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 > Defining David Hicks > Comments

Defining David Hicks : Comments

By Neil James, published 9/6/2006

Releasing David Hicks is not as easy and straightforward as it seems.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 22
  10. 23
  11. 24
  12. All
Hicks is an Australian, so how about a simple Australian solution?

Put him up before a kangaroo court, with Judge Lynch presiding.

Those who wish to dignify the taliban with any label other than terrorist should be aware that glorifying terrorism is an offence under the new sedition legislation. Terrorists, particularly suicide bombers, have no rights whatsoever, have no recognition under the Geneva Convention, and may be shot out of hand. The religious war between Islam and the West can be compared to the struggle against Japan during World War II, which was a war of extermination. Anyone who has read about the fight along the Kokoda Track will know about it in detail.

What with the end of the age of cheap oil, the population explosion, global warming, and the struggle bewteen Islam and the West, which could easily expand into a general north-south conflict, it looks like being an interesting century.
Posted by plerdsus, Saturday, 10 June 2006 8:22:07 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 think you’re on the money in the first part of your post, bushbred. I’d say Hicks jnr spent plenty of time in his bedroom reading some magazine like Soldier of Fortune with the pages stuck together. He probably fantasised about being a war hero.

I think that Hinks jnr is on the horns of a dilemma which is not made any easier by the phalanx of ambulance chasers who sense the chance to enhance their profile.

The various branches of the armed services have been dispensing military justice for many years without causing loss of sleep for some in the legal club. If all matters arising out of armed conflict end up in civilian court, Slobodan Milosevic and Nikolai Ceaucescu and Pol Pot, to name just three, seem to have fallen through the net.

Could it work the other way? If some slob is on a charge of rape and doesn’t like his chances in a civilian court can he ask to be tried by the military? Would our friends in the legal club push his cause
Posted by Sage, Saturday, 10 June 2006 9:23:50 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 was kidnapped by the Northern alliance and sold to the US as he was leaving Afghanistan. I have met and talked to his US and Adelaide lawyers and the only thing he has been charged with is guarding a tank. If he guarded a tank in Australia he would be called a soldier and paid for it. The notion that he is a terrorist for this "crime" is deranged and Neil James is not a lawyer, has not spoken to the lawyers and probably has not spent one moment with David's wonderful father like I have.

Now let's get to why Howard and co allow Hicks to be held without proper charges facing a court with no legal basis.

It's because habeas corpus has been suspended in Australia for any poor devil who gets into the clutches of our own immigration department - like the new 26 that have just been found out about, Australian citizens that is.

The architect for the total destruction of habeas corpus and destruction of the rule of law for some small groups in Australia was engineered of course by Ruddock who even argued in the High Court that locking up children for the whole of their lives without charge was fine. Ruddock hates habeas corpus.

That is why Hicks rots, not because of the tripe spouted by Neil James.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Sunday, 11 June 2006 1:04:38 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
M you really are! too much. Hicks was detained and was suspected of having links and training with the enermy.

The people who detained him were working with us.

I say good job.

As you say he was guarding a tank but for the other team, and thats ok with you is it.?
I mean we should welcome the little prick back into this country with open arms.

At the risk of repeating myself his own father acknowledges he left to fight for Islam.

You always involve yourself personally in these things and you always hate me for being honest but M I have to say it.
Why would his lawyer seek someone on welfare to talk to about his client for goodness sake?

At this stage I am asking the question.
Are we the tax payer paying again? are we?
I would really appreciate an answer.

For the record Ruddocks done a good job and most people voted the Government back in for that reason.[ More is the pity]

For god sake find some loyalty to your own country and the people of Australia who write your cheques. Surley You can find more worthy people to help such as the aboriginal people of our country, or the blind aged etc.
No not you your all for letting any body in this country.

You are just like them. They come here take our welfare and bag us.
Yes they do!.

What you are doing over and over again with your Anti Australian attitude is no different only that you have been here a bit longer.
This support my case that they are all the same no long how long they have been here.
I am sick to death of people winging because we are working to keep this country safe.
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Sunday, 11 June 2006 2:09:26 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
The Government has been advised that based on available evidence, no prosecution is available against Mr Hicks in Australia at this time. Making that decision is more complicated than simply identifying a criminal offence which may possibly have been contravened by a person’s actions. The decision-maker must also take into account the likelihood of success, referring to factors such as available defences, the facts in question and the rules of evidence as they apply in Australian criminal law.
The Australian Federal Police considered offences existing in 2001, including offences set out in the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. As a result of their examinations, the Australian Federal Police asked the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to consider all available evidence regarding Mr Hicks’ alleged involvement with the Kosovo Liberation Army, Lashka-e Taiba and al-Qa’ida/Taliban forces. After considering the available evidence, the facts in question, the rules of evidence and available defences, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions advised that prosecution was not available.

David Hicks has broken no Australian law, was kidnapped by US forces and transported to Cuba. If any fair thinking person thinks this is acceptable I suggest they re examine the facts.
Posted by Steve Madden, Sunday, 11 June 2006 7:24:53 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
That's the whole point Stephen. Because he was breaking no existing Australian Law at the time he cannot be tried in Australia. So he needs to be tried in the US through the Military Court process.

Putting impediments to that only prolongs the whole business. It is time to stop all the endless appeal nonsense and allow the Military Court process to proceed and for David to know his fate.
Posted by Sniggid, Sunday, 11 June 2006 9:53:37 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 22
  10. 23
  11. 24
  12. All

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