Yeet another waste of pixels and ink on a contribution from Mirko "look at me look at me" Bagaric -

Hicks is a symbol of war. He embodies a range of ideas which are controversial and difficult to articulate in public debate. His guilt or otherwise is a reflection of the ideas we associate with him as a symbol of war. I certainly wouldn't want to be the bunny who "has to be made an example of"!

I agree with you sneekeepete.

This facile article was obviously rattled off in haste.

Mirko's reference to "swanning out of the prison gates...slap a control order on him...his growing tribe of fanatical civil libertarians who will continue to unremittingly proclaim the innocence of their champion" indicates strangely lightweight thought for someone who teaches law.

Pete

Are you willing to get involved in a campaign to have persons who are found innocent compensated for their legal fees and for time spent on remand, Mirko? It would be a long one, given the time and effort it seems to take to get the the most simple of arguments accepted by our governments.

Or would you consider such protracted campaigning fanatacism?

Pete..maybe not a waste. It gives opportunity to show the amoral political opportunism of Brown_Destroyer_and_co.

FACT ? "David Hicks 'enlisted' with Al Qaeda"

or

FACT ? "David Hicks 'enlisted' with the Taliban"

That is all that is needed to justify a number of approaches to his situation.

I heard on ABC last night that he already admitted to having "ENLISTED" with Al Qaeda.

There is nothing more to determine except:

1/ Should he be executed.
2/ Should he be jailed for life.
3/ Should he be given the opportunity to publically recant his Muslim beliefs and condemn Al Qaeda and the Taliban ?

Enslistment alone is enough. No mucking around with evidence/trials and timewasting leftist political posturing.

My preference is for "3" That would do more for our cause of freedom than the costly exercise of feeding him for 30 yrs or so, and execution, well..I think we can do better than that in the present circumstances.

If he publically denounces both Islam or, at least the Al-Qaeda/Taliban version it would be beneficial. But I would go further.

1/ He must reject some verses from the Quran and denounce them as "not from God"

These include

Surah 23:5-6 which allows sexual use of captive slave girls with or without their permission.

Surah 33:50 which gives Mohammed a "licence to thrill" where only HE can have ANY believing woman as wife or temporary wife (in the west we call this a one night stand)

Surah 9:30 which curses Christians and Jews and calls for Allah to DESTROY them (us) and vilifies them/us as 'deluded'.

Surah 9:29 which orders Muslims to fight against all who do not believe in Allah.

The War with Al Qaeda is STILL on-going, so he cannot be released at the end of conflict as normal POWs are.

This approach would be of greatest benefit to the West and to Justice.

If he refuses to comply with this, then he can languish for the rest of his days in a down market low cost prison. The choice is his.

Absolutely BOAZ_david, everyone guilty of providing material support to terrorism should be locked up in solitary & tortured for at least five years, or until they lead guilty, or both.

So when are you going to call for the round up of all the Liberal & National Party hacks in the Australian Wheat Board who gave Saddam $300mil?

So we are about to have Mohammad Darwood returned to us (I think that is Hick’s Islamic name). I wonder how much Habib has cost us in social security payments and surveillance. Who is going to pay for the Hicks upkeep, it will not be his silly old father it will be us again the taxpayers.

The equivocating bleeding hearts are still at it.He admitted years ago to his crime and has done so again.His own father dis-owned him at one stage for being a traitor to his own kind.

The only thing that was not fair was the period of internment without a trial.The stupid Yanks turned a criminal terrorist into a folk hero in the eyes of our growing left wing lunatic fringe.

If the US do indeed have a case against Hicks than they've made a mistake in not insisting it go to trial. There's a good chance Hicks will now always be seen as an innocent victim of the callous US system. If it had gone to trial and Hicks had been convicted, the world would know what heinous crimes Hicks had committed and would assign its sympathies more judiciously. I suspect the US knows it has a poor case (either legally or in PR terms, or probably both) and is very relieved that Hicks accepted the deal. Wouldn't surprise me if Hicks gets a surprisingly good 'deal'. Poor Major Mori looks like the biggest loser.

I read Mirko's article in the Herald Sun, it was worse than the one that was posted here. I wonder what happen to his arguments to destroy 100s of years of legal principle in just the last day. Was it my email to him asking why he though the law should be rewritten case by case depending on how disliked the defendant was? hmmmm.

The real issue here is this, we went to war to uphold a principle, the principle of human rights. In doings so we have become no better than our enemy. To defend torture to uphold our freedom is an oxymoron. To strip people of their legal rights to defend democracy is also an oxymoron, and for a lawyer to champion this says a great deal about his character and legal mind.

America have destroy any moral advantage they thought they might have, and watching the documentaries shows that sinister characters in the American administration are responsible for a lot what has since happened. If we really want to preserve our way of life then we need to remove those who compromise it.

As for Hicks, he did wrong, but certainly he isn’t Osama Bin Laden so why have the Australian government allowed him to be exposed to some the most hideous torture techniques? I reckon he was used as a patsy, just another tool in the arsenal to further torture the other inmates. Why else would the others torment him and call him, “CIA spy”.

What a pity Hicks didn't achieve his goal of martyrdom and save us all this trouble.

Hick's guilty plea carries no more weight than a confession obtained under tortue. It may be Hicks was guilty of something, although the actual trade was pretty nebulous, or he may have just accepted the plea bargain as a means of escape from a hell hole. Who knows what he was told by the Americans what his future would be if he he let the "trial" run its course. Whatever has happened it falls a long way short of what would be considered a fair and just trial by Australian standards.

Agreed rossco.

His plea will be scrutinised to the nth degree by the tribunal anyway, apparently to just the same extent as a not guilty plea would have been, but within a much shorter timeframe. So presumably it is entirely possible for this plea to be rejected if it is based overwhelmingly on matters other than actual guilt or innocence.

As others have argued, we don't know what Hicks is said to be guilty of, despite his apparent confession. What I would like to know is whether all the British captives caught at the same time were similarly guilty (of whatever), though the British Government called successfully for their return to the UK. As far as I know none of them was later charged with anything there. What was different about Hicks? Why didn't our government also demand his return? There may be a reason. I see no reason why we are not told.

BOAZ_David

Your comments are very pertinent. However, if Hicks renounced his Islamic faith, his life expectancy could well be brief; particularly so if he converted to Wahhabism, the militant Islam of Osama bin Laden. The penalty for apostasy, in Islamic law, is death. Such is the reality of this occurring, that in 2004, the UN was urged to protect Muslim apostates.

Better still -

Why don't we crucify David?

Hey, we could get a centurion to jam a spear through his side - a spongeful of vinegar to comfort him. No need for cave and rock - just shove him into a 1.8 m2 cage. Let him be resurrected now! Har, har, har!

*

David is an Aussie hero, mark my words. His mum and dad are heroes too.

When I look at his jailers and our politicians, all I see is rats. Rats in fine clothes, and rats with brass buttons. Rats scuttling to avoid what David stands for. Rats scuttling to deny what they have done. Rats scuttling to justify the Big Lie. Rats ALL.

One day, his story will be told. On that day, celebrity actors will queue to play the part of David Hicks.

We can give Guantanamo back to the Cubans, then pay them to keep all of our rats there.

Are you listening, RATS?

If Hicks did do something wrong then America could have avoided a lot of ill feeling and bad press simply by bringing him to trial in a US court. They only needed to give him the same recourse to justice as they do to child murderers, child rapists, drug barons and the general run of murderers, kidnappers and major arsonists.
For some odd reason they chose not to do so, was his crime so frightening that he was worse than the worst criminals?
Did he kill? Who was/were the victims?
Did he rape a child? murder one? torture one? If so who? where?

Or was he simply a not too bright character who was handy for a bit of propaganda?

I wonder did John and George ever discuss him over morning tea?

the apologists for the hicks case were very clear- they weren't going to treat the people they put in gitmo as they treated americans. they are consistent: they will bomb 150 people at a wedding party of whom one might be an avowed enemy of usa, as long as they're all ragheads.

to those of you who regard the label 'terrorist' as a license to beat your chest and cry out "kill, kill!: america has been killing anyone who opposed their policies or rule since 1776. they have made themselves hated and despised anywhere on this planet where justice and money are not in bed together. anyone who knows any history should have said of the 'twin towers': "there's the first shoe." thousands of moslems are getting ready to drop the second, and there'll be many more.

Under the conditions that D.Hicks has faced, solitary confinement without charge for 5 years including abuse along the way, and the shoddy court system that would be certain to find him guilty, I'm not surprised he would plead guilty. I would to, because when you've been imprisoned for that long by force in a country that doesn't respect any international legal rights, your future is virtually guaranteed if you don't cooperate with the political environment and do whatever they say. In my mind this doesn't prove his guilt at all. It only proves that their system was successful in producing the desired outcome and threatening the unlawfully detained inmate with eternal imprisonment.

Arjay. It was not the American government that caused Hicks to be kept in prison for 5 years without a trial. It was Hicks' own defense team.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1881663.htm
"The Hicks defence strategy relies on delaying the process for so long that the Australian Government will be forced to ask for the prisoner’s return."

They are hypocrites and sleazebags. THEY created the delay. And then try and pretend it was all the governments fault.

Anyone who defends Hicks or calls him a hero is essentially deranged. Hicks took up arms against his own country and freedom.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8994711%255E7583,00.html
"In his letters to his family, Hicks tells them his training in Pakistan and Afghanistan is designed to ensure "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again"."

@Grey
By your reasoning you could charge people who made death threats as murderers (that quote from the letter is as vague as they come as well)

"It was not the American government that caused Hicks to be kept in prison for 5 years without a trial. It was Hicks' own defense team."

What rot Grey.

Hicks team proved that what they were saying about illegality of the kangaroo court by having it ruled illegal by the highest court in the land.

If you think that defense lawyers are causing the delays by challenging the system then next time you appear in a court as the defendant, probably not far away now, defend yourself.

It is what lawyers do, if they didn't they wouldn't be lawyers. This is the lamest arguement I've heard, I heard Downer say something simular, and he is supposed to be a bloody lawyer.

Answer me this, if a lawyer is not suppose to defend your rights and ensure you get a fair trial, what is the bloody point of having a lawyer?

Grow a brain and stop being so bloody minded.

Rather than spend any more time on an issue that has now been resolved - David Hicks has decided to plead guilty, how about we start worrying about the Australians that may be executed in Indonesia. Surely the pending execution of our fellow citizens deserves more attention now than endless debate over a guilty plea and whether David Hicks is gaunt, puffy, short-haired or long-haired.

Irrespective of what it showed about the integrity of the United States (and it said heaps), the Hicks saga has shown Australians a thing or two about themselves.
1. The 'fair go' thing is weak and only of marginal influence in our society;
2. There isn't much we wouldn't do to convince Uncle Sam we'd go to bed with him;
3. We'd rather vent our spleen than insist on our justice system being respected and preserved intact;
4. We'll cop just about anything from our government ministers providing the general level of affluence is maintained;
5. Our capacity for outrage has been sublimated to the point where it's hard to find someone with strong feelings any more;
6. We don't mind being seen as prostitutes by the countries we really respect and admire;
7. Our capacity to rein in rogue ministers is all but shagged out. We are no longer capable of defining what makes our democracy a going concern. Our elections are just an empty form of role playing;
8. We've lost the sort of self-respect I grew up with as a quality that makes men of us. We're a bunch of sheilas now. The women have the testicles, we have the pregnant (beer) gut.
9. I could extend this list but I'm feeling nauseous already. Being an Australian these days is enough to make a bloke chunder.

I've insisted all along that the importance of the Hicks case, like France's Dreyfus case, is that it was a trigger to show how much intolerance and bile we have in our collective gut. Some of the hate shown in letters to the editor showed that if Nazism ever took hold here, we'd have massive trouble rooting it out.

Mirko, Mirko, Mirko.

What would you say after 5 years of torture and hell? Still claim innocence or just say anything to get out? Pathetic, Mirko.

What is he guilty of? Being caught in a war that shouldn't have ever happened. War is war, not terrorism. The US thought it was a war and so did the opponents. The US has set new lows for how to treat prisoners. Matching and raising what the real terorists do. Well done Bush and Cheney. And a big hand for Howard and Downer and Ruddock who sat back and led the noose gang. Until now that is, pre election.

Just goes to prove, again, that the US will do anything when they want to. Remember the Atomic bomb anyone? Only 1 country has ever used force like that and they will be the first to use the nukes too. Who on is to be decided yet.

These are the "mates" Howard clings to like an old teddy bear. They have never helped Australia out, in anything. And never will. We are the poor little country who joins any fight in the hope of defence it attacked. Won't happen, either situation. No attack or help.

Bring all our troops home and look after the fantasy terrorists we have here. Those who reject Australia and want to harm us. They are openly stating their goals. Go get them.

It was said last night that Hicks just wants to get home.

Question. Where is home for him? Afganistan?

Seems he gave Aus the flick long ago when he left his wife and a couple of kids here to go and join a military force of another country.

Funny how, when things go bad, people claim their Aus citizenship.

Hicks symbolises a whole lot of stuff, but if he is a hero figure it's not because of anything he personally did. It's because he symbolises the cringing, crawling, sycophantic, pathetic, forelock-tugging attitude our public officials have towards the U.S.

As others here have pointed out America (or more precisely Bush's America) is widely loathed around the world. Hicks is very strongly symbolic of the same loathing in Australia.

This is why it's so important to people that other countries could get their people out but our guy had to stay.

This is why it's so important to people that Hicks had to face a farcical legal process American citizens wouldn't be expected to face.

Because David Hicks symbolises what the current Australian government is prepared to put Australian citizens through if it so pleases the current American administration.

Whether he's a terrorist or not has very little to do with it, mainly because we don't really know and probably never will.

HOW WOULD HICKS RATE UNDER AUSTRALIA'S LAWS?

A man who fails to guard a tank well in Afghanistan and fails to become involved in a specific and active terrorist operation hardly rates the death penalty that some advocate.

With Hicks pleading guilty to supporting terrorism I think this may be (now) equivalent to undergoing some terrorist training and being a member of a terrorist organisation under Australia's terrorism laws. Any other views on that? Perhaps we should see Hicks in that perspective.

With 5 years hard labour already Hicks has probably paid his dues.

Its important that we see through Howard taking political credit for finally negotiating with an ally to get a countryman back. Howard should have brought Hicks back 3 or 4 years ago like the UK, France and Germany did with their inmates at Guantanamo.

But watch the media crow for Howard in the next few days. What’s the bet Howard won’t say "Yeah it was tough. But as a firm ally (read dutiful cheerleader) Bush listened to ME".

Naturally I'm not a "loony leftie" - just experienced in law and other matters.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

The Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Johnston yesterday claimed that Hick's guilty plea was a legitimate outcome, of a legitimate legal process.

Does he, Johnston, and the Government behind him; accept this?

And more importantly, should we?

Chris Shaw,

What universe are you from? David Hicks an Aussie Hero?? How can you be so deluded? David Hicks is an aussie traitor! That the Americans' treatment of Hicks has been so tainted does not assuage his guilt. He is guilty by his own admission - his own admission long before his guilty plea.

If he comes back to Australia I hope he still has a long jail term to serve, and I further hope that the ODCs (ordinary decent criminals) get the opportunity from time to time to further his education.

David Hicks is a detestable slime, and ought to be treated as such!

Ah no, me old fox - it is the PM and Cabinet who are looking like traitors. They would have been branded as such at Nuremberg, and they stand condemned as such today for their actions.

Hicks is a little sideshow that went badly awry - with a little help from their "friends".

For those with no memory at all, here's a little bit of wisdom from a Guantanamo watcher. Prof McCoy interviewed on Lateline last year:

Lo bandwidth:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200606/r90598_269857.asx

Hi bandwidth:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200606/r90598_269856.asx

Listen very carefully.

Hint: Check your ego and prejudice at the door.

- report back to me tomorrow morning.

"providing material support to terrorism".

I will believe that Hicks should be punished when all those people who contributed money, that went to the IRA, in New York pubs get sent to Gitmo.

I will believe that Hicks is guilty when Henry Kissnger faces criminal charges for all the terror that he sponsored in South and Central America.

I will believe that Hicks is guilty when the CIA kidnaps and renditionises a single member of the Pakistani government on the basis of their support for the Islamic religious schools in Pakistan, that are the prime source of recruitment for fighters in Afghanistan.

I will believe that Hicks is guilty when the USA admits openly that it sponsored the Baath party as a bulwark against the 'threat' of communism during the Cold War.

Yeah, Hicks provided material support for terrorism, about the same level of support that that members of the Croatian community provided by wearing their deaths head badges in Australia in the early 1990, and that Catholics thought that the IRA, by its terrorist campaigns, was trying to liberate Northern Ireland.

Have people forgotten what happened 5 years ago.

The sovereign nation of Afghanistan was invaded by the US (and its partners) because of the September 11 attacks in New York. The reasoning being the Taliban were hiding Osama Bin Laden, the 'master mind' of this attack on America.

For the sake of capturing a single person, the Americans forcibly removed the ruling members of this nation.

During this time, David Hicks was captured - not by the Americans, but by the Pakistani's - and handed over to the Americans.
His crime? Supporting Terrorism.

Really?

During WWII, foreign members of the French Résistance were performing, conceptually, the same activities as David Hicks - attacking a foreign invader.

We now see these people as heroes. Why is it any different to David's situation? Because it was an 'ally' that was the invader, because of his Muslim faith, or because he is a terrorist?

Remember: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - Unknown

We all know what it means; except for Dopey Downer.
I wish he would shut up.

"Men ought either to be well treated or crushed"
Niccolò MACHIAVELLI, The Prince

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
Voltaire

". .the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."
Thomas Jefferson

Wow.. fascinating.

We have Chris bleeding all over the place about "poor David Hicks" and in the next breath calling for MY crucifixion. Not just that, but with an added 'ner ner' kind of thing at the end..and some name calling also 'RATS'....

Chris, and other would be Boaz crucifiers, did you notice my 'question mark' after each 'Fact' ?

If an Australian enlists in the army of our enemy, do we put them on trial or put a bullet in their head ?

I don't understand this 'trial' thing. Do we put every enemy soldier found on the battle field 'on trial' ? Its ludicrious. I can see it now, Fritz (or Mohammad) is coming up out of the bunker, gun blazing, suddenly it jams (and fortunately he missed us) now.. hmmmm what do I do ?

a)Tell him he is a POW and that we are going to put him on trial to determine if he is guilty of trying to kill me ?
b)Blow his brains out ?

You guessed it.. we take aim, and pull the trigger ! boom.. and kill him... WHY ? simple, because you know that if you approach him he is just as likely to rip out a knife and expose your intestines to the vultures.

What many seem to ignore, is that we are in a war. The ideas behind the Taliban are so repulsive that they can only be described as coming from the very pit of hell.

Has anyone forgotten TRAINING CAMPS in Afghanistan for terrorism/explosives/killing, where Aussies were being prepared to destroy us ?

KASRA.. what are you going on about 'soveriegn_nation' invaded ?
Mate.. your views are bordering on seditious. I suppose next you will tell us that invading Japan and Germany in the last World war was totally uneccessary and in fact 'evil' ?

TRIAL ? no need to even mention it. Irrelevant.
War..... captured... nothing more to say.

Hicks is a POW to be interned until the end of that War, then if we destroy our enemy, he can be released under peace treaty terms.

I'll betcha dollars to donuts that if there is a next time for David Hicks... he wont be taken prisoner. And I'll also state for the record that the Americans will probably take fewer prisoners as a way of fighting terrorism.

It's one thing for the police to arrest the same clowns for one more in a long succession of crimes. It's another to to expect that Hicks would be arrested ever again. 5 years in gaol in Northern Afghanistan would probably make Gitmo seem like a week at Cancun(if he lasted the first year). Ask yourself what ever happened to all Hicks fellow terrorist the Yanks never paid a thousand dollars for or jailed at Gitmo.

Dead men tell no tales. And the Left needed a war hero. In this day and age Hicks is the best the Left can muster for worship. They could never honour a real soldier. They must perpetuate the victim.
What a bunch of screwballs.

DB, what an absolutely ridiculous question to ask. Japan and Germany invaded other nations. In fact, the Japanese attacked the US directly and being an ally of the US, we joined them in their struggle against this invader and aggressor. We fought the Germans because our ally (the UK) declared was on the invading German army.
Where did the Taliban invade or attack? Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban refused to handover Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was not a member of the Taliban, he was/is a Saudi.

Yes, he was running training camps to train people to fight and undermine the nations of the West - something did need to be done. Yes, a lot (not all) of these camps were in Afghanistan - but there were also camps in Pakistan.

The US invaded the country of Afghanistan. Under internal law, under the terms of the UN, illegally. As such, the entire 5 year ordeal that David Hicks has endured has been illegal under international law.

David has never been classed a POW - he was classed an 'Enemy Combatant'. 'Enemy Combatants' under the US regime do not receive the rights of a POW set out under the Geneva Convention. Rights the Americans have agreed to by signing this convention and by being a member (arguably the most powerful member) of the United Nations.

Aqvarivs, at no stage is David Hicks a hero of mine. He was an idiot that got caught in a situation he wasn't prepared for. But the man is supposed to have rights. He was caught by an invading army, with no UN backing (at the time), and held.

As for honouring real soldiers. You have absolutely no idea do you? I have friends and family who have fought in wars for this country (from WWII to Vietnam), and performed peace keeping missions (Somalia and Papua). Don't you dare accuse me of not honouring 'real soldiers'.

Interesting you call David a 'victim' though.

The people on the "execute Hick, he's a guilty terrorist" don't seem to have understood what us on the other side have been arguing. I have never argued that Hicks is innocent. I have only ever argued that he should receive a fair trial and should not be charged retrospectively.

The military commisons were not fair, due process. Laws were written by prosecutors for heavens sake! If David Hick was staring down the barrel of a life sentance in a legal system where the odds were stacked against him, after 5 years of imprisonment, I would have expected a plea bargain.

Everybody, regardless of their alleged crime, has the right to a fair trial. David Hick would not have received a fair trial had he faced the military commisons. This is what my beef with the Hick case has been all along.

Traiters are quite confronting for us all; our more base instinct is to lock them up and throw away the keys.
But, listen carefully to the link above provided by Chris Shaw of Professor McCoy. At the very best, David Hicks was stupid to the Nth degree it would appear; but nobody deserves to be treated with the psychological torture being perpetrated by the USA on their guests in Cuba.

David Hicks has pleaded guilty but under the circumstances it's not surprising.

It would appear that as a civilisation we have come no further than the 19th Century when young children worked in mines or swept chimneys for next to no pay. Regardless of what people have done they should be treated with some dignity in the judicial system not put in front of a Kangaroo Court where the only verdict is going to be guilty.

In my lifetime I did not expect to learn that torture is permissable, or, that there is a new meaning for "rendering".

Boaz - based on your expectations of Mr Hicks all Muslims would be required "languish for the rest of his days in a down market low cost prison " - surely if Hicks needs to denounce thjose tenents so do all others - in order to repent and save their souls I mean.

I can only then assume that from that you also belive Christian nogoodnicks - murderers, rapists and the like are only required to langusih in up market higher costs prisons?

Kasra, "He was an idiot that got caught in a situation he wasn't prepared for. But the man is supposed to have rights. He was caught by an invading army, with no UN backing (at the time), and held."

Way to excuse Hicks. Your so hooked up with the Leftie nonsense that simple truths evade your victim mentality. David Hicks is a self professed terrorist trained in al_Qeada camps as a terrorist and sent to a foreign country to commit acts of terrorism against a people, a government. The Americans, Canadians, Polish, and German armies with the assistance of the U.N. are there to bring democracy to a country torn apart by Islamic Taliban authoritarianism. Hicks was captured by Afghani soldiers while guarding a tank positioned for use as artillery against their positions. He was taken POW at that time.

None of your crap is anywhere near the truth and the constant cry from the You Lefties of Hicks being tortured in Gitmo is not supported by his Lawyers who state that there was no torture of Hicks. His last Lawyer said Gitmo would be equal to any supermax in the U.S.
Further, two Muslim detainees who were released before Hicks trial began said that Hicks was self abusive and often banged his head against the cell bars and talked about suicide a lot. They also added that Hicks was not a very good Muslim in practice. Hicks is leaving Gitmo, dragging his fat butt back to Australia(after denouncing his citizenship) to your parade and statue unveiling leaving behind a reputation as a CIA rat plant.

If by BS and excusing terrorism is your way of supporting real soldiers keep it to yourself. A real person would be too ashamed to write such tripe in support of Hicks. If you want to rant on about the Military Tribunal not being an Australian Civil Courts hearing, that's up to you. That you don't understand why it isn't goes for why you can't or wont understand what the Tribunal is for.

Wow...Kasra. I am shocked at your level of disgusting immoral nonsense. The Taliban gave state protection to Al Qaeda. Worse than that, they were a vile oppressive government that was second to none in it's disgusting treatment of woman.

Why are you so anti-female?

If by "leftie" you mean someone who believes in democracy and its institutions like due process and habeas corpus then I'm proud to be a"leftie".

If I was incarcerated in an illegal foreign prison I would like to think my government would go to bat for me.
That being an Australian meant something.

As for torture look up "Sensory Deprivation". The CIA research found this to be the most effective, quickest form of torture. They certainly know how to use it.
Lack of Vitamin D too has been implicated in all sorts of psychiatric and cognitive complaints.

This is from get Up:-

But because the evidence against David Hicks will never really be tested in a proper court,. . .
The Federal Government has diminished Australia by legitimising an unfair and illegal system, by allowing an Australian, guilty or innocent, to be imprisoned year after year without trial despite serious reports of mistreatment and abuse; by failing to do what America, its allies and even its adversaries around the world did, which is to say "no citizen of ours will be treated this way."

Our Government should stand shamed, not smirking.. . .

From the beginning, this campaign has been about the values and rights of our democracy,
. . .
No one should have to bargain with their liberty because their basic rights have been abandoned. David Hicks has still not been judged by a fair legal process, and he is still not home. The Military Commission circus is set to roll on over coming days, raising further concerns about the lawfulness of his expected imprisonment back home. We know what justice looks like, and we will not let those who claim to represent the values of our democracy forget.

I just do not understand why someone like Hicks would identify so strongly with a war so far away from home?

I'd like to know what it was that Hicks "confessed" to all those years ago. He was accused of aiding the enemy--but that was not a crime that applied to him. He was accused of spying on the US embassy in Afghanistan. It turned out there wasn't one at the time. He was accused of conspiracy to murder. That was dropped because there was no credible evidence. People claimed we was fighting against Australian troops. But it turns out that they were nowhere near him. What exactly did he confess to?

As to whether that confession was extorted by torture, it is hard to say. There was clearly something wrong with the "evidence" extracted from his fellow prisoners in relation to the above charges.

I know what crime he has confessed to now, though of course not the details. It is to be noted that it was not a crime under US law when he did it--though aiding Al Qa'ida was evil. One of the things those Second World War heroes fought against was retrospective criminalisation.

LIAM: EXCELLENT POST !

I would also like the same principles applied to the AWB cronies and the mob of politicians and bureaucrats who can be SHOWN to have "materially assisted a terrorist organisation".

I would also like to see US politicians and their henchmen summoned before the International Court of Justice for war crimes. I think the Germans have the right idea with "Rummy".

What I would really like to know is; just which Australian Law did Hicks break?
Nothing else.

Grey: What?

Aqvarivs: The Americans, Canadians, Polish and German armies with the assistance of the UN are in Afghanistan because the place was bombed to high hell. The war was illegitimate.

Looking at the issue from an un-emotional perspective (something that people from both sides of this argument have trouble doing), the Americans invaded Afghanistan, a sovereign nation, and removed the ruling government. I agree with your premise that they were scum, but that does not excuse the Americans from breaking international law. The invasion of Afghanistan was illegal. There was not formal declaration of war against Afghanistan, the actions of the US was not about gaining territory, nor was it about protecting the people of Afghanistan. It was about the capture of Osama bin Laden and taking out a government that stood in the way of the US from doing so.

As such, the detaining of David Hicks by the invading army is also illegal.

So, although we may not like what David has stood for, and some may not like his religion (no, I am not a Muslim), this does not preclude someone from the basic rights and freedoms that most countries (including Australia and the USA) have committed themselves by signing both the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Principles.

Principle V of the Nuremburg Principles states : “Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.” This has not been the case for David Hicks.

And I stand corrected. David Hicks was not captured by Pakistani soldiers, but neither was he captured by "Afghani" soldiers. David was captured by the Northern Alliance.

Michael2:

Thanks for the great post.

I think we should use this as a slogan for the forthcoming Federal election:

<quote>
We know what justice looks like, and we will not let those who claim to represent the values of our democracy forget.
<endquote>

John Clarke and Brian Dawe summed it all up very well I thought
AT
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1885198.htm
The whole transcript is worth a read.
You wonder who has been eating Alice's mushrooms.
"JOHN CLARKE: In a room about sort of this by this. It's very attractive, affording excellent vistas of the toilet, for example.

BRYAN DAWE: When are you tried?

JOHN CLARKE: You're tried after you're charged.

BRYAN DAWE: After you're served your sentence?

JOHN CLARKE: Having served the majority, for some years, maybe five or six years.

BRYAN DAWE: What do you do when you're charged?

JOHN CLARKE: Oh, you plead guilty.

BRYAN DAWE: Why do you plead guilty?

JOHN CLARKE: Because you've already served your sentence, you don't want to be tried. You've probably had enough by then. Time to go home.

BRYAN DAWE: Novelty has worn off?

JOHN CLARKE: The thrill has gone, Bryan, let's get out of here.

BRYAN DAWE: So why didn't the Australian Government get him out, Mr Downer?

JOHN CLARKE: Everybody is entitled to a fair trial. That is a fundamental right."

The US has been at "war" with Afghanistan since the Russians invaded.
The CIA stuffed it up and were screwed by Pakistan. Read some history.

I don't care if Hicks raped his mother in broad daylight in Geoge St. Sydney. He has rights, as have we all, and they have been abused.
We are all the lesser because of this.

This "liberal" Government is the worst we have seen in a long time.

If you travel overseas on an Ozzie passport you are on your own.

The only time that I can remember when Retrospective Law pertaining of an act already committed was justified was when the then French Government legitemised the relationships between French soldiers, who were killed at Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam, and their girl friends and recognised their children as legitimate and the women as war widows, thus ensuring that they got appropriate pensions.

Retrospective law for the sake of vengence or punishment however can hardly be justified.

To illustrate clearly, for those who have limited comprehension: the NSW Government could reap millions of dollars by passing retrospective legislation to the effect that anyone who has possessed or regestered a motor vehicle whose GVM is greater than 500 kilograms is guilty of an offence and is liable, upon conviction, to a fine of $500.

Ya and if David Hicks had been anything other than white or with out an Australian passport would he even be alive or be even thought to posses usable intelligence by the USA. And if he had been kept by the Alliance would we even know about his detention and lack of trial. I'm quite sure the Alliance isn't giving legal hearings or bringing charges against their POWs.
Hicks is getting all the justice he deserves and more. Australians need a good smashing like 9/11 to wake up and smell reality. al-Qeada attacked Americas World Trade Centre. What of the Left in Australia could they attack to send a message to the Left that the Left haven't stolen from the workers themselves. Well, al-Qeada doesn't really need to do much where Australia is concerned. Any nation that would lionize Hicks is self-destructing at any rate.

Ah aqvarivs, are you totally illiterate, or do you just pretend to be?

NOBODY here is lionising (note the non-American spelling) David Hicks. The issues that have been discussed here are those of a fair and just justice system; not one ruled by the gun, whether terrorist or US soldier (you get to pick the difference).

Just for starters, have a read of this article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5682

Prof. Williams goes on to say, in yesterday's SMH (p.32) about the current challenge to the legitimacy of the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay:

"Even if Hicks withdraws from the challenge, it will still go ahead in the names of the other inmates."

Prof. Williams also says "There are reasonable prospects that the challenge will succeed".

Now, here comes the crunch:

"If they win, it is hard to see how his guilty plea could stand. He would have pleaded guilty in a commission that no longer exists and that was never competent to try him, let alone impose a sentence of imprisonment."

Er.... where is Alice in Wonderland?

So aqvarivs, I wonder if you'd like to be the target of a system which "shoots first and asks questions later"? Perhaps you could ask a few innocent civilian Iraqis and Afghanis before you answer the question.

How can hicks be guilty of anything ?
He is not in jail.
Has not been arrested
Is not a prisoner.
If anything he is just a Cuban tourist.
'Guantanamo is not a prison. The official term is "detention facility". Although the two most recently built complexes, Camps Five and Six, were modelled on prisons in Indiana and Michigan, it is not acceptable to use the word "prison" at Gitmo.
Guantanamo has no prisoners, only "enemies". As in "unlawful enemy combatants" or "detained enemy combatants".
"Today, it is not about guilt or innocence. It's about unlawful enemy combatants," Rear Admiral Harry Harris, the commanding officer of Guantanamo...'
Karen Greenberg, executive director of the Centre on Law and Security, New York University School of Law, and editor of The Torture Debate in America. From an article in The Age at
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/no-prisoners-at-guantanamo-not-a-prison/2007/03/14/1173722553792.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

See also Bush's Weasel Words for his criminal actions
http://www.alternet.org/story/21615/
Devil's Dictionary of the Bush Era

Tomdispatch.com. Posted March 29, 2005.

"Ah aqvarivs, are you totally illiterate, or do you just pretend to be?"

Iluvatar, aqvarivs has plenty of other qualities too. Ignorance, intolerance just for starters. Got it all covered, including the labelling bug. Damned lefties huh!

Kasra, Afghanistan is the most invaded country in history. The interesting thing is it has never been conquered. They lose the battles but just take to the hills and wait for the invaders to leave. They will do so again. They have a drug crop which the West and East wants desperately so they will get support forever.

Yes it was the US that invaded, and created Bin Laden's group. They armed them, trained them then betrayed them. Well done US. Another gold star to go with installing Saddam. What a great record. Never won a war, except against themselves, never bombed anyone, except everyone. Never bothered with the rules of combat. Too hard when those nasty opponents don't play properly.

The US has exposed their vulnerability which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted. Once in battle the US can't leave and will keep sending more kids to die until Bush leaves office. Let's hope he is the last to start a pointless war although the US is very good at that.

Zimbabwe by the way will be Howard's next "war" for the upcoming election. Forget how long Mugabe has been murdering his people, it's now convenient to oppose him. Oh, he did get invited to the Gold Coast remember? Perhaps a similar invite again? Appear for the Coaliton on ads this time?

So Hicks is to get nine months prison time, mostly in Australia and be out by the new year.

I don’t have a problem with that. And I wouldn’t have had a problem with it if he’d got seven years.

But I have a massive problem with some of the things that have gone along with it:

He has been prevented from speaking to the media for twelve months. This gag order is totally out of line. It fundamentally violates a basic principle of democracy - freedom of speech. It surely should have been beyond the role of the military commission to implement such a restriction, or to ‘request’ that Hicks sign it as part of his nine month sentence deal.

The commission’s role should surely have been restricted to the determination of guilt or innocence and declaration of the appropriate sentence.

This latest chapter of the Hicks saga remains outside of democratic principles to just the same extent as it has all along.

Neither should it have been within the role of the commission to ask (force) Hicks to sign away any rights to profit from his story. That should have been purely within the realms of Australian law.

And of course it should not have asked (forced) Hicks to sign a statement saying that he had not suffered any abuse in Guantanamo.

The message is clear – Hicks either did what the commission requested in regard to these things or receive a much longer sentence.

It is a total corruption of legal process to bring things like this into the determination of the ‘appropriate’ punishment.

The military commission does itself enormous harm with this sort of antics; it skittles its credibility in the eyes of millions around the world and of course that of the US government along with it.

Surely at this point in time, with the enormously bad worldwide publicity that Guantanamo Bay has brought the Bush government, this should have been of paramount importance.

But No! Their true colours have shone through: democracy counts for stuff-all in the eyes of the current US government.

Very interesting Ludwig,thankyou.

If I was not cranky before I am now.
The Americans certainly know how to win friends and influence people.
The whole system is corrupt, illegal, amoral, anti-democratic, authoritarian, cruel, bulling and built on an edifice of weasel words and bull-s**t in a house full of mirrors.

Do you know any other "fine print" details of the Hicks judgment?
I have not been able to find them on the web.

Still all we know about Hicks is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Was he playing cowboys hanging out with the Mujahadien? Americas friends. Oh that was last week. Was he just hanginout, Afghanistan is a fancinating place, I wish I had stayed longer in '69.
The Northern Alliance rounded up all foriegners and sold them like slaves to the US. A million a head was a price bandied about and an immense amount of money in Afghanistan and quiet a temptation. Certainly enough to blur the truth.
It sad thing is that the US has shown themselves to be nothing but common criminals and slave traders. I feel the shame and sorrow of all descent Americans. Any other truth we will never know. I doubt that Hicks can speak out with out being assassiated.

Isn't this article a little premature since it precedes Hick's sentencing?

The realisation that a psychopath like Mirko is teaching law is very, very depressing.

Iluvatar, You'd think anyone with the slightest modicum of sense would
be able to judge after years of Liberal and labour government nothing
changes but the team jerseys and the bent of the rhetoric. Just because
one of your polli heros says all pows deserve a fair trial by their
peers does not make it so. If it was so how come the Australian POWs
didn't get trials. How come the regular German and Italian POWs in
Australia didn't get trials. That Hicks or any other combatant
(terrorist)is being tried before a court is down to irregular military
practice and the laws that govern nations in dealing with that element.
The Rules of War and Geneva Conventions have been reworked and amended
since their conception. Each war has led to either broadening particular
protocols or including brand new protocols to cover that concern
experienced during that particular war. These are military matters not
civil matters.

Hicks volunteered to become part of that new process of dealing effectively
with terrorism and irregular war against governments and nations in the 21st
century. He is getting justice. That it is not immediate or predefined for
your pretentious little mind does not mean it isn't being processed.

Violations and applicability; Parties are bound by the laws of war to the
extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate
military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid
damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty
of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields
or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for
damage to those that should be protected.

Yet you demand I think of the Shia/Sunni war going on
in Iraq as American or Australian responsibility. While you don't want to view
the terrorism and clan murders, kidnappings, rapes and executions as anything
but normal inter religious warfare as a result of being victimized by American
hegemony

If you think this was in any way a legitimate court process, you're smoking something even George Michael would pay a lot of money for.
It was a political deal, revealing the circus that the alleged Gitmo court system really is.
For good measure, Hicks has a gag-order imposed so that he will not be able to speak of his alleged torture and abuse until after Howard faces re-election.
Yes, we live in a banana republic. It certainly isn't a country ruled by law. It is ruled by one man and his accomplice.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/hicks_cheney_ho.html

post script for Iluvatar,

I'm exceptionally poor at spelling. Having been educated in Australia, the United States, and Canada and having had my spelling corrected three different times in three different places I'm resigned to depending on a spell checker. I use a little tool called webword. It's undoubtedly American and transposes z for s or vice versa. I could care less. As far as I'm aware the word retains it's value and meaning if used correctly.

I'm thrilled that you feel you have gotten some mileage out of highlighting this for me. It fits with the rest of your relativist deconstruction methodology. I must be wrong because I use a perfectly (legal) suitable z or s.

If you really pay close attention and are a person of detail you will notice I battle with this plurality of English by using the ou instead of the American o as in labour not labor.

It's a crazy mixed up world and I'm a victim too. Don't hurt me

“Do you know any other ‘fine print’ details of the Hicks judgment?”

Michael, I think it has all come out in the wash over the last few days.

The way this commission and indeed the whole Guantanamo caboodle have been conducted is very much within the realms of a banana republic. I could just never have imagined anything remotely like this happening in the US: the ‘pinnacle of democracy’ !

Thank goodness there is an extremely wide level of concern in Australia and around the world. There is huge concern about the veracity of Hicks’ uncoerced statement of no abuse in Guantanamo and the requirement for him to sign a media gag order and a non profit order or remain incarcerated for years longer. And for him to remain in prison until a short time after the next Australian federal election.

From your link, Andrew Sullivan says;

“It was a political deal, revealing the circus that the alleged Gitmo court system really is.”

The military tribunal is being viewed around the world as a gravely flawed and grossly undemocratic setup. And so it should be. And the Bush government along with it.
That is good. But unfortunately it extends in the mind of millions of people, to cover the US and its allies. This stigma will remain long after Bush has gone. This is the really disturbing thing.

Posted by aqvarivs:
"The Rules of War and Geneva Conventions "
The problem is aqvarivs that neither are being followed by Bush.

Nor the rules of Habeas Corpus or any other right for that matter.
He is making the rules up as he goes, and then backdating them.

Even his own staff and army/navy lawers admit this.

If the Geneva convention had been in place Hicks could have got 10,000 jars of Vegimite in care parcels.:)