Thread: David Hicks

Originally Posted by 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?

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?

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

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:

Originally Posted by gregoryq

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.

Originally Posted by duckman

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.

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 .

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. If he's the worst of the worst then we dont have much to fear really.

dazzler

Originally Posted by dazzler

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"

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

Originally Posted by duckman

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

Originally Posted by Christopha

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!

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

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

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

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

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:

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

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?

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

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...

Originally Posted by duckman

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

"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.

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 .