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.