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.