Absolute agreement from me Max. You'd think that someone would have had to be found guilty of a crime for 'proceeds of crime' legislation to apply wouldn't you?

I also agree Hicks has not committed a crime and should not have book earnings confiscated.
I also believe Howard, Downer and Ruddock should be arrainged and charged with dereliction of duty and made to pay Hicks Compensation.
Maracas

But he pleaded guilty. Twist and turn all you like, he admitted to committing an offence. 'Think' what you like, Maracas, but he admitted to committing an offence. He copped a plea and got let off, a reduced sentence. End of story.

Not quite: having admitted to committing a crime, should he then get the proceeds for his description of it ? Does that come under the 'proceeds of crime' definition ? If not, what does it take ?

Joe

That's a bit harsh, Loudmouth.

>>But he pleaded guilty. Twist and turn all you like, he admitted to committing an offence.<<

As I recall, it was an "Alford plea", where the defendant pleads guilty while still maintaining innocence, on the basis that he would be likely to be found guilty.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/alford-plea/

"In an Alford Plea, the criminal defendant does not admit the act, but admits that the prosecution could likely prove the charge. The court will pronounce the defendant guilty."

I'd reckon that from where he sat in Guantanamo Bay, Hicks would have assessed his chances of being found not guilty as being close to zero, hence the lack of a trial.

The offence was not tried in Australia either. I'd say the "proceeds of crime" stance is pretty thin, all round. However, the law in Australia seems forever subservient to politics (well, most of the time, Julia...) so I wouldn't hold out much hope for a favourable interpretation just yet.

Maybe you're right, Pericles, but there might be a lot of convicted criminals who claim 'I wuz framed!', 'It wasn't me!' but who still plead guilty, knowing their chances.

Your point about Hicks not being found guilty in Australia may have more weight. I don't know if the 'proceeds of crime' legislation extends to offenses committed outside of the jurisdiction of Australia, but the implications are tantalising: once he is turfed out, and if he seeks refuge in the Caribbean to avoid further prosecutions, Berlusconi could make a decent living selling his unexpurgated memoirs to the Australian public. Come to think of it, so could Ghaddafi. Bit late for Mubarak :)

Cheers.

Joe

Eminently sensible stuff Max. I'm in full agreement.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hasbeen, please explain why we invaded a sovereign country, that had not attacked Australia.
Its like the revival of the Vietnam situation, another country told us what we must do, because they wanted the oil pipeline feed to Pakistan. Oh Yes! the Iraq invasion was also for oil.....Hasbeen?...Good blog name !!

Hasbeen and Jayb

I have no sympathy whatever for Islamic terrorists. I don’t think Hicks is innocent, still less a hero. But what distinguishes our culture from those that would destroy it, is that we operate within the law and place boundaries on what the law can and cannot do to those we despise. Hicks deserves many things, but confiscation of the proceeds of his book sales is not one of them.

Rhian: we operate within the law and place boundaries on what the law can and cannot do to those we despise.
Yes, pity that. Maybe the Law should be changed so that we operate using the same rules as the Teliban & Al Quaida. At Least we then would be on an even footing. It definately would make things a lot easier on our side. Then we wouldn't, like the terrorists, have to worry about how many women & children we kill. It would be open slather like the terrorists are allowed & we wouldn't have anybody complaining about the killing of innocents. Just like there is no complaint when the terrorists kill innocents by all the Do Gooders. I guess they must support the terrorists tactics but not ours. Strange that.

Well Jayb I don't support the killing of innocents by anyone - by flying planes into buildings or drones into mountainous areas overseas. Sorry to fail your categories.

The biggest terrorist organisation on the planet is the banking ,military industrial complex.We have the evidence.

Kipp: please explain why we invaded a sovereign country, that had not attacked Australia.
We went there to root out Al Quadia & to protect the people from an atrocious regime call the Teliban. Now I don't know if you support segregation, disfigurement & beating of women. Or agree that women should not have any education, medical care, etc. Or even if you think, like these people do, that women are only animals to be subjucated & used & abused by men as they please. If you do think like that, then I pity you. I sounds like it. If you dont then then you should support NATO's efforts. It's your choice. Hicks made his choice. It was to support Al Quaida & the Teliban & I guess you are supporting Hicks. Hmmm...
Yes, there is the matter of the Oil Pipe lines from Turkmanistan, Uzbekistan & Tajikistan through Afganistan to the coast of Pakistan. A pipe line that enrich those 3 Countries and Afganistan/Pakistan who don't really have to do anything for the renumeration. The only peoples benifiting from this oil & the pipe line are in those 5 poor countries. Al Quadia doesn't want the West to have oil & the Teliban don't want the people of Afganistan enriched & educated or modernize.

Jayb there are questions about the means and their effectiveness.

Are Iran and Afghanistan really better off now than before the invasion? If not now, when? How long is too long?

Evan Hadkins: Well Jayb I don't support the killing of innocents by anyone.
I am surmising that you have been in a protest condemming the Americans & Australians for their efforts against terrorists. Have you been in a mass protest against the Teliban or Al Quaida? Hmmm, I didn't think so. So by your quite complicity you show your support for terrorism & the killing of innocents. Shame on you.

Arjay: The biggest terrorist organisation on the planet is the banking ,military industrial complex.
You'll get no arguement from me their Arjay.

A rather obtuse attempt to imply that denying someone the right to make money from free speech is equivalent to actually denying free speech.

Having said that- for something like this the law at the time must judge for itself whether Hicks is eligible for profiting from his story (as distasteful as it would be if he did)- with the only action left to extend 'proceeds of crime' to include other cases corresponding to Hicks' more abstract situation of taking up arms with an Islamist militant or terror group (which of course should henceforth also be a crime in this country also- even to the point that we specifically make a short list of armies Australian citizens MAY fight for, and MAY even hold dual citizenship to fight for- and anything off the list will be considered illegal and an automatic disqualification of citizenship).

If you want a REAL issue that taps into the heart of free speech; refer to Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks; these men are being unlawfully detained (Manning quite brutally) on nothing but the basis that they are actually helping to uphold the supposed values our societies endorse of free information on public organizations and interest, political transparency etc. THESE people are actually doing people like us a favor; rather than doing people like Bin Laden a favor like Hicks did.

I could not care less about Hicks.

At best he is an idiot, a dope.

At worst he was part of the enemy.

More important things to talk about.

Banjo's nailed it.

But he was still treated appallingly by both the Yanks and our craven Government under Howard.

Jayb,look at the evidence.http://www.ae911truth.org/ The real terrorists exist in our Govts.

By using their own moronic logic, the die-hard neocons who perpetuate the 'with us or against us' insult, are actively guilty of supporting the regimes of Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-il by NOT invading Zimbabwe and North Korea to, as John Howard put it after not finding WMD's 'properly liberate an oppressed people'.

The neocons have gone the same way as their communist counterparts but lucky for us they didn't last as long.

So please dispense with the Hypocrisy Masterclass.

King Hazza is right, there are certainly more people deserving of support.

However, I wonder if the Bush family is allowed to keep the profits of any books they may write or any government leaders who instigate invasions based on false premises, greed or economic interests. I can see a Gaddaffi's Memoirs out soon on all bookshelves.

Governments have supported despots for various reasons including protecting their nation's interest without much weight given to the fate or treatment of citizens. There is so much hypocrisy in many of the human rights excuses used to invade countries to rid of supposed despots like Saddam Hussein whom the US government allowed to stay in power after Kuwait, in spite of a poor human rights record. Or ignoring pleas for help in countries like Rwanda.

Hicks is no hero but it is getting petty now. Hicks was held without trial for some years and did not earn an income during this entire period. Hicks never killed anyone nor did he commit an act of terror. Should we change the law to include acts a Person Of Interest might commit based on current behaviours. If that were the case our jails would be full of inmates who hadn't actully done anything.

Hicks's raised profile only came about by the failure of both the US Govt/judicial system and failures on the part of the Howard Government. It was the lack of due process in his very belated trial and the duplicity in backdating legislation to be able to charge him with something. Why not do that from the first. Lots of rotten apples and obfuscation in the whole affair.

The past is the past but something might be learned from the Hicks experience and those of other detainees who were found later to be completely innocent of wrongdoing and just swept up in the chaos of war.

Well my answers to those Pelican are

1- for our government to need to pass a referendum to allow itself to conduct any form of support for a foreign government- OR for participating in any way in an armed conflict- unless we are directly invaded. The chances of Bush's Iraq war passing a referendum are rather slim.

2- Extend the law to include unlawful participation with a banned army. We simply declare that to join a foreign army, the citizen must relinquish their Australian citizenship entirely- and this is automatic upon doing so. Then we make a (short) list of armies we DO consider legal; and any that are not on the list are therefore illegal in the eyes of Australian law. That way, anyone that joins the militant Jihad groups in Afghanistan or Pakistan are automatically criminals and stripped of their citizenship and thus not liable for our intervention- and are furthermore permanently barred from getting it back "terrorist" or not;

Thus, we become a neutral country that neither foolishly participates in other countries' dubious military campaigns, NOR do we allow jihadis who fight for the Taliban to use our legal system to enhance their own personal (ill-gotten) gains.

Certainly Hazza the legislation needs to be clearer ensuring similar events in the future won't be impeded by flaws in the judicial process. That way Australia could handle their own dissidents quickly under the Law.

I like the idea of referenda being used to go to war. Unless there is of course an invasion that would require immediate mobilisation. Referenda could appy to offshore war zones.

Revoking citizenship would make the process easier in theory. Who decides which armies or causes are legitimate? The Tamil Tigers were listed as a terrorist group until recently and are now seeking asylum in many countries including Australia and being accepted. Foreign policies change depending on information received and on diplomatic or other interests at any one time. In cases where governments amend their positions, would citizenship be restored? Sometimes it is difficult to tell who are the terrorists? But I guess someone has to draw a line and make a decision.

The Hicks affair highlighted many gaps in legislation pertaining to terrorism mainly because it was not such a big issue for Australia until after 9/11. One can only hope new legislation can deal with any number of possibilities.

Pelican- I would endorse if the government or courts could initially establish which armies they will consider legal/illegal, and allow CIR to list additional armies (or type of army).

Arjay: Jayb,look at the evidence.http://www.ae911truth.org/ The real terrorists exist in our Govts.
The biggest terrorist organisation on the planet is the banking ,military industrial complex.

Don't you read my posts Arjay. Here it is again.
You'll get no arguement from me there, Arjay.

I know full well what the Government is capable of. I have an F Security Clearence. When Diana died, with-in minutes, I rang a mate, His SC go a lot higher than mine, & asked the question. He said he would not like to think so but you can't have the mother of the future King of England (Princess Wales) married to a Muslim. Have you ever seen the movie "Apocalypse Now Redux" The Author was ordered not to release the book, he did, & died in an accident soon after. By the way the character of Marlon Brando's was based on 2 Captains, one an Australian, an ex Coy. Commander of mine. Barry Petersen "The Tiger Man of Vietnam" The other was sent back to America where he was doomed to play nuclear war games in the Pentagon until he retired. Both had prices put on their head by the CIA. When he did retire it was to Marwillumbah. The safest place in the world in the event of a nuclear war. The movie is about 60% accurate. I was there for some of it. I was in the cordon around the Hump, the 1st. part of Hamburger Hill where we lost Gillson & Parker. Ho Bo Woods the big Airborne Assault. My Chopper was 1st. on the ground. Op. Denver where they went into Laos to cut the Ho Chi Min trail & kill a group of AWOL Americans & Montanards that were fighting on their own & winning. The only time they used poisonous gas in Vietnam. We knew then something was wrong. I know a lot more as well. I know to well about Conspiracy & the Truth.
Hicks, whatever way you look at it is a traitor in more than one way. He gets no sympathy from me what-so-ever.

Well, this is another one I've stopped dead with truths that some people can't abide.

David Hick’s treatment was reprehensible at the hands of both Yankees and our morally corrupt government. He may well be considered as the ‘common man’ representing what any or all of us might suffer if found in the wrong place at the wrong time. In a way he is championing our common rights that our tyrannical government imposed on the representative of us all. David Hicks is here everyman.

And why, Deadly, was he in 'the wrong place at the wrong time' ? Was he kidnapped, flown secretly by Talibair to Afghanistan and made to fight for one of the most backward forces in the world today ? Or for his own half-witted reasons, did he go to Afghanistan of his own free will ? Christ, how come they didn't shoot him immediately as an American spy ?

And what do you mean by 'at the wrong time' ? When would have been a good time to be fighting for the Taliban ? For God's sake, imagine if the Australian forces during the Second World War had discovered an Australian in Japanese uniform who had been fighting for them ? Would an excuse of 'Sorry, I'm just in the wrong place at the wrong time' have been enough to let him go ?

If he had been captured as a renegade Russian soldier fighting for the mujahideen back in the eighties, I wonder if the gulags would have been any more comfortable than Guantanamo ? Ah yes, you're right, he probably wouldn't have made it to the gulags, or if he did, he would still be there, somewhere up above the Arctic Circle, living on raw mammoth meat if he could get it, and digging uranium or salt.

What Loudmouth said.
In never ceases to amaze me how people so casually whitewash Hicks' actions as something that HAPPENED to him rather than something he DID.
It's actually quite a telling sign that many Australians are self-absorbed people that feel entitled to do the wrong thing and feel it is always someone else's fault and they are just an innocent victim when they don't get away with it (the wank 'adventurer' fantasy comes to mind).

I also would like to point out this scenario.
If Australia were completely neutral in the war in Afghanistan, and David Hicks was still captured, we would still be faced with the decision of whether we personally intervene to rescue a deserter with solid extremist ties including killing in their name, and set him lose in our community.
It seems that his incarceration in Gitmo was the only thing that toned him down.

As I see it- if a person who joins a repugnant force whose doctrines are a threat to our safety- runs afoul of another force that uses repugnant methods- they deserve each other.