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 17/8/2005Tony Smith argues the time is right for a Bill of Rights.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- ›
- All
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 1:50:55 PM
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
|
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.