David Hicks [Split from Saddam thread]

[Liverpool]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/hickss-sensible-mood-wont-stop-the-civil-liberty-debate/2007/05/21/1179601324160.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Thanks livers, that was a very interesting article.

No problem JB03.

A shame it has been dismissed so conveniently by the same posters who read this kind of paper.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You may not come out and bluntly condone terrorists and their actions, however the dismissive and nonchalant responses about their actions shows that a child beheading an adult, is greeted with a two or three word response....yet a terrorist, held without trial for 5 years, gains an 11 page response....demonstrating that people like yourself are not putting things into any perspective whatsoever.
Ignoring why David Hicks was in Afghanistan and not reading any posts from yourself or others, displaying disgust at how David Hicks himself devalued his Australian citizenship, by not only fighting with the enemy, but also being willing to kill or maim other Australian citizens, is a disgrace, and hypocritical.
People like you Panthera bleat about Australian citizens being treated the same, and how Australian citizens should be treated with respect, no matter what they do....yet, here we have an Australian citizen training with the enemy, and willing to kill people like you or I, and we should treat him with respect?
As i said to Anduril....if David Hicks wasn't caught and made it back, and in a terrorist blast, he killed members of your family, you'd be still willing to respect him?

Please point out where I asked you to respect David Hicks. Another typical strawman argument. Keep it up. I am pretty sure you have beaten it to death. All I ask is that all Australian citizens are afforded the same rights.

If the Government/Yanks/Aussies treated Hicks like terrorists treat their hostages, David Hicks' body might be here, and his head out in the Afghani desert somewhere.
If waiting 5 years for a trial and then spending a few months at the Adelaide "hilton" is the worst he has had to endure, then he has gotten off very lightly compared to Nick Berg, wouldn't you agree?

Again your aspirations to live in an uncivilised society reveal themselves. There are plenty of countries that don't provide the same civil protections as Australia and you are probably welcome there. It is you and your disregard for the basic human rights that are afforded to the citizens of this country that are un-Australian, however as an Australian citizen, whether you like it or not, you are entitled to those rights.

If the Japanese/Germans had dropped the bombs first, they would NOT have lost the war, so thats a ridiculous statement.
You can debate this one all you like...the FACTS are that Japan did NOT surrender until after the second blast at Nagasaki.
Yes, eventually we would have defeated Japan, without the use of the atomic bombs, however, it was decided that it was quicker, and would save thousands upon thousands of lives, to use 'the bomb', instead of island-hopping through Japan with an invasion force.
That you cannot debate.
So what would you do....kill 200,000+ people from two bomb blasts....or continue with an invasion of Japan, where many more civilians (as well as countless soldiers from both sides) would have been killed?

Of course! My point was that many highly respected military officials felt that war was essentially over at this time. Whether Japan would have surrendered is debatable, but your claim that they didn't surrender until after the atomic blasts is beside the point. We will never know now. What we do know is that the US are the only country that have utilised nuclear weapons in war, the weapons that have the potential to end human life on this planet. If you feel that is a justified position, than so be it.

He was training with a terrorist organisation, and therefore, they are NOT protected under the Geneva Convention.
You can read the official line here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-18.html

From the Convention itself:

The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property. Neither the civilian population as whole nor individual civilians may be attacked. Attacks may be made solely against military objectives.

So if anyone abused the Geneva Convention, it was David Hicks and his terrorist buddies!
Looking forward to your post regarding this...

You are welcome to recite the party line. I am familiar with it. If you do not believe that the US army invaded Afghanistan and engaged in military operations with the Taliban and their allies than you are mistaken. The idea that those captured were declared 'enemy combatants' was an 'out' that the US used to absolve themselves of their obligations under the Geneva convention. Who were they fighting? Civilians? Or an organised force? Why did they feel the need to detain individuals? Clearly this is a case of POWs. Believe the US government spin all you like, it does not make it any more legitimate.

Of course I can see this, and have admitted, ad nauseum, that a trial should have been conducted years ago.
Not only would we not be going through this sh!t now, but we could have given him 25 years in prison, instead of the meagre 5+ years he has served (or is serving)....and he would be long forgotten, as the traitor he is.

So can you explain why this did not occur? If it had this debate would not be happening as this matter is the crux of the problem. If he really deserved 25 years as you claim, point me to the law that states that is the recommended sentence for his crime. Do you believe that we should make these laws up retrospectively?

You don't know where I have been mate, so stop trying to guess and assume.
But I openly admit that Afghanistan is not on the top of my "must visit" places, and it certainly wasn't circa 2002 after the 9/11 attacks.
Poor Hicksy was in the wrong place at the wrong time it seems.

As I said it was based on the tone of your argument. You seem to see things from a very polarised perspective, suggesting that it is 'us against them'. Correct me if I'm wrong. Again you raise the strawman of sympathy for Hicks that does not exist. Keep it up.

Yes, but he DIDN'T....he was caught aiding a terrorist organisation, which had just flown airliners into building in the centre of New York.
Where were the fair trial for these victims?
They were sentenced to death, for catching the wrong plane at the wrong time.

Hicks has gotten off VERY lightly in comparison.

The 9/11 tragedy is exactly that, a tragedy that shocked me and a good proportion of the world. I would appreciate your sources that provide that evidence that show that it was the Taliban that orchestrated the operation though. Or is this another strawman for you to pummel?

I will say it one more time so you can perhaps address the point instead of throwing up your strawmen. The David Hicks issue is not about David Hicks, but about the suspension of his rights by the Australian government. Rights that are afforded to ALL citizens of this country. If what Hicks did was so abhorrent than I would trust that our laws would suffice to bring about justice. We should not need to resort to the suspension of such BASIC rights as habeus corpus to achieve this. It is a shame that you can't see this.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

panthera.. in my and most aussies eyes hicks ,the pinup boy of the left ,gave up his right to be classed as an australian citizen the moment he picked up a gun in the defense of al quida .tuff *smile*ing titties that this maggot spent 5 years incarcerated awaiting trial.apart from bleeding heart lefty *smile* no one gives a *smile*.should have shot the prick when they picked him up.now that would have been justice.ive asked before but no one can answer ? what basic rights did the neanderthal ,archaic despots that this oxygen thief aligned and fought with ,show to the countless kidnapped victims and bombing victims ?? *smile*IN NONE .

Well if that is true, than most Aussies should be thankful that they still have a democracy that affords them substantial civil liberties. Try getting out of this country and experiencing what life is like in a country that does not have such a society in which to live. You are most welcome to live in one. I, for one, am quite happy as an Australian citizen living in this beautiful country and will fight to maintain it as a free and open society where I can trust that I will be afforded the rights and liberties of all citizens. Whether you like it or not, Hicks did not give up his citizenship when he went to Afghanistan. Perhaps he broke the laws of this country, but unfortunately we will never know now, thanks to the bungled job the US did in dealing with this matter. Do you ever wonder why that is?

You can throw a tantrum all you like. That is the beauty of free speech. It does not make it true though and detracts from your argument. You should try to take a leaf out of Liver's book and try to remain somewhat civil. It will aid your argument no end.

 

[Liverpool]

Please point out where I asked you to respect David Hicks. Another typical strawman argument. Keep it up. I am pretty sure you have beaten it to death. All I ask is that all Australian citizens are afforded the same rights.

Well, maybe you should have told that to David Hicks, as he was training with the enemy to take those same rights away from Australian citizens.

Again your aspirations to live in an uncivilised society reveal themselves. There are plenty of countries that don't provide the same civil protections as Australia and you are probably welcome there. It is you and your disregard for the basic human rights that are afforded to the citizens of this country that are un-Australian, however as an Australian citizen, whether you like it or not, you are entitled to those rights.

Un-Australian?
:rofl...unbelievable!
Here we have a bloke, an Australian citizen like you and I, training with the enemy, with the sole purpose of murdering people (including Australian citizens), and you have the audacity to call ME "un-Australian".
If you are so adamant about Australian citizenship and its importance, then I should have read by now post after post, condemning Hicks as a traitor. I should have read many times by now, where you have called David Hicks "un-Australian" for the contempt he has shown towards his Australian citizenship.
But I have read none...all I have read is 11 pages of nonsense, condemning the Government for their action (or lack of) in the protection and release of this traitor.
Mind-boggling!
Also, you didn't answer the question....in comparision, do you think he has gotten off lightly compared to Nick Berg?

Of course! My point was that many highly respected military officials felt that war was essentially over at this time. Whether Japan would have surrendered is debatable, but your claim that they didn't surrender until after the atomic blasts is beside the point. We will never know now. What we do know is that the US are the only country that have utilised nuclear weapons in war, the weapons that have the potential to end human life on this planet. If you feel that is a justified position, than so be it.

Yes, we do know!
The Japanese did not surrender until after the second blast at Nagasaki.
That is fact, that is history.
Please don't tell more yourself and the human-rights movement are going to write a more "nicer", political-correct version of world history now, are you? :
And yes, I certainly think using the two atomic bombs at the time to finish a war that had been going on in the Pacific since 1941, was very justified.....and the immediate Japanese surrender after the second blast vindicates this.

You are welcome to recite the party line. I am familiar with it. If you do not believe that the US army invaded Afghanistan and engaged in military operations with the Taliban and their allies than you are mistaken.

Yes, of course the US/Coalition forces fought the Taliban.
However, the 'and their allies" are a terrorist organisation, and therefore do not comply with the Geneva Convention.
David Hicks was an Australian citizen, and therefore, not part of the regular Afghani/Taliban army, but was fighting as a mercenary, with a terrorist group.
It isn't the "party line", the Convention states such, as well as the ICRC:

However, much of the ongoing violence taking place in other parts of the world that is usually described as "terrorist" is perpetrated by loosely organized groups (networks), or individuals that, at best, share a common ideology. On the basis of currently available factual evidence it is doubtful whether these groups and networks can be characterised as a "party" to a conflict within the meaning of IHL.

....and therefore, Hicks is NOT a prisoner-of-war, and rightly so.

They have kept individuals to find out as much information as they can, which is fair enough, considering their leader (Bin Laden) still has not been captured, and we need as much information as we can about him, their organisation, and to try and stop any future terrorist attacks, where thousands of people could have their human rights taken away, permanently.

So can you explain why this did not occur? If it had this debate would not be happening as this matter is the crux of the problem. If he really deserved 25 years as you claim, point me to the law that states that is the recommended sentence for his crime. Do you believe that we should make these laws up retrospectively?

There have been many terrorists sentenced for all types of terrorist activity, so it wouldn't be hard for the court to give him a recommended sentence based on what Hicks had done.
Seeing that Hicks plead guilty, and with time served, as well as a few months at the Adelaide Hilton....then hopefully, he has learnt his lesson.

Yes, I have no problem with a law being made up retrospectively.
We have seen many times over the years, especially with the changing and evolution of technology, (such as the internet, mobile phones with cameras), that laws are constantly modified/changed, or new ones passed through, to keep up with the world changing around us.

Who would have thought on September 10th, 2001...that the world would be in the position it is now, and that we had an Australian citizen prepared to fight with the same organisation that murdered thousands on September 11?

The 9/11 tragedy is exactly that, a tragedy that shocked me and a good proportion of the world. I would appreciate your sources that provide that evidence that show that it was the Taliban that orchestrated the operation though. Or is this another strawman for you to pummel?

It wasn't a "tragedy" at all.....as a 'tragedy' is a misfortune, or an accident.

This was a deliberate act of murder on a grand scale.

Unless you are one of the conspiracy theorists that believes in Israeli agents exploding the Twin Towers with dynamite so the USA would react to islamic militants :, then I think it is well recognised that Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, and that has been admitted to by Bin Laden himself.
It is also recognised that Al-Qaeda have strong ties with the Taliban, and hence if the Taliban didn't orchestrate the exact planning of this particular act of terrorism, then they have aided in many other ways (manpower, weapons, financial assistance, etc) towards Al-Qaeda succeeding in their horrific plan.

Is that pummelled enough for you?

The David Hicks issue is not about David Hicks, but about the suspension of his rights by the Australian government. Rights that are afforded to ALL citizens of this country. If what Hicks did was so abhorrent than I would trust that our laws would suffice to bring about justice. We should not need to resort to the suspension of such BASIC rights as habeus corpus to achieve this. It is a shame that you can't see this.

It is ALL about David Hicks.
IF David Hicks did not go and fight with Muslims in Kosovo, he wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan to fight with fellow Muslims
IF David Hicks did not go and fight with Al-Qaeda/Taliban, he would not have been captured and held for 5 years as a terrorist.
IF David Hicks valued his Australian citizenship, he would not have been prepared to fight against fellow Australian citizens.

While you scream out about the rights of David Hicks, you should be screaming oout EQUALLY as loudly, at the Australian citizens whose rights have been taken away, by terrorists such as David Hicks....or don't their rights count, in your lectures about human rights?

All this reminds me of the old "Dirty Harry" movie, where Scorpio buries a girl alive, and Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) shoots him on the football field, to try and get the info out of him, and yet the bloody do-gooder district-attorney rips shreds of Harry because of his violation of Scorpio's human rights! :

District Attorney: You're lucky I'm not indicting you for assault with intent to commit murder.
Callahan: What?!
District Attorney: Where the hell does it say you've got a right to kick down doors, torture suspects, deny medical attention and legal counsel. Where have you been? Does Escobedo ring a bell? Miranda? I mean, you must have heard of the Fourth Amendment. What I'm saying is, that man had rights.
Callahan: Well, I'm all broken up about that man's rights.
District Attorney: You should be. I've got news for you, Callahan. As soon as he's well enough to leave the hospital, he walks.
Callahan: What are you talking about?
District Attorney: He's free.
Callahan: You mean you're letting him go?
District Attorney: We have to, we can't try him.
Callahan: And why is that?
District Attorney: Because I'm not wasting a half a million dollars of the taxpayer's money on a trial we can't possibly win. The problem is, we don't have any evidence.
Callahan: Evidence? What the hell do you call that? (He gestures toward Scorpio's weapon on a side table.)
District Attorney: I call it nothing, zero.
Callahan: Are you trying to tell me that Ballistics can't match the bullet up to this rifle?
District Attorney: It does not matter what Ballistics can do. This rifle might make a nice souvenir. But it's inadmissible as evidence.
Callahan: And who says that?
District Attorney: It's the law.
Callahan: Well then, the law is crazy.

Judge: Without the evidence of the gun and the girl, I couldn't convict him of spitting on the sidewalk. Now, the suspect's rights were violated, under the Fourth and Fifth and probably the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Callahan: And Anne Marie Deacon, what about her rights? I mean, she's raped and left in a hole to die. Who speaks for her?
District Attorney: The District Attorney's office, if you'll let us. I've got a wife and three kids. I don't want him on the streets any more than you do.
Callahan: (as he turns to leave) He won't be out that long.
District Attorney: What is that supposed to mean?
Callahan: I mean sooner or later he's gonna stub his toe and then I'll be right there.
District Attorney: This office won't stand for any harrassment.
Callahan: You know, you're crazy if you think you've heard the last of this guy. He's gonna kill again.
District Attorney: How do you know?
Callahan: 'Cause he likes it.

And at the end, the only way Harry does stop him, is a bullet to the head.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Well, maybe you should have told that to David Hicks, as he was training with the enemy to take those same rights away from Australian citizens.

If that was the case (and it certainly could have been) than he should have been tried and convicted in an open and just manner.

Un-Australian?
:rofl...unbelievable!
Here we have a bloke, an Australian citizen like you and I, training with the enemy, with the sole purpose of murdering people (including Australian citizens), and you have the audacity to call ME "un-Australian".
If you are so adamant about Australian citizenship and its importance, then I should have read by now post after post, condemning Hicks as a traitor. I should have read many times by now, where you have called David Hicks "un-Australian" for the contempt he has shown towards his Australian citizenship.
But I have read none...all I have read is 11 pages of nonsense, condemning the Government for their action (or lack of) in the protection and release of this traitor.
Mind-boggling!
Also, you didn't answer the question....in comparision, do you think he has gotten off lightly compared to Nick Berg?

What a response. I personally find the term un-Australian ridiculous, as I feel that it is based on the absurd idea of blind patriotism and nationalism - two ideals that you clearly subscribe to. I used the term to make the point, in language that you clearly understand, that actions that are counter to the the open, just and free society that we live in are, by definition, un-Australian. Your continued blase attitude towards some of the cornerstones of our society, such as habeus corpus and your support of ex post facto laws (that you clearly state below) are un-Australian. There are countries outside of Australia where your idea of justice are practised. I am not sure that you would want to live in them.

Again I will state that it is my opinion that David Hicks could well be guilty of the charges that you state. However, we have a judicial system that deals with matters of guilt and innocence using systems that are in place to maximise the chances of a defendant receiving a fair trial. These systems were subverted in the case of Hicks, making his trial unjust and tainting any conviction. I don't think I will repeat this again, as I have said it over and over, and you continue to say "why don't you accuse David Hicks of being un-Australian". The answer is that I don't need to as that is the role of our judicial system. However, I will speak up when our government and individuals such as yourself ignore the cornerstones of a fair and democratic society for a 'quick fix' solution, or political gain. Once you give up those freedoms and protections that you enjoy by living in Australia, you may find them difficult to regain.

I don't know how Berg fits into the picture. I think you and I agree that the methods of these 'terrorist' groups are utterly barbaric and fill me with disgust. We disagree, in that I believe that we differentiate ourselves from such actions by the system of government and laws that we have in place, whereas it appears that you would rather emulate such actions. The so-called 'eye for an eye' response. That has proven effective in the past, no?

Yes, we do know!
The Japanese did not surrender until after the second blast at Nagasaki.
That is fact, that is history.
Please don't tell more yourself and the human-rights movement are going to write a more "nicer", political-correct version of world history now, are you? :
And yes, I certainly think using the two atomic bombs at the time to finish a war that had been going on in the Pacific since 1941, was very justified.....and the immediate Japanese surrender after the second blast vindicates this.

I think you need to re-read my post. I never said that the dropping of the second bomb didn't signal the end of the war in the Pacific. I said that many people in the know (you know, minor players like Eisenhower and Nimitz) felt that Japan was on the verge of surrender and that the bombs were unnecessary. So we DON'T know whether they were right or not. Instead we drop atomic weapons on civilian populations. I find that hard to justify.

Yes, of course the US/Coalition forces fought the Taliban.
However, the 'and their allies" are a terrorist organisation, and therefore do not comply with the Geneva Convention.
David Hicks was an Australian citizen, and therefore, not part of the regular Afghani/Taliban army, but was fighting as a mercenary, with a terrorist group.
It isn't the "party line", the Convention states such, as well as the ICRC:

However, much of the ongoing violence taking place in other parts of the world that is usually described as "terrorist" is perpetrated by loosely organized groups (networks), or individuals that, at best, share a common ideology. On the basis of currently available factual evidence it is doubtful whether these groups and networks can be characterised as a "party" to a conflict within the meaning of IHL.

....and therefore, Hicks is NOT a prisoner-of-war, and rightly so.

Nothing like taking a paragraph out of context eh? Why don't we look at the paragraph, immediately before the one that you quoted. It is David Hicks and his capture in Afghanistan and subsequent incarceration that we are referring to.

Specific aspects of the so-called "war on terrorism" launched after the attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001 amount to an armed conflict as defined under IHL. The war waged by the US-led coalition in Afghanistan that started in October 2001 is an example. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the rules of customary international law were fully applicable to that international armed conflict, which involved the US-led coalition, on the one side, and Afghanistan, on the other side.

Anyone who is interested in reading the full Q&A from the ICRC to actually gauge their stance on the matter can read further at:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5YNLEV

They have kept individuals to find out as much information as they can, which is fair enough, considering their leader (Bin Laden) still has not been captured, and we need as much information as we can about him, their organisation, and to try and stop any future terrorist attacks, where thousands of people could have their human rights taken away, permanently.

As long as their detention and the methods of interrogation abide by international law.

There have been many terrorists sentenced for all types of terrorist activity, so it wouldn't be hard for the court to give him a recommended sentence based on what Hicks had done.
Seeing that Hicks plead guilty, and with time served, as well as a few months at the Adelaide Hilton....then hopefully, he has learnt his lesson.

Then why didn't they charge Hicks?

Yes, I have no problem with a law being made up retrospectively.
We have seen many times over the years, especially with the changing and evolution of technology, (such as the internet, mobile phones with cameras), that laws are constantly modified/changed, or new ones passed through, to keep up with the world changing around us.

Um, we are not talking about new legislation to keep up with the times. We are talking about new legislation that is then enforced retrospectively - an idea that goes against many of the principles of our judicial system and is even against the constitutions or bills of rights of many democratic nations (although not as strictly within Australia's). Read up on ex post facto laws for more information.

Who would have thought on September 10th, 2001...that the world would be in the position it is now, and that we had an Australian citizen prepared to fight with the same organisation that murdered thousands on September 11?

I don't think many people would have foreseen the current situation. That doesn't mean we have to give up our basic rights. In fact the opposite is true IMO.

It wasn't a "tragedy" at all.....as a 'tragedy' is a misfortune, or an accident.

This was a deliberate act of murder on a grand scale.

Tragedy n. 3. A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life.

I think 9/11 could be defined as a tragedy. I think your definition also applies.

Unless you are one of the conspiracy theorists that believes in Israeli agents exploding the Twin Towers with dynamite so the USA would react to islamic militants :, then I think it is well recognised that Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11, and that has been admitted to by Bin Laden himself.
It is also recognised that Al-Qaeda have strong ties with the Taliban, and hence if the Taliban didn't orchestrate the exact planning of this particular act of terrorism, then they have aided in many other ways (manpower, weapons, financial assistance, etc) towards Al-Qaeda succeeding in their horrific plan.

Is that pummelled enough for you?

No, we both agree that Al-Qaeda are responsible for the events of 9/11. I was pointing out that Hicks was accused of training with the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. Although connected, not the same.

It is ALL about David Hicks.
IF David Hicks did not go and fight with Muslims in Kosovo, he wouldn't have gone to Afghanistan to fight with fellow Muslims
IF David Hicks did not go and fight with Al-Qaeda/Taliban, he would not have been captured and held for 5 years as a terrorist.
IF David Hicks valued his Australian citizenship, he would not have been prepared to fight against fellow Australian citizens.

While you scream out about the rights of David Hicks, you should be screaming oout EQUALLY as loudly, at the Australian citizens whose rights have been taken away, by terrorists such as David Hicks....or don't their rights count, in your lectures about human rights?

I think my reply above addresses these points.

All this reminds me of the old "Dirty Harry" movie, where Scorpio buries a girl alive, and Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) shoots him on the football field, to try and get the info out of him, and yet the bloody do-gooder district-attorney rips shreds of Harry because of his violation of Scorpio's human rights! :

I sincerely hope that this was a joke. However, it may explain a bit if you derive your moral code from Dirty Harry! If you want to live in a society where vigilante behaviour and reprisals are the norm, feel free to. If you wish Australia to become such a society you won't do so without opposition.

 

[poppa x]

there are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

 

[Tiger Attack]

It's been mentioned somewhere in these rantings, that Hicks is the 'pin up boy' for the left.

That's as absurd as any of the other lunatic statements made in this thread.

 

[FightingFury]

It's been mentioned somewhere in these rantings, that Hicks is the 'pin up boy' for the left.

That's as absurd as any of the other lunatic statements made in this thread.

Which I find ironic as he was fighting for the most extreme of right wing lunatics!

Whilst the process of David Hicks was clearly wrong, to defend his actions are equally abhorrent.
I'm sure that all the women crying crocodile tears for 'poor David' would love Taliban law enforced upon them?!

 

[Tiger Attack]

That's the other thing Stroogles, I don't think I have read anywhere on this thread anyone defending his actions.

You'd think otherwise tho' if you took some of this rubbish seriously.

 

[jb03]

That's the other thing Stroogles, I don't think I have read anywhere on this thread anyone defending his actions.

You'd think otherwise tho' if you took some of this rubbish seriously.

That is because they are indefensible, as is desrting his kids. What a lot of his defenders fail to grasp is that he confessed, and was found guilty. The pro Hicks posters can drop the word "alleged, or phrases like "alleged to have done", "we don't know what he was doing over there" and other such dribble from their posts.

 

[Tiger Attack]

That's the other thing Stroogles, I don't think I have read anywhere on this thread anyone defending his actions.

You'd think otherwise tho' if you took some of this rubbish seriously.

That is because they are indefensible, as is desrting his kids. What a lot of his defenders fail to grasp is that he confessed, and was found guilty. The pro Hicks posters can drop the word "alleged, or phrases like "alleged to have done", "we don't know what he was doing over there" and other such dribble from their posts.

I'm not sure that 'deserting his kids' has been part of any legal argument in this case. Lots of Australians could put their hands up for that one.

I think you are making an error, JB, when you say 'pro Hicks posters.' I don't think they are pro Hicks; they are pro the agreed legal process that we believe in in this country.

His guilt or otherwise isn't the issue, it's more about the time taken to get to trial etc.

 

[Liverpool]

Nothing like taking a paragraph out of context eh? Why don't we look at the paragraph, immediately before the one that you quoted. It is David Hicks and his capture in Afghanistan and subsequent incarceration that we are referring to.
Specific aspects of the so-called "war on terrorism" launched after the attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001 amount to an armed conflict as defined under IHL. The war waged by the US-led coalition in Afghanistan that started in October 2001 is an example. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the rules of customary international law were fully applicable to that international armed conflict, which involved the US-led coalition, on the one side, and Afghanistan, on the other side.
Anyone who is interested in reading the full Q&A from the ICRC to actually gauge their stance on the matter can read further at:
http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5YNLEV

I think you are making an error, JB, when you say 'pro Hicks posters.' I don't think they are pro Hicks; they are pro the agreed legal process that we believe in in this country.
His guilt or otherwise isn't the issue, it's more about the time taken to get to trial etc.

Many words have been spoken about the legal-process that David Hicks was supposed to have been afforded, many of you have posted about the Geneva Convention, and that he is entitled to rights as an Australian citizen.

The Government of this nation has taken the blame for the majority of this saga from the Hicks supporters, while as I have stated ad-nauseum, that many of the same people who seem to whine about David Hicks' human rights, seem to ignore, or treat with contempt, the same human rights of fellow Australian citizens, stripped of their basic right to life, by people like David Hicks.

This basic right to life, the ultimate right, is something David Hicks still enjoys to this day.

While David Hicks is an Australian citizen, he has freely admitted his time with Al-Qaeda:

Sales says: "Hicks gave detailed and extensive information about his activities in Afghanistan, including his time in al-Qaeda training camps." She says he provided this information freely.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/hickss-sensible-mood-wont-stop-the-civil-liberty-debate/2007/05/21/1179601324160.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Even Terry Hicks has admitted as much:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11241

Many of you have complained that as an Australian citizen, he is entitled to the same rights as every other Australian citizen....yet some of the same posters, complain that he deserves to be treated under the scope of the Geneva Convention, as a POW, because he was fighting alongside the Taliban.

However, the Geneva Convention itself, states, that it does NOT have to be applied universally, especially when one side(s) are not abiding by the terms of the Convention.
I don't think there would be any arguments from posters on here, that terrorists such as Al-Qaeda do not comply with any of the Geneva Conventions, regarding captured soldiers and hostages or the deliberate murder of civilians.
Also, Al-Qaeda is a recognised terrorist organisation, and cannot seek protection using the Geneva Convention, nor the United Nations, and therefore the Coalition are well within their legal rights to not abide by the Geneva Convention when dealing with Al-Qaeda suspects captured.

Regarding the Taliban....not only do they flout the Geneva Convention with a similar amount of cold-heartedness as Al-Qaeda towards hostages, but since they came to power in Afghanistan, they have not been recognised by the international community as the official government of Afghanistan, therefore their army cannot be considered an official fighting force.
Also, the Taliban do not wear an official army uniform to distinguish themselves from the civilian population, but prefer to blend in with the human population, which is another flagrant breach of the Geneva Convention.

With Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters/terrorists breaching just about every term of the Geneva Convention, from hostages, captured soldiers, through to murdering civilians in countless terrorist attacks around the world, plus the points I have made above, then under the Convention itself, they are not entitled to any protection under the Geneva Convention.....David Hicks included.

He has committed his time and energy to aligning himself with the abovementioned groups, and prepared to commit himself to their ideology and actions which breach the same Geneva Convention that many of you are complaining that he should be treated under.
David Hicks and his "fanclub" on here should not expect the Coalition to afford David Hicks the privilege of the Geneva Convention....the same Convention he and his Al-Qaeda/Taliban groups have disregarded on a grand scale.
The Convention itself states that the Coalition are under no obligation to follow it in a case such as this, and that includes a speedy trial, or for him to be brought back to Australia.

With all the talk on here about "human rights" and "following the judicial system"....I have read nothing as yet of the protection of the Geneva Convention, the Convention some of you posters have used to try and criticise the Coalition's handling of the David Hicks affair.

If David Hicks was given the luxury of being given protection under the same guidelines that the Geneva Convention affords prisoners-of-war and civilians, then we are "devaluing" this Convention, by consenting to terrorists worldwide, that they can commit any atrocity they like, as well as blending themselves amongst civilians, and this will be tolerated by the global community.
To protect people like Hicks, and therefore protect terrorism, will only encourage further civilian loss of life, as terrorists continue to use human-shields, hostages as bargaining chips, and random beheadings as a means of scare tactics.
Surely the upstanding of the Convention to protect only the rightful victims of a conflict, should be more important, than the constant bleating about David Hicks' rights, which have not been breached, considering the position he got himself into, and what he and his group represent.

 

[Tiger Attack]

Mate, You need to hit the brevity button more often.

 

[Liverpool]

Mate, You need to hit the brevity button more often.

Well, sorry if my last post was long....but instead of answering yourself, Panthera, RemoteTiger, and Anduril all separately....I thought I'd just post one post detailing why Hicks was not, and did not deserve, the same liberties as a civilian, or as a recognised POW.

Hopefully my post will quash this ridiculous notion that Hicks derserved to be treated on an equal footing with any other Australian citizen facing a criminal offence, or as s standard POW, that has dragged on for a dozen pages.
The Coalition/Government were not obliged to follow the Geneva Convention, as I stated in my previous post, and therefore, they had the right to hold him, and to sentence him, any way they pleased.

The fact that his sentence was 5 years, with some of it served here in Australia, shows that he has not only gotten off lightly compared to others who have faced military tribunals in the past, but he has gotten off lightly compared to victims of the groups he was representing.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Livers, your attempts to justify this situation never cease to amaze.

You cited a section of "International humanitarian law and terrorism: questions and answers" from the ICRC website to support your stance that Hicks was not a POW and therefore not entitled to the rights afforded POWs.

However, you have not addressed the issues I raised concerning his status as described in that very same document (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5YNLEV). Some examples include:

Specific aspects of the so-called "war on terrorism" launched after the attacks against the United States on 11 September 2001 amount to an armed conflict as defined under IHL. The war waged by the US-led coalition in Afghanistan that started in October 2001 is an example. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the rules of customary international law were fully applicable to that international armed conflict, which involved the US-led coalition, on the one side, and Afghanistan, on the other side.st

Even if IHL does not apply to such acts they are still subject to law. Irrespective of the motives of their perpetrators, terrorist acts committed outside of armed conflict should be addressed by means of domestic or international law enforcement, but not by application of the laws of war.

Persons detained in relation to an international armed conflict involving two or more states as part of the fight against terrorism – the case with Afghanistan until the establishment of the new government in June 2002 - are protected by IHL applicable to international armed conflicts.

Captured combatants must be granted prisoner of war status (POW) and may be held until the end of active hostilities in that international armed conflict. POWs cannot be tried for mere participation in hostilities, but may be tried for any war crimes they may have committed. In this case they may be held until any sentence imposed has been served. If the POW status of a prisoner is in doubt the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a competent tribunal should be established to rule on the issue.


What is important to know is that no person captured in the fight against terrorism can be considered outside the law. There is no such thing as a "black hole" in terms of legal protection.

(emphasis added)

Keeping in mind that David Hicks was detained by US armed forces in Afghanistan in December 2001, it would seem that international law was breached in his prolonged detention without trial.

We are discussing the application of international law here Liverpool, not the actions of David Hicks. You claim that he has NO rights. That the US military are completely within their rights to detain him indefinitely without charge and treat him as they will. You cite the Geneva convention to support your assertions, yet you do not provide the passages therein that do so.

Between the Red Cross/Red Crescent stance and your own assertions, I know who I believe.

 

[Liverpool]

Livers, your attempts to justify this situation never cease to amaze.
You cited a section of "International humanitarian law and terrorism: questions and answers" from the ICRC website to support your stance that Hicks was not a POW and therefore not entitled to the rights afforded POWs.

Panthera,
Thanks...I'll take that as a compliment.
Yes, I did post the link from the Red Cross, and while you have quoted some passages from their document to substantiate your claims, at the end of the day, the Geneva Convention is what the international bodies adhere to when it comes to laws of engagemant and war.
While the Red Cross is an excellent humanitarian organisation, and I'm glad you have found some use for one of the links I have provided, they have their agenda and ideals...however it is not the law, and the Coalition do not have to abide by their ideals (IHL)...but that of the Geneva Convention, which clearly stipulates sections that I have spoken about in my above 2 posts.

. The war waged by the US-led coalition in Afghanistan that started in October 2001 is an example. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the rules of customary international law were fully applicable to that international armed conflict, which involved the US-led coalition, on the one side, and Afghanistan, on the other side.[/i]st

No it wasn't, as the Taliban were not the official government of Afghanistan, and therefore the Coalition were not fighting "Afghanistan", but the Taliban....an unrecognised government.
Due to them being unrecognised by the international community (bar 3 nations), their splinter groups such as Al-Qaeda are also unrecognised.

Even if IHL does not apply to such acts they are still subject to law. Irrespective of the motives of their perpetrators, terrorist acts committed outside of armed conflict should be addressed by means of domestic or international law enforcement, but not by application of the laws of war.

So does it apply, or not?
Even the Red Cross seems unsure by this statement.
Interesting that "domestic" law enforcement could have been used then also, which would have meant, that David Hicks might not be with us, if this was proposed, considering Afghanistan is still an Islamic nation.
If we go by the Americans, then we had a case in the early 1940s regarding a German U-boat crew who came ashore in America, changed out of their uniforms into civilian clothing, with the sole intention to blend into society and use explosives.

This was the finding of their case:

Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quirin.html

Persons detained in relation to an international armed conflict involving two or more states as part of the fight against terrorism – the case with Afghanistan until the establishment of the new government in June 2002 - are protected by IHL applicable to international armed conflicts.

Captured combatants must be granted prisoner of war status (POW) and may be held until the end of active hostilities in that international armed conflict. POWs cannot be tried for mere participation in hostilities, but may be tried for any war crimes they may have committed. In this case they may be held until any sentence imposed has been served. If the POW status of a prisoner is in doubt the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a competent tribunal should be established to rule on the issue.

Firstly, the POW status of the prisoner (in this case, David Hicks) is not in doubt if we are abiding by the Geneva Convention, as I have stated previously that the Taliban are not a recognised government, and therefore their army is not recognised as an official fighting force.
Also, they do not wear a recognised uniform to distinguish themselves away from everyday civilians, which is also a breach of the Geneva Convention, therefore no tribunal was required to rule on David Hicks as a POW or not.
Of course, Al-Qaeda are recognised as a terrorist group by the international community, and as well as their breaches of just about every term of the Genava Convention regarding civilians and hostages, then they waive all rights to protection under it.

Secondly, a competent tribunal was adhered to, which is why he was transferred to Gitmo in the first place.

What is important to know is that no person captured in the fight against terrorism can be considered outside the law. There is no such thing as a "black hole" in terms of legal protection.

There isn't a black hole.
By the words of the Geneva Convention itself, the Coalition have treated David Hicks, to the letter of this treaty.

You can read it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

and therefore, he does not have to be protected under this treaty.

Keeping in mind that David Hicks was detained by US armed forces in Afghanistan in December 2001, it would seem that international law was breached in his prolonged detention without trial.

No it wasn't.
In fact, if you want to follow international law, then terrorists like David Hicks could have been executed, and the Coalition/Americans had that legal right, as terrorists and the Taliban do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention.

We are discussing the application of international law here Liverpool, not the actions of David Hicks. You claim that he has NO rights. That the US military are completely within their rights to detain him indefinitely without charge and treat him as they will.

That is correct.
Due to terrorist groups and the Taliban flouting international law themselves regarding hostages and prisoners of war, they forfeit their rights to be proected under the Geneva Convention, and therefore, as I stated above, the Americans would have been well within their legal rights to treat captured terrorists by a military commission (as with the U-Boat crew I mentioned above) and then death by firing squad.

 

[FightingFury]

That's the other thing Stroogles, I don't think I have read anywhere on this thread anyone defending his actions.

You'd think otherwise tho' if you took some of this rubbish seriously.

That is because they are indefensible, as is desrting his kids. What a lot of his defenders fail to grasp is that he confessed, and was found guilty. The pro Hicks posters can drop the word "alleged, or phrases like "alleged to have done", "we don't know what he was doing over there" and other such dribble from their posts.

I'm not sure that 'deserting his kids' has been part of any legal argument in this case. Lots of Australians could put their hands up for that one.

I think you are making an error, JB, when you say 'pro Hicks posters.' I don't think they are pro Hicks; they are pro the agreed legal process that we believe in in this country.

His guilt or otherwise isn't the issue, it's more about the time taken to get to trial etc.

Nonsense Cass.

If Hicks was incarcerated as a US soldier guilty of raping and murdering innocent Afghan children while stationed on duty do you honestly believe there would be any groundswell of support for him and the length of his awaiting trail?

Like *smile* there would.

He is treated as some sort of hero by people who love to see old uncle Sam take a whack for their percieved injustices to the world.

 

[Tiger Attack]

Nonsense Cass.

If Hicks was incarcerated as a US soldier guilty of raping and murdering innocent Afghan children while stationed on duty do you honestly believe there would be any groundswell of support for him and the length of his awaiting trail?

Like *smile* there would.

He is treated as some sort of hero by people who love to see old uncle Sam take a whack for their percieved injustices to the world.

I have to disagree, Struggler. I haven't seen anyone seriously defending his actions.

 

[FightingFury]

I have to disagree, Struggler. I haven't seen anyone seriously defending his actions.

My question:

If he was a US Soldier awaiting trial due to an inhumane atrocity, would you (or anyone) be so indignant that you felt the right to voice a loud protest to this mans democratic rights being violated?

We have 14 pages dedicated to why the trail took so long only?!

Doubt it mate.

 

[Tiger Attack]

So, in your example the soldier has been accused of an atrocity and then has been jailed for five years or so without trial?