Thread: David Hicks

The way I understand it, he isn't being held as a criminal, he is being held as a prisoner of war. The difference, again as I understand it, is that there is no such thing as a 'trial' for a prisoner of war. They are held in captivity until the end of the conflict and then they must be set free. So, technically, when the 'war' is over, he walks free. No trial, just a handshake and "on your way, son".

I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Why would the yanks care so much about him being a free agent again, what are they trying to hide? Does he know something that he shouldn't?

Originally Posted by Grunt

Let us charge Midge for crimes against The Bulletin Board.

The punishment could be 4 1/2 years naked with Zed.

What's Zed done to deserve THAT? :eek: :eek: :eek:

P

Originally Posted by Grunt

If this was some third world country that had one of our citizens held in their jails for 4 1/2 years the government would be doing it's best to have him released.

Very true Grunt, if it was Indonesia there'd be uproar.

"He is a prisoner of war and is being held as such. You don't release prisoners of war as they could possibly re-enter the action again."

Thanks, Greg. You and SilentC (sorry if I missed someone) seem to be the only ones to notice that small fact. During WW2, God-knows-how-many-thousands of our lads were locked up "for the duration" because they were "captured enemy combatants". We did the same to the Germans and Japs we captured. Remember Cowra? For pity's sake, you didn't even have to be a combatant! Being German in Australia meant incarceration for the duration of the war! All, BTW strictly a la Geneva convention.

Isn't that what's happening to Hicks?

Originally Posted by Eddie Jones

We did the same to the Germans and Japs we captured. Remember Cowra? For pity's sake, you didn't even have to be a combatant! Being German in Australia meant incarceration for the duration of the war! All, BTW strictly a la Geneva convention.

Isn't that what's happening to Hicks?

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.

Suffice to say, it two large buildings full of people in Oz were hit by hijacked planes we'd probably have locked up just about everyone from the country, including Afgan dogs and rugs to boot. Frightened people will do amazing things as a group.

There was a declaration of war between countries

So how do they handle it in the modern situation, where open warfare exists but where there was no formal declaration and one of the parties is an extremist religious group acting like a jilted ex-lover.

Always seemed a bit silly to me. A bunch of blokes agree to meet in the middle of a field at 1:15pm, after lunch, to slog it out, and whoever remains standing at the end of the day wins. All "honour on the battlefield" and drummers and silly uniforms. Hmm, sounds a bit like something else. Midge may be on to something.

Originally Posted by silentC

So how do they handle it in the modern situation, where open warfare exists but where there was no formal declaration and one of the parties is an extremist religious group acting like a jilted ex-lover.

That's my point silentC, they are on uncertain ground legally. This is made worse by a need to "do something" about the guys crashing planes into their cities.

From their perspective, they're damned if they do and dead if they don't.

It's a bit hard when one party is expected to operate 'by the rules' and the other just does whatever it wants to. I don't envy their position, kind of glad the only things I have to worry about are more mundane.

As I understand it,Hicks did not join the taliban to fight the US or Australia.he joined to fight the northern alliance.He was captured by them while attempting to flee the field of conflict and sold to the us for the bounty offered,as were many other of the detainees held and subsequently released.
Surely if there were any evidence against him the US would be keen to publicly try him and justify his imprisonment?The fact that they have not suggests that they have no evidence.
The US was engaged in negotiations with the taliban over Unocal's proposal to build a gas pipeline across afghanistan and recognised them as the legally constituted government of afghanistan,3 weeks before 9/11.The US had supplied the taliban with arms finance and training,as had saudi arabia.
There were cultural reasons for the reluctance of the taliban to hand over bin laden.In their culture,they were obliged to protect,with their own lives if necessary,someone who had sought their protection.It was a matter of honour,something not to be taken lightly in those parts.
Hicks did not become a British citizen by choice.He became a British citizen at the moment of his birth,by virtue of the fact that his mother is a British citizen.
The Australian government has confirmed that he cannot be tried for any offence in Australia as he has not broken any Australian laws.
The US has recognised the right of every other country party to the conflict in afghanistan to have their own citizens released and returned to the country where they have citizenship.Hicks is the exception,due to the recalcitrance of the Australian government.
He should be either released and returned to Australia (or Britain,since he apparently has dual citizenship,like many other Australian citizens.),or given a fair and open trial.
If saddam hussein can be put on trial in his own country,why can't Hicks?
In the larger scheme of things,Hicks is unimportant.I don't sympathise with his beliefs any more than the US,for their own cynical reasons,did when they put the taliban in power.What is important is the principle of justice and in this case it has been denied.
Ironic,isn't it,that saddam hussein can get a quick and apparently fair trial,and Hicks cannot?

Originally Posted by silentC

The way I understand it, he isn't being held as a criminal, he is being held as a prisoner of war. The difference, again as I understand it, is that there is no such thing as a 'trial' for a prisoner of war. They are held in captivity until the end of the conflict and then they must be set free. So, technically, when the 'war' is over, he walks free. No trial, just a handshake and "on your way, son".

I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Why would the yanks care so much about him being a free agent again, what are they trying to hide? Does he know something that he shouldn't?

The US insists that Hicks is not a prisoner of war,since to do so would entitle him to the rights of a POW.
The US claims that he is an "enemy combatant".
As so many foreign policy decisions by the US have demonstrated,this is something else to "blowback" on them.

Saddam was not captured as an enemy combatant and made a prisoner of war, he was arrested and tried for war crimes against the Kurdish people and others. Subtle difference, I know.

something else to "blowback" on them.

They used to call this Karma.

G'day,

I'm going to wade in here and stir a 44gal drum full of possums.

Not long after Hicks came to notice for what he'd done and also Majum Habib (sp) Ch. 2 instigated two separate investigations into the story of where, what etc. and even by their own resources where able to find that the charges laid against them were credible and justified.

I'm sorry but if you get caught playing cricket with the other team then that's it baby, you can't hand back your bat and ball and say you don't want to play any more because your team lost.

No sympathy from me and you can't tell me they were just playing games and were going to come back inside when Mum had tea ready on the table.

Originally Posted by craigb

I also think that Midge is just indulging in that good old Aussie pastime of Stirring the Possum.

Originally Posted by silentC

Let's hope they never make that a crime :eek:

If I were to take that literally I'd be surprised if weren't a crime. Don't they do that sort of thing in NZ with sheep?