the problem for the Government with Hicks. Australia has a law called (from memory) "The Foreign Investments and Incursion Act". In essence it says that if Hicks was fighting for the Taliban he was on the side of the recognised government and hence committed no crime. If on the other hand he had been fighting with the Northern Alliance he would have committed a crime under Australian law.

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

ian

[ian]

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

As far as I recall Hicks was handed over to the Yanks by a group of Afgani in exchange for a bounty.
In other times and places this is called kidnapping for ransom.

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

this we don't know. Given how the Afgan civil war ended, it's quite possible that Hicks was working with an Afgan war lord who after switching sides was a US ally, putting Hicks on the side of the angels so to say.
The point is WE DON'T KNOW and until Hicks goes on trial in a properly constituted court we can't know.
However, the fact that the UK released all their nationals who were detained in circumstances similar to Hicks, suggests, at least to me, that many of the foreign detainees ended up on the winning side

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

While we think of Afganistan as a country, at the time (2001) I don't think there was such a thing as a formal Afgan Army. Just a bunch of war lords and their fighters who supported the Taliban led government. So your point is moot

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

well according to the Oxford Companion to Military History terrorism is "the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or its threat" as the Oxford goes on to say the definition is very subjective and "one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, one man's bomber-pilot is another's terror-flyer" (think about how the British and Germans viewed the bombing of Germany in WW2.)
As to Hicks, what evidence do you have that Hicks was in the business of "creating and exploiting fear through violence or its threat"?

[DanP]

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

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

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

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

Dan

[Eddie Jones]

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

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

[ian]

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

It might, but the photo was taken when Hicks was training with the Kosovo Liberation Army which at the time had been removed from the US State Department's terrorism list and was being trained and equiped by the German civil and military intelligence services. So when the photo was taken Hicks was on the side of the "good guys", ergo he was not a terrorist.

[ian]

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

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

Australian public phones are taken to be secure and private.
even if there not, there are compensating controls to prevent use of any information obtained by tapping the phone.
How do you demonstrate to an Australian court that the same applies to phones in Pakastani gaols?

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

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

Dan

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


ian