Why is our press so fascinated with his position?
I don't remember them giving the same attention to the other poms in detention.
P
:cool: :cool: :cool:
Printable View
Why is our press so fascinated with his position?
I don't remember them giving the same attention to the other poms in detention.
P
:cool: :cool: :cool:
Well now that he's a pom by his own free choice I reckon our Government should refuse to give him a visa to enter Australia.
But it is obscene that he's been in Jail for 4 years and never been to trial.
He became a pom ONLY because our government was happy to let one of our citizens rot in jail without the possibilty of a fair and timely trial.
Oh I don't know, he seemed to be enjoying himself when he was an Afghani.
P
;)
Maybe so but he still should be afforded a fair and speedie trial. It has been 4 1/2 years since his arrest and a trial is still not on the horizon.
The military tribunal he was going to be tried under was never going to be fair. The US Supreme Court has just ruled that there was no chance that David Hicks and the others would have a fair trial.
I suspect he has a reasonable legal chance of walking free because his legal rights which are guaranteed to him under American constitutional law have been denied to him.
Our Government should be taken to task for acting to deny him a fair and impartial trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
What a cynical view on life
in truth he beacame a pom only because he can play cricket:eek: :eek: :eek:
There is an ashes series coming up and they currently dont have a team that can stay out of hospital:D
I don't get it.
How can any trial be fair when a bloke was picked up fraternising with the "enemy".
If he was an Afghani soldier on the wrong side what whould have happened? I imagine the trial would have been very swift indeed.
Surely one forfeits all normal rights when one takes up arms in another country other than in the name of one's own flag?
What possible reason could anyone have to train with a foreign force, and if one does why should they not be treated as a citizen of whatever regime they were supporting? Then the laws of that country would apply not ours.
Stuff like that used to be called treason.
Had these blokes been buying postcards, or lost on a backpakers trip, I'd have a different attitude.
Cheers,
P (the Unjust)
:cool:
He has no rights under the american constitution. None at all, because he is not an American, is not held on Amercian soil, and is charged as an enemy combatant. Whatever protections he has would stem from the Geneva convention.
David Hicks is at best a mercenary killer for hire, at worst a criminal psychopath who bounces from Kosovo to Afghanistan looking to insert himself into a situation where anarchy prevails so that he can dress in fatigues and brandish RPG-7's.
Just once I'd like to see the media describe him as "captive British hobby killer", which is more honest than "Australian captive".
Having said that, 4 1/2 years is too long to have to wait for trial.
True midge - but it still shouldn't take 5 yrs to come to trial, even if it is before an illegal tribunal that is not even recognised by its own country.
:eek:
Little Johnny - "David who?"
Yes, he should be put to trial and if found guilty, punished appropriately.Quote:
Stuff like that used to be called treason.
That would be an insanity plea.Quote:
in truth he beacame a pom only because he can play cricket:eek: :eek: :eek:
Give him a fair trial,
then take him out and hang him.
I think insanity is where it's at. If you look at his adult life, he does display symptoms.
Yes, he should have had a fair and timely trial, but it's certainly not at the top of my agenda.
I think that the picture of him with a rocket launcher lost him any sympathy and erased most doubts.
Stupid, loony kid. Personally I'm more concerned about tonight's game. Can the Cane Toads do us?
Hicks has dual citizenship and so can't be kept out of Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by echnidna
Maybe not here anymore but it still ought to be as it was during WW2 and Vietnam. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
In most countries you still automatically loose your citizenship when you enter a foreign country's armed forces. Hicks became an enemy soldier and thus lost IMO any rights to our protection or help, so let him rot where he is.
Don't forget that he fought for a regime that is still fighting our troops.
Peter.
George Orwell and numerous other people of note did just that in the Spanish Civil War and numerous other wars. Numerous American airmen were fighting in France during World War 1 long before America decided to fight. Are you suggesting that the Allies should have declined their offer to fight with us?Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
No it didn't. Treason is an act against ones own country. In what way did Hicks act against Australia?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Under Australian law a mercenary is someone who is paid to fight AGAINST the government of another country. Like them or loathe them, the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan and Hicks was fighting for them. He's not a mercecary. His most certainly is a dickhead however who clearly is too stupid to realise what he was getting himself into. I just wish they'd either try him before a court or let him go. The Yanks are their own worst enemies when they circumvent international law and conventional norms in the way they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregoryq
Not sure what you are referring to here. If you mean the Geneva convention, the US did not agree to the whole thing and may not be in contravention.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckman
But on another subject, why is it the nutters are not charging over to North Korea to complain? Surely if human rights are an issue worth complaining about then that is the best place to start.
Coupla points
Australia was not at war with anyone when hicks got involved with the Taliban and he is hardly a brain surgeon.
Sadly, the greatest loss for the "war on terror" is losing him as a human source. Finding out how and why he ended up where he is and the routes/contacts that he had to get there would have been invaluable from a security point.
Better not mention how many australian serbs went back home during that conflict, and not all were on holidays:rolleyes: .
He is just a silly little kid, looking for adventure and an adventure is what he got.
Does anyone really swallow the "worst of the worst" label the US has put on him. :rolleyes: If he's the worst of the worst then we dont have much to fear really.
dazzler
Yep, thats right, just a littlr kid who would have cheerfully killed Aussie troops and just a little kid who was part of a regime which is one of the most inhumane on the face of the planet..... Sod the "little Kid", I hope they keep the piece of ##### right where he is......... or perhaps if he was shot "attempting to escape"Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
I'm with Chris on this one. We have enough trash here now.
Pete
No, but I am suggesting that they should have (and may have):Quote:
Originally Posted by duckman
a) Obtained the permission of their own country to do so,
or in the event that permission was not forthcoming, and they felt strongly enough to fight-
b) Become a citizen of one of the countries that they were defending.
End of problem
Perhaps that is what the court will tell us. In the meantime, if you aren't with us, you're against us.Quote:
No it didn't. Treason is an act against ones own country. In what way did Hicks act against Australia?:confused:
If he wanted to fight, there are a couple of uniforms he could have slipped into here.
Cheers,
P
But we wasnt at war wif no one!:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopha
And what was he doing when he was caught. Trying to get the hell out of there.:rolleyes:
Maybe silly little kid is too simply.....dumb a## maybe. :p
Fighting against Aussie Troops wouldnt even been on the horizon when he was there.
He may be a stupid dirkhead. He may be a treasonous mercenary. He may be the worst of the worst. He may just be a very naughty boy.
Until he's put on open trial, we'll never know.
The intel on hicks is that he was influenced by fundamentalist islam and willingly came to identify with the "cause", that being the supposed injustice against Islam. The fact that a kid from aus can be influenced in this manner is what is important from a national security perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Why did this happen and how can we prevent it happening again. Shooting him does not make our lives safer nor add to our understanding of radical grooming. And that is where we lost out.
dazzler
Obtained permission? Geez... I thought here in the West we were all living in relatively free countries. If you're going to compel individuals to seek permission before acting like dickheads, you'll have to expand the public service by several orders of magnitude.:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
To whom are you referring?Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
My nephew was wearing one of those uniforms (HMAS Anzac) but we weren't at war with anyone then, so close, but no cigar.Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Hooroo...:)
Yes and we are free to defect if we wish. Think about this for a minute, hypothetically let's invent a new religion. Lets' call it football. Followers of football all wear the colours of their team and are clearly identifiable by that.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckman
Now let's say a blue team follower was without reference to the team, to deface and iconic statue owned by the maroon team, or worse fly a plane into one or two of it's office buildings. I'd reckon the maroon team would want to do battle with the whole blue team and knock their socks off. That would happen even if the blue team didn't sanction any part of it, and they'd have to talk really quickly, specially if the maroon team had missiles ready to destroy their weapons of mass destruction.
So. A foreign national fighting an unsanctioned war could put his country at risk by his very action. He could be seen as a spy, part of a covert operation, or even a deliberate act of war mongering by his country. Not on, our country is free because we allow these dopes to leave, and stay left!!
To anyone for whom the coat fits.Quote:
To whom are you referring?
But correct me if I'm wrong, if you really are spoiling for a fight, there are ways and means of arranging exchanges or transfers to other countries where you'll get it?Quote:
My nephew was wearing one of those uniforms (HMAS Anzac) but we weren't at war with anyone then, so close, but no cigar.
Or you could always just go (excercising your rights in a free country) and seek asylum in a war torn country!
Cheers,
P:rolleyes:
"Treason is an act against ones own country. In what way did Hicks act against Australia?"
With Aussie troops in Afghanistan at the time - OK, no declared war, but our troops were "in harms way". I say that makes his actions "against Australia" and therefore treason. If ordered, do you think he would have refused to shoot an Aussie soldier? If you do , you also believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Shoot the dickhead and get it over with.
I don't think any one outside the inside few in the US intell circle & Hicks himself actually know what he was really doing at the time, I see it this way, Aussie Bloke whether a dixhead or not is held without trial & without recourse by Foreign power & we say he deserves it, bluddy great day & age ain't it, sorta Breaker Morantish, wonder what we'll all say about it in 10 years time, yeah the US intelligence agancies always been sticklers for truth in the past:( .
Bruce,
I have been known to be very critical of the USA, I totally agree with many of their foreign policies and I think that a lot of the world's hatred against them is brought about by themselves.
But in this case they can do what they like with him. When Hicks left and joined another country's army IMO he lost any rights to sympathy or support from us. He is IMO a traitor to this country and should be stripped of his citizenship.
The PC claptrap we keep hearing from the doogooders about how he was misguided, foolish and silly sickens me. Let him rot where he is.
Peter.
Well you see Bruce, that's what prompted me to kick off this thread. We are the only ones stupid enough to call him Aussie.Quote:
Originally Posted by E. maculata
He doesn't want to be one.
He wasn't all that good at being an Afghani it would appear, so he remembered he was actually a Pom.
Cheers,
P;)
If his guilt is beyond doubt, why not give him a fair trial in a timely manner? He'll be found guilty and punished accordingly. It concerns me that the U.S. is bent on trying him in what amounts to a Kangaroo Court.Quote:
Well you see Bruce, that's what prompted me to kick off this thread. We are the only ones stupid enough to call him Aussie.
He doesn't want to be one.
He wasn't all that good at being an Afghani it would appear, so he remembered he was actually a Pom.
Cheers,
P;)
Having a photo of someone with a grenade thrower doesn't make him guilty. There was a photo recently of an AWB boss with an AK-47 in his mits when he was in Iraq. Did that make him a terrorist?
The reason why he won't be brought back to Australia for trial is that he hasn't broken any Australian law. We've since changed the law but at the time it was not an offence.
I hope for those that are happy to have people kept in jail without charge, without hope of a fair trial that they or their children don't find themselves in in similar circumstances.
I dont think he remembered he was a pom, he just became one, because our govt is so far up the US govt !@##$, that it cant stand up to them, whereas the pommies did and their people are home now.Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
My thoughts are he was a @#$head, but no-one deserves to be stuck in a prison for an unlimited term with no trial. Give him an open and legal trial and then do what you like with him, these kangaroo courts they are looking at setting up are just wrong..
I am sure if he gets off, he can always suddenly dissapear, it isnt as if the US hasnt done that before...
What happens of course is the Maroon team gives the blue team a right old flogging, and so the miscreant has to sit it out for a year to see what will happen next year!Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
;)
P
No, but it does increase the odds somewhat...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
Unfortunately, while not being a cynic par se' I'm extremely cynical of mainstream populist media (been misrepresented grossly without permission or recourse once myself in a 15 minutes of fame sorta fiasco). And I absolutely do not and unless proven beyond doubt to be wrong, and will not believe any of the cwap that G.W & Bonsai are sprouting about the Afghani/Iraq operations (they were/are mongrels, but who financed & trained & installed them in trhe first place...Mmmmmm, hadta stop those pesky commies in the 80's), did anyone actually tell the afghani people we were at war with them?, how would they have known? radio, newspaper, TV. I'm not quite that stupid.
The superpower, powers that be in question will use any means to vindicate their "cause", one Australian, more or less is what? in the scheme of things?.
Don't like Bullies never will, no matter what the colours of the Flag they fly, Patriotism is also well documented to be the last refuge of scoundrels whom have no other defence for their actions.
Like the man says Give him a fair trial, lets see how big a wakka he is or isn't, so far all I see is his Dad, trying any trick he can think of to free his boy, wouldn't we all do the same.
Family before politicians anytime, especially the current crop of zealots from either side, racing to see who sacrifice their citizens rights first. Have always thought if pollies had to lead the charge from the bunkers there would always be "diplomatic" solutions to every problem.
This is my opinion I will stand corrected if history proves me wrong.
This is the crux of my argument G.W Bush is not a good & honorable person.
Whenever anyone spouts religiosity, uses the word 'God' to show how honourable they are or believes they hold the high moral ground ...................... watch out.
And that refers to all sides of this argument.
Hicks.
Simple.
He is a prisoner of war and is being held as such. You don't release prisoners of war as they could possibly re-enter the action again.
........Yes I know....... The Genva convention......... Let's wait until the war finishes.
The war continues, so he and his fiends (sorry friends) can stay there until it is over.
That may take some time
Greg
im reluctant to enter this debate:D , but in a "war against terror" where the combatitants are zealots rather than nation states, the war could and I hazard a guess, will take forever. thus mr hicks and his ilk may spend a fair whack of thier breathing time in a cube, much of it without a trial. this is grossly unfair in any circumstance, try him and convict then select an appropriate punishment if relevant. dont let him rot without justice.
earth would be better off without humans. "Chimps for Dominant species!"