news came out this morning that this man is free ... all due to a technical point of law...

here you have an australian who converted to islam...gives himself a muslim name...
joined a known terrorist organisation.... trained in afghan and helped trained afghan terrorists... and CAUGHT during military combat (because his muslim brothers said he is not a true muslim and sold him for $5,000 to the americans)... and he admitted to all the above

now this man is staying in Sydney... taunting our way of life... enjoying social benefits paid by your tax and mine

now he is writing an autobiography which australians will buy in droves and clamor for it to be institutionalize in our library

sigh

and all ABC broadcast this morning is "Will the australian govt apologise to Hicks?"

how broken can our system be?

If we're not the laughing stock of the civilized world, gee we must be close.

Dear Platypus,

David Hicks was cleared of all charges by an
American Military Court.

As for the terrorist and the law?

All Australians are equal under the law.

This means that nobody should be treated differently
from anybody else because of their race, ethnicity,
or country of origin, because of their age, gender, marital
status, or disability, or because of their political
or religious beliefs.

Government agencies and
independent courts are required to treat everyone fairly.
The authorities will decide what happens to this man.

cont'd ...

Ooops -

Well I goofed well and truly and is
my face red.

On re-reading the opening post - I've
only just realised that you were referring
only to David Hicks all along. I had gone
on the assumption that you were referring to
two different people. One - David Hicks,
the other - some terrorist.
I now realise that you were speaking only about
David Hicks.

Whatever we may think about the guilt or innocence
of the man - the fact remains - he's paid his
dues - and was found not guilty by an American
Military Court - and is now living in Sydney
and earning a living by whatever mean he can.

Why can't we leave it at that?

Ex-Pm John Howard most likely has the public perception right, remembering that the public are not so easily fooled and Hicks certainly wasn't there for a holiday,

<Former prime minister John Howard said Mr Hicks was not owed an apology by any government.

“The US verdict is about the legal process in that country,” said Mr Howard, who was prime minster when Mr Hicks was sent to Guantanamo Bay.

“Nothing alters the fact that by his own admission, Hicks trained with al-Qaida, met Osama bin Laden on several occasions - describing him as a brother.

“He revelled in jihad.

“He is not owned an apology by any Australian government.”>

http://tinyurl.com/pctk53o

L'il Willie Shorten and the Greens are highly sympathetic to Hicks. Maybe they would like to apologise for their respective parties, and kick in some dollars for him out of members' subs. That is if they are serious in their belief and are not just playing politics.

There are a few facts that are being ignored.

As The Australian newspaper has pointed out -

"...while there is no question that Mr Hicks had
been in Afghanistan and trained with Islamic
groups - that was not a crime at that time
under International Law, American Law, or
Australian Law. And for that Mr Hicks served
five years in Guantanamo Bay. He committed no
crime, no terrorist act, and broke no law."

The man only pleaded guilty as part of an agreement
to get him out of Guantaanamo and home to
Australia. Even the Australian Government has
admitted that Mr Hicks committed no crime.

It surely is time to move on and let the man and
his family live in peace.

Fox,

From the BBC,

"David Hicks, 39, pleaded guilty at the base in Cuba in 2007 to providing material support to terrorism.

But a US court has struck down the conviction, on the grounds the charge was not a war crime and so should not have been heard at a military court...

US civilian courts have ruled that the charge of providing material support for terrorism cannot be considered a war crime in cases that were brought for actions before 2006, when new laws were adopted."

That would confirm what John Howard said,

<“The US verdict is about the legal process in that country,” said Mr Howard, who was prime minister when Mr Hicks was sent to Guantanamo Bay.

“Nothing alters the fact that by his own admission, Hicks trained with al-Qaida, met Osama bin Laden on several occasions - describing him as a brother.

“He revelled in jihad.

“He is not owned an apology by any Australian government.”>

He was fortunate that the available laws had not caught up to terrorism at that stage.

If you, L'il Willie Shorten and the Greens now believe that he is absolved from blame, then so be it. You, L'il Willie and the feckless Greens can apologise on your own behalf and dig deep into your wallets for compo. You might have a hard job convincing the electorate though.

So when will you be sending your apology, flowers and a meaningful wad of dollars as a donation?

"L'il Willie Shorten and the Greens are highly sympathetic to Hicks. Maybe they would like to apologise for their respective parties..."

Well, L'il Johnny Howard wouldn't be likely to sanction anything approaching an "apology" for anything.

After all, as a member of the Coalition of the Willing, Howard, as chief toady of Bush and Blair, was culpable in their little escapade - which cost how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives?

Don't you worry about all those others, Poirot.

When will you be sending your apology, flowers and kicking in a meaningful wad of dollars as a donation?

Foxy, when you say nobody should be treated differently,..... Wouldn't you agree that Australians (natural born) deserve the same amount of respect from Musilms when they come to our country as Muslims expect from us when they settle here? Surely anti discrimination laws are two sided!

otb,

This from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24830841

Might help you to get a better grasp of the situation.

Your obvious concern about compensation for Mr David Hicks
is very surprising to say the least - and somewhat touching.
And, if you feel so strongly about it as to raise it in this
discussion then by all means feel free to donate with money,
flowers, or whatever else you feel is fair.

We won't judge you.

Dear rehctub,

We all - in this country -
have a continuing obligation to work on our
attitudes towards each other. While we all like to think of
ourselves as tolerant people, even passionate in our belief
that all are equal - yet every day we hear of grievances
in connection with which ethnic background, or some
similarly irrelevant difference is blamed. It is of course
the height of arrogance to believe that we are superior
to others, yet this attitude appears to be hard to eradicate.

Of course our aim should always be to behave with respect
towards others, and to encourage this in all people.

Unfortunately it doesn't take long to discover that we all
have a streak of prejudice within us, which at times seems
a compulsion. However, all we can do is keep on trying -
and encourage in our inter-action with others for them to
do the same.

Fox,

Trust you to dredge up an old BBC article that has been superseded by the most recent report I quoted earlier. Irrelevant.

Again, if you, L'il Willie Shorten and the Greens believe that Hicks is absolved from all blame, then it is you, L'il Willie and the feckless Greens who should be apologising to Hicks on your own behalf, sending flowers and digging deep into your wallets for compo.

So when will you be sending your apology, flowers and a meaningful wad of dollars as a donation?

Can't see the public agreeing with you.

It's revealing how many on this forum don't give a fig for the rule of law - and due process.

otb,

The BBC link that I cited for your benefit
earlier - is relevant - especially considering the
current decision that has now resulted
from the Americans.

As for your persistence
in wanting people to compensate the man -
and also send flowers. Well, that is of no interest to
me.However, you may try sending an email to Mr Shorten and
the Greens to show them how much you care.
Your obvious interest in this matter
shows just how much you care in human
rights issues which must be comforting for your family.
So, as I said previously -
go right ahead and do lead by example.
We will be most impressed.

Dear Poirot,

The Australian Government (then and now) also
does not give a fig about laws or due process.

Dan Mori the American lawyer who represented Mr Hicks while
Hicks was in Guantanamo Bay has stated that our
government and our then PM John Howard should not
have let the Hicks case proceed.

Mori stated that
the Australian Government, Prime Minister John Howard,
Attorney General Philip Ruddock, and the Foreign
Affairs Minister Downer, were all warned by a panel of
experts from Australia that it was not a valid offence
and David Hicks should not have been charged.

Finally that has now been validated.

Yeah, get off his back ! He was wrongly captured while on holiday in Afghanistan, guarding what he thought was a large armoured 4WD, after having been sight-seeing on the Pakistan-India border, with a machine gun for his own protection (its a fairly lawless area there).

Anyway, at the time in Australia, there was no law against his terrorist acts, therefore he is completely innocent of having broken any 'law' at that particular time. Firing on Indian troops was not a crime back then, so leave him alone.

I look forward to Mr Hicks' travels back to India in the distant future.

Joe

Foxy, our 'reactive' approach towards terrorism hasn't worked in the past, and it's only very recently that we are now being proactive in our fight against this imported crime.

We need to go further and ban Islam, Muslim faith, jihad, whatever some wish to call it from our peace loving nation and this Hicks thug is little more than a home grown terrorist and, if he still follows the faith chances are he will re offend.

While I would prefer to see the death penalty world wide for any association with terrorism what so ever,I accept this will never happen but the least we can do is deport them immediately as had we acted like that that poor lady and the guy killed at Martin pace would still be alive today.

The abc/alp/Greens are probably grooming him for a seat in one of the Sydney ghettos. They are good at making traitors heroes.

Dear rehctub,

The man - Man Haron Monis -
who was responsible for the Sydney seige
had severe mental problems and was well known to police.
He should not have been released from jail -
and out on the streets. You can't blame his actions
on religion. He was a mental basket case - who should
have been arrested and kept in prison after his first
offence - he had over 40 offences and was still being
released on bail.

As far as David Hicks is concerned - the following link
is worth a read from Antony Loewenstein. Although it was
written in 2013 - it summarises exactly what David Hicks
did and what happened to him as a result and it is still
relevant today.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/18/david-hicks-deserves-an-apology

Dear runner,

Sweeping generalisations don't do you any credit.
Please back them up with evidence.

Photo of Hicks on his 'holiday' and other inconvenient details,
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/anger-as-bill-shorten-claims-injustice-for-david-hicks/story-fni0cx12-1227226383616

<Anger as Bill Shorten claims ‘injustice’ for David Hicks
DANIEL MEERS THE DAILY TELEGRAPH FEBRUARY 20, 2015 12:00AM

DAVID Hicks trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and described Osama bin Laden as a brother — and yet Opposition Leader Bill Shorten labelled what he did as “foolish” and said he suffered an “injustice”.

With the terror alert at its highest level, Mr Shorten leapt to the defence of the man who former PM John Howard yesterday declared “revelled in jihad”.

Mr Shorten’s comments were also slammed by Liberal MP Andrew Nikolic, who served as a brigadier in the Australian Army in Afghanistan.

“I am appalled by Mr Hicks’ ­actions,’’ he said. “I am also troubled by the failure of the Leader of the ­Opposition to call him out on it.”

Mr Shorten said yesterday: “David Hicks was probably foolish to get caught up in that Afghanistan ­conflict, but clearly there has been an ­injustice done to him.”

Mr Nikolic, who served as a ­brigadier in the army, said: “By his own admission, David Hicks trained and fought with Islamic terrorists such as al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

“Why is Bill Shorten giving ­succour to David Hicks as someone who he says was merely ‘foolish’ to get ‘caught up’, as if he was some ­wide-eyed innocent abroad rather than a trained terrorist?”>

Hicks is legally innocent of any crimes in or against Australia or America but not, perhaps, morally and if it could be proven that he fired on Indian troops then, there may be a case for their country to seek his extradition on a charge of attempted murder, which is a crime that attracts serious punishment in India.

I seriously can not believe the do-gooders position here as this guy joined and trained with an Islamic terrorist group who's motives were to rein terror on innocent law abiding citizens.

The guy is a thug and in my opinion he has not served his time as there is no such thing in my book as forgiveness for terrorist activity.

As for Bill Shoreten, what is it with our pollies of late who are all of a sudden going out on a limb for those who's motives were always to cause gross harm to others.

Antony Loewenstein points out that - it is perfectly
legitimate to ask David Hicks tough questions about
his background and his beliefs. But none of this
justifies long-term jailing, torture, and psychological
abuse. Amnesty International maintains that David Hicks
was illegally detained without being charged and without
a fair trial for years. And when he did have a trial - the
military commissions he appaeared before never met
International standards for fair trials.

Loewenstein tells us that - this didn't stop Australian
Commentators from baying for blood.

In 2011 News Limited's Miranda Devine dismissed any critics
of Guantanamo's detention practices as whingers. Those
thinking that "suspected terrorists" being "smacked around
a bit" constituted overly harsh treatments were naive, she
wrote. In other words, Hicks deserved what he got.

When Hicks was still in Guantanamo Bay in 2007, Devine also
referred to him as a "well-trained terrorist" and for years
David Hicks was primarily referred to in the corporate press
as a "terrorism supporter" by Murdoch columnists such as
Tim Blair. Fair trial be damned.

In his article Loewenstein continues to tell us that
Repeat government smears against individuals deemed suspect
is nothing new...

Therefore in the "war on terror" we see a new generation of
journalists who blindly re-hash propaganda dressed-up as facts
about ever illegal detention and intelligence.

He states that there is documentary evidence suggesting that
in 2007 former PM John Howard asked the US to manage the
Hicks case. Colonel Morris Davis, the former Chief Prosecutor
of Military Commissions told US journalist Jason Leopold in 2011
that he had concerns about the Bush Administration charging
Hicks. There was "no doubt in my mind", David added that
"this issue was an accommodation to help Howard by making the
David Hicks case go away (in an election year)."

Loewenstein stresses that - justice for Hicks through a
formal apology and legal re-address is vital to restore a
modicum of Australian credibility...

Accountability and a Royal Commission with a
full judicial review about the David Hicks case would
finally put this matter to rest - and restore dignity
and credibility.

But Foxy he did train with terrorists and he was a terrorism supporter. So why on earth should anyone be feeling sorry for him when the group he followed and belonged to were committed to kill innocent people.

Dear rehctub,

They were not regarded as "terrorists" until
after 9/11 - and then the US declared "war
on terror," and Australia - thanks to John Howard
got involved big time. However, as stated in my
earlier post it is perfectly legitimate to
ask David Hicks tough questions about his
background, his beliefs, but none of this justifies
long-term jailing, torture, and psychological abuse
of an Australian citizen without being charged or
a fair trial.

We should seek for accountability, a Royal Commission, and
a full judicial review about the David Hicks case.
Heads should roll. Careers should end. And this case would
finally be put to rest. If I was David - I would demand
restitution for what I was put through.

David Hicks big mistake was that he was too slow and could not keep up with the speed at which the Americans and the west keep changing sides. In the 1980's the Americans where supporting Bin Laden, Al-Quenda, and Saddam Hussein.

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0228

Instead of worrying about some guy who was not too sharp, never killed anyone and probably never fired a shot in combat. How about the simple fact that America tortured an innocent man, without any evidence against him and kept him in jail, with no charge for over 5 years, be very clear that without fair laws fairly implemented you will end up the situation, that arose in Germany, Italy and Russia before during and imediatly after the second world war.

Hi Foxy,

Not really - after the first bombing of the World Trade Centre in 1993, and the jailing of some terrorists for that, the Yanks were well aware of the aims and dangers of al Qai'ida, don't kid yourself. After the blowing up of their ship in Sana'a Harbour in 1998, the massacre of hundreds of Africans in the blowing-up of the embassies in Dar-es-Salaam and Nairobi in 1998 (?), they were under no illusions.

Hicks might be a half-wit but he must have known about all that, it's what might have attracted him to seek out his brother, Osama bin Laden, and to train in Bosnia, then Pakistan, then Afghanistan. He got pinged guarding a Taliban tank in Afghanistan (you remember the Taliban ? The ones that blew up the Buddhist statues at Bamiyan ?) This was after he had been fighting with the Bosnians (good on him for that, by the way) and then for the Pakistani terrorists against India, and then with al Qa'ida.

Let's not kid ourselves, he's been around the terrorist traps. If I had the keys to Guantanamo, I would be still fighting like buggery to keep him in.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I agree, let's not kid ourselves.
David Hicks spent nearly six years in Guantanamo where he
was abused and tortured.
While it is crucial to question his background his treatment
by both our government and at the hands of the US - as Amtony
Loewenstein points out was not justified.

David Hicks was interrogated, tortured, and held in isolation
for nearly six years in Guantanamo including as Loewenstein
says for 244 days in solitary confinement in a closet-sized cell
without sunlight. David Hicks was also experimented on by the
US military doctors during his incarceration (a new study
by the Task Force on Preserving Medical Professionalism found
that doctors tortured suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay).

Amnesty International maintains that Hicks was illegally detained
without a fair trial for years and that when he did have one -
the military commission he appeared before never met international
standards for fair trials.

It is very disappointing in the extreme that you apparently
do not believe in the rule of the law or due process.
I would have thought that this was the kind of society that
you would want to live in - the kind that supports the rule
of law and due process for all of its citizens.
Apparently not. Sad really.

'Sweeping generalisations don't do you any credit.
Please back them up with evidence.'

not long back Foxy the progressives were sticking by a unionist who spent cleaners money on prostitutes.

rehctub,

"I seriously can not believe the do-gooders position here as this guy joined and trained with an Islamic terrorist group who's motives were to rein terror on innocent law abiding citizens."

Here's a guy sitting and chatting with the Mujahideen - the funding of which some critics have cited as contributing in part to the formation of al Qaeda....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Reagan_sitting_with_people_from_the_Afghanistan-Pakistan_region_in_February_1983.jpg

I suppose it's okay with you guys if you're backing a ragtag army of militant Islamic insurgents when they're belting the Russians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

Hope you don't mind if I insert this one here...talking of what our taxes should and should not support.

I nominate the PM as as a tactical and diplomatic waste of space.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/tony-abbott-sought-military-advice-on-go-it-alone-invasion-of-iraq/story-fnpdbcmu-1227233174095

"TONY Abbott suggested a unilateral invasion of Iraq, with 3500 Australian ground troops to confront the Islamic State terrorist group.

Flanked by his chief of staff, Peta Credlin, in a meeting in ­Canberra on November 25, the Prime Minister said the move would help halt the surge of ­Islamic State in northern Iraq.

After receiving no resistance from Ms Credlin or his other staff in the room, Mr Abbott then raised the idea with Australia’s leading military planners. The military officials were stunned, telling Mr Abbott that sending 3500 Australian soldiers without any US or NATO cover would be disastrous for the ­Australians."

What a goon!

Dear runner,

Is that the best you can come up with to blame Labor.
Labor supported the man until evidence against
him was provided. Most people still believe in the
concept of -
"Innocent until proven guilty" in this country.
Once that happened the man was asked to resign.

If you want to blame political parties and
provide some balance - you need to also currently
trail Mr Abbott's wreckge.

Then you may have some credibility.

Until then - its best for you to keep quiet - while
this current government continues to stuff up and
hurt all Australians.

Stuff up and hurt all Australians you say Foxy. Just look at the utter mess he inherited, which is amplified when considering the situation Kevin 07 inherited.

It's all but impossible to do anything with ones hands financially tied behind their backs, Anistasia P is about to get a lesson in QLD I would suggest.

While I too was against asset sales/leases, can you accurately state that our poles and wires will be in high demand 50 years from now. I certainly wouldn't and if the likes of the greenies have their way we certainly won't be needing them as much.

What labor did in just six years is near on criminal, and we must remember the libs tried to plug the holes but have been out voted.

While I accept their budget was too harsh, people have to realize that the debt left behind from labor has to either be paid back, or left for future generations because I pay $60 to see my doctor and I'm on $70K a year now, so surely $5 is not too much to ask of low income earners because after all, they don't pay much in Medicare in the first place.

Take away the illegals mess, the debt and hand Abbott $20 billion in the bank and see what he could have done, because that's where Howard left off.

The sad part is no liberal government has inherited a surplus in my lifetime and it most certainly won't happen now.

Dear Foxy,

Yes, innocent until proven guilty unless someone can get off on the technicality that some vile crimes were not actually on the books at the time someone committed their vile crimes ?

Yes, you're right, this person is 'innocent' on a technicality. Morally, he is as guilty as hell. And you know that.

Love,

Joe

It appears once again that in the eyes of Foxy and Poirot that Australians associated with terrorism (Monis & Hicks; and most likely the two who were recently arrested for planning an attack) are the real victims.

Foxy writes "Therefore in the "war on terror" we see a new generation of journalists who blindly re-hash propaganda dressed-up as facts
about ever illegal detention and intelligence." Never mind the facts that all of the above were caught red handed... it's the right wing press trumping up false charges to manipulate public opinion against Islam.

You play with fire you may get burned. You go overseas and fight with the Taliban or Al Queda and you might get killed or captured while you are killing other people or guarding the fort.

Boo hoo, poor David, let's give in a million dollars in compensation; maybe Bill Shorten might even think of some metal to pin on him for heroism.

Let's face it, if a terrorist attack takes place on Australian soil (or even more so on American soil) the loopy left will immediately leap to the defence of the perpetrators, especially if they are Muslim.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Monis was a mentally disturbed individual.
A one-of case - known to police and released
on bail despite over 40 previous convictions.
Nothing to do with terrorism as such.

As for David Hicks - as stated earlier - it is
perfectly legitimate (indeed crucial) to ask
Hicks tough questions about his background,
his belief in the Taliban and his nauseating
old letters praising bin Laden.

But none of this justifies long-term jailing,
torture and psychological abuse without charges
or a fair trial. The rule of law and due process
should have taken place. It did not.
And this didn't stop Australian Commentators
baying for blood. Hicks was consistently painted
not only as a "terrorist" but a "well-trained
terrorist" and consistently referred to by the
coportate press and by Murdoch columnists as
"terrorism supporter." Fair trial be damned.

We need accountability and a Royal Commission and a
full judicial review into the David Hicks case.
Questions need to be answered. Things need to be
explained. Especially the part that the US and our
former government's role in this affair.

Otherwise all we can do - is repeat what's in the
media, the opinions of various journalists and commentators,
and make summations according to our own values.
None of us really know the truth - only what we've been
told by various people. It's all a matter of whom
we believe and trust - and what our logic dictates.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I was referring to Craig Thomson and runner's
attack on Labor.

As for David Hicks - that matter has already been debated.
Go back and read my posts.

<Hicks was consistently painted not only as a "terrorist" but a "well-trained terrorist" and consistently referred to by the coportate press and by Murdoch columnists as "terrorism supporter>

Goodness gracious! What was Hicks' self description in his letters and the theme of his 'holiday' snaps, pray tell?

<a Royal Commission and a full judicial review into the David Hicks case>

It wouldn't be the leftists if they weren't demanding an inquiry or Royal Commission into something. -Although they were not so keen to have a review into the fraudulent use of members' subs in the Health Services Union expenses affair.

otb,

You should avoid repeating smears against individuals
who were merely deemed suspect.

That is nothing new of course.
Governments and journalists have done that all the time.
However in the case of Mr Hicks.
Mr Hicks has been found not guilty of the charges.
And his claims of innocence have now been validated.

As for your reference (again - yawn) to "Leftists"
and the claim
that they have a thing for Royal Commissions?
Perhaps you should check with the Liberal Party records
prior to making that claim.

That is an unfortunate
example of a "deluded" mindset. And by deluded I mean
the psychological definition. I am referring to your
"rigid system of beliefs" with which you are pre-occupied
and which you firmly hold, despite the logical absurdity of
your beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence. You wish for
a reality that does not exist - rather than the reality that
actually does exist. And another aspect of this tendency is
a puzzling irrationalism - which has a history of
hostility to evidence and reason.

BTW: Royal Commissions appointed by the governments of Australia
have existed since 1902 and the range of subject matter
varies tremendously. It is not the domain of any particular
political leaning.

Foxy

The fact Monis hand some mental issues does not negate his terrorist intentions. If a man is committing a terrorist act, holding people against their will and threatening to blow them up, in the name of ISIL, he is terrorist.

Why do you keep stating that because Monis had problems he cannot be classified as a terrorist. Anyone would have to be crazy to want to follow ISIL, or believe that life under Sharia Law is a better option than the freedom of living in the West. Does that mean all terrorists are slightly nuts and therefore not really Islamic extremists?

Hicks was caught red handed in the battlefield. Perhaps his treatment in prison was excessive, but he brought it on himself. Surely he must have realised you don't want to get captured by the enemy. He's lucky they didn't just shoot him and if they had, no one would be wringing hands over his mistreatment.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Regarding David Hicks? You have quite a few facts wrong.

David Hicks did not fight against
Australian or US troops. There were no Coalition forces on
the ground in Kunduz at the time David Hicks was there. David
Hicks did not fire one shot outside of military training in
Afghanistan. This was acknowledged by the US. David Hicks
did not at any point engage foreign soldiers in combat.

David Hicks was not caught fighting with al-Qaeda. He was
taken at a taxi stand whilst trying to come back home
to Australia by the Northern Alliance (Afghan Forces). He was
then sold to the US Military for approx. US $1,000.

The infamous photographs of David Hicks with an unloaded RPG
were taken in Albania when he was training with the Kosovo
Liberation Army under NATO.

David Hicks did not undertake any "terrorist
training." In fact, several independent sources, including
members of the Australian Military have confirmed that the
training David Hicks received was basic and standard military
training, poor in quality to that received by our Australian
troops.

The Australian Government, PM John Howard, Attorney-General
Philip Ruddock and Foreign Affairs Minister Downer were
warned by a panel of experts from Australia that the
David Hicks Case should not have been allowed to proceed.

There is documentary evidence that in 2007 former PM
John Howard asked the US to manage the Hicks case. Colonel
Morris David, the former Chief Prosecutor of Military
Commissions told US journalist Jason Leopold in 2011
that he had concerns about the Bush Administration charging
Hicks.

"There was "no doubt in my mind," David added, "that this issue
was an accommodation to help Howard by making the David
Hicks Case go away (in an election year)."

David Hicks spent nearly six years in Guantanamo where he
was abused and tortured. His treatment at the hands of our
government and at the hands of the US was not justified.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Regarding Man Haron Monis - the man that even the press
describes as "the lone-gunman" (and not a "terrorist).

Terrorism by definition is violence carried out for
a cause in order to create fear and terror and cause
governments into meeting demands. The motivations are
attached to an ideologically, political or social issue.

The Monis case is different. His past history indicates
that he was a man desperate for attention. His motives
were egotistical - not ideological.
He was a self-proclaimed cleric,
though he had no formal qualifications. He had a police
record. He did not belong to any terrorist organisation.
He was simply an unstable wannabe driven by a desire for
notoriety.

Why liberals love Islam

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/05/why-liberals-love-islam/

One of the replies to the article,
"Why the left sides with Islam? They only see politics.

This is a great article, but I think it's much simpler. The left, and the religious, won't challenge Islam, because to do so would bring the discussion into the moral realm. The left exists in a moral vacuum. And once a moral discussion begins, the left evaporates, rather quickly. So too would the woman hating muslims evaporate. Try it. Try having a moral discussion with a leftist. Ask one to think in moral terms. And they will ask you, who's morals. Because they see nothing moral, anywhere. They only see politics."

Ringing true in this thread.

otb,

Once again you bring forth your tired old
arguments. How can one possibly have any discussion
with you when you persist in using the same old
labels, and continue to see everything in very
rigid and stereotypical terms. How can anyone
of any intelligence and reason talk to someone like
you -
whose concepts are too vague and sweeping in their
scope. Many of us - have tried many times,
but ended up finally ignoring your posts
because - it always
ends up with a total breakdown in communication.
Most people's views are not set in concrete - and
most people are able to modify their judgements.
Also most people nowadays - lean towards the centre
in their political views. Times are changing -
and a sign of intelligence is the ability to change.

Dear Foxy,

You could be right: Hicks, after working for NATO in Albania and Bosnia, left to do humanitarian work in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His purpose in Afghanistan was to try to persuade his brother Osama bin Laden to turn to such humanitarian work.

When the US attacked Afghanistan, he tried to leave Pakistan but took a wrong turn and ended up back in Afghanistan, from where he tried to take a taxi out, but was captured by the Northern Alliance. Yes, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, poor bloke.

I'm glad that's settled :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Of course it is perfectly legitimate (indeed
crucial - it seems) for you to believe that the panel
of experts from Australia who warned the
Australian Government, the PM, the Attorney General,
the Foreign Affairs Minister, not to proceed with the
David Hicks case - the man had done nothing wrong,
as well as Dan Mori, the American lawyer who represented
Mr Hicks while he was in Guantanamo Bay, as well as
Amnesty International, as well as reputable journalists
like Antony Loewenstein, as well as Colonel Morris Davis,
the former Chief Prosecutor of Military Commissions, as
well as US journalist Jason Leopold, and the many reports
and documented evidence - are all liars. And now that the
US Military Commissions have actually found David Hicks
not guilty and cleared of all charges - you and quite a
few others on this forum will find ways to make fun of
the situation - without giving much thought to the
rule of law or due process.

There's nothing more to be said under those circumstances.

Dear Foxy,

Well, of course there's due process and then there's what Hicks was actually there for. Are you suggesting he was just sight-seeing in Afghanistan ? Missed his bus, so he tried to take a taxi ? That he was sight-seeing with his LeT friends on the Kashmir border and took a few pot-shots with his AK-47 at a couple of sparrows, inadvertently hitting a few Indian soldiers ?

Of course he could be just a blowhard, bragging about being a brother to Osama bin Laden, about getting photographed in Bosnia and Kosovo, and was just being full of it when he wrote to his relations back here about jihad.

Let's just agree to believe what we each think is the truth, on the basis of compassion on one hand and evidence on the other :)

Love,

Joe

Foxy, are you related to David Hicks in any possible way? You defence for him seems abnormal for someone not personally involved.

Fox,

What if Hicks reenacted his offences, do you imagine he would escape gaol?

He was lucky that the law makers had not responded quickly enough to terrorism.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-difference-between-innocent-and-innocent/story-fni0cwl5-1227225944614?nk=b0be2feca291a73129f4a1cee92efb6c

This is getting ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence
on the web - all one has to do it Google it.
However Gentlemen, - I have had enough.

No. I am not related in any way
to David Hicks. All I know about Mr Hicks is from the
numerous sources available to us all. I choose to believe
the people directly involved in his case -
the experts that dealt
with Mr Hicks, from his Australian lawyer,
his American lawyer, Amnesty International,
the Chief Prosecutor of the Military
Commissions, the guards at Guantanamo Bay, and reputable journalists.

I am arguing the case so strongly simply because I firmly
believe in the rule of law and in due process. Mr Hicks
did not fight against Australian or US troops. There were no
Coalition forces on the ground in Kunduz at the time Mr
Hicks was there. David Hicks did not fire one shot outside of
military training in Afghanistan - all of this has been
acknowledged by the United States. David Hicks did not at any
point engage foreign soldiers in combat.

The question here should be not why I am defending Mr Hicks so
strongly but - why aren't you?

Dearest Foxy,

Well, we know he might have fired more than one shot at Indian troops in Kashmir :) We know he trained with various terrorist groups. We know that he went back to Afghanistan AFTER 9/11 to work with the Taliban and al Qa'ida. We know he has extreme anti-Semitic views. Yes, he got off on the technicality that fighting for terrorist groups were not crimes back then. The law, after all, often lags badly behind the creative and rapid development of crime.

But keep defending him, he may have a spark of decency in him as you obviously believe :)

As it happens, I may be very, very distantly related to him by marriage. Not that I want to brag about it.

Love,

Joe

Foxy,

May I congratulate you on your strong stomach!

Not many women would abide being patronised to the extent Loudy patronises you.

As in: "Dearest Foxy....Love, Joe'

(It fair makes those of us looking on feel bilious)

My dear Poirot,

How does this make you feel ?

Any chance of sticking to topic ?

Love,

Joe

otb,

Citing from News Corp's Columnists Piers Akerman's
column in The Daily Telegraph smacks of desperation.
You might as well cite from Andrew Bolt, or Miranda
Devine, et al. All people who are not well known
for their accuracy and "truth" in reporting - but
are well known for their factual errors, and have
even lost cases in court as a result of them.
In 2006, former director of NRMA Richard Jones Talbot
was awarded $200,000 defamation payout plus costs.
The judgement read - "The inaccuracies of fact by
the defendant (Akerman) on this topic are gross."

No more needs to be said.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Even in the American created charges there has never been
an allegation that David Hicks engaged in a violent act
against any person. There has not been any evidence
to the contrary. It has never been proven that David
Hicks undertook terrorist training. There has never been
any evidence to establish this. And as stated earlier -
David Hicks did not fight against Australian or US troops.
I shall keep on repeating until it sinks in that there
were no Coalition forces on the ground in Kunduz at the
time David Hicks was there. David Hicks did not fire one
shot outside of military training in Afghanistan - all of
this was acknowledged by the United States. He did not
at any time engage foreign soldiers in combat.

I can't make it any clearer for you.

Dear Poirot,

What is
more important to me is the subject content of Joe's posts in
this discussion. The rest of his posts -
I pay not attention to - because those "endearments"
I don't take seriously. They don't mean
anything to me. However I do appreciate your concern for me,
very much.

Fox,

Typically, since you could not counter the facts given in the article in The Daily Telegraph, you disrespect the author to poison the well. However, the evidence quoted in the article comes from Hicks' own letters and photos of him.

There was an article in The Australian, Self Styled Jihadi David Hicks is No Innocent Abroad, that reached similar conclusions.

Along with all leftist 'Progressives' you struggle when morals and ethics are raised. The quote in my earlier post is relevant,

"The left exists in a moral vacuum. And once a moral discussion begins, the left evaporates, rather quickly. So too would the woman hating muslims evaporate. Try it. Try having a moral discussion with a leftist. Ask one to think in moral terms. And they will ask you, who's morals. Because they see nothing moral, anywhere. They only see politics."
[onthebeach, Sunday, 22 February 2015 11:36:29 AM]

"My dear Poirot,

How does this make you feel ?"

It makes me feel like I'm being addressed by a person with weak debating skills - who resorts to puerile underhand sleights to get his jollies.

(And, while I'm here, I've always been curious as to why you place a space between the final letter of your sentence and a question mark?)

BTT!

Whatev, Po

BTT.

Foxy, come off it, you know very well that Hicks was in Afghanistan before and after 9/11 - what, as a tourist ? - no, you know he was there to work with terrorist organisations. He had already done so, hadn't he, in Pakistan, shooting - he claims - hundreds of rounds at Indian troops. Isn't that so ?

I don't give a toss about whether or not such terrorist acts were crimes under Australian or American law at the time, he got off, goodo, he was lucky they weren't crimes at the time, but you and I know very well that he was guilty of the intention of committing harm to Indians at least.

He was associating with the planner of terrorist attacks in Tanzania, Kenya, Yemen, and elsewhere - isn't that so ? He went to Afghanistan expressly to meet Osama bin Laden, isn't that so ? If he fought for the Kosovo Liberation movement and for the Bosnians, I applaud him for that, but not for his actions and intentions in Afghanistan and on the Pakistan-Indian border, nor for his vile and pig-ignorant comments about Jews.

He got off. He should slink back into anonymity, and hide under his rock - if the other invertebrates can put up with him.

Joe

Loudmouth,

"I don't give a toss about whether or not such terrorist acts were crimes under Australian or American law at the time..."

Do you believe in the rule of law and due process?

So would you welcome being charged with something that wasn't actually a crime under the law of your country?

How would you feel about being imprisoned and tortured for five years under those circumstances?

otb,

You've always criticised the sources that I have
used and yet when the failings of your sources
are pointed out - then that's a No, No.

You go right
ahead with supporting News Corp and their journalists.
I prefer journalists who do not commit factual
errors and who do not follow a set political agenda.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I have no control over what you and others choose to believe.
There's been a host of misfinformation about the
David Hicks case and I have spent a great deal of time
discussing this subject. I don't care to continue
to do so.

I would also appreciate it if you dropped your "endearments."
They are beginning to annoy.

Poirot/Foxy,

He got off on a technicality, and you know it. He intended to work with terrorists, he worked with terrorists, he fired on Indian troops, he associated with Osama bin Laden, he worked for the Taliban. No, he did not commit any crimes in Australian or American law since what he did weren't crimes then, and they may be now. But you know very well that what he did was at least highly immoral.

Yes, by his getting off on a technicality, the terrorists and their supporters can shove a stick up the arse of the Americans. But you know that what he did was wrong. If he did the same today, he most certainly would do some more time in Guantanamo, and fair enough.

Joe

Loudmouth,

"....No, he did not commit any crimes in Australian or American law since what he did weren't crimes then, and they may be now...."

Yes....

"....But you know very well that what he did was at least highly immoral."

If it was reasonable to arrest, charge, convict, incarcerate and torture people for actions that are "highly immoral" then Bush, Blair and Howard would be dressed in orange and enjoying their stay at some place equally as hospitable as Guantanamo.

@foxy

leave it as that?
question is ...has he given up on this terrorist idealogy?

if not, why should i pay tax to feed him?

we want to be politically correct till he actually commit murder?

@poirot

we can discuss howard and others in another post
keep this to the idiot who thot he was a muslim till he was sold to the usa by the true blue muslims

@poirot

our PM a waste of space?

while i do not agree with his idiotic knights and damsels, he and the LNP are much much better than the current ALP

if i can vote for the worst lot of ALP members ever in our history...it is the current batch

i find it sad that for all the good the LNP is doing for the nation, australians are so quick to forget the damages done by labor

i am convinced most australians just want more freebies till we fall behind brazil...blanga desh.... you all read how we will fall behind all these third world countries by 2050

sad

@poirot

rule of law and due process?

i rather spend my time at the beach then to pen your post

i do hope these cruel and evil extremists will erect a nice epitaph for you after they have cut your head off with a small knife... for protecting them with our law !

show me one one moderate muslim who will speak out against islamic extremists who believes in terrorism as a way to get their way...... and i will show you the end of such terrorism....

Poirot,

Yeah, probably, but how many times on OLO threads does one have to point out that two wrongs don't make a right ? You know what Hicks did was wrong, evil, with the intention of doing more evil, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, wherever, it didn't matter really. Of course, he was just a stupid boy playing at war with real guns, but his intention was to do harm, wasn't it ? So he does time, fair enough.

Kids pinch cars, go for joy rides, out-run the police, and then set them alight, and if they get caught, they do time (I hope).

As for such crimes as Hicks committed not being - technically - crimes at the time, I look forward to your defence of pedophiles, Mafia bosses, etc. who also get off on technicalities, and are probably as guilty as hell.

There's innocent and there's 'charges dismissed through a technicality'. Even you know the difference.

Joe

Loudmouth,

"As for such crimes as Hicks committed not being - technically - crimes at the time, I look forward to your defence of pedophiles, Mafia bosses, etc. who also get off on technicalities, and are probably as guilty as hell."

There's innocent and there's 'charges dismissed through a technicality'"

Where's the technicality?

If the reason you were incarcerated and tortured was not a crime, it's pretty straight forward.

I mean if someone came along and arrested you for an action that wasn't a crime under our law - what would you do?

Would you mitigate the actions of the constabulary by assuring yourself that if you raised the issue of the "crime" not actually existing, you'd be resting your defence on a "technicality"?

A more common example could be the designer drugs that evade control for a time because the regulations have to catch up.

Should the criminal gangs who manufacture those drugs be cheered on as innocent of any offence? Some here would go much further to claim such rogues are 'victims' of the police when they act in ways that attract police attention. If a charge doesn't stick because a clever lawyer gets them off on a technicality, 'nek minit' they are brazenly informing the media of their 'innocence'.

The 'morality' of some here is not dissimilar to that of the 'Housos' who are oppositional to authority and are continually flaunting the laws themselves. Some too are soldiers of political parties and are easily led. Then there are the leftist 'Progressives' who struggle with morality because it is all relative for them. It is only to be expected that they would be cheering on an unsuccessful terrorist.

platypus1900

"we can discuss howard and others in another post
keep this to the idiot who thot he was a muslim till he was sold to the usa by the true blue muslims"

Thanks for that - but I'll mention who I like (If yer don't mind:)

Regarding your other posts, they're far too in depth and sophisticated for me to respond immediately - I'll have to spend considerable time in contemplation.

An observation I ought to have added to my earlier post is that for the time that a new designer drug hits the streets until amendment can be made to the regulations, the drug is well supported and made profitable for the bikies and other gangs by the very same educated middle class who have the money to waste on recreational drugs.

Imagine how drug screening could decimate the ABC's 'Progressive' Q&A panels and audiences. There there is the ABC itself.

Yeah, otb....your narrative is quite intriguing..now the rule of law threatens to decimate the QandA audience!

Here's an example. A friend of ours bought himself a rather grand touring motor bike...(I'll add that he's not a "bikie" coz I'm sure you'd like to jump straight to that conclusion:)..anyway, it's quite powerful and has a limiter built into it which can only be removed if he has the appropriate license upgrade.

Anyway, he uses it to travel for his work - and one day he was cruising down a highway and was pulled over for a license check by the police. He duly handed over his paperwork and was promptly told by the officer that he wasn't licensed to ride that particular bike. He told her he was and a discussion ensued, the upshot being that the officer wrote him a ticket and told him in no uncertain terms that if he attempted to ride the bike she would arrest him. She then drove off and left him stranded in the middle of nowhere.

Upon returning home, he double checked the law pertaining to his bike and his license and rang up the police to set them straight. The police checked up and woe betide found he was right.

The ticket was rescinded and he received an apology from the officer concerned.

Should he have meekly accepted the ticket and the threat of arrest on the "technicality" that the officer was ignorant of the law?

There was no law on the books that he had broken.

Poirot,

"Regarding your other posts, they're far too in depth and sophisticated for me to respond immediately - I'll have to spend considerable time in contemplation".

Well said indeed; I enjoyed a good chuckle!

@rehctub

you are right on ... we are quite the laffing stock of this region if not the world
see our behaviour on the Bali 9 issue... what a joke
making the 2 villians out to be saints
and disparaging other nations/cultures with our almighty legal processes and correctness of law (line taken from the epitaph on Poirot's grave)

your posts are always short and to the point
so easy to read... there is no need to contemplate for hours (line taken from ISMISSSS, follower of the late Poirot)

my late mum always said...son...truth is always simple and unadorned
look at who makes long posts... avoid them.

hhh

Dear Platy,

Ah, yes - your mum must have been familiar with
Marcellinus Ammianus who stated:

"The language of truth is unadorned and always
simple."

However, I've found Oscar Wilde's observation
to be more accurate:

"The pure and simple truth is never pure and simple."

LOL Poirot,

There is no comparison between getting wrongly ticketed for a bike and Hicks. Minor and irrelevant, especially where the said bike rider was doing the right thing all along and did not intend otherwise.

From his own words and the photos, Hicks was involved in terrorism. His offence/s are now probably illegal in many countries now that the laws are catching up.

You and your parlour games of 'tit for tat' where your offered exchange is no fitting exchange at all, being always minor and irrelevant.

Where Oh where is Shadow Minister who was so kind and polite as to wear those irrelevancies and stay on the other end of your ping pong table for pages of posts? Although Loudmouth is doing his level best.

Thanks though for providing a timely example of what I was talking about, namely the difficulty the leftists experience where others try to engage them in any discussion of morals. The leftists not having any solid ground where morals are concerned and believing in survival of the opportunist with the most recent glib excuse.

Good afternoon folks...

I wonder if I'll ever get to see in my short (remaining) lifetime some real 'honest to goodness' common sense prevail ? Every fibre in my body screams, that Mr David HICKs has engaged in conduct, whilst in Pakistan and later, Afghanistan, that could only be described as treasonous. Yet because of some US judicial blundering, his original conviction (to which he nodded his head) for 'providing material support for a proscribed terrorist group' has been revoked, apparently because no such indictment actually existed at the time the Military Commission sat ? Or some other similar situation existed.

All of us are aware, to a greater or lesser degree, exactly what our Mr HICKS did, while he was an honoured guest of al Quaeda and others, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. By all accounts since his arrival back in Australia, he's led a quiet unremarkable lifestyle. The only apparent demands on his time come from attending various speaking engagements, arranged by many of his adoring supporters. I've heard he may seek pre-selection for a vacant seat come the next federal election ? I dunno, rumour maybe, nothing would surprise me.

Coming home form Vietnam nearly 50 years ago, we had to almost 'sneak' into our own country, because our presence might upset somebody ? Yet this treacherous bastard, this maggot is welcomed home, like a returning hero ? And as each year progresses I have to attend more and more bloody funerals of deceased Vietnam Veteran mates, all of whom had to 'sneak' back into their own country, in case we 'upset' some precious soul ! Go figure, because I can't ?

Foxy,

"The pure and simple truth is never pure and simple."

The divine Oscar's name "Oscar Wilde" vis-a-vis his full name of "Oscar Fingal O'Flaherty Wills Wilde" is rather illustrative of this.

Dear O Sung Wu,

What David Hicks was charged with in the Military
Commissions hearing was one count of "Support for
Terrorism charge" which was invalid to Australian,
and International, and American Law. That did not
accuse him of personally supporting terrorism, rather
it was alleged that he associated with an organisation
that supported terrorism.

David Hicks has always maintained his innocence and he
strongly denies that he was involved with or that he
committed any acts of terrorism.

Even in the American created charges there has never been
an allegation that David Hicks engaged in a violent act
against any person. There has never been any evidence to
the contrary.

I am suprised that as a former police-officer you would
be so open to the host of misinformation about the
David Hicks case.

otb,

Same old tactics I see.

More of the same tired routine -
blaming those "immoral Leftists"
for everything. And now you've got the
gall to preach to others on morals.
This from a poster who sees everything in
very rigid and stereotypical terms, whose
concepts are vague and sweeping in their
scope and whose posts are full of
mutually contradictory statements about
groups they dislike. A poster who continually
demonstrated the irrationality of their
prejudices.

Give us a break!

You need to get out more and see
the world as it really exists, not as you want it to exist.
Also stop reading Piers Akerman if you're going to talk
about "morals." He's not a good example on that score -
(assault charges, sexual harrassment, defamation, et cetera).
His "well" is already "well and truly poisoned".
And you keep drinking from it.

Not impressed!

otb,

"You and your parlour games of 'tit for tat' where your offered exchange is no fitting exchange at all, being always minor and irrelevant."

So the King of tit-for-tat and meandering forum parlour games calls out someone for the same....Noice!

I do laugh at how you attempt ad nauseam to paste lefties with every sin under the sun.

It must, therefore, be a humbling experience to have your side of politics represented by the bumbling ineptitude that calls itself the Abbott govt.....sad really. I almost feel sorry for you.

As I pointed out, the law is the the Law - and you fellas appear to have a problem with applying due process - or don't you believe in either?

The British legal system, so much of which the Americans inherited, is a very conservative animal, in the sense that somebody has to be proven 100 % guilty, not 98 %. If only 98 % guilty, a criminal can be found 'innocent'. In the early days in South Australia, many Aboriginal men got off on murder charges simply because no interpreter could be found, and without one, they could not, in the opinion of the judge, get a fair trial. So they would be released.

Similarly, Hicks was released on the technicality that what he did were not crimes at the time, not specific crimes. Indeed. I wonder though if, even now, burning somebody alive in a cage is specifically a crime in Australia. Or beheading someone. Or stoning a woman accused of adultery. Or throwing gays off tall buildings. Yes, there is the fact that to kill someone is a crime, but those means of despatch are not specifically crimes yet in Australia. Sending a seven-year-old into a crowded market place and blowing her up by remote control is not specifically a crime in Australia. A good lawyer might do wondrous things with the Australian legal system if the need arose.

As for Hicks, how about 'aiding and abetting the enemy ?' Or as O Sung Wu suggests, treason ? Did Hicks intend to aid and abet his brother, Osama bin Laden ? Again and again ?

Yes, he got off. He's 'innocent'. No such crimes existed in Australian law at the time he committed them. Shooting at Indian soldiers is probably still not a crime in Australia. After all, he didn't commit those 'innocent' acts in Australia, did he ?

If I was him, I'd drop it all, grow a beard, shave off all my hair, wear glasses and move to Geraldton or Barcaldine or Nunjikompita. Disappear. Start again, hopefully having learnt something from the past fifteen years. Fat chance.

Joe

FOXY...

I know all I need to know about Mr David HICKS ! Though I am wondering why you mount such a stellar defence of the man ? Further, your reference to my being an ex police office both disappointing and almost insulting !

Dear O Sung Wu,

My reference to your previous profession was
simply my assumption that as a law-enforcement
officer you would be pro - the rule
of law and due process for everyone.
If you find that "disappointing and almost
insulting," I find your reaction rather odd.
Puzzling actually.

And as for your knowing everything there is to know
about David Hicks. That certainly gives you an advantage
over the rest of us.

Cheers.

cont'd ...

Why am I defending David Hicks.

I'm not.

I am merely correcting the misinformation that's
out there about the case and presenting it -
as given by people actually involved.

Ocupational habit.

Plus I do believe in the rule of law, and due process.

o sung wu, "Coming home from Vietnam nearly 50 years ago, we had to almost 'sneak' into our own country, because our presence might upset somebody? Yet this treacherous bastard, this maggot is welcomed home, like a returning hero?"

The leftists have no moral compass that is why. It is all political to them. All signed up for the international socialists' 'Progressive' agenda, they hate the US and the US alliance.

Our inherited democratic traditions and sense of freedom constantly get in their way. So the culturally cringing leftists despise the UK too.

FOXY...

I in turn would put the same question to you ? What exculpatory evidence do you wish to submit it defence of Mr Hicks and his actions whilst training with terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan ? He was photographed with bin Laden himself, whilst 'draped' or attired in terrorist armaments and accoutrements ! Good God what more empirical proof do you need ! As I've said in a previous topic, he was very very lucky that he wasn't shot, by the US troops at the time of his capture ? FOXY, I really don't understand why you simply 'don't get it' ? This idiot was armed and in company with a known terrorists group, while our allies were fighting there ! Why is it you don't seem to understand ? You speak of the rule of law, you have an abundance of evidence before you !

Dear O Sung Wu,

Kindly go back and re-read my posts.
I am tired of repeating it.
The infamous photographs that you're
referring to of David Hicks with an
unloaded RPG was taken in Albania when
Hicks was training with the Kosovo Liberation
Army under NATO.

And again - I repeat that David Hicks did not
fight against Australian or US troops.
There were no Coalition forces on the ground in
Kunduz at the time Hicks was there. David Hicks
did not fire on shot outside of military
training in Afghanistan - this was acknowledged
by the United States. David Hicks did not at any
time engage foreign soldiers in combat.

As I said go back and read my posts - and where I
got the information from. If you have evidence to
the contrary - kindly present it.

otb,

What kind of circles do you move in that
you can proclaim to know so much about "leftists."
Most normal people wouldn't know the political
inclinations of other people and yet you tell us that
"leftists" have no moral compass. That they hate the
US and the Uk too. Really?

Who are these leftists you're talking about -
and how many of them are there.
Do you meet them individually - in groups, or do
you belong to some leftist organisation. Please share
with us, and be specific. Do tell.

There are so many different types of leftists -
according to Wikipedia. - There's the notable Christian
leftists - Father Frank Brennan the Jesuit and advocate
for Australia's Indigenous People is one. I think he's
got a very strong moral compass. Then there's Jewish
Leftists, and the list goes on.

Wikipedia tells us
as with any section within the left and right wings of a
political system - labels represent only an approximation,
including within its groups - persons holding many
different viewpoints.

The term leftist might actually encompass a number of values -
some of which may or may not be held by different individuals.

Your arguments are appear again to be - rather sweeping in their
scope and according to Wikipedia at least - not quite valid.

My suggestion to you is - try a different approach - next time.
Don't be lazy with the usual intellectual rubbish.
We'd love to be surprised.

FOXY...

I'm very sorry to have tested your patience, it would now appear you consider yourself the sole font of all factual knowledge, on any and all, subjects upon which you regularly pontificate. I've heard, as well as hundreds of thousands of other listeners on 2GB (Alan JONES) and various statements that have intermittently emanated from Radio National (the ABC), of an entirely different version of the facts that you purport are true.

It would appear prima facie, that you claim 'precise' knowledge of one version of events ? While many others, claim a version that is entirely different from yours ? I don't believe your claims have any greater degree of efficacy, than many others who have a entirely contrary version !

Therefore for this reason I'll not be drawn any further on the subject of David HICKS with you personally. As I've hitherto, always had a great deal of respect, both for your intellect and your character per se, Accordingly, I do not wish to be rude, particularly if I continue 'sparring' in this way. Put simply, David HICKS is just not worth it, not worth it at all ! The man is an unmitigated low life.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

Indeed those were very troubling times, for many Vietnam Vets all those years ago. The ostracism, practised by those folk who were against the Vietnam War had a terrible emotional effect on many of those Vets. upon their return home. Still ONTHEBEACH, it's a long time ago, I guess those days should be consigned to the dark recesses of the 'Hurt Locker' as a Vet mate of mine, recently 'chirped up' ? Perhaps he's right, who knows.

Mate, do you ever wonder what would happen to this great country of ours, if we were ever required to go on to a 'war footing' ? With so many of the 'Left' out there, who'll remain to do the fighting ? We all know that our enemy is within. I think even the 'naysayers' will now concede there's sufficient evidence of the existence of Islamic combatants already in Oz, so any question of an invasion is essentially moot I would've thought ? Still I could be wrong ?

Your appraisal of what the poor ol' UK is going through is correct worse, astounding ! The last time I was in London was 1995, even as far back as then, many of the store signs and other similar billboards were emblazoned with Arabic script ?

An old acquaintance of mine from my days attached to SAC PAV, said it was thought, the UK would be totally Islamicized by the year 2035/45. With many of the Midlands cities, Birmingham, Coventry, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and Chester etc., all are heavily populated by Muslims. Their birth rate was well ahead of other ethnicities, and miles ahead of the anglo saxon population ?

I've always had tremendous regard for the Poms, their Winchester style of government, their justice system, and of course, their modern policing strategies. Still, with all their skill, diplomacy, intelligence services (MI5 & MI6), I really don't know, with the best will in the world, how they're going to halt and curb this growing radical Islamization from taking a much firmer hold ?

Dear O Sung Wu,

I do not see myself as the "font of all information,"
on any given subject.
As I'm sure neither do you see yourself that way.
However, educators and librarians - have a
responsibility not to deny, but to add, enrich,
stimulate, and provide information on a wide variety of
subjects from a wide variety of sources.
It's an occupational habit that I tend to also practice
here on the forum - as appropriate. Your preference is
Mr Alan Jones, et al - and that's your choice - to which
you are of course entitled.

I agree that there is no point in debating
issues when someone is more interested in condemnation
than explanation. Explanations seem tantamount to
sympathising and excusing - and this all too easily
leads onto the questionable practice of stereotyping.
This can encourage "counter-stereotyping" and the
result is usually a complete breakdown in communication.

Hopefully we can continue to debate less controversial and
less emotive issues in the future - without making
judgements about each other.

FOXY...

I'm not sure whether you were aware of two anti-terrorist groups that were, or still are, contained within the Australian Intelligence community ? Previously, designated by the acronym PSCC and SAC-PAV ? Naturally because of the passage of time, and the much higher profile world wide terrorism has now received, not to mention 9/11, many western nations (including us here in OZ) have needed to put in place various strategies in order to keep on top of this evolving terrorist activity.

These two highly specialised groups, formed part of the overall Intelligence and reactionary strategies that had been developed by our government for the purpose of interdicting 'home grown' terrorism before it actually took a hold in our country. Moreover they were also tasked to liaison with other Nations in a watching brief, as known terrorists groups moved around the world ? SAC PAV, was an area that I and several others had some involvement.

It's not necessary for me to go into any detail, only to say these two groups were possessed of some very skilled analysts and specially trained police members from ALL Aussie forces. Including our military (the SASR and special forces), ASIO, ASIS, ONA and anor. Data that came through these centres was closely scrutinized, and any and all players therein, including their activities, are closely monitored.

David HICKS and his activities was on their radar quite early on. I should add, I was not (precisely) privy to any of the analytical 'product' concerning the HICKS matter. But you can be assured he's absolutely no angel.

In conclusion FOXY, you can dismiss the above as you wish, it's entirely up to you, it no longer matters to me ? I'll admit your remarks were disappointing ? Anyway, it's water under the bridge, and I know were I stand.

I repeat I don't believe David HICKS is worthy of one scintilla of public sympathy. The fact many of the 'left', find him such a worthy charismatic figure, absolutely astounds me ?

O Sung Wu,

It's strange how history is remembered. As an anti-War protester from about 1965, I took it for granted that the thrust of any protest was the legitimacy of the war and whether or not - given Eisenhower's remarks about free elections back in about 1958 - foreign troops should be there at all.

It took me many, many years - perhaps until well after 1975 - to realise that for most of the Left, the purpose of protest was to oppose conscription: the rights or wrongs of involvement in Vietnam didn't seem to matter, and the fortunes of Australian conscripts seemed to mean far more than the lives of Vietnamese people. As soon as conscription was abolished by Whitlam, and the massive bombings of Hanoi were over in early 1973, that was the end of pretty much all protest.

With hindsight though, I would have to say, on the one hand, that the Vietnamese people had, and have, the right to choose their own government (people can read into that what they like), but on the other, the treatment of ex-SVA troops and supporters, after the war was well and truly over, was abominable and sadistic: decades of forced labour on chemical-affected land, with deliberately salty rice as the main food. Sheer vindictiveness.

Just some thoughts :)

Joe

G'day LOUDMOUTH...

I understand Joe what you're saying. As an Aussie veteran, (regular Army) the legitimacy of that long war has now been consigned to history. Being young and stupid, as opposed to being old and much more stupid, I didn't and still don't understand why the war was prosecuted at all ?

It was my understanding, communism was inexorably moving down from the then, 'Red China' North Vietnam, and then into South Vietnam. If it were not halted there, it would later move into Thailand ? Then into Malaysia, and finally Australia ? That was what I understood and remember. Communism was considered a very dirty word, and even a whiff that you may be a Communist or even just a sympathiser, you'd have ASIO and others camped on your doorstep forever and a day ?

Some of my mates have gone back, and speak glowingly of the welcome they received by our former enemies ? Myself, I still have a few issues, and until they're dealt with I'll stay home, in any event I'm too old and not particularly ambulatory to undertake such a venture.

I'm nevertheless amazed to hear how forgiving the former NVA's have been, as well as many former cong ! Considering how they'd suffered and sustained so many losses at our hands. Their courage, fortitude, and toughness is legendary I reckon, beside they (in their minds) were only defending their sovereign lands, from us foreign invaders. I guess when you have 'right' on your side, as a moral imperative, they'd became almost insurmountable as an enemy, despite their massive losses and what was thrown at them.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Rhys Jones stated on another discussion -
"Simply labelling an organisation as "terrorist"
does not make it so. The Taliban were the ruling
power in Afghanistan and were facing an invasion by
Western Forces. David Hicks went to fight for them.
That does not make him or them a terrorist."

"Many young men go off to fight in foreign wars.
Whether they join the French Foreign Legion or the
Israeli Defence Force..." - as Rhys states, "they
fight for what they perceive to be the side of right."

Rhys Jones states -
" David Hicks also fought with the Kosovo Liberation Army."
And asks the question - "Was Hicks a terrorist then?"
"Or does the fact that we backed them at that time mean
they are not terrorists?"

It has never been proven that David Hicks undertook
terrorist training. There has never been any evidence
to suggest this. In fact, several independent sources,
including members of the Australian Military, have
confirmed that the training David Hicks received was
basic standard military training, poor in quality to
that received by our Australian troops. There is
nothing to suggest that David Hicks received training
in bomb making, flying planes into buildings, blowing
up school buses or shopping malls. That is terrorism.
David Hicks received training that was centred around
soldier to soldier combat catered to the copnditions
of the terrain in Kasmir.

David Hicks did not fight against Australian or US
troops. There were no Coalition forces on the ground
in Kunduz at the time David Hicks was there. He also
did not fire one shot outside of military training in
Afghanistan - this has been acknowledged by the US.
David Hicks did not at any point engage foreign
soldiers in combat.

On this issue I stand by the facts as stated by
Dan Mori - the American Lawyer who defended David
Hicks in Guantanamo. By Colonel Morris Davis, Chief
Prosecutor for the Military Commissions, Reports
of the Military Commissions, and reputable journalists
like Antony Loewenstein, who researched and reported on
the findings of the David Hicks case.

FOXY, I refer you to the first topic raised on today's OLO - Another interesting version written about David HICKS.

Accordingly I've nothing else useful to say to you. Your one eyed perception of this loathsome creature absolutely astounds me.

o sung wu,

Apologies for not replying sooner. The people and the soldiers of the US and Australia would have wanted the Vietnamese nationalists to be successful.

That was not to be and there is a good chance that trying to protect the Vietnamese against the incursion of the Communists played into the Communists' hands. Communists excel at muddying the waters and fomenting strife.

While there are those who see everything as political (and that impacts on the return of the Diggers too), history is more political narrative than anything else.

You were talking about something else. You were comparing and contrasting the leftists' perception and treatment of the returning Diggers, and their lauding and hero worship of failed Jihardist and failed Muslim, Hicks (previously Mohammed Darwood and other names) and seeking some explanation, some meaning, for it.

As you have found, all you got in return from the ardent Hicks supporter Fox for instance, was more broken-record narrative.

All I can do is confirm what you already know, that where ideology is the master and the leftists have no concept of morality, just politics, why would you expect any different?

No-one is to know what could have been the destiny of Vietnam and surrounding countries if the US had not accepted the responsibility it perceived to maintain some balance. Maybe Vietnam could have been fighting its traditional enemy China, now Communist and with the support of Russian military equipment and technology.

That is where the sight-impaired (and morality impaired) leftists get it wrong of course. If they imagined the US to be imperialist, there were others on the ground already after the raw materials in SEAsia.

'morning to you ONTHEBEACH...

I'm sorry for my delay in responding to your latest thread, last evening I was just too tired to do anything but sleep !

Do you ever worry what would happen if we (Australia) were needed to be placed on a 'war footing' ? No doubt our military are very efficient and well equipped to repel any small incursions on our sovereign territory. But what about this insidious internal thrust we've experienced with Islamic radicals ? In any strength, they'd prove quite a problem ?

I suppose my concerns are essentially unfounded, given our police are pretty good, backed by our intelligence services. That aside, say we are threatened by a sizable force, a force superior in numbers than ours ? The Indonesians as a example ? If our government urgently needed to rapidly increase the size of our military capacity ?

My question is, who out there in our community would we draw upon, to supplement the current numbers of our existing military response ? I wonder how many of the 'Left' would step forward and join up ? The many academics who are comfortably ensconced in our many tertiary institutions around the country ? Though, there are some academics that I know personally, who would be amongst the first to volunteer to take up arms to defend our country ? I'd bet there would be many more who wouldn't !

And how about the Union movement ? How many of our august union leaders do you suppose would be amongst those to join up ? And do you recall, that shameful incident concerning the embargo by Wharfies from loading material and personal goods for the Aussie troops who were fighting in Vietnam on the 'HMAS Jeparit' bound for Vietnam ? Still, that was nearly fifty years ago now. I guess if an enemy were to knock on our door, for the purpose of invasion, I'd like to think EVERYONE would step up to the plate, and defend our nation ? What do you think, ONTHEBEACH ?

Foxy,

While I agree that the treatment that Hicks got in Guantanamo was reprehensible for a western country, there is another side of the story. Before you go too far in green washing Hicks and calling him a freedom fighter, there are a few pertinent facts that can't be ignored.

1. Hicks went to fight with Al Qaeda not the Taliban and boasted of personally meaning Bin Laden. Had he completed his training there is a strong likelihood that he would have been used for some of the barbaric acts that AQ was infamous.
2. Al Qaeda's credentials as terrorist organisation were well established prior to 2001 with several attacks such as the one on the USS Cole prior to 9/11.
3. Hicks was not exonerated, rather his conviction was overturned on the basis that he could not be convicted of a crime that was not on the books at the time he committed it.

So while Hicks is the victim of bad behaviour by the US, he is far from as pure as the driven snow as many from the left are trying to portray.

o sung wu,

Rudd and Gillard with her Greens sidekicks have shown the world and particularly our neighbours that at least where labor governments are concerned, Australia was unconcerned about its porous borders and is spineless, reluctant to define, assert and defend those borders.

All Indonesia for example has to do, is wait for another federal Labor government and land a few thousand of its people in the NT. It doesn't have to be all at once. The Labor and Greens response would be to set up Centrelink offices and revel in the praise of the UN for being such a fat and dumb white-ass country as to bend over and take it.

An invader need not invade. Just keep landing people, claim they need room to live for their teeming populations and then send its police and army to 'keep order' against local 'racists' who refuse to hand over their land.

G'day ONTHEBEACH...

I sincerely hope you're wrong ! Somehow, the way Tony ABBOTT is going at the moment, you may well be proved right ! Thanks mate.

o sung wu,

It will be interesting what background information on the Bali pair and their associates comes out after. The can must be bulging with the censorship lid being forced on as it is.

Police must struggle not to let cynicism overtake them. As with the return of the Vietnam Diggers, what you see on The Box and in the tabloids shouldn't be taken as the public opinion at all. Public opinion might be swayed for a time but in time commonsense prevails and people see through the BS.

Again you're right ONTHEBEACH, the media should take much greater responsibility with encouraging and shaping public opinion, on many very important issues.

An example during elections - the media should try to disseminate to the public, only proven 'facts', and those facts must be completely devoid of any journalistic opinion. In so doing, the public are properly appraised of what a particular political Party intend to do, or not do, as the case may be ?

Post the elections and thereafter, any government who may renege on a promise, or attempt to reshape a policy in some way that would mislead the electorate, the media can immediately remind them of what their intentions were, prior to them forming government !

In this way, perhaps some truth may again prevail within the hallowed corridors of parliament house ? Lets face it, anything's better than what's happening now ?