David Hicks

[silentC]

When I was watching that interview I started to wonder if Mori wasn't actually a part of an elaborate good cop-bad cop setup. It seems odd that an institution like the US military would tolerate someone who is as outspoken against parts of it as he is.

[himzol]

I've just caught up with this thread, bloody great discussion.

One thing puzzles me, If as DANP says above, that Hicks is now considered a POW then surely he doesn't need to be put on trial for anything. just put him there and throw away the key for the duration.
Then why does th US want to put him on trial ? :confused: Does it mean he really isn't considered a POW by them? if so why?

sorry I don't have a huge legal background so could somebody explain please?

Himzo.

[dazzler]

I knew we couldn't agree twice in one day

It wasn't the AFP that denied the terrorist legal rep. The Pakis would let them. The dog was told of his right to a lawyer several times and HE WAIVED THAT RIGHT.

The conversation was a proper recorded interview and should IMO be fully admissable.

If a POS crook decides that he doesn't want a mouthpiece, as happens every day in local crimes, then that should be the end of the issue. Legal Representation should not be forced on any person who chooses not to exercise their right to it.

Another Judge with his head up his ar5e.

Dan

Section 23G of the Federal Crimes Act states unambiguously that the police must not question a person before allowing them to communicate with a lawyer and must arrange for the lawyer

to be present

during the questioning.

Are we a couple again

[ernknot]

Terrorists and others of that ilk should not be treated by the same laws that apply to everyday public misdemeanours and more serious crimes, the laws were nor written to cover this. We should have a seperate set of laws for terrorists and illegals. These people clog up our legal system and waste a huge amount of public money. As for that clown Hicks, well he wanted to be the tough guy now let him rot. He was caught in the act for crying out loud.

[Sturdee]

Our elected government has done bugger all to help one of it's citizens.

He is no longer one of our citizens but choiose to become a foreigner :mad: so our government shouldn't help him in any way whatsoever.

When he was still a citizen he fought against us in the war on terror, hence he is guilty of treason and in most countries he whould have been executed as a traitor.

As he now claims to be a POW he should be locked up untill the war agains terror is over, which IMO seeing the continual terror by Islamic fundamentalists will be never.

Peter.

[AlexS]

He was caught in the act for crying out loud.

At which trial did this come out?

[dazzler]

I've just caught up with this thread, bloody great discussion.

One thing puzzles me, If as DANP says above, that Hicks is now considered a POW then surely he doesn't need to be put on trial for anything. just put him there and throw away the key for the duration.
Then why does th US want to put him on trial ? :confused: Does it mean he really isn't considered a POW by them? if so why?

sorry I don't have a huge legal background so could somebody explain please?

Himzo.

Hi Himzol

He WAS a POW during the war in afghanistan. The hunt for binladen continues but is not part of the war. Now that the war in afghanistan is over and has moved to rebuilding/peacekeeping then they would normally all go home or to prison or wherever.

Unfortunately the US (and AUS by being its female dog) have disregarded the UN and the Geneva convention and made up thier own laws, outside of International law, to keep them whilever the 'War on Terror' goes on.

Oh, anyone seen Hambali :confused: . Remember him?

What a strange world, where the democracy that so many brave people fought for can be put aside so easily.

[dazzler]

At which trial did this come out?

Oh Alexs pls keep up.....ya gotta watch 'A current affair' or that other one , right after the dole bludgers and the real estate shonks

[ozwinner]

What a strange world, where the democracy that so many brave people fought for can be put aside so easily.

My thought too, that democracy only applies to Anglo Saxons, owwh and the Jews. :confused: :confused:

Al :confused:

[journeyman Mick]

Terrorists and others of that ilk should not be treated by the same laws that apply to everyday public misdemeanours and more serious crimes, the laws were nor written to cover this. We should have a seperate set of laws for terrorists and illegals................

Great, and then if the government decides they don't like someone, say for being too outspoken, or maybe because they might lose an election to that person, al they need to do is to call him a terrorist/enemy of the state and toss them in jail. This already happens in a lot of places that we should be taking our cues from like China, Burma and tinpot dicatator ships in south America, lots of other places too, no doubt. Do you really want to live in a country that can throw youin jail without legal recourse Ernknot?

I know that it can be terribly frustrating looking at the law's seeming impotence in some cases, but although it's not perfect there's a lot of things that I wouldn't want to see lost.

Mick

[ian]

Terrorists and others of that ilk should not be treated by the same laws that apply to everyday public misdemeanours and more serious crimes, the laws were nor written to cover this. We should have a seperate set of laws for terrorists and illegals. These people clog up our legal system and waste a huge amount of public money.

ernknot,
would you like to re-read your post substituting "jews" and/or "gypsies" for "terrorists"? The reason we now have international human rights standards is that the German government, democraticly elected in 1931, decided that certain groups, including opposition political parties, weren't entitled to the legal protections afforded "proper Germans". You need look no further than Belsen to see were that ended up.


ian

[DanP]

Section 23G of the Federal Crimes Act states unambiguously that the police must not question a person before allowing them to communicate with a lawyer and must arrange for the lawyer

to be present

during the questioning.

Are we a couple again

No.

23G Right to communicate with friend, relative and legal practitioner

(1) Subject to section 23L, if a person is under arrest or a protected suspect, an investigating official must, before starting to question the person, inform the person that he or she may:
(a) communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a friend or relative to inform that person of his or her whereabouts; and
(b) communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a legal practitioner of the person’s choice and arrange, or attempt to arrange, for a legal practitioner of the person’s choice to be present during the questioning; and the investigating official must defer the questioning for a reasonable time to allow the person to make, or attempt to make, the communication and, if the person has arranged for a legal practitioner to be present, to allow the legal practitioner to attend the questioning.

(2) Subject to section 23L, if a person is under arrest or a protected suspect and wishes to communicate with a friend, relative or legal practitioner, the investigating official must:
(a) as soon as practicable, give the person reasonable facilities to enable the person to do so; and
(b) in the case of a communication with a legal practitioner—allow the legal practitioner or a clerk of the legal practitioner to communicate with the person in circumstances in which, as far as practicable, the communication will not be overheard.

(3) Subject to section 23L, if a person is under arrest or a protected suspect and arranges for a legal practitioner to be present during the questioning, the investigating official must:
(a) allow the person to consult with the legal practitioner in private and provide reasonable facilities for that consultation; and
(b) allow the legal practitioner to be present during the questioning and to give advice to the person, but only while the legal practitioner does not unreasonably interfere with the questioning.

This is not quite as unambiguous as you suggest.

Para 1 says they must not be questioned before being informed of their right to speak to a lawyer and then must allow reasonable time for them to speak to said lawyer.

Para 2 says they must be given private acces to a phone to speak to the lawyer.

Para3 says if the crook arranges for the lawyer to come to the party he must be given a chance to speak to the lawyer in private and allow the lawyer to sit in on the interview.

ALL of this is subject to what the crook wants. If the crook agrees to proceed without a lawyer, as this terrorist did, the investigating official is under no obligation to make him see one.

The Judges head remains firmly planted in rectum.

Dan

[silentC]

Did you see his brother on Lateline last night?

First he said that Jack is not a violent person and is not interested in killing people. This begs the question why did he go to Afghanistan to participate in military training, including small weapons and demolition (blowing things up) - by his own admission? His only objection was that he didn't know it was one of Bin Laden's camps until he saw the man one day. Why would a peaceful person do that?

Then he went off about the media and the government portraying him as a terrorist and using this Jihad Jack tag. I liked it when Tony Jones pointed out that it was Jack who started calling himself Jihad! Oh, but he means Jihad in a peaceful, non-violent way, doesn't he?

[Bob Willson]

No.





This is not quite as unambiguous as you suggest.

Para3 says if the crook arranges for the lawyer to come to the party he must be given a chance to speak to the lawyer in private and allow the lawyer to sit in on the interview.

ALL of this is subject to what the crook wants. If the crook agrees to proceed without a lawyer, as this terrorist did, the investigating official is under no obligation to make him see one.

The Judges head remains firmly planted in rectum.

Dan

From paragraph 3 on you seem to have paraphrased a little bit and to have already ascertained the guilt of the detainee/accused.

[Eddie Jones]

ernknot,
........The reason we now have international human rights standards is that the German government, democraticly elected in 1931........
ian

Err, sorry, it was 30 January 1933.