Printable View
Can't agree with that attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred.n
That's the same kind of attitude that the west took with Stalin's Russia and 20 million russians died under his rule. Similarly the US isolationist policy in the early 40's allowed Hitler to gass millions of jews. Need I go on with further examples.
We all have a responsibility to stand up for injustice where ever it occurs. Especially if it is someone born here and held by our supposedly closest ally.
Peter.
Whatever we think of Mr Hicks' predicament, he has his eye on the main chance.
Can't wait to write his "memoirs"
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/s...65-910,00.html
And we can hardly equate the imprisonment of one man, false or otherwise, with the killing of millions of Jews, or millions of Russians, can we?
I'm sure the families of those people would see that in a different light.
Let's keep things in perspective!
Principles stay the same only the extent and scope of the details vary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
Injustice is injustice where ever it occurs, and to say that because the US is the one doing it we should stay out of it is wrong.
Peter.
Hicks father Terry called in from Gitmo this morning, saying to John Faine that David had no wish to make money out of his story. In this day and age I find that hard to believe. However, if he remains a criminal he is not allowed to reap any profit from his crime......just like Corby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
Again different jurisdiction so that rule doesn't apply. Once Corby is out of jail and returns here no doubt she'll write her memoirs and keep the profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by martrix
Peter.
Sturdee
Sorry to say but the Au law has an overseas application.
No matter where the crime the Gov will take the money.
Hi Sturdee, so does that mean if he is to serve a sentence of say 5 years here in Australia,Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
• he can sell his story for $1 million straight away and keep the profits?
• after 5 years he can sell his story for $1 million and keep the profits?
• If he is tried and convicted once again under Australian law, he can never profit from his crime?
I don't profess to know much about the law.:-
I would have thought that he would keep the profits as the crime has not been committed in Australia and in fact we don't even have any laws to charge Hicks under, so in the eye of our laws he could not even have committed his alleged crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by martrix
The agreement to take and allow overseas convicted prisoners to serve their sentence here is a federal international agreement with specific overseas countries and has nothing to do with our legal system so it wouldnt apply to stop him publishing.
However DavidG thinks the law on this has overseas application, so I may be wrong.
Peter.
There are two polarised viewpoints here, and neither camp is able to comprehend the perspective of the other. Sad, really.... I myself know where I stand, and cannot comprehend how others simply "don't get it' ....
To quote myself:
This desire to get revenge and lock David Hicks up regardless of the cost to our own basic human rights and freedoms... i.e. the Aus Govt acceptance of Hick's treatment sets a dangerous precedence.... puts all of us on a perilious path.Quote:
When we are willing to discard the basic human rights of others we have to accept that we have lost our own basic human rights.
Then we are just another mob of bloody terrorists.
Something about cutting your nose off in spite of your face?
So, now there is the precedence for all of us to be treated in this same fashion.... i.e. suspected of something, incarcerated for years without trial, threatened with an unacceptable 'legal system', told there is a plea bargain, cop a plea bargain and punishment from your captors (not from an independant judge/jury) to try to get out of jail while still alive.... what a great gift for our children. AND people support this???
Bloody humans, most intelligent animals on the planet, and we apply our intellect to obtain such unacceptable outcomes. :((
I don't know if there is such a thing about getting Hicks. His own people made him a public figure/issue. Part of their strategy was to delay any proceedings against him for as long as possible. They had no problem distorting the truth at all. Witness the reports they put out that he had lost weight was haggard bony and starved looking when he had in fact been putting on weight.
I don't think Guantanamo is such a bad prison. Hicks could have been tried and punished in Afghanistan but that would have been a lot tougher.
I think this goes to show what happens when lawyers try to bypass the courts and attempt to achieve their desired outcome by other means.
The Tribunal set up was formally approved by the US Supreme Court as being legal. When someone is captured as Hicks was the civilian courts are not really suitable for their trial. The Military is subject to the law however because of issues such as national security intel and the like there are problems with things such as having an open court and so on.
So back to what I said earlier, we might have to be prepared to adjust where we put the lines how much we consider the rights of the accused compared to how much we consider other peoples rights and so on.
I think that is the central issue but the shame is it is too much in the middle and most people are argueing around the edges so ignore that alltogether.
Studley
Criminal Confiscation
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), in partnership with other federal law enforcement authorities, has a central role in taking action in the area of criminal confiscation.
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POC Act 2002) establishes a comprehensive scheme to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime against Commonwealth law. It can also be used to confiscate the proceeds of crime against foreign law.
The POC Act 2002 operates in addition to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (POC Act 1987), which applies to proceedings which were commenced before 1 January 2003.
Hi Studley,Quote:
Originally Posted by Studley 2436
I am on two sides of the fence (that could hurt:p).
Firstly - What is Hicks. A POW or a terrorist. He was caught in a theatre of war as an enemy soldier. Forget what he may have been going to do or had trained to do, concentrate on what he did and can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The geneva convention takes precedence. Is the war he was invovled in over. Perhaps. Was he involved in "the war on terror" the answer is no. Maybe he wanted to be a part of it but did not get the chance. Still he did not take part in it. He was guarding a tank in Afghanistan.
I would suggest he is a POW and as such should be treated exactly as the Geneva Convention states he should be. Think of one of our soldiers being captured by the enemy. How would we want that person treated. Exactly as the geneva convention dictates. I doubt that would happen with the taliban however we dont as civilised people lower our standards in war.
After capture he should have been asked the standard questions and then imprisoned until the Taliban war was over. He would then be repatriated, just like all POW's back to Australia. If our govt could charge him with an offence then charge him, if not he would definately be a candidate for a control order. There would be absolutely no danger to us from him if this was the case. Control orders/surveillance/ASIO can deal with this.
So this is where I dont agree with the treatment.
Secondly - If decided that he is a terrorist then there needs to be reasonable grounds to believe he has committed a criminal act and afforded the same rights as you and me. A presumption of innocence, right to silence, the right to legal representation with legal privelidge. If argued that he is a terrorist then he committed the criminal act within Afghanistan and should be tried there. It has nothing to do with the US or any other country. I dont think he would have enjoyed being tried there but thats how it should be. That is the law.
As has been shown in the media, our police have charged and convicted a number of people within this country while maintaining the rights that we so often on ANZAC day celebrate. It is a very slippery slope to develop a sliding scale of human rights.
It is also a bit rich to suggest that his legal team had any bearing on the length of time. The role of the defence is to defend as strongly as possible and they did that.
So in short - If he is a POW then treat him as one. (CORRECTLY)
If he is a criminal then treat him as one. (CORRECTLY)
But dont make up a new group of people and treat them differently as they have down with the ënemy combatant charge and throw out all the rules and make your own up. And that is exactly what the US, and our Govt did through acquiscence, did to one of our citizens (dopey, stupid or evil as he may be)
cheers
dazzler
Aren't we forgetting here that Mr Hicks trained with a terrorist organisation, which by definition isn't too concerned with legal niceties?
If your enemies then retaliate, perhaps they aren't so concerned with legal niceties either.
In other words if you are prepared to fight dirty, don't be surprised if your enemy fights dirty too.
From where I sit Al Qaida isn't too concerned with human rights and is quite prepared to kill 4000+ innocent people to further their aims, if you belong to that organisation don't expect too much sympathy from the nation you attacked.
Oh, just in case you are wondering, I am neither for or against Hicks. All I am saying is that if you are going to kick someone bigger and more powerful than you, you have to expect to get kicked back.
:fixed:
Just remind me, which country did DAVID HICKS attack? :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
To quote that sentence in full, and not just the bit that suits you:Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
From where I sit Al Qaida isn't too concerned with human rights and is quite prepared to kill 4000+ innocent people to further their aims, if you belong to that organisation don't expect too much sympathy from the nation you attacked.
In other words, what I was trying to say, perhaps not very well, is that Mr Hicks belonged to a terrorist organisation that attacked the US.
But tonight Mr Hicks will tell the world what he is pleading guilty to and we can all stop wondering about what the spin doctors on both sides would want us to believe. It siad on the ABC News that there are another 80 people waiting to appear before the military commission, they don't seem to have many friends sticking up for them do they?