David Hicks

Dan look again at your parra (2)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanP

(2) Subject to section 23L, if a person is under arrest or a protected suspect and wishes to communicate with a friend, relative or legal practitioner, the investigating official must:
(a) as soon as practicable, give the person reasonable facilities to enable the person to do so; and
(b) in the case of a communication with a legal practitioner—allow the legal practitioner or a clerk of the legal practitioner to communicate with the person in circumstances in which, as far as practicable, the communication will not be overheard.

---

the case would seem to turn on that if a suspect is held by a foreign jurisdiction (or in the case of Australia in another state) how does an AFP officer (or even you if you wish to question a suspect in the Albury lockup) demonstrate that you can deliver on the obligation to allow a person to communicate with their lawyer?

From memory the "problem" with Hicks is that when originally questioned he was either not warned or was not provided access to legal representation so the interview record is inadmissible.


ian

It seems to me that all these gentlemen who 'wear the tea-towel' are hell bent on destroying this very democracy that is seeking to protect their rights. Rights that do not exist where they come from, nor will exist if they are successfull.

I can see Mr Bin Liner laughing himself sick as the hated Western system, with all its checks, balances and inherent common justice allows his boys to go scott free.

Unfortunately, in these historically unique times I'm afraid, for our survival, we need to allow the rules to be bent and occasionally turn a blind eye.

This doesn't necessarily lead to Fascism, WWII saw a general suspension of some common law in the UK, Oz and US but once the war was won, these rights were re-constituted.

Nobody wants to see this, but these fanatics use children as bombs, think nothing of slaughtering hundreds of their own to get a few Westerners, have introduced a degree of almost paralysis to our transport system and generally cost the West billions of $$.

They don't play by any rules, so neither can we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bodgy

They don't play by any rules, so neither can we.

---

Hear, hear.


Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

Hi Himzol

He WAS a POW during the war in afghanistan. The hunt for binladen continues but is not part of the war. Now that the war in afghanistan is over and has moved to rebuilding/peacekeeping then they would normally all go home or to prison or wherever.

Unfortunately the US (and AUS by being its female dog) have disregarded the UN and the Geneva convention and made up thier own laws, outside of International law, to keep them whilever the 'War on Terror' goes on.

Oh, anyone seen Hambali :confused: . Remember him?

What a strange world, where the democracy that so many brave people fought for can be put aside so easily.:(

---

Ahhhh I see,:confused:

A new convert to Islam is often encouraged to choose an Islamic (actually, an Arab language word) name.

Jihad would not be seen a common name, more often the names of some of the important figures from the beginning of the Islamic period are used. Basically its similiar to taking a personal role model.

I wonder where and when Jack Thomas got called Jihad?
I ask as I don't know. Was it in the Al-Qaeda training camp, a term used by the media or did he call himself that? Also, what was the 'meaning' of the use of Jihad?

Jihad - From the Arag root "j-h-d" (struggle), the word in its western form (Holy war) is not used.

There are three times that Jihad is used:
Jihad - literally "struggle",
Al-jihad Al-akbar - literally "the greater jihad" and this means the inner struggle against the self...i.e. "I will do al-jihad al-akbar against my swearing" (I will struggle with my self to not swear as it is not part of my religion)
Al-jihad Al-asghar - literally "the lesser jihad" and this means the physical fighting against an opressive regime.


Anyway, "Struggle" Thomas is pretty much on the mark... it will be a struggle for him to do anything much more than hang about at home and get family welfare payments. Can't see him getting a job and living a decent life... I think the community will pretty much reject him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman Mick

Great, and then if the government decides they don't like someone, say for being too outspoken, or maybe because they might lose an election to that person, al they need to do is to call him a terrorist/enemy of the state and toss them in jail. This already happens in a lot of places that we should be taking our cues from like China, Burma and tinpot dicatator ships in south America, lots of other places too, no doubt. Do you really want to live in a country that can throw youin jail without legal recourse Ernknot?



Mick

---

Precisely why my parents decided to move to this country from the former Yugoslavia.

back to David Hicks everyone! :D :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by himzol

Ahhhh I see,:confused:

---

Sorry to talk in riddles.

Hambali was an actual fair dinkum kill the west terrorist that was arrested over 18 months ago by the Malaysians (or indons:confused: ) and handed over to the CIA.

Havent seen nor heard of him since. No trial, no nothing:confused:. He should be put on trial and if found guilty sentenced, hopefully death.

So the leaders of democracy have not abided by the principals they espouse as the difference between 'us' and 'them'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

Sorry to talk in riddles.

Hambali was an actual fair dinkum kill the west terrorist that was arrested over 18 months ago by the Malaysians (or indons:confused: ) and handed over to the CIA.

Havent seen nor heard of him since. No trial, no nothing:confused:. He should be put on trial and if found guilty sentenced, hopefully death.

So the leaders of democracy have not abided by the principals they espouse as the difference between 'us' and 'them'.

---

WHY??
Why put him on trial??
Surely we can then give him the ultimate forum to espouse his veiws, let us not forget that even the remotest jungle camps have internet access these days, why do we offer him the chance of a trial on our values?
In most cases these pricks take responsibility for their actions via a web address or video sent to a news channel.
They have admitted their guilt by admitting their responsibility havent they?
Perhaps in our softly, softly democratic system he will be given the opportunity to recant that admission or even come up with some pissant excuse thatr our learned legal fellows will allow him just one more chance to make up for his mistakes.
Please!!!
As others have said, these guys do not wish to play by our socities rules but continue to insist that they are judged the rules of our socities.
The worst part about all is that we actually let them.
As for Hicks, when it is all said and done he was fighting for an enemy force in a foreign country, he got caught and all of a sudden he is an aussie, or that british subject and he and his family are looking for an easy way out.
I wonder wether he would be so rushed to claim said citzenship if his side had won!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by himzol

Precisely why my parents decided to move to this country from the former Yugoslavia.

---

If you are caught in the act you got nothing to bitch about. What your parents did was for another reason. You seem to get confused on this issue. Hicks is not a refugee, he is a terrorist.

First, Hicks is not a terrorist. Not yet, thats got to get to a court case and be determined by a panel of his peers. At the moment he is still innocent. Law stuff, good eh?

Second:
I wonder about the AFP and the Intelligence communities (including the CIA and the security forces of other countries) involvement in the Hicks and Thomas cases.
There are some smart cookies in those organisations, I cannot believe that the issue of them "getting off" (due to the evidence being collected in a manner that made it inadmissible) was not thought through.

I am sure there is a well thought through plan being put in action. Basically, some outcomes (like winning a court case) were sacrificed in order to reach other goals (collecting intelligence), IMO.

I don't think the minds working in this area were unaware that the evidence would not be able to be used.... however intelligence was gained, the 'evidence' was presented, thrown open to the public, thrown out of court, and is now being used to place restrictions on the goose involved. Not a bad way of doing business.

Unless you'd prefer to see a lot of the protections that were deemed to be a basic human right turfed out, just to jail some goose that can be controlled in an effective manner. A goose that would not have been returned to Australia if it was deemed necessary to lock him up for a long time.
Protections like not having the stuff you said when you were being threatened with torture, or being tortured (in the case of a lot of the humans sent to Egypt or Pakistan), used as reliable evidence and used against you. Important stuff, and a lot of people around the world would love those protections. In fact someone is probably screaming right now, and would like that protection. :(

I'm just guessing here, but if I were running the rock show, I'd have a well thought out plan and am guessing that there is one. :confused:
Of course, my plan would suck.... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maglite

WHY??
Why put him on trial??
Surely we can then give him the ultimate forum to espouse his veiws, let us not forget that even the remotest jungle camps have internet access these days, why do we offer him the chance of a trial on our values?
In most cases these pricks take responsibility for their actions via a web address or video sent to a news channel.
They have admitted their guilt by admitting their responsibility havent they?
Perhaps in our softly, softly democratic system he will be given the opportunity to recant that admission or even come up with some pissant excuse thatr our learned legal fellows will allow him just one more chance to make up for his mistakes.
Please!!!
As others have said, these guys do not wish to play by our socities rules but continue to insist that they are judged the rules of our socities.
The worst part about all is that we actually let them.

---

maglite,
what is the difference between what you say about Hambali and the following ...
Maglite, I don't like your political views, I consider you a threat to my group's continued exploitation of political power, you don't play by the "rules" of "our" society, so you have no right to a trial under those rules. "we" can therefore dispose of you as we see fit.

It was the justification used in Argentina in the late 70s and early 80s

It is the justification of all repressive regimes throughout history

Quote:

---

As for Hicks, when it is all said and done he was fighting for an enemy force in a foreign country, he got caught and all of a sudden he is an aussie, or that british subject and he and his family are looking for an easy way out.
I wonder wether he would be so rushed to claim said citzenship if his side had won!!!

---

I think you will find that the Taliban, the then recognised government in Afganistan, were never declared the enemy. A hostile regime maybe (Venezula and Cuba would fall into this category) but never the "enemy"

the following is from wikipedia

The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") (Public law 107-40) was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

The AUMF was unsuccessfully cited by the George W. Bush administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration's military commissions at Guantanamo Bay were not competent tribunals as constituted and thus illegal

as I understand Military and International law what the above describes is what is known as "aide to the civil power" The military were sent into Afganistan so that those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9/11 attacks could be brought to justice in a US CIVIL court. The US does not recognise the International Court of Justice. There is an established principle that persons responsible for a criminal offence who are outside the boundaries of the country within which the offence was committed can be returned to face justice in the country where the offence occured. Forcibly removing the accused from the country of refuge is less well accepted. Arguably, to overthrow the recognised government of a country in order to install a regime more to your liking is a crime under International Law. As an example, in the Solomon Islands, Australia has been very careful to ensure that our police and defence force has been "invited" to assist the failed government.


So to Hicks, it's stretching the imagination that a foot soldier could fall into the category of "harbored said persons or groups". Possibly, you might do members of the senior command, but a foot soldier?

As to is Hicks a terrorist risk? We, the great unwashed, have no way of knowing.

this post has been deleted because the author finds it difficult to express his horror at the abandonment of democracy and human rights espoused by some in this thread

Quote:

---

I wonder where and when Jack Thomas got called Jihad?
I ask as I don't know. Was it in the Al-Qaeda training camp, a term used by the media or did he call himself that? Also, what was the 'meaning' of the use of Jihad?

---

'Jihad' chose that name for himself. I heard his brother say so on Lateline Monday night. He would have been pretty naive to choose the name Jihad without consideration for how it would be perceived in the non-Islamic world, so did he do it to prove a point, to stir up sh*t, or what?

Quote:

---

the Taliban, the then recognised government in Afganistan

---

It's stretching things a bit to call them "the recognised government".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Taliban Movement or just Taliban or Taleban (Persian and Pashto طالبان, Iranian, from the plural form of Arabic طالب ṭālib, "student"), is a Sunni Islamist nationalist pro-Pashtun movement which effectively ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. It gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as the unrecognized government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clinton1

First, Hicks is not a terrorist. Not yet.....

---

Oh no?

1. He was caught, carrying arms, by the Yanks, in a hostile area.

2. He didn't work for the Yanks, or any of their allies.

3. He was/is not an enlisted member of ANY nation's armed forces.

4. If he was not a terrorist, please tell us all what YOU think he was.