David Hicks

[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

[dazzler]

Hey

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

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

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! )

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 may provide a reasonably balanced view of a very complex situation.

Defining David Hicks

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
Greg

That'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.

[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.

G'day,

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

[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!



P