David Hicks

[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. My last comment on the subject.

[Daddles]

My last comment on the subject.

Bet it's not

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

[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. 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 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....

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.