Printable View
Groggy, cast your mind back to Vietnam. 500 odd diggers died there. Australia never declared war on Vietnam either. But let me tell you, it WAS a war. Prisoners were taken by both sides, and, at least as far as Australia/US is concerned, were treated according to the terms of the Geneva Convention. Now I will put this in bold type, so that you understand. That makes them PRISONERS OF WAR!Quote:
Originally Posted by Groggy
From what I recall of that case, the law says that, to be a member of parliament, you must only be an Australian citizen and you must renounce any allegiance to any other country.Quote:
Originally Posted by craigb
You're quite correct about dual citizenship, Craig. I hold citizenship of Australia and the UK.
Interestingly enough, on my last trip back to England, I offered my Aussie passport to the lady at Heathrow Passport Control. Because it lists my place of birth (in England), she asked me why I wasn't using my British passport. I told her that it had recently expired and I was about to apply for a new one when I needed to make an urgent trip to see a relative.
She got quite shirty with me and asked a lot of pointed questions about how long I would be staying and with whom etc. She told me in no uncertain terms that I could only stay for a month and I wasn't allowed to take up employment and a whole lot of other regulatory taradiddle. The clear implication was that I was some sort of traitor for becoming an Aussie and having the temerity to travel to England on an Australian passport. I didn't react (I've done a helluva lot of travelling and I learnt a long time ago not to argue with passport control staff).
Interesting, though. The lady in question had a Dublin accent as thick as the crust on an Irish loaf. Since she was only about 35, that means she must have been born in the Irish Republic. Last time I looked, that wasn't part of the UK, so she had obviously changed citizenship herself.
Col
its interesting to note that even the us supreme court says that G bay and the tribunals are illegal.
That's a pretty accurate description of David Hicks,but I don't think there were too many trains runningQuote:
Originally Posted by Greg Ward
Nothing like Cityrail.
I don't know why but this makes me wonder, how we would've treated T.E. Lawrence in this day & age?
The same as we'd treat any other arab who looks like Peter O'Toole. I don't discriminate. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by E. maculata
Like the bloody P***'ter that he was, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by E. maculata
G'day,Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
Oi! I think there's a virus on my Mac! Or is Gumby inside my screen? :D
What a waste of a thread, who cares about Hicks besides the press. Only got himself to blame.
No one, but that's why the thread isn't wasted!Quote:
Originally Posted by ernknot
:D :D :D
P
OK, good call.Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Just to drag up an old post by BM from the start of this thread....
Quote:
Surely one forfeits all normal rights when one takes up arms in another country other than in the name of one's own flag?
There's also the matter of it being expedient in having David Hicks being an example of "what happens to those that p*ss off the wrong people".
No-one cares that young Australians are travelling to Israel, Greece or Turkey to participate in those country's national service obligations that they feel they must comply with.... and in the case of those serving in the Isreali military, actively engaging in offensive operations.
Tread on the wrong toes though, and its dragged 1/2 way round the world with a bag over your head and then locked in a cage for a couple of years while your country's elected members of parliment slag off at you.
Silly old David Hicks just couldn't work out which group he could fight for, and have a blind eye turned to his activities.
Go Clinton!
Come on guys, its been an hour and no "he's a terrorist, the sky's fallin"
from the sheep.
baah baah
:p
He's a terrorist's friend. This sheep says "f*ck 'im. Feed him fish heads.
Greg, who tomorrow will have a day more complex than it needs to be because of Hicks' pals.
Last I checked, Australia was not at war with people in Israel, Turkey or Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clinton1
How do you reckon one of those Aussies fighting for Israel would go if captured by the Palestinians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clinton1
No person here knows what Hicks has or has not done. No person here knows how Hicks is or is not being treated. Only what they hear in the media, which at the moment is Hicks sympathethic. So at the moment we are getting all the crap spouted by his defence. Hardly going to be a reliable account. Nor, for that matter would be the crap from the other side. :rolleyes:
Dan
I do. I think that if anyone leaves the country to do national service somewhere else, they are making it clear where their allegiances lie and they should be allowed to go and live there in perpetuity. ;)Quote:
No-one cares that young Australians are travelling to Israel, Greece or Turkey to participate in those country's national service obligations that they feel they must comply with
NO WAY! This has been a great thread, reasonable arguments and reasonable debating in a great spirit, NO anomosity and respect for the opinions of others.... good stuff! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ernknot
Do we have an emotithing with its' tongue planted frimly in its' cheek?:confused:
Time to change your medication again mate ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopha
Richard:D
Where is that ? I think it's in Sth America, Brazil maybe :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Its not the issue that Australia is not at war with Israel, Turkey, Greece.
I believe that the issue is that it is illegal to fight in the army of another country, unless you are a member of our Defence Forces and on exchange with an Allied Nation.
Fighting for those countries (in the case of Israel) when you are an Australian citizen is just as illegal as fighting for the Taliban. Any deaths caused by the Australian citizen would be classified as a murder.... just the same as if they were killing in the name of the Taliban/Hells Angels or just for fun.
The issue is, I believe, that a blind eye is turned depending on "with whom you break the law".
The issue is reasonably commonplace, at the very least, for a particular group that have ties to those countries mentioned. The ties usually are the fact that the Australian's parents immigrated from those country, or share a particular religion. Some countries compulsory national service extends to children of citizens that were born overseas.
Just another example of the hypocracy that surrounds the entire situation.
Pretty rough I reckon, after all you would be captured by an ethnic group that has been consigned to refugee camps for more than 50 years, had all their land and houses stolen and had funcky stuff happen to them - like having kids blown apart on a street by missiles fired at a "target" that was walking past. I reckon they'd be pretty bloody cranky.Quote:
How do you reckon one of those Aussies fighting for Israel would go if captured by the Palestinians?
After capturing you, a difficult task considering its AK-47's, home-made rockets and car bombs versus F111's, Blackhawks and guided missiles, I reckon that they would make their frustrations very well known.
;)
Hi,
Does anyone here have the same change of thought (as I) in that why does Schapelle Corby get all the headlines in trying to get her back to Australia and not David Hicks?. Is it because she is a good looking woman thus suits Media (both TV and magazines) getting extra $$$$$ revenue?.
My feeling is that her actions (if true) could have been more destructive to the human race (drug taking) than those by Hick's?.
Mind you I feel that the sentences in Indonesia are not consistant given that people involved in bombing are treated with more leniency.
Regards
David
Hi david
My 2c is the govts did a good job on hicks
"worst of the worst" tag.
Plus being male does not get the "protect our women" syndrome.
As Ive said before in the orange room. Hicks would have been a fantastic case study / human source to help us understand how disseffected males can be groomed over to militant islam.
cheers
NO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal Head
The dickhead went to learn how to kill innocent people.
He deserves what he gets, he should rot in hell.
Al :mad:
What? really? That's an interesting bit of calculus that led you to that conclusion. She was involved with what is widely considered a recreational drug with little if any fatal side effects and no proven link to other drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal Head
Hicks is a hobby killer who went abroad seeking chaotic situations so that he might do violence unimpeded.
And yes, the sentences in Indonesia are a slap in the face to justice loving people everywhere.
Think you're wrong here mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal Head
Marijahoochie is a pretty harmless recreational drug. No one forces anyone to smoke it.
Hick's mates blow innocent people out of the sky, send dopey, illiterate kids to expolde restuarants and school buses without even asking permission.
Very different.
I do agree tho that any Leb, Jew or other who shoots thru to fight for said country should instantly loose their citizenship and pzz off back to where their obvious allegiances lie.
Australians fight in the Australian military. Full stop.
I think that the comparison between Hicks and Corby is rediculous and agree with what Al said, but if you think Cannabis is harmless, you're kidding yourself.
Dan
Hi,
Well hopefully not too many people got upset with my theory. At least we can say what we think without being locked away for it as happens in many countries.
Regards
David
Ah only if it were so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
It's quite legal for Aussies to go and fight in other people's wars, PROVIDED they fight on the side of the legitimate government of the country they are fighting in, OR the side supported by the UN.
As far as I know, Hicks did both. In Kosovo, according to what I heard on the ABC last week, Hicks was training with a UN sponsored anti-Serb unit, in Afganistan he was fighting with the Taliban, who apart from being pretty woeful when it came to human rights or the protection of minorities, was at the time the recognised government of the country.
Now that "jihad jack" has been released because his captors didnt follow correct procedures, i wonder how long it will be before others of his ilk decide to follow the same path.
Seriously, i cant help wonder when his compatriots are going to follow the correct wartime procedures........like maybe never!!!
I fear that we have turned into a country of bleeding hearts too fearful to do the right thing for fear that our neighbours or contempories condemn us for doing the wrong thing.
As we pick up our dead and wounded out of buildings i guess that all of those that lose loved ones can consolate themselves in the knowledge the we, in australia, followed the correct procedures......even if our attackers did not.
That makes me friggin sick to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maglite
The Spanish didn't kick the invading Islamic Moors out of their country centuries ago by being nice about it...
The reverse is also true, Saladin didn't kick the pesky crusaders out of the Holy land by being nice either...
too all who comdem him with out a trail
what if i was your son /
and dont answer with my son never get in to anything,
if tried and found guilty different story
yet we let drug dealers leave this country arnet they killers too ?
Have you actually read any of the posts above?
Hi MagliteQuote:
Originally Posted by maglite
The AFP did not allow Thomas legal representation. This was always going to be an issue and the defence raised it during the trial however the Judge erred at law by making it admissable.
The access to legal representation is funadamental to Australian Law. The rights and oblegations of a person being formally interviewed is seven pages and takes about three minutes to get through. "You are entitled to the services of a legal practitioner of your choice" etc
The beauty of this is the very few Commonwealth matters get thrown out during trial because of the fairness shown to the accused. Threats, promises or inducements are out of bounds as well so its basically down to good police investigative techniques and preparing the evidence or case against them before starting an interview.
It is my guess that the AFP were more interested, and correctly IMO, to get information on potential attacks and other cells that Thomas may have had knowledge of.
Very similar to an "off the record" type of conversation. In can help the direction of your investigaton, but is inadmissable. You get the info you need but burn any chance of using it against the accused.
The problem that has ocurred is that all the evidence has been tainted because of an error at law. Not sure what they had before the interview but it would appear very little seeing that the false passport and recieving funds was thrown out as well.
An interesting case of the need for intelligence verse desire to prosecute.
cheers
dazzler
I knew we couldn't agree twice in one day :rolleyes:
It wasn't the AFP that denied the terrorist legal rep. The Pakis would let them. The dog was told of his right to a lawyer several times and HE WAIVED THAT RIGHT.
The conversation was a proper recorded interview and should IMO be fully admissable.
If a POS crook decides that he doesn't want a mouthpiece, as happens every day in local crimes, then that should be the end of the issue. Legal Representation should not be forced on any person who chooses not to exercise their right to it.
Another Judge with his head up his ar5e.
Dan
Seems to be a common feat for [most] of those who occupy those high benches and for those who aspire to the same level.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanP
Most of us ordinary types can't quite achieve the head up @*** status - the best most of us can achieve is pursed lips on the cheeks as we end up kissing it goodbye.
Ever notice how many "legal eagles" are in parliament.........
I feel that the real issue has been missed.
I don't have an opinion on Hick's guilt or innocence.
He has not been charged or been given his day in court (not even a trumped-up US military one), and has been left to rot in Cuba for 4 years or however long it has been.
For me, the two real issues are:
a. Our elected government has done bugger all to help one of it's citizens.
b. The US government wanders around the world, beating up smallish (mostly oil-rich) countries in the name of freedom and democracy. How does stuffing around Hicks (and all the rest of his mates in Cuba) show the world how great and freedom loving the US is? Just goes to prove their point, sadly.
Doesn't reflect on us too well either, I should think.
I don't think anyone has missed that, in fact we've discussed it a lot in the preceding pages. Much of the debate hinges on whether you consider him a POW or not.
If you have been following it, you'll know that the US wanted to try him in a military setup but the US Supreme Court ruled against it. Now we're waiting to see what they'll try next.
Read what has been scrawled over the past month.
David Hicks will probably be able to get elected as a green member to a council in Marrickville when he eventually returns after the war......
Again I repeat...... POW's or enemy combatants are kept locked up for the duration of a war to stop them rejoining the fight. Yes, our customs dept. may be able to stop Mr Hicks returning to Afganistan, however that's not the case for most of the interees as far as I understand, who are middle east born, so they will stay there.....
Tough perhaps, but talk to the Australian POWs of the Japanese and ask them whether they'd prefer to be in G Bay or Tokyo Bay.....
Regards
Greg
The Australian Govt has provided Hicks with legal representation and has been in touch with govt reps almost constantly. Other than that, what can they do? Lobby for his release....HA! Hicks MUST go through the process of the nation he has offended against. He was going to front a military commission, but the really smart lawyers got them banned and had the detainees called POW's. Now he waits for whatever new thing they come up with and if the US decide to hold them as POW's they will hold them till the war ends. How long do you reckon the war on terror will go for? All his idiot lawyer has succeeded in doing is getting him incarcerated for the rest of his life. Which is what he deserves anyway.
Dan
Gee that 's a harsh call Dan. His "idiot lawyer" seems like a really nice bloke, and not that dumb either. The interview with Denton was interesting, although while always taking a humanitarian line, he did say that "David had made some poor life decisions".
I always wonder what's been left out. Read it here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/...s/s1709428.htm
Cheers,
P