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 > The Hicks case is becoming a constitutional crisis > Comments

The Hicks case is becoming a constitutional crisis : Comments

By Tony Smith, published 17/8/2005

Tony Smith argues the time is right for a Bill of Rights.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
What an interesting world. The left seems determined to portray Hicks as some sort of hero, when in fact he is an unlawful combatant, taken in open conflict on the battlefield. The Geneva Convention clearly disqualifies persons in his category from any protection under the convention, as it only applies to regular military forces of a recognised state wearing the standard uniform of thet state. Even so, I am puzzled as to why the US is taking so long to deal with him. I consider the best description of these unlawful combatants, which include suicide bombers (another group disqualified under the Convention) was given by Kim Beazley, who described them as "sub-human filth". What should have happened to Hicks is that after being subjected to enhanced questioning (the current code word for torture) he should have been put up against a wall and shot.
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 11:18:34 AM
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
The problem with efforts to establish various state and federal bills of rights in Australia has been that the agenda is rapidly seized by various “trendy”, progressive and elitist groups.

Ancient, essential rights are carefully dropped and various meaningless new-age rights substituted.

Meaningless because all a bill of rights can really do is constrain the inevitable abuse of power that eventually arises in any government. Yes, it is probably helpful to include some motherhood statements, but the important thing is the degree to which it (and the process of government, law and society it is embedded in) is able to constrain government abuse of power.

Ordinary Australians might not understand exactly what is happening but they are not stupid. They pick up enough of what is happening to reject attempts at bills of rights, Republics and the like.

Establishing what it is useful to have in a bill of rights is not easy. I suspect that the American Bill Of Rights covers about everything it is useful to include, at least in principle.

It, of course, drew on previous documents such as The Ten Commandments (a kind of reverse bill of rights with the rights stated as responsibilities), the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. The point is that useful documents are surprisingly few and the useful rights just as few.

About everything that concerned the drafters of the American Bill Of Rights is still vital to us. For example, the twin problems of a government gone rogue and personal self-defense when government provision of law and order fails.

Both of these have become very pertinent to many even developed countries over the last few decades.

The Americans attempted to address those problems by the right to bear arms – something that all “right thinking people” abhor and of course immediately remove from and proposed bill of rights.

The problem is that while a right to bear arms may not be appropriate in the present world, no one then acknowledges, let along tries to find a solution to the great, deadly problems it was supposed to address.
Posted by Stephen Heyer, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 12:37:48 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
My attitude is that he should be given a trial in Australia and if he's found guilty or innocent, that decision stands. The idea of "unlawful combatants" is pretty hilarious considering the regimes in Australia and the US will commit acts of war wherever they damn well feel like it and without real regard to legal niceties (maybe public relations perhaps). In the broader scheme of things, the recent invaders of Afghanistan and Iraq are "unlawful combatants". And in Iraq in particular they are receiving the consequences.
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 12:58:36 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
Hicks is an unlawful combatant. But all the evidence supports the fact that he will be convicted as a matter of course via a process characterised by ad hocracy of the worst kind.
The details of his crimes are unknown probably even to his accusers; no one really knows what if any evidence there exists against him. No one can really test the veracity of claims made against him. The porcess is a sham and a crisis in morals as much as it is one of law.

The endorsement by Plerdsus of torture and perfunctory execution is as outrageous a position as I have read for quite some time. Both acts are pointless deeds of cowardice advocated by cowards.

And will some one - any one PLEASE tell me where the left is and who is "of the left". Endless references to the the left is getting tiresome. Maybe I should ask Andrew Bolt and Anne Coulter the address of "the left"; they seem pretty pre occupied with it as do some of the contributors to the Forum.

I would suggest the former high court judges and former Governor General,Hicks militarily appointed defender together with those other highly ranked legal officers who resigned or were happily re deployed over the farcical court Hicks may face could not tagged as "of the left".
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 1:25:24 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
Pardon my ignorance, but I don’t understand what an Australian Bill of Rights has to do with David Hicks who was captured and held by America as an unlawful combatant. We are repeatedly told that he has committed no offence in Australia. How would a B of R alter the plight of an Australian citizen committing actions overseas, particularly when we have no law regarding those actions? How would such a Bill ensure that an Australian citizen received a fair and open trial?

Another things I don’t understand is why some people make a fuss about the ‘rights’ of David Hicks. He is a convert to a religion not big on human rights, and he was captured among people who believe those disagreeing with them and their religion don’t even have the right to exist.

David Hicks will be better treated by the US than he and his friends would treat any of the naïve supporters he has in Australia. And, despite the Niemuller homily, these dupes have more to fear from people like Hicks and his fellows than they do from America and their own Government.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 1:36:01 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
Leigh, i agree with the questions you raise but i also feel citizenship rights should transend national borders.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 1:46:31 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
"The left" is basically anyone you disagree with. It's a nonsense term like "the right" or "feminists". I usually dismiss such generalisations as the rubbish that they are.

In regard to Hicks. My support for him getting a fair trial is based on my own sense of self-preservation. If a high profile person like him can't, what hope is there of ordinary Australians or Americans getting one if their governments, through anti-terrorist legislation, decide fair trials can be disposed of? Of course David Hicks and his Taliban friends are hardly pleasant people. Neither is George Bush and his Northern Alliance friends. Or just George Bush for that matter.
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 1:50:55 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
Should not all Australians have at least the right to a fair trial?

Quote: “The British, Spanish, and French Governments have all refused to allow their citizens to be tried in Guantanamo Bay. Even the Americans have removed their citizens from Guantanamo Bay and ensured they face a fair trial at home….”

http://www.getup.org.au/index.asp

“Test the possibility that an appeal might succeed!”
Posted by jak, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 2:04:21 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
A Bill of Rights seems somewhat beside the point of the Hicks situation. Because really, no matter what crime he did or did not commit, the way he is being held indefinately, with little or no chance of an open and accountable trial is appalling.

We give murderers and rapists fair trials, this is central to our, and supposedly, the USA's form of society. These military tribunals do not seem to fit any idea of justice, and the idea that it is okay to hold someone for close to four years without testing the evidence against them is shocking, no matter what their supposed crime.
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 2:05:03 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
Tony: David Hicks trained as a moslem fighter/terrorist, I have seen a photo with him, Hicks, holding a grenade launcher. He would have been trained to KILL Christians or anyone not a pagan moslem. That is you and your family Tony, that is me and mine Tony! Terrorists are killers, cold blooded murdering, gutless, craven assassins usually attacking un-armed civilians. Just what you and I are Tony.
This trained killer would give you or myself or our families no mercy at all, why all this mis-guided soppy compassion Tony? numbat
Posted by numbat, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 4:21:07 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
I am sorry that sneekeepete and DavidJS don't seem to realise that we live in a new century, and that this war against terrorism is totally different than any previous war we have been involved in. It is a war of extermination, a bit like the war against Japan, but (hopefully) not like the 30 years war from 1618-1638. People get killed in wars. The fact is that if Hicks were to be brought back to Australia he would go free, as at the time he was fighting allied troops in Afghanistan there was no law against that. To suggest he be tried under retrospective criminal law would be the greatest violation of our rights possible, and one which incidentally is prohibited in the US constitution. As for the declamations against torture, what should we do in the event that a terrorist secretes a nuclear bomb somewhere in Sydney that would kill a million people if it went off, and the terrorist who planted it has been captured ? Locating him in the general vicinity of the bomb would be pointless, as he is happy to die; does sneekeepete think it would be cowardly to torture him and possibly save the lives of untold thousands? Does anyone seriously consider that there is any prospect of him rehabilitating? If we imprison these people for long periods we run the risk that another terrorist group will kidnap a group of schoolkids and threaten to kill them if the prisoner is not released (remember Beslan?).
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 6:19:43 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
Yes Plerdsus it is a totally different war; it is assymetrical and brutal but our appraoch continues to feature the clumsy hallmarks of an 18th Century cavalry charge.

The invasion of Iraq is a case in point; our failure to come to terms with the nature of terrorism and find those we suspect are leading figures, drew our focus to a solitary and stationary - and lets face it a militarily soft - target; the country had been on its knees for over a decade. Our inabiltiy to find Osama, his entourage of physicians, advisors and dialysis machines casued us to shift attention to the easy option - " no one likes Sadaam - lets get him".

That action has done nothing to dent the resolve of terrorists; it has not exposed a terrorist HQ - it has not sent a clear and unequivocal message to the bad guys - unless you accept that the message is when it comes to terrorism we really have no idea what the terrorists are on about, where they are or what they are up to next. It has spawned a local resistance and drawn in a bunch of miscreants eager for a fight.

And I can't say that the dumb shooting of the Brazillian in London reassures any one that extreme measures rooted in blind fear has furthered the war against terrorism - those actions are not that far removed from a position that justifies torture and murder; the notion that torturing a suspect about the location of the mystery nuclear device presupposes you've got the right guy even before you consider the ethics behind the action you're about to take.

This is a war we are losing. We have tried to establish a clearly identifiable "front" where one does not exist and are losing there. What's is worse we are losing at home with ever escalating restrictions on civil liberties and a steady deterioration of our ethics. We are changing in the face of a determined assault and if that change is a measure of anything the bad guys have already won.
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 18 August 2005 9:03:27 AM
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
Plerdsus, you say ‘we live in a new century,’ how much have you read about the middle ages? War against terrorism is not ‘totally different’ probably the discourse is different, but pathological fear (paranaoia) has existed for as long as human have existed, and the use of that fear by those seeking power and control has also been used for a very long time.

'Wars of extermination' ditto.
‘People get killed in wars’ I agree. However, new media coverage of wars of invasion has surgically removed the victims.

If David Hicks was brought to Australia and set free, it would be because he has not broken any laws. If he has, or if he has broken the laws of other country then there are treaties and covenants that cover this field.

You say ‘at the time he was fighting allied troops in Afghanistan there was no law against that.’ You are mistaken, our ‘common laws’ go back a long time, and the law-makers have made sure to cover most of the areas in regards to criminal acts, here and abroad (inclusive they have gone far beyond and that is why we need to discuss the issue of a Bill of Rights – as the 2002 anti-terrorism legislation, for example, does impinge on our human and civil rights).

In regards to ‘retrospective legislation,’ you are correct, it would be ‘the greatest violation of our rights.'

‘Declamations against torture…, [and]...a terrorist secretes a nuclear bomb…’ I believe in this statement you boarding the areas of paranoia and that is why we have laws, so we do not go on killing our neighbours just because we thought they were about to implant a bomb in our house, when they were merely looking for their pet!

‘Does anyone seriously consider that there is any prospect of him rehabilitating?’ I do not know whether this question has anything to do with David Hicks legal status or trial. You are already passing judgement.

‘…we run the risk of another terrorist group…’ here we go again with the ‘pathological fear.’ Do you have any chance of rehabilitation
Posted by Marlene, Thursday, 18 August 2005 9:35:39 AM
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 Readers,
Some of the comments posted really put a chill up the spine. I remember some of the the old cowboy westerns when the lynch mob would catch some cowboy and say right "string him up!"

Don't you think if Milosovic can get a fair trial though the I.C.C. then so should Hicks or any of the other detainees in the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay.
The need for a bill of rights to me seems more evident now that the assistance of the Foreign Affairs department is so lacking given that help for Aussie standed overseas is at the whim of the foreign minister.

You only have to look at the comments of the Majors who resigned from the Military Commissions who said such things that (the commissions)"were a fraud perpetuated on the US citizens."
that they were struggling to cobble up evidence and that it was neccesary to use hearsay evidence from fellow inmates extracted under torture! to have any prospect of a conviction.
There is I know a photo of Hicks with a Rocket launcher over his shoulder as there was of a photo of 'children overboard' one needs to know in what context it was taken. If it was a training photo so be it. Probable every foot solder in the Australian or US army could have a similar photo taken.

In my view Hicks has been held at Guantamamo Bay for so long because its been expedient for the U.S. Govt politically given the so called war on terror. Holding suspects for so longer tells the US citizens that they have done something about 9/11.
Secondly he has been held for so long because the government has little or no evidence that can "stand the light of day." Otherwise if there was it would take little effort to put him before a Judge and Jury and try him according to ordinary natural justice
Posted by aramis1, Thursday, 18 August 2005 10:23:30 AM
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
Marlene, it is great to be able to have a robust discussion on this subject, as it helps everyone to clarify their ideas. Yes, I have read a lot about medieval war, and think we are heading right back in that direction. Just look at the factors that will influence this century:

1 The world population is increasing at 6 million per month, almost entirely in the third world.

2 We are coming to the end of the age of cheap energy, and this must mean that living standards all around the world will decline sharply in the near future.

3 The only way we know how to run an economy is with perpetual growth, and this will be no longer possible because of 2.

4. The last period of sustained economic decline was the Great Depression, and people didn't like it much.

The effect of all the above unfortunately will be more terrorism, conflict and violence as nations fight over the limited resources left and endeavour to keep out illegal immigrants desperate to join the party and get away from the third world.

The only reasonable yardstick by which anyone can forsee how this will work out is to assume that human nature, which has not changed throughout recorded history, will remain at the same abysmal level it is at today.

I believe that the best example of how life will be like here in 50 years time is given in modern-day Israel.

As far as my rehabilitation is concerned, I don't believe in inflicting violence on anyone, except in self-defence, and don't expect to be changing that opinion.

As far as "common law" offences are concerned, they do not apply outside Australia. Recently in parliament several opposition members proposed retrospective legislation to cover the difficulties in prosecuting Hicks if he were returned here.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 18 August 2005 11:53:13 AM
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
The difficulty I have with David Hicks, is that we just don't have reliable facts or details from his accussors which we can verify.

Some reports have described Hicks as a Taliban fighter, others as an Al Qaida operative. I don't believe that these descriptions are interchangeable. One group was the unrecognised government of Afghanistan, the other a terror organisation.

If he was fighting for the Taliban surely he is a POW, if he was fighting for Al Qaida he is nothing more than a common criminal, and should be treated as such. To much time has been wasted trying to classify and determine how to treat Hicks. If he was really bearing arms against Coalition forces he is either an enemy soldier or attempting to commit murder.

Lets get his trial underway, show the world the evidence and convict or free on that basis.
Posted by whoisbiggles, Thursday, 18 August 2005 12:15:21 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
The USA has had a bill of rights for a long time. That has not prevented them from exercising electrifyingly cruel and unusual punishments of a terminal nature against many of its citizens who were, posthumously, found to have been wrongfully convicted.
A Bill of Rights might have a lot going for it, but on US evidence, is no guarantee.
The body of laws we currently have, if appropriately applied, would cover many of the deficiencies under present scrutiny.
Our community has every reason to be concerned that the philosophy and practices of the Virginian Captain William Lynch are creeping into acceptability for current society.
Things were bad enough during IRA troubles when Lord Denning commented on what he viewed as unfortunate - the discontinuance of the death sentence, as it had enabled the revelation of police malpractice: Had the wrongly convicted suspects been executed, the law would not have been exposed to bad repute. Now it appears that the social scene in Britain is so much worse that British police have followed someone they regarded as a suspect into a train where he peacefully seated himself, and shot him: so far, without much more than an "oops, sorry".
There may be occasions when someone must arrogate to themselves the right to be, literally, judge jury and executioner. I do not endorse their proliferation. I would like to have, wherever possible, the facts of the situation presented in the light of day, under the aegis of either a bill of rights or of adequately administered existing law. That rather than a standardised "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude.
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 18 August 2005 12:45:48 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
One thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post is that to date David Hicks status as a Belligerent has yet to be ratified. According to the Geneva Convention the status of a person must be verfied by a properly
constituted court. This has yet to be done! Also the U.S. government
tried recently to raise the level of what constitutes torture in the military conventions. Also why is it that U.S. soldiers are indemnified against criminal actions by failing to ratify international conventions?
Again I reiterate this has nothing to do with making Hicks a Hero or a martyr it simply ascribes that we all deserve 'due process'according to international law no matter what the circumstances.
In addition this has nothing to do with left or right-wing ideologies it is simply about giving Hicks a fair trial and fair punishment should that be necessary.
Given that Hicks has been held for nearly for years mostly in solitary confinement, subject to abuse and torture in a foreign country.
Maybe the neo-con's in the U.S. administration should revisit the U.S. 1977 movie 'Midnight Express."
Posted by aramis1, Thursday, 18 August 2005 4:08:04 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
Sorry about nitpicking but...

As Hicks has not gone to trial and therefore no evidence has been presented and TESTED in a court of law, how do we know he was an enemy combatant? Should we believe the US account unquestioningly?

Perhaps he was waiting at a bus stop and was apprehended by US forces. I have a photo of myself some years past posing in a dreadfull amusement arcade type photo montage wearing cowboy gear - my wife threatens to show it to friends! That does not make me a gun toting good ol'e boy!

You can not pretend to be defenders of the free world and then treat any body as appallingly as the US and Australian governments have in the case of the GB detainees.

If we pretend to be a civilised society then we ALL need to behave accordingly.
Posted by Peter King, Thursday, 18 August 2005 6:48:00 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
Peter: The photo I and thousands of others, saw was hicks with - no! not a toy gun at an amusement arcade. No not wearing a cowboy costume. He was cradling or aiming a grenade launcher a weapon made for killing other humans, many of them. We Know, Peter, we have seen proof, Peter, that these terrorists, a group that hicks trained with, continue to be cold hearted, merciless, barbarous killers. Killers of unwary, unarmed civilian men, women and children.Hicks fought for moslems in what was Yugo-Slavia, so he possibly had already killed. Hicks and his ilk will milk mercy for all it's worth but show none of this mercy to their intended victims. These terrorist's victims are anyone who is not pagan moslem. Peter we can not deal with these murderers with soppy "Oh! be nice to him" sentimentality. They need to be seen as what they are. numbat
Posted by numbat, Friday, 19 August 2005 12:06:38 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
Numbat,

It could have been a photo taken 5, 10 years ago - who knows!

He may have had a "road to Damascus conversion" for all we know and might have become a Christian in the meantime. All I am suggesting is that a court is the right place to determine if someone has committed a crime against you, me, all of humanity. I don't believe he will get a fair trial in a military hearing. If he was found guilty by the US Supreme Court or similar and sentenced to death; great at least we have upheld OUR end of western ideals and morality. If not we sink to the same level as the terrorists where hatred determines the outcome of our actions.
Posted by Peter King, Friday, 19 August 2005 1:25:44 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
Relevant to this Online Opinion thread, Crikey.com carried a piece by me about Hicks on 18 August:

http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/08/18-1510-2512.html

also carried on the Crikey members’ email letter today 19 August. I urge people to read the two cited Wikipedia references. Wikipedia is reputable and objective.

“DAVID HICKS – IS GERARD HENDERSON RIGHT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David Hicks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

The facts regarding David Hicks can be summarised simply. Gerard Henderson in the SMH [Opinion, 16 August] misrepresents and draws red herrings over them.

As an Australian citizen abroad, Hicks is entitled to effective Australian Government consular protection when arrested and charged with serious crimes by a foreign government. For the past four years he has not had this protection. To surrender his final fate to a military "court" where the US military is at once plaintiff, jailer, evidence-gatherer, prosecutor, judge and jury cannot give him a fair trial. At the very least, he should be tried by a US civil court (as was US citizen John Walker Lindh). Or he should be returned for trial in Australia as other non-US Guantanamo inmates ( e.g., British, French prisoners) are being repatriated to face judicial process in their own countries.

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, based on reputable mainstream media sources, says Hicks was captured in Kandahar in the closing days of the civil war, between the then Taliban government of Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance insurgency supported by US special forces and airpower. The insurgency prevailed and the Taliban government, for which Hicks was fighting, fell. Hicks was captured by Northern Alliance troops. He can fairly claim that at time of capture he was under arms as a foreign volunteer for a sovereign government which he supported. In what ways does this differ from the foreign volunteers who fought for the losing Republican government in the Spanish Civil War against the successful Francoist insurgency? (more)

(continued) Yes, we do not like the Taliban government, and we know the US decided to unseat it for giving refuge to Al Qaeda, but those facts of themselves do not make Hicks an Al Qaeda fighter. ( to be continued)
Posted by tony kevin, Friday, 19 August 2005 11:17:02 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
(Continued)The US military allegations cited by Henderson that he was trained by Al Qaeda as an international terrorist are just that – unproven allegations. They need to be tested in a real court under proper rules of evidence, not by a military Star Chamber.

As to Hicks’ record of fighting for the Kosovar Liberation Army, were not the KLA defending the Kosovar people (Muslims) against genocidal acts and mass ethnic cleansing by militarily dominant and brutal Serb forces? Weren’t a million Kosovars forced to flee their ravaged villages into Albania? Wasn’t the KLA "on our side" at the time?

Henderson condemns Hicks’ political and religious views as privately communicated by letter to his father. Isn’t Henderson here accusing Hicks of Thoughtcrimes (cf. "1984")? Hicks was not on a public platform; he was trying to explain his ideas to his close family. However much many of us will dislike such ideas, we must surely in a democracy defend his right to have them?

In recent days, many eminent Western lawyers , Australian and international, have made some of the above points, in particular as to manifest inadequacy of the legal process – even including the ADF’s senior military counsel, Captain Paul Willee. Such unanimity among legal professionals must be given due weight. I give no weight to Henderson’s piece, which is nothing more than poorly constructed propaganda in defense of the indefensible.

The truth is – Howard has painted himself into a corner on Hicks . Having knuckled under to everything the US said and did, he cannot now protest without risking generating doubts in the Bush circle as to his loyalty under pressure. Hicks is the victim of that, and this is injustice. Australians are right to protest
Posted by tony kevin, Friday, 19 August 2005 11:18:30 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
Australia does not need a Bill of Rights for many reasons. One of these - and maybe the most important – is that if Australia were to obtain a Bill of Rights, be it under the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, the rights that Australians would get would be ruled upon by judges. The judgements made would be upon the principles of the rights, and no individual and specific rights could be set out in the Bill of Rights.

Also, one major claim by those rallying for a Bill of Rights, claim that the separation of powers that has held government responsible through a hostile Senate for 20 years or so has suddenly ‘gone out the window’, and because of this, a Bill of Rights is necessary now more than ever. But the fundamental problem with this is that whether there is a hostile senate or not, a Bill of Rights would not hold the government responsible anymore on these issues.

Then who would be responsible – nobody.

Judges who would rule on these cases could not be held accountable for making a judgement based on the law. It is what they are paid to do. Unlike parliament, they are not responsible to the people, but to the law, and therefore cannot be voted out of office by a hostile electorate, unlike the members of the parliament – who because of their responsibility to the electorate - are kept in check and are responsible for the laws they enact. Therefore we should not have a Bill of Rights just because it is the Flavour of the Month, and not considering the consequences of its enactment.
Posted by Simon Hackett, Friday, 19 August 2005 11:42:17 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
Australia does not need a Bill of Rights.

David Hicks & the 9 drug smuglers knew the risks they were taking.
We should not make laws to protect the "lawless".

Tony Smith sounds like someone who likes to protect "crooks".
Posted by Reuel, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 4:27:47 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 numbat is right and the evidence on which is opinion is based, is actually sound and substantial, then Hicks can and should be tried in a legitimate court. The fact that the US government is unwilling to have its 'evidence' against him (whatever the evidence is, is not apparent) tested in a legitimate court under transparently proper process, is grounds for intelligent scepticism, indeed for grave doubt.

I do not trust the current US federal administration. I do not trust the beat-ups. I do not trust the hysteria or wisdom of people who base their opinions on a photo and tabloid story.

I would however trust a legitimate justice process and accept the result it produces. If the evidence against Hicks IS substantial, why hasn't he been brought to trial after all this time? Why must he be hidden away? Why won't the government allow him the same standard and accessibility to legal representation to which any other person would be entitled if accused (rightly or not) of rape, murder, cruelty, war crimes, etc etc. Is Hicks worse, is Hicks LESS deserving than Saddam, the one whose alleged tyranny justified the Iraq invasion?

C'mon numbat, where's the credibility?
Posted by Fiona, Friday, 26 August 2005 10:51:01 AM
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
Numbat
I seem to remember a photo of Senator Lightfoot holding an AK47, does this make him an unlawful combatant?
With David Hicks we seem to have gone back to pre Magna Carta days when anyone could be locked up because the guy in charge said so.
Posted by Peace, Friday, 26 August 2005 8:30:03 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
In one of my correspondences to Mr John Howard I did set out why the Magna Charta was still applicable in the USA. Several months later, the US Supreme Court handed down its decision that the Magna Charta was still applicable.

We have people arguing about that we need a Bill of right. Why?

The Delegates to the Constitution Convention Debates who framed the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia would have no power to interfere with the rights provided under the Magna Charta! And, they referred to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1999 (UK) but then known as the Constitution Convention Bill 1898 to be the “new Magna Charta for the people by the people!

This also has been extensively set out in my 30 September 2003 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

Personally, I may deplore what David Hicks was doing or allegedly was doing, but still he is an Australian national and so entitled to have the benefits provided for within the Australian Constitution, which also is within the US Constitution being the Magna Charta rights, the bill of rights provisions, etc.

Moreover, this includes that no prisoner shall be transferred over the seas!

While Hicks might be dealt with within Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) hardly would Howard & Co want to do that as then they themselves might be charged within that provision for invading Iraq!
Last, I knew, Iraq was a “friendly” nation, as we had not declared war, as that required the Governor-General first to publish a DECLARATION OF WAR!
My position is clear that if we have any treaty with the US then the rights of our nationals shall be no less then that of the Americans, and Hicks should have a right to a civil court in the same manner as any American had who were alleged to be fighting against them!

Nothing to do with liking or disliking Hicks conduct, it is about the constitutional rights Australians have while in custody by the US!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 2:33:59 AM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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