Thread: David Hicks

So Waldo, I assume then that you think it's okay for a country to build a prison that is deliberately outside its own laws, to incarcerate anyone in that prison that they choose, to keep them manacled and isolated, to torture them physically, psychologically and emotionally in an attempt to gain intelligence, and to make the whole process open ended.

I'm afraid I'm about to be labelled the resident bleeding heart again, because I don't think that's fair and reasonable behaviour for a modern country. Regardless of any crimes Hicks may have committed, this is an of abuse of military power and our government's wholesale support of that abuse is an appalling embarrassment. America is only able to get away with this because they are the biggest bully in the playground.

Hicks? The man is a misguided fool. He is not and never was a terrorist. He wasn't even a member of the organisation that committed terrorist acts. That he chose to fight for another country is nothing new and there is nothing wrong with that, or should we now condemn all the Americans who travelled to England to fight Germany during WWII. And consider this, when he chose to do so, not only was that country not at war with Australia or America, it was effectively an ally of the people that have now imprisonned him. It also appears that he was trying to escape the fight in Afghanistan, he was not actively fighting against the Americans. Regardless of that though, his treatment, even as an 'enemy combattant', is appalling. Note the deliberate, pedantry use of labels so that America can avoid any sort of legal scrutiny of its behaviour?

This whole business does America no credit. Sadly, our own government has wholeheartedly supported this abuse of military might and as a result, we too are guilty of this abuse.

Richard

Again, why don't they give him a fair and speedie trial? If his guilt is so beyond doubt, then the trial is monty and he'll be inprisoned for the rest of his life.

The longer it goes on the more I think the U.S. has something to hide.

Prisoners of war get released when there is no possibility of them rejoining the conflict. Call them what you like at G Bay, they are still prisoners of a war.

If many at G Bay were released back to their homeland(s), in time, most would make tracks back to wherever they can again join the fray.

So what do you do with them?

You can kill them (naughty and not allowed) or lock them up until such time they can do no harm

When will that be?????

I think they'd better get used to prison life. most of them are lucky to be alive in any event.

Greg

Originally Posted by Daddles

It also appears that he was trying to escape the fight in Afghanistan,

G'day Daddles,

But what was he escaping from? :confused: That can only leave one answer.

I will however agree that Guantanamo Bay isn't the right way to do it, especially as the US have gone out of their way to set up a prision for such purposes as to keep the likes of Hicks in but think it's legal because it's outside of US soil so therby giving themselves a legal technicality to justify it.

But he made his own bed so he can sleep in it.

Here's a thought. He's a european convert, not born into Islam. He probably has inside knowledge of the organisation that the US is fighting against. Maybe they think that they can get information out of him more easily than they could from one of his more dyed-in-the wool brethren. It's 4 year old information now though, so probably not much use. Or maybe they already got it but don't want him talking about how they got it?

Nobody knows all the facts, most of what people are saying here is speculation or cover story. We don't know anything about him. His old man wants him painted as a good boy with silly ideas. The yanks want him painted as a terrorist/mercenary. Lefties want him painted as a scapegoat. God knows what Bin Laden and his mates want him painted as. Who are you going to believe?

Shouldn't have been there. Can't blame anyone but himself for his predicament.

G'day,

SlilentC is agree with you all the way on your above post.

Originally Posted by silentC

My attitude to it is the same. If you want to play with the big boys, don't cry when you get hurt. What kind of an idiot would go over there looking for trouble anyway? What kind of trouble would he have caused here if he'd stayed at home. No sympathy from me either. Let the Brits work out what to do with him. Let's hope they keep him.

But the Taliban was not at war with the US when he went there.


Here is a question?

I belong to a mainstream non-christian faith. 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?

I would think they should. I am still australian. Maybe a bit dumb to go there but a still australian.

Hicks went to afghanistan to help his "people" who he believed, rightly or wrongly, were being persecuted. While there the team he was on was declared war on by another team. He didnt shoot anyone, didnt engage in conflict, was left to mind a tank and then did a runner. master terrorist

So if he has done something wrong then charge him. Just like we do in democratic countries.

Why is this so hard.......He is an aussie, he deserves the same protection and assistance that each of us has. he now has dual citizenship, as is his right, with UK.

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

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

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.

Regards
Greg

Greg

Whose talking about fighting the govt?:eek: Reread what I wrote.

So who did Hicks fight?:confused: Who did he shoot at?:confused: Were our troops near him? :confused: Did he shoot at them?:confused:

Now if he did shoot at them then fine, I understand that to be treason, then drag his sorry butt back here and charge him.

If he didnt shoot at our soldiers or anything similar and we cant find an offence then drag his sorry butt back here, cancel his passport and let our security bros and sisters deal with it.

Aus cannot even use him as a human source now. After the amount of interrogation, and his little stayover on the way to US, He would tell you the moons pink if you asked him now.

cheers

dazzler

Originally Posted by dazzler

was left to mind a tank

G'day Dazzler,

If he was left minding a tank, then in my books that means he was engaged in a military conflict, not some tourist who was walking by and got asked, 'Hey mate! Would you mind looking after my tank for me?"

You did say regime, which is a government of sort - it is still a party who hold power.

I don't know your curumstances or that back in Egypt, but Dazzler, by all means if you feel compled to protest, be it peacfully then do so, but like Greg has said, if that turns to a violent confrontation then that may open up to something else, and might well be a foolish thing to do.

by peaceful means such as demonstrating peacefully

Yeah, right. David Hicks was a peacenik who likes dressing in camo gear and handling large rifles.

Originally Posted by Greg Ward

Prisoners of war get released when there is no possibility of them rejoining the conflict. Call them what you like at G Bay, they are still prisoners of a war.

Actually they are prisoners of the country that captured them and can be held as prisoners for as long as that country deems appropriate. After WW2 the British and Americans kept the german POW's in prison for a couple of years after the war ended and only started to release them so early in order to bolster West Germany as a buffer to the Eastern bloc.

However Soviet Russia marched the POW's straight to Siberian labour camps and after West Germany had paid massive reparations for the damage caused by the war were ordinary soldiers released after 10 years, officers after 15 years and SS troops were never released. They died in Siberian labour camps.

So Hicks better get used to being in prison.


Peter

The issue does not concern Hicks' innocence or guilt, but why he has not had a fair & speedy trial.
The US has sidestepped its own laws to avoid this and has lowered itself to the level of the nations it is in dispute with. Australia has followed by not pressing for a resolution.
Let a US main stream court make a fair & just decision, impose a punishment if appropriate and then move on. Until then the US comes across as hipocritical.
My 2 cents worth, Regards, Bill

Originally Posted by dazzler

Why is this so hard.......He is an aussie, he deserves the same protection and assistance that each of us has. he now has dual citizenship, as is his right, with UK.

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.