David Hicks [Split from Saddam thread]

[Hey Pesto!]

At this stage Thorpey's test isn't classified "positive" but the pics of David looked pretty damning...unless people think they were fabricated? Am dead against the way David was held for 5 years without charges, especially seeing his eventual charges were for things that weren't on the books when he was taken into custody, but if some of the pics I saw were genuine I'm not sad to read he might be kept under close surveilance once released.

He still deserves a presumption of innocence. There is an agreed legal process. An armed robber, caught at the scene of a bank robbery, with a gun and a sackful of cash, is still presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Hicks, Thorpe all of us, live in a society where this is a basic tenet of law.

 

[Rosy]

Don't know why you're telling me that cass. Yes David, as anyone else, is innocent until found guilty. Just should have been charged and trialled far sooner than he was.

 

[Hey Pesto!]

Don't know why you're telling me that cass. Yes David, as anyone else, is innocent until found guilty. Just should have been charged and trialled far sooner than he was.

I am not directly 'telling' you anything Rosy23. It's just that some people who have contributed to this thread seem to assume that u are guilty until proven innocent. From this position you can justify Hicks' five year incarceration, lack of legal rights, and any sort of brutal treatment.

 

[RemoteTiger]

As for his human rights....again, I haven't heard much from yourself, Gypsy, or RemoteTiger about the human rights that were taken from innocent civilians, by people like Hicks....yet I am reading post after post from all three of you defending Hicks' human rights... ...the mind boggles!

One would never condone what terrorists do to civilians - it is heinious to say the least.

One could never defend an individual who through his own volition runs with a terrorist organisation.

NOR can one condone his own society stooping to the level of non-democratic nations (or ruthless dictators) and holding a man for 5 years without allowing him to rebuke his accusers.

All that means is we are no better than the ruthless dictators who incarcerate their opposition. We in this instance have placed ourselves at the same level as those we vehmently disagree with.

We have defied everything our forefathers fought for - the very foundation they laid for our current society is justice and liberty.

Hicks can hang or be shot by firing squad for all I care about the fool - but I will always believe and fight for his right to timely and respectable justice - this IMO he did not receive.

If that comes under the banner of human rights then I believe his human rights have been abused.

To me there is a certain aroma around his guilty plea and his plea bargaining - particularly that he cannot talk to the media about his last 5 years until he released from gaol - which lo and behold is just after the Federal Government Elections later this year.

Liverpool I know like you there are a few in our society that want to treat terrorists the same way they treated civilian victims of their attacks - but if we do that we are no better than them - once we lose that high ground there is a chance it would infiltrate into other areas of our justice system and eventually the whole infrastucture of our society as we know it would fall down and we would be living in a state of anarchy. Which in the end is exactly what the terrorist wants.

We MUST at all times UPHOLD the rights of our citizens - elsewise we become as bad as those nations that do not value human life.

 

[Hey Pesto!]

got this today from Amnesty. Some might want to check it out:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/home/spotlights/relief_for_david_hicks_and_his_family_but_guantanamo_bay_still_a_human_rights_vortex

 

[Liverpool]

One would never condone what terrorists do to civilians - it is heinious to say the least.
One could never defend an individual who through his own volition runs with a terrorist organisation.
NOR can one condone his own society stooping to the level of non-democratic nations (or ruthless dictators) and holding a man for 5 years without allowing him to rebuke his accusers.
All that means is we are no better than the ruthless dictators who incarcerate their opposition. We in this instance have placed ourselves at the same level as those we vehmently disagree with.
We have defied everything our forefathers fought for - the very foundation they laid for our current society is justice and liberty.
Hicks can hang or be shot by firing squad for all I care about the fool - but I will always believe and fight for his right to timely and respectable justice - this IMO he did not receive.
If that comes under the banner of human rights then I believe his human rights have been abused.
To me there is a certain aroma around his guilty plea and his plea bargaining - particularly that he cannot talk to the media about his last 5 years until he released from gaol - which lo and behold is just after the Federal Government Elections later this year.

Liverpool I know like you there are a few in our society that want to treat terrorists the same way they treated civilian victims of their attacks - but if we do that we are no better than them - once we lose that high ground there is a chance it would infiltrate into other areas of our justice system and eventually the whole infrastucture of our society as we know it would fall down and we would be living in a state of anarchy. Which in the end is exactly what the terrorist wants.

We MUST at all times UPHOLD the rights of our citizens - elsewise we become as bad as those nations that do not value human life.

RemoteTiger,

On the weekend, I responded to Curtis Bear's post, where he also was a staunch supporter of David Hicks' human rights, and the "relentless inhumane treatment and torture over 5 years" David Hicks is alleged to have endured.
He was beaten....he had a light shone in his eyes and wasn't allowed to sleep....he couldn't talk to his lawyer.....what next?
He didn't get cocoa sprinkled on his rice-bubbles? :hihi

Seriously, to me, this "torture" is childs play compared to the torture dished out to innocent civilians by people like David Hicks.

Take a look Remote....do you think this is inhumane treatment, and relentless torture for these people and their families?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/23/1034561533723.html

http://abc.net.au/news/indepth/bali/anniversary_survivors.htm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/woman-caught-in-bombing-loses-both-legs/2005/07/12/1120934241221.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-02-jumper_x.htm

To me, THIS is torture.

Now while I am sure you despise terrorists as much as I....I don't doubt that for a second....I do question some of your attitude towards people like Hicks.

It is at a stage now, that terrorists, because they are terrorists, are allowed to do anything they like, because "Well, they're terrorists....I don't condone what they do but..."...and that is all that is said.
It is acceptable and expected practice.

Where are the 6 pages of protest, at the human rights taken away from Jodie Cearns?
Where are the TV stories and newspaper columns editorials, filling up our media everyday, on Gillian Hicks?

As defendants of human rights, I should be reading post after post from yourself and Curtis, about the human rights taken away from the many Australian citizens (most notably, the right to live, which David Hicks still enjoys) by people like Hicks, and by the group Hicks was aiding, training, and abetting with.

But no....it seems Hicks' human rights seem to be more important, because his rights are to perceived to have been abused by the American/Australian Governments, while people like Jodie Cearns and Gillians Hicks, while you may feel sorry for their predicament, well....it was terrorists that got them, so lets get on with it.

While it is honourable that yourself and Curtis are all for human rights, and that should be applauded, you both need to remember this.

Yes, we should be better than terrorists and their way of using human misery to try and push their extreme religous way of living onto the civilised world.
And not in one post have I said that Hicks should be treated in the same manner.
I wouldn't sit in the corner crying if Hicks met the hangman, let me add that....but it angers me more that people seem to be tripping over themselves defending someone, who was training with a group that would kill you and your children, and not lose a wink of sleep over it.

Our forefathers fought for justice and liberty, that is true....yet this justice and liberty was spat on, not by the Australian Government, or the Americans, but by David Hicks....where he took the freedom that our forefathers fought for, to fight alongside terrorists who are killing civilians like you and I!
Yet again, you speak about how David Hicks' rights have been abused.

As I asked Curtis....I would be very interested in your response, if Hicks was not caught, but made it back to Australia, commited a terrorist act, and this was your family:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/01/1064988253351.html

I wonder if your view towards David Hicks' human rights would be paramount in your thoughts then?

 

[Liverpool]

got this today from Amnesty. Some might want to check it out:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/home/spotlights/relief_for_david_hicks_and_his_family_but_guantanamo_bay_still_a_human_rights_vortex

Maybe yourself and Amnesty can go and speak to David Hicks about the training he was receiving, so he could carry out his own torture on people like you and I, where the fundamental human right (the right to live) is taken away.

Last time I heard, Hicks still has that right.

"Oh the humanity"... :

 

[Hey Pesto!]

got this today from Amnesty. Some might want to check it out:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/home/spotlights/relief_for_david_hicks_and_his_family_but_guantanamo_bay_still_a_human_rights_vortex

Maybe yourself and Amnesty can go and speak to David Hicks about the training he was receiving, so he could carry out his own torture on people like you and I?

You refuse to acknowledge what I and others have been saying. We don't condone terrorism, we aren't making Hicks out to be a hero. It's about the fundamental legal and human rights that we believe in, in this country.

I know that 9-11 was wrong and was evil. I know that the Bali bombings and any other atrocity u want to bring up is wrong. I have never defended those actions. Never!

But i know that once we as a nation throw away the rule book that it's not long before we become capable of wrongdoings ourselves.

Why can't u accept that?

 

[Anduril]

At this stage Thorpey's test isn't classified "positive" but the pics of David looked pretty damning...unless people think they were fabricated? Am dead against the way David was held for 5 years without charges, especially seeing his eventual charges were for things that weren't on the books when he was taken into custody, but if some of the pics I saw were genuine I'm not sad to read he might be kept under close surveilance once released.

The pics we saw of an armed Hicks were taken whilst he was in Kosovo, aiding the muslims there. The UN, the US etc. were also trying to stop the slaughter of innocents in Kosovo.

 

[Liverpool]

got this today from Amnesty. Some might want to check it out:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/home/spotlights/relief_for_david_hicks_and_his_family_but_guantanamo_bay_still_a_human_rights_vortex

Maybe yourself and Amnesty can go and speak to David Hicks about the training he was receiving, so he could carry out his own torture on people like you and I?

You refuse to acknowledge what I and others have been saying. We don't condone terrorism, we aren't making Hicks out to be a hero. It's about the fundamental legal and human rights that we believe in, in this country.

I know that 9-11 was wrong and was evil. I know that the Bali bombings and any other atrocity u want to bring up is wrong. I have never defended those actions. Never!

But i know that once we as a nation throw away the rule book that it's not long before we become capable of wrongdoings ourselves.

Why can't u accept that?

By defending people like Hicks and their "rights", you are condoning terrorism.

Firstly, the 'easy way out' would have been to shoot Hicks then and there in Afghanistan.
There may have been a bit of hulla-baloo for a couple of weeks, but it would have been all over by now.
The name David Hicks, would have been a shameful distant memory.

But no....the Americans/Australians/Afghani forces that caught him, gave him much more than he and his terrorist mates would have.
They gave him the right to live.
They did not torture him, behead him, or drag his headless body behind a 4x4 jeep, as American soldiers have suffered at the hands of al-Qaeda in Iraq....instead, they sent Hicks to Cuba.

Yes, I agree with you all that 5 years is too long before a trial....but that is where my sympathy ends for Hicks.

He is still alive, unlke 88 Aussies in Bali, for example...and Hicks still has all his limbs and skin intact, unlike the dozens of Aussies who are missing limbs and are burn victims from bomb attacks by people like Hicks.

It is very easy for people like yourself Pesto, to use a throwaway line like "I don't condone terrorism"..."It is evil"....and then continually post about the rights of David Hicks.

If you are so honourable in the human rights of all people around the world, then you should be also posting links from Amnesty about the torture and abuse from the Taliban on women, for example......another group Hicks was fighting alongside.

To me, David Hicks renunced his Australian citizenship, the minute he took up arms for a group fighting against Australian soldiers, ironically, many of them the sons and daughters of the forefathers who fought for the "justice and liberty' that Hicks spat on when he decided to join Bin Laden.

And no, I won't accept that.

 

[Hey Pesto!]

You say that by defending Hicks and his rights, I am defending terrorism.

You don't believe in presumption of innocence then? The right to a fair trial?

I will never defend terrorism. Its is wrong, it is evil. Don't put words in my mouth.

I believe in the process of law. If Hicks has done the wrong thing then he will be accountable by law. But he is entitled to a fair trial. Like the rest of us.

Once we start throwing away the things we have fought for and believe in, then we will be lesser of a society.

 

[Liverpool]

You say that by defending Hicks and his rights, I am defending terrorism.

You don't believe in presumption of innocence then? The right to a fair trial?

I will never defend terrorism. Its is wrong, it is evil. Don't put words in my mouth.

I believe in the process of law. If Hicks has done the wrong thing then he will be accountable by law. But he is entitled to a fair trial. Like the rest of us.

Once we start throwing away the things we have fought for and believe in, then we will be lesser of a society.

No need to put words in your mouth Pesto....you said it yourself.

Hicks is a convicted terrorist, and therefore, should now face the full brunt of the justice system, correct?
But instead of people like you protesting the paltry 9 months given to a convicted terrorist, all I am hearing is David Hicks' human rights that were supposedly breached....the same rights Hicks would have taken from you and your family, if given the chance.

While I have not gone as far as stating that Hicks should be served the same punishment many of our citizens have endured at the hands of Hicks' Al-Qaeda mates......I am appalled at someone like him getting any support from anyone in this country.

If lights being shone in his eyes, copping a bit of a beating, and not being allowed to talk to a lawyer are the worst things that have happened, then again, he has gotten off very lightly compared to the people who had their right to life stripped from them, by people like Hicks.

I agree that the trial should have been conducted much sooner...but having said that, the Government knew who he was and what he had been up to in the past, and they thought in everyone's best interest, that he should be confined in Cuba.
I have no problem with that.
I'm sure if Howard fought for his release, and he came back here to Australia, and a terrorist atrocity was committed, it would be the anti-Howard people like yourself who would be calling for his head! :

You used a Ian Thorpe analogy earlier in this thread.

The difference between Hicks and Thorpe, is that of character.

Hicks has a history of being a mercenary, has a history of fighting with Muslim forces, and was in Afghanistan around the time of 9/11.
He was caught red-handed.

Thorpe is an upstanding citizen of this country, with no prior record of drugs, cheating, or performance enhancing substances being used.

Who would you bet your house on being guilty?

I know who I would have my money on...

 

[Hey Pesto!]

It's not a contest, Liverpool, it's not some sort of competition. They both, irregardless of 'character' deserve to be treated equally under law. And in our country, that means you are innocent until proved guilty.

And nowhere have i defended terrorism.

 

[Liverpool]

It's not a contest, Liverpool, it's not some sort of competition. They both, irregardless of 'character' deserve to be treated equally under law. And in our country, that means you are innocent until proved guilty.

And nowhere have i defended terrorism.

In a court of law, a person's character and standing within the community, is taken into account when trying someone.
Even when applying for citizenship, your "character' is taken into account....jobs as school-teachers, child-care, etc also.
People with poor charcater do not deserve to be treated equally.

By defending a terrorist, you are therefore defending terrorism.

What do you think of the 9 months sentence handed down to Hicks?

 

[Hey Pesto!]

It's not a contest, Liverpool, it's not some sort of competition. They both, irregardless of 'character' deserve to be treated equally under law. And in our country, that means you are innocent until proved guilty.

And nowhere have i defended terrorism.

In a court of law, a person's character and standing within the community, is taken into account when trying someone.

By defending a terrorist, you are therefore defending terrorism.

What do you think of the 9 months sentence handed down to Hicks?

Lawyers defend people charged with criminal offences everyday/ They defend thieves, murderers, pedophiles etc. U are therefore saying that they are defending these criminal activities?

From u i expect very little, but that's plainly garbage.

 

[Liverpool]

It's not a contest, Liverpool, it's not some sort of competition. They both, irregardless of 'character' deserve to be treated equally under law. And in our country, that means you are innocent until proved guilty.

And nowhere have i defended terrorism.

In a court of law, a person's character and standing within the community, is taken into account when trying someone.

By defending a terrorist, you are therefore defending terrorism.

What do you think of the 9 months sentence handed down to Hicks?

Lawyers defend people charged with criminal offences everyday/ They defend thieves, murderers, pedophiles etc. U are therefore saying that they are defending these criminal activities?

From u i expect very little, but that's plainly garbage.

Pesto,

What do you think a "character witness" is in a trial?
Someone who comes in with the tea and muffins? :hihi

They are there to demonstrate that the person on trial is of poor (or good) character.
They wouldn't have character witnesses, if the character of the person on trial is worthless because "everyone is treated equally", regardles of their character.

Hicks history shows he is a man of poor character, and his family would be quite useful character witnesses, as they seem to have a clear idea of the type of bloke he is:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21465770-910,00.html

 

[Curtiger]

By defending people like Hicks and their "rights", you are condoning terrorism.

Haha. One can't punish another without respect for their fundamental human rights? I'll agree you need to deprive them of some (you know, like toasters and stuff ;D) but what has been done to Hicks is far beyond a reasonable amount of privation.

But then, of course, the punishment should've followed the establishment of his guilt.

We MUST at all times UPHOLD the rights of our citizens - elsewise we become as bad as those nations that do not value human life.

Well said. The crux of a good argument, Remote.

We don't condone terrorism, we aren't making Hicks out to be a hero. It's about the fundamental legal and human rights that we believe in, in this country.

I know that 9-11 was wrong and was evil. I know that the Bali bombings and any other atrocity u want to bring up is wrong. I have never defended those actions. Never!

But i know that once we as a nation throw away the rule book that it's not long before we become capable of wrongdoings ourselves.

Good post, Pesto.

 

[Hey Pesto!]

No worries little buddy!

 

[Johnno_84]

You say that by defending Hicks and his rights, I am defending terrorism.

You don't believe in presumption of innocence then? The right to a fair trial?

I will never defend terrorism. Its is wrong, it is evil. Don't put words in my mouth.

I believe in the process of law. If Hicks has done the wrong thing then he will be accountable by law. But he is entitled to a fair trial. Like the rest of us.

Once we start throwing away the things we have fought for and believe in, then we will be lesser of a society.

Interesting, firstly congratulations on your ability to extract more than a sentence out of your keyboard, this should be commended...

Secondly, check out the justice thread, its rare to find a fair trial these days. (Not that im saying they use to in the days gone by either) ..

Curtboy, im all for defending the underdog and the like. But unless you are closely related to the man in question, or have heard first hand of his encounters, all treatment of Hicks (who was caught "captured" (see what i did, makes it sound more dramatic) out of this country) is speculative...

 

[Hey Pesto!]

So, u aint a supporter of the fair trial then?