The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why David Hicks must win > Comments

Why David Hicks must win : Comments

By Max Atkinson, published 6/9/2011

There is no way that confiscation of the proceeds of crime legislation should apply to Hicks' case.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Being the Hero that he is, I'm sure the standing ovations are recognition enough for David. I'm sure he only wrote the book for the opportunity to tell His-story.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 1:48:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Max,

Thank you for this article.

For what it's worth, I totoally agree with you
that David Hicks is entitled to the proceeds
of his book. His actions did not constitute
a crime in Australian law. He's suffered
enough, both in being tortured and abused
in Guantanamo, not being defended by his
Government - to which he was entitled as an
Australian Citizen. We also now know, based on US
Government files (obtained under disclosure laws),
that detainees were threatened with permanent
incarceration if they did not "confess."

Enough, is enough - justice wears a blindfold
for a reason, and in this case - after 9 years
it's time to let the matter rest and not keep
punishing the man and his family.
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 2:22:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Hicks 'confession' was under torture. This kind of thing isn't legal in civilised countries with duly constituted courts. I hope Australia isn't about to recognise testimony obtained from those who are tortured.
Posted by Evan Hadkins, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 2:52:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the article. Even if Hicks was guilty, the proceeds of his book are not proceeds of crime. To use the law in this way is vengeance, not justice.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 3:11:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max: who trained for and was ready to risk his life fighting in Kosovo (along with NATO forces) for no financial reward.

BS right from the start. This imtimates that Hicks was fighting with a legitimate "NATO" force. He was not. He was fighting with a muslim liberation backed group fighting against Christians.
I was attached to the 173d Airborne in Sth Vietnam & I am a member of the 23rd Chapter of the 173d Association. As such I am still intouch with people on the front line. The American force that captured Hicks had just been in a firefight with the Teliban & had over run & dispersed their position. Hicks was given up to American forces by locals.(More likly to take suspission of themselves.) Those people are like that. Therefore it was assumed that he was involved in the firefight. He was found with a weapon. This comes from a soldier that was involved in the firefight.
It is an offence under Australian Law to be a merceniary. I know I was almost one myself many years ago, having been offered a job once as an "Oil field guard or as Highway construction Guard" ;-
It is also against the Law to be an Enemy Combatant fighting against Australia "or it's Allies." I forget what the Book is called (long time ago) but it's in "Book 7" & relates to the treatment of all combatants friendly or otherwise, inside or outside of Australia.
My personal opinion is that he is a traitor & should have had an accident at the spot he was taken, but I suppose they were after intelligence. Hicks was not the inocent bystander he now claims to be.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 4:40:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If this slob, who was prepared to fight for Al Qaeda, against our troops is allowed to get away with this, I hope you fellow travelers won't be too surprised if those if next time the troops aren't prepared to increase their danger by taking prisoners, rather than shooting.

I know I would have more than a bit of trouble justifying risking my life to defend you, & many of our defence force are coming to feel the same way.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 6 September 2011 4:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy