cont'd ...

Leo Lane:

The following website may clarify a few things for you and others:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/international/david-hicks-first-interview-details-us-torture-allegations/

David f and Pelican
What you say is quite solid.
Though it raises further questions:

The question for the Australian government would be many layers:

1- Does the Australian government have a responsibility to intervene on behalf of its citizens and refuse to allow another country to subject them to treatment that is illegal or unconstitutional to that country?

Which, generally, should have an obvious "YES" answer.

The complication arises when:
2- Does the country maintain this obligation of intervention on behalf of this individual, when this individual poses a threat to the physical well-being and safety to Australians at home?

And of course, how should this be judged?
1- explicit breaking of laws (according to systems abroad or what Australia regards as an explicit crime committed outside Australian soil).
2- Correspondence to militant groups deemed a threat, but not specifically one that orchestrated a specific terrorist act.
3- Psychological state (eg groomed advocate of anti-western mindsets and policy)

AND the onus on how much these must be substantiated or proven, or merely suspected to a certain degree, to warrant.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question, it is very much a dilemma on how much we balance security against standing up for the liberty of those suffering under other authorities abroad.

LEGO:

Generally the two rationales for torture are:

1. These are terrible people so whatever we do to them is justified.

2. Torture is an effective means of getting vital information.

Neither is true. When we employ torture we become terrible people since we justify atrocity the way others do. Torture is only one way & not the best way of getting info. People under torture can tell the torturer what the torturer wants to hear. It may not be the truth. People under torture may finger enemies and so subject innocent people to torture. The Indonesians have in the past used torture. Recently they have changed their interrogation methods. The interrogator builds up a relation with the subject treating them decently while subjecting them to much questioning in a friendly manner. They are having more success with locating and catching terrorists than with previous methods.

In our system guilt is individual. Being a member of an organisation does not make one guilty for everything the organisation does. I was in the US army during WW2. We had trials of Nazis after the war. They were convicted if they were found guilty of war crimes. Being a Nazi did not make a person guilty of a war crime. The same thing goes for any connection with Al Qaeda.

I wish you were familiar with the US Constitution. The first Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there about bearing arms.

The second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms is not unconditional and can be limited to those members of a well regulated militia.

I don’t believe the first two amendments should be changed. I am a white American who loves his country.

Thanks, Lexi, a reference to Amnesty International, who base their garbage on the very author who has inflicted his trash on us here.

Next you will refer us to the mendacious, anti Western Civilization organisation, the United Nations.

Do you have any reference which is not so obviously polluted and untrustworthy?

Do you just believe anything, without submitting it to analysis, and considering its source?

Davidf,

Yes, you're right, torture is immoral and unnecessary. But to expand on your statement that ".... being a Nazi did not make a person guilty of a war crime. The same thing goes for any connection with Al Qaeda.... ", it really should read:

"Being a Nazi did not [necessarily] make a person guilty of a war crime. The same thing goes for any connection with Al Qaeda."

And, being a Nazi, a person could still commit a war crime: after all, ghastly crimes were committed, and in that part of the world, at that time, by Nazis.

Similarly, a person who goes overseas and seeks out al Qaida and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and is involved in terrorist activities, may well have committed war crimes.

Neither the Nazis nor al Qaida (whose philosophies are not all that different) were/are Boy Scout movements. They were/are in the killing business. They commit/committed vile crimes. No, not every messenger boy and cleaner was guilty of heinous crimes, but some supporters and members certainly were, knowingly and willingly.

Did Hicks ? Did he intend to commit terrorist acts ? Would he have been prepared to ? If not, why did he go there ?

No torture for anybody, certainly, but when someone DOES commit treasonable and terrorist crime, then they do the time.

Joe

Furthermore, being a Nazi implied virtually anyone who was German and willing to serve under their (Axis) nations' armed forces in order to fight for their countries. It otherwise cannot make any claim to the motives of the person who served as part of the Wehrmacht.

Serving under an unofficial Islamist militant force, let alone three separate ones, narrows the lists of motives as to why that person would be there.

And it still avoids the question as to whether the government should intervene to protect and recollect such an individual from another government, at the potential expense of security to the rest of the population?