PDA

View Full Version : David Hicks pleads guilty?



fiark
27th March 2007, 11:49 AM
*deleted*

joshbyte
27th March 2007, 11:52 AM
and...???

hawker
27th March 2007, 12:04 PM
and he will be shot at dawn with John Howard and George Bush!

Goodbye
27th March 2007, 12:11 PM
Don't get our hopes up like that Hawker!!!

chrissara
27th March 2007, 12:14 PM
Plea bargain - behind the scenes a deal has been struck whereby he will return to Australia in the next 4-8 months to serve any sentence imposed upon him under the bi-lateral agreement with the US on prisoners.

Cynically this may be around the same time as the election here in Australia - works well for those in power on both sides.

Disko
27th March 2007, 12:15 PM
Cynically this may be around the same time as the election here in Australia - works well for those in power on both sides.
I'd call that more of a realistic view of the matter than a cynical one.

Joe90
27th March 2007, 12:17 PM
I'd call that more of a realistic view of the matter than a cynical one.

Touche'

Brains
27th March 2007, 12:20 PM
Who?

B.

bazscott
27th March 2007, 12:20 PM
I'd say if he gets to come home by xmas and spend the next ten years in a 'nice' (as in nicer than gitmo) aussie prison he will be counting himself very lucky indeed.

Jazarus
27th March 2007, 12:21 PM
Doesnt mean he is,
After staying 5 years in a hell hole like guantanamo you would plead guilty too if it meant that you can come out of there and go home, he gets to go home and the US government gets a guilty plea which makes them look like they where right all along and that they are justified in establishing their illegal prison camp.
If he is sent home this way, it will be a major headache for the Howard government because it would mean:

A; They let him go home to his family because of his mental condition and they look weak to their hard-core right-wing nut-job constituents which they are so desperate to please.

B: They incarcerate him which make them look cruel and heartless and further alienate those who are more in the middle side of politics by imprisoning a mentally ill man by decree of their US imperialist masters under a law that doesnt even exist in Australia.

bazscott
27th March 2007, 12:29 PM
Why is it cruel to incarcerate a terrorist?

A prisoner exchange has to work on the understanding that a prisoner serves their time based on the court that sentenced them - otherwise every prisoner would have to be re-tried in their home country. In this case hicks would be better off probably but for some prisoner exchanges that could mean someone having their sentence upgraded. In short Australian law has nothing to do with it.

And I would say he was a mentally ill man way before he was picked up in Afghanistan, a sane person would never have been there in the first place. What do you think he was doing there, sightseeing?

hawker
27th March 2007, 12:33 PM
We give basic human rights to a person who kills 30 odd people in Port Arthur, yet we treat someone 'suspected of terrorism' like an animal with no respect for human rights.

bazscott
27th March 2007, 12:48 PM
Yeah I don't think anyone (outside the pentagon) can justify the way hicks was kept, he should have been treated better and tried sooner, but still he is not 'suspected' of being a terrorist, he has admitted it - and it was blatantly obvious he was. But obviously everyone deserves a basic standard of treatment.

But just remember this 'true blue aussie battler' was a trained terrorist before sept 11, after that he went back for more action in Afghanistan! Against the wishes of his family - with the specific purpose of waging war against the west - including his own countrymen.

What do you think he thought about the sept 11 attacks? He was fighting this war long before Iraq, long before Bush was president actually.

Don't get me wrong I absolutely abhor the way he was treated in captivity but I am also absolutely delighted that he can't now blow me up or help his mates blow me up on the way to work one day.

hawker
27th March 2007, 12:51 PM
Someone who blows up an abortion clinic is a terrorist, yet many southern people treat them as heroes? Pot > Kettle > Black IMHO...

Kuma
27th March 2007, 12:54 PM
Yeah I don't think anyone (outside the pentagon) can justify the way hicks was kept, he should have been treated better and tried sooner, but still he is not 'suspected' of being a terrorist, he has admitted it - and it was blatantly obvious he was. But obviously everyone deserves a basic standard of treatment.

But just remember this 'true blue aussie battler' was a trained terrorist before sept 11, after that he went back for more action in Afghanistan! Against the wishes of his family - with the specific purpose of waging war against the west - including his own countrymen.

What do you think he thought about the sept 11 attacks? He was fighting this war long before Iraq, long before Bush was president actually.

Don't get me wrong I absolutely abhor the way he was treated in captivity but I am also absolutely delighted that he can't now blow me up or help his mates blow me up on the way to work one day.

I pretty much concur with Baz on this... except for the last sentiment...
you can lock up 1000 of these guys and there will be 2000 more to take their place....

making the world a safer place has its roots lodged in other places than imprisoning ppl (not saying that they shouldn't be in prison.. just saying that to make me feel better the problem needs to be addressed elsewhere).

bazscott
27th March 2007, 12:58 PM
By blowing up an abortion clinic to inspire 'terror' into other abortionists yes that would make you a terrorist, and they do get prosecuted and put in jail for it. Would you just let them away with it?

I think its important to separate the issues: David Hicks != George Bush, you can be anti-Bush and anti-Hicks at the same time. I am anti-Bush in many things, but I am more anti-terror.

I am happy to have a go at Bush for the way Iraq has been handled, but I am also happy to have ago at Hicks for being a terrorist. They are both damaging our world.

hawker
27th March 2007, 01:01 PM
Bush and America are by far the bigger problem - you don't become a terrorist for the hell of it, something else is causing the problem. Like many have said, that bigger problem needs to be sorted, we can't just lock up half the world because they don't agree with something we believe in?

Hitler / Stalin were the same, you don't agree, you're locked up - you can beat a dog till he does as you say, but it's fear, not respect.

bazscott
27th March 2007, 01:05 PM
I pretty much concur with Baz on this... except for the last sentiment...
you can lock up 1000 of these guys and there will be 2000 more to take their place....

making the world a safer place has its roots lodged in other places than imprisoning ppl (not saying that they shouldn't be in prison.. just saying that to make me feel better the problem needs to be addressed elsewhere).

Absolutely, the people who attack any society or branch of from another one obviously have a reason to do it and that needs to be sorted out. It may not be a good reason (i.e. my imaginary god is better than your imaginary god) or it may be a good reason (you are an evil dictator committing genocide) - but that reason needs to be addressed first if possible before it gets out of hand. But that is very very hard when you have people on two sides that believe in fundamentally opposite points of view.

Jazarus
27th March 2007, 01:09 PM
And I would say he was a mentally ill man way before he was picked up in Afghanistan, a sane person would never have been there in the first place. What do you think he was doing there, sightseeing?

His incarceration at Guantanamo would reduce any man into a weakened mental state, they have to cover their faces with a towel while resting, they are given a bucket as their own personal latrine, they are deliberately accompanied by female soldiers while they shower naked, they where constatly barraged with stressful noises.

All these factors would only exacerbate any pre-existing mental condition he may have had. What he needs when he gets back to Australia is extensive mental treatment not more jail. In any case he has served his time for any trumped up charge they may come up with (theyve already thrown out attempted murder for lack of evidence).

bazscott
27th March 2007, 01:12 PM
Bush and America are by far the bigger problem

Yeah, forgot about all those terrorist attacks that Bush carried out in the middle east ;-)

I think you are half right though hawker to be honest but I would say Bush is just the most visible of the bigger problem - fundamental religion. And both sides do a great line in fundamentalism.

The thing is we more moderate people get caught in the middle, really we should have left America on its own to fight 'global terror' on its own.

Kuma
27th March 2007, 01:18 PM
Jazaraus... the bloke is a bloody terrorist..
omg he had to shower naked with female guards.. it is the end of the bloody world!!!

he is a terrorist and should be sent to gaol.
I have no sympathy for him... he put himself there.. trained with Osama and Co... and fought with the Taliban...

his only entitlement is that of any person.. the right to a speedy trial.



The thing is we more moderate people get caught in the middle, really we should have left America on its own to fight 'global terror' on its own.


I have no problem with our involvement in Afghanistan.. I have a huge problem with our involvement in Iraq.

bazscott
27th March 2007, 01:19 PM
I'd happily shower with a female prison guard - reminds me of a film I saw once :-)

hawker
27th March 2007, 01:27 PM
we can't defend our own borders, yet we can defend other peoples?

The only useful thing I think our troops are doing overseas, is providing support in re-building and VIP security, past that we shouldn't be involved. It's obvious our involvement isn't helping in either location.

bazscott
27th March 2007, 01:34 PM
Spot on hawker, Australia and the UK etc should have said to Bush you go in and depose Saddam - you then prove you can keep the peace and set the country up for a brighter future (get water and electric running etc) and we'll come in and replace your troops after 6 months to help rebuilding. If you dont make things better for iraqis you are on your own.

At least it would have forced them to think through a proper post-war plan.

Bart Smastard
27th March 2007, 01:39 PM
I hold no sympathy whatsoever for David Hicks. The guy was caught in Afghanistan, siding with the Taliban, possibly training for a major terrorist attack on Australian soil. Who honestly knows what was on his mind?

If he's brave enough to train with the Taliban then he should be brave enough to last a lifetime in Guantanemo.

Keep him in the US. I don't want my taxes paying for the likes of him to have the civil liberties that the Taliban would like to take away from us.

McKatch
27th March 2007, 01:40 PM
Hmmm so many comments to make....

On the subject of terrorism - it is so subjective one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Don't believe look back over he las 20 years or so at the UK/Northern Ireland situation. Terrorists on BOTH sides, fund raising all over the world freedom fighters to some stone clod killers/murders to others. I lived near London, have had my car checked for bombs, been evacuated from buildings and trainstations all due to security alerts, I personally know a fe wpeople who have been caught up in terrorist incidents on the mainland (thankfully none injured badly). From my point of view the IRA were the terrorists in these cases though in places like New York they had a very large following - infact in a bar very near the WTC they openly supported and collect funds for them - not a bar i stayed in. So the terrorists that were caught and prosecuted in that particular war - all released sentences dismissed - something the Americans/Irish governments pushed for in the peace accord out there.

So what has this to do with Hicks, little I suppose just to point out it all depends on what side of the fence you sit as to how the shade falls over the subject.

Has this whole thing taken to long, yes to right it has - amazing that the Americans caught had nothing like this to go through - guess they knew the American public wouldn't allow that to happen.

America needed this to work, Australia government needed a quick solution and I suspect Hicks just wanted out of there given the alledged conditions he was living under out there. I kind of smells a little. I suspect he was pushed into this way out as a quick and easy fix. We shall see when sentenced I suppose. I wonder also if the bullying of the lawyers had something to do with it to. From the radio this morning I hear the judge threw two of Hick's lawyers off the case dimissing them. I also believe his lead military lawyer had been threatened with charges by the prosecutor and had left him in a very vulnerable position as well. No wonder the human rights groups were all up in arms about them purely being show trials.

All in all I will make no comment on guilty or not guilty, or if he had just been beaten down to an easy out for all. All I will say is this, it should have been handled quicker in a properly recognised legal way that left no room for critisism. They rae supposed to be leading lights in human rights and democracy after all....

Kuma
27th March 2007, 01:41 PM
The SAS have done great work in both countries... militarily speaking...

Going to Afghanistan was important and just, going to Iraq was stupid and illegal.

By going to Iraq Bush not only undermined everything he had gained from 9/11.. he pushed America so far into global negative perception that it will take years to repair the harm this incompetent fool has bought to his country...

hawker
27th March 2007, 01:43 PM
Bush broke rule 1 - think before you act. He acted like the drunk yobo down the pub. He'll never receive sympathy from me. Thankfully he won't be returned to power, which will be a good thing, unless a more insane moron is next!


I'm a soldier on the field
Waiting to die, praying to live
To survive one more day
But my hope begins to fray
It's my flesh against the steel

You'll never know what I've known
You'll never see what I've seen
I hope we make it home...

detail
27th March 2007, 01:43 PM
Its easy to make simplistic comments on this saga.

Here's a few point to ponder in no particular order.

At the time of his capture Hicks was supporting the formal government of Afganistan the Taliban in a civil war against the Northern alliance. That government was however only recognised by three other countries.

He has pleaded guilty to "providing material support for terrorism". ie we can't pin anything on him but this will do. He has not been charged with committing or planning any terrorist attack.

The photo of him with the rocket launcher was taken when he was in Kosovo when he was allegedly supporting the Kosovo Liberation Army. The KLA was originally classified by the USA as a terrorist organisation but by the time Hicks had joined it the US no longer regarded them as terrorists. In fact NATO & USA joined the KLA in the war against Serbia.

There's plenty of other Australian working as mercenaries around the world, hundreds are in Iraq now. Most of them picked the right side.

I ain't any fan of stupid dickhead behaviour but it isn't as black and white as some people make it out to be.

Silver
27th March 2007, 01:48 PM
he is a terrorist and should be sent to gaol.

I didn't pay much attention to this story until recently. Was there actually a point where he admitted to being a terrorist? Did He actually carry out a terror attack, or only simply train to do so? He has only been charged with 'providing material support to terrorists', like say providing kickbacks for wheat sales, not with actually committing a terrorist act. I'm not sure where you actually get the claim from all this, that he is most definitely a terrorist.

For the only 'crime' he has been charged with, 5 years in the conditions he was kept is already over the top. Justice isn't about revenge or punishment (or shouldn't be).

Kuma
27th March 2007, 01:58 PM
he trained with Lashkar-e-Toiba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Toiba) an organisation which has been outlawed in several countries and deemed a terrorist organisation (I do recognise the point about one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter)

one of the objectives of Lashkar-e-Toiba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Toiba) is to install muslim law around the world... regardless of whether he fired a single shot or not in combat.. he trained with them... I dont wish to have muslim law imposed on me. he was a member of a terrorist organisation who wish to do so - therefore Hicks is a terrorist.


yep justice is not about revenge, but it is about punishment ( .. or else there would be no reason to do wrong, and she wouldn't be holding a sword if punishment were not part of the package).

and if drug users and dealers are getting 5 -15 years for various quantities.. then personally Id say 5 years.. this guy is getting off light.

hawker
27th March 2007, 02:02 PM
To bring some perspective back on everything - was Che Guevara a terrorist or freedom fighter?

I'm not saying Hicks is one.

McKatch
27th March 2007, 02:02 PM
Well sentencing is a whole other can of worms isn't it.....

Kuma
27th March 2007, 02:04 PM
To bring some perspective back on everything - was Che Guevara a terrorist or freedom fighter?

I'm not saying Hicks is one.



absolute terrorist...

ask my cuban barman

he threw a knife at some japanese kid wearing a che t-shirt when he came into the bar...

Silver
27th March 2007, 02:07 PM
I think you're wrong. You cannot condemn a person for what is going on inside their head, only for their actions. Until he actually acts against Australian interests in order to impose his values, then he cannot be considered a terrorist by Australia. I certainly wouldn't want the contents of my head being used to judge me. There's a lot of stuff going on in there I wouldn't want anyone to see. Training only makes him a person of interest, ie, someone to keep an eye on. As far as I know, and with your explanations, he hasn't actually committed an act that would classify him as a terrorist to any Western country (I need this proviso to get around the freedom fighter problem).

I don't want Muslim law imposed on me either. Part of that is that I want a secular society that does not judge people based on their thoughts.

Justice is about protecting the population, and rehabilitation. It is (or should be) about ensuring that the criminal cannot cause further harm to society, and will not cause further harm upon release.

If those 5 years had been in an Australian (or even a US) prison I'd agree with you, but I think the circumstances in this case make the time already served the equivalent of a much longer time.

hawker
27th March 2007, 02:09 PM
absolute terrorist...

Ah, so I take it you believe Gandhi was a terrorist too? I mean he didn't do what the British wanted!

Jazarus
27th March 2007, 02:12 PM
It is surprising to me how easily people bandy about the word terrorist without evidence in hand.

No doubt he shouldnt have been where he was, but I want an Australian court to try and convict him and let the actual evidence be known, everything so far is hearsay from the US.

And why the double standards because he is Australian.
John Walker Lindh an American citizen who was actually caught fighting with the taliban against US soldiers is facing a normal court at home in the US with charges of "conspiring to kill US soldiers" whereas Hicks with extreme lack of evidence was originally facing attempted murder charges. The message this says to me is that our citizens dont deserve the special treatment an American does because we are a foreign country likely to actually breed terrorists amongst us that would harm the US than any other country in the west would.

They free'd their UK captives because the UK is ok to them, but not us we couldnt handle such matters on our own. After the blind unyielding support Howard gives them, all he gets in return is to be patronized and made to look small and insignificant in global politics.

Kuma
27th March 2007, 02:14 PM
I think you're wrong. You cannot condemn a person for what is going on inside their head, only for their actions. Until he actually acts against Australian interests in order to impose his values, then he cannot be considered a terrorist by Australia. I certainly wouldn't want the contents of my head being used to judge me. There's a lot of stuff going on in there I wouldn't want anyone to see. Training only makes him a person of interest, ie, someone to keep an eye on. As far as I know, and with your explanations, he hasn't actually committed an act that would classify him as a terrorist to any Western country (I need this proviso to get around the freedom fighter problem).


If those 5 years had been in an Australian (or even US prison) I'd agree with you, but I think the circumstances in this case make the time already served the equivalent of a much longer time.



Hmm you do have a point.. I too wouldnt want thought crime to be illegal... Id be going away for a very long time...


now I gotta go think about this some more...

nwinters
27th March 2007, 02:14 PM
I have to echo Silver's comments- acts determine guilt not thoughts. If his actions warrant punishment then so be it but most of the negative press (read Liberal propaganda) has focussed around his state of mind and what he planned to do.

Kuma
27th March 2007, 02:15 PM
Ah, so I take it you believe Gandhi was a terrorist too? I mean he didn't do what the British wanted!



Gandhi never shot anybody in the head

avolve
27th March 2007, 02:20 PM
it's sad to say - and not for the first time - there are some naive and simplistic opinions being shared...

'detail' has shared some interesting and factual points.

I do not want to add to that debate, rather comment on the role of the US in supporting insurgents in many countries for many decades when they thought they would get something out of it. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala...

The term american exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism)* is very insightful given the current state of global affairs - and it relates to more places than the USA.

I am not supporting Hicks if he did what he is accused off, yet to consider him and those he is accused of working with as worse than the state sponsored terrorism of many western governments and their supporters is nothing short of relational narcissism.

We impose your views (i.e. 'export democracy') onto others long enough, how do we thing they will react??

It might be worth noting that the government of the USA supported democratic elections in Palestine until the people voted for someone they didn't like. There are similarities with Hezbolah in Lebanon.

Need we consider Saddam and Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War. What about the Saudi's?

We could go on discussing this for hours. Fundamentalism is a problem - and us in the West are just as guilty. We just do not see our actions as such.

Think of who made your what we are wearing and what they were put through so we can sit back and relax with our polluting lifestyles... exploitation is built into the very fabric of our societies - just far enough out of view so we can ignore it!

Our double standards are astounding and very much clear in how we treat those who do not conform to our, apparently right, way of seeing the world... :rolleyes:

* I am not a huge fan of some of the crap on wikipedia, though for all intense purposes here it will work

BLINDER
27th March 2007, 02:26 PM
There's some appallingly ignorant statements being made in this thread.
The basis of our laws and the golden thread of justice have been smouldering at a stake.
David Hicks is merely symbolic of the injustice that has been perpetrated by our elected leaders.
Terrorism is merely the vehicle by which we have been subjected to some very ordinary and morally repugnant rationalisations of our standards of law.
We have condoned in our silence the inhumane treatment of Hicks and his kind because of our fear of them.
Today it is terrorists (alleged and those who have admitted guilt through goodness knows what means) who have their rights removed.
Tomorrow anyone who gets drunk in public will be incarcerated for a minimum of 15 years. Should people who are consorting with drunks be locked away as well - that is the price we will pay for a sober society. No proof will be required either way.
None of you would tolerate that.
I don't tolerate the simple and stupid categorisation of all is fair against terrorists.
In any case the treatment meted out by the "coalition of the willing" will make sure the hatred against the willing is continued ad nauseum.
Finally - I support no terrorist act.
I do support justice. I do support proof. I do support evidence. I do support the Geneva convention for human rights.

forgie
27th March 2007, 02:29 PM
Need we consider Saddam and Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War. What about the Saudi's?:thumbup: To all of your post.

You're not supposed to mention the Saudis - fundamentalists are only fundamentalists if they don't want to sell us oil, right? :confused: Otherwise they are "friends?"

Beast5500
27th March 2007, 02:30 PM
We give basic human rights to a person who kills 30 odd people in Port Arthur, yet we treat someone 'suspected of terrorism' like an animal with no respect for human rights.
Good Point :thumbup:

//EDIT:
Justice is an absract concept. There is no real definitive defintion. At the end of the day, it ends up becoming based of someone's (or group of) opinions.

Kuma
27th March 2007, 02:30 PM
I do support justice. I do support proof. I do support evidence. I do support the Geneva convention for human rights.


I don't think anybody has suggested otherwise....

hawker
27th March 2007, 02:35 PM
I just want to know where we draw the line between terrorist and political prisoner?

Kuma
27th March 2007, 02:38 PM
//EDIT:
Justice is an absract concept. There is no real definitive defintion. At the end of the day, it ends up becoming based of someone's (or group of) opinions.



ohh now we get all philosophical on justice.. and what it is...

I think that if we take the common rights that are attributed to most in the western world, then Hicks certainly hasn't been granted his....
gitmo was devised to be an institution outside the law
enabling George and Co. to do whatever they basically felt like doing

if Hicks was on a US warship he would have had more rights...



I just want to know where we draw the line between terrorist and political prisoner?

violence?

avolve
27th March 2007, 03:06 PM
I just want to know where we draw the line between terrorist and political prisoner?

Nelson Mandella anyone - considered a terrorist for decades, then 'leader' of a country.

What about Xanana Gusmao??

And while we are on that, what about our governments tacit knowledge of the December 1975 genocidal Indonesian invasion of East Timor. The government of the USA also turned a blind eye - Kisinger (Secretary of State) and Ford (President) visited Indo two days before - and supplied weapons (as did the UK)!

To get back to the guilty plea, i noted that the Commission can not be challenged until a conviction. Perhaps the pleas was strategic - he gets a conviction then challenges the validity of the Commissions which he has a good chance of winning by all accounts?? Time will tell i guess.

----
I am sure i will awake (its midnight here) to find many posts to read here in the morn ;)

BLINDER
27th March 2007, 03:07 PM
I don't think anybody has suggested otherwise....

Not necessarily in here but it has become a problem whereby our fellow citizens and fellow members of the "coalition of the willing" are denying the very basic rights that we espouse to all and sundry as what makes us better than "them".
We also haven't been implicit enough in insisting that the rights we desire and live under are absolutely enforced in our own system.
So I kindly disagree and state this in this case - irrespective of ANYTHING that David Hicks has done he DESERVES the very rights he would seek to destroy or deny others (if that's what he was supporting!?!). For we are better than him.

bennettnz
27th March 2007, 03:12 PM
Wasn't it the American Government that gave millitary support in the way of weapons to the Teleban so they could oppose the Russian forces in Afganistan?

Is Mandela still a terrorist or is all forgiven?

Does Mel Gibson really hate Jewish people?

Doesn't anyone remember French intelligence officers blowing up a GreenPeace ship in Auckland Harbour killing a crew member? They were released back to Paris and given medals.

At the end of the day we can barely believe anything we see or hear through the media these days, and secondly EVERYTHING is subjective! Terrorism is a buzz word invented by the darker side of politics in order to control the thoughts of the population. I don't agree with violence as a means to force change but I do defend an individuals right to believe in the things I don't even if I hate it.

The current feeding frenzy about "terrorism" is nothing more than a sad reflection of how little we have evolved no matter what side you stand on. This century has seen a silde in political maturity in most countries. Communist, democratic, totalitarian, these systems are more closely related then ever before thanks to the actions of the West in condoning the "legal" and"morally just" reactions we have seen in our own countries and with greater effect in Iraq, Pakistan, Palestine etc.

When I was smaller I used to think of Airports as places of wonder and excitement. Now they are places of fear and over zealous protectionism...

P.s. I have a lot of sympathy for anyone that has benn denied basic legal and civil rights regardless of their actions.

What does pleading "guilty" mean in a system that isn't legally valid? I think he has done the smartest thing , it will get him back to his family faster than pleading innocent - in which case the there would be a massive amount of time wasting before he would be found guilty anyway.

Hicks' defence lawer deserves a medal. I think he has stood up for the real american values that Bush thinks he is defending.

Bring Hicks home and leave him be. I am a lot angier at drunk drivers and speeding P-platers than David Hicks.

girlbunny
27th March 2007, 03:15 PM
Just as a side note:

This morning it was announced that Hicks had been warned that if he insisted on "real lawyers" (as he was doing) there would be a minimum of four years worth of court cases and appeals before he could even look at leaving where he was. They also told him that if he did a plea bargain - pleading guilty to material support - he would be allowed to go back to serve any term in Australia. The way I see it they were telling him if he didn't plea bargain, they'd leave him locked up in Guantanamo Bay for at least another four years with no chance of getting out, because they'd tie his court case up in so many knots he'd wish he'd taken the plea.

IMO there wasn't a heck of a lot of choice in the matter. They knew that he was desperate to get out, and that he was willing to consider a plea bargain in order to get out of there. Knowing that, it wouldn't take much "persuasion" to tip him over the edge and get the guilty verdict they're so desperate to achieve.

Of course, as has already been pointed out, it's also politically expedient that Hicks pleads guilty, as Howard has been getting flak from the Australian public for ignoring Hicks for so long. For heavens sake, who on earth - with the power to make a difference - lets their own countryman hang out to dry on the suspicion of another government, with no proof, and nothing except the word of people who have been proven to have lied on multiple occasions? Howard left Hicks to suffer for as long as he could, before he suddenly realised that it was potentially hurting his political career.

It's too bad that Hicks' return will probably end up being a plus on Howards totem pole, since it will like fall just before the federal elections.

Kuma
27th March 2007, 03:16 PM
Wasn't it the American Government that gave millitary support in the way of weapons to the Teleban so they could oppose the Russian forces in Afganistan?




I believe they supplied the mujahedeen (or however it is you spell that).. the mujahaeen were a mixed group.. some went on to become the taliban others became the Northern Alliance.

bennettnz
27th March 2007, 03:20 PM
Thanks Kuma - didn't relaise that, plus at least you know how to spell Taliban I must have got confused with Teletubbies - now they were scary.

Disko
27th March 2007, 03:36 PM
David Hicks is a Terrorist. Says the U.S.

They also said:
Iraq = Alqaeda network
Iraq had WMD's
The iraqi people wanted to be 'liberated'.
Mission Accomplished
Iraq is safer now.

I think i'll stick to my guns on this one, and take anything the U.S. says as a wank. He might have done something 'wrong' - but it wasn't illegal. The yanks have had no right to hold him, or treat him the way they have. Our government should be disgusted (like other governments around were) at this treatment, and requested his return right off the bat.

He's been tortured for five years. Of course he'll plead whatever, he's afraid, and eager to get out of there.

A couple of weeks ago, they got some other guy from Guantanamo to 'confess' to 9/11, bali bombings, spain bombings, uk bombings... it's a wank. They can get anyone to confess to anything.

Kuma
27th March 2007, 04:12 PM
A couple of weeks ago, they got some other guy from Guantanamo to 'confess' to 9/11, bali bombings, spain bombings, uk bombings... it's a wank. They can get anyone to confess to anything.

Hang on a tick.. KSM is the person you refer too...
and yes I am only going on media reports and stuff I have seen on the History, Discovery Channel

but he was a high ranking Al Qaeda dude he is meant to have been the ideas man for most of what Al Qaeda have been doing for years... for him to confess to these things is a) partly believable
but b) (and more likely) a call on his part to take the heat off other members... who are still not captured....


arguing about the grey area of Hicks is he or isn't he is one thing KSM is most definitely a terrorist and a good one to have behind bars.

Disko
27th March 2007, 04:15 PM
but he was a high ranking Al Qaeda dude he is meant to have been the ideas man for most of what Al Qaeda have been doing for years...
... according to the U.S.

Kuma
27th March 2007, 04:17 PM
... according to the U.S.

I think that this claim goes beyond just the US

girlbunny
27th March 2007, 04:26 PM
I think that this claim goes beyond just the US

It really depends on who you can believe though.

One set of leaders have taken to lying so much they made up swathes of evidence to try to go to war more than once.

The truth of the matter is "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.". Though for some of us we are politically astute enough to spot a blatant lie from the get go.

It really comes down to who has lied the most. John howard makes us laugh. Only second hand car sales people lie so often they have to tag the term "Honest" to their names to look credible. Well until Honest John.

hawker
27th March 2007, 04:32 PM
Yes the claim goes beyond the US, all the way to John Howard, who believes everything the US tells him to believe.

Kuma
27th March 2007, 04:48 PM
Please present me with evidence that KSM was not "Al Qaeda's number 3"

Disko
27th March 2007, 04:52 PM
Please present me with evidence that KSM was not "Al Qaeda's number 3"

I can't.

But i will say this: There is a small electric kettle in orbit around saturn.

Please present me with evidence this is not true.


(the point being, that it is indeed the U.S.'s job to provide the evidence of guilt, not ours to provide the evidence of innocence.)

hawker
27th March 2007, 05:00 PM
Please present me with evidence that KSM was not "Al Qaeda's number 3"

I'm still waiting for proof of WMD from Iraq? They've invaded, taken out the leader, executed him, and still no sign of these WMD? I mean obviously the US know how to locate things, Bin Ladin is the only exception to the rule obviously.

Georgina EG
27th March 2007, 05:07 PM
Hicks pleaded guilty to providing material to support terrorism, but whatever that entailed, his trial should not have taken five years to be undertaken. This is not the sort of treatment we should expect from a nation which considers itself to be the leader of the democratic world.

uncyherb
27th March 2007, 05:36 PM
4 years ago the US said "These people (the ones in Guantanamo) are the worst of the worst."

So they've held Hicks for 5 years without trial and now what is it that they finally charge him with?

Providing material support.

Not making bombs, shooting at our own people, planning biological warfare or even attempted murder - this from a system that according to most is set up to gain a conviction almost no matter what.

Was the world made a safer place with Hicks behinds bars? I supremely doubt it. No leader of a terrorist organization would have quaked in their boots over the capture of Hicks.

Was the world made a more dangerous place by the actions that put Hicks behind bars? I don't doubt it for a second. I don't doubt that radical elements would use injustices like those inflicted on Hicks to whip up hate against the US... and Australia for our government's fawning approval of holding someone without trial for five years, all the time telling us he was guilty before any evidence was ever produced.

lurka
27th March 2007, 06:18 PM
All I would like to know is , If "David Hicks" was from Iraq and not Australian , and the Iraq people caught him or suspected him of working against Iraq with the Americans or the English or the Australians, does anyone here think he would have even been alive for 5 years to receive a sentence?... Im guessin not...

I say , you pick up arms agains your country, (thats the one you hold a passpart for), then you are GUILTY of treason , no if's no but's no nothing....

bolle
27th March 2007, 06:30 PM
Look, who really knows. Hypothetically, David may have been planing to kill your cousin in the Australian reserves, KSM may have been planing to blow up your family's house in Perth, and Iraq may have had the technology to blow up the world. Then on the flip side, maybe they wern't. Maybe this is all one big pile of runny shit.

The way i see it is that there is so much doubt over any of these FACTS about these so called terrorists and terrorism itself. The big problem with this war is the Americans have no idea who they're actually fighting against. Anyone could be a terrorist. EVEN YOU!

Maybe in 50 years time, we'll know exactly who we were fighting

girlbunny
27th March 2007, 06:42 PM
I say , you pick up arms agains your country, (thats the one you hold a passpart for), then you are GUILTY of treason , no if's no but's no nothing....

I would like to point out that at no point did Hicks take up arms against his country. That point has been made very clear. Please read up on this before claiming he did anything illegal. He did not do anything illegal. The charge he has had to confess to is a new charge effective only in USA and immoral at least to make it retrospective. The law to include people who may have committed said crime before it was a crime.

So if they lower the blood alcohol to nil while driving tomorrow, does that mean you will personally turn yourself in to the nearest police station because you drank enough in the past to make you a criminal under the new laws? I bet you wouldn't. I bet if they did make any law retrospective you would scream that an injustice has been committed.

antechinus55
27th March 2007, 07:04 PM
Why is it cruel to incarcerate a terrorist?

A prisoner exchange has to work on the understanding that a prisoner serves their time based on the court that sentenced them - otherwise every prisoner would have to be re-tried in their home country. In this case hicks would be better off probably but for some prisoner exchanges that could mean someone having their sentence upgraded. In short Australian law has nothing to do with it.

And I would say he was a mentally ill man way before he was picked up in Afghanistan, a sane person would never have been there in the first place. What do you think he was doing there, sightseeing?
I'm not an apologist for Hicks, frankly I think he is a dropkick, but I don't think he is a terrorist. After 5 years of illegal detention (the US calls them all 'enemy combatants' BECAUSE if they call them enemy soldiers they are illegally detaining them under the Geneva Convention), all they have charged him with is 'aiding' the Taliban, who were the government at the time. This is a minor charge, and after 5 years of regular torture to elicit a confession, this is ALL they can charge him with!
And remember, even if he is a terrorist, he is innocent until proven guilty (even in the star chamber he will have to face). If he is not to be given the benefit of the presumption of innocense who is next, Labor voters?

antechinus55
27th March 2007, 07:18 PM
Not necessarily in here but it has become a problem whereby our fellow citizens and fellow members of the "coalition of the willing" are denying the very basic rights that we espouse to all and sundry as what makes us better than "them".
We also haven't been implicit enough in insisting that the rights we desire and live under are absolutely enforced in our own system.
So I kindly disagree and state this in this case - irrespective of ANYTHING that David Hicks has done he DESERVES the very rights he would seek to destroy or deny others (if that's what he was supporting!?!). For we are better than him.
hear hear!
we allow any state to claim 'exceptionalism' at our peril. we allow any state to practise torture even more at our peril, especially one that claims to be doing it for all the right reasons. What will the west say when a country ruled by a despot uses the same tactics?
Hicks, because of what he is accused of, MUST be tried fairly, even if he turns out to be an odious little shit (as i think he might).

Galumay
27th March 2007, 07:53 PM
firstly i would like to observe what a mature and intelligent discussion this has been, opinions on a very emotional issue have been argued without rancour or ad hominem attacks - a fine example of why i enjoy hanging out here!

my personal perspective is that 'terrorist' is a construct used for purely political reasons and has been used by the bush administration to create a climate of fear that allowed the manipulation of the populace.

it is interesting to consider the comments recently of a former american ambassador who was around at the height of the cold war, he observed that the current climate of fear is actually much higher and intense than at the height of the cold war when 30 million americans were facing immediate annihalation at the press of a button - the threat from 'terrorism' is minute in comparison and certainly nothing like as concrete.

there is no greater proponent of terror as a weapon than the US, the greatest single act of terrorism by a magnitude of enormity was the atomic bombs dropped on the civilians of japan in ww2. they have frequently used terror as a tactic in south east asia, latin & central america and africa. there is no high moral ground for the US on terror.

david hicks is probably a silly young man, but he broke no existing laws either of australia or the US, he has been illegally detained for nearly 6 years - which is a national disgrace and it is only now that howard realises the political ramifications of this that he has pressured bush to deliver hicks home before the next election.

its ironic that at least hicks probably truly believed in what he was doing in afganistan, i wonder how many of the US and australian troops involved in the illegal invasion of iraq believe that what they are doing is right!

lurka
27th March 2007, 08:03 PM
I would like to point out that at no point did Hicks take up arms against his country..

I say the piccy of Hicks holding a Russian RPG launcher, is not a family fun picture taken anywhere in australia or the US, not to mention he was picked up over there, thats enough for me to say he has picked up arms against his country. Australia does't use those old skool weapons.

He is lucky he is a so called " Australian" for if he was from the other team being 'Iraq', he would be dead , and ya wouldnt be quibbing over who has rights. boo friggidy hooo.

You can support him all you like, thats your prerogative, but I figure if ya caught over there during a war and your not fighting with us, or as one of them "human bomb shields" aka (temporary humans) then ya not on our side thus your committing high treason.

Im over the do-gooders of the world, he did something wrong, he should be punished. He was there doing what ever you wanna call it but he wasn't a civilian on a holiday or working, and he certainly wasn't in the army.

"DAVID HICKS GUILTY OF TREASON"

Quasar
27th March 2007, 08:15 PM
Well...I can't say I'm surprised Hicks did this. I know I'd do absolutely anything to get out of that hell hole in Cuba, especially given the nature of the kangaroo court thats being used.

forgie
27th March 2007, 08:40 PM
I say the piccy of Hicks holding a Russian RPG launcher, is not a family fun picture taken anywhere in australia or the US, not to mention he was picked up over there, thats enough for me to say he has picked up arms against his country. Australia does't use those old skool weapons.

He is lucky he is a so called " Australian" for if he was from the other team being 'Iraq', he would be dead , and ya wouldnt be quibbing over who has rights. boo friggidy hooo.

You can support him all you like, thats your prerogative, but I figure if ya caught over there during a war and your not fighting with us, or as one of them "human bomb shields" aka (temporary humans) then ya not on our side thus your committing high treason.

Im over the do-gooders of the world, he did something wrong, he should be punished. He was there doing what ever you wanna call it but he wasn't a civilian on a holiday or working, and he certainly wasn't in the army.

"DAVID HICKS GUILTY OF TREASON"
Well said. You don't work for Phillip Ruddock do you? ;)

Kidding. I'm kidding. This whole situation is forcing us to confront the blatant hypocrisy and lunacy of our notions of war and "us". Taking sides and persecuting the enemies. It's unusual to see someone get caught in the crossfire of the process of dehumanising the enemy - if David Hicks wasn't caucasian we probably wouldn't even be debating this, he would've been locked up in Guantanamo indefinitely.

iPirate
27th March 2007, 08:45 PM
Meh. He comes back home to serve his sentence, doesn't he?

Would that mean he can come under that Magna Carta thingy and then be deemed worthy of a retrial?

Galumay
27th March 2007, 08:48 PM
"DAVID HICKS GUILTY OF TREASON"

well i think thats one thing that is very clear, he is certainly not guilty of treason, even the howard government has made it clear he has broken no australian laws that existed at the time - and that clearly includes treason.

i dont think anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the circumstances would suggest he committed treason.

hawker
27th March 2007, 08:53 PM
In theory, Hicks and everyone else at Gitmo should be released immediately, in reality they are being held by illegal law, laws created after the offense!

uncyherb
27th March 2007, 09:00 PM
I say the piccy of Hicks holding a Russian RPG launcher, is not a family fun picture taken anywhere in australia or the US, not to mention he was picked up over there, thats enough for me to say he has picked up arms against his country. Australia does't use those old skool weapons.

He is lucky he is a so called " Australian" for if he was from the other team being 'Iraq', he would be dead , and ya wouldnt be quibbing over who has rights. boo friggidy hooo.

You can support him all you like, thats your prerogative, but I figure if ya caught over there during a war and your not fighting with us, or as one of them "human bomb shields" aka (temporary humans) then ya not on our side thus your committing high treason.

Im over the do-gooders of the world, he did something wrong, he should be punished. He was there doing what ever you wanna call it but he wasn't a civilian on a holiday or working, and he certainly wasn't in the army.

"DAVID HICKS GUILTY OF TREASON"

David Hicks was caught by American Troops as they invaded Afganistan to overthrow the legal government of that country.

But irrespective of this, a picture of David Hicks holding a PRG launcher is no more proof that he was committing treason than a picture of me sitting in a Russian MIG would be proof of treason... or terrorist actions.

I know of places in India an Pakistan that do a roaring trade in allowing wealthy people from England, America and Australia to shoot M16's, PRG's, Uzi's and even canons and tanks. A photo of someone holding a specific weapon is only proof that they held that weapon... nothing more. It certainly isn't proof of treason, and if definitely isn't proof of committing a terrorist act. The US know that, otherwise they would have charged him with something more that 'providing material support to terrorism.'

IMO, that photo was designed to lead the public to a conclusion. And you have reached the exact conclusion they wanted you to reach: that Hicks is a terrorist.

I have a photo of my father-in-law wearing a Collingwood football club jumper. If I was to show you the photo you might think he supported Collingwood. However he did it as a bit of a laugh one day, and he is in fact a Richmond supporter.

One photo doesn't tell any of us enough to assume someone's guilt or innocence.

Georgina EG
27th March 2007, 09:02 PM
Unfortunately there are people in the community who are easily influenced to the extent that they can be brainwashed. They seek things outside what we would regard as normal and will accept whatever they're told whether it is right or wrong.

I've no idea if David Hicks comes into this category, at the moment I'm drawing on my knowledge of someone who went interstate and was brainwashed by a religious group. She knows they caused her harm, yet still believes in them.

That David Hicks did this with a fanatical religious group who had taken up arms against the West leaves me puzzled, but for the US to hold him for 5 years without a trial also leaves them at fault.

girlbunny
27th March 2007, 09:23 PM
I say the piccy of Hicks holding a Russian RPG launcher, is not a family fun picture taken anywhere in australia or the US, not to mention he was picked up over there, thats enough for me to say he has picked up arms against his country. Australia does't use those old skool weapons.

He is lucky he is a so called " Australian" for if he was from the other team being 'Iraq', he would be dead , and ya wouldnt be quibbing over who has rights. boo friggidy hooo.

You can support him all you like, thats your prerogative, but I figure if ya caught over there during a war and your not fighting with us, or as one of them "human bomb shields" aka (temporary humans) then ya not on our side thus your committing high treason.

"DAVID HICKS GUILTY OF TREASON"

First. That photo that the Australian media hooked onto, was Hicks and is real. What you have managed to do is ignore the fact it was taken in the former Yugoslavia. He was at that time part of a group that at that time was not considered a terrorist organization (it was considered a terrorist organization earlier by the USA but they had reclassified the group by the time Hicks joined) and Hicks was fighting on the same side as the USA and Australia. Yes as part of an independent group. If that qualifies him as a terrorist there are hundreds or thousands of Australians hired by independent mercenary companies like Blackwater illegally taking up arms in Iraq today on the side of USA.

Now you seem more than a little confused. Twice you have mentioned Iraq. I am not aware of Hicks ever going to Iraq. Saddam had a habit of killing members of terrorist groups. Saddam was very good at that. Hicks couldn't even stumble across the border. Iraq and Afghanistan don't even share a border.

lurka
27th March 2007, 09:37 PM
First. That photo that the Australian media hooked onto, was Hicks and is real. What you have managed to do is ignore the fact it was taken in the former Yugoslavia. He was at that time part of a group that at that time was not considered a terrorist organization (it was considered a terrorist organization earlier by the USA but they had reclassified the group by the time Hicks joined) and Hicks was fighting on the same side as the USA and Australia. Yes as part of an independent group. If that qualifies him as a terrorist there are hundreds or thousands of Australians hired by independent mercenary companies like Blackwater illegally taking up arms in Iraq today on the side of USA.

Now you seem more than a little confused. Twice you have mentioned Iraq. I am not aware of Hicks ever going to Iraq. Saddam had a habit of killing members of terrorist groups. Saddam was very good at that. Hicks couldn't even stumble across the border. Iraq and Afghanistan don't even share a border.

thank you for wasting your time reading my thoughts
LOL:D

queraxus
27th March 2007, 09:39 PM
"DAVID HICKS GUILTY OF TREASON"

Get back in your conservative box. He wasn't even charged with treason.

McKatch
27th March 2007, 09:56 PM
Ahh Girlbunny you beat me to the post I was going to make while reading through this thread. The picture so regularly touted as Hicks training with terrorists was indeed supposed to be from his time with a group in Kosovo during the serbian troubles. From what I remember reading about it at the time he was indeed fighting for the same side as the US in those days. Many believe I think the picture taken during terrorist training or indeed while in Afghanistan itself.

There have been some very interesting points made here in this thread thats for sure.

I await news on sentencing as I think that will indeed be very interesting indeed.

scruffie
27th March 2007, 10:45 PM
Thats so sad. Whilst i understand that his guilty plea would be out of duress, its only going to prove to the americans what a wonderful institution gitmo has been and how its been so effective on the war of terror.

Johnny Appleseed
27th March 2007, 10:55 PM
David Hicks was caught by American Troops as they invaded Afganistan to overthrow the legal government of that country.

Dunno if Afghanistan has ever had such a thing as a "legal government". It's been one coup after another. At least there's some semblance of democracy there now, even if the warring tribes are still a problem.

Kuma
28th March 2007, 05:18 AM
In theory, Hicks and everyone else at Gitmo should be released immediately, in reality they are being held by illegal law, laws created after the offense!


While not quite accurate... it is a sentiment I agree with.. Gitmo (Camp David) has come into creation (as I said before) to out lie of the rules of normal justice...

America getting way with this is a huge indictment on the world commnunity....

as for KSM look at articles regarding him... from all over the net... ok most I could find are dated post 9-11....

but this guy is bad... I cant believe you are invoking your same argument for there is no god as there is for this guy being framed by america....

next thing you are going to tell me is Osama makes great cucumber sandwiches and holds a great tea party to which the queen attends regularly


Go and watch the Danial Pearl beheading video.... (I will not link it.. and yes I have watched it).

these guys are right fucking bastards... pro or anti islam, zionism aside.. this decapitation videos are pure evil.
he has confessed to it.. and not only yes I did it.. but

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew), Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan."

these are not the words of a man saying yes I did it...
these are the words of a mother fucker an evil mother fucker.. who is burning our precious oxygene by just being alive....

Go and watch the video... then come back here and tell me that KSM is just a man signing a confession...

queraxus
28th March 2007, 07:27 AM
While not quite accurate... it is a sentiment I agree with.. Gitmo (Camp David) has come into creation (as I said before) to out lie of the rules of normal justice...


I'm sure you meant Camp Delta, and before that, Camp Xray. Camp David is the US Presidential country retreat.

gelfie
28th March 2007, 07:39 AM
Greatest farce in years. Oh sure, they're allowed to hold him indefinitely under "Their" made up rules. But thats like saying I'm a good basketballer so long as no one ever calls travel.

hawker
28th March 2007, 07:44 AM
Go and watch the Danial Pearl beheading video.... (I will not link it.. and yes I have watched it).

Go and watch the video... then come back here and tell me that KSM is just a man signing a confession...

Daniel Pearl? never heard of him, I saw Nicolas Berg well before whoever the hell this guy is. Hows this execution different to the horrendous amount of executions America deal out during the course of a year? It's suppose to deter criminals, yet the crime rate goes up? What's this prove, America isn't a country to be telling the world how to deal with the problems. I personally can't believe you support America like this.

I'm with so many others, what America say is complete rubbish, and just here-say that I'm yet to see proof of. I'll be over here waiting to see some WMD's come out of Iraq.

And in regards to what Hicks as been charged with, why haven't they gone after all the black market sellers that no doubt sold them firearms, and weapons? Why, oh that's right, they openly supply the black market. Again Pot, Kettle, Black!

If we're talking about Camp David, I believe everyone there should be executed immediately :)

Kuma
28th March 2007, 12:24 PM
Daniel Pearl? never heard of him, I saw Nicolas Berg well before whoever the hell this guy is. Hows this execution different to the horrendous amount of executions America deal out during the course of a year? It's suppose to deter criminals, yet the crime rate goes up? What's this prove, America isn't a country to be telling the world how to deal with the problems. I personally can't believe you support America like this.

I'm with so many others, what America say is complete rubbish, and just here-say that I'm yet to see proof of. I'll be over here waiting to see some WMD's come out of Iraq.

And in regards to what Hicks as been charged with, why haven't they gone after all the black market sellers that no doubt sold them firearms, and weapons? Why, oh that's right, they openly supply the black market. Again Pot, Kettle, Black!

If we're talking about Camp David, I believe everyone there should be executed immediately :)


Yeah as for Camp David err Delta I got home and posted under the influence...

I am not saying I support America on everything.. I certainly do accept the fact that the Hicks case is completely fucked up

Gitmo is beyond all comprehension

As for WMDs well I didn't believe it from the start... but George didn't want my intelligence briefing...

I think this whole thread has been fairly well debated... and discussed with the one exception to saying that the KSM confession is not legit.

As for the executions.. Hawker go dig up a video and watch it... watch it the whole bloody way to the very end... when they put the head on the lap or hold it up in front of a camera...
Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, the English Dude whose name eludes me now...

I can not say this strongly enough.. these guys are fucking evil.

give me an American "execution" any time...

detail
28th March 2007, 12:29 PM
I was reading a blog on this in the Australian and thought this was an interesting take on the current situation.


we are in some very new territory here - is a war on an adjective (terror) the same as a war between nations. Years before the USA declared war on terror they declared war on drugs - maybe they see that as a licence to detain whoever they like “on the battlefield” and try them in a military commission - it’s a war, right? In wars between states we all understand what happens: One side overpowers the other, lots of folks get killed and then there’s a surrender, a peace settlement and we prepare for the next outbreak. But if terror can't surrender maybe there’s no measurable way to know the war is over, maybe military commissions just become a part of our lives and we create mythcal places like Guantanamo - a land where the USA has absolute control and power - but where the laws of the USA have no jurisdiction. Maybe thats the future.

I’m sure there are many amazing facts about David Hicks. and we’ll all be shocked to read that a guy who went off to fight first in Kosovo and then in Afghanistan for whatever reason - is not an angel. It seems David aka whatever also said some very supportive things about the Taliban. Maybe we should sift through any quotes by american politicians from the years when Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were buddies ...

This issue isnt about facts or law or what a nice fellow David Hicks is. It’s about the future we are making for ourselves. There are some who live in fear and feel it is necessary to identify the enemy so we can engage him and defeat him - we can declare war on drugs, terror, war between the sexes. Hell, we can even have war between generations.

There’s got to be a more constructive way to view the world than simply dividing things constantly into “us and them”.

I just don't like the way the issue has encouraged a polarisation to the extreme points of view. And the certainty with which each believes they are absolutely right.

girlbunny
28th March 2007, 02:30 PM
The reason, IMO, that the "war on terror" concept was even brought up is because it pretty much gave Bush the power to do what he wanted, when he wanted to do it. Normally he has to deal with beaurocracy in order to get money, or passing laws etc... however in a time of war, the President has automatic power to do/take these things with minimal input from outside forces.

A war on terror means the country is at war - thus, means that Bush holds ultimate power. I'm sure most of you here will be familiar with the saying "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely"... with Bush you have someone who was corrupt before even going into politics... what on earth does that make him now that he has that absolute power he's been craving?

It is also easier to deal with a scared population than a population that is calm and able to think clearly. A war on terror (accompanied by the constant scare tactics by the media in order to continually stir up further fear) makes for a very scared, and very unthinking populace.

Bush wanted to do some pretty distasteful things before he ever became president... including putting an oil pipeline through Afghanistan when there was no agreement from Afghanistan to do so. In fact, one of his public election promises to the oil barons over a year before September 11 was that he would be invading Afghanistan in order to get the pipeline. Interestingly enough, three months after they deposed the Taliban, that oil pipeline contract was signed.

I have a lot of American friends... most of whom can't stand what is happening over there - in fact some have left the US and become citizens of other countries because they dislike the regime so much. However, the US government as it stands is a scary thing to behold.

Kuma
28th March 2007, 03:11 PM
The reason, IMO, that the "war on terror" concept was even brought up is because it pretty much gave Bush the power to do what he wanted, when he wanted to do it. Normally he has to deal with beaurocracy in order to get money, or passing laws etc... however in a time of war, the President has automatic power to do/take these things with minimal input from outside forces.

A war on terror means the country is at war - thus, means that Bush holds ultimate power. I'm sure most of you here will be familiar with the saying "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely"... with Bush you have someone who was corrupt before even going into politics... what on earth does that make him now that he has that absolute power he's been craving?

It is also easier to deal with a scared population than a population that is calm and able to think clearly. A war on terror (accompanied by the constant scare tactics by the media in order to continually stir up further fear) makes for a very scared, and very unthinking populace.

Bush wanted to do some pretty distasteful things before he ever became president... including putting an oil pipeline through Afghanistan when there was no agreement from Afghanistan to do so. In fact, one of his public election promises to the oil barons over a year before September 11 was that he would be invading Afghanistan in order to get the pipeline. Interestingly enough, three months after they deposed the Taliban, that oil pipeline contract was signed.

I have a lot of American friends... most of whom can't stand what is happening over there - in fact some have left the US and become citizens of other countries because they dislike the regime so much. However, the US government as it stands is a scary thing to behold.


Me too.. actually I just came home from lunch with an American mate who is off to live in Germany.. GW helped him make that decision.

girlbunny (this is not scepticism) could you please point me in the direction of the oil pipe promise... I am genuinely interested...

It would certainly lend strength to conspiracy theories....

sdien
28th March 2007, 04:00 PM
I was reading a blog on this in the Australian and thought this was an interesting take on the current situation.


we are in some very new territory here - is a war on an adjective (terror) the same as a war between nations. Years before the USA declared war on terror they declared war on drugs - maybe they see that as a licence to detain whoever they like “on the battlefield” and try them in a military commission - it’s a war, right? In wars between states we all understand what happens: One side overpowers the other, lots of folks get killed and then there’s a surrender, a peace settlement and we prepare for the next outbreak. But if terror can't surrender maybe there’s no measurable way to know the war is over, maybe military commissions just become a part of our lives and we create mythcal places like Guantanamo - a land where the USA has absolute control and power - but where the laws of the USA have no jurisdiction. Maybe thats the future.

I’m sure there are many amazing facts about David Hicks. and we’ll all be shocked to read that a guy who went off to fight first in Kosovo and then in Afghanistan for whatever reason - is not an angel. It seems David aka whatever also said some very supportive things about the Taliban. Maybe we should sift through any quotes by american politicians from the years when Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were buddies ...

This issue isnt about facts or law or what a nice fellow David Hicks is. It’s about the future we are making for ourselves. There are some who live in fear and feel it is necessary to identify the enemy so we can engage him and defeat him - we can declare war on drugs, terror, war between the sexes. Hell, we can even have war between generations.

There’s got to be a more constructive way to view the world than simply dividing things constantly into “us and them”.

I just don't like the way the issue has encouraged a polarisation to the extreme points of view. And the certainty with which each believes they are absolutely right.

care to point me to the original source?

bennettnz
28th March 2007, 04:40 PM
Yes I have a lot of american friends and inlaws who are genuinely perplexed by the current administration in the US. I think most people realise this isn't an anti-american thing anymore it's very much an anti Bush/Howard administration stance. When people get the chance to vote they should really think about it and do it. Amazingly Bush was voted back in - but the funny thing is he was never legally voted in the first time so should never have had the chance.

I wonder if the war on terror isn't just a big father issue/hang over from Saddam and Bush Senior round one in the late 90's... that may be too simplistic or cynical but on the other hand in these crazy times it may be 100 per cent correct, sadly.

bennettnz
28th March 2007, 04:42 PM
By the way this is one of the best threads ever on this forum and there has been some great input from the majority of members.

detail
28th March 2007, 04:50 PM
care to point me to the original source?

I should be embarrassed reading this nonsense. Its somewhere in the middle of the 313 posts.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/gun_toting_jihadi_was_not_an_angel/

I have been reading Matt Price's blog which has the inverse number of Howard haters generally.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mattprice/index.php/theaustralian/comments/not_so_simple_exit_for_hicks/

He's got over 500 posts on the same topic.

Sometimes you can get too much news.

queraxus
28th March 2007, 05:10 PM
The bottom line is that the US knew that he's innocent, but have used him to further their own and their 'dear friend Johnny's' agendas.

* The US can claim that their system works, and is fair, and that they're targeting the real terrorists.
* Australia can claim that they were right in trusting the Americans, and he's conveniently off the political radar before the Federal election, where he would have been an issue.

benmcgruer
28th March 2007, 05:16 PM
Well I'm coming into this one late and just want to note a couple of points that don't seem to have been given much time.

The Americans have made up some interesting definitions of 'Enemy Combatants' as opposed to soldiers - but for all intents and purposes he is a prisoner of war. He was captured during a war when he was an active member of the opposing forces (by his own admission).

There is no need to try prisoners of war - they can be held indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities (which are still ongoing). They don't have to have committed any crimes (war or civil) to be held. This makes sense - you can't expect any army to release enemy prisoners to have them simply return to the front again.

So, David Hicks is a prisoner of war, and he should expect to remain locked up until the conflict is over. However in addition to being a prisoner of war, the United States has laws against supporting or engaging in Terrorism. The US also wished to try him for these crimes (and he's now admitted he's guilty of supporting terrorism).

So now, addition to being a PoW, who can be held without trial until the cessation of conflict, he's also guilty of supporting terrorism, for which under US law he will be incarcerated (sentence TBA).

The only real issue I have with this whole saga are the conditions he is being held under. If these met those required by the Geneva Convention I'd have no problem with his treatment.

Kuma
28th March 2007, 05:18 PM
Well I'm coming into this one late and just want to note a couple of points that don't seem to have been given much time.

The Americans have made up some interesting definitions of 'Enemy Combatants' as opposed to soldiers - but for all intents and purposes he is a prisoner of war. He was captured during a war when he was an active member of the opposing forces (by his own admission).

There is no need to try prisoners of war - they can be held indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities (which are still ongoing). They don't have to have committed any crimes (war or civil) to be held. This makes sense - you can't expect any army to release enemy prisoners to have them simply return to the front again.

So, David Hicks is a prisoner of war, and he should expect to remain locked up until the conflict is over. However in addition to being a prisoner of war, the United States has laws against supporting or engaging in Terrorism. The US also wished to try him for these crimes (and he's now admitted he's guilty of supporting terrorism).

So now, addition to being a PoW, who can be held without trial until the cessation of conflict, he's also guilty of supporting terrorism, for which under US law he will be incarcerated (sentence TBA).

The only real issue I have with this whole saga are the conditions he is being held under. If these met those required by the Geneva Convention I'd have no problem with his treatment.
thank you!

hawker
28th March 2007, 05:23 PM
thank you!

Thank you? He just reiterated what everyone knows? We're not at war, and anyone who believes we are is basically, well in simple terms a fool. You've fallen for Bush and Howard's ploy. Someone stood up to them on 9/11 (well more America) and they can't take a hint so they have to invade country after country. I wish the dam UN would stand up to them call everything they've done illegal and throw them in jail.

And if we were at war, I would have no issue with people being detained, but seriously, I wouldn't treat my dog the way everyone in Gitmo has been treated.

McKatch
28th March 2007, 05:49 PM
.................

The Americans have made up some interesting definitions of 'Enemy Combatants' as opposed to soldiers - but for all intents and purposes he is a prisoner of war. He was captured during a war when he was an active member of the opposing forces (by his own admission).

There is no need to try prisoners of war - they can be held indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities (which are still ongoing). They don't have to have committed any crimes (war or civil) to be held. This makes sense - you can't expect any army to release enemy prisoners to have them simply return to the front again.

So, David Hicks is a prisoner of war, and he should expect to remain locked up until the conflict is over. However in addition to being a prisoner of war, the United States has laws against supporting or engaging in Terrorism. The US also wished to try him for these crimes (and he's now admitted he's guilty of supporting terrorism).

So now, addition to being a PoW, who can be held without trial until the cessation of conflict, he's also guilty of supporting terrorism, for which under US law he will be incarcerated (sentence TBA).

The only real issue I have with this whole saga are the conditions he is being held under. If these met those required by the Geneva Convention I'd have no problem with his treatment.

The whole debate about the status "enemy combatant" If I remember correctly was so the US could get around having them declared as POW's, a status that by the Geneva Convention gives the prisoners many rights that have not been given to those being held.

If they are held as POW's the US would have to abide by laws they didn't want to. Also the whole being able to press charges against a POW is wierd. I have never heard of someone arresting a prisoner of war and say charging them with attempted murder etc etc (war crimes are of course an exception). The status of the conflict is kind of grey - is it a war? who is the war against? what is the war against?

Galumay
28th March 2007, 06:26 PM
furthermore america wasnt at war with the groups that hicks was training with. there was no formal war and he was not a prisoner of war.

it just exposes the whole phoney concept of a 'war' on terror, you cant declare war on an abstract concept. war is a formal state of conflict between nations or states.

hence the dilemma for the US, they wanted to have the hicks of the world considered prisoners of war to validate their fiction of a war on terror, but there was no way they wanted the rules that apply to the treatment of prisoners of war enforced. this would have prevented the systematic use of terror torture and kangaroo courts they needed to get the desired outcomes.

benmcgruer
28th March 2007, 07:02 PM
Regardless of semantics, or whether war was formally declared. American (as well as Australian and other) troops invaded Afghanistan and engaged in conflict with the groups David Hicks was supporting. It was and is a war. Our troops are in foreign countries fighting enemy forces. If you are fighting an unidentified enemy, they are still an enemy and you are still fighting.

There's a difference between a legal definition and a common sense one. The legal definition can be changed by fiat of the government, while the common sense definition remains unchanged.

I think that it's very unfortunate that the US choose to treat the prisoners as they did, in doing so they've turned a number of very unpleasant people into martyrs.


I have never heard of someone arresting a prisoner of war and say charging them with attempted murder etc etc (war crimes are of course an exception).

Have you ever heard of someone being arrested as a prisoner of war at all? It doesn't happen, they are simply captured. Any crimes they may have committed, war or civil, are a separate issue. There is no reason not to prosecute someone who has broken the law simply because they are also a prisoner of war.

myamad
28th March 2007, 07:47 PM
By January 2001, the Taliban had destroyed most of Afghanistans opium crops, reducing the harvest to 180 tons. The coalition of the willing invaded in November of the same year. In 2002 the opium harvest had risen to 3,700 tons. Opium warlords imprisoned by the Taliban were releaased by the coalition under the guise of the Northern Alliance.
Source: The Crossing of the Rubicon by Michael C. Ruppert.

Our current paradigm is a built upon a monumental lie. You are not free, but you can be if you wish. Teh difference between 1984 and real life is that in 1984 people knew they were imprisoned. We think we are free.

The war on terror is a war on you. You are a suspect.

There are a lot of smoke and mirrors to negotiate but there is a way out if you look for it.

The coalition is preparing to invade Iran and looking for any excuse to do so. Two US aircraft carriers and one French one are positioned in the gulf.

War involves depleted uranium (http://www.viewzone.com/du/du.html). If you care about freedom, read up on it. This is what we leave behind in other countries. It is also what 'our' soldiers are exposed to.

It may seem off topic, but there is a much bigger picture here. We all know we are being lied to. Why stop asking questions when you get to a certain point?

Soldiers are pawns, Hicks is a pawn, Osama Bin Laden (hey, remember him? the one who used to be the devil?) is a pawn. So too are Bush, Howard, Blair et all. Yes I believe in a global conspiracy. Dig deep, follow your heart, and believe the opposite of what you are told and the world will make more sense.

Are you really naive enough to still be arguing legalities of f'n war? Legalities in a system where the rulers change the friggin' goal posts as they see fit?

If so, you willingly submit yourself to be a participant in an endless war against a faceless enemy.

If you care about freedom and peace, pay attention to where your taxes, super and investments go. You are financing your own prison without even realising it.

girlbunny
29th March 2007, 09:46 AM
Apologies for the delay. The story was originally released approximately December 2001 - January 2002 and we've been through a few dead hard drives and lost bookmarks since that time (not to mention changing from PC to Mac ;) )

Unfortunately, the specific link we're looking for isn't coming up, which is frustrating the heck out of me, I spent half of last night searching under different terms. Whilst these links aren't exactly what you're looking for, hopefully it'll help a tad. I didn't want to go through a huge pile of conspiracy theory sites (most don't have verifiable sources to fall back on, and thus I'm prone to treating them with a pinch of salt)

http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/6_08/1.html

BBC's George Arney Audio of report on US intentions to invade Afghanistan before Sept 11th (above citation)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1550000/audio/_1550366_afghan01_arney.ram

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/4.17/980824-afghanistan.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2016340.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,620399,00.html
http://www.viewzone.com/pipeline.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/AAoil.html#a0900paxamericana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan (search September 18)

girlbunny
29th March 2007, 10:04 AM
So, David Hicks is a prisoner of war, and he should expect to remain locked up until the conflict is over. However in addition to being a prisoner of war, the United States has laws against supporting or engaging in Terrorism. The US also wished to try him for these crimes (and he's now admitted he's guilty of supporting terrorism).

Under you theory, you make yourself look like a hypocrite. America had not actually declared war... a little fact that is now overlooked. America was at Pseudo War with Afghanistan. Hicks was picked up in Afghanistan. That war was over months later. Hicks should have been released with the thousands of other war prisoners at that time. Should you not have been campaigning for Hicks release over the past five years?

There are no treaties or laws that allow for a war to be fought against an idea or a word. Any war on terrorism is figurative at least. Do we see B2 Bombers taking out drug smugglers in Americas "War on Drugs?".

girlbunny
29th March 2007, 10:13 AM
War involves depleted uranium (http://www.viewzone.com/du/du.html). If you care about freedom, read up on it. This is what we leave behind in other countries. It is also what 'our' soldiers are exposed to.



Here is a little headline for you. It never showed up in any news or conspiracy theory. USA used at least one Nuke in Afghanistan.

Hubby spotted it in the news headlines. The media at the time were proudly crowing that BinLadens hideouts were taken out by "Bunker Busters" dropped from B2 Stealth Bombers. Look it up. We don't know if the specs have changed in the past five years, but we spent a day researching for any alternative and found none.

At the time of the USA invasion of Afghanistan USA had only two Bunker Busters. A standard bomb and a mini nuke. The B2 could only carry the mini nuke as the standard bomb was too large and too heavy for it to carry. The standard bomb could only be deployed by larger aircraft.

Anyone can look for the news reports archived online. Don't believe me, go do some research and find out that USA are using weapons of mass destruction on the quiet.

Johnny Appleseed
29th March 2007, 10:28 AM
We're not at war, and anyone who believes we are is basically, well in simple terms a fool.

Depends on your definition of war, but the international counterterrorism effort continues without fanfare (including in SE Asia), and just might save your sorry ass whether you like it or not!


And if we were at war, I would have no issue with people being detained, but seriously, I wouldn't treat my dog the way everyone in Gitmo has been treated.

Dunno, I saw on the ABC last night they've got a library full of Arabic-language books, so conditions can't be that bad.

Of course you'll probably say it's full of US propaganda!

hawker
29th March 2007, 10:34 AM
Depends on your definition of war, but the international counterterrorism effort continues without fanfare (including in SE Asia), and just might save your sorry ass whether you like it or not!

We currently have counter terrorism exercises and plans / procedures in Sydney. Yet I still feel as safe in Sydney as I did 20 years ago. This still doesn't prove we're at war, it just proves we're being fed complete crap that is saying we're at war.

If we were at war, most of the male population would be overseas fighting or on guard duty Dad's Army style, but we're not :)

benmcgruer
29th March 2007, 10:50 AM
If we were at war, most of the male population would be overseas fighting or on guard duty Dad's Army style, but we're not :)

The proportion of the population serving in the armed forces has NOTHING to do with whether we are at war. War is an armed conflict between a number of states, groups or nations. Our soldiers are in a foreign country engaged in constant conflict with hostile forces. That's war.

Now I'm sorry that the various terrorist groups can't get their act together and form a proper nation - because if we were in exactly the same situation, but the enemy had a flag and a name for their country I don't think there would be any disagreement.

hawker
29th March 2007, 10:52 AM
I knew someone was going to jump on my head like that - it was a microcosm of what I meant, but anyway, I'll move it along by saying:

Afghanistan is a country with a flag,
Iraq is a country with a flag,

Invasion = possible war, however actually = illegal invasion and war (which IMHO isn't a war if no on believes it is. The US telling us it does not make it a war!)

AusMac
29th March 2007, 11:06 AM
This be the reason my son left Australia .. John Coward and his three stooges comedy of lies party and their head up Bush's arse syndrome.

benmcgruer
29th March 2007, 11:10 AM
I guess there were two states in each conflict. Initially Afghanistan and Iraq were sovereign nations, with their own military forces (and flags). They were invaded by foreign forces with the intent to destroy and replace their sovereign governments. That is most surely war, whether declared or not, whether legal or illegal. Following that, elements of the former governments have formed groups with the stated aim of repelling the foreign forces and installing their own government. Our soldiers are now fighting these elements. This is essentially a continuation of the first stage, only now the groups no longer have a flag or name, because these have now been usurped by the government implanted by the invaders. Only the names have changed. Still war.

BLINDER
29th March 2007, 11:10 AM
We currently have counter terrorism exercises and plans / procedures in Sydney. Yet I still feel as safe in Sydney as I did 20 years ago. This still doesn't prove we're at war, it just proves we're being fed complete crap that is saying we're at war.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge still stands to this day.
Proof that all the security is working.

Edit: I'm not being serious!!

BLINDER
29th March 2007, 11:19 AM
And here's my final comment on it all.
Please consider it carefully.

I don't know what David Hicks has or hasn't done. I've heard lots of hearsay from many here and many, many more in the press and on the street.
I haven't heard an impartial court pass judgement on his alleged actions one way or the other, where they will have the benefit of evidence and witnesses.
I do not condone David Hicks nor do I condemn him at this time (and don't keep running the line that he was where he was and mixing with who he was mixing - that isn't a legal argument).
I'm looking for MY government to protect her citizens around the world irrespective of the trouble that they are in.
Should a citizen have done something wrong then I want to be comforted by the knowledge that Australia will support, where absolutely feasible, that person irrespective of the ALLEGED crime.
Terrorism is the name of the marketing that our corrupt governments are using to cower its people today.
Yes, terrorism is real. So is subverting the truth.

benmcgruer
29th March 2007, 11:24 AM
Under you theory, you make yourself look like a hypocrite. America had not actually declared war... a little fact that is now overlooked. America was at Pseudo War with Afghanistan. Hicks was picked up in Afghanistan. That war was over months later. Hicks should have been released with the thousands of other war prisoners at that time. Should you not have been campaigning for Hicks release over the past five years?
The conflict is ongoing in Afghanistan. He should be held until cessation of conflict. I see no hypocrisy. I'm arguing that that the actions are what make the war - not the declaration. Japan had not declared war on the US when they bombed Pearl Harbour - yet surely that was war.


There are no treaties or laws that allow for a war to be fought against an idea or a word. Any war on terrorism is figurative at least. Do we see B2 Bombers taking out drug smugglers in Americas "War on Drugs?".
There needs to be no treaty or law to allow a war - actions themselves define it. While B2 bombers may not have been used the US provides millions of dollars in military aid, training and weapons to the South American governments to fight drug smugglers. There are US military detachments in several South American nations including armed troops and aircraft. I would be very surprised in American forces have not been involved in direct action (covert or overt) against drug smugglers (al a Clear and Present Danger).

benmcgruer
29th March 2007, 11:28 AM
I don't know what David Hicks has or hasn't done. I've heard lots of hearsay from many here and many, many more in the press and on the street.

Here's the charges he's pleaded guilty to.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20070301hicks.pdf

AusMac
29th March 2007, 11:37 AM
If David Hicks is to be held for the duration of the war and be tried for crimes of war then so too should all those involved.

We all should be aware of just what went on in the training and arming of Bin Laden and the Mujahdeen/Taliban. Whose fault was it? Why not bring the real criminals to justice?

Johnny Appleseed
29th March 2007, 12:14 PM
I don't like how Afghanisatan is suddenly being lumped in with Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified because the Taliban were harbouring Al-Qaeda. Even if the Iraq war wasn't justified, you can't use the same argument for Afghanistan.

However we must stay the course in Iraq now to stop it becoming an even bigger terrorist haven than Afghanistan was.

BLINDER
29th March 2007, 12:15 PM
Here's the charges he's pleaded guilty to.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20070301hicks.pdf

Thanks for the link.
That clarifies for me the charge sheet but it doesn't clarify the lack of governmental support nor the lack of justice which should be the argument we're all talking about.
But seeing as we're in the middle of the trial and still don't know what his rational or his lawyer's rational for the guilty plea is we're only surmising things at this point.

David Hicks is and isn't the issue - instead it's the golden threads of justice that have been allowed to die at the hands of the coalition of the willing.
Change the circumstances of Hicks and Al-Qaeda and turn it into John Smith mixing it with the Bandidos bike gang or Little Ann Jones and her five fingered Coles discount.
Do we allow them to rot in jail without charge for five years without the attendant Geneva conventions? Do we charge them with backdated crimes? Do we torture them?
If anyone thinks we should stop being angry at the elected government for their handling of these issues because Hicks has pleaded guilty then we need our collective heads read or we should accept the inevitable whittling away of justice.

AusMac
29th March 2007, 12:21 PM
Iraq - Afghanistan were different stories .. it isn't us who lumped them together.. It was the Bush administration.

We do have a right to disagree with the way things are done.

As for Iraq, the problem isn't terrorist haven, it is civil unrest.

myamad
29th March 2007, 03:24 PM
Here is a little headline for you. It never showed up in any news or conspiracy theory. USA used at least one Nuke in Afghanistan.

Thank you very much girlbunny. I shall look into that. I notice that one of your links in post #105 is to http//www.fromthewilderness.com That site was set up by Michael C. Ruppert, the author of Crossing the Rubicon, the book I referenced in post #104. I highly recommend the book, especially for the information on CIA, Wall Street and drugs.

It's great to see someone who is thorough and methodical at asking questions and gleaning information, rather than relying on the daily overload of propaganda from Murdoch and the like. Headlines that are relayed around the world and repeated ad nauseum by an uncritical media sure as hell doesn't mean they are true.
Cheers, m.
ps - http://globalresearch.ca/ is another great resource for information on these topics, particularly the plans for Iran and the middle east.

McKatch
6th April 2007, 07:41 PM
Just to bring this thread back to the fore I have been watching the news recently with interest.

I notice that Hicks is now a confessed Terrorist and thats being hammered home as often as possible. 5 years detention and unknown levels of torture/interogation ignored.

Ofcourse the Uk Sailors captured by the Iranians - some of who confessed after a day or two to being illegally in Iranian waters where made to confess under duress and those statements cannot be seen as an admission of guilt..

fiark
6th April 2007, 08:31 PM
*deleted*

dotnet
7th April 2007, 01:25 AM
Many people don't care if David Hicks is really innocent because they have no idea what he went through to get to 'our plates'. Many people do not want to know because then they would have to face the fact that people can be extremely cruel. Including themselves.

People need:

1. to make ends meet
2. to be distracted from their daily misery (euphemistically called "entertainment")

Beyond that you can get them to agree to pretty much anything. That's why democracy works (for those who use it as an instrument).

Cheers
Steffen

Goodbye
7th April 2007, 07:39 AM
I notice that Hicks is now a confessed Terrorist and thats being hammered home as often as possible. 5 years detention and unknown levels of torture/interogation ignored.

Ofcourse the Uk Sailors captured by the Iranians - some of who confessed after a day or two to being illegally in Iranian waters where made to confess under duress and those statements cannot be seen as an admission of guilt..

Yes, interesting double standards here. But it's been hammered home so much that anything remotely connected to "terrorism" = bad, and anything the West does = good and right.

So people aren't going to see the double standards on show.

BLINDER
7th April 2007, 09:37 AM
Interesting article in the SMH this morning
Article on Guantanamo Bay (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/not-amused-by-guantanamo/2007/04/06/1175366474409.html)

Joe90
7th April 2007, 10:00 AM
Hicks and others like him only serve as a warning to 'Your chosen way of life' that one day you will come under further threat within your own border from 'Stockholm' like behaved individuals and a growing Muslim population that will always be at risk internally by agitators [Extremists] within its own fold. Civil unrest is a likely scenario as has already been seen. High and increasingly violent crime and a divided society hell bent on retaining and enforcing it's own ideology. Hicks was just a small sample of how vunerable in ones own decision making a human can be and their propensity to turn from neighbour and countryman to a national security threat by a change in personal ideology through I guess many triggers in an individuals charachter and experiences. For what it's worth I believe the U.S. has a case to answer as well.

iMic
7th April 2007, 10:31 AM
I intend to write this in complete anonymity for obvious reasons. Fact is there is no law against training with someone elses army. Whether it be a German solder training with the US Army, or David Hicks training with said army.

Fact is, he hasn't actually done anything. No lives were lost under his actions, and while there were terrorist attacks, was it David Hicks who caused the September 11 attacks? No. Bali Bombings? No, not that either. I don't think he's even done anything of the sort. Fact is they have supposedly caught the culprits for these attacks, so it's unfair to later say "Oh and here's David Hicks, you'll want him too".

One other thing is that in Afghanistan, in a "War on Terrorism", the US place out a reward for suspected terrorists. Key word is suspected, and if you were living in Afghanistan with $1000 USD up for grabs, I think it's likely there's quite a few innocent people being turned in. Either that or the leading politicians needed a "scapegoat" of sorts to draw attention away from bigger matters. (it's a possibility)

Hicks isn't a threat. He had to confess, lie or not, to get out of Guantanamo Bay. The governments forced it. There's no denying that. He's one man who's done his time in Guantanamo, doing 9 months time here, and deserves a chance to come back in to Australia and be an Australian Citizen. If he does anything (which I doubt he will), then we can say something. Until then, it's a clean slate.

This is just my view of the situation, my opinion, and I believe that it's factually quite correct overall.

benmcgruer
7th April 2007, 10:51 AM
Fact is there is no law against training with someone elses army. Whether it be a German solder training with the US Army, or David Hicks training with said army.

Fact is there is. Check out the CRIMES (FOREIGN INCURSIONS AND RECRUITMENT) ACT 1978 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ciara1978431/). This does allow service within the armed forces of the government of the foreign country. However at no point was David serving as a member of the Afghanistan government miltary, but rather with LET and al Qaeda. Both of these are terrorist organisations which are prescribed under the act. The act covers not only engaging in hostilities, but preparing and training for them and entering a country with intent to engage in hostilities.

I'm not a lawyer so I cannot comment on whether David Hicks is specifically covered under this act, but it is clear that it is intended to cover mercenary actions like his, and indeed it was drafted in response to the number of Australians showing up in places like Africa during the 70's and 80's.

bazscott
7th April 2007, 11:00 AM
Interesting article in the SMH this morning
Article on Guantanamo Bay (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/not-amused-by-guantanamo/2007/04/06/1175366474409.html)

They call that an article?

You would think the way this is covered in Australia that the guy was some kind of hero, he's not, he's an idiot obviously, he was probably a bit unlucky to be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he shouldn't have been there anyway. He deserves no sympathy whatsoever.

And to write an 'article' about some letter to the Queen, come on, as if she is going to give a stuff about yet another colonial acting like a tw@ in someone elses country, nothing new there ;)

Silver
7th April 2007, 11:41 AM
Crispin Hull's article (http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=573387&category=Opinion) in today's Canberra Times was pretty good, I thought.

girlbunny
7th April 2007, 11:48 AM
Fact is there is. Check out the CRIMES (FOREIGN INCURSIONS AND RECRUITMENT) ACT 1978 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ciara1978431/). This does allow service within the armed forces of the government of the foreign country. However at no point was David serving as a member of the Afghanistan government miltary, but rather with LET and al Qaeda. Both of these are terrorist organisations which are prescribed under the act. The act covers not only engaging in hostilities, but preparing and training for them and entering a country with intent to engage in hostilities.

I'm not a lawyer so I cannot comment on whether David Hicks is specifically covered under this act, but it is clear that it is intended to cover mercenary actions like his, and indeed it was drafted in response to the number of Australians showing up in places like Africa during the 70's and 80's.

Looking at that Act, I'm wondering where the Australians working for Blackwater (http://www.blackwaterusa.com/) stand. Over 100,000 people being paid for by American tax dollars in Iraq aren't American troops (http://www.teambio.org/2007/03/blackwater/), but 'contractors' working for a company called Blackwater (http://www.blackwaterusa.com/). These contractors are essentially mercenaries, and are not being held accountable for any of their actions. The company has all of their 'contractors' sign a waiver stating that the company isn't accountable for their actions either, which means that they're going into Iraq with the knowledge and consent of the US Government, however they are not *part* of the US Government troops, and they have been given free rein to do what they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want to.

There are a lot of Australian contractors in Iraq - how many are working for Blackwater (http://www.blackwaterusa.com/)? How many are actually breaking Australian law by doing this?

Joe90
7th April 2007, 10:00 PM
I intend to write this in complete anonymity for obvious reasons. Fact is there is no law against training with someone elses army. Whether it be a German solder training with the US Army, or David Hicks training with said army.

Fact is, he hasn't actually done anything. No lives were lost under his actions, and while there were terrorist attacks, was it David Hicks who caused the September 11 attacks? No. Bali Bombings? No, not that either. I don't think he's even done anything of the sort. Fact is they have supposedly caught the culprits for these attacks, so it's unfair to later say "Oh and here's David Hicks, you'll want him too".

One other thing is that in Afghanistan, in a "War on Terrorism", the US place out a reward for suspected terrorists. Key word is suspected, and if you were living in Afghanistan with $1000 USD up for grabs, I think it's likely there's quite a few innocent people being turned in. Either that or the leading politicians needed a "scapegoat" of sorts to draw attention away from bigger matters. (it's a possibility)

Hicks isn't a threat. He had to confess, lie or not, to get out of Guantanamo Bay. The governments forced it. There's no denying that. He's one man who's done his time in Guantanamo, doing 9 months time here, and deserves a chance to come back in to Australia and be an Australian Citizen. If he does anything (which I doubt he will), then we can say something. Until then, it's a clean slate.

This is just my view of the situation, my opinion, and I believe that it's factually quite correct overall.

That doesn't wash. You can't train with a known terrorist group then expect special dispensation or immunity from crimes associated with that said group. Forget about obscure US military justice, forget about Australian political manipulation. Here is an individual who as an adult chose to train with an international terrorist organisation. He deserves no sympathy. He doesn't deserve shit! :thumbdn:

fiark
8th April 2007, 05:26 AM
*deleted*

Galumay
8th April 2007, 07:21 AM
That doesn't wash. You can't train with a known terrorist group then expect special dispensation or immunity from crimes associated with that said group. Forget about obscure US military justice, forget about Australian political manipulation. Here is an individual who as an adult chose to train with an international terrorist organisation. He deserves no sympathy. He doesn't deserve shit! :thumbdn:

trouble is there was no crime associated with said group at the time, the american legislation was retrospective and he broke no australian laws.

what is a 'known terrorist group'? its semantics really, the most active terrorist group over the last 50 years has been the US.

have a think about the terror GWB has wrought in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands dead as a direct result of the illegal invasion of iraq, how do you compare the terror created there to david hicks actions in afganistan?

entropy
8th April 2007, 12:58 PM
trouble is there was no crime associated with said group at the time, the american legislation was retrospective and he broke no australian laws.

what is a 'known terrorist group'? its semantics really, the most active terrorist group over the last 50 years has been the US.

have a think about the terror GWB has wrought in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands dead as a direct result of the illegal invasion of iraq, how do you compare the terror created there to david hicks actions in afganistan?

In this outstanding example of moral equivalence, the only thing Galumay forgot was to compare McBushhaliiburthilter and his cronies to the nazi party, and thus successfully avoided an invocation of godwin's law.

Galumay
8th April 2007, 01:21 PM
....i think it sullies the memories of the millions killed in the name of nazism - jews, homosexuals, disabled, etc - to compare bush & his war mongering cronies to nazis.

aghhh....did a bit of research on godwin's law! glad i avoided it now!!

fiark
8th April 2007, 01:59 PM
*deleted*

Johnny Appleseed
8th April 2007, 03:28 PM
what is a 'known terrorist group'? its semantics really, the most active terrorist group over the last 50 years has been the US.


The difference is quite simple really: terrorists target civilians, the US targets enemy combatants.



have a think about the terror GWB has wrought in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands dead as a direct result of the illegal invasion of iraq, how do you compare the terror created there to david hicks actions in afganistan?

Most of the Iraqis have been killed by each other, or imported terrorists.

Silver
8th April 2007, 04:06 PM
The difference is quite simple really: terrorists target civilians, the US targets enemy combatants.

Wait, so the USS Cole attack wasn't a terrorist attack?

And the My Lai Massacre was?

Galumay
8th April 2007, 04:08 PM
The difference is quite simple really: terrorists target civilians, the US targets enemy combatants.

no, the US has frequently targetted civilians, most notably in the worst terrorist attacks ever against japanese civilians in hiroshima & nagasaki. also in the illegal invasion of iraq, many campaigns in central & south america and of course south east asia.

'terrorism' is just someone else doing it. the allies were also guilty of terrorism in ww2 with things like the fire bombing of dresden.

it is one of the reasons it is such a nonsense to talk of a 'war' on terror. modern war is terror.


Most of the Iraqis have been killed by each other, or imported terrorists.

well if you are calling the US troops imported terrorists, then yes. regardless the hundreds of thousands of iraqi's slaughtered since the illegal invasion are ultimately the responsibility of the invading force.

Johnny Appleseed
8th April 2007, 04:29 PM
Wait, so the USS Cole attack wasn't a terrorist attack?

And the My Lai Massacre was?


You're right on the USS Cole (even though it was an attack by a terrorist organisation). As for My Lai, it's probably more of a war crime because it was committed by military personnel during a conventional war.

Joe90
8th April 2007, 04:55 PM
The problem with all of this comment, including my own, is that we assume we know anything about what David Hicks was or is doing - we don't.

All we have is the information given to us from other sources, which most of us seem to trust to tell us the truth. Usually those sources get their info from other sources who they trust to be telling them the truth.

We were not there, we are not David Hicks and we have no idea whether he did anything at all or everything they claim.

In my life, I have been wrongly accused of all manner of things - people make up their mind about what they think you have done and then go with it.

As for these comments about David Hicks not "deserving" anything including sympathy, pray that you never have to look to someone to actually care about you as a human being. Because quite possibly if the day ever does come, chances are they will be looking the other way distracted by their new shiny car, or spitting on you, because they cannot get past their own hatred.

Someone must have photoshopped an RPG into that photo of Hicks.

HDK
8th April 2007, 05:41 PM
Don't keep quiet — it was all a sham (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dont-keep-quiet-151-it-was-all-a-sham/2007/04/07/1175366542233.html)

THOSE of us who have campaigned loudly for justice for David Hicks need not be silenced by the plea bargain his lawyer, Major Michael Mori, has struck for him.
-The Age

iMic
8th April 2007, 06:33 PM
That doesn't wash. You can't train with a known terrorist group then expect special dispensation or immunity from crimes associated with that said group. Forget about obscure US military justice, forget about Australian political manipulation. Here is an individual who as an adult chose to train with an international terrorist organisation. He deserves no sympathy. He doesn't deserve shit! :thumbdn:

Who gives if he trained with them? He as an adult has the right to decide what he wants to do, and take the consequences for his actions. But they can't prosecute for murder or crimes against humanity when he as an individual hasn't killed anyone, provoked the killing of anyone, or anything of the sort.

It's like a recent event in which Peter Costello claimed Kevin Rudd is a criminal and corrupt for affiliating with Brian Burke. That had no influence over Rudd and after getting past Costello's accusations, it all turned out to be false information. Rudd was not corrupt and not a criminal (and imho, one of the better politicians of Australia). Like the otherwise, training had no influence over Hicks and did not make him dislike Australia or its citizens.

From my point of view, in 9 months time, David Hicks is entitled to the privileges and will abide by the law just like we all do. The right to be an Australian.

I have nothing more to add in to this thread. I've made my point and have better things to do instead of reading seeming sh-t rebuttals which in the long run, don't add up. Believe what you like.