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 > David Hicks is luckier than some > Comments

David Hicks is luckier than some : Comments

By David Flint, published 2/2/2007

There can be no doubt that under the laws of war, the US is entitled to keep Hicks until the end of hostilities.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. All
This article is simply not credible either in its content or reasoning. Save your energy for debating that is at least properly argued.
Posted by Garswood, Friday, 2 February 2007 11:07:37 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
Brilliant, Flinty. I haven't enjoyed such wonderful satire in years. David Hicks got real lucky to end up in the hands of the Americans. Sure was. Five years free board and accommodation. I liked the cheeky way (how did you keep a straight face?) you describe Guantanamo Bay as no tourist resort. That will keep the riff-raff out. And it's not like Changi or Nazi death camp. No way, the Americans do summer camps brilliantly. Lucky Hicksy.

I loved the way you reminded those soft leftists that Hicksy has already been promised he won't hang and once he's been found guilty (we don't doubt that he will do we Flinty?) he'll be allowed to come home for his sentence. Lucky bugger.

And hasn't he been lucky with all that lavish consular and legal assistance provided by our humane government - to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars? I'm so envious - all that free accommodation and lavish parties to boot!

It's no wonder Hicksy got his trial attorneys and the bien pensants (I love your way with words Flinty, you sly old academic you!) to use delaying tactics. Wouldn't you? And you're right to tell the bien pensants that Hicks will probably tell his own story - for a profit. And all us taxpayers will want a refund. After all it was our bien pensant money that kept him their free of charge and charges for five years.

I loved your advice to the Americans (have you told Johnny to tell George?). In exchange for a lighter sentence, they make Hicksy not only fess up but also promise not to make a habeas corpus application. And I chuckled over your line about Hicksy ruling out any international travel.

I fell about with your funniest line - pure Flint: "The most unfortunate about this case is the vilification of our close ally and the use of untruths and the suppression of fact to achieve that". Now our Johnny would never be found out telling untruths and suppressing facts, would he? He's no bien pensant.
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 2 February 2007 11:07:42 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
Hicks is incarcerated indefinably by "The Military Order" a document that clearly disallows legal challenge. This violates Article I of the US Constitution and international human rights laws. Clearly, the President upon taking office swears an oath to uphold the US constitution. As the lawyers explain "Once a person has been detained, the Order contains no provisions for him to be notified of the charges he may face. On the contrary, the Order authorises detainees to be held without charges. It contains no provision for detainees to be notified of their rights under domestic and international law, and provides neither the right to counsel, nor the right to consular access. It provides no right to appear before a neutral tribunal to review the legality of detainees’ continued detention, and no provision for appeal to an Article III court. In fact, the Order expressly bars review by any court." The most elementary right is negated as well the presumption of innocence. The sick torture, the cowardly refusal to trial prisoners in a court of law under their peers is a reflection of a criminal war.
Posted by johncee1945, Friday, 2 February 2007 11:17:01 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
David do you read these responses?

Since you ask, Major Mori is an independent lawyer challenging an unlawful situation. There is not one representative legal body on the planet - not in Australia, not in England, and not in America - that finds his treatment legally acceptable
Posted by bennie, Friday, 2 February 2007 11:17:50 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
David Hicks is the 'international' scapegoat from Australia!

As you said Flint;

1) "A lot has been made about the sort of evidence that can be admitted against him."

2) "The truth is that there is no hard and fast standard as to what should be admissible."

3) " The rules change from time to time", and I believe it is; "helpful to keep on saying that it is better that 100 guilty people go free rather than that one innocent be imprisoned."

And YES Flint, we have a core problem;

4) " The question is where do you draw the line."

I draw your readers interest to the time and place politically, and to reconsider why Hicks was seeking someting from Afghanistan, Flint.

The world was a different place prior to the War on Afghanistan.

With the worlds most informed inter-governments representatives and all the worlds most trusted media being confused about who’s who...at the time (pre- Afghanistan War), it is understandable that a civic person, as young, bold and susceptibly curious (before that time) as David Hicks was, would lead him and others toward agitation.

Frankly, if we could allow the perpetrators sinking the Greenpeace ship "Rainbow Warrior" to go back to their own country… then surely by comparison, (in this situation, which involves a citizen of this country), the right thing to do is to demand Hicks to come home, to face the national authorities, as a first responsible step toward good governance and transparency.

Australians must work harder against reproductive injustice, occurring at all national and international levels.

Reform is a two-way process if; one persons life is part of any equation, before citizens and government.

Hicks has a national and international right, as do all Australians to be tried by our laws, in our country.

Fair-Go Australia is at it’s highest test here… and for me, there is no line, in this specific case.
Posted by miacat, Friday, 2 February 2007 11:22:01 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
Great article David, as usual. Hick made his own bed, took his own decisions and now must live with the consequences. He could have been tried long ago but for the intervention of his own lawyers. Hardly the fault of the Australian or US governments.

I have no doubt that Hicks would have willingly fired on our own troops had he had the chance to do so.

When he is charged, let him plead and have his case heard in the US military court.
Posted by Sniggid, Friday, 2 February 2007 11:33:58 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. All

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