-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
David Hicks [Split from Saddam thread]
- Thread starter Liverpool
- Start date
struggletown3121 said:
I don't have much of an opinion of David Hicks personally, but I'd be far more up in arms about the treatment of an Aussie and how the Govt. handles it than if it was a US soldier. I'd like to think if one of my kids was caught up in some kind of "situation" o/s that they would be treated humanely and given every chance to prove their innocence or otherwise. People committing crimes o/s deserve to pay the penance decided by the country involved but it's our Govt's duty (imho) to ensure they at least have a fair trial. Being locked up for 5 years without being charged isn't acceptable as far as I'm concerned and that's no reflection in any way on what I think of Hicks' situation. I just hate the thought of an innocent person copping similar treatment.
In the example of the American soldier, yes I would be up in arms about it if i was aware of it. I am a member of several human rights organisations and I am constantly signing petitions and writing letters in support of people who are being mistreated by governments, including our own, around the world.
The Hicks case, as Rosy points out, is a bit closer to home tho, and we have had plenty of opportunities to read about it, form opinions and take action.
The Hicks case, as Rosy points out, is a bit closer to home tho, and we have had plenty of opportunities to read about it, form opinions and take action.
struggletown3121 said:
Doubt it all you like. It doesn't make it true.
I would deplore the alleged actions of the soldier and hope that he would receive a speedy trial and receive the sentence his 'inhumane atrocity' deserved.
I think you are looking for something that isn't there. Re-read rosy and anduril last posts, I think they sum it up pretty well.
I am still waiting for someone to show me where David Hicks or his actions have been defended in this thread. Lets try to focus on the argument and stop throwing up the strawman of support for Hicks' rights as an Australian citizen (or as a human being for that matter) being the equivalent of support for the man or his actions.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Well Rayzor, im still not sure why we all going in circles.
I think everyone (bar perhaps Liverpool and SSStone) agree that the lack of expedience in the trial was wrong.
Hicks is a soldier of fortune and deserves no sympathy at all, but here we are all bemoaning the detention very very loudly but his actions are getting very tepid criticism for the severity of his crimes aren't they?
Hmmmm...............
Tiger Attack said:
Good for you.
Please start a thread decrying that crazed lunatic Mugabe then.
I'll back you wholeheartedly.
Go on Cass.....Its a challenge!
struggletown3121 said:
Mugabe is out of control, but if I start a thread on him I am just gonna get whacked about the head as usual. My head hurts. I am giving up.
Tiger Attack said:
Pull yourself together comrade.......I'll take up the fight with you!
Start the thread!
rosy23 said:
Rosy,
The problem is, that because David Hicks aligned himself with:
1. Taliban (an unrecognised government, and therefore an unrecognised army)
2. Al-Qaeda (a recognised terrorist group)
...where both contravene the spirit and terms of the Geneva Convention, and that he was captured fighting with these groups....then whether he is an Australian citizen or not, does not matter.
Too many people on here want him to be treated like a "criminal", like if you or I went overseas....shot someone, or stole something from a shop...and therefore we would be expected to face trial, like any other CIVILIAN would.
But David Hicks is NOT an everyday civilian, and the same people who expect David Hicks to be protected under the Geneva Convention, are barking up the wrong tree, because the Americans are not obliged to treat David Hicks under this Convention.
Anduril said:
The US soldier wouldn't have a problem Anduril, because the US Government is a recognised government, the US Army is a recognised army, and they wear uniforms which separate them from the civilian population.
All of these abide by the Geneva Convention....unlike the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, the groups David Hicks was fighting with.
And I'm sure you, TigerAttack, and Panthera are all upstanding citizens who want Governments and armies to abide by the Geneva Convention, yes?
Liverpool said:
Are you still trying to convince people that Hicks has no rights because he was captured assisting the Taliban and Al Qaeda? I thought we had established that there were no legal 'black holes'. If he wasn't considered a POW than he either must be provided a trial by military commission or in domestic court.
The US Supreme Court certainly disagrees with you if you check out the findings of the cases of Hamdi vs Rumsfeld and Rasul vs Bush where the Justices declared that US citizens were not subject to the military commissions and that Habeus corpus should be extended to an "alleged enemy combatant". They also found the initial military commission suffered from certain procedural defects under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention and thus hade not legal authority. Although not providing the detainees with access to the US courts the new military tribunals still had to provide basic guarantees of due process such as ones provided for in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Third Geneva convention.
Why would the highest court in the US state in their findings that the US government had to abide by the basic rights extended by the UCMJ and Geneva conventions if they did not apply to the 'enemy combatants'? Your claim that the detainees, including Hicks, gave up their rights by fighting with (or providing material support for) the Taliban, is clearly incorrect.
In the case of David Hicks I would expect the Australian government to lobby our allies (or enemies for that matter) for a fair and just trial. Even the British government wouldn't allow it citizens to be tried under the military commissions and lobbied, successfully, for their return to the UK for trial. John Howard himself stated in 2004 that "It's fundamentally wrong to make a criminal law retrospective" yet he refused to lobby for the fair trial of Hicks or his return to Australia and supported the charges against him for a retrospective criminal law.
Anduril said:
Its hypothetical, but i'd like an answer please.
Would you be lobbying for a quicker trial?
Panthera tigris FC said:
Panthera,
I don't need to TRY and convince anyone.
People will believe what they want to believe, as is their right.
As stated before, David Hicks aligned and fought alongside both Taliban (unrecognised government) and Al-Qaeda (recognised terrorist group), where both the Taliban/Al-Qaeda are not under the protection of the Geneva Convention, plus also their continual flagrant breaches of this Convention themselves, means that they waive their own rights of protection under this same agreement.
Therefore, the Coalition had every legal right to not only hold Hicks, but try him with a military commission, and sentence him to whatever punishment they thought appropriate.
You mention the Supreme Court findings that went against Bush, but fail to mention later findings by the same court, determined 9/11 precipitated military action against the Taliban/Al-Qaeda, therefore people cannot argue David Hicks be tried under 'civilian circumstances'.
While this finding contradicts partly what I have just stated in my previous paragraph, as the Supreme Court finding more or less admits a 'conflict' is/was taking place at the time of Hicks being captured, and therefore one could assume that the Geneva Convention was breached, as you allude to in your post.
However, it is also important to note, that the Supreme Court also ruled that Taliban and Al-Qaeda detainees be held throughout the duration of active hostilities, and as the 'war on terror' rages on around the globe, including Afghanistan, and against the same groups David Hicks aligned himself with, then again, the Coalition had no obligation to release Hicks, even if the Australian Government did lobby for his release, until the US determined themselves whether 'active hostilities' had ended.
Liverpool said:
We should all have a right to be treated as a "civilain" would until trialled and found otherwise. I'm not talking about Hicks or what he did but something I'd like to think was the right of any of us travelling overseas. Everyone should have the right to a trial and then face the wrath of the laws of the country they're in. Still you seem obsessed with Hicks' case in particular so i think I'll leave you to it Livers. I just hope one of your loved ones doesn't get locked away for years without charges or a trial one day.
Liverpool said:
The current state of the world with the perceived and actual threat of terrorism to the West has led to some ambiguities in terms of the application of justice in order to protect civilians in addition to punishing the proponents of terrorist activity. I understand the problems this leads to, but I for one, disagree that we must give up our basic civil liberties to this end. The idea that Habeus corpus be suspended indefinitely for suspicion of terrorist activities is especially concerning. This is a cornerstone of our free and democratic society. What is your personal view on this Liverpool? Do you support the suspension of Habeus corpus? The US democratically passed legislation through their Congress that permits the holding of detainees for the duration of hostilities. However, it does not allow them to do so indefinitely. If they interpret the law to state that the detainees are not granted POW status (there is an argument for this interpretation), nor grant them access to domestic courts, then they are STILL obliged to try them in an open and just military tribunal that abides by international law. It was here that they failed. They tried to set up military commissions that were found to be unlawful by their own judiciary. They tried to make these commissions outside the reach of their own judiciary (unsuccessfully). They suspended every civil liberty of the detainees, liberties that permit a fair trial (including their rights to private communication with their US military advocate).
When it comes down to it I would have been perfectly happy for the detainees to have faced charges in a lawfully constituted military tribunal. This did not happen in anything that could remotely be considered a timely fashion.
As for the idea that the detainees can held until the cessation of hostilities. I guess it is convenient that the US government has declared a war on 'terrorism'. Terrorism has always existed in one form or another.
Consider the following quote from one of their founding fathers Benjamin Franklin:
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
It seems that the same issues that we face today have been going on for quite some time, no?
To justify the incarceration of individuals without trial on the grounds that the war continues is a good as saying we can hold you forever. It is as ridiculous as declaring war on any amorphous idea. I would have thought that the Afghanistan conflict that the detainees were captured during finished when the new democratically elected government came to power.
Panthera tigris FC said:
It is also the cornerstone of our free and democratic society that treaties, such as the Geneva Convention, be respected and adhered to.
By extending such privileged protection to groups such as the Taliban/Al-Qaeda, are in essence, condoning their actions, and if anything, would encourage all combatants to conduct any atrocity they like to civilians or hostages, knowing that they will not have to face any harsh ramifications for their actions.
If anything, granting such protections to the Taliban/Al-Qaeda, would send a message to other terrorist and militant groups, as well as some recognised armies, that atrocities against civilians/hostages/POWs will still allow them to be protected under the Convention.
This would ultimately lead to even more barbaric acts against the people the Geneva Convention is there to protect, which I am sure would upset human-rights and civil-libertarians posting on this very thread.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I thought it was quite clever, actually...but you also have to remember that the Taliban, in the eyes of the international community (including the United Nations), have never been the recognised government of Afghanistan.
The Taliban (and Al-Qaeda) have never formally surrendered either, so the conflict between them and the recognised Government of Afghanistan, as well as the Coalition, has not ceased.
So even if you dismiss the "war on terror" as a war against an 'idea'...the actual fighting between Coalition forces and Taliban/Al-Qaeda is still ongoing, meaning that the US had no obligation to release Hicks.
