# David Hicks protests



## Bobby (9 December 2006)

Noticed the demo"s regarding hicks on the news, small turn up overall .

I don't recall him recanting anything .
Is he   recalcitrant or just a dope ~ or both  ?

Your thoughts please.

Bob


----------



## chops_a_must (9 December 2006)

*Re: Who cares .*

It goes against everything our "free" society is based on.


----------



## Bobby (9 December 2006)

*Re: Who cares .*



			
				chops_a_must said:
			
		

> It goes against everything our "free" society is based on.



Hello Chops,

The above could have other meanings ?
Care to define yours.

Bob.


----------



## rederob (9 December 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Noticed the demo"s regarding hicks on the news, small turn up overall .
> 
> I don't recall him recanting anything .
> Is he   recalcitrant or just a dope ~ or both  ?
> ...



Bobby
Could be difficult if he never actually did anything apart from "training".
A bit like asking our soldiers to recant for following orders, yet never even fired a shot in anger.
The issue however is one of denial of rights.
No western country, apart from Australia, has allowed the US to try those that ended up at Guantanamo Bay.
If Hicks' crime needs to be tried, the weight of evidence should allow a just and fair trial in Australia.
Surely that's not too big an ask after 5 years of confinement.


----------



## Julia (9 December 2006)

Bob,

Hicks is undeniably foolish, to say the least.  That said, he should not be incarcerated without charge for five years.

I do think his father has behaved with immense dignity throughout what must be a dreadful ordeal for him.  He has been constant, but has refrained from hysteria.  Compare his behaviour with that of the Corby Clan.

Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1709428.htm
> ABC has the interview with Maj Mori if anyone is interested. - I like the man - especially as he is putting his career on the line over this moral stance he is taking.  Which compares with no stance at all from Aus Govt moral or otherwise - just the "sounds of silence" from them - while Hicks gets the "hello darkness my old friend" treatment. rgds , 2020.



Here's a previous post on "corruption in Australia" thread - it includes a lead to an interview with Major Mori on Enough Rope.
As above, the man's giving up his career with the military to defend David Hicks.  He deserves a lot of acculades does Maj Mori.  
As Wayne pointed out, other defence lawyers who defended for instance bin L 's driver, suddenly found their services with the military " no longer wanted"- and/or have "retured".


----------



## chops_a_must (9 December 2006)

*Re: Who cares .*



			
				Bobby said:
			
		

> Hello Chops,
> 
> The above could have other meanings ?
> Care to define yours.
> ...



Well, you just can't lock people up without an actual charge being made against them.

The presumption of innocence until proof of guilt.

And another thing, any "crime" he may or may not have committed would have been done, or not done, in a country seperate from which he is being charged in. You can't steal someone from another country, and then try them on charges that aren't applicable to the country they were actually in.

And for christ's sake, he's an Australian citizen. If he actually has done anything wrong, he should be able to be tried here.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (10 December 2006)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Noticed the demo"s regarding hicks on the news, small turn up overall .
> 
> I don't recall him recanting anything .
> Is he   recalcitrant or just a dope ~ or both  ?
> ...




I have seen very little of Hicks regarding his terrorist links with the exception of a few shots of him holding a gun somwhere, supposed links of him to AQ training camps and the typical yada statements form US on his guilt by association etc.

I have yet to see anything that connects Hicks to an actual deed that links him to a terrorist act, just the potential that he could, ie hang with monkeys>must be a monkey. Wheres the reasonable doubt!. Since 9/11 and especially the histeria straight after, the US were quick to jump to the hang with monkeys>must be a monkey, typical of the hang with a red>must be a red, in the McCarthy era.

Regardless of all, Hicks was snatched from a foreign country benign to the US, transported to GB, which is incidently benign to the US and incarcerated in a process that seems benign to the US (or maybe not in Bush's Administration). What a Joke  

As an Australian, I have always been and will continue to be totally disgusted at the Australian powers to be: lack of action, response, commitment and diligence they have shown to David and the US as his kidnappers/holders, without the due legal process that any Australian Citizen should be ensured/demanded from a foreign captor, by the Australian Government.


----------



## Bobby (10 December 2006)

Hi Julia & Rob,

Both of you are decent humans , with philanthropist nature.
Wish the planet had more of your type.

Mr hicks is a muslim convert of deobandi, who is yet to say a denunciation of such !



Regards Bob.


----------



## Bobby (10 December 2006)

Chops ,
Thanks for the reply.

Freeballs,
Good to hear your thoughts.

Cheers Bob.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (10 December 2006)

I don't have an opinion on Mr Hicks. His father seems to be a good sort of a bloke and has conducted himself well.

Ideological dispositions of the malignant and benign kinds will do strange things to people -make of that what you like.


----------



## rederob (10 December 2006)

Kauri
It's magic.
I just won a bottle of wine from a friend!


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2006)

Were he a pom , he'd be home by now.
I seem to recall that his efforts to go down even this route have been actively frustrated by experts at the game of diverting the course of justice - rewriting the rulebook every step ofthe way.  

I understand that the US , UK and AUS contributions to Iraq are 100:5:1. 
UK at least maintains some self respect, getting their Guantanamo prisoners home.
and I guess we are so insignificant we just tag along saying "yes sir yessir 3 bags full sir." 
Funny, I thought we inherited the British legal system and sense of fair play / justice etc?

Or is it that we've gone in favour of rewriting the rulebook with each step (solitary confinement while we work out EXACTLY the type of military or civil judge that can hear this - only taken us 5 years so far !)

Better still (and very original), Canberra seems to be saying "don't even admit to having a rulebook on such matters"


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2006)

not a word need be spoken,, in our language of dedication to uncle sam.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 December 2006)

Don't worry.
Mr Howard will work something out with Bush just before the next election justifying his ghastly actions on this case.

Baa


----------



## greggy (10 December 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Bob,
> 
> Hicks is undeniably foolish, to say the least.  That said, he should not be incarcerated without charge for five years.
> 
> ...



Julia, 

You're right again.  Hicks was unwise to have got involved in the first place.  However, he is entitled to fair justice and five years in incarceration is a ridiculously long time.  He should either be charged with unyet known offences or released immediately.  On this issue, the Howard Government (and the US) has indeed been slack. I also feel sorry for Hick's family.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2006)

> http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/staff/WilliamsG/
> George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales...
> A barrister, ....(freedom of speech), the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Case (freedom from racial discrimination) and Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (review of government action and the rule of law) and in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal of Fiji, including in Republic of Fiji v Prasad (legality of the 2000 coup). ....



This bloke seems to be convinced that our laws on terror are little more than kneejerk reactions designed to placade the public.  
For the paper you'll have to read the attached pdf file.
towards the end he says "If we strive for the illusory goal of full protection from terrporism, we risk doing even greater damage to our society and its freedoms and values."  
BTW he doesnt mention Hicks here, but similar principles involved.


----------



## greggy (10 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> This bloke seems to be convinced ...
> For the paper you'll have to read the attached pdf file.



I forgot to add that I attended the "Free David Hicks" Protest in Melbourne yesterday. About 5,000 people joined me in the heat and smoke, a good turnout considering the weather.  It was a very peaceful protest.  There are many other small "l" liberal types out there like myself, "soft" Howard voters, starting to take a stand on this issue.  I notice that "The Age" here in Melbourne is leading the charge.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2006)

well done greggy
I meantto add under George Williams article...
BTW also - I believe this article also appeared in THE AGE recently.

PS I notice that Ruddock is promising he'll at least be charged with something "next year" lol - joke joyce. what a setup that bloke has found himself in.  Talk about a fallguy for "collective inaction" .


----------



## greggy (10 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> well done greggy
> I meantto add under George Williams article...
> BTW also - I believe this article also appeared in THE AGE recently.



Thanks mate. Sometimes you have to take a stand. One sleeps better that way.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2006)

Greggy, thought for the day ....
you could not even mention DH, you could tell em you are protesting for "Major Mike Mori" and "may his requests to Aus govt be heard pls"   .  Now there's a Major in the US Marines. ! surely they can't fault him!! - or you under those circumstances , ? (can they? - who nose these days?)


----------



## greggy (10 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Greggy, thought for the day ....
> you could not even mention DH, you could tell em you are protesting for "Major Mike Mori" and "may his requests to Aus govt be heard pls"   .  Now there's a Major in the US Marines. ! surely they can't fault him!! - or you under those circumstances , ? (can they? - who nose these days?)



Hi 2020 Hindsight,

By doing nothing, we will achieve nothing. As the groundswell grows the PM and others will begin to take notice.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> As the groundswell grows the PM .. will begin to take notice.



Yep - but nothing to do with ethics or keeping Aus values untainted.
Just when a blip shows up in the polls yes?
To be honest I can't understand - can't believe we've been so pathetically apathetic  on this one. (why didnt we keep pace with the poms for goodness sake).  
Johnny reacted pretty smartly after Port Arthur on the gunlaws? - I mean they can act when they see a vote I guess.  

(what was that someone said , "is it ignorance?  or is it apathy? - ahhh I dont know and I don't care!")


----------



## Sean K (10 December 2006)

I can't believe anyone is sticking up for this pathetic traitor. He should rot away in Guantanamo for another 20+. Lets not bring him back just to be a burdon on our taxpayers. Justice is being served.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (10 December 2006)

hmmm, Yes Sir, Mr Major Kenna's and you would be speaking on youre knowledge of his guilt from.........?, and what exactly is he guilty of?, and does that warrant him being snatched from X taken to Y (a location with no legal juristriction) and being held untried for Z years.


----------



## gupper (10 December 2006)

I've read this thread with interest. While the principle of 'presumption of innocence pending trial' should prevail here in my opinion, I do find it rather strange that a fascist should become the poster boy for civil libertarians. Why do so many women defend the rights of a man who fought for a regime that offered women NO rights at all? 

As a member of the Left myself, I also consider it ironic that Hicks' most strident defenders tend to be of the same persuasion. People should remember that Hicks volunteered to fight for a medieval-minded, fascist regime that summarily hanged its opponents from cranes in the town square but now that HE is on the receiving end, he is suddenly concerned about RIGHTS? The Taliban brutalised women and forcibly removed girls from schools and women from universities, banishing them behind burquas on pain of a flogging, rape or murder. Hicks ALLIED HIMSELF WITH THESE MONSTERS VOLUNTARILY. 

I feel for Hicks' parents and admire their dogged dedication to his cause. I also support Hicks' right to be brought back to Australia to face trial and deplore the Federal government's neglect of an Australian citizen, but I'm hardly going to subscribe to the view that he was a 'harmless adventurer' or just a 'naughty boy'. Just as I wouldn't march on behalf of a Ku Klux Klan member or a Nazi, you won't catch me marching for David Hicks. His religious views and his misogynistic attitdues towards women have somehow dissipated any compassion I otherwise might have felt for his plight. 

Gupper.


----------



## Sean K (10 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> hmmm, Yes Sir, Mr Major Kenna's and you would be speaking on youre knowledge of his guilt from.........?, and what exactly is he guilty of?, and does that warrant him being snatched from X taken to Y (a location with no legal juristriction) and being held untried for Z years.



I just have a hunch he's a bad boy FBW.   

I think we've already gone through this another time didn't we? And I hope you were standing at attention as you addressed me then. Go on.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (10 December 2006)

Gupper

Much of what you are saying goes on in Middle east countries, they have a different society to us. I used to be a diver on a Rig in Abu Dahbi and one day while returning to my hotel I saw a women stoned in the street by a mob (about 30 blokes and even some women), and I tried to help but was then turned on myself, I then ran  

I have no idea what Hicks did, no one does, he has not had a trial or the opportunity to defend himself and this goes to the root of the issue.

I have had family relatives that fought in WW2 and believe that all that have fought for Aust and the freedoms we enjoy and are afforded to our society/citizens are special and sacred. Whatever David's wrong doings he should be afforded these freedoms and at the core of this is a speedy civilian trial (not military). THIS HASN'T HAPPENED! and shame on our Government!


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> .. in Abu Dahbi and one day while returning to my hotel I saw a women stoned in the street by a mob (about 30 blokes and even some women), and I tried to help but was then turned on myself, I then ran



wowo ... freeball - do you think they took it to it's conclusion? - the stoning i mean ... sheesh !  For some reason I've been deluding myself that thay rarely actually do the stoning thing.

btw - this makes no difference to my opinion of hicks ( unless of course we want to queue up with the other "unjust countries - linch mob mentalities " that we are discussing here.

hey kennas - lets round up a posse and hang the bastud!


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (10 December 2006)

I'm not sure, Abu Dhabi (UAE) is a very modern example of an Arab City, and certainly the most westernized one I've been too. I would hate to hear what goes on in other countries!. I'm 34 and this incident happened in 1993, I was young and had just finished my HSE tickets in the U.K., it was my first job as as a saturation diver and even today, the incident is still vivid in my memory!.

Don't get me wrong, I remain open minded on David until he is tried. I am only voicing my opinion on the handling of his snatching, by our Government and the lack of backbone they have displayed ensuring he is afforded his rights as an Australian Citizen. 
The timeframe of his incarceration and the government handling of the affair are shameful IMO.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 December 2006)

gupper said:
			
		

> I've read this thread with interest. While the principle of 'presumption of innocence pending trial' should prevail here in my opinion, I do find it rather strange that a fascist should become the poster boy for civil libertarians. Why do so many women defend the rights of a man who fought for a regime that offered women NO rights at all?
> 
> As a member of the Left myself, I also consider it ironic that Hicks' most strident defenders tend to be of the same persuasion. People should remember that Hicks volunteered to fight for a medieval-minded, fascist regime that summarily hanged its opponents from cranes in the town square but now that HE is on the receiving end, he is suddenly concerned about RIGHTS? The Taliban brutalised women and forcibly removed girls from schools and women from universities, banishing them behind burquas on pain of a flogging, rape or murder. Hicks ALLIED HIMSELF WITH THESE MONSTERS VOLUNTARILY.



1) If we take this approach, how are we any better than the Taliban?

2) If you have watched enough ABC TV on the topic then you would know that he SURRENDERED as soon as he found out what had happened in the US.


----------



## wayneL (10 December 2006)

Freeball, Chops, et al,

 :iagree:


----------



## tarnor (10 December 2006)

Clinton had monica.. bush has australia..


----------



## Happy (10 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> 1) If we take this approach, how are we any better than the Taliban?
> 
> 2) If you have watched enough ABC TV on the topic then you would know that he SURRENDERED as soon as he found out what had happened in the US.





If true, that he surrendered, one might wander that there could be something else to change his mind again, so possibly best for him and us if he is protected from being able to do it.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 December 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> If true, that he surrendered, one might wander that there could be something else to change his mind again, so possibly best for him and us if he is protected from being able to do it.



WTF?   

Yeah, something like torture induced schizophrenia perhaps?


----------



## Happy (10 December 2006)

Lets not forget that he had the right to make the first choice too, that’s before he made another choice to surrender, and he did.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (10 December 2006)

All we know is what were told, and I wouldn't consider any of the sources reliable!. 
This could be a horror story once it comes out, who knows!


----------



## chops_a_must (10 December 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> Lets not forget that he had the right to make the first choice too, that’s before he made another choice to surrender, and he did.



Even SS and Death's Head officers were given access to the Red Cross.


----------



## gupper (10 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Gupper
> 
> 'Much of what you are saying goes on in Middle east countries, they have a different society to us.'




Just because something is different doesn't make it 'acceptable' or 'not our business'. Just as the British stood up for Poland in 1939 because Hitler represented a wider threat to humanity, so too should the democratic West take a stand against practices that are nothing short of barbaric. And to go in hard on behalf of someone with views as obnoxious as Hicks' seems a poor application of compassion in my view.

Of course Abu Graib and other such instances of Western barbarism show that cruelty is not the preserve of the Taliban. Clearly it is present within human nature rather than peculiar to any one ethnic or religious group. I would argue though, that a freer press and stronger mechanisms for redress of such wrongs exist within Western societies and also that assistance to reformist elements within repressive cultures should be strongly encouraged. Overall, therefore, I am not one of those who subscribes to cultural relativism which (unless I have misunderstood you) is what you offer by way of dismissal of my earlier argument. Surely there are certain inalienable human rights (like the right of women to education and the vote etc) that should be vigorously defended by Western societies. We in the West have the opportunity to apply pressure on behalf of those denied basic freedoms and should not feel constrained to do so on the grounds that 'they do things differently there'. 

Overall, though, what bemuses me most about the Hicks' campaign is how some have become so morally indignant on his behalf when there was no comparable outpouring of pity - let alone a rally - on behalf of victims of the Taliban - whose reign of terror David Hicks volunteered to support. 

Bring him back for a fair trial by all means but I'm a bit tired of the lionizing of this 'poor, wronged boy' by some sections within society.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 December 2006)

gupper said:
			
		

> Overall, though, what bemuses me most about the Hicks' campaign is how some have become so morally indignant on his behalf when there was no comparable outpouring of pity - let alone a rally - on behalf of victims of the Taliban - whose reign of terror David Hicks volunteered to support.
> 
> Bring him back for a fair trial by all means but I'm a bit tired of the lionizing of this 'poor, wronged boy' by some sections within society.




I gave up a room for an Afghan refugee for a while, and am a supporter of Hicks. 

Tosspot.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (10 December 2006)

gupper said:
			
		

> Just because something is different doesn't make it 'acceptable' or 'not our business'. Just as the British stood up for Poland in 1939 because Hitler represented a wider threat to humanity, so too should the democratic West take a stand against practices that are nothing short of barbaric. And to go in hard on behalf of someone with views as obnoxious as Hicks' seems a poor application of compassion in my view.
> 
> Of course Abu Graib and other such instances of Western barbarism show that cruelty is not the preserve of the Taliban. Clearly it is present within human nature rather than peculiar to any one ethnic or religious group. I would argue though, that a freer press and stronger mechanisms for redress of such wrongs exist within Western societies and also that assistance to reformist elements within repressive cultures should be strongly encouraged. Overall, therefore, I am not one of those who subscribes to cultural relativism which (unless I have misunderstood you) is what you offer by way of dismissal of my earlier argument. Surely there are certain inalienable human rights (like the right of women to education and the vote etc) that should be vigorously defended by Western societies. We in the West have the opportunity to apply pressure on behalf of those denied basic freedoms and should not feel constrained to do so on the grounds that 'they do things differently there'.
> 
> ...





LOL, but do the Arab nations want to live the western way, seems not to be the case in Iraq. Gee Gupper, we cant even get it right with our own indiginous landowners here in OZ.

I don't agree with much, but that dosent mean I am going to go over and rattle my sabre impossing my ideals , he he I'm not american!.

Agree totally on Germany, but that was a different time, different issues and different demographic


----------



## gupper (10 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> 'LOL, but do the Arab nations want to live the western way, seems not to be the case in Iraq. Gee Gupper, we cant even get it right with our own indiginous landowners her in OZ.'




Fair comments, Freeballing, but I would argue that we'll never know whether those living in the Middle East (especially women) want more freedom until they have the opportunity to express their desires through the ballot box. What we are seeing at the moment in most Arabic-speaking countries is what warlords and sectarian powerbrokers, sheiks and other MEN want; we are not seeing what society as a whole wants. Sadly, it doesn't look as though we will any time soon either.

But you're right about democracy not being the panacea for all ills. As a wise man once observed: 'it is absolutely the worst system of government - until one considers the alternatives.'

Cheers, Gupper


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2006)

btw FBW, I dont think a military court martial would even be a problem for MAJ Mori - just that the idea of the "DPP" being also the judge ( as he explains for "custom-designed military commissions" etc ) .

Excerpt :- *"That's really what I've been asking for, for David Hicks since I got involved, "Give us a court martial." We could have gone to trial a long time ago, but that would have provided him actual rights and they wouldn't have been able to predict and control the outcome."*

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1709428.htm
Andrew Denton interviewing Maj Michael Mori.
From some of these posts my guess is that people are "shooting from the hip here" - (no pun to David Hicks intended)

If you go to this ABC website - you can (either) read the lot - as I have copied below and in the attached pdf file - 
OR hear the full interview, 
OR watch the first bit as a video.



> After the outbreak of the 'War on Terror' in 2001, enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan by American forces were sent to Guantanamo Bay. Dubbed the 'worst of the worst', among them was an Australian, David Hicks. Tonight we're going to speak to the man charged with his defence.
> 
> ANDREW DENTON: Will you please welcome Major Michael Mori. Welcome to the show. Can we clear something up from the start? Your actual name is Dante?
> MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Dante, yes.
> ...


----------



## Happy (10 December 2006)

Actually making posts of this treatment, might prevent some souls taking his path in the future.

In other words - His fate could work as deterrent for others.


----------



## chops_a_must (10 December 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> Actually making posts of this treatment, might prevent some souls taking his path in the future.
> 
> In other words - His fate could work as deterrent for others.



Yes, it deters me from going overseas or listening to, talking to or looking at an American.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (10 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> btw FBW, I dont think a military court martial would even be a problem for MAJ Mori - just that the idea of the "DPP" being also the judge ( as he explains for "custom-designed military commissions" etc ) .
> 
> Excerpt :- *"That's really what I've been asking for, for David Hicks since I got involved, "Give us a court martial." We could have gone to trial a long time ago, but that would have provided him actual rights and they wouldn't have been able to predict and control the outcome."*
> 
> ...





What a fantastic read 20/20, its only re-inforced my opinions


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> What a fantastic read 20/20, its only re-inforced my opinions



FBW - I'll make a bet with you that Mori is forced to resign after this trial.      (just as other successful defence lawyers at Guantanamo have been).

Late in that pdf file I posted, he speculates on the probability that by being on this case - and defending David to the end of his legal process, that his career has been "killed".

"Denton:- *everyone says that Hicks has killed your career*"
Mori:- I dont know - you know I've been a defence lawyer before, and it's not something you worry about." 

Personally I would add "I keep thinking of the court case against Breaker Morant", except that someone might start comparing Morant with Hicks.  This isnt about the people, it is about their treatment, and the justice that any Aussie is entitled to. (imho)


----------



## Julia (10 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Yes, it deters me from going overseas or listening to, talking to or looking at an American.



This seems like rather an over-reaction.  Can't quite see how it is different from an American saying they would never want to listen to , talk to, or look at an Australian, on the basis of David Hicks' voluntary involvement with the Taliban.

Guppy:  You make some good points.  Thank you.

Julia


----------



## chops_a_must (10 December 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> This seems like rather an over-reaction.  Can't quite see how it is different from an American saying they would never want to listen to , talk to, or look at an Australian, on the basis of David Hicks' voluntary involvement with the Taliban.
> 
> Guppy:  You make some good points.  Thank you.
> 
> Julia



Because you can be arrested and locked up for doing nothing. Just on a suspicion of doing something.

But I wasn't being serious.


----------



## carmo (11 December 2006)

Hick's "made his bed", I hope Howard doesn't fold on this one. Though if it grows legs he most likely will. I do feel for Hick's family.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 December 2006)

There is no more wine...........


----------



## wayneL (11 December 2006)

I am stunned at the support for tactics more at home in a totalitarian police state, than in the liberal democracies we supposedly have in the west.

Folks surely are putty in the hands of the "elite"  

***Saving for a space ship


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2006)

Wayne - me too.  

ahh FBW, at last (with this new avatar) I start to understand your nicname, lol.  Or maybe its a typo - shoud be "threebal.... "etc?


----------



## Prospector (11 December 2006)

As an Adelaide person we probably hear more about David Hicks than in other states.  I knew the lawyers who were first handling his case.

It is beyond belief that our Government has allowed the US to keep hostage an Australian citizen, in such intolerable circumstances, for five years without charge.  How did we let them do that.  Hicks was probably stupid (although we only have the words of others), there are some pictures of him with something that looks like a cannon (but there are others in the picture too and they havent been arrested) and maybe he will need to go to jail.  But for humanity's sake CHARGE him with the crime and allow him to have his time in court!

David Hick's father has presented with dignity at all times; in private he must be going mad.  I dont know how he has done it.

Major Mori seems an amazing person - hope he too receives accolodes for the sacrificies he is making.

(Oh, from reading other posts I am by no means a Lefty, feminist civil libertarian.  But he should have been charged - only problem is the US havent worked out what it is that he has done )


----------



## greggy (11 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> I can't believe anyone is sticking up for this pathetic traitor. He should rot away in Guantanamo for another 20+. Lets not bring him back just to be a burdon on our taxpayers. Justice is being served.



Hi Kennas,

Justice will only be served if and when he gets a fair trial.  Five years is far too long to wait for.  Surely he is presumed innocent until found guilty.


----------



## Prospector (11 December 2006)

One thing that history teaches us is that in one decade your ally can become your biggest enemy.  And vice versa.  The only people to determine who are an allies one day, and an enemy the next are our political leaders.  Why is David Hicks such a traitor? We dont actually know what he has been doing, do we? In the 80's, the US was supplying arms to Saddam!  And gosh only knows what the AWB has been up to?

It is just not a black and white issue anymore.  The least we can do is give the guy a trial and see exactly what he has done.  Although Kenna's, you seem to think you already know?


----------



## Bobby (11 December 2006)

The religious edicts that hicks aspires to (as interpreted by Deobondi scholars ) are that governments be a reflection of divine will.
Not a guardian of individual rights & liberties .

See the hypocrisy  !

Bob.


----------



## MalteseBull (11 December 2006)

why is everyone treating him like a hero

this guy was against us in the fight on terrorism

i dont understand society, is that or the do-gooders around


----------



## chops_a_must (11 December 2006)

MalteseBull said:
			
		

> this guy was against us in the fight on terrorism



Actually not, maybe you should find out what he was doing in Kosovo, and what we were doing in Kosovo.


----------



## gupper (11 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> I gave up a room for an Afghan refugee for a while, and am a supporter of Hicks.
> 
> Tosspot.




Thank you Chops for your erudite response. You have taken the art of argument to a new level; sadly, it is a lower one.

Firstly you assume that your personal experience (the laudable taking in of a refugee) is indicative of a national trend (argument by anecdote) when clearly it was not. 

Secondly, you think that abusing those who don't agree with you (mud-slinging) makes for compelling argument. 

You are wrong on both counts and any junior debater would have you on toast. Calling someone a 'Tosspot' is one of the finest argument clinchers I have yet heard and - still reeling from your rapier sharp wit - I salute you for it. 

I simply expressed surprise that David Hicks' treatment by the U.S. (which - as I said - I too believe to be unjust) has brought crowds onto the streets when the suffering of so many under the Taliban regime that he aligned himself with seemed not to snag the WIDER public conscience in the same way. 

I well realise that one should not compound one injustice (Taliban oppression) with another (Hicks' imprisonment without trial) but I cannot feel outrage on behalf of someone who was willing to support such a misogynistic and intolerant regime.

So before reverting to playground name-calling next time, remind yourself that you are an adult and conduct yourself accordingly.

Gupper


----------



## greggy (11 December 2006)

MalteseBull said:
			
		

> why is everyone treating him like a hero
> 
> this guy was against us in the fight on terrorism
> 
> i dont understand society, is that or the do-gooders around



Everyone is not treating him like a hero. To me the CFA volunteers are heroes.  What many people are saying is that he has the right to natural justice, he shouldn't be presumed to be guilty just because he's been incarcerated.  Five years without a hearing is far too long.


----------



## chops_a_must (11 December 2006)

gupper said:
			
		

> I simply expressed surprise that David Hicks' treatment by the U.S. (which - as I said - I too believe to be unjust) has brought crowds onto the streets when the suffering of so many under the Taliban regime that he aligned himself with seemed not to snag the WIDER public conscience in the same way.
> 
> I well realise that one should not compound one injustice (Taliban oppression) with another (Hicks' imprisonment without trial) but I cannot feel outrage on behalf of someone who was willing to support such a misogynistic and intolerant regime.



Then you can answer the question I posed; that if we take this attitude, how are we any better than the Taliban?


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2006)

gupper said:
			
		

> 1. Bring him back for a fair trial by all means but
> 2. I'm a bit tired of the lionizing of this 'poor, wronged boy' by some sections within society.



Gupper I agree with you 100% on the first point
but not on the second 
I think it's up to you to make the case that pushing for justice on point 1 - after 5 years of inaction incidentally - suddenly qualifies as lionizing etc. 
PS had to look it up lol
"to treat (a person) as a celebrity"  (??)


----------



## gupper (11 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Then you can answer the question I posed; that if we take this attitude, how are we any better than the Taliban?




Simple: we let women vote, walk the streets, view the sky and grass unimpeded. We don't hang our opponents from lamp-posts. Where would you like me to stop? Hicks clearly thought women had no right to such things. 

I deplore the fact that he has been held in detention at Guantanamo Bay for five years without trial but this does not blind me to the fact that he supported a regime that legislated this fate for women for LIFE. Under the Taliban, women were forbidden from leaving the house without being accompanied by a male relative, causing some widows to starve to death rather than risk the brutal, summary punishments meted out by the mullahs.

If you think Hicks' treatment by the U.S. equates with the crimes perpetrated by the Taliban then there is no point in further discussion. Such moral equivalence is beyond the reach of reason.

Gupper


----------



## chops_a_must (11 December 2006)

gupper said:
			
		

> If you think Hicks' treatment by the U.S. equates with the crimes perpetrated by the Taliban then there is no point in further discussion. Such moral equivalence is beyond the reach of reason.
> 
> Gupper



On a level, it is.


----------



## greggy (11 December 2006)

gupper said:
			
		

> Simple: we let women vote, walk the streets, view the sky and grass unimpeded. We don't hang our opponents from lamp-posts. Where would you like me to stop? Hicks clearly thought women had no right to such things.
> 
> I deplore the fact that he has been held in detention at Guantanamo Bay for five years without trial but this does not blind me to the fact that he supported a regime that legislated this fate for women for LIFE. Under the Taliban, women were forbidden from leaving the house without being accompanied by a male relative, causing some widows to starve to death rather than risk the brutal, summary punishments meted out by the mullahs.
> 
> ...



I'm surprised at the number of people in this forum who seemingly take offence at the idea of natural justice.  Granted Mr Hicks was very silly to get involved with the Taliban in the first place, but he should still be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, not that any charges have been laid as yet.  What happened to the fair go for all Australians?


----------



## nioka (11 December 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> I'm surprised at the number of people in this forum who seemingly take offence at the idea of natural justice.  Granted Mr Hicks was very silly to get involved with the Taliban in the first place, but he should still be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, not that any charges have been laid as yet.  What happened to the fair go for all Australians?



Exactly. No more need be said on this issue. Let's get on to some other topic please.


----------



## Sean K (11 December 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> Mr Hicks was very silly to get involved with the Taliban in the first place



LOL. 

Understatement of the year on two counts.

1. He joined an organisation whose mission is to destroy, through war and terrorism, the US and its western Christian allies, including Australia, in the name of Islam. 

2. He obviously thought he could get away with it and there be no consequences for his traitorous and dispicable actions.

Silly? Right. 

The guy would sooner chop the head off an Australia than be happy to share a beer at the cricket with a chick in a bikini top. He would certainly have been on the front lines in Cronulla burning our flag and telling Aussie chicks they were uncovered meat. 

OK, OK, innocent until proven guilty. Sorry.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> LOL.
> 
> Understatement of the year on two counts.
> 
> ...



Taliban !!? mission to destroy?? m8 check your facts lol.

they are the tertiary version of the Mujahideen


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen  Mujahideen (Arabic: مجاهدين‎, muǧāhidīn, "strugglers") is an Islamic-Arabic term for Muslims fighting in a war, or involved in any other struggle. [1] Mujahid, and its plural, mujahideen, come from the same Arabic linguistic root as jihad ("struggle"). The word is the plural form of مجاهد, muǧāhid, which, literally translated from Arabic means "struggler". In Islamic scripture, the status of mujahid is inequal to qaid””one who does not join the jihad.
> 
> Soon after the battle of Badr, Muhammad is believed by muslims to have received a revelation from Allah raising the status of the mujahideen over the qaideen (Arabic plural of "qaid"). [1]




Like chops I too met some of these blokes - including a 16 year old Afghan who had made it out through the mountains to Pakistan - despite the fact that he had a Russian bullet still embedded so close to his spine that it was inoperable - he will no doubt die from it.

but... lol (sic) he was our HERO in those days !!! (PS just as Osama was trained by the CIA for chysake)

I met these kids - make an effort albeit pathetic to help em get settled in Aust  - they were humans believe it or not !!

PS and my first choice for someone to have a beer with is that bloody hero that deserves the Order of Aust medal - Major Michael Mori

PS Kennas,  if you're good at words then maybe you can help them come up with a CHARGE agsint him (David Hicks that is ) they still don't seem to be able to work out what he's done wrong.


----------



## Sean K (11 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Taliban !!? mission to destroy?? m8 check your facts lol.



Yeah sorry, I had a brain snap there, I was thinking El Qaeda. 

2020, I do realise the Taliban are a very peaceful, humanitarian organisation in Afganistan, spreading good will and supporting all the orphans.  

Hang on, are we over there at the moment fighting against these people? Best I research that a little more, because I'm not sure. I suppose that Australian guy that drove over a mine a little while ago and died would like them. Good blokes those Taliban. Cheers.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Yeah sorry, I had a brain snap there, I was thinking El Qaeda.



apology accepted

read these words carefully friend - see if you can find "the villain" in this picture... You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes btw...

("because they resisted the invasion of their country " ??? - a crime ???)  - Don't forget we invaded Afghanistan purely because the baddies were hiding in the hills there 



> MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: The charges that they'd come up with before was a charge of conspiracy and attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent, that they made up, and aiding the enemy.
> ANDREW DENTON: "An unprivileged belligerent"? Meaning what?
> MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: I don't know what they mean. They made it up.
> 
> ...




While you're at it try to find some consistency here :-


> ANDREW DENTON: He's spent a considerable period of time not just in isolation, but in isolation without sunlight. Is that correct?
> MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Yes.
> ANDREW DENTON: What does that do to a person?
> MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: It's not very healthy, psychologically, for them. Just that whole, sort of, depriving someone of the basic stimuli. When I saw him, that really was all he could focus on, was trying to get out. We worked, and the Australian Consular was very helpful, in Washington DC, in getting that change and in getting him out of isolation. That's why I don't understand, now that the US has put him back in isolation, why they're accepting it now, when it was not tolerable a year or so ago.




PS you'll find my opinion of Taliban if you go back through "hansard" - they were extremists , but shouting "extremists should be shot" aint gonna help


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2006)

and if its of any relevance, I was an officer in the military - and have listened in to courts martials. They are (usually) quite fair btw,  
three essential ingredients .." prosecution + defence + judge".
whereas what they want to do to Hicks has 
"prosecution + defence + prosecution acting as judge."

I just love it when Attorney General Ruddock says.. "we hope to charge him with something sometime next year "  sheesh
(defence lol not defense, you fool - 
DNA = national dyslexic assocn )
PS thanks chise I'm not being asked to spell potatoese lol.

PS there were many aussies went to spain to fight fascism in the days leading into WW2 - lynch them as well?


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 December 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen wikipedia
Afghan Mujahideen
The best-known mujahideen were the various loosely-aligned opposition groups that fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s and then fought against each other in the subsequent Afghan Civil War.

The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (during the Carter and Reagan administrations) and by Pakistan (during the Zia-ul-Haq military regime), the People's Republic of China, and Saudi Arabia. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.

Ronald Reagan praised them as freedom fighters, and the 1988 Rambo III portrayed them as heroic. This connection is ironic, in light of the future turn of events in which many of the same men would end up as enemies of the United States.

Following the Soviet retreat, many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other. After several years of this fighting, a village mullah organized religious students into an armed movement, with the backing of Pakistan, who was being funded by the United States, which found the existing government to be too Russian-influenced, even following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This movement became known as the Taliban, meaning "students", and referring to the Saudi-backed religious schools which produced Islamic fundamentalism along the pacific coast of Asia. With each success the Taliban had, their popularity and numbers grew.

By 2001, the Taliban, with backing from the Pakistani ISI, had defeated most of the militias and controlled most of Afghanistan. The remaining militias were in the north-east of the country. The opposition allied themselves together and became known as the National Islamic United Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan ”” the United Front, or Northern Alliance.

A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the Saudi government. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK.
.... etc etc (goes on for a page or so) 

1988 Rambo III portrayed them as heroic. .. 20 years is a long time in politics yes?


----------



## chops_a_must (11 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> PS there were many aussies went to spain to fight fascism in the days leading into WW2 - lynch them as well?



Or Hemingway and Orwell for that matter...


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (11 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Yeah sorry, I had a brain snap there, I was thinking El Qaeda.
> 
> 2020, I do realise the Taliban are a very peaceful, humanitarian organisation in Afganistan, spreading good will and supporting all the orphans.
> 
> Hang on, are we over there at the moment fighting against these people? Best I research that a little more, because I'm not sure. I suppose that Australian guy that drove over a mine a little while ago and died would like them. Good blokes those Taliban. Cheers.





I'm all for the armed forces and feel sorry for the soldier that died and his family!, but is that not a risk soldiers take... 
The reason I probably would not be a suitable soldier is I would not have jumped over the trenches in Gallipoli to be a sitting duck, or heeded Bush's call "to Afghanitandiar we must go and root out the evildoers", and Johnny you must send your troopies too!.

Too be a soldier you would have to surrender the decision making process to another person (bummer if their not too bright), that must be a hard freedom to give up, especially if it cost youre life  

I still have problems with that recent occasion when Bush patted Johnny on the head and said " He's not the best looking guy, but he always comes when I call him", sound like a dogowner referring to his pet!.

The aforementioned analogy is relevant to our Governments handling of David, weak as piss IMO.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2006)

That Wikipedia reference back there ends with the following paragraphs, not that they have anything to do with David Hicks, just that the term "Mujahideen" seems to be a "global" phenomenon, and "difficult to pin its definition down" these days - including a peaceful version ( could it be that Wikipedia found this particular reference in some reference promoting Islamic moderation, peace etc?)    




> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen wikipedia
> The term mujahideen is sometimes applied by sympathizers and regional experts to the Iraqi insurgency against the US-lead allies whose invasion destroyed Saddam Husain's baathist republic, and against the subsequent Iraqi regimes in need of allied military support, while the insurgents comprise a wide, incoherent spectrum of forces, with or without crucial Islamic ideology.
> 
> Since a mujahideen is someone who strives to spread the religion of Islam according to fundamentalist doctrine, and since one cannot bomb people into believing in Islam, but rather through improving one's deeds to spread the validity of Islam. Therefore there is the mujahideen of peace who establishes Islam through spreading it by making peace across the world, everywhere and anywhere, whether they are Muslims or not. There are suggestions of camps which train mujahideen of peace in peace making strategies and techniques in various parts of the world.


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> "difficult to pin its definition down" these days - including a peaceful version. Since a mujahideen is someone who strives to spread the religion of Islam according to fundamentalist doctrine, and since one cannot bomb people into believing in Islam, but rather through improving one's deeds to spread the validity of Islam. Therefore there is the mujahideen of peace who establishes Islam through spreading it by making peace across the world, everywhere and anywhere, whether they are Muslims or not. There are suggestions of camps which train mujahideen of peace in peace making strategies and techniques in various parts of the world.



2020

as much as I like to agree with everything you say, this is the biggest load of bullsh@#t I have ever heard. 

There is no such thing as peace mujahideen! In Arabic it means fighting, and that’s exactly how the Islamic Empire was established. They were and *still are* asked to concur and spread the religion by force, oh they say don't hurt the children, women and trees but its O.K. kill all the males out there. And don’t force the religion but anyone who chooses not to convert must pay a tax, if your poor then stuff you, you must convert. 

Analysing the crap out of a meaning of a word dosn't matter anyway. It doesn't change the actual meaning of the word and how it was/is used by the people.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> 2020
> 
> as much as I like to agree with everything you say, this is the biggest load of bullsh@#t I have ever heard.
> 
> ...





Name an empire/country that wasn't established by fighting and persicution of the native inhabitants. Its not all Peace Love and Mongbeans when conqering an inhabited country, unless youre Italy  

Mankind has always liked to bully and conquer the week ( the Catholic Church was quite proficient also) and that is exactly how the US treats our government over the Hicks affair.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> 2020
> 
> as much as I like to agree with everything you say, this is the biggest load of bullsh@#t I have ever heard.
> 
> ...




That's not a Muslim thing. That's a HUMAN thing.

Believe what I believe or there will be trouble. This extends to politics and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Christians have had a good go of proselytization by the sword as well.


----------



## barney (12 December 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> That's not a Muslim thing. That's a HUMAN thing.
> 
> Believe what I believe or there will be trouble. This extends to politics and a whole bunch of other stuff.
> 
> Christians have had a good go of proselytization by the sword as well.





Great thing about this site is you can always learn something new.  I'm guessing I'm not the only one who had to look it up Wayne .............  And now that I know what it means ....... I agree with you ........

Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion, usually another religion. The word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'pros' (towards) and the verb 'erchomai' (to come). Historically in the New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a person who had converted to the Jewish religion. Though the word proselytism was originally tied to Christianity, it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of the word proselytism are often negative but this article will use the word neutrally to refer to any attempts to convert a person or people to another faith.


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> 2020
> 
> as much as I like to agree with everything you say, this is the biggest load of bullsh@#t I have ever heard.
> 
> ...




Definitions of words are all we have. I'd recommend you read 1984 if you are thinking like you are.

And it's not true that all sections of the Islamic Empire were violent. Some were suprisingly peaceful, open and tolerant, hence some remarkable achievements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid#Learning_under_the_Abbasid_dynasty


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Name an empire/country that wasn't established by fighting and persicution of the native inhabitants. Its not all Peace Love and Mongbeans when conqering an inhabited country, unless youre Italy
> 
> Mankind has always liked to bully and conquer the week ( the Catholic Church was quite proficient also) and that is exactly how the US treats our government over the Hicks affair.



Well, my diver friend

There is a BIG difference, It matters if GOD says it!!! 

GOD has absolute power in the eyes of a Muslim, his words are unquestionable. The average Muslim is told to fight by Allah and that's the end of it. 

Jesus says Love your enemy. Of course people choose what they like out of a religion, churches manipulate people, but principles do matter. if the Americans are calling themselves Christians and using that to get their hands on the oil in Iraq, to the average Christian that means nothing because GOD didn't say fight, Bush did.


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Definitions of words are all we have. I'd recommend you read 1984 if you are thinking like you are.
> 
> And it's not true that all sections of the Islamic Empire were violent. Some were suprisingly peaceful, open and tolerant, hence some remarkable achievements:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid#Learning_under_the_Abbasid_dynasty



Yet more bullsh@#t.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2006)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (12 December 2006)

Hmmm, youre a feisty one.   
It must be late in Sydney so bed time for you. Wait a second and I will put on my superman jocks and fly over bearing gifts,flowers and my innermost thoughts......, gee now wear are those undies!.


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)




Oh my GOD!! Jesus was not talking about war on terror, but about people choosing the faith itself, It's got NOTHING to do with fighting, nothing whatsoever. Although the mother-in law-thing makes me wonder sometimes


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Hmmm, youre a feisty one.
> It must be late in Sydney so bed time for you. Wait a second and I will put on my superman jocks and fly over bearing gifts,flowers and my innermost thoughts......, gee now wear are those undies!.



Funny how things change in less than 24 hrs, I thought you said NOT about guys in the other thread.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (12 December 2006)

I'm still a not.......I have no undies


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 December 2006)

Jesus will save everyone


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> That's not a Muslim thing. That's a HUMAN thing.
> 
> Believe what I believe or there will be trouble. This extends to politics and a whole bunch of other stuff.
> 
> Christians have had a good go of proselytization by the sword as well.



Of course it's a human thing, but with the muslims it comes with the authority of GOD. believe what i say or you're going to hell! with the christians and the sword, people followed the authority of the church not GOD. It matters.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (12 December 2006)

Ha, I had some of those at the door the other day trying to save me, wasn't you was it Snake?


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

It's Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Jesus will save everyone



this is not about jesus, its about people thinking the Jihad means peace!! well it does NOT!


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> I'm still a not.......I have no undies



 :topic


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Ha, I had some of those at the door the other day trying to save me, wasn't you was it Snake?




No. 
Assumptions from literal interpretations. My experiment worked


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> Oh my GOD!! Jesus was not talking about war on terror, but about people choosing the faith itself, It's got NOTHING to do with fighting, nothing whatsoever. Although the mother-in law-thing makes me wonder sometimes




The thing is, the scriptural framework is in place for Christians to take up the sword, convert folks by force, and slaughter everyone else, if they want to use it.

Instance where Christians have utilized the necessary passages are richly recorded in the history books. On example is the Spanish conquistadors in South America.

In fact, in churches across the United States, the so called "Zionist Christians" (a great bulk of the evangelical movement) are preaching the taking up of the sword. My own cousin (who lives in NC USA) belongs to this group of sects. 

What is coming out of there is truly scary, and dreadful.... and via the imbecile incumbent, they have the means to execute.

I am far more worried about the ideological landscape of Christian USA than the Muslim Middle East. Their agenda is in plain sight for all to see. The agenda of the USA is obfuscated with phrases including the words freedom, liberty and democracy.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> this is not about jesus, its about people thinking the Jihad means peace!! well it does NOT!





Chill.
I actually share your thoughts. I am quite aware of JIHAD in it's real sense, not what is seen on TV.

Jihad is worse than you could ever imagine.
Step 1: Get the PC's on side.
Step 2:..........


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> Yet more bullsh@#t.



Jihad doesn't mean peace, but what you are confusing is Jihad, and the basis of what the Islamic Empire was formed on.

Yeah, there were extreme sects, like there are in any Theocracy. But there were also moderate aspects, which were pretty rare at the time. 

I'm not sure what you think is BS though, the fact that the circulatory system was discovered and recorded first by Muslims... or that The Enlightenment could not have happened without the Islamic Empire?... I'm not really sure what you are disputing...


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

It's Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Chill.
> I actually share your thoughts. I am quite aware of JIHAD in it's real sense, not what is seen on TV.
> 
> Jihad is worse than you could ever imagine.
> ...



sorry, having said all that i dont hate muslims, i have lots of muslim friends. I'm just not kidding myself when it comes to the religion itself.


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> Of course it's a human thing, but with the muslims it comes with the authority of GOD. believe what i say or you're going to hell! with the christians and the sword, people followed the authority of the church not GOD. It matters.




There is no difference.

Without the meglomaniacal mullahs, there would be no jihad. Muslims are following their authority, not God's.

Same as Christians.

It is the clerics who manipulate the texts.


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Jihad doesn't mean peace, but what you are confusing is Jihad, and the basis of what the Islamic Empire was formed on.
> 
> Yeah, there were extreme sects, like there are in any Theocracy. But there were also moderate aspects, which were pretty rare at the time.
> 
> I'm not sure what you think is BS though, the fact that the circulatory system was discovered and recorded first by Muslims... or that The Enlightenment could not have happened without the Islamic Empire?... I'm not really sure what you are disputing...



CHOPS

I am disputing everything you're saying, I studied islam for 12 years as part of my schooling (which was not by choice), the basis of what the Islamic Empire was formed on was spreading the religion by force, you don't need to be a philosopher to get that. 

WHAT ENLIGHTENMENT are you talking about, is that when you have sex with four women and call them wives or hit them when you feel like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. GET REAL CHOPS.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> CHOPS
> 
> I am disputing everything you're saying, I studied islam for 12 years as part of my schooling (which was not by choice), the basis of what the Islamic Empire was formed on was spreading the religion by force, you don't need to be a philosopher to get that.
> 
> WHAT ENLIGHTENMENT are you talking about, is that when you have sex with four women and call them wives or hit them when you feel like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. GET REAL CHOPS.





Geez!,  , I'm off, its late and I can see this will be quite a read in the morning.


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> There is no difference.
> 
> Without the meglomaniacal mullahs, there would be no jihad. Muslims are following their authority, not God's.
> 
> ...



SORRY WAYNEL

Have you read the Quran, I HAVE!!!. these are the words of the Quran. not mullahs!!


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> In fact, in churches across the United States, the so called "Zionist Christians" (a great bulk of the evangelical movement) are preaching the taking up of the sword. My own cousin (who lives in NC USA) belongs to this group of sects.
> 
> What is coming out of there is truly scary, and dreadful.... and via the imbecile incumbent, they have the means to execute.
> 
> I am far more worried about the ideological landscape of Christian USA than the Muslim Middle East. Their agenda is in plain sight for all to see. The agenda of the USA is obfuscated with phrases including the words freedom, liberty and democracy.



1- how can you have a framework of war when someone says to you love your enemy? its a politicall framework and people who choose to follow it do that because they're evil not because they're christians.

2- Zionists ARE NOT CHRISTIANS, they're zionists, and they are NOT a great bulk of the evangelical movement, the majority are baptists (born again), catholics, anglicans and charasmatics.

3- I am worried like you but that doesn't distract me from knowing what islam and jihad is and what it can do.

4- A very very important issue to me is the way islam treats women, but you need a separate thread for that!


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> 1- how can you have a framework of war when someone says to you love your enemy? its a politicall framework and people who choose to follow it do that because they're evil not because they're christians.
> 
> 2- Zionists ARE NOT CHRISTIANS, they're zionists, and they are NOT a great bulk of the evangelical movement, the majority are baptists (born again), catholics, anglicans and charasmatics.
> 
> ...




FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism.

New Girl

Discussion turns to argument when refutation of points are based on opinion rather than fact.

No-one wins an "argument", so I'm outta here.


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism.
> 
> New Girl
> 
> ...



goodnight waynel, i still think canadians are nice


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> CHOPS
> 
> I am disputing everything you're saying, I studied islam for 12 years as part of my schooling (which was not by choice), the basis of what the Islamic Empire was formed on was spreading the religion by force, you don't need to be a philosopher to get that.
> 
> WHAT ENLIGHTENMENT are you talking about, is that when you have sex with four women and call them wives or hit them when you feel like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. GET REAL CHOPS.



Well, hedonism is a form of philosophy and some would consider enlightenment...

The Islamic Empire provided Averroes with the ability to advance thinking 500 years. His model guaranteed the individuality of the intellect, something which Descartes' system could not, and was ship wrecked (lame pun if you've read the 6th meditation) upon a philosophy more than 400 years earlier than it. This failure is known as the many-minds theory (Macdonald 2004: p.354-5). The individuality of the intellect was not guaranteed in the west, until Kant's Critiques.

But most importantly, his interpretations on Aristotle were applied by Aquinas for use in Christian philosophy, and then of course Heidegger and a whole host of especially German philosophers (abid: p. 170-173). 

He also wrote a whole host of important and ground breaking medical documents. A pretty crappy explanation is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes

As for the circulatory system, proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulatory_system#History_of_discovery


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Well, hedonism is a form of philosophy and some would consider enlightenment...
> 
> The Islamic Empire provided Averroes with the ability to advance thinking 500 years. His model guaranteed the individuality of the intellect, something which Descartes' system could not, and was ship wrecked (lame pun if you've read the 6th meditation) upon a philosophy more than 400 years earlier than it. This failure is known as the many-minds theory (Macdonald 2004: p.354-5). The individuality of the intellect was not guaranteed in the west, until Kant's Critiques.
> 
> ...



chops, my philosopher friend

As I told you before, I know NOTHING, nothing whatsoever about philosophy  

ALL those achievments mean SH!!T to me because the way islam treats women IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! you love freedom so much, try for a couple of minutes and imagine how it would be like to be a woman under the talaban authority, feel their pain my friend, don't only analyse it!!


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> ALL those achievments mean SH!!T to me because the way islam treats women IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! you love freedom so much, try for a couple of minutes and imagine how it would be like to be a woman under the talaban authority, feel their pain my friend, don't only analyse it!!



That's not what we were debating.

Women are oppressed in a lot of cultures, not just under the Taliban. I could come up with an enormous list of the places that deliberately disadvantage women in the world. It is not mutually exclusive to the Taliban or Islam. Not to say that it isn't awful, just that it is present in a lot of places.


----------



## barney (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> chops, my philosopher friend
> 
> As I told you before, I know NOTHING, nothing whatsoever about philosophy
> 
> ALL those achievments mean SH!!T to me because the way islam treats women IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!! you love freedom so much, try for a couple of minutes and imagine how it would be like to be a woman under the talaban authority, feel their pain my friend, don't only analyse it!!




How are Muslim women treated on a day to day basis (in laymans terms) eg Are they beaten/abused etc. etc.  just to give us a picture of what goes on?


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> That's not what we were debating.
> 
> Women are oppressed in a lot of cultures, not just under the Taliban. I could come up with an enormous list of the places that deliberately disadvantage women in the world. It is not mutually exclusive to the Taliban or Islam. Not to say that it isn't awful, just that it is present in a lot of places.



AGAIN, the difference is that it comes with the absolute authority of GOD ALL MIGHTY. this is not about culture, its about religion, which according to muslims can't *EVOLVE * like culture does because GOD doesn't evolve or change!! There is no way out for women. And what makes it even worse is that half of these women are brain washed and believe its GOD's will and the other half is scared to death from the men who are in control.

AGAIN, you have to care about the issue/topic/people that you're discussing if you want to be a great thinker, not just a good one!!!! because only then you can change things.


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

barney said:
			
		

> How are Muslim women treated on a day to day basis (in laymans terms) eg Are they beaten/abused etc. etc.  just to give us a picture of what goes on?



have a look at "Religious leader condemns RAPE" post #21, it gives a quick summery. A woman is under the mercy of a man (father, brother, husband) if he's kind (and there are kind men of course) then she's fine, but that's not freedom, is it barney?


----------



## chops_a_must (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> AGAIN, the difference is that it comes with the absolute authority of GOD ALL MIGHTY. this is not about culture, its about religion, which according to muslims can't *EVOLVE * like culture does because GOD doesn't evolve or change!! There is no way out for women. And what makes it even worse is that half of these women are brain washed and believe its GOD's will and the other half is scared to death from the men who are in control.
> 
> AGAIN, you have to care about the issue/topic/people that you're discussing if you want to be a great thinker, not just a good one!!!! because only then you can change things.



You also can't _make_ people free. It's something people have to figure out for themselves. Just as a side note... how did you manage to break out of the cycle new girl?


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> , this is the biggest load of bullsh@#t I have ever heard.
> 
> There is no such thing as peace mujahideen! In Arabic it means fighting, and that’s exactly how the Islamic Empire was established. They were and *still are* asked to concur and spread the religion by force, ...




Way back there , post #77 
I'll make this small text size 1, because it has been completely superceded by events.  We need a bottle of port in here !, better take all the baseball bats outta the room tho lol.

ng, to be honest , I also found those paragraphs in wikipedia a bit strange - 
I'm not agreeing with them either (nor disagreeing I guess) - just putting them out there (and I thought I had a quizzical tone when I did so).

Perhaps Wikipedia has to be taken with a pinch of salt occasionally? - but then again - MAYbe , just maybe , they can justify this reference to "mujahideen of peace" (??)   They list a stack of references after their definitions, no doubt some lean one way and some the other - making the final "summary" a bit of a confused 'camel' (i.e. a horse designed by a committee)


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2006)

ng, I posted this elsewhere.. concerning Women in Iran. and , lol, more importantly (equally in your eyes? lol)  engagement with Iran over nuclear etc.

The title of her book is confusing in itself - if it is about - or even covers -  freedom for women.  Again I found this a bit strange and out of step with "other input" reaching my head.  (Like in the movie "number 5 is alive" - and he has to pause before accepting new data )  She hits a number of snags trying to make the road ahead look rosy - few potholes and bumps if you ask me. (imho) BUT I definitely agree that "prejudice" should be replaced by dialogue, albeit open eyed and cautious (and ever vigilent etc).



> My Sister, Guard Your Veil; My Brother, Guard Your Eyes: Uncensored Iranian Voices,"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iufGGaFoayc&mode=related&search=  Iranian journalist speaks PBS NOW
> 
> quote :- "NOW Interview: Lila Azam Zanganeh talks with David Brancaccio about the multi-faceted realities of Iran's political and cultural life and what Americans need to understand about Iran. Zanganeh is the editor of the new book "My Sister, Guard Your Veil; My Brother, Guard Your Eyes: Uncensored Iranian Voices," a collection of essays by Iranian writers "
> ...




PS ever see the movie " Not Without My Children?" with Sally Fields - oh boy, Iran under the old regime I guess. (or current?).  Before that they were pretty liberal (under the Shah)


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Way back there , post #77
> I'll make this small text size 1, because it has been completely superceded by events.  We need a bottle of port in here !, better take all the baseball bats outta the room tho lol.
> 
> ng, to be honest , I also found those paragraphs in wikipedia a bit strange -
> ...




mornin 2020

sorry if I sounded angry, maybe that was out of line. I know you didn't agree, I guess I was upset with wikipedia or life itself?? I tend to be a bit bold when i'm upset, sorry  oh one day we will have a bit of port together, I promise


----------



## wayneL (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> mornin 2020
> 
> sorry if I sounded angry, maybe that was out of line. I know you didn't agree, I guess I was upset with wikipedia or life itself?? I tend to be a bit bold when i'm upset, sorry




We have a tradition of group hugs here at ASF after threads like this.

We've never had a lady in one before... are you in?


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 December 2006)

lol - I'm in   and no probs ng 
 listen as for Iran and letting them have uranium or not - just had a thought
 maybe Peter Garret will go over there sort it out. give him something easy for his first assignment lol.
"Sure it's all about promoting Oil!!- MIDNIGHT OIL folks 
..a one and a two and a one two three four...
oops just dislocated my knee "


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> We have a tradition of group hugs here at ASF after threads like this.
> 
> We've never had a lady in one before... are you in?



Oh I wish, of course I'm in. I had 3 hrs sleep, I'm really tired. sorry to you as well waynel


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> lol - I'm in   and no probs ng
> listen as for Iran and letting them have uranium or not - just had a thought
> maybe Peter Garret will go over there sort it out. give him something easy for his first assignment lol.
> "Sure it's all about promoting Oil!!- MIDNIGHT OIL folks
> ...




I will respond to the Iran post later today, I have to go somewhere, but as promised we will have some port together one day and I'll apologise properly then


----------



## Prospector (12 December 2006)

Wasn't all that long ago that Christian marriage vows for women stated "love, honour and OBEY".  Now, to me that says that women must do everything that the husband wants, including sex on demand if that is what he wanted.  And how the man decided to enforce that marriage vow was entirely up to him.  And if maybe he went too far, well, a good dose of confession in the confession box and some hail mary's would see him right in the eyes of god.

And maybe we need to do some research on how women in Roman Catholic communities are treated, particularly in Ireland not all that long ago.  And those methods were encouraged by the Catholic Church and enforced by the Pope.

Islam is not on its own when it comes to institutional maltreatment of women.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 December 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Wasn't all that long ago that Christian marriage vows for women stated "love, honour and OBEY".  Now, to me that says that women must do everything that the husband wants, including sex on demand if that is what he wanted.  And how the man decided to enforce that marriage vow was entirely up to him.  And if maybe he went too far, well, a good dose of confession in the confession box and some hail mary's would see him right in the eyes of god.
> 
> And maybe we need to do some research on how women in Roman Catholic communities are treated, particularly in Ireland not all that long ago.  And those methods were encouraged by the Catholic Church and enforced by the Pope.
> 
> Islam is not on its own when it comes to institutional maltreatment of women.




The Catholic Church example is always used to defend Islam. 
It is not perfect of course but it revered Mary and women, Men are told to "cherish" women, it had nunnerys where women could escape to. It did not stone women and it does not require 4 men to witness that a rape had occurred and the women could not be put to death as occurs in Islam. Tolerance was preached if not enforced, and religous police did not enforce laws mainly against women. It has also changed with the times.


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Wasn't all that long ago that Christian marriage vows for women stated "love, honour and OBEY".  Now, to me that says that women must do everything that the husband wants, including sex on demand if that is what he wanted.  And how the man decided to enforce that marriage vow was entirely up to him.  And if maybe he went too far, well, a good dose of confession in the confession box and some hail mary's would see him right in the eyes of god.
> 
> And maybe we need to do some research on how women in Roman Catholic communities are treated, particularly in Ireland not all that long ago.  And those methods were encouraged by the Catholic Church and enforced by the Pope.
> 
> Islam is not on its own when it comes to institutional maltreatment of women.



prospector

There is a big difference, again the bible says to husbands to love their wives and give their lives to their service the way jesus gave his life for the church. Also the bible says that a man's body doesn't belong to him but rather to his wife, read the bible before you comment!!!

Now you can choose to believe that or call it Bullsh!!t as well. The difference between christianting and islam is that no one will STONE YOU if you do. The Cathloic church and the Pope is not GOD, even if he likes to think so, half of what he says in not from the bible!!

You havn't been reading the posts properly, I said it matters when GOD says it, if the church chooses to invent its own rules and the pope likes to think he is GOD on earth that's his business.. please read the bible and the posts properly and then comment!


----------



## Prospector (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> prospector
> 
> There is a big difference again, the bible says to husbands to love their wives and give their lives to their service the way jesus died for the church. Also the bible says that a man body doesn't belong to him but rather to his wife, read the bible before you comment!!!
> 
> ...




Nice to see good Christian values reflected in your comments to others too!  Are you saying that the marriage vows are not in the Bible then but have been invented by Ministers?  
You do not know me, so please do not comment on what I have or have not done!


----------



## Knobby22 (12 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> prospector
> 
> There is a big difference, again the bible says to husbands to love their wives and give their lives to their service the way jesus gave his life for the church. Also the bible says that a man's body doesn't belong to him but rather to his wife, read the bible before you comment!!!
> 
> ...




I also take offence to that post.


----------



## Bobby (12 December 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Without the meglomaniacal mullahs, there would be no jihad. Muslims are following their authority, not God's.
> 
> Same as Christians.
> 
> It is the clerics who manipulate the texts.




Well said Wayne,

Parasites of power = clerics    

Cheers 
Bob.


----------



## new girl (12 December 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> It did not stone women and it does not require 4 men to witness that a rape had occurred and the women could not be put to death as occurs in Islam. Tolerance was preached if not enforced, and religous police did not enforce laws mainly against women. It has also changed with the times.



Thank you Knobby. Its good to hear facts for a change.

Apologies for any offence caused.


----------



## Happy (12 December 2006)

> From ABC, December 12, 2006
> 
> DETAINEES IN BAXTER PROTEST
> 
> ...




I wonder if this quote’s got anything to do with thread title, as last few don’t.


----------



## greggy (13 December 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> I also take offence to that post.



I too took offence at that post and saw it as a cheap dig at the Pope... We're also getting somewhat off the track.  This forum is supposed to be about the David Hicks Protests.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2006)

Ive got a fence full of posts 
Plenty of articles if you google "david hicks":-



> old news now but Chief Minister of ACT come out in support last weekend:-
> http://ibnnews.org/local/stanhope_hicks_111206.html
> Stanhope condemns Hicks detention anniversary
> The fifth anniversary of the detention without trial of Australian terrorism suspect David Hicks was a shameful day for Australia, ACT chief minister Jon Stanhope said on Saturday.
> ...






> http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/133807.php
> Date: 13 December 2006
> To: Prime Minister John Howard - every member of the Australian Parliament
> Subject: David Hicks torture details
> ...


----------



## new girl (13 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Ive got a fence full of posts
> Plenty of articles if you google "david hicks":-




thanks 2020  

ps yeh I'm sure the dog enjoys sniffing them. don't forget to take her for a walk tonight


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2006)

Not often this happens
yes vote :-
http://members.iinet.net.au/~chrisjohn316/davidhicks/yes.html

no vote (more accurately "default no votes") :-
http://members.iinet.net.au/~chrisjohn316/davidhicks/no.html



> http://www.geocities.com/notinmynamesayschris/bring_david_hicks_home.html
> "29 October 2006 to 8 December 2006
> 226 politicians made their decision
> 
> ...


----------



## new girl (13 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Not often this happens
> yes vote :-
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~chrisjohn316/davidhicks/yes.html
> 
> ...



Unbelievable, how do you come up with this stuff? I mean you need to be really clever, you must be some sort of an engineer.

I promised to respond to one of your posts, but I've been busy preparing for my trip to Tazmania on Friday, have you ever been? I havn't. 

ps I'm going to miss this place, 8 days seems very long without a computer, I am addicted, any suggestions?


----------



## tech/a (13 December 2006)

> have you ever been?




Zehan and Straun would suit you perfectly---you'll probably never return.


----------



## new girl (13 December 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Zehan and Straun would suit you perfectly---you'll probably never return.



Tech/a

thanks for the tip  just finished googling it. I know I own shares with mining companies, but going to a mining town will not tempt to stay! Unless that was some sort of wishful thinking on your behalf? I hope you weren't offended like some people around here?


----------



## tech/a (13 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> Tech/a
> 
> I hope you weren't offended like some people around here?




Water off a ducks back---wasnt directed at me.

Religon,Politics,Money and Women,great topics when you want to get in an arguement


----------



## new girl (13 December 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Water off a ducks back---wasnt directed at me.
> 
> Religon,Politics,Money and Women,great topics when you want to get in an arguement



NOW I know why I like arguing so much


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2006)

Launceston is gr8, nice walk thru park with esk river, Great Northern Hotel in town is reasonable.

Trip to Low Head lighthouse ? – up to you. – out of the way. , There’s a hill where some bushranger kept eye on the travelling Cobb & Co traffic

Hobart is also gr8, 4 seasons in one day, Sandy Bay casino, My Wellington.

between them? I’d go via Devenport, Straun, and Queenstown (i.e. via west coast).  Especially since there are fires on east side.

Devonport – motel near bridge. nearby restaurant serves possum 

Cradle Mtn ? – never been there.  Nor the other lakes down south (but those up on the plateau are just for locals with weekender fishing huts – dusty roads – don’t go there  – amazingly dry.)

(PS tip:-  make sure you see Tassie before you go see South Island NZ, not the other way round.)


----------



## Julia (13 December 2006)

new girl said:
			
		

> prospector
> 
> There is a big difference, again the bible says to husbands to love their wives and give their lives to their service the way jesus gave his life for the church. Also the bible says that a man's body doesn't belong to him but rather to his wife, read the bible before you comment!!!
> 
> ...



New Girl

Perhaps it's time for a sleep or a visit to the gym to work off some of your antagonism.

Prospector's post made a good point.

I find your response unnecessarily offensive.

A forum is about anyone who is interested contributing their thoughts.
You are entitled to yours, but you are not entitled to attempt to belittle the contributions of others.

A couple of times, I've begun to contribute my own thoughts to this thread, but have decided it's descended into a rather hysterical squabble.
It would be good to return to the actual title of the thread.

Julia


----------



## new girl (13 December 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> A couple of times, I've begun to contribute my own thoughts to this thread, but have decided it's descended into a rather hysterical squabble.




Julia

I'm glad you decided to contribute to the hysterical squabble..

Sweet dreams to you too

New Girl


----------



## anon (14 December 2006)

New Girl,

I must say that I do enjoy your posts. A clear strong thinker who doesn't constantly call up this or that link for support. 

Have I buttered you up enough to ask you a silly question? About sex? I think.

It had been frequently reported in the media that the suicide bombers, or "martyrs" as the radical muslims regard them, are rewarded with 72 (seventy two) virgins up there in heaven. My mind boggles that some rational people would think that any male could service so many virgins without doing some physical damage to himself. To me this would be a punishment and not a reward. Kill them by kindness, but kill them all the same. Some would say - what a way to go. My own view is to stay alive and enjoy sex for a lot onger. 

What I want to know is whether this 72 virgins reward promise is a fact or is fiction of the western media. 

Any comments???

anon


----------



## new girl (14 December 2006)

anon said:
			
		

> New Girl,
> 
> I must say that I do enjoy your posts. A clear strong thinker who doesn't constantly call up this or that link for support.
> 
> ...




Anon, 

1. You are too kind my friend, thank you 

2. Mate, I love talking about sex  are you kidding me? for some reason it makes men pay attention, if you want to make a point all you have to do is say the word and they're all ears!!

3. I'm glad you asked, the answer is YES, yes and yes just in case you didn't read it properly, but from memory it's 70, I can double check that if you want . Can you imagin Anon, 16-20 (year old male who can't have sex outside marriage) being told he'll have 70 women a night!!! that IS heaven!!! it's not that hard to blow yourself up after that is it??

ps: Do me a favor and read "Corruption in Australia" thread, I only started posting properly on this forum after what 2020hindsight said about this topic! he made laugh so much I got hooked. This guy is an absolute LEGEND


----------



## greggy (14 December 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> New Girl
> 
> Perhaps it's time for a sleep or a visit to the gym to work off some of your antagonism.
> 
> ...



Hi Julia,

I feel that the situation has descended into anarchy.  There's not really much point in continuing this thread when its got off the beaten track.


----------



## trading_rookie (14 December 2006)

> 2) If you have watched enough ABC TV on the topic then you would know that he SURRENDERED as soon as he found out what had happened in the US.




C'mon Chops you're sounding very gullible there! If he's been brainwashed to believe the West is evil and the US devil must be destroyed I find it very hard to accept he surrended. Wasn't he also a mercenary with the Albanian KLA? A terrorist organisation?

ps - Even the socialist alliance website quotes that he was 'captured' during the closing days of the war.


----------



## greggy (14 December 2006)

trading_rookie said:
			
		

> C'mon Chops you're sounding very gullible there! If he's been brainwashed to believe the West is evil and the US devil must be destroyed I find it very hard to accept he surrended. Wasn't he also a mercenary with the Albanian KLA? A terrorist organisation?
> 
> ps - Even the socialist alliance website quotes that he was 'captured' during the closing days of the war.



I have to agree that David Hicks was captured.


----------



## chops_a_must (15 December 2006)

trading_rookie said:
			
		

> C'mon Chops you're sounding very gullible there! If he's been brainwashed to believe the West is evil and the US devil must be destroyed I find it very hard to accept he surrended. Wasn't he also a mercenary with the Albanian KLA? A terrorist organisation?



I doubt they would have been called terrorists, because they were on the same side as NATO.


----------



## trading_rookie (19 December 2006)

I'm sure they were called terrorists, just not publicly ;-)

Kinda like Saddam was an ahole just not on the same scale as Ayatollah or say the Taliban to the former Soviet Union.

Allies today, foes tomorrow! ;-)


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcudlm6tPa0&NR  21 Nazi Chiefs Guilty, Nuremberg Trials. 1946/10/08 (1946)

Note the reference (at 0m 15s) "flags of the victorious allies sitting in judgement on the international *military tribunal*, fly over the court building"
Not used since then till David Hicks (my understanding, but someone might correct me)
Also the company that received the same "tribunal treatment" (not that I'm suggesting you watch all of fthis - you get the ghist after just a few minutes) :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSJcXPCxlzI&mode=related&search=

Herewith quote by Chief Minister Stanhope of ACT.:-
“Let’s not forget that the US Supreme Court eventually ruled that those [recent] *tribunals * were indeed inadequate and illegal, and that the processes to which Mr Hicks and others were being subjected breached the Geneva Conventions," said Mr Stanhope.
“What Mr Howard and his Ministers seem to be saying is that if only Mr Hicks had been willing to surrender his right to a fair trial, he could have had a swift one. Under what possible twisted reading of the law would that constitute justice?"


----------



## Julia (20 December 2006)

My heart goes out to David Hicks' father.  He has spent the last six months trying to arrange for a phone call to his son.  It was finally agreed to and was to have taken place today.  However, David apparently refused to speak to his father, who interprets this refusal as an indication of his son's deteriorating mental state.

I have no opinions re David Hicks - don't know whether he's simply silly or had a more malevolent intent.  But I can't begin to imagine how difficult it must be for his father at this distance with no resolution to his son's situation seeming to be near.  He has behaved with immense dignity throughout what must be a parent's worst nightmare.

Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2006)

How the hell Hicks hasn't gone mad (or maybe he has?) is amazing.
Let's not forget the captured "allies" flipped like flies during the Korean brainwashing days.
PS might have to pin you down one of these days Julia -  - what's your opinion of a man's right to a fair trial?


----------



## Julia (20 December 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> How the hell Hicks hasn't gone mad (or maybe he has?) is amazing.
> Let's not forget the captured "allies" flipped like flies during the Korean brainwashing days.
> PS might have to pin you down one of these days Julia -  - what's your opinion of a man's right to a fair trial?




2020,

Don't mind being "pinned down" on this at all.  Of course, Hicks should have had a fair trial long before now.  I was just avoiding passing an opinion on what he may or may not have done as I simply don't know.

Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2006)

j,  thanks, we sure agree on the first point re a speedy trial - (and further to your previous post, he should be in sound mental health, not this solitary-induced depression).   I also agree that discussions about what he did or didnt do is pretty much speculation until then.  As if you could believe any propaganda out of Canberra on this issue!   Or believe Bush when he says "he's the worst of the worst".   Pots and kettles come to mind.


----------



## Prospector (21 December 2006)

Charge the man, properly try the man, sentence the man if found guilty......isnt that what we would all expect of a civilised society?

I suspect Hicks is now probably bordering on insanity, does that mean he can't be tried?


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 February 2007)

I notice David Hicks has been allowed to see the sun 3 times since early December.  Even a dog is entitled to get some Vitamin D.

IMO, when we follow USA (under it's present leadership!)  you have to realise that they might just leave us in a real pickle.   I mean the Bali 9 had the same problem.  There were leaders (who probably deserve a decent jail sentance, albeit not death) and the mules (who sureyl qualify for lesser, BUT because of association, get a serious sentence as well).

My point is ...as an uncle of mine used to say "tell me a man's company , and I'll tell you his name."   

Meanwhile we tag along behind the USA with "yes sir , no sir", "three bags full sir".  We are going to be branded with all the same attrocities that USA are committing.  i.e. nonrecognition of the Geneva Convention for starters.

We say " WE would recognise Geneva, but we have no influence over our friend USA, and ACCEPT that they don't recognise it."   IMO, this is following a leader who is becoming increasing morally bankrupt on a daily basis. 

Here's the latest on the genius's running the CIA...  and how Germany treats them - and how it protects it's citizens.   



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1837872.htm
> Germany issues warrants to arrest CIA agents
> Germany has ordered the arrest of 13 suspected CIA agents over the alleged rendition of one of its citizens.
> 
> ...




the other good quote recently :-  Ruddock saying he didnt ask the USA for check on Hick's medical condition because they would probably have said "no"   
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1837506.htm


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1837355.htm
> Stott Despoja predicts election backlash over Hicks
> Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja says the Federal Government will suffer at the election if it does not allow David Hicks to be examined by a team of independent medical experts.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kauri (2 February 2007)

I have just heard on the radio that the Americans have admitted forcing Dave Hicks to look at photos of Saddams execution. They claim it was for his *intellectual stimulation*... and I thought I had heard it all..


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 February 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> I have just heard on the radio that the Americans have admitted forcing Dave Hicks to look at photos of Saddams execution. They claim it was for his intellectual stimulation...



Gee, you start to wonder if, just as Saddam's executioners have embarrassed themselves on illegally taped footage - being shown to be ridiculing Saddam to the very end of his life (yuk), so too the Americans with Hicks?  except they aren't embarrassed maybe?

How can a man go on trial after months of being treated like this?
We are seeing this for just one Australian, - it starts to sink in what Palestinians and others must feel about these "champions of democratic justice" that USA claim to be?  Someone should tell the USA that this is seriously counterproductive.


----------



## greggy (2 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Gee, you start to wonder if, just as Saddam's executioners have embarrassed themselves on illegally taped footage - being shown to be ridiculing Saddam to the very end of his life (yuk), so too the Americans with Hicks?  except they aren't embarrassed maybe?
> 
> How can a man go on trial after months of being treated like this?
> We are seeing this for just one Australian, - it starts to sink in what Palestinians and others must feel about these "champions of democratic justice" that USA claim to be?  Someone should tell the USA that this is seriously counterproductive.



I like to separate the two cases.  Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, but by executing him they've turned him into a "martyr" for extremists.  
Its about time Mr Hicks is given a fair trial ASAP. The wait is getting beyond a joke.  Mr Howard has finally taken up this issue, slow in taking it up, but better late than ever.  A number of small "l" liberals who are soft Howard voters have been disappointed by his slow response.  Hopefully, he can use any leverage that he has to make ammends.  I think that the US generally mean well, but on both the Iraq issue nd Mr Hicks, they have gone too far,


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 February 2007)

I like a quote from Richard Gere's movie "Primal Fear"
"If you want justice go to a whorehouse
If you want to get fu**ed go to court"

I think he meant to (an american govt manipulated) court"


----------



## greggy (3 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> I like a quote from Richard Gere's movie "Primal Fear"
> "If you want justice go to a whorehouse
> If you want to get fu**ed go to court"
> 
> I think he meant to (an american govt manipulated) court"



Hi 2020hindsight,

..Very interesting quote.  I haven't heard that one before. Colourful language, perhaps you're a lawyer yourself (joking!).
I'm generally an optimist and hope one way or another that Mr Hicks finally gets a fair trial.

Regards,

Greggy


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2007)

greggy  interesting the charge that has been "drafted"
interesting also :- 


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1839545.htm
> The chief US military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay wants to charge him with attempted murder and offering material support for terrorism. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The US has dropped previous charges of aiding the enemy and conspiracy.
> 
> The new charges need to be formally approved by the Pentagon official overseeing the military tribunal process  before Hicks can again face trial.
> ...



there's that word "military tribunal" again. 

Going back a week or two, I loved it when Downer said "let's get one thing straight - Hicks WAS charged!" - yes Mr Downer, but it was shown to be a bogus charge and a bogus court system so that hardly counts does it. the fact that it's been changed (after 5 years) is possibly relevant as well?
Recently he came up with "only the Labour party and AQ lovers are campaigning" or words to that effect.  Morally illiterate, these pollies.  

I only wish I had more than one vote to influence this one.  Maybe I should do what the pollies do, and organise some "branch stacking"  (jokin lol - I wouldn't stoop to the ethics of pollies - or the pathetic spin doctoring for that matter) 

PS greggy - no Im not a lawyer  i'm a simple technocrat - to be honest I'm surprised only a handful of lawyers are contributing to the debate in the general media.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2007)

so of the two charges, the attempted murder doesn't seem to have any grounds (never fired a shot at anyone - admitted by prosecution), and the second is retrospective.    
And in any case it will be months/ years before they formally give him his day in court.   


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1839820.htm
> Govt challenged over Hicks 'retrospective' charge
> The Federal Opposition has accused the Government of double-standards over the draft charges announced for David Hicks.  The 31-year-old is set to be charged with attempted murder and providing material support for terrorism.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kauri (4 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> so of the two charges, the attempted murder doesn't seem to have any grounds (never fired a shot at anyone - admitted by prosecution), and the second is retrospective.




  Thats no problem if you get to make up the rules as you go along...


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 February 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1839870.htm
PM rejects call for retrospective Aust law for Hicks


> Prime Minister John Howard says he does not believe the passage of retrospective laws in Australia is appropriate, despite Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks being charged under a retrospective law in the United States.
> 
> The Federal Opposition has accused the Government of double-standards over the draft charges announced for Mr Hicks, one of which was only passed into American law last year.
> 
> ...




seems to me, Mr Howard, you cant even see the total moral worthlessness of your statements, and, therefore the moral poverty you bring to the position you are holding as the leader of our country , and the ultimate upholder of its sense of values (and Australian-ness btw).


----------



## vida (5 February 2007)

What a joke our PM is !!  Nothing but hypocrisy comes from his mouth and mind.  He is so disgusting it makes my teeth ache.



			
				2020hindsight said:
			
		

> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1839870.htm
> PM rejects call for retrospective Aust law for Hicks
> 
> 
> seems to me, Mr Howard, you cant even see the total moral worthlessness of your statements, and, therefore the moral poverty you bring to the position you are holding as the leader of our country , and the ultimate upholder of its sense of values (and Australian-ness btw).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 February 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> Bob,
> 
> Hicks is undeniably foolish, to say the least.  That said, he should not be incarcerated without charge for five years.
> 
> ...




I doubt not the dignity of Hick's father, although I consider David Hicks to be an enemy combatant and regret not the 5 years he has been in custody. He served in Kosovo where enormous atrocities were perpetrated by both sides and was apprehended on military service in Afghanistan shortly after the atrocity of 9/11. I lost a cousin in the Twin Towers and may be emotionally biased. Every day that Hicks spends in custody may dissuade others who are intellectually challenged, personality disordered or plain treachorous from joining a militia which is so antipathetic to Australian values. Sometimes one has to look beyond simplistic values such as those expressed by the foregoing posters and appreciate the base enormity of the cause with which Hicks has aligned himself. It would bother me not if Hicks were never repatriated and served a reasonably long sentence in the USA.    Garpal


----------



## chops_a_must (5 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Sometimes one has to look beyond simplistic values such as those expressed by the foregoing posters and appreciate the base enormity of the cause with which Hicks has aligned himself.



Don't the US have that whole evil "freedom of assembly" thing going on?

Also:
In all criminal prosecutions, *the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation*; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

I guess emotions and vengeance win out hey? What's the difference between what the US are doing now, and what the Japanese did in Changi? Who cares right? It's not me, I don't have to worry about it!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Don't the US have that whole evil "freedom of assembly" thing going on?
> 
> Also:
> In all criminal prosecutions, *the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation*; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
> ...




Dear Chops,

I appreciate your concern for process but fear that this present clash of values is one in which the West cannot afford to fight with one hand tied behind its back. These guys are fighting for an emotional/religiose ideal which respects not western ideas of fair trial, process and liberty. The Japanese in Changi were aggressors, unfeeling, brutes, who starved and tortured our forefathers in pursuit of a cult of worship of a shady emperor. Hicks and al qaeda and the bali murderers do not have anything in common with Australian POWs during WW2. In fact if they got the upper hand I am quite sure that Changi would more than suit their purposes for the imprisonment of western intellectuals and defence personnel prior to their disposal under their ideas of a fair law.    Garpal


----------



## chops_a_must (5 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear Chops,
> 
> I appreciate your concern for process but fear that this present clash of values is one in which the West cannot afford to fight with one hand tied behind its back. These guys are fighting for an emotional/religiose ideal which respects not western ideas of fair trial, process and liberty. The Japanese in Changi were aggressors, unfeeling, brutes, who starved and tortured our forefathers in pursuit of a cult of worship of a shady emperor. Hicks and al qaeda and the bali murderers do not have anything in common with Australian POWs during WW2. In fact if they got the upper hand I am quite sure that Changi would more than suit their purposes for the imprisonment of western intellectuals and defence personnel prior to their disposal under their ideas of a fair law.    Garpal



Funny that. The Japanese still say the same about us.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Funny that. The Japanese still say the same about us.




Sorry mate, lost you there, what do the Japanese still say about us?  Garpal


----------



## chops_a_must (5 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Sorry mate, lost you there, what do the Japanese still say about us?  Garpal



That we were the aggressors in WWII.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> The Japanese in Changi were aggressors, unfeeling, brutes, who starved and tortured our forefathers in pursuit of a cult of worship of a shady emperor.



I would argue that USA (and AUS) attacked Afghanistan, and Hicks found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.  And/or regrets it maybe?   

We were after AQ leadership, and sadly didnt find em.     Maybe this is a face saving exercise to take it out on Hicks?

More importantly, the actions of the current USA administration have been totally counterproductive.  i.e have exacerbated the situation 100 fold.

Gotta feeling most fair minded observers would agree.

In the army we used to say there's a place for lazy intelligent officers - make the best commanders
also for gung-ho intelligent ones - make the best 2IC's
even for lazy unintelligent one - someone has to do the hack work, 
but sure as hell, there's no place for gung-ho unintelligent ones - get you killed every time.


----------



## Prospector (5 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> More importantly, the actions of the current USA administration have been totally counterproductive.  i.e have exacerbated the situation 100 fold.




Oh yeah!

You know, if this wasnt so tragic for David Hicks this whole thing would be laughable.

The US couldnt find Osama, yet within a couple of months the Indonesian Govt had found the Bali bombers.  And then we have Jihad Jack who has been charged with liaising with Osama and now he is not allowed to contact Osama on his mobile.  So we have an average Australian being able to contact Osama, but the US cant even find him?


----------



## Nicks (5 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> I would argue that USA (and AUS) attacked Afghanistan, and Hicks found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.  And/or regrets it maybe?




I think you are on the money with this. Prior to us attacking he had not committed any crime, apart from being stupid hanging out with nasty people, as people are doing all over the place in this world. 

George Bush declares war and suddenly David is committing a crime. Prior to this declaration, he had not. Furthermore, George isnt even a representative of mine or Davids Government, Australia.

If the Iran declared war in the USA and Iran won (hypothetical here), and George Bush's duck shooting partner was captured, should he be kept in prison for many years and charged with committing a crime because he was hanging out with George W at the time? Im not saying David was doing nothing at the time while hanging out with his psycho mates in Afghan, but we actually dont know what he is being accused of to even decide. Food for thought.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 February 2007)

Nicks said:
			
		

> If the (anyone) declared war in the USA and ..(if any of us) was captured, should he be kept in prison for many years and charged with committing a crime..



I agree Nicks.  As the ABC said this morning, this is all one terrible precedent for any of our soldiers who are captured in the future.    

I read a book once about a pommie SAS soldier caught during the first Desert Storm war.  He was forced to eat excrement, contracted Hepatitis etc.  That's nothing to what will happen to the next soldiers caught - the captors (whoever they are) will just have to quote that they are "just doing what USA do".  - let's not even consider Abu Ghraib. 

The other comment they made is that (paraphrasing) "any sentence he gets will be in addition to his 5 years already imprisoned - these will have no credit".  

Interesting to read a lawyer complaining about his own treatment at Guantanamo, when our Foreign Affairs spokemen keep painting the place as a dead-ringer for "Santuary Cove - with a few guards to attend to your every need".
Interesting also to hear a lawyer reduced to swearing.
And interesting that Americans couldn't be charged with this under US law
- nor could Australians under Australian law, 
- and all the poms have been allowed home, but , sheesh
- for some reason it's ok to charge an Aus with these charges under US law.   


> Timing of Hicks charges 'an act of bastardry'
> The Australian lawyer for David Hicks has accused the US military of an act of bastardry for waiting until the departure of his legal team to announce new charges.  David McLeod has just returned from visiting his client at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, saying Hicks is a broken man.
> ....
> Mr McLeod says he was with Hicks for four days but the US military waited until he left to announce the charges.  "The fact that the day after we had spent four days with him, charges are presented to him in our absence, [that's] an act of bastardry on any scale," he said.
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 February 2007)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Oh yeah!
> 
> You know, if this wasnt so tragic for David Hicks this whole thing would be laughable.
> 
> The US couldnt find Osama, yet within a couple of months the Indonesian Govt had found the Bali bombers.  And then we have Jihad Jack who has been charged with liaising with Osama and now he is not allowed to contact Osama on his mobile.  So we have an average Australian being able to contact Osama, but the US cant even find him?




Dear Prospector,

During the Vietnam War,  American and Australian soldiers were demonised as a political strategy to defeat our governments actions in South Vietnam. During that war, Hanoi Jane Fonda found her way to sit on an anti-aircraft gun in the capital of her country's enemy. Some say that her own countrymen POWs were paraded in front of her. The physical movements or contacts of anti-government activists should not be used as a proof for a just or unjust war. Similarly with Jihad Jack, Willi Brigette, Hicks and numerous other fellow travellers. It doesn't take much nous to contact via phone/email or travel to meet any number of nutters about the world antipathetic to Australia's interests. Now western interests are being demonised by a soft intelligentsia with bums perhaps suitable for placement on an anti-aircraft gun. Which end of the gun I will leave to your imagination.   Garpal


----------



## robert toms (5 February 2007)

Garpal...can you tell me just what western interests are ?
Especially in Iraq,seems to be a strategic disaster ?Counter productive and only in the interests of those that oppose "western interests".The jihadist extremists,as opposed to western extremists,have had their view of west justified by a cowardly,dishonest ,unprovoked attack on a defenceless Iraq.
By western extremists I mean,of course,the Coalition of the Willing.
It seems that western interest in the Iraq invasion was the oil,otherwise the other reasons,ie dictatorship,democracy,WMD's etc are too silly to contemplate.The "shock and awe" has proved anything but that.
How do you think western interests are best served ? I heard a US politician say that the Iraq invasion has been their biggest foreign policy disaster in living memory.
When you vilify David Hicks remember that there are political leaders in this country that urged violence and death on others...just to ingratiate themselves with their foreign policy masters in Washington.These individuals are much more culpable than David Hicks...and they have never been brought to account.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 February 2007)

robert toms said:
			
		

> Garpal...can you tell me just what western interests are ?
> Especially in Iraq,seems to be a strategic disaster ?Counter productive and only in the interests of those that oppose "western interests".The jihadist extremists,as opposed to western extremists,have had their view of west justified by a cowardly,dishonest ,unprovoked attack on a defenceless Iraq.
> By western extremists I mean,of course,the Coalition of the Willing.
> It seems that western interest in the Iraq invasion was the oil,otherwise the other reasons,ie dictatorship,democracy,WMD's etc are too silly to contemplate.The "shock and awe" has proved anything but that.
> ...




Thanks Robert, a good comment,
Western interests, are impossible to define as they change with the decades, I think today they equate to post-modern anti fascist thoughts-in-action. They resond to numerous petty dictators and clerics, tribal misogynist leaders and immolative murdering newts. 
Garpal


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> The physical movements or contacts of anti-government activists should not be used as a proof for a just or unjust war.



nor should the words of pro-government activists (as history is sadly teaching us).  
gotta feeling fonda dared to suggest that the domino theory was fiction.
(was gonna make reference to JFK , LBJ etc but gettin off the subject)

trouble is Garpal, USA is the big part of the problem, and is proving to be totally counterproductive to the solution, and to it's OWN interests. (however you define them)


----------



## >Apocalypto< (7 February 2007)

Ok here are my   .


He was really in the wrong place at the wrong time!

Maybe he was just young and looking for excitement.

He really has had all his rights striped from him and the way the Ameican government has held him with out charge is is terrible

but jeez fighting for the terrorists, you got to accept the repercussions of your own actions.


----------



## robert toms (7 February 2007)

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Who defines who is a terrorist?


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 February 2007)

robert toms said:
			
		

> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
> Who defines who is a terrorist?



Rocky III painted the muja heroes -


----------



## Kauri (7 February 2007)

Don't worry, we have an election coming up and The Right Honourable John Howard is at last getting a bit of a challenge from the opposition. Whilst not in the same league as Children Overboard, he will make the right indignant noises on Australia's behalf soon.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 February 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> Don't worry, we have an election coming up and The Right Honourable John Howard is at last getting a bit of a challenge from the opposition. .. he will make the right indignant noises on Australia's behalf soon.



Yep, after 5 years of total moral vacuum.  justice delayed is justice denied.  

"You got to accept the repercussions of your own actions." as Trade It so elequently summarised it.   No doubt Johnny will simply say - "I made a mistake".  wonder if that defense is available to Hicks?

on the "repercussions of actions" matter - gotta feeling that US Congress are saying similar things to GWB at this very moment.


----------



## >Apocalypto< (7 February 2007)

robert toms said:
			
		

> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
> Who defines who is a terrorist?




It depends what side of the fence you sit on,  I guess!

The sad part is that a small group can destroy the image and lives of so many.


----------



## moXJO (7 February 2007)

The man was a merc. He basically chose the life of killing for pay. In certain parts of Africa when you are caught they stick rubber tyres over you and set you on fire. In Afghanistan they semi gut you and leave you for the wildlife to finish off. He was lucky to be caught by Americans and at least have body parts intact.

In this game you pick the dollar over your country. Cant say Im a supporter of bringing him back.


----------



## vida (7 February 2007)

He attended certain training sessions at a time when it was not illegal. He was picked up on the politically wrong side of the fence and is being crucified for that. He is being charged under retrospective law changes which suited the politics of the time. The Australian government allowed it just wanted to show everyone how they work. I hope they are proud of themselves I am ashamed of the PM and everyone who supported it. He has been brutally punished and has been incarcerated in terrible conditions for more than long enough for his mistake and should be set free.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 February 2007)

The first  problem to me is that the trial system is biased for conviction.

The  US citizen caught with him is not being tried by this system.
The British saw how unfair the trial system was and so removed their citizens.
Howard said he didn't want to bring Hicks here as he would have had to write new laws and backdate them. The US have rewritten the laws and backdated recently anyway.  

The second problem is that they are keeping him in solitary as well as committing torture against the Geneva convention. The US can't let him go now as it will become major news and the Liberals and the Republicans will then lose the next election.

If you support Hicks treatment despite the fact that many of the prisoners released were proven innocent and removed after torture (at the beginning)and 2 years (I know Hicks most probably isn't) then you should consider if you were in that position due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Australian Government is meant to protect you.


----------



## >Apocalypto< (7 February 2007)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> The first  problem to me is that the trial system is biased for conviction.
> 
> The  US citizen caught with him is not being tried by this system.
> The British saw how unfair the trial system was and so removed their citizens.
> ...




Very good post,

It is easy to condemn and say to bad mate face the music!

But If was in his shoes I would want all the help I could get from my Government. But if David gets all the special help what about the idiots that smuggle drugs from Indonesia they will put there hands up higher as well.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 February 2007)

Trade_It said:
			
		

> Very good post,
> 
> It is easy to condemn and say to bad mate face the music!
> 
> But If was in his shoes I would want all the help I could get from my Government. But if David gets all the special help what about the idiots that smuggle drugs from Indonesia they will put there hands up higher as well.




If you are caught within a country you deserve to be tried under that countries laws. 
This is a war situation and different rules apply. The US should comply with the Geneva convention and not treat its own citizens any differently to foreign citizens. Australia should have followed Britains lead.


----------



## Kauri (7 February 2007)

If our leaders see nothing wrong in writing new laws and applying them retrospectively then will they revisit the new laws they wrote ( had forced on them by Latham) on Government Super dooper Superannuation and apply them retrospectively, not just from the date they grudginly approved them. .. I guess not....  snort snort, squeal squeal, plenty in the trough. The justice system may be impartial, but those who control it aren't.


----------



## nomore4s (7 February 2007)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> If you are caught within a country you deserve to be tried under that countries laws.
> This is a war situation and different rules apply. The US should comply with the Geneva convention and not treat its own citizens any differently to foreign citizens. Australia should have followed Britains lead.




Plus they've had a trial


----------



## Kauri (7 February 2007)

Trade_It said:
			
		

> Very good post,
> 
> But if David gets all the special help what about the idiots that smuggle drugs from Indonesia they will put there hands up higher as well.




   They were caught, tried, and sentenced under laws that already existed, and had plenty of warnings that they existed.


----------



## moXJO (7 February 2007)

In the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (GC) of 12 August 1949 and the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 it is stated:

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. 
2. A mercenary is any person who: 
(a)  is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; 
(b)  does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; 
(c)  is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; 
(d)  is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; 
(e)  is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and 
(f)  has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.


----------



## Agentm (7 February 2007)

he was being trained by the same people who justify its their right to fly planes into buildings. poeple who kill you  because of your religious views differing from theirs. 

so they invaded afghanistan, he couldnt fight against the professional soldiers of the australian british and US special forces, he was a true coward, and they crippled the taliban and went after bin laden,, he fled accross the country by bus to the border, special units were there to detect any fleeing  terrorists trying to escape, he was caught..

so what if he didnt get caught, do you believe he was coming back to australia with all his knowlege to fight for the freedoms of the australian people? it was only his cowardice that prevented him from killing australian troops in afghanistan. If he made it back, he would have had become what they trained him for, a highly educated white australian trained terrorist sleeper, able to build up a cell and devistate innocent lives. undetectable..

man i am so happy he was caught.. and who cares about 5 years, imagine how many years of lives this clown was going wipe off the planet here in australia. 

remember he chose to become a terrorist, he chose to train with the religious people he cared most about, the taliban, and he would have chosen to continue to be that way if it wasnt for the fact he was caught. suddenly we have to feel for this fanatic. apparently he is depressed and sad. imagine how sad and depressed he was going to make your lives if he could have!!

stuff this planets need to politicise the whole deal, and stuff this propaganda about hicks innocent child photo being posted up to convince people he was harmless..  he is harmless today because of the fact he has no means available to him today to kill you, but remember that if he wasnt caught, we would have had him on our streets and what would have stopped him from planning how to kill you! if you showed child photos of suicide bombers to their victims families they wouldnt feel for that person, they would still feel their loss just as much.

i detest cowards and most of all detest coward terrorists!!! 

we have declared war on terrorists and yet we embrace the david hicks, but when an middle eastern cleric says something about his beliefs he is basically austricised from the community. but if your name is david hicks, come from non arabic background, and train to become a terrorist, then your suddenly a victim?? so what message are we giving? we support and cry for people who train to become terrorists? i cant believe politicians are backing terrorists.. the taliban would use that to show their new recruits how an aussie taliban trained terrorist is now a true blue aussie hero.. and thats exactly how they work..

talk about getting it wrong guys!! your batting for the wrong team!!


----------



## happytown (7 February 2007)

inter arma silent leges

cheers


----------



## >Apocalypto< (7 February 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> They were caught, tried, and sentenced under laws that already existed, and had plenty of warnings that they existed.




totally understand good reply.


----------



## >Apocalypto< (7 February 2007)

moXJO said:
			
		

> In the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (GC) of 12 August 1949 and the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 it is stated:
> 
> Art 47. Mercenaries
> 
> ...




But can you really call David a mercenary?

That's a blurred line as one one can say he was there to fight.


----------



## moXJO (7 February 2007)

Trade_It said:
			
		

> But can you really call David a mercenary?
> 
> That's a blurred line as one one can say he was there to fight.






It should be noted that many countries, including the United States, are not signatories to the Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77). So although it is the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary, it is not definitive.

So U.S definition are different, in saying that I don’t think he had a 'free hugs' sign on him.And he did train to fight with the KLA also.So he actively went looking for hotspots


----------



## happytown (7 February 2007)

firstly,

international conventions or treaties;

thence

practice of states;

thence

general principles of domestic law;

thence

judicial decisions;

thence

teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations;

thence

...

commonsensical opinions of the ASF community

cheers


----------



## Knobby22 (7 February 2007)

Well said.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 February 2007)

Maj Mori made the point that (some of) the early charges, since abandoned, revolved around him being out of uniform.  - But Mori pointed out that the CIA were there in exactly that predicament as well.   

moXJO, not sure how relevant your definition of a mercanary is, but in any case he's entitled to be tried, and that hasn't happened because, in short, they are winging it and/or resorting to twisting the rules.  If the case against him is as cut and dried as you imply, then it would all be over years ago. 

In WWII, if you were out of uniform you were in big trouble - in uniform entitled to fair rules - except that the Japenese didn't respect Geneva Convention , and didn't matter if you were in or out of uniform (bit like USA now really).


----------



## moXJO (8 February 2007)

That’s just it 2020 it’s not that cut and dry and I’m sure the US is putting the laws in their favor so he doesn’t simply walk on a technicality. If he had of been caught by the northern alliance he would be dead so at least his still breathing. Is it right he hasn’t had a trial no ,is he lucky to still be alive yes







> firstly,
> 
> international conventions or treaties;
> 
> ...




Yeah in a perfect world let me know where it is.Wasnt it Illegal for us to go into Iraqi ,so you can scratch a few of those international conventions and treaties off the list.Dont hold your breath for the above list to be followed anytime soon 

Its more like money ,news Ramps and how pollies interpret public opinion. Check out the Bilal Skaf case and tell me public opinion on the pollies didn’t influence that decision.When the public cares enough the pollies will probably do something.

Yes the law does matter.But take what you will from it ,but I dont care that  Hicks is in his current situation.And considering he made a choice of living that lifestyle I dont care that he hasnt been returned home just yet.And untill Maj Mori can spin a bit more and do it for long enough for sentiment to change.Then I doubt the public cares that much atm either.


----------



## chops_a_must (8 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Maj Mori made the point that (some of) the early charges, since abandoned, revolved around him being out of uniform.  - But Mori pointed out that the CIA were there in exactly that predicament as well.



And considering the US seems to have a lot of trouble telling friend from foe, why should we actually believe anything that they are telling us about him? Lol!


----------



## happytown (8 February 2007)

It is not uncommon to mistakenly believe 'jus ad bellum' and 'jus in bello' are one and the same operationally.

cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 February 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> It is not uncommon to mistakenly believe 'jus ad bellum' and 'jus in bello' are one and the same operationally.



Not sure of this one happy, (I'm guessing "might is right?, justice through war, maybe?) but here are some others :-

Bella gerant allii, tu felix Austria nube. 
Translation: "Others may lead wars, you, happy Austria, marry." Referring to Austria's cunning policy in early modern times to marry into all important royal houses.   [ I wonder if the quote was really intended for Australia?]

Bellum se ipsum alet 
Translation: "Let war pay for itself" 

Is fecit, cui prodest. 
Translation: "Done by the one who profits from it." 

Iura novat curia. 
Translation: "The law is known to the court." This is the principle that it is the court's job to interpret the law, and the constitution. 

Iustitia omni auro carior. 
Translation: "Justice is more precious than all gold." 

Iustitia omnibus. 
Translation: "Justice for all.", motto of the District of Columbia. (Washington DC)

Summum ius summa inuria. 
Translation: "More law, less justice." (Cicero, De officiis I, 10, 33)


----------



## happytown (8 February 2007)

cheers 2020,

Studied IHL, international humanitarian law, aka the laws of war - loved every minute of it, in spite of the horrific nature of the subject and all that it entails.

Remember one harrowing recitation given to us by an inordinately brave and eventually lucky african refugee about how a group of them were approached during a particular conflict and "offered":

"long sleeve;

short sleeve; or 

singlet".

Depending on their response they either had their hand, up to their elbow, or their entire arm macheted off on the spot.

But I digress, 'jus ad bellum' deals with laws governing the resort to force, 'jus in bello' deals with laws governing conduct during a conflict.

And those Austrians may have been on to something.

cheers to all


----------



## porkpie324 (8 February 2007)

Totally agree with Agentm's comments, throw the key away. What sort of trial do the victims of these terrorists receive, and Hicks could be standing next to anyone on a train when the mufti calls him up to do his duty for islam and take scores of inocent people with him.porkpie


----------



## BIG BWACULL (8 February 2007)

C.I.A trained Osama bin ladin, Bin Laden Trained hicks Therefore Hicks must be C.I.A    Let hicks go free you cant just change and alter laws after a person has been caught in order to crucify him. Let Hicks GO, Let him be tried in his own country and let his people decide.


----------



## nioka (8 February 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:
			
		

> C.I.A trained Osama bin ladin, Bin Laden Trained hicks Therefore Hicks must be C.I.A    Let hicks go free you cant just change and alter laws after a person has been caught in order to crucify him. Let Hicks GO, Let him be tried in his own country and let his people decide.



Now there's a thought. Are the CIA agents who trained Osama going to be tried along side Hicks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 February 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> 'jus ad bellum' deals with laws governing the resort to force, 'jus in bello' deals with laws governing conduct during a conflict.



happytown - thanks for that - gee it would be great if you could amplify your comments - specially since you have studied the matter- the subtlety of the two definitions still escapes me - and the fact that the Northern Alliance and the CIA were fighting for our side, and not-in-uniform is surely relevant yes? (to Hicks case).

 I only know what the situation was in the Vietnam days.  got to bury a few noble young soldiers who came home in lead lined coffins.    Never could understand the 21 rifle salute - except that the sound of 21 rifles at a military funeral is a guaranteed trigger for mothers, sisters , wives, brothers  etc to start crying.   "when will they ever learn" as the song goes.


----------



## happytown (9 February 2007)

2020,

Briefly,

Laws governing the resort to the use of force are very few, as under article 2(4) of the UN charter, the use of force in international relations is prohibited - with 2 exceptions:

article 51 right to self-defence; and 

chapter VII security council resolution.

Some schools of thought also contend that there is an emerging third exception - that of humanitarian intervention as asserted by nato in Kosovo.

Laws governing conduct during conflict are many and include, historically, the Geneva laws (accommodating humanitarian aspects) and the Hague laws (accommodating military aspects) - ie war crimes and acceptable use of weaponry etc.

The ICC, as born from the 1998 Rome Statute, is the most recent attempt to codify these but has a glaring hole in the form of article 98 that allows countries to, effectively, remove themselves from the jurisdiction, as it where. The US, in particular, has used this loophole to devestating effect.

As for the CIA and NA not being in uniform being relevant - it all boils down to the venue - likely in the Hague, not likely in Guantanamo.

The situation is obviously a lot more complex than I have alluded to above.

cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> Laws governing the resort to the use of force are very few, as under article 2(4) of the UN charter, the use of force in international relations is prohibited - with 2 exceptions:
> 1.article 51 right to self-defence; and
> 2.chapter VII security council resolution.
> Some schools of thought also contend that there is an emerging third exception - that of humanitarian intervention as asserted by nato in Kosovo.
> ...



brilliant m8.  Shame the press don't express it as clearly.  So in the course of an attack on Afghanistan (outside the rules) we capture someone who would allegedy prefer to flee than to shoot back, and then take 5 years to think of a charge (including a retrospective one) in a court specially invented for the occasion that is only suitable for USA to charge aussies using a loophole, article 98, whereby you can place yourself above the internationally rcognised rules.  good one.

By the way, I'm not saying the man was entitled to a ticker tape parade - just that the black and white of the situation painted by some proves nought but the ability of the press and the govt to doctor spins.


----------



## happytown (9 February 2007)

2020,

Further with the ICC (International Criminal Court), it deals with the prosecution of what are termed 'war crimes' (conduct during conflict) and is a court of last resort, insofar as signatories, including Australia, codify the Rome Statute elements domestically, such that if a war crime was suspected of being committed by an Australian outside of Australia, or was suspected of being committed by any nationality inside Australia (recognising exception of article 98), then the first port of call, curially speaking, would be a prosecution by the Cth using the International Criminal Court Act (2002) Cth. If, and only if, Australia, as a signatory with domestic codification, failed to prosecute an alleged war crime would the ICC come into play.

As to article 98, the US, whilst not a signatory to the ICC (indeed highly critical of it, with concerns, including that it would simply be a tool to use politically against the US by its enemies) was significantly involved in the construction of the Rome Statute, including the insertion of article 98, with the end result that although the US is not bound by it, nonetheless it is quite happy and legally able to use the article 98 exemptions to its benefit to ensure that US citizens will never be placed before the court.

Further the USA Patriot Act has some sections that have been, arguably unkindly, described as The Hague Invasion Act, whereby, in essence, the US reserves the right to repatriate its citizens, using any means necessary, from anywhere in the world back to the US. No law but our own. 

The Geneva Conventions still operate and indeed, breaches of these are picked up by the Rome Staute elements. Whilst the US is not a signatory to the relevant Additional Protocols, being discussed in the David Hicks situation, it has nonetheless stated that whilst not bound it will afford its protections.

From here it becomes a matter of you say potato I say potarto. 

cheers 

Further, re crimes in Afghanistan:

"Afghan parliament approves bill on amnesty for 'war criminals' by Sardar Ahmad

Thu Feb 1, 7:28 AM ET

KABUL (AFP) - Afghanistan's warlord-filled parliament has approved a bill  ruling out judicial proceedings against men accused of rights abuses in the past 25 years of conflict, a spokesman said. 
The lower house approved the legislation on Wednesday saying it was in the 
interests of peace and reconciliation, parliament secretariat spokesman Haseeb Noori told AFP on Thursday.
It has to be passed by the upper house before being sent to President Hamid 
Karzai for signing into law.
..."


----------



## vida (9 February 2007)

Why does it matter where he got training, all training is basically the same I would think. The american defences forces have been trained and are just as dangerous  as anyone and have killed more people than Hicks, and he has killed no one. In fact when they return to civilian life in USA when the war ends, they will be psycho cases and very scary indeed, its not easy to recover from such trauma. The government have committed treason by going against all that is democractic involving us in this war and should be tried and punished. Its all politics and disgusting and meaningless.



			
				BIG BWACULL said:
			
		

> C.I.A trained Osama bin ladin, Bin Laden Trained hicks Therefore Hicks must be C.I.A    Let hicks go free you cant just change and alter laws after a person has been caught in order to crucify him. Let Hicks GO, Let him be tried in his own country and let his people decide.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (9 February 2007)

all i trying to say is If they (U.S)want to start pointing fingers maybe they should start looking into there own government for solutions to their answers. 
They trained this guy to combat the soviets now its come to bite them in the ass.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> 2020,
> 
> Further with the ICC (International Criminal Court), it deals with the prosecution of what are termed 'war crimes' (conduct during conflict) and is a court of last resort, insofar as signatories, including Australia, codify the Rome Statute elements domestically, such that if a war crime was suspected of being committed by an Australian outside of Australia, or was suspected of being committed by any nationality inside Australia (recognising exception of article 98), then the first port of call, curially speaking, would be a prosecution by the Cth using the International Criminal Court Act (2002) Cth. If, and only if, Australia, as a signatory with domestic codification, failed to prosecute an alleged war crime would the ICC come into play.
> 
> ...



points to ponder 
1. do you think Hicks should be treated worse than Ivan Molat ?
2. If the Afghans have forgiven rival Taliban warlords, are we, as arms-length observers, entitled to overrule?
3. the USA appear to have pronounced themselves "above international law"?  a class of their own ?? do they then wonder why they are becoming despised?
4. Is the US using the defense "we have enemies who will twist the truth, therefore we will twist the truth at the point of origin, i.e. the legislation itself? " - 
5. "BUT of course we will continue to sell the case that we are the upholders of freedom. truth, justice, superman, and the American way." 


			
				BIG BWACULL said:
			
		

> They trained this guy to combat the soviets now its come to bite them in the ass.



It would be funny m8, if it wasnt so laughable  


			
				vida said:
			
		

> Why does it matter where he got training, all training is basically the same I would think. The american defences forces have been trained and are just as dangerous  as anyone and have killed more people than Hicks, and he has killed no one.



as if American "defences" have any moral authority (or elementary education? - watch fahenheit 9/11) to get it half right!

PS THIS THREAD HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE AMERICANS - IT IS ABOUT AUSTRALIANS !!
(I suspect it will have a lot to do with Australian acceptance of US assurances in the future)


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2007)

PS as I posted elsewhere, I met a young 16 yr old Afghan Mujahadeen - back in the early 80's - emigrated to Australia - had a Russian bullet so close to his spine to be inoperable.   Hero in those days - yet his mates that stayed behind - some probably became Taliban - some possibly became extremists.   I mean - sheesh - that was only 25 years ago.  
PS .  Gee I love rednecked ill-informed comments that take this argument up to a level of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).


----------



## happytown (9 February 2007)

2020,

I hear what you are saying.

Morally, my opinion on the David Hicks situation is that it is understandable, in light of the composition of the current Australian and US administrations, yet inexcusable.

Legally, my opinion is less polite.

cheers


----------



## moXJO (11 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> PS as I posted elsewhere, I met a young 16 yr old Afghan Mujahadeen - back in the early 80's - emigrated to Australia - had a Russian bullet so close to his spine to be inoperable.   Hero in those days - yet his mates that stayed behind - some probably became Taliban - some possibly became extremists.   I mean - sheesh - that was only 25 years ago.
> PS .  Gee I love rednecked ill-informed comments that take this argument up to a level of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).




Or they joined northern alliance, as for redneck ill-informed comments everyone is entitled to an opinion and just because you spout off ill informed comments of your own doesn’t make you right. If you disagree fine. Don’t try and subdue people with differing opinions by calling them rednecks its a cheap ploy made by the over emotional to get their own way.

Hicks wasnt some innocent civilian. If he hadn't have been caught then it makes you wonder what he would have done in the coming years.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 February 2007)

moXJO said:
			
		

> as for redneck ill-informed comments everyone is entitled to an opinion



The most ill-informed comments have been what's been pumped out of Washington and Canberra.
I take it you think he was a mercenary on big bucks, and you've already hung him since "he deserves everything he's getting". Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.  
I'll live with the finding of a fair trial. (provided it's bloody urgent).

Having said that - the fact that they continue to torture the man with solitary confinement is  - a serious blot on the chances of a fair trial don't you think?
I mean, Brigitte gets 10 years without solitary confinement. (and he appears to be one cunning dude who deserves all our criticism).
Hicks already has 5 years of solitary confinement, some without sunshine, Aus govt initially appealing against it, then ignoring him when they did it again. 

Meanwhile:-


> Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has raised the case of Australian terrorism suspect David Hicks with the new United States Defence Secretary.  Mr Downer met Robert Gates in Germany overnight.
> 
> Prime Minister John Howard says Mr Downer reinforced the Federal Government's concerns about the lengthy time taken to bring the Guantanamo Bay detainee to trial.



Even the C of E Archbishop in Melbourne is leading prayers for Hicks - gotta feeling you're becoming one of a shrinking minority - IF , that is, you are one of the ones saying "throw away the keys".


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 February 2007)

PS I wonder if the Fed Govt's interest has anything to do with an election year?


----------



## krisbarry (11 February 2007)

He still deserves the right to a trial


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> He still deserves the right to a trial



STC - yep .
PS maybe that bloody neck of yours influenced me to post that post last Friday night - (after a few beers)  
I no doubt owe moXJO an apology - then again, I'm just too happy with the "new attutudes" by Canberra on 
a) Hicks and 
b) Global warming concerns.
This election year will be a beauty.  Forget the lack of sincerity, and the fact that they've been 180 degree turnarounds, (in a matter of a couple of months), at least they are saying the right things.


----------



## vida (11 February 2007)

Yeah he deserves that, maybe he deserves to be returned home even more. He has already been punished before being sentenced, its justice backwards, so no matter if he is guilty or innocent he has already earned compensation



			
				Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> He still deserves the right to a trial


----------



## Julia (11 February 2007)

vida said:
			
		

> Yeah he deserves that, maybe he deserves to be returned home even more. He has already been punished before being sentenced, its justice backwards, so no matter if he is guilty or innocent he has already earned compensation




Compensation???  What do you have in mind?

Julia


----------



## moXJO (12 February 2007)

moXJO said:
			
		

> Its more like money ,news Ramps and how pollies interpret public opinion. Check out the Bilal Skaf case and tell me public opinion on the pollies didn’t influence that decision.When the public cares enough the pollies will probably do something.




Given its an election year I would bet the government will kick up a stink about it this year. And the fact the opposition will attempt to use it to damage the government, then out of concern or compassion. And that Howard usually reads the public well enough to nip it in the bud before it gets past the point of the tide turning against him.

Im not a supporter of throwing away the key. And if he were to get another 2 years on time served I'd say that was enough. As for compensation book deals and tv appearances will probably be enough.



			
				2020hindsight said:
			
		

> mercenary on big bucks




Those guys were earning crap by the way.


----------



## porkpie324 (12 February 2007)

Two years is no where near enough, if Hicks is released and let loose on society who is to be held accountable when he blows up train in Melbourne or Sydney when the mufti tells him thet he'll go to paradise for doing his thing for islam. I'm looking for some politicians to make it difficult for these radicals and say enough is enough of moslem activists, send them back to whereever they come from. porkpie


----------



## nomore4s (12 February 2007)

You can't lock up a man indefinitely for something he might do. You can only convict him for what he has done, and they are yet to do even that.


----------



## porkpie324 (12 February 2007)

When investing in mining companies you way up the risks and take action, the same goes for hicks, he is a known moslem extremist there is evidence of him training in Pakistan with recognised terrorists, how can anyone take the risk of letting him loose in society and killing innocent people, that risk MUST not be taken.porkpie


----------



## BIG BWACULL (12 February 2007)

The photo that we are constantly shown of hicks, is him with a bazooka on his shoulder which is taken out of context The full shot shows him and his mates all holding weapons having a good time, A common thing for most foreigners to the middle east is to have their pictures taken with all these weapons. You pay $$$ and you get to fire what ever the F%$K you want (Is my French allowed on these forums please pull me up if it offends). Like a kid at a candy store caught with your hand in the cookie jar, He was in the wrong place at the wrong time  . Like a drug bust going down at your mates house and you where just there saying hello and having a coffee.


----------



## brickwalls (12 February 2007)

*Re: Who cares .*



			
				chops_a_must said:
			
		

> It goes against everything our "free" society is based on.




If someone is prepared to "run with the wolves", then they can only expect to be treated by the free society as such.


----------



## moXJO (12 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> Two years is no where near enough, if Hicks is released and let loose on society who is to be held accountable when he blows up train in Melbourne or Sydney when the mufti tells him thet he'll go to paradise for doing his thing for islam. I'm looking for some politicians to make it difficult for these radicals and say enough is enough of moslem activists, send them back to whereever they come from. porkpie



 2 years on top of what he has served thats about 8 years all up.Given that asio will make his life hell here I doubt he will be much of a problem


----------



## moXJO (12 February 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:
			
		

> The photo that we are constantly shown of hicks, is him with a bazooka on his shoulder which is taken out of context The full shot shows him and his mates all holding weapons having a good time, A common thing for most foreigners to the middle east is to have their pictures taken with all these weapons. You pay $$$ and you get to fire what ever the F%$K you want (Is my French allowed on these forums please pull me up if it offends). Like a kid at a candy store caught with your hand in the cookie jar, He was in the wrong place at the wrong time  . Like a drug bust going down at your mates house and you where just there saying hello and having a coffee.




He did join the KLA ,and he went to afghnastan to fight.And was at training camps.He didnt just get caught with a gun being a yobo.


----------



## greggy (12 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> He still deserves the right to a trial



That's basically the point that I'm trying to make.  Irrespective of any alleged offences, he has the right to a fair trial.  The sooner the better.


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> Two years is no where near enough, if Hicks is released and let loose on society who is to be held accountable when he blows up train in Melbourne or Sydney when the mufti tells him thet he'll go to paradise for doing his thing for islam. I'm looking for some politicians to make it difficult for these radicals and say enough is enough of moslem activists, send them back to whereever they come from. porkpie




Well, after five years in Guantanomo Bay without charge, who could blame him for being a "little" unstable and angry with the society that left him there.  Basically they have made him a terrorist, havent they!


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2007)

*Re: Who cares .*



			
				brickwalls said:
			
		

> If someone is prepared to "run with the wolves", then they can only expect to be treated by the free society as such.




What free society would incarcerate a man for five years without charge.  Good grief, if that is free society then beam me up Scotty!


----------



## porkpie324 (12 February 2007)

I think Prospect your completely missing my point, Hicks is a suspected terriorist he's incacerated for that reason, also to prevent such people from commiting acts of terror on innocent people. If everyone thought like you we would'nt have seat belts in our vehicles or sprinkler systems in high risk buildings. People such as hicks should be locked up until such a time as the  authorities consider it safe to release them.And I don't want any "flakey touchy touchy" politicans interfering.porkpie


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> Hicks is a suspected terriorist he's incacerated for that reason,



porkpie, I think the point that has been resoundingly made during the Bush era, is that, if everyone thought like you, there'd be a lot more terrorists.
You say yourself he's a suspected terrorist.
minor correction - I would say he was a suspected terrorist.
unless you know something that the rest of us dont of course.  

(PS there are degrees of "terrorist" are there not?) 

"locked up until the authorities decide its safe to release them " - bet you a fiver it coincides with election year 
Mind you , who knows which way the USA political interests will go now that John Howard has been so vocal about the Democrats being the "terrorist's party of choice" - and Obama.  Hicks could become a scapegoat for escalating the perceived threat to USA.


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> I think Prospect your completely missing my point, Hicks is a suspected terriorist he's incacerated for that reason, also to prevent such people from commiting acts of terror on innocent people. If everyone thought like you we would'nt have seat belts in our vehicles or sprinkler systems in high risk buildings. People such as hicks should be locked up until such a time as the  authorities consider it safe to release them.And I don't want any "flakey touchy touchy" politicans interfering.porkpie




Um, sorry I'm having a blonde moment but what do seat belts have to do with this?

People such as Hicks should be locked up?  If his issue was so cut and dry, why did it take 5 years to charge him, and with attempted murder    Howard wont/cant bring Hicks back to Australia because there is no crime he can be charged with.  That is why the US has Guantanamo Bay.

Hicks has probably been involved with some 'unacceptable behaviours' - problem is, until he has a legitimate trial, we dont know with what.

Oh, and those WMD that we were PROMISED/ASSURED/SWORN ON A BIBLE that were in Iraq, just as we are told Hicks is a terrorist.  Slight credibility issue methinks.


----------



## insider (12 February 2007)

anon said:
			
		

> New Girl,
> 
> It had been frequently reported in the media that the suicide bombers, or "martyrs" as the radical muslims regard them, are rewarded with 72 (seventy two) virgins up there in heaven. My mind boggles that some rational people would think that any male could service so many virgins without doing some physical damage to himself. To me this would be a punishment and not a reward. Kill them by kindness, but kill them all the same. Some would say - what a way to go. My own view is to stay alive and enjoy sex for a lot onger.
> 
> ...




What if they heard it wrong... what if it wasn't 72 virgins?... what if it was a 72 year old virgin?  

Suddenly being a Martyr ain't so cool now... LMFAO


----------



## misterS (13 February 2007)

It may come as a nasty surprise to the "martyrs" when it is revealed WHY these 72 women died virgins...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 February 2007)

misterS said:
			
		

> It may come as a nasty surprise to the "martyrs" when it is revealed WHY these 72 women died virgins...




A very prescient observation. Perhaps misterS you should share your thoughts with the good citizens of Mecca, Medina and adjacent postcodes, though none in NSW, that would be very sinful, marginalising.

Garpal


----------



## wayneL (13 February 2007)

misterS said:
			
		

> It may come as a nasty surprise to the "martyrs" when it is revealed WHY these 72 women died virgins...




LOL


----------



## mmmmining (13 February 2007)

The great religions war is well on its way. Get used to what happened around the world. Fair or unfair, live with it. 

The justice is what you have claimed, not want you are judged. Not right? How about you are the only winner?

Looking back the history, good guy and bad guy, they all said that they did the right thing for the world, not for themselves. Eventually, the winner is the good guy, and the loser is .....


----------



## misterS (13 February 2007)

Not intending to mock genuine believers in a universal, invisible friend. I understand people can't wade through the rushing torrent of discernible facts and logic to reach the spiritual realm - they have to leap straight over if they want to explore, and for the meantime have to accept certain absurd club-membership pre-conditions.

Funny how strange the assertions seem about the rewards on offer, for particular brands, especially when viewed outside their original context.  I had a friend who got involved with the Hari Krishna at one time and was told their Buddhust spiel of reincarnation, which I hadn't realised extended to an endless variety of better and worse planets than earth as well as involving consequential reincarnation in various guises.  Top of the heap was a planet where everyone smells good.  Considered pre-shower, pre-deodorant and pre-privacy this probably seemed simultaneously far-fetched and desirable.

If one is a religiously zealous virgin and a borderline sociopath who has limited life-experience and might have only ever seen his own mother (just the eyes) it probably seems fantastic to imagine possessing any woman, let alone 72 comely virgins.

Re mmmining comment- i agree, with the good vs bad bit. You never hear of anyone doing anything selfless for the common bad do you? So good has that advantage.

Bad is usually a loose conglomeration of selfish people jointly pursuing their own interests, but only for as long as they intersect.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 February 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> The great religions war is well on its way. ... Fair or unfair, live with it. ..



I think that's a bit pessimistic m8.  East Timor's problems were arguably religious in origins - Aus did a good job of sorting it out, and still keeping peaceful relations with Indon.  Such a mighty job, - if anything we were too slow to act, (imo), but that's another story.  Then, Osama BL broadcast that Aus was on the AQ hit list because of our efforts in East Timor.(?).  Proves his knowledge of world events, and interpretation thereof, is totally twisted.  But don't blame the entire moslem religion - the Indonesian Govt themselves are generally locking up extremists as fast as they find them. (in some cases, I concede, a bit slower than others, with some strange durations of imprisonment).

I think extremists are the new phenomenon, and we shouldn't join their ranks.  And we shouldn't give moderate moslims cause to go off that deep end.


----------



## misterS (13 February 2007)

Indonesia is a good example of a government doing lots to evolve and emerge from the corruption/oppression stage that others are stuck in.  Ironically, the unpalatable decisions around some of those involved with the Bali atrocities actually represented a positive sign - the effective independent operation of their judicial system. The "rule of law" replacing a tame judiciary responding to government pressure. 

I think their Constitution forbids retroactive laws and as the anti-terrorist laws were not in when the crimes were committed... 

Criminal law is enough to punish the people directly responsible but not the organisers.  (Even "normal" criminal conspiracy is notoriously difficult to prove) After all, it is the inability of criminal law to cope with these organisations that inspired the creation of the new, specific anti-terrorist laws for the future.  

Which also resonates with Hick's situation.  The Aust. government doesn't want him brought here because it knows, just like Indonesia, our anti-terrorist laws came in after his "offences", but they can't get past wanting to see him punished (further) however that is achieved.  It is funny how he is a "criminal" when inconveniently he can't be charged here.  Same as the UK citizens who the UK demanded be repatriated, even knowing there was nothing to charge them with there.

It is awfully cyncial for a government to deny a citizen his government's protection, even if he is not someone a lot of citizens want to extend this basic protection to, unless and until the day the government sees there are more votes in rescuing him than not.  

Eventually, broad perceptions of common good and human rights will operate to ultimately overcome the selfish political motive at work at the moment.  Admittedly, it's very hard to dispassionately put a "common good" argument when a self-confessed soldier for a self-declared enemy of violent, religious zealots is the case involved.  Anyway, while he can't be charged, there are plenty of new control laws to restrict and monitor him when he gets home, and the new laws are ready for the future...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 February 2007)

misterS said:
			
		

> Indonesia is a good example of a government doing lots to evolve and emerge from the corruption/oppression stage that others are stuck in.  Ironically, the unpalatable decisions around some of those involved with the Bali atrocities actually represented a positive sign - the effective independent operation of their judicial system. The "rule of law" replacing a tame judiciary responding to government pressure. ..



misterS, strange how storm clouds can have silver linings, yes.
great post m8, thanks.  
Personally I think the Willie Brigitte case was far more potentially sinister (speaking of "the common bad") than Hicks was ever likely to be.   Like a sleeping timebomb waiting for "the message".   Hitchcock meets Hannibal Lecter.
And we didn't even know he was here.  One of the rare occasions we have to thank the French for something.


----------



## misterS (14 February 2007)

I wonder if Australia's great ability to turn the children of first generation immigrants into footy-kicking, cricket-loving, life-saving, fair-minded citizens is going to prove our greatest defence and mean it will be mainly "visitors" or pre-programmed, "sleeper" immigrants who pose any risk?  The ridgey didge immigrants are usually dead-set rapt to find out what it is like here, especially compared to what they may have fled.  

Oddly, for all the historical fear-mongering about Indonesia with 300 million Asians on our doorstep, (funny how living in their own country could be so easily characterised as on "our" doorstep) they have a lot in common with us.  For one thing, they are apparently a laid-back, gentle pack of bludgers.  Well, we have bludging in common.  Someone who teaches English to adults said the Indonesian guys are always laid back and suggesting maybe it is too hot for lessons today or why don't they do this tomorrow, or maybe not at all?

It is pretty reassuring that the Indonesians rounded up those terrorist pricks pretty quick too, they couldn't disappear back into a supportive populace.  The terrorists want to destabilise civil society and foment such chaos that their insane solution would somehow seem a preferable alternative and if they have to kill 90% of Muslims to save them, so be it.  Reminds me a bit of Hitler-style pathology when he said towards the end that the German race had betrayed him and weren't worthy of what he tried to do for them. Sheesh!


----------



## Dextrum (14 February 2007)

i am writing this from the cayman islands. in a previous life i was a lawyer. i worked in australia, london and hong kong. ocassionally, the firms i worked for would take pro bono cases.these were situations where they were acting free of charge for persons incarcerated, often for capital crimes where evidence against them was circumstantial at best. 

the incarceration of david hicks is an utter travesty. it defies all human rights and breaches international treaties which were passed by democratic countries to protect the freedom and rights of citizens in situations such as this. 

the fact that the australian government has not acted to protect the rights of a citizen of this country is not only a disgrace but borders on negligence. It is my sincere hope that when david hicks is freed, an application be made to the International Court of the Hague for a motion censuring the Australian government of the day for what is at its most benign, is  a clear case of negligence in failing to uphold the basic rights of one of its citizens. When a government fails to act, the only recourse is to take that government to court and seek a motion of censure and compensation for the individual whose human rights have been ignored.  

politicians must be reminded that they are elected by the people not only to run the country but where occasion demands it, to protect the rights of the individuals who make up the population of that country. 

one could go on at length on this topic. I sincerely hope that those of you in this forum and elsewhere that read this or other online discussions will not allow your  disquiet to fade away, or your anger and  indignation to lessen at the failure of this government to take action. 

It is always more difficult  to protest when life is good than when life is hard but now is the time to take action whether it be by emails. petitions or just bombarding your local member of parliament with messages asking what is being done about the hicks situation...and fight the good fight


----------



## porkpie324 (14 February 2007)

As usual you get some 'flakey touchy' human rights person to come out on the side of the poor muslim terrorist. The government is taking action by way of leaving hicks were he is, which is were he should be for ever until proven beyond all doubt thats its safe to let him loose on society. I'll certainly let my MP no my position, leave hicks where he is.porkpie


----------



## Kremmen (15 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> I'll certainly let my MP no my position, leave hicks where he is.porkpie




I'm sure you will. One can only hope that your MP understands the difference between "no" and "know" and values the opinions of one of his incredibly ignorant constituents appropriately.

Anyone who believes that "Hicks is a suspected terriorist" is sufficient grounds for 5 years in jail without trial is beyond hope. If someone suspects you're a terrorist, is it okay for us to throw you in jail for 5 years without any proper evidence? I'm guessing you'd object to that, but it would be a well-deserved response to your attitude.


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

Kremmen said:
			
		

> I'm sure you will. One can only hope that your MP understands the difference between "no" and "know" and values the opinions of one of his incredibly ignorant constituents appropriately.
> 
> Anyone who believes that "Hicks is a suspected terriorist" is sufficient grounds for 5 years in jail without trial is beyond hope. If someone suspects you're a terrorist, is it okay for us to throw you in jail for 5 years without any proper evidence? I'm guessing you'd object to that, but it would be a well-deserved response to your attitude.



Kremmen,

David Hicks is entitled to be presumed innocent until found guilty.  The fact that its been over 5 years and still no trial is a complete farce.  If he gets a fair trial and is, lets say, found guilty, then so be it.  Either way, Mr Howard has been slow to react to popular opinion and should now make further amends.  
Porkpie, what you have to realise that there are many pro-American supporters including myself who are now questioning why its taken so long.  I for one now feel that the Iraq situation is beyond repair and only now with the benefit of hindsight do I realise it was a mistake to get involved there.  As for Afghanistan the US is doing the right thing there.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 February 2007)

I wonder if anyone else remembers hearing this speech by Mandela, 30 Jan 2003 - BEFORE the latest war ...(the war started March 18 , 2003)  - claiming Bush had no foresight, and would destroy the UN.  
Basically he had no major problem with actions in Afghanistan,  but remained convinced that without UN backing, Iraq was a disaster waiting to happen.  



> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/Mandela_Blasts_Bush.html
> Nelson Mandela Blasts Bush on Iraq, Warns of 'Holocaust'
> by Toby Reynolds  indymedia.org, January 30, 2003
> Former South African President Nelson Mandela lashed out at U.S. President George Bush's stance on Iraq on Thursday, saying the Texan had no foresight and could not think properly.
> ...



 



> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/30/iraq/main538607.shtml
> Mandela Slams Bush On Iraq.  JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, Jan. 30, 2003 (CBS) A prominent new voice joined the international chorus of protest against U.S. preparations for war against Iraq on Thursday.
> 
> Former South African President Nelson Mandela delivered a fiery speech denouncing the United States and aiming harsh personal criticism at President Bush. .....
> ...




Finally some quotes 


> http://antiwar.com/quotes.php
> Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived. - Abraham Lincoln
> Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.~George Washington
> If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.~George W. Bush
> Millions more…


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 February 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1848855.htm
quote of the week :-  " it's simply saying that the lions are being let out in the arena - bring on the Christians and let's have a fair trial".


> Hicks trial 2 years away, lawyer says
> A lawyer for Australian Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks believes it will be two years before his client is presented to a military commission.  Adelaide lawyer David McLeod says news from the United States that a process is under way to bring his client to trial is window dressing.  A US military prosecutor says a judge has received the charges against Hicks and after they are served on him, he should be presented to a military commission 30 days later.
> 
> But Mr McLeod expects the commission to be challenged, causing more delays.  "David will get caught up in that process and we can't see a commission hearing starting within two years," he said.   "The challenges to the veracity, legality, fairness of the process will occupy the civil courts in America one way or the other over the next couple of years."
> ...


----------



## rederob (15 February 2007)

Will be interesting when Rudd takes on Ruddock over this, as he has taken on little Jonny over Iraq.
Apparently Iraq will get overrun with terrorists if we take away our piddling effort in Iraq.  But rather than join Bush with a new injection of troop numbers, little jonny prefers to sit on his hands and play word games.
Unfortunately little Jonny learned no lessons from Vietnam, whereupon it was a tide of anti-war sentiment that swept Whitlam into power and Sonia McMahon's husband was confined to political oblivion.
Same will happen this time round.

I wonder if we will have popularised Iraqi restaurants in 10 years time, like we did with the Vietnamese: Food for thought.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (16 February 2007)

Kremmen said:
			
		

> I'm sure you will. One can only hope that your MP understands the difference between "no" and "know" and values the opinions of one of his incredibly ignorant constituents appropriately.
> 
> Anyone who believes that "Hicks is a suspected terriorist" is sufficient grounds for 5 years in jail without trial is beyond hope. If someone suspects you're a terrorist, is it okay for us to throw you in jail for 5 years without any proper evidence? I'm guessing you'd object to that, but it would be a well-deserved response to your attitude.





Second that Kremmen....... Porky I hope you wouldn't apply the same logic to one of youre own blood 'kin' ****canned at Guantanamo, by Bush's gophers  .


----------



## doctorj (16 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> I'll certainly let my MP no my position, leave hicks where he is.



May your children never suffer what you're willing to inflict on someone else's son.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 February 2007)

doctorj said:
			
		

> May your children never suffer what you're willing to inflict on someone else's son.




Tell that to all the relatives who died in the Twin Towers.

Let due process US style continue.

Its a hell of a lot fairer than having your head hacked off while being videotaped by an "Islamist Militia" so that your relatives can view it on youtube., or dying in a rain of gasoline sitting at your desk going about your everyday routine.

Garpal


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Tell that to all the relatives who died in the Twin Towers.




Non sequitur. Hicks had nothing to do with 911



			
				Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Let due process US style continue.
> 
> Its a hell of a lot fairer than having your head hacked off while being videotaped by an "Islamist Militia" so that your relatives can view it on youtube., or dying in a rain of gasoline sitting at your desk going about your everyday routine.
> 
> Garpal




Now Garpal, you really must keep abreast of events. Atrocities committed by the Bush Cabal.... errr, "Coalition of the Willing" far and away outnumber atrocities committed by "insurgents". Rupert just doesn't tell you about that.

Be careful what you wish for....


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Non sequitur. Hicks had nothing to do with 911
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Dear waynwL

Agree that I get most of my news from Rupert, as you do, otherwise as we both do from Jamie or KerryK., so lets not get precious about origins of knowledge. Even though I live in a regional area I can access al jazeera, jerusalem post, the guardian ( with which I'm sure you have some acquantaince), the international guardian which a leftie mate of mine passes on to me in exchange for Quadrant,(puts little finger in mouth like mini me).   

Lets all grow up wayneL, 

We are all in deep trouble at present. right and Left mean nought. whether you believe in what god seems to matter more. Lets try and seek a way through all this. Demonising Bush seems counter-intiuitive to defending Islamic fascists awaiting trial in a system they deny their enemies.

Garpal


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear waynwL
> 
> Agree that I get most of my news from Rupert, as you do, otherwise as we both do from Jamie or KerryK., so lets not get precious about origins of knowledge. Even though I live in a regional area I can access al jazeera, jerusalem post, the guardian ( with which I'm sure you have some acquantaince), the international guardian which a leftie mate of mine passes on to me in exchange for Quadrant,(puts little finger in mouth like mini me).
> 
> ...



Yes we are in trouble.

But to find the source of the trouble we must look further into history than September 11 2001. Western propaganda would have it that the Islamists hate the west because they hate our freedom.  This is perhaps the most disingenuous assertion ever uttered in international politics. It absolutely insults the intelligence.

I submit that the source of this hatred is the foreign policies of initially the UK, and finally the USA. 

Clue - start researching from circa 1948. 

We have been brought up in the west with the concept that we are the good guys, we wear the white hat, we saved to world from fascism and Japanese imperialism. But let me tell you we have not done the right thing in the middle east and it is coming back to bite us.

Cheers

PS Re the condescension: I'll cop the return of serve, but subtle is better.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> start researching from circa 1948.



gotta feeling the fact that UK and France renigged on promises made by Florence of Arabia after WWI didnt set up a good start to the last 100 years. 

speaking of religious wars, you could go back to the mad crusading dudes going back to the 11th century -sanctioned by the pope of course -  not that I suggest we try to answer for their actions - would be difficult.

Equally, and conversely, there's no way you can justify Osama BL targetting Australia because of our UN sanctioned role in East Timor.  The man just doesn't think straight.


> http://www.etan.org/estafeta/99/autumn/untakes.htm
> United Nations Takes Over East Timor, Belatedly and Reluctantly
> by Charles Scheiner
> In 1975, the United Nations Security Council unanimously recognized the inalienable right of the people of East Timor to self-determination and called on Indonesia to withdraw all its forces from the territory without delay. But it took almost 24 years - during which time the East Timor suffered unimaginable horrors - before the international community took effective action to implement that resolution.
> ...



you know the rest.. slaughter on a mass scale - UN powerless ( bit like Rwanda really).
We had the choice of doing what Whitlam did and turn a blind eye as Indon invaded - or do what Howard did - with UN backing - and reestablish peace. On that occasion we acted admirably imo.  

But ...What we did in Iraq didn't have UN backing, and sadly it is much harder to defend our actions there to those who challenge us. 
and in general .. we gain nothing by becoming extremists ourselves.  

Incidentally , re current Afghanistan.. Security Council report on its mission to Afghanistan, November 2006


> http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel1.asp? infocusID=16&Body=Afghanistan
> Security Council, stresses need for security, but remains optimistic
> The mission found that the spread of insurgency, and terrorist activity by the Taliban, Al-Qaida and other extremist groups... pose a grave threat to reconstruction and nation-building... However, the mission is convinced that the Government of Afghanistan and the international community have established a sound strategy to overcome these challenges.


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> gotta feeling the fact that UK and France renigged on promises made by Florence of Arabia after WWI didnt set up a good start to the last 100 years.




Indeed. Poor old Thomas was gutted about the the whole affair too, apparently.

I think (and it's a guess) they would have gotten over that if not for the post WWII transgressions.

It's a schmozzle it is.


----------



## greggy (16 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> I wonder if anyone else remembers hearing this speech by Mandela, 30 Jan 2003 - BEFORE the latest war ...(the war started March 18 , 2003)  - claiming Bush had no foresight, and would destroy the UN.
> Basically he had no major problem with actions in Afghanistan,  but remained convinced that without UN backing, Iraq was a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> 
> ...



Nelson Mandela was a fine South African President and is a good judge.  I agree with the sentiments expressed.


----------



## porkpie324 (16 February 2007)

Just a quick message for all the "flakey touchy" poor muslim terrorists supporters. Its fortunate that we have a PM who has his feet on the ground and is not afraid to make a stand against terrorists.
And remember Docj,  what about all peoples children killed or maimed in Madrid, what have you got to say to them, also my children were brought up to be decent citizens with good values  encouraged.porkpie


----------



## Happy (16 February 2007)

> From ABC, February 16, 2007
> 
> US ALLEGES HICKS COLLECTED EMBASSY INTELLIGENCE
> 
> ...




Maybe truth will come out one day.


----------



## doctorj (16 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> And remember Docj,  what about all peoples children killed or maimed in Madrid, what have you got to say to them



I say to them that there children were taken from them unjustly, but that doesn't warrant someone else's child being held, illegally, with out trial forever and a day.



			
				porkpie324 said:
			
		

> also my children were brought up to be decent citizens with good values encouraged.



Are these the same 'good values' you surrender so quickly?  Or do justice, free speech and even the Geneva Convention not rate in your list of 'good values'?

The point is, no one will ever know if Hicks has been raised with similar "good values".  The media are happy to let him hang on the basis of a single photo.  And people like yourselves are happy to swallow it with the belief that it "won't happen to them" and the ends will surely justify the means.

The "terrorists" have already won.  The "terrorists" have fundamentally changed our way of life.


----------



## porkpie324 (16 February 2007)

Docj, take your out of the sand, watch the news today,it says it all. The Geneva convention, what rubbish you talk how many muslim terrorists consider it when they kill on video or bomb innocent people. porkpie


----------



## chops_a_must (16 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> Docj, take your out of the sand, watch the news today,it says it all. The Geneva convention, what rubbish you talk how many muslim terrorists consider it when they kill on video or bomb innocent people. porkpie



Yep. All scouts are now terrorists as well. Gotcha.


----------



## doctorj (16 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> Docj, take your out of the sand, watch the news today,it says it all. The Geneva convention, what rubbish you talk how many muslim terrorists consider it when they kill on video or bomb innocent people. porkpie



So what you're talking is an eye for an eye?  The only thing that distinguishes us from the terrorism is that we don't resort to violence to make ourselves heard, we don't kill/maime innocent people.  And you're talking about giving it all away.

So what about killing a few innocent rag-heads as long as we get one or two terrorists along the way huh?

I don't think so!  Are these the same morals you taught your children?


----------



## moXJO (16 February 2007)

doctorj said:
			
		

> The point is, no one will ever know if Hicks has been raised with similar "good values".  *The media are happy to let him hang on the basis of a single photo. *  And people like yourselves are happy to swallow it with the belief that it "won't happen to them" and the ends will surely justify the means.
> 
> The "terrorists" have already won.  The "terrorists" have fundamentally changed our way of life.




I thought prior to all this hicks had a rap sheet on stealing cars and being a druggie?.Then he went off to train with the K.L.A and then on to Afghanistan.Who knows what he did in between.The way some of you carry on you would think he was a a tourist.

Yes I get it right to a trial and the whole he's been in their 5 years and they cant come up with a charge.Well I doubt they would hold him for 5 years without reason.And Im sure Jihad jack even mentioned he met him at one of the camps.

He might be a good bloke but he got caught chasing warzones.Like I said before he is lucky to still be breathing.


----------



## greggy (16 February 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Yep. All scouts are now terrorists as well. Gotcha.



Hi Chops a must,

I better keep a close eye on my nephew cause he's a scout!!  But there again I will probably referred to as a terrorist as well in some extreme right-wing quarters for supporting a fair trial for David Hicks.


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> Just a quick message for all the "flakey touchy" poor muslim terrorists supporters. Its fortunate that we have a PM who has his feet on the ground and is not afraid to make a stand against terrorists.
> And remember Docj,  what about all peoples children killed or maimed in Madrid, what have you got to say to them, also my children were brought up to be decent citizens with good values  encouraged.porkpie



You appear to suffer the delusion that all Muslims are terrorists.

If Hicks is guilty of terrorism, then try him. If found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, punish him according to law. *But FFS try him!*

This is the crux of peoples argument against Johnny Rotten is that he is supporting the detention without trial of one of our citizens by another nation. Johnny may have his feet on the the ground, but most of his body is on the ground in a wobbling lump as well because he has no backbone.

While you are thinking of peoples children maimed or killed in Madrid, do you not think of the vastly greater number of children maimed or killed in Iraq. There surely must be a great number amongst the estimated 650,000 civilians killed.

I find that when people indulge in non sequitur when their argument is in trouble. Your post contains at least three.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 February 2007)

Dear wayneL

There are 2 ways of looking at this guy.

Yours: He is accused of a crime, been arrested by the Americans and being denied due process i.e. a speedy trial with fairness and access to defence lawyers. Similar to any suspect in Australia facing major charges, which can btw take 2-3 years to come to trial as evidence and defence material is collected

Mine: He is an irrregular combatant, a bit like the overpaid ex army "security people" presently working for multinationals in Iraq, or the pea brained religious suicide bombers presently murdering hundreds of thousands in Iraq. He got caught. He takes his medicine. Life is not fair. 

None of us are going to change our minds on this.

The victors will write the history and I hope it isn't the suicide bombers who do so.

Garpal


----------



## porkpie324 (16 February 2007)

If wayne you care to read my post's correctly i have never said that all muslims are terrorists, it just so happens that the terror action during the last few yeares have been committed by muslims,. If you care to read my posts in more detail, I firmly believe we need to take strong action in protecting ourselves. If that means locking hicks up for good then so be it, we just cannot afford the risk of having loose canons such as hicks free on society.porkpie


----------



## doctorj (16 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> If that means locking hicks up for good then so be it



If Hicks has commited a crime (ie. broken a law) and it's proven in a free and fair court, then I agree.


			
				porkpie324 said:
			
		

> we just cannot afford the risk of having loose canons such as hicks free on society.



How do we know if he is a "loose cannon" until he's charged with something and fairly convicted?


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> If wayne you care to read my post's correctly i have never said that all muslims are terrorists, it just so happens that the terror action during the last few yeares have been committed by muslims,. If you care to read my posts in more detail, I firmly believe we need to take strong action in protecting ourselves. If that means locking hicks up for good then so be it, we just cannot afford the risk of having loose canons such as hicks free on society.porkpie




I have no problem with that. But try him, find him guilty or innocent and deal with him accordingly. If he is found to be a clear and present danger to innocent folk, lock him up, if not, let him go.

This detention without trial is BS.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear wayneL
> 
> There are 2 ways of looking at this guy.
> 
> ...




Dear wayneL,

I value your opinion from the other side. Can you comment on this or is it too painful for you??

Garpal


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear wayneL,
> 
> I value your opinion from the other side. Can you comment on this or is it too painful for you??
> 
> Garpal



Dear Garpal,

Like I said, condescension is fine. I am prepared to cop as good as I give, but like I said, subtle is better. Yours is rather clumsy and puerile and detracts from your argument. It would also help if the condescension has some sort of basis in fact rather than schoolyard taunts.  

You appear to subscribe to the theory that "might is right". However I would have hoped that humankind would have progressed past this rather Neanderthal concept. 

A study of history would indicate that this "might is right" philosophy is fraught with danger and doomed to ultimately to fail. It shows that the mighty;

1/ are subject to constant resistance, insurgency, terrorism (choose favourite emotive label).
2/ increasingly prone to morally reprehensible acts in order to maintain their diminishing "might".
3/ eventually become corrupt in mind and spirit, arrogant, complacent, overstetched and/or fatigued, leading to a catastrophic demise.

Yours sincerely,
wayneL


----------



## rederob (16 February 2007)

porkpie
I guess we need to lock up everyone that has been trained to kill, irrespective of who, where or how.
The statistics on Vietnam vets that inflicted death or harm on their families or themselves is quite frightening!

A natural extension of the principles the US is now practising would allow the Chinese to pay the Taliban in Afghanistan to capture US soldiers (for example), spirit them to North Korea, and charge them for attempted murder etc., on court principles favourable to the Chinese.

Hicks seems to be a silly young man with delusions of doing something great for Allah, but never having the actual opportunity to fire a shot in anger.

Garpal
Hicks was not "caught", he was "bought".
The issue of him "taking his medicine" is relevant on two counts.
First, Hicks needs to have something that warrants treatment.  Being "trained to kill" and being in possession of ammunition do appear somewhat weak cases in times of war if one has not killed or used any ammunition!
Secondly, his "medicine" should be something that would be sanctioned by a higher authority as fit for purpose.  In this case we are left with an imbecilic Bush who continues to get bad advice and, rather than admit error, would rather "stay the course" in the hope that at some point it turns out to be right.
Is it not curious that Australia is the only Westernised nation that has a prisoner left in Guantanamo Bay?  On that count, you need to listen to what Malcolm Fraser had to say today:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...ks-guilt/2007/02/15/1171405368385.html?page=2


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> porkpie
> I guess we need to lock up everyone that has been trained to kill, irrespective of who, where or how.
> The statistics on Vietnam vets that inflicted death or harm on their families or themselves is quite frightening!
> 
> ...




Dear rederob,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Being in possession of a weapon and ammunition in a cabal of organised military, particularly as I remember from a photo of him, a shoulder held rocket launcher, unfortunately does deem one guilty. Look up the Rules of War, Geneva, etc conventions
Much as one would be if smoking in a non smoking zone and a policeman saw a butt leave your thumb and smoke exit your mouth. 

I also believe that this guy served in Kosovo, at a time when people weren,t dressing the Christmas Tree or celebrating Eid.  

As for Malcolm, he is a toff without a cause, a PM who achieved little in a time when he could have, a grunting hoarse old soldier, who has no won battles to look back upon.  

Garpal


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear rederob,
> 
> Being in possession of a weapon and ammunition in a cabal of organised military, particularly as I remember from a photo of him, a shoulder held rocket launcher, unfortunately does deem one guilty. Look up the Rules of War, Geneva, etc conventions
> Much as one would be if smoking in a non smoking zone and a policeman saw a butt leave your thumb and smoke exit your mouth.



It would seem the entire military of the "coalition of the willing" should be detained then, by that logic.


----------



## rederob (16 February 2007)

Garpal
Your reply is appreciated.
It is also not well informed, but that will always be a problem for people that do not understand the basic tenets of law, let alone the rules of war.
For example, displaying a weapon (rather than concealing it) is in accordance with the rules of war.
Are you impying Hicks is "guilty" because he is a soldier?
I am hazy on your points as Hicks is not accused of breaking any known laws applicable to war.
On the other hand the US has not adopted any regular conventions and is creating a whole new set of rules to be applied to people that have been denied every principle of natural justice.
I was not aware that Hicks "served in Kosovo".  Was that tea or coffee he served, or perhaps he offered ammunition?
And on Fraser: He faltered under the worst Treasurer in a generation - yes, little Jonny Howard!


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (16 February 2007)

I have it on a reliable source that Fraser was the most arrogant PM tripping on the RAAF VIP fleet, Whitlam was a true 'Gentleman' who always conversed and ready to have a personal one to one.

Incidently Prince Charlie whilst travelling was a true 'strange one', I will not say what he did .

Anyway the Hicks situation has progressively become a truly tragic event that brings immeasurable shame on our Government, Little Johnny and regretably us as a nation. 

Personally I am the first to admit I have sat on my hands although disgusted at our Governments lack of fortitude and independance for our citizen. Recently I sent two emails, one to my local member and one to Canberra.

Too late, but if enough kick up a fuss maybe this debacle will reach an end ON OUR ACTIONS and not Bush's chronies terms.


----------



## Bobby (16 February 2007)

Reflecting on Abdul Hicks mental state, he may be able to claim insanity on all charges.

His defence team could argue that the prognosis of his disease is self evident, stop getting pissed & chasing chicks   Mad'ness !

Have Fun 
Bob.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 February 2007)

david mcleod deserves Order of Aust medal, imo (and so does Maj Michael Mori) ... only way to fight this propoganda coming out of canberra and howard and downer and ruddock is with the truth...
"staking out of embassies that were closed and had been closed for 12 years," - far out .... are they serious!!


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1849874.htm
> Charges used to demonise Hicks: lawyer
> David Hicks's Australian lawyer says new charges brought against his client are an attempt to demonise Hicks at a time when the political climate is turning in his favour.   New allegations made against the Guantanamo Bay inmate have been dismissed as vague and fatuous by his lawyer, David McLeod.
> 
> ...




obviously with this military commission, there is absolutely no way Hicks can get a fair trial - (see early posts quoting Maj Mike Mori).  Never suspected that if I lived long enough, I might finally agree with Fraser on one matter at least.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Garpal
> Your reply is appreciated.
> It is also not well informed, but that will always be a problem for people that do not understand the basic tenets of law, let alone the rules of war.
> For example, displaying a weapon (rather than concealing it) is in accordance with the rules of war.
> ...




Dear rederob, 

Your opinions do not correlate with my experience in service in declared war zones.

A mob of QC's may give you contrary advice, but check:
1. Rules of engagement
2. Geneva Conventions.

David Hicks needs resolution, more so, now, that he has been taken up by guys like you for other agendas, and by my "side" to punish and make an example.

There is nothing wrong with this.

The Romans were much more efficient in cases like this.
Garpal


----------



## rederob (16 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear rederob,
> 
> Your opinions do not correlate with my experience in service in declared war zones.
> 
> ...



Garpal
Hicks never "engaged" anyone.
Please be clear about what you believe constitutes the offences that Hicks can be charged with - based on either law or conventions.

If you did indeed serve, you should know that that your enemy will take up arms against you.  Accordingly, seeing Hicks has been photographed with weapons suggests he had the potential to be a combatant.  
Being a combatant in a war zone carries no offence of itself, and would afford Hicks "prisoner of war" status on capture.  
Again, if you have served, you will be aware of the conventions that govern the treatment of your enemies.
If your enemies are likely to have committed war crimes, there are well established conventions that enable prosecution of such offences.
The greatest "crime" that Hicks (and most of the Taliban) can be accused of is not wearing a "uniform".  But this would be impossible as the war that the US declared was against an "army" that had wore uniforms.
Thus we get into a semantic argument from here on the so called "war on terror".

Going back a step now, if you were ever a soldier in a war zone, and were captured, what would make you think that you should be treated differentlyto Hicks.  Answer that question first, please.


----------



## wayneL (17 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> *There is nothing wrong with this.*
> 
> The Romans were much more efficient in cases like this.
> 
> Garpal



That is, if you want our society to be like Rome.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 February 2007)

Wayne, I liked that post you made some time ago when you pointed out that the Military officer assigned to defend one of the terrorist suspects - Osama BL's driver as I recall - (a bit closer to the action that Hicks I think you'll agree) - and did it successfully - had since had to resign from the army. (you'd have to assume that they'd screwed up the prosecution case with "embellishment")

Here's a hypothetical..
Suppose you had an election between Theodore Roosevelt and GW Bush....



> http://antiwar.com/quotes.php A few quotes by Theodore Roosevelt:-
> 1. Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official.
> 2. It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.
> 3. That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> That is, if you want our society to be like Rome.




Dear wayneL,

A good point. Lots of downsides to Rome, Class distinction, slavery, cruelty, exploitation,

Much like the modern European Union states.

But Rome at its height had an efficient army, not that I would have liked to be captured by them, or by the Taliban for that matter.

Garpal


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 February 2007)

just watching the show "around the world in 80 treasures" Dan Cruickshank (top show) - he checks out USA's roots - 
after the first show ( archaeological) , he (surprisingly) adds a political slant in 2nd show...
1. the 1851 colt revolver - with all the implications 
2. thomas jefferson, who drafted "all men are created equal" - yet allegedly had thousands of slaves, (5000?)
3. "the statue of liberty is hollow", and finally 
4. "accept the american way... or feel the consequences.!"

frequent references to "the enigma of american values" or words to that effect

Would I have posted something like this prior to hicks? - probably not ! 
I have many friends in USA ! they are gr8 people.  sadly not in power.


----------



## rederob (17 February 2007)

Garpal
I asked you earlier;
"Going back a step now, if you were ever a soldier in a war zone, and were captured, what would make you think that you should be treated differently to Hicks."

Anything to add?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Garpal
> I asked you earlier;
> "Going back a step now, if you were ever a soldier in a war zone, and were captured, what would make you think that you should be treated differently to Hicks."
> 
> Anything to add?




Dear rederob,

Nothing in a word.

War is an ugly form of diplomacy.

If you sign up,  you assume that the other side are not going to be gentle folk if you are captured. Its a given. 

Ask any ex POW.

Garpal


----------



## rederob (17 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear rederob,
> 
> Nothing in a word.
> 
> ...



Ah
But Hicks is not a POW, never "engaged" anyone, or fired a shot in anger.
Yet he will be made an example of - so that we know this "war on terror" is fair dinkum.
Hicks has variously been descibed as "the worst of the worst".
That now describes the level of justice that has been meted out in his case.
Far from "winning hearts and minds", which is essential if the US is to be credible on the world scene, the Democrats yesterday delivered Bush and his adherents a harsh blow in Congress, while some 60% of Americans now want out of Iraq.
Meanwhile our political leaders are happy with the way Hicks is being treated, and reckon we did the right thing finding all those weapons of mass destruction, or the next best thing.
Instead, they helped turn a country that was no external threat to the world, into the most dangerous place on earth to live, and a safe harbour for any journeyman terrorist.
Top marks to the coalition of the killing.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Ah
> But Hicks is not a POW, never "engaged" anyone, or fired a shot in anger.
> Yet he will be made an example of - so that we know this "war on terror" is fair dinkum.
> Hicks has variously been descibed as "the worst of the worst".
> ...




Dear rederob,

As they would say on Little Britain,

Get Real !!!!

He wasn't over there on a Flight Centre smell the poppies tour !!!! 

Garpal


----------



## rederob (17 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear rederob,
> 
> As they would say on Little Britain,
> 
> ...



Garpal
I think he was.
In fact, I have evidence he was.
Better evidence than you could find to the contrary.
Evidence you would be happy to kill for!

On topic, your preference is to punish someone for something they never did, certainly something that nobody beforehand in the justice system could reasonably be tried for.
There are few that doubt Hicks was "foolish", or a tad worse.
Was he a terrorist, a soldier, or neither?
I don't know.
He was certainly misguided.
I prefer to think that Australians would be prepared to fight for justice, over injustice.
That some are willing to throw Hicks to the wolves of war says as much about them as those who are contriving to pervert reasonable standards of humanity.
And at the end of the day, I always ask..."if he was your son?"


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (17 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Garpal
> He was certainly misguided.
> I prefer to think that Australians would be prepared to fight for justice, over injustice.




WTF.......they are one in the same, if used in the context of youre arguement.

And 'Justice' is entirely dependant on the origin of historical viewpoint. I'm sure western history varies greatly over the eastern version.....and others.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 February 2007)

Rederob…I’m not a lawyer, but on behalf of anyone with a sense of smell when it comes to rotten political claptrap – and rotten injustice with no pretence of morality (usa version - masters of spin)  -  I thank you for enunciating what I have been thinking    

The fact that Johnny Howard has come round almost 180 degrees on this is enough justification in my mind for any stance I have made in the past.   Others (the USA?) might come round one day  (but I wouldn’t bet on it, the stakes and consequences of losing this case are getting ...   ridiculous )

As Mori says – had he been offered a military court martial up front, the defence would have agreed, and it would have been fairly dealt with long ago.
As Fraser says – no way can he get a fair trial now – he is a political scapegoat.

I'm personally starting to worry whether , - DESPITE the election years ahead ( 2007 for aus, and 2008 for usa)  that they will "bunker down" and "stitch him up bigtime".

Rederob - my guess is that if you're a lawyer, you see this every day in australian courts anyway  
but surely - .. this one takes the cake !!


----------



## wayneL (17 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Garpal
> I think he was.
> In fact, I have evidence he was.
> Better evidence than you could find to the contrary.
> ...



Red,

In matters of investing we are in sharp contrast with each other. Here, I am right with you. I think Australians who support this governments actions in this regard will someday look back... and regret it.

Cheers


----------



## rederob (18 February 2007)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> WTF.......they are one in the same, if used in the context of youre arguement.
> 
> And 'Justice' is entirely dependant on the origin of historical viewpoint. I'm sure western history varies greatly over the eastern version.....and others.



Freebies
I am not following your train of thought.
Although there is a societal context to justice, there are also moral and philosophical contexts.
I prefer to use these latter as societies can justify and have "justified" killing - such as infanticide among Eskimos - whereas to most that is anathema.
The concept of justice in application is relatively straightforward.
It requires reasonable people to treat others fairly.
The American justice system enshrines these principles.
But the war on terror is above the law because, because...
because it has to be!
As Garpal says, "get real!"


----------



## rederob (18 February 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Red,
> In matters of investing we are in sharp contrast with each other. .........
> Cheers



I'm sure you meant "trading".
It's a blunt comparison.
Although I assume we both prophet handsomely  .


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (18 February 2007)

Red,

I would prefer to fight for Justice and against Injustice. IMO they are one in the same. 

Obviously in the case of Hicks our Government and Bush believe they are fighting a just cause, most causes fought over are justified 'in the eye of the beholder'. I do not share the same opinion as Howard.

At the moment the voice of opinion of our democracy is not enough to convince our elected leader, Justice is not being served for Hick's. Tragic 

So yes indeed we all need to get real and let our elected leader know the majority believes we do not share his view of 'Justice', for David Hicks.


----------



## rederob (18 February 2007)

Freebies
Thanks.
I guess the context in which I have used "justice" relates to Hicks' treatment after capture.
The issue of whether the/any war was "just" is quite separate.

I listened briefly to Costello this morning, being interviewed by Bongiorno.
Costello, a barrister, put the case that it was pretty straightforward and along the lines of Garpal's argument.  That would contradict the need to be imprisoned for 5 years without charge, without access to lawyers, and in solitary confinement.

Just as Howard won't admit he's been wrong about WMD (no "evidence", just the best information at the time), he can't afford to bring Hicks home because it will show him to be weak on terror, or simply weak.

Maybe that's now for the best.  Hicks is more likely to be a danger to society due to his treatment at the hands of his jailers than he ever was in Afghanistan.


----------



## Kauri (18 February 2007)

It seems that public opinion is growing against the treatment (just or unjust) of Hicks, in my opinion it has the potential to become a major election issue. I wonder how the government will manage to backpeddle and save face at the same time if it threatens their election chances? If they indeed backpeddle I imagine it will be sooner rather than later. I expect some *major spin* and maybe a few minor concessions soon.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (18 February 2007)

Hicks to be sent home by end of year apparently and serve his sentence here if found guilty, Bout f$%$ time. Probly home before the elections, that would be good timing. Wouldnt count on it though.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hicks-to-be-home-by-year-end/2007/02/18/1171733599832.html


----------



## greggy (19 February 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:
			
		

> Hicks to be sent home by end of year apparently and serve his sentence here if found guilty, Bout f$%$ time. Probly home before the elections, that would be good timing. Wouldnt count on it though.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hicks-to-be-home-by-year-end/2007/02/18/1171733599832.html



Good timing on the part of the fed govt if they bring Hicks home before the next election.  The govt can then concentrate on putting out other bush fires.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 February 2007)

> The President Versus David Hicks  , Time: Tuesday, February 20, 10:00 PM (- 11.30pm) , Channel: SBS ,
> Duration: 90 minutes , Rating: M , Type: Documentary
> 
> In January 2002, David Hicks was picked up in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance and handed over to the US military. He was taken to the American Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for interrogation and has been held there in a small cage ever since. President Bush has labelled him an "unlawful combatant". This means that he is allowed none of the rights of ordinary prisoners of war. No charges have been laid against him and only recently has he been given access to a lawyer. How did a 26-year-old, former stockman from Adelaide, Australia, end up as a Taliban fighter? This program follows the journey made by Terry Hicks, David's father, who has never before travelled outside Australia, as he traces his son's footsteps in an attempt to understand what has happened to him.



 Bit of background info  - finishes damned late, but that's what video recorders are for I guess.  
(hopefully better than the recent doco on Twin Towers which was mainly trying to sell software for skyscraper fire control systems)


----------



## billhill (20 February 2007)

Anyone watch insight on sbs. Very interesting and i think it will make big news in the next couple of days. The government is looking on very shaky ground on this issue.


----------



## Kauri (20 February 2007)

billhill said:
			
		

> Anyone watch insight on sbs. Very interesting and i think it will make big news in the next couple of days. The government is looking on very shaky ground on this issue.



  Was worth it just to see a real interviewer at work, i.e pulling up a pollie mid-waffle and re-asking the question that they were trying to avoid.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 February 2007)

billhill said:
			
		

> Anyone watch insight on sbs. Very interesting and i think it will make big news in the next couple of days. The government is looking on very shaky ground on this issue.



 ditto with "The president versus David Hicks."

1. I am reminded of the fact that the only people to withstand brainwashing in Korea were the captured moslems (much better "stayers" than the captured Americans).  
2. When you see the commander of Guantanamo, you see the mechanical military brain at work. - o boy. Refusing to let him be interviewed because they were continuing to "interrogate" him after (then only) 18 months.  Simply another exercise is "bastardry", as per recent headlines.
3. the Northern Alliance were apparently paid $15K (USD? AUD?) to hand over Hicks - makes the division between combatants and mercenary a bit murky I would have thought .  
4. how brave is terry hicks? going into areas of Afghanistan where police have been ambushed - sheesh
5. how shallow is bush? - such horrible distortions of the facts.
6. how interesting were david hick's letters? - going to Kosovo to help to prevent some of the slaughter (then - and the UN finally caught up with the sentiment - sheesh)  
etc etc .


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> ditto with "The president versus David Hicks."
> 
> 1. I am reminded of the fact that the only people to withstand brainwashing in Korea were the captured moslems (much better "stayers" than the captured Americans).
> 2. When you see the commander of Guantanamo, you see the mechanical military brain at work. - o boy. Refusing to let him be interviewed because they were continuing to "interrogate" him after (then only) 18 months.  Simply another exercise is "bastardry", as per recent headlines.
> ...




Dear 2020,

Just a few questions and comments on your six list.

1. Please present some evidence for this statement, I'm unable to on some searching of the literature. 
2. Your opinion, acceptable as an opinion.
3. Again proof, a murky place where allegiances change daily. Also is it relevant?
4. An opinion, could be just , how shall I say it, " subject emotionally involved"
5. An opinion, could be just , how shall I say it, " subject intellectually challenged"
6. No comment except. Tooth fairy stuff.

Garpal


----------



## rederob (21 February 2007)

Garpal
It's always easier to criticise than act.
Given your slant towards Hicks *not  * being "innocent", if he were tomorrow brought to Australia, can you tell us what charges he would most likely be charged with (by the Australian Government {who seem happy for the US to try him for whatever charges they see fit}).
Just curious.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Garpal
> It's always easier to criticise than act.
> Given your slant towards Hicks *not  * being "innocent", if he were tomorrow brought to Australia, can you tell us what charges he would most likely be charged with (by the Australian Government {who seem happy for the US to try him for whatever charges they see fit}).
> Just curious.




Dear rederob,

Please do not shout. 

I do not know whether David Hicks is innocent or not.

He is awaiting trial.

Trials are not fair, never are.

He doesn't sound like the brightest star in the sky.

These guys tend to get treated worse by the "system"

His big error, which was of his own making, although he probably never realised the consequences, was, to engage in military or quasi military action when the US was under extreme threat.

These things happen.

I've got no problem with you being active in his defence, it could happen to one of my kids, however, Australians will be less likely as a result of this to align themselves with potential enemies of our democratic system.

Now this may not sit well with you, but it is a fact and probably the reason why DH has been hung out on a limb for so long.

Continue to defend him, but listen to the other side.

Garpal


----------



## rederob (21 February 2007)

Garpal
I simply would like to know what he could possibly be charged with if he were in Australia tomorrow.
If Australia is to ally itself with a nation that concocts a justice system to suits its own ends, and then lets its own citizens suffer consequences it would not condone at home, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.
As to listening "to the other side", I have, for many years.
The case against Hicks is wafer thin at best, and constructed on evidence that no respectable court in the world would hear.
I know the law often appears unjust.  However, it is intrinsically "fair".  The "system" you speak of normally has checks and balances that allow the truth to win out, where the burden of evidence suggests an outcome that reasonable people could not doubt.
Finally, to the best of our present knowledge, Hicks was not being groomed to war against the West but, instead, against the Indian presence in Kashmir.
To this latter end the US has recently, again, tried to stir the Indian government to investigate Hicks' possible involvement in any border skirmishes.
There is now a weight of opinion that Hicks has been too long jailed without charge. What a shame that it has taken 5 years for so many to wake up to this injustice.  What a greater shame that our government remains blind to this injustice.
So when you suggest something "may not sit well" with me, it is the veriness of being Australian and what it stands for today under our present government.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Just a few questions and comments on your six list.
> 1. Please present some evidence for this statement, I'm unable to on some searching of the literature.
> terry hicks courage etc



garpal, 
1. something I was taught during officer training for aust army 
2. as for Terry Hicks courage ... obviously you didnt see the SBS footage


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Garpal
> I simply would like to know what he could possibly be charged with if he were in Australia tomorrow.
> If Australia is to ally itself with a nation that concocts a justice system to suits its own ends, and then lets its own citizens suffer consequences it would not condone at home, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.
> As to listening "to the other side", I have, for many years.
> ...




dear rederob, 

Agree,

Lets get a common Australian fair go judgement going on David Hicks, without assuming guilt or innocence. Lets leave it to the courts. U and I can argue for decades but a court can make a decision.

Garpal


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 February 2007)

garpal
my turn to ask you a question..what 's your opinion of the slaughter of muslims in Bosnia ..and for that matter Kosovo situation.   Hicks went to help the KLA.  (when his step mum read that in a letter, she thought he'd joined an airline )As his father says, he was never a terrorist, there or in Afghanistan.  Maybe a soldier, but how the heck is he a terrorist (who attacks non-combatants).


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
> Most Albanians saw the KLA as legitimate "freedom fighters" whilst the Yugoslav government called them terrorists attacking police and (Serbian) civilians. Although the US envoy Robert Gelbard referred to the KLA as terrorists, he later admitted that they were never legally classified as a terrorist organisation by the US government. *Shortly after making his claims that the KLA were terrorists, Robert Gelbard was removed from his poisition as special envoy to Kosovo.*
> 
> It is widely believed that the KLA received financial and material support from the Kosovo Albanian diaspora in Europe and elsewhere. The KLA also received financial aid from the Albanian mafia.[9] Bujar Bukoshi, shadow Prime Minister in exile (in ZÃ¼rich, Switzerland), created a group called FARK (Armed Forces of the Republic of Kosova) which was reported to have been disbanded and absorbed by the KLA in 1998. The response of outside powers was ambivalent: in February 1998, the United States' Special Representative to Yugoslavia, Robert Gelbard, denounced the KLA as a terrorist organization but neither the United States nor most other powers made any serious effort to stop money or weapons being channeled into Kosovo.... etc



seems that even the USA sometimes has trouble with the definition of "terrorist"


----------



## happytown (22 February 2007)

For those interested, the above-mentioned insight program featuring the american prosecution and defence as well as ruddock, hick's father and stepmother and some ex-guantanamo detainees is to be repeated friday night 7.30 sbs and you're right, jennie brockie knows how to pin down all those trained in the dark art of sophistry.

cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 February 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> For those interested, the above-mentioned insight program ... is to be repeated friday night 7.30 sbs



Ripper, I missed it  - hopefully they repeat "Hicks vs the President" as well.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 February 2007)

the following is just general discussion,  not necessarily about Hicks, but  speaking of Korean POW's, here's an article which is very long (14 pages) in its entirety, but is an interesting read nonetheless - goes on to discuss the movies made after the Korean War, and the mindset of the American people at that time to the Korean tactics.  They slowly come round from accusing collaborators as traitors, to accepting human frailty under such circumstances. (as reflected by box office failures of movies etc)

Not about Hicks, just arguably a role reversal for USA to be the ones using these or similar techniques outside the Geneva Convention.  Some pertinent references to Vietnam (and Korea) where the treatment of returning soldiers was severely influenced by the fact that it was perceived that they had lost. As if it was their fault !! 
http://fornits.com/anonanon/articles/200103/20010330-258.htm 


> Sandwiched between the heroic films of World War II and Vietnam are a group of prison camp films that depart from convention in every case. This mostly grim subgenre depicted the American experience of captivity during the Korean War. Some form of collaboration with the enemy is a central issue in all six feature films about American soldiers imprisoned in Korea. These mostly forgotten films are, in chronological order, Prisoner of War (1954), The Bamboo Prison (1954), The Rack (1956), Time Limit (1957), The Manchurian Candidate (1962) and Sergeant Ryker (1968). The Outer Limits television episode 'Nightmare' (1963) also fits the pattern. Prompted by a misperception of whole-scale collaboration in Korean prison camps, these dramas were forced to flip convention on its head and acknowledge frailty, weakness and unfaithfulness.
> …….
> The glaring difference between Korean POW films and others is attributable to the prisoner image being melded to different aspects of the particular conflict. The attention put on POWs was due in part to the wider Korean stalemate which threw into question the resolve of the entire nation. *America's inability to prevail was transferred to the prisoners' failure to do the same. We may have betrayed the POWs in Vietnam, but, in Korea, they betrayed us. * The hypersensitivity over prisoner performance contrasts with World War II, where victory made introspection unnecessary. Prisoners are important in Vietnam lore, but to different ends. H. Bruce Franklin and Elliott Gruner explored the representation of the Vietnam POW/MIA. The alleged abandonment of live POWs symbolized the government using men, then throwing them away when the effort became too costly. The Vietnam action film also emphasized the cruelty of captors, showing Americans to have been victims rather than perpetrators.
> ….
> Unlike previous wars, Korea ended not with an atomic bang or conquest of a foreign capital, but when the last prisoner stepped off the boat. Under this kind of scrutiny and with no victory celebration for distraction, collaboration in prison camps could not remain the great unmentionable. Hints during the war of widespread collaboration became a flood as the POWs docked. It took a month to repatriate all the Americans, providing daily anecdotal evidence of treason. Each boat-load of returnees provided reporters with headlines like 'P.W.s Say Some G.I.s "Swallowed" Red Line, Bitter G.I.s Out to "Get" Informers Among P.W.s', or, simply, 'The Rats'. *By the most agitated estimate, one-third of all POWs were guilty of some sort of collaboration with the enemy. By another account it was one in seven*. Most disturbing were the defectors. Initially, 23 American prisoners chose communism over returning home. Reporters exposed the 'personal flaws' that led to treason. He was 'raised in a city slum', began one news story, and he had a sister confined to an orphanage and blinded by syphilis [24]. Defectors were regularly seen as either craven or as little boys requiring heart-rending appeals. The governor of Maryland joined one mother in a taped plea asking her son to return home. *'We all make mistakes', suggested the governor*. 'Regardless of what you may have been told', he added, 'the United States has no imperialist ambitions'. 'Jack, please hurry', added the mother, her voice breaking [25]. Collaboration was understood as a defect primarily in the individual, secondarily in the environment, but rarely as a predictable occurrence in wartime incarceration.



http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/e-asia/korea-pow.html  includes names of USA personnel tried after the war. (if anyone wants to go into that details - surely enough to know that under torture, deprivation etc, people will eventually crack.  Some of these had 3 years of it ( Hicks has had 5 )

Incidentally, Gen William Dean was captured, and despite torture did not disclose that he knew of the planned Inchon invasion.  He did not stick to "name rank serial number", but told them a series of half truths in various red herrings. Repeatedly interrogated for 72 hrs at a stint. (no actual torture). "During the third multiday interrogation, Dean sensed he was going to break, and was then narrowly prevented from committing suicide. He was not bothered after that."

Other quotes include:-
"Pentagon Burgess Committee knew that few could resist as well as Gen Dean, let alone remain silent. A rear admiral told the committee that all his own interrogation experts claimed to be able to 'extract information from anybody, and they say that they can do it without using actual torture. 

One of the movies after the war was "Prisoner of War" starring Ronald Reagan - "he plays the fearless Web Sloane , who sneaks into a prison camp to collect proof of violations of the Geneva Convention" etcetc

in The Rack, Paul Newman plays a captured POW who cracks.  A few reviewers said that "collaborators were more to be pitied than scorned".  "The response to the prisoners of limited war remained divided between a sympathy that seemed to excuse weakness and a Spartan code that was unrealistic and heartless".

PS Strongly religious people were the strongest to resist.(although not mentioned in this article)


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> the following is just general discussion,  not necessarily about Hicks, but  speaking of Korean POW's, here's an article which is very long (14 pages)
> http://fornits.com/anonanon/articles/200103/20010330-258.htm
> 
> http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/e-asia/korea-pow.html  includes names of USA personnel tried after the war. (if anyone wants to go into that details - surely enough to know that under torture, deprivation etc, people will eventually crack.  Some of these had 3 years of it ( Hicks has had 5 )
> ...




Dear 2020,

You are living in the land of the wi****couldabeens.

You have provided no evidence, merely opinions and cant.

However you have made me look anew at Hicks.

A medical or psych defence may be more appropriate for this guy.

He doesn't sound like the brightest star in the firmananet.

Garpal


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 February 2007)

Final notes...also from http://fornits.com/anonanon/articles/200103/20010330-258.htm 

The play "Time Limit" was made into a film.  "Films in Review called the story 'tendentious' for even considering a threshhold for resistance.  'A time limit on heroism?  What an insidious implication' ". 
....
"In actual disciplinary policy , collaboration in Korea was mitigated by duress.  Internal Pentagon documents were explicit in saying that 'no disciplinary action' was taken if POW's colluded under duress' ".

PS Garpal, I won't go into detail, other than to say that there was an American Sergeant who threw fellow prisoners out into the snow because they smelt of dysantry - where they froze to death - found guilty of murder - obviously the worst of the collaborators - but interestingly (since duration of sentences will no doubt be discussed in the future, after guilty verdict in a sham trial if they go with military commission) I think he got 10 years , or was it 7.  It's on that website I posted. 

But I've gottta feeling all this is going over your head.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 February 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Final notes...also from http://fornits.com/anonanon/articles/200103/20010330-258.htm
> 
> The play "Time Limit" was made into a film.  "Films in Review called the story 'tendentious' for even considering a threshhold for resistance.  'A time limit on heroism?  What an insidious implication' ".
> ....
> "In actual disciplinary policy , collaboration in Korea was mitigated by duress.  Internal Pentagon documents were explicit in saying that 'no disciplinary action' was takken if POW's colluded under distress' "




Dear 2020,

As a former ADF member who has served o'seas, 

If it was a choice between my balls and the security of the Western way of life, my balls would take prescedence.

Garpal


----------



## Kauri (22 February 2007)

An Australian citizen captured in Afghanistan by the Americans and their Allies..
  Is he being held and tried in Afghanistan?....
  Is he being held and tried in Australia?........
  Is he being held and tried in America?.........
  Is he being held and tried in any of the Allies countries?
  Why not?..............................................
  Why Cuba?............................................


----------



## rederob (22 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear 2020,
> As a former ADF member who has served o'seas,.....
> Garpal



Nothing worse than an Army cook.
Except those that served overseas


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Nothing worse than an Army cook.
> Except those that served overseas




Dear rederob,

This is the last time I will ever correspond with you.

You are a grub. 

I have served with members of the Catering Corps.

They are fully trained ADF members, with the ability, as proven in previous combat to acquit themselves personally. 

More importantly they provide each Digger with 3 meals a day, either hot and served, or as ration packs.

Many are fitter than infantry soldiers, and in combat over the years have had their fair share of medals.

Although I do not belong to this corps, I resent my self disclosure being used by you, in such a petty way.

Again rederob , you are a grub.

Garpal


----------



## rederob (22 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> Dear rederob,
> 
> This is the last time I will ever correspond with you.
> 
> ...



Garpal
My service number is 550198 - so how's that for disclosure.
Lighten up soldier!


----------



## rederob (22 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Garpal
> My service number is 550198 - so how's that for disclosure.
> Lighten up soldier!



And, if you hunt down service publications you will find my name on the Defence Regional Service Review for Queensland (1993 or thereabouts).
By the way, I did my initial training at Campbell Barracks and I reckon you would know where that was.


----------



## krisbarry (22 February 2007)

LOL....appears rederob makes enemies where ever he goes...By the way how is RBY workin' for ya...


----------



## rederob (22 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> LOL....appears rederob makes enemies where ever he goes...By the way how is RBY workin' for ya...



krisbarry
I don't post to make friends or enemies - they can come and go as they please.
There is also an oceanic gulf between an enemy and a ramper, the latter's boots being filled by you more often than not.  Double that gulf for someone who fails to heed the fundamentals or the charts, yet continues to trot out the same woeful line.
On thread now: I hope Garpal will be back in this debate as 2020 has too many "fors" and not enough "againsts", which tips the balance and skews the views.


----------



## krisbarry (22 February 2007)

I have changed my trading plan and are fully in resource stocks now.  I am only buying stocks with a small amount of shares on issue.  Its working well, thanks for asking.

Anyway back to this boring old thread...David Hicks...

Sorry to add nothing of vaule to this thread about David Hicks...I have no comment, and not really interested.


----------



## rederob (22 February 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:
			
		

> I have changed my trading plan and are fully in resource stocks now.
> ..............



Good luck.
I intend to lighten up my resources exposure this year, but the sign I had hoped to see -  after a flashing orange signal - keeps changing back to green, instead of red.

I might have to start the "Come back Garpal" thread and see if  2020 will be in it!


----------



## happytown (22 February 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:
			
		

> If it was a choice between my balls and the security of the Western way of life, my balls would take prescedence.




juxtaposing this with some of your previous bluster may indicate there would be no choice required

cheers


----------



## chops_a_must (22 February 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> I might have to start the "Come back Garpal" thread and see if  2020 will be in it!



I will. I enjoy the intelligent banter that we engage in. Different views, but still more than a few signs of intelligence.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2007)

Speaking of lightening up, I'll add this comment about one of my own posts...



> The KLA also received financial aid from the Albanian mafia. Bujar Bukoshi, shadow Prime Minister in exile (in ZÃ¼rich, Switzerland), created a group called FARK (Armed Forces of the Republic of Kosova) which was reported to have been disbanded and absorbed by the KLA in 1998.




The FARK used to be followed by a team of mothers in supoprt - they were called the mother FARKers.
When interrogated , they would be asked "you FARK?" on a positive reply they would be told "then FARK you"

Seriously again, religion , especially the sects cults  NRM (new religious movements) - is frequently all about brain washing.  - how permanent the effects is up for discussion / disputed by the experts - I would suggest pretty permanent in the case of Moslem converts, especially when they get such plentiful moral ammo against us.



> Brainwashing controversy in new religious movements and cults
> The main disputes regarding brainwashing exist in the field of cults and NRMs. The controversy about the existence of cultic brainwashing is one of the most polarizing issues among cult followers, academic researchers of cults, and cult critics. There is no agreement about the existence of a social process attempting coercive influence and neither about the existence of the social outcome that people are influenced against their will.
> 
> The issue gets even more complicated through the existence of several brainwashing definitions, some of them almost strawman caricatures, and through the introduction of the similarly controversial mind control concept in the 1990s, which is at times interchangeably used for brainwashing and at other times differentiated from brainwashing. Additionally, some authors refer to brainwashing as recruitment method (Barker) while others refer to brainwashing as a method of retaining existing members (Kent 1997, Zablocki 2001).
> ...






> Brainwashing in fiction
> Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details about various works of fiction follow.
> In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, brainwashing is used by the totalitarian government of Oceania to erase nonconformist thought and rebellious personalities.
> In the 1962 movie The Manchurian Candidate, the concept of brainwashing is a central theme. Specifically, Communist brainwashers turn a soldier into an assassin through something akin to hypnosis.
> ...



Chops - (and Barney) - note that last one...
"brainwashed by 'The Others' using drum and bass music"


----------



## happytown (23 February 2007)

2020,

in spite of sbs news stating that insight would be repeated at 7.30 tonight, it is actually being repeated now, 2.30pm

cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2007)

can i suggest keep watching SBS for "Churchills Bodyguard "   
including Lawrence of Arabia


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2007)

thanks happy town!! - appreciated.
Having watched both "Insider" and " Churchill's Bodyguard" 
I would propose that there several types of people (people might like to add other categories):-

1. Moral Maj Michael Mori  - what a great man - inspires 100% admiration - add Sir Winston Churchiull and Sir Walter Thompson and Lawrence of Arabia
2. Col Moe Davis - a pawn of the system (see below)- call him neutral - amoral - neither this nor that (being generous praps)
3. Ruddock and Howard - yuk!!! - in a position to act , yet devoid of of any moral backbone!!
4. Terry Hicks - honest as the day is long (more than I can say for 2 and 3 ) 

PS I sat on a military court martial bench as "officer under instruction".   The way it works is that military officers are told they will be "prosecution" or "defence".  To be fair to Moe Davis, he has been dealt a hand - maybe he was chosen as "an officer sympathetic to the govt cause" - (and I suspect a very zealous devotion to some horrible political cause) - but whatever ...

Lets celebrate the fact that Mori is still fighting against (and resisting)the "easy-out" pre-trial negotiation (yuk!!)  - that moral giant whose career is in serious  jeopardy - (when questioned by Denton that "surely Hicks will  kill your career" answered "you are allocated defence , you do your job" ) . 
PS I hope RuddocK never sees another day in govt after Nov 2007  

PPS the military commission proposed for hicks has NOTHING in common with a court martial!! (or justice)- It is 100% "smoke and mirrors" folks !!     -

PPS lol  (puke) didnt you love Ruddocks defence of his position - that Hicks might want to "clear his name" lol - AGAINST WHAT CHARGE YOU MORON !!!"  Mori immediately repled "Hicks doesnt want to go to court to defend any damned charge"


----------



## rederob (3 March 2007)

What!
After 5 years the US decide that Hicks wasn't going to attempt to murder anyone, after all.
This is good news.
No?
Apparently "providing material support for terrorism" is a far more serious crime - ooops, charge - according to our beloved Minister Downer.
It is true, and I have it on good authority, that Hicks' prowess with needle and thread were renown in the training camp.  Hicks won several prizes at high school for his embroidery which, in part, explains his later alienation from society and desire to follow a more spiritual path.
What the US has not been clear on is the nature of this "material support".
This is what actually happened:
When Hicks first met Bin Laden he noticed the nappy on his head kept falling off.  Hicks told Bin laden he could provide him material support (this is true - it is in the taped confessions {garnered with only a wee bit of torture}) and the next day came back with a head dress fit for a raving global terrorist.
To the trained eye, and to the CIA trying to capture Bin Laden, a well kept secret is being revealed to you, dear readers, for the first time.
Hicks had mastered the reversed Palestrina stitch at school, and being only semi literate at the time thought it was the Palestinian stitch, and that is what he told Bin Laden when he saw "DH" sewn beautifully into the head dress.  Bin Laden, it turns out, was also a dab hand at embroidery and immediately recognised the stitch as the Basque knot - a true symbol of the ideals he had come to admire from these people oppressed by the Spanish.
Immediately Bin laden took a shine to our anti-hero and this indelible impression has now given the Americans cause to charge him as they have.
Back to the CIA: All these years they had been trying to work out why "DH" appeared on Bin Laden's head dress.  The "in" joke was that it was Bin Laden way of "saying" to the CIA that you are "*D*ick *H*eads" if you can't find me.
But now the truth is revealed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 March 2007)

rederob, lol, makes about as much sense as his charges.  (apparently the charge says he got to stand guard beside a Taliban tank - wow bigdeal - almost certainly bought with US finance ??) 

whilst on the subject of US credibility... reminds me...
Superman arrives in a rocket wrapped in a bedcloth, to defend "peace, truth, and the American way".
His adopted mum stitches it into his suit using mere earthly thread.
So how come the thread doesn't burn up when he does all his superhero stuff?
You get so many rumours from Hollywood etc you start to lose track of what's credible and what isn't. 

Hopefully Mori gets a chance to fully cross-examine the source of second- and third-hand hearsay against him (although Moe Davis implied he wouldn't have to disclose these sources and presumably these "paths")


----------



## greggy (3 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> rederob, lol, makes about as much sense as his charges.  (apparently the charge says he got to stand guard beside a Taliban tank - wow bigdeal - almost certainly bought with USD ??)
> 
> whilst on the subject of US credibility... reminds me...
> Superman arrives in a rocket wrapped in a bedcloth, to defend "peace, truth, and the American way".
> ...



It has always surprised me how foolish Mr Hicks was to get caught up in a situation like this (Also, for Mr Bush getting involved in Iraq thinking that it was going to be an easy victory).  But just the same, my concern for Mr Hicks is that the delays have been utterly ridiculous and Mr Howard, for whom I voted at the last federal election as Mr Latham was clearly unfit for office, just take a look at his book, should have used his apparent clout with the US to solve the David Hicks issue much earlier on.  The sooner he gets natural justice the better.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 March 2007)

this is a couple of weeks old, and maybe Howard has at last got his suit on,   but it's not off topic imo.   I mean, I still think Hicks case has the potential to cause major swing against govt  
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2007/s1856323.htm

I notice also that Hicks defence team are still pursueing the option of UK citizenship - lol - what a slap in the face that would be to Canberra.  Can't see them letting that one go through


----------



## greggy (3 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> this is a couple of weeks old, and maybe Howard has at last got his suit on,   but it's not off topic imo.   I mean, I still think Hicks case has the potential to cause major swing against govt
> http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2007/s1856323.htm
> 
> I notice also that Hicks defence team are stil pursueing the option of UK citizenship - lol - what a slap in the face that would be to Canberra.  Can't see them letting that one go through



I reckon that Mr Howard will finally speed up the process so as to nullify the issue by election time.  He's a very canny politician.


----------



## nizar (3 March 2007)

Its tragic whats happening to David Hicks.
Just tragic.
5 years on no charge.

Why is it we just have to always follow those Yanks and their procedures??

Of course now there will have to be a charge on him, so they dont look like idiots.

So what do they do to find this charge?
They torture the f&#k out of other prisoners until they say something, something made up, of course, since they want to survive.
Like that guy that wrote a 148-page document about David Hicks for the US government and then got released from Guanatamo Bay recently on no charge. It was in the Age last week.

What a disgrace.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 March 2007)

nizar said:
			
		

> Like that guy that wrote a 148-page document about David Hicks for the US government and then got released from Guanatamo Bay recently on no charge. It was in the Age last week.



Lol, or the one where the pom confessed just to get out of torture, - finally got home to UK - the British MI5 went on to prove that what the USA was saying was impossible because of a cast-iron alibi, different country at the time etc.
Imagine that, actual British taxpayers money being used to defend a British citizen againt the fabricated slurs put out by the USA.  Can you imagine Canberra doing that?  sickening - just sickening.

You may recall Brockie asking Ruddock the same thing - he sidestepped, finally saying "I would have thought that Hicks would like to go through with the trial - since the nice Americans are giving him the opportunity to clear his name" (paraphrasing)  lol.  joke joyce.

(personally I find myself comparing all this hoo-har about Rudd meeting Bourke (on the one hand) - with the Hicks question, and I personally find it an easy call to make - but others might disagree I guess).


----------



## Kauri (3 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> (personally I find myself comparing all this hoo-har about *Rudd meeting Bourke* (on the one hand) - with the Hicks question , and I personally find it an easy call to make - but others might disagree I guess).




If you happened to be in the same suburb you could hardly miss him...


----------



## nioka (3 March 2007)

If Hicks gave support to the terrorists by guarding one of their tanks and this is such a terrible crime then why aren't the American polititions who supplied the tank in prison along with Hicks?


----------



## Julia (4 March 2007)

nizar said:
			
		

> Its tragic whats happening to David Hicks.
> Just tragic.
> 5 years on no charge.
> 
> ...



I agree that it's a disgrace that anyone should be held for over five years without charge.

However, aren't you being just a bit unrealistic in not acknowledging that Hicks did train with Al Quaeda whose clearly stated aim is to do harm to Australia amongst other Western nations?
It's not exactly as though he was over in the Middle East as a member of the Boy Scouts, or even just a tourist.  He was there with the stated aim of participating in harm towards western nations, his own country amongst them.

Julia


----------



## rederob (4 March 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> I agree that it's a disgrace that anyone should be held for over five years without charge.
> 
> However, aren't you being just a bit unrealistic in not acknowledging that Hicks did train with Al Quaeda whose clearly stated aim is to do harm to Australia amongst other Western nations?
> It's not exactly as though he was over in the Middle East as a member of the Boy Scouts, or even just a tourist.  He was there with the stated aim of participating in harm towards western nations, his own country amongst them.
> ...



Julia
apart from the "Boy Scouts" bit, how much of what you said do you "know" is accurate?


----------



## Out Too Soon (4 March 2007)

This is the first time I've commented on Hicks. 
His incarceration without charge is wrong (an embarrassment to "the land of the free" lol)  but there are A LOT of MUCH more worthy causes to support than Hicks. 
I feel real sorry for his dad not him.

You want to protest, how about political prisoners in China or people escaping persecution in Papua or Sudan etc being illegally detained offshore by Australia (another "land of the free"). 

The Hypocrisy of our western govts gos on & on!


----------



## nizar (4 March 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> I agree that it's a disgrace that anyone should be held for over five years without charge.
> 
> However, aren't you being just a bit unrealistic in not acknowledging that Hicks did train with Al Quaeda whose clearly stated aim is to do harm to Australia amongst other Western nations?
> It's not exactly as though he was over in the Middle East as a member of the Boy Scouts, or even just a tourist.  He was there with the stated aim of participating in harm towards western nations, his own country amongst them.
> ...




LOL do you know how many innocent people america, australia and other "western nations" have killed?
When will Bush go on trial for war crimes??
Seriously.


----------



## numbercruncher (5 March 2007)

nizar said:
			
		

> LOL do you know how many innocent people america, australia and other "western nations" have killed?




I dont know the answer to this, do you?

And how many innocent people have non-Western nations killed?

If we add up how many innocent people have been killed by non-western nations vs killed by Western nations, will that show us who is more evil or who is less evil? 

All i see is a cycle of tit for tat violence and hatred that will surely go on for eternity or until the big bang, i remember reading a statistic that in the last like 2000 years there has been no more than 3 years total peace across the planet, scary hey? 

One would have to assume that War is mankinds natural state of being, I think that Multi-Racial societies are mankinds destiny but i fail to see how multi-culturalism (let alone globilisation) is ever truly going to find the status quo.


May Peace be with You.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 March 2007)

I guess this is what Mori gets for winning the TV debate about Hicks on Insight the other week (in which Moe Davis also had his say).  Talk about a loaded system.     I would guess that the delay would not be what Howard wants, not that this 6th year is any different to the other 5 really - with the exception of that little word "election". 

Howard :- "we are very angry that it's taken so long," he said.  "I share the views of millions of Australians that justice delayed is justice denied."

I wonder what John Howard means when he says, "justice delayed is justice denied".?  It has been delayed.  And Hicks has been denied justice.  I would have thought that that old saying was unambiguous - under these circumstances, it is impossible for justice to be resurrected.  Like - all over red rover, too late for band-aids.   

- especially too late if all they are offering are fake trials with custom- designed military commissions using retrospective rules, and shoddy evidence, and torture chambers.  -and now even objecting to the defence lawyer (who didnt play the game and roll over, now may be removed)  

I also wonder what Howard meant when he said "the Government would not view another significant delay in the Hicks case as acceptable".   I think he went on to say " I won't add any more" implying that there was more to tell.  Is he on the red phone asking for Mori not to be sacked,- reason? I mean the real reason? (after 5 years) - maybe because it will have electoral implications for him?



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1862642.htm
> Hicks's lawyer faces removal from case.  The defence lawyer for Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks says he may be removed from the case - a move that would delay proceedings again. The US military's chief prosecutor has threatened to charged Hicks's lawyer, Major Michael Mori, under the US code of military justice.
> 
> Major Mori has been accused of breaching Article 88 of the US military code.  It prohibits contemptuous language against the President, the Vice-President, Secretary of State and Congress.
> ...



http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1862885.htm 


> Govt must defend Mori, Opposition says
> Shadow Attorney-General Kelvin Thomson wants the Federal Government to raise issues about the conduct of David Hicks's defence team with authorities in the United States.  The US military's chief prosecutor has questioned Major Michael Mori's lobbying on behalf of his client.
> 
> Major Mori says he could be removed from the case, which would further delay proceedings.  Mr Thomson says the Government should defend Major Mori's handling of the case.  "The Howard Government must now go to the US authorities and say, at the very least, that Major Mori should not be taken off the case," he said.  "[The Government] should also say that it has now lost confidence in the legal process at Guantanamo Bay and that David Hicks should now be removed from there to face a US court or an Australian court."


----------



## Bobby (5 March 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Julia
> apart from the "Boy Scouts" bit, how much of what you said do you "know" is accurate?




Now Rob whats accurate?
Your opinion.

You & I don't know the full details of whats what, your ideas are yours as Julia's are hers.

Have you been a naughty boy  ?  If you feel you have, you can redeem yourself, just say so to Julia.

Regards
Bob.


----------



## Julia (5 March 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Julia
> apart from the "Boy Scouts" bit, how much of what you said do you "know" is accurate?



Rob,
I don't *know*  any more than anyone else does.
I am simply quoting what his own father said in an interview I heard.
That would appear to be the closest thing to an accurate source we have available.  It has also been widely reported that he has admitted being happy about 9/11, and before you jump on me for that comment, no I don't necessarily place any credence on that when we have no means of knowing what coercion may have been used to extract such an admission.

I'm just getting a little tired of hearing him discussed as some unwitting innocent who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time to resort to the old cliche.




What do you think he was doing over there, Rob?

Julia


----------



## Julia (5 March 2007)

nizar said:
			
		

> LOL do you know how many innocent people america, australia and other "western nations" have killed?
> When will Bush go on trial for war crimes??
> Seriously.



I have no idea and I don't imagine you have either.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment about Hicks.
For what it's worth, I regard Bush et al as probably the worst thing to happen to our world in my lifetime, and would never defend anything they have done, nor would I hold our present government in anything but the lowest regard for following Bush and taking Australia into the mess that is Iraq.
So my remarks about Hicks are simply an attempt to bring some balance to those who would see him as some sort of martyr to I don't know what, and absolutely not a reflection of my approval of our government's handling of his situation.

Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 March 2007)

Julia ,  here's a story about a man also held for 5 years in Guantanamo.  and what's the bottom line ?    
 "US authorities set him free after finding no evidence he had links to Islamic militants"


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1863712.htm Former Guantanamo inmate describes interrogations. By Peter Lloyd
> 
> A Bangladeshi man held for five years at Guantanamo Bay says guards desecrated the Koran during interrogations, claims that echo allegations made by other former detainees.  Mubarak Hussan bin Abul Hasin was arrested in Pakistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US and then flown by the US military to Guantanamo Bay.
> 
> ...



On the one hand, anyone who defends these suspects is blackballed by big business in USA - and/or kicked out of the military (if they are successful).   On the other hand, they admit after 5 years of torture/abuse, "he was innocent all along".


----------



## billhill (6 March 2007)

The bottom line in this whole hicks case regardless of what he did is that he broke no law of the time. What kind of precedent does it set if we backdate laws. The government could turn around tomorrow and outlaw trading on the stock exchange. Then they could backdate the law and everyone on this forum could be put in jail. What the hicks case demonstrates is the amount of power and rights we have willingly handed to our leaders. And what our leaders have shown is what we've known all along, we can't trust them with this sort of power.


----------



## carmo (6 March 2007)

No fan of Hick's, but I could not beleive it when the 60 minutes team wanted to see him, they were told it would be a violation of his rights.


----------



## porkpie324 (6 March 2007)

I would suggest that Hicks along with all the accused be given the same opportunity as a direct forefather of mine who was arrested tried and sentenced to transportation on the first fleet to reach Botany Bay for the grave crime of stealing yes 'porkpies' on 3 occasions, I dread to think of the treatment he was given not to mention the trial. But on reaching the end of the world, after serving his sentance he made himself a law biding citizen and prospered and made this country into a land of what we can be proud of. I hope he's not turning in his grave thinking of the dropout flakey lot whinging on this thread going by some of the posts. porkpie


----------



## greggy (6 March 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> I would suggest that Hicks along with all the accused be given the same opportunity as a direct forefather of mine who was arrested tried and sentenced to transportation on the first fleet to reach Botany Bay for the grave crime of stealing yes 'porkpies' on 3 occasions, I dread to think of the treatment he was given not to mention the trial. But on reaching the end of the world, after serving his sentance he made himself a law biding citizen and prospered and made this country into a land of what we can be proud of. I hope he's not turning in his grave thinking of the dropout flakey lot whinging on this thread going by some of the posts. porkpie



Well you've left me speechless here...I hope the "porkpies" were tasty enough otherwise it would been all for nothing.
DYOR


----------



## happytown (6 March 2007)

re retrospective laws,

there is no absolute prohibition in aust against retrospectivity in laws

the high court does have a particular abhorrence, however, when, in this country, retrospectivity is applied to criminal law - due to the sanctions applicable, such as the possible loss of liberty to an individual who has undertaken an activity, that at the time of undertaking was legal, only to find out subsequently that the aforementioned activity is now deemed illegal at the time of undertaking

understanding that the hicks issue more closely resembles criminal law and recognising high court's abhorrence above, nonetheless in other areas of aust law, including for example taxation law, provided the respective parliament has made the intention of retrospectivity unmistakably clear, retropsectivity in and of itself will be no bar to a law's validity

having said that, and more closely resembling this thread, the time taken thus far, including the reliability of witnesses memory this far down the road, the alleged coercion including alleged torture metered out, the metamorphic nature of the charges laid, and the apparent absence of the fundamental cornerstone 'innocent until proven guilty' leads this little black duck to conclude that contempt of all those involved is warranted, at the very least

however this little balck duck's contempt, short of anything else, assists not, someone in david hicks position

that is where my intention at the upcoming election assumes a greater import

cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 March 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> transportation on the first fleet ..for the grave crime of stealing yes 'porkpies' on 3 occasions, I dread to think of the treatment he was given not to mention the trial.



Mate you'd dread to think of the treatment he'd get in Guantanamo as well (assuming the time warp is on) - in these brainwashing centres, they exploit peoples' weaknesses - for instance your great-great etc etc grandad would have been denied porkpies until he confessed to a damned sight more than eating stolen pies.    food for thought.  (or is it "food for your thoughts"?)



			
				happytown said:
			
		

> re retrospective laws, ... that is where my intention at the upcoming election assumes a greater import



spot on.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 March 2007)

Jese  it was hard to find a sober cop during the Rum Rebellion!
...
not that anyone minded, they were all pis*ed as well.
ahh - they were the days - even the porkpies had a nip of rum 

completely off the thread, but has anyone every heard reference to the ole reliable "trificta of charges" in local police matters? - like fabricated resist arrest etc.  Orwell's 1984 (Big Brother) was probably about 25 years out - published in 1949.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell .
> Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903[1][2] – 21 January 1950), better known by the pen name George Orwell, was a British author and journalist.
> Orwell is among the most widely admired English-language essayists of the 20th century. He is best known for two novels critical of fascism, communism and totalitarianism written and published towards the end of his life: Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four.
> 
> ...



sheesh - hate to think what would happen to George Orwell - if he were captured today !!! - by the Yanks - OR by Hitler for that matter lol.


----------



## porkpie324 (6 March 2007)

Guantanamo Bay would be a breeze, you imagine being imprisoned on a stinking hulk on the thames waiting for a one way passage to the end of the world. Then to land on some mossie infested beach 9 months later. Guantanamo is to good for the likes of Hicks and the like, leave them where they are and forget them. porkpie


----------



## wayneL (6 March 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> Guantanamo Bay would be a breeze, you imagine being imprisoned on a stinking hulk on the thames waiting for a one way passage to the end of the world. Then to land on some mossie infested beach 9 months later. Guantanamo is to good for the likes of Hicks and the like, leave them where they are and forget them. porkpie



1/ Be careful what you wish for

2/ Beware of the law of unintended consequences


----------



## nizar (6 March 2007)

porkpie324 said:
			
		

> Guantanamo is to good for the likes of Hicks and the like, leave them where they are and forget them. porkpie




Every1s entitled to an opinion but thats a bit HARSH !


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 March 2007)

strictly off the topic of Hicks, but what the heck - it's still a current phenomenon that most of us I'm sure would have "felt" before. For a start, there are 50 odd cameras monitoring Sydney CBD, - if you spit in the gutter , there's a fair chance that you'll be caught on film   - as for stealing a po... - no won't go there .   (gotta feeling my distant rels preferred stealing meat pies   )


> Influence on the English language.. Some of Nineteen Eighty-Four's lexicon has entered into the English language.
> 
> Orwell expounded on the importance of honest and clear language (and, conversely, on how misleading and vague language can be a tool of political manipulation) in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language. The language of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is Newspeak: a thoroughly politicized and obfuscatory language designed to make coherent thought impossible by limiting acceptable word choices.
> 
> ...


----------



## petervan (6 March 2007)

I'm sure porkpie can look his own son in the eyes and wish that happens to him if he's o/s and gets arrested.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 March 2007)

since Hicks apparently spent some time with KLA in Kosovo - this might give some possibilities of what he was doing.  Not meaning to take sides here, just pointing out that Yugoslavia under MiloÅ¡ević was a bit of a mess (inherited from history including the likes of Tito and Milosevic), and KLA only surfaced in 1996 - after massacre of Bosnian Moslems, and arguably almost as a last resort.   The KLA ended up fighting on the same side as NATO, for what it's worth.  Hicks may have even waved to US airplanes going overhead ??  - pure speculation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War


> ...In 1912 the Serbian army took back control over Kosovo from Turkey .... .hence the current Balkan issues between the Serbs and (Moslem) Albanians in Kosovo.....
> 
> [Serbs made up]  10.9% of population in 1991.. in 1979 the average per capita income was $795.
> 
> ...


----------



## son of baglimit (7 March 2007)

aint it ironic the 'peace and love' troupe are supporting a mercenary !!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 March 2007)

son of baglimit said:
			
		

> aint it ironic the 'peace and love' troupe are supporting a mercenary !!!



based on the timing of your post son of baglimit, 
I assume you're supporting Milosevic ?


----------



## Bobby (8 March 2007)

Checking my personal mail, I,m not the only one who skips  2020s posts

Who else     

Bob.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 March 2007)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Checking my personal mail, I,m not the only one who skips  2020s posts
> 
> Who else
> 
> Bob.




Bob,

I skip them happily.  
Snake


----------



## Bobby (8 March 2007)

It's Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Bob,
> 
> I skip them happily.
> Snake




Yep Snake ,

Gee what a bore, but at least he's consistent  

Bob.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 March 2007)

Bobby said:
			
		

> Yep Snake ,
> Gee what a bore, but at least he's constant




Bob, more like a perpetuating virus.

The love and peace brigade days are history. People are tired of it.


----------



## Bobby (8 March 2007)

It's Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Bob, more like a perpetuating virus.
> 
> The love and peace brigade days are history. People are tired of it.



Spot on about that Snake !

Just check that action of hate ~ muslems V muslems every night on SBS.
 Wow what a peaceful religion    

Have Fun
Bob.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 March 2007)

son of baglimit said:
			
		

> aint it ironic the 'peace and love' troupe are supporting a mercenary !!!



son of baglimit, there are many ways of looking at this - as there probably are of looking at Kosovo, or East Timor, or Afghanistan, or the Cronulla question (  - where I believe Snake even agreed with me lol)  - 
and depending on the emphasis, I guess you could be accused of belongiong to a "troupe" as you call it.
Personally here, I'd prefer to call my emphasis "truth and honesty" than "peace and love".  

If you had seen the SBS show "Hicks and the President", you would have followed some of Hick's life. - possibly start to understand him.  He became a rodeo rider - showed him on a bucking bull for instance.   (off subject except that he's no wuss, whatever else he may or may not be).

His motivations for going to Pakistan and Kosovo appeared to be purely religious with a (probably) misguided single mindedness to follow some spiritual calling.  Everyone he met who was subsequently interviewed was amazed that a (recent convert) Aussie would be such a dedicated Moslem.  He impressed people with some sort of "nun-like peace", lol.   Maybe you could call him a "morally driven mercenary" But you'd hardly call him a "commercially driven mercenary".

As for NATO being slow to go into Kosovo, (by comparison to Hicks - not that I'm suggesting we should all be taking these things on ourselves) -  international opinion seems to wait until things get totally out of control before they act.  (the blood soaked doll that "galvanised" world opinion and NATO / UN  will to act in Kosovo;  or I guess the bloodbath after the East Timor elections for that matter, after which Aus / UN finally acted ) 


> the threats [by international community] intensified once again but a galvanising event was needed. They got it on September 28 when the mutilated corpses of a family were discovered outside the village of Gornje Obrinje; the bloody doll from there became the rallying image for the ensuing war.



I have asked SBS for details of links to that "Hicks vs President" thing , but no joy as yet. 

Maybe you're into a Hollywood version of what Bosnia and Kosovo was like, go watch the likes of  "Behind Enemy Lines", Owen Wilson - about downed pilots in Kosova, or Bosnia, forget). typical Hollywood, bludy gruesome  etc 

As for posts other-than-about-trading,  you're right,  One things for sure, you'll be financially richer than I will be.  But once I've put my bets on, I look for something else to do with my mind - try to pick the "spinball" that the pollies pitch at us - and maybe have an unbiassed initial opinion about the likes of Hicks, at least until I've DMOR  

PS Terry Hicks ( his father) says he went to Afghanistan to get his passport - maybe it's as  simple as that. Maybe worse - but it any event , Is it a hanging offence to be in a country when the UN/USA attack looking for AQ? - especially confusing when the last country you were in , you were on the same side as NATO/UN?  - As Winston Churchill said, it's rarely  black and white m8   

PPS Just by the way - even Johnny Howard has now joined your "peace and love" brigade lol

(Final comment I promise , for someone who has me on ignore - Bobby sure fills up a lot of space with posts presumably in my direction lol .   )


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 March 2007)

It's Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Bob, more like a perpetuating virus.  The love and peace brigade days are history. People are tired of it.



Snake, here's a couple of thoughts for the day 


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
> An ideology is an organized collection of ideas. The word ideology was coined by Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy in the late 18th century to define a "science of ideas." An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things,….
> The main purpose behind an ideology is to offer … what the world ought to be.



"Ideologically aware" seems to be strange contrast to your post about this or that brigade being history "people are tired of it"

Are you saying that the feds who now back Hicks (Howard to some extent at least) are "love and peace brigade" ?

Never forget that one of the most infectious of all concepts (ideolological or otherwise) is a smile m8


----------



## nioka (8 March 2007)

Just put Hicks aside for one minute. This is the problem here: Nobody, not even a dog ,should be subjected to torture or held without trial for years for something they may have done. That IS terrorism.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 March 2007)

nioka said:
			
		

> Just put Hicks aside for one minute. This is the problem here: Nobody, not even a dog ,should be subjected to torture or held without trial for years for something they may have done. That IS terrorism.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks  This website is quoting things pretty much up to date ( at most a couple of days old)


> Alleged Mistreatment
> Professor Alfred W. McCoy writes[6] that:
> •	Initially held onboard USS Peleliu in the Arabian Sea, Hicks was "flown to a nearby land base for ten-hour torture sessions, shackled and blindfolded, which were marked by kicking, beatings with rifle butts, punching about the head and torso, death threats at gunpoint and anal penetration with objects – all by Americans."
> •	On 9 July 2003 Hicks was placed in a closet-sized, self-contained cell designed to deny its occupant all stimuli; this CIA sensory-deprivation torture technique continued for eight months (244 days). Hicks "experienced 'extreme mood swings' almost hourly" and began to consider suicide. By early 2004 American attorney, Joshua Dratel, "found Hicks at the brink of despair","obsessed with the minutiae of his surroundings, almost unable to comprehend the reality of his trial and the larger issues at stake."
> ...




I didn't realise that Dick Smith was financing his defence ( filling the massive void left by the Aus Govt)  


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1850542.htm
> ...Smith pledges more
> Meanwhile Australian businessman Dick Smith has foreshadowed further contributions to the defence costs for Hicks.  Mr Smith revealed yesterday he has already spent $60,000 on funding the defence effort, because he is angered at the way Hicks has been treated.  Now Mr Smith has indicated he is prepared to spend more.
> 
> "I'm going to continue funding as long as it needs to get him a fair trial," Mr Smith said.  "It makes me quite angry giving this funding because it should be going to charities like the Salvation Army or the Smith family.   "To be putting it into defence for David Hicks is terrible but it's just what I have to do."



Of course everything has gone into a new phase with two parallel cases racing to come up with a decision  (preliminary hearing of case against Hicks, and locally where the Fed Govt is being taken to task over its inaction).  Interesting times - what a movie this one will make  http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1866840.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1867125.htm
Downer:- "we're thinking of sending Hicks father and two wives to the hearing - Isn't that big-a-me !"
Terry Hicks:- "who cares if its bloody bigomy or trigomy, that's the least of his problems - and since when did you care about David's welfare?


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 March 2007)

"Ideological Quagmires"  - had this interesting comment about the USA...(by an american obviously)
http://iq.mythicflow.com/


> Besides pride in or admiration of its principles, being pro-USA requires acknowledging and facing its shortcomings and its inconsistencies. Like the concomitance [concurrent coexistence] of pro & anti, America both has a democracy and it doesn't; its citizens vote but only for their favorite ad campaign.
> 
> The American dream also still endures, because it's being adapted as a fantasy in order to maintain its allure in today's dynamic reality.
> 
> ...


----------



## rederob (8 March 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> Rob,
> I don't *know*  any more than anyone else does.
> I am simply quoting what his own father said in an interview I heard.
> That would appear to be the closest thing to an accurate source we have available.  It has also been widely reported that he has admitted being happy about 9/11, and before you jump on me for that comment, no I don't necessarily place any credence on that when we have no means of knowing what coercion may have been used to extract such an admission.
> ...



Julia
Have been offline for a while, so missed your replies.
It's a bit difficult to know what Hicks' side of the story is given he has not had much of a chance to tell it, except perhaps through coercion/torture.

I admit to being a bit amused by the notion he was not an innocent because he was training with or for whom ever.  
The worlds "legal" armies train soldiers to kill people (theoretically only other "soldiers), and even tho we should abide by the Geneva Conventions, the reality is that in war situations people do some pretty evil things.

A natural extension of the Hicks case is that it could theoretically allow Iran to "buy" captured US soldiers in Iraq and try them for war crimes in North Korea.  It might sound a bit far fetched, but how exactly would the US soldier justify his "legal" presence in Iraq? 

In any event, I am not defending what Hicks may have done, or intended to do.  I am instead going to bat for justice and fair play to prevail.  

I think people like Hicks are misguided and foolish, but I am not sure that warrants them being treated the way he has been, and for as long as he has been mistreated - in both moral and legal senses.


----------



## lamborghini (9 March 2007)

If David Hicks disliked Americans before, what do you think he feels for them now?


----------



## Kauri (9 March 2007)

> _9th March 2007, 12:49 WST_
> A US Navy medic who pleaded guilty to kidnapping in the *murder of an unarmed Iraqi man who was forced into a hole and shot* was released on Thursday on a reduced sentence for good behaviour.
> 
> Seaman Recruit Melson J Bacos, 21, had been sentenced to 10 years in prison, *but a pretrial agreement capped that sentence at 12 months. His lawyer said the sentence was further reduced*.
> ...




   Hey, if Hicks pleads guilty they will end up owing him time, and he may get to stay in Al Q. as well...


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 March 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1868526.htm


> Lobby group says Govt hasn't asked for Hicks's return
> The Perth-based lobby group 'Justice for David Hicks' says comments by the United States Defence Secretary clearly show the Federal Government has not asked for Hicks to be returned to Australia.   Robert Gates wants to reduce the number of inmates at Guantanamo Bay but says the facility has inmates who would attack the US if released and others whose home countries do not want them.
> 
> The head of the lobby group, former WA premier Peter Dowding, says Hicks does not fit the first category so it is clear the Government has never tried to have him returned home.  "We've been saying for a long time that the Prime Minister should demand Hicks's return just as Prime Minister Blair demanded the return of the British inmates, and it's clear that although he's had the opportunity to do it he's simply let Hicks down," Mr Dowding said.
> ...



PS Kauri , your previous post "sez it all"    We are blindly following the USA into a world where the "lowest common demoninator", sorry , I recall someone used the term "LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR!!"  (demonator?)is ... an American GI    - some of whom are really bright boys - but equally many are ....

not.

PPS did anyone see that US GI interviewed on Stateline last night ? - Joshua comeone - he refused to play soccer with the head of a decapitated Iraqi ,  and has since refused to play the GI game anymore.  He has had to desert to Canada - otherwise if he goes back he's in big trubel - silenced for a starter, maybe Guantanamo ?  - he's trying to get a book out before he's "silenced" 


> US and Americas. ABC News Online.
> Summary: ... Tony Jones talks to US soldier Joshua Key about his book on the Iraq war Joshua Key, Lateline. http://abc.net.au/news/world/americas/default.htm - 52k - [ html ] - Cached - 9 Mar 2007



http://abc.net.au/news/world/americas/default.htm


> Terry Hicks denies calling son 'a terrorist'.  The US chief prosecutor in Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks's case says there is evidence his father referred to his son as a terrorist in an interview.  It has been reported that Terry Hicks may be called as a prosecution witness at his son's looming military trial.
> 
> But Mr Hicks says he never referred to his son as a terrorist and he has not been approached to testify.  "I think what is happening here is we're going through a discrediting exercise that's coming through the US," he said.  "They've done it with Major [Michael] Mori [Hicks's defence lawyer] the last few days on a few comments that he's made.
> 
> ...



what level of BS are they resorting to now !!!


----------



## Julia (10 March 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Julia
> 
> I think people like Hicks are misguided and foolish, but I am not sure that warrants them being treated the way he has been, and for as long as he has been mistreated - in both moral and legal senses.




Rob,

Then we have no argument.

Julia


----------



## Bobby (11 March 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> Rob,
> 
> Then we have no argument.
> 
> Julia




Understandable Julia,

But how about Rob, going that bit deep-er on his inner thoughts regarding this.
Over to you Rob   

Your Call
Bobby.


----------



## happytown (21 March 2007)

from todays new york times (would have provided the link but sometimes requires registration),

" By RAYMOND BONNER

Published: March 20, 2007

LONDON, March 19 ”” David Hicks, the first detainee to be formally charged under the new military tribunal rules at GuantÃ¡namo Bay, has alleged in a court document filed here that during more than five years in American custody he was beaten several times during interrogations and witnessed the abuse of other prisoners.

In an affidavit supporting his request for British citizenship, Mr. Hicks contends that before he arrived at GuantÃ¡namo, his American captors threw him and other detainees on the ground, walked on them, stripped him naked, shaved all his body hair and inserted a plastic object in his rectum.

The abuse, Mr. Hicks asserts, began during interrogations in Afghanistan, where he was captured in late 2001. It then continued while he was shuttled between American naval ships, aircraft, unknown buildings and Kandahar before he was taken to the military detention center at GuantÃ¡namo Bay, Cuba, in early 2002, according to the affidavit.

While Mr. Hicks did not claim that he was tortured at GuantÃ¡namo, he said he was given regular, mysterious injections that “would make my head feel strange.” He also said he witnessed or heard about mistreatment of others there. 

A detainee with only one leg was “set upon” by a special military team and its dogs, he said. The man was dragged out of his cell, and there was blood on his face and the cell floor. “It put me in such fear that I just knew I would ‘cooperate’ in any way with the U.S.”

A spokesman for the military commission, Cmdr. J. D. Gordon, described Mr. Hicks’s allegations as “false,” and “completely lacking in merit.”

“Hicks has make a number of allegations in the past, which have proven to be unsubstantiated and completely lacking in merit,” Commander Gordon said. 

For example, he said Mr. Hicks had once alleged that he was shackled to the floor for 22 hours a day, which Commander Gordon said was untrue.

Mr. Hicks is Australian, but his mother was born in Britain; he has been seeking citizenship here because he believes that the British government has done more to secure the release of its citizens in GuantÃ¡namo than Australia has. 

At an American military commission hearing scheduled for March 26, Mr. Hicks will plead not guilty to a single charge of providing material support for terrorism, his military lawyer, Maj. Michael Mori, has said. The initial charges  against Mr. Hicks, including attempted murder and aiding the enemy, have  been dropped. 

Major Mori’s aggressive defense of Mr. Hicks continues to draw fire from the  chief prosecutor of the military commission, Col. Morris Davis. In an e-mail message last week to the judge who oversees the military commissions, Colonel Davis said that Major Mori appeared to have violated Article 88 of the  Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits an officer from using “contemptuous words” against the president, vice president, secretary of defense and other senior officials.

Colonel Davis cited numerous statements by Major Mori on his trips to  Australia that he said could be considered insulting or rude. A copy of the  message, from Colonel Davis to Judge Susan Crawford, was provided to The  New York Times by someone who supports Major Mori. 

Major Mori declined to comment on Colonel Davis’s latest criticisms. Earlier this month, after Colonel Davis first voiced disapproval of Major Mori’s  conduct, Major Mori said that it might force him to withdraw from the case.  Commander Gordon, the commission spokesman, declined to discuss Colonel  Davis’s message, calling it “an internal staff matter.”

In Australia, Major Mori is widely credited with having changed the public  attitude toward Mr. Hicks. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Hicks was often  described in Australia’s tabloids as “Australia’s Taliban.” Now, across the  political spectrum, there is pressure on Prime Minister John Howard to have  Mr. Hicks returned to Australia soon. 

Major Mori has also been praised by former detainees for his representation.

Australian intelligence officials have said that Mr. Hicks went to Afghanistan  to train with Al Qaeda. For his part, Mr. Hicks said he was seized by the  Northern Alliance, which was fighting with the Americans against the Taliban,  and was treated well for two weeks. 

“When the U.S. interrogators showed up my treatment changed,” Mr. Hicks said in the affidavit, which was filed in December but has remained largely unnoticed. 

He said he was interrogated by five Americans, who were dressed in black combat gear without any insignia.

“The U.S. interrogators would question me,” he said, “and after my responses I would be slapped in the back of the head and told I was lying.”

At one point, he said, he was forced to sit on a window ledge, and outside there were six American soldiers with their weapons pointed at him, he wrote.

One interrogator, “obviously agitated, took out his pistol and aimed it at me,  with his hand shaking violently with rage.” It was at this point, he said, “I  realized that if I did not cooperate with U.S. interrogators, I might be shot.”

He said was taken to the amphibious assault ship Peleliu, which he knew because of announcements over the public address system. Among the detainees was John Walker Lindh, the American who later pleaded guilty to serving with the Taliban and is now serving 20 years. Commander Gordon said the military would not discuss whether Mr. Hicks was held on ships, but noted that it was a matter of public record that Mr. Lindh was held on the Peleliu.

On board, Mr. Hicks said he could hear other detainees “screaming in pain” when being interrogated.

He said he was later transferred to the amphibious assault ship Bataan, where he said conditions became “drastically” worse. He was fed only a handful of rice or fruit three times a day, the affidavit asserts, and on several occasions, he and other detainees, blindfolded, hooded and handcuffed, were thrown onto helicopters and taken to hangar-like buildings in an unknown location.

They were forced to kneel for 10 hours, during which time “I was hit in the back of the head with the butt of a rifle several times (hard enough to knock me over), slapped in the back of the head, kicked, stepped on, and spat on,” he said. “I could hear the groans and cries of other detainees.”

He was flown back to the ship, and a few days later back to a hangar. 

A week or so later, he was flown to Kandahar, where he and other detainees “were forced to lie face down in the mud while solders walked across our backs.”

He was stripped, his body hair shaved and a piece of “white plastic was forcibly inserted in my rectum for no apparent purpose,” he wrote. Soldiers made crude comments about the insertion, he said. 

Commander Gordon said he had no knowledge of such treatment. Some former detainees have made similar accusations, including Mamdouh Habib, an Australian who was picked up in Pakistan, turned over to the United States and delivered to Egypt, where he says he was badly tortured. 

At GuantÃ¡namo, Mr. Hicks said he was also shown a picture of Mr. Habib. “In the photo, Habib’s face was black and blue,” Mr. Hicks wrote. “I first thought it was a photo of a corpse,” he said, adding that an interrogator told him that if he did not cooperate he would be sent to Egypt “to suffer the same fate.” 

“This regular brutality left me in a heightened state of fear and anxiety about  my own safety,” Mr. Hicks wrote in the affidavit. 

After Mr. Hicks was formally charged earlier this month, Australian officials  said publicly that they hoped a plea bargain allowing Mr. Hicks to come home  could be negotiated. Two American officials close to the case said they expected that the deal would be for Mr. Hicks to plead guilty to the one charge, in exchange for the five years he has already been held."

cheers


----------



## chicken (21 March 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> from todays new york times (would have provided the link but sometimes requires registration),
> 
> " By RAYMOND BONNER
> 
> ...



I think that Mr Howard not intervening, as Hicks is a Australian...the chance of winning the next election looking slimmer by the hour.....after all....what the US has done,  creating a hugh problem for Mr Howard....unlike Mrs Clarke of New Zealand which tells the US exsactly what is what...MR Howard does not stand up against the US...the English did and had their people released..but as Mr Howard does not...he will pay for it in the next election....Australia needs a person who will ,and, it looks Mr Rude will be the man....just the way I see it...even Mr Dick Smith can and does see that


----------



## moXJO (21 March 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> from todays new york times (would have provided the link but sometimes requires registration),
> 
> " By RAYMOND BONNER
> 
> ...




Yes our prisons are a lot safer.You only get raped, bashed ,shanked, the ole pillow case full of weights to the head or abused in some other way.Or more solitary confinement.


----------



## happytown (21 March 2007)

moXJO said:
			
		

> Yes our prisons are a lot safer.You only get raped, bashed ,shanked, the ole pillow case full of weights to the head or abused in some other way.Or more solitary confinement.




moXJO,

but who is it that generally carries out the raping, bashing, shanking and ol' pillow case full o' weighting

cheers


----------



## greggy (21 March 2007)

Julia said:
			
		

> Rob,
> 
> Then we have no argument.
> 
> Julia



Agreed.  Despite Mr Hicks being foolish enough to have got involved in the situation in the first place, he is still entitled to natural justice.  Its about time that this saga is closed for the benefit of all concerned.  Its also surprising how the Hicks issue crosses the political spectrum when you now have most people calling for a fair trial for him.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 March 2007)

> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1878200.htm
> Joyce backs Democrats on Hicks's treatment. Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce has supported a motion by the Democrats, critical of the treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.  Hicks will make an initial appearance before a military commission on Monday, with his full trial on a charge of providing material support for terrorism expected to start around July.
> 
> The Democrats' motion labels the commission process a sham and calls on the Government to urgently look into reports that Hicks was forcibly sedated.  The motion failed, despite Senator Joyce's vote.



Blind Freddy can see its a sham.   Did anyone hear Downer hysterically pleading Santoro's case to be "treated like a human!!" lol.  

I notice the nice Commander denying that they tortured Hicks - ("has no knowledge") - I notice that they are getting a bit cleverer than they used to be - they no longer take photos as they used to at Abu Ghraib  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 March 2007)

You'll see the "white plastic" object in those photos in link in previous post.
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444  
Here's one of those well publicised photos (at the time) of gloating over a man beaten to death. - also that particular "commandant" who was fired. / oops "demoted" - wait for it ... for shoplifting lol. (read on)


> http://www.antiwar.com/rothschild/?articleid=2615
> The Face of Torture by Mark Rothschild
> Pictures of a dead Iraqi prisoner from Abu Ghraib, packed in ice and bound with duct tape have become infamous. Today, other photos came to light showing an additional victim of US Army interrogations at Abu Ghraib.
> 
> ...



Anyone want to comment about the mental health of these captors? - speaking of pleading insanity (as someone said about Hicks) 



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janis_Karpinski Janis Leigh Karpinski (born May 25, 1953, Rahway, New Jersey) is a United States Army Colonel in the 800th Military Police Brigade. She was demoted from Brigadier General in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal. Karpinski claims that she was made a "scapegoat" in order to protect higher ranking military personnel from the scandal.[1] Karpinski was demoted to Colonel for dereliction of duty, making a material misrepresentation to investigators, failure to obey a lawful order and shoplifting. Karpinski had failed to inform the Army as required when filling out an official document about an earlier arrest on an Air Force base in the US on a misdemeanour charge.
> 
> She was the commander of three large US- and British-led prisons in Iraq in 2003, eight battalions, and 3400 Army reservists.
> 
> In October 2005 she published an account of her experiences, One Woman's Army, in which she claims that the abuses were perpetrated by contract employees trained in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay and sent under orders from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and that her demotion was political retribution.





> On May 5, 2005, President Bush approved Karpinski's demotion to colonel from the rank of brigadier general. Her demotion was not officially related to the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. The allegations against her were for dereliction of duty, making a material misrepresentation to investigators, failure to obey a lawful order and shoplifting. Karpinski had failed to inform the Army as required when filling out an official document about an earlier arrest on an Air Force base in the US on a misdemeanour charge of stealing less than US$50 worth of cosmetics from a military store.



that's a good one - lol - shoplifting !!     (make you sick)


----------



## Julia (21 March 2007)

Those photographs, especially the happy grin on the woman's face, are beyond sickening.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 March 2007)

1. McLeod is implying a plea bargain is probable. - and totally understandable. 

2. every time I have heard Downer answering a question on this, he says "Hicks is (I begrudgingly concede) entitled to a day in court, ....." twitch twitch  - then his lip starts to quiver, then with the second question, he says what he really thinks "the man is a fink etc" . 

3. Ruddock puts an interesting spin on the lengthy detention " work in his favour " ???  - I'm sure he'd have preferred a speedy trial (as long as it was transparently fair).  Strange to hear an Attorney General championing the advantages of the abolition of habeus corpus.   
4. What will happen to Mori after this ? - be interesting to plot his career   PS the real reason why Ruddock is challenging why Mori has gone public with this, is that every time Mori "tells it like it is ", the Libs lose another 5 points in the polls.   Ruddock's arguments on this of late have been wierd - I mean if I wanted a lawyer, and I had the choice of Mori or Ruddock, I 'd pick Mori every time. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1881582.htm 


> Hicks may opt for plea deal.  by Michael Rowland
> Australian terrorism suspect David Hicks is contemplating a plea deal on the eve of his preliminary commission hearing at Guantanamo Bay. Late tonight Hicks will appear at a preliminary hearing for his trial, which is scheduled for July. He faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment if he is found guilty of providing material support for terrorism.  He is expected to plead not guilty.
> 
> But Hicks's Adelaide lawyer, David McLeod, says his client is suffering both mentally and physically after spending more than five years in captivity and a plea bargain may be an attractive option.  "He's been in the western world's most notorious prison for five years, the last year or so in pretty much isolation," he said.   *"He's had a pretty rough trot over the period of five years and if it was yourself, you'd be thinking I suspect about how to get out of this place."*
> ...



And Ruddock pretending that he is also interested in Hicks welfare. ..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1874881.htm


> Pentagon investigates Hicks sedation claim.  By Kim Landers
> The Pentagon says it is examining allegations that South Australian detainee David Hicks was forcibly sedated at Guantanamo Bay last month.  David Hicks's US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, says the 31-year-old was given medicine which sedated him for almost 24 hours.  Major Mori says it happened last month just as Hicks was told about the new charges he is facing.
> 
> A Pentagon spokesman says he is looking into the matter, but notes that a number of past allegations surrounding Hicks's treatment have been "unsubstantiated".  He also adds that Hicks "has been treated humanely while in US custody".
> ...


----------



## Kauri (27 March 2007)

David Hicks has just pleaded guilty.... should be home soon!!!!


----------



## chops_a_must (27 March 2007)

Kauri said:


> David Hicks has just pleaded guilty.... should be home soon!!!!



That's really not a good outcome though...


----------



## bel532 (27 March 2007)

Let Hicks recant and then, and only then, should we reconsider his case.

Live by the sword, die by the sword!


----------



## Kauri (27 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> That's really not a good outcome though...




   Depending which camp you are in, and ultimately for justice, possibly not.... for Hicks and his family, considering the possible alternatives, I think it is the best he could hope for.... for Johnny H and his flagging ratings, guilty but also brought home, almost a perfect political result.


----------



## chops_a_must (27 March 2007)

Kauri said:


> Depending which camp you are in, and ultimately for justice, possibly not.... for Hicks and his family, considering the possible alternatives, I think it is the best he could hope for.... for Johnny H and his flagging ratings, guilty but also brought home, almost a perfect political result.



I can see it as only a good result for Johnny and George.

This is disasterous for everyone else. It means that if challenges to the supreme court are successful, the sentence for Hicks will still stand.

And in a way, Hicks has justified his treatment and the process by pleading guilty.

Forget the fact that this could have been done within the first month of him being captured. The moron brigade (majority of orrrstralians) wont recognise this fact, or the fact that he has probably been forced to plead guilty.

I mean christ, the poor guy has been fed nothing but hallucinogens for the past 3 weeks. Imagine trying to make a decision regarding the rest of your life when you are in that situation, and not allowed access to a doctor! This was admitted on Lateline last night, if anyone watched it. It would have been absolutely hilarious if it wasn't the most tragic thing I have heard. No doubt this was a tactic to get him to become more malleable.

And the saddest thing is, he will likely end up serving more time than the prison guards at Abu Ghraib ever will. And what for? Never firing a shot?

If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.

Cheers,
Chops.


----------



## Kauri (27 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> And the saddest thing is, he will likely end up serving more time than the prison guards at Abu Ghraib ever will. And what for? Never firing a shot?
> 
> If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.
> 
> ...





   ...Forget the guards at Abu Ghraib,  what about this turkey??? Justice is alive and well..... if you are american!!!

_9th March 2007, 12:49 WST
_A US Navy medic who pleaded guilty to kidnapping in the *murder of an unarmed Iraqi man who was forced into a hole and shot* was released on Thursday on a reduced sentence for good behaviour. 

Seaman Recruit Melson J Bacos, 21, had been sentenced to 10 years in prison, *but a pretrial agreement capped that sentence at 12 months. His lawyer said the sentence was further reduced*.

Members of the US Marine squad with Bacos have said they placed a gun and a shovel by the body of Hashim Ibrahim Awad, 52, to make it look as if the Hamdania resident were an insurgent planting a bomb.

Bacos has emerged as a key player in the criminal case. According to testimony, he was the first to tell investigators his squad had dragged a civilian from his home and shot him.

Five of the troops have pleaded guilty to reduced charges; three are still awaiting trial. One Marine originally pleaded guilty to murder but later withdrew that plea and is now pleading not guilty.

Bacos was the first to strike a plea deal with prosecutors, speaking of his conflicting feelings as the killing took place.

"Why didn't I just walk away?" Bacos said in October.

"The answer to that question was I wanted to be part of the team. I wanted to be a respected corpsman, but that is no excuse for immorality."

*Bacos' lawyer, Jeremiah Sullivan III, said if Bacos behaves well and testifies in upcoming trials, he may be allowed to stay in the Navy.*


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 March 2007)

ABC news :- "David Hicks likely to be back in Aus by the end of the year."
Next question, will that be before or after the election ? 
I wonder if he'll be allowed to write a book.  - or like Corby that would be proceeds of crime


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 March 2007)

Lol, as you say Kauri - the USA have lost all cred.  
and... Just as the Libs are saying that "there - because he's pleaded guilty it proves he was a "terrorist" all along".

so too this post below proves that Santoro was innocent lol...







> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1883007.htm
> Santoro cleared over aged care bed licences.  The new Minister for Ageing, Christopher Pyne, has cleared predecessor Santo Santoro over claims he allocated aged care beds to a friend's business.   Mr Pyne says a review has found that Senator Santoro did nothing wrong in allocating 94 aged care bed licences to a Liberal Party member and friend Russel Egan Jr.
> 
> "We had no reason to believe that anything untoward had occurred with respect to the allocation of beds," he said.  "*It entirely exonerates the minister and confirms that the process was utterly above board*."
> ...



  Seems that the outcome "entirely exonerates the process"


----------



## rederob (27 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Let Hicks recant and then, and only then, should we reconsider his case.
> 
> Live by the sword, die by the sword!



Actually, why don't we bring him back here and try him properly.

Oops, we haven't got anything to charge him with.

OK, best he rot in Guantamo given he's pleaded guilty.

By the way Charles, what do you want him to recant?
Just curious.....


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 March 2007)

isn't that .. "live by the sword, die by the smartbomb"?


----------



## Julia (27 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I mean christ, the poor guy has been fed nothing but hallucinogens for the past 3 weeks. Imagine trying to make a decision regarding the rest of your life when you are in that situation, and not allowed access to a doctor! This was admitted on Lateline last night, if anyone watched it.
> Chops.




I didn't see the programme.  Can you provide a link to support the above, e.g. that "he has been fed nothing but hallucinogens for the past 3 weeks".


----------



## moXJO (27 March 2007)

rederob said:


> Actually, why don't we bring him back here and try him properly.
> 
> Oops, we haven't got anything to charge him with.
> 
> ...




Wow so if we can get around the law and have the opportunity to shoot people we should take it.Hell lets get this going ,if we can do the wrong thing even though by law your not doing the wrong thing we could really have a blast.So long as we dont get caught by the U.S.Oh wait he didnt shoot anyone (that we know of anyway) and those training camps would have just been dance lessons.Just showboating in a warzone or two.Because he cant be guilty after such a long thread


----------



## chops_a_must (27 March 2007)

Julia said:


> I didn't see the programme.  Can you provide a link to support the above, e.g. that "he has been fed nothing but hallucinogens for the past 3 weeks".



"STEVEN MILES: No, they produced one press statement saying that they gave him this medication. But what they did not produce is - for all of these interrogations, there's a minute by minute interrogation log. There's also a pre and post medical log and there is intra-interrogation medical logs as well. None of those documents have been supplied by the military. *Furthermore, they have not supplied the interrogation plan which was requested of the Defense Department for Mr Hicks, which would be a document which would also say whether or not medications were on the list. Finally, as a physician, Benadryl is not a drug that’s part of any GI cocktails that I use as a doctor. I have no idea what the military meant in making a statement that it belongs in a GI cocktail.*"


----------



## bel532 (28 March 2007)

Rederob asks 'what was David Hicks accused of'?

If Rederob doesn't know that, then he must be living in a tent, with Hicks perhaps?


----------



## chops_a_must (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Rederob asks 'what was David Hicks accused of'?
> 
> If Rederob doesn't know that, then he must be living in a tent, with Hicks perhaps?



No he didn't meat head.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 March 2007)

Bringing Hicks home would be a do gooders wet dream


----------



## rederob (28 March 2007)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Bringing Hicks home would be a do gooders wet dream



You are perhaps an expert, Snake?


----------



## rederob (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Rederob asks 'what was David Hicks accused of'?
> 
> If Rederob doesn't know that, then he must be living in a tent, with Hicks perhaps?



I am curious as to the level of comprehension of those that support the US cause.
Charles, do take care to read what I post, and not choose words that suit your cause: Lest I accuse you of not being too bright.
I suspect very few actually realise that Hicks has only pleaded guilty to one of the charges at this point in time.
And if anyone cared to read the charge sheet, they would realise Hicks' ability to defend that charge would be extremely tenuous.
As for those that think the trial process is fair, read what the civilian lawyers had to say - those that were not allowed to represent Hicks after they were removed yesterday from the case.  Yet another refused to sign the "blank cheque" of court regulations that were yet to be promulgated thereby removing himself from Hicks' representation.
Not too much reporting of these matters as the "guilty" plea has ruled the airwaves.
After 5 years in the conditions Hicks' has suffered it's amazing he hasn't owned up to assassinating President Kennedy!


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2007)

A few points that have not had much disussion (that I have seen) :-

a) they sacked half his lawyers (2 out of 3 - leaving Mori alone) - now that's a good start isnt it ? sounds pretty fair doesn't it ? - sounds like he's really gonna get justice   ( "sign up to the rules , although they have yet to be promulgated !!" ).  At one point David asks the court, "are you gonna sack all my lawyers then?"

b) reason he hasn't been exercising is that (some of ) the other far worse AQ detainees have been giving him a hard time in the exercise yard accusing him of being a CIA plant.

c) first conversation with his father was quite awkward - inhibited, mental scars etc - second conversation his emotions (and his father's) broke up - after that his father felt sure he would opt for plea bargain "just to get out of the place". - I mean , who would make a decision to "fight on " when you've just had a sneak glimpse of "humane treatment" - see your dad after years etc - temporary reprieve after his 5 year predicament / torture / solitary / defence team decimated / hostile fellow inmates / knowing you'd never get a fair trial anyway.   Everyone and Anyone would plead guilty! - Something like "Bad-cop-good-cop" magnified by 10,000!!

d) sounds like Hicks made the decision almost irrespectve of the legal advice, the defence say " David was the boss, he makes the decisions" paraphrasing

e) latest comment from Canberra "ohh, he was guilty all right , he PLEADED guilty, and everyone knows that when you plead guilty you've admitted the crime ---  *when you plead guilty you don't go home that night*" - lol - guess what , he hasn't been allowed to go home for 5 years .  .


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1883018.htm
> Hicks 'pleaded guilty to get out'.  Terry Hicks says his son David pleaded guilty to supporting a terrorist organisation just to get out of Guantanamo Bay.  Mr Hicks spent several hours inside the US naval prison in Cuba with his son, who has been there for the past five years.
> 
> Terry says David has put on a great deal of weight and has puffy eyes.  He says David was hard to talk to at first but the 31-year-old began to open up during a second, more emotional meeting.  "The emotions finally took over so it's good, I don't mind shedding tears, we're all in the same boat," he said.
> ...



f) this is just a fairly irrelevant theory - "he looked swollen,  puffy around the eyes".  If that means "not fat as such", then that might imply drugs rather than food   (that's just a theory)
g) I also heard that Lateline Chops - so much conveniently missing evidence, record of "interrogations" that they are supposed to keep by law (what laws they have in this game) - no doubt one of the requirements after Abu Ghraib investigations that showed the system up to be what it is .  "Anti American" to treat people like that etc . Seems that "Anti American" is just a few rungs down the ladder from "Anti human".  And in my opinion miles down the ladder from "Anti-Australian" ( by which I'm talking about the average judge in the street, not Canberra spin).
PS  despite the fact that a few months back he was  "one of the worst 20 terrorists in the world" , Moe Davis now says that "we said all along this was one of the minor offences in Guantanimo inmates - a betting man would say he'll be "home" by the end of the year !" - remember that quote fellas, as you get your Texas-style linch ropes ready .


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2007)

rederob said:


> After 5 years in the conditions Hicks' has suffered it's amazing he hasn't owned up to assassinating President Kennedy!



and heaven forbid we should suggest that we're still waiting for the real people to own up there.

heard an interview on ABC - top Aus scientist who was very senior in NASA - happened to be in Dallas Texas when JFK was shot - was in fact in a meeting waiting for him - delays etc - told he'd been shot - didnt realise it was fatal  - until later.  He spoke of the "real sense of evil" that emerged out of that incident in the weeks and months that followed when the cred of the authorities started to be tested.


----------



## Julia (28 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> "STEVEN MILES: No, they produced one press statement saying that they gave him this medication. But what they did not produce is - for all of these interrogations, there's a minute by minute interrogation log. There's also a pre and post medical log and there is intra-interrogation medical logs as well. None of those documents have been supplied by the military. *Furthermore, they have not supplied the interrogation plan which was requested of the Defense Department for Mr Hicks, which would be a document which would also say whether or not medications were on the list. Finally, as a physician, Benadryl is not a drug that’s part of any GI cocktails that I use as a doctor. I have no idea what the military meant in making a statement that it belongs in a GI cocktail.*"




And from this you feel able to say that "he had been fed nothing but hallucinogens for days" (I think those were your words).? !!   Benadryl is an antihistamine.  It is not an hallucinogen.  Big difference.

Here is a description of Benadryl:

Diphenhydramine is an antihistamine used to relieve symptoms of allergy, hay fever and the common cold. These symptoms include rash, itching, watery eyes, itchy eyes/nose/throat, cough, runny nose and sneezing. It is also used to prevent and treat nausea, vomiting and dizziness caused by motion sickness. Diphenhydramine can also be used to help you relax and fall asleep.

If he was nauseated, which I gather he was, the above appears to provide some rationale for the use of Benadryl.

I'm not taking sides in this.  There was an excellent account of the history of Hicks' activities, one by one, decision by decision, on "PM" Radio National I think either last night or the night before that.

I do, however, have a problem with extravagant and possibly baseless statements such as the above re hallucinogens.

Julia


----------



## bel532 (28 March 2007)

Poor David Hicks,that person who was so badly treated at Guantanamo Bay that, surprise surprise, he looked so healthy! According to his cheer squad  we were lead to believe we would be seeing a skeleton in court, since, according to them.he was so badly treated. Well how wrong they were. I wonder if they will now apologise for their infamous, distorted propganda.

For the record, so we can be certain that David was no angel, he:

* has admitted  to his extensive links with terrorist organisations,

* went to Afghanistan and met with Osama Ben Laden and undertook an al-Qaida training course in the use of weapons and terrorist tactics,

*went to Albania to fight with the Kosovot Liberation Army,

* called the Taliban  the 'best in the world'and praised them for running the country according to strict Islamic law.

*received insrtuctions by al-Qaida in weapons training.

*urged an Islamic revolution hoping that it would spread throught the world so that the 'Western-Jewish domination is finished.

If you believe all the propaganda about Hicks you, like the Democrats, must also believe in the 'fairies at the bottom of the garden'.

Oh yes Hicks was definitely 'an innocent abroad'.


----------



## chops_a_must (28 March 2007)

Julia said:


> And from this you feel able to say that "he had been fed nothing but hallucinogens for days" (I think those were your words).? !!   Benadryl is an antihistamine.  It is not an hallucinogen.  Big difference.
> 
> I do, however, have a problem with extravagant and possibly baseless statements such as the above re hallucinogens.
> 
> Julia



Oooo, I would hate to be a child of yours with a cough Julia.

The fact that they cannot say how much they gave him, leads me to suspect that they were feeding him this while the final negotiations were underway. It's really not that hard a thing to do. And as was said, this stuff isn't prescribed by GI docs... for obvious reasons.

Diphenhydramine:


> Like many other first generation antihistamines, is also a potent anticholinergic agent. *This leads to profound drowsiness as a very common side-effect, along with the possibilities of motor impairment (ataxia) and tardive dyskinesia, dry mouth and throat, flushed skin, rapid or irregular heartbeat (tachycardia), blurred vision at nearpoint due to lack of accommodation (cycloplegia), abnormal sensitivity to bright light (photophobia), pupil dilatation (mydriasis), urinary retention (ischuria), constipation, difficulty concentrating, short-term memory loss, visual disturbances, hallucinations, confusion, erectile dysfunction, and delirium. *Diphenhydramine also has local anesthetic properties, and has been used for patients allergic to common local anesthetics like lidocaine. [2]
> *
> It is known that diphenhydramine contains sedative properties. Many new antihistamines have been introduced without the side effect of sedation.* The drug is also used as a sleep aid and is an ingredient in many sleep aids, such as Unisom gelcaps, and most notably Tylenol PM where it is combined with Acetaminophen (Paracetamol), and Sominex which has diphenhydramine as its only active ingredient.
> 
> ...



Would you like me to go on Julia? There are options to give medications for the "symptoms" described that DO NOT have these horrible side effects.

Have you ever taken this sort of stuff in a high dose? Have you ever tripped off your balls for 8 hours straight? Do you know the sorts of things you think, feel and experience? It is not nice, and this is the reason why these medications are being restricted, because they can kill, and they can give you severe brain damage.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> *went to Albania to fight with the Kosovot Liberation Army,



lol, so did NATO m8


----------



## Julia (28 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Oooo, I would hate to be a child of yours with a cough Julia.
> 
> The fact that they cannot say how much they gave him, leads me to suspect that they were feeding him this while the final negotiations were underway. It's really not that hard a thing to do. And as was said, this stuff isn't prescribed by GI docs... for obvious reasons.
> 
> ...




No, I've never taken it.  The point is, Chops, that neither you nor I have any idea about what quantity he was given.  I would assume a therapeutic dose, and you would assume an overdose.  If one of the possible side effects of the drug can be hallucinations, that doesn't classify it as primarily an hallucinogen.  You have a point, I have a point, not much point in going on about it further.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (28 March 2007)

Julia said:


> . I would assume a therapeutic dose, and you would assume an overdose. .





 cmon....a therapeutic dose!. 

Maybe DH just pleaded guilty because the carrot dangled was more appealing than if it was removed, 

Its not as if he would have held much hope in any form of justice being afforded him by the US Military!...they would have been busy covering thier backsides with lies/fabrications.....bending any possability of a fair trial for the poor bugger.


----------



## chops_a_must (28 March 2007)

Julia said:


> No, I've never taken it.  The point is, Chops, that neither you nor I have any idea about what quantity he was given.  I would assume a therapeutic dose, and you would assume an overdose.  If one of the possible side effects of the drug can be hallucinations, that doesn't classify it as primarily an hallucinogen.  You have a point, I have a point, not much point in going on about it further.



Lol! Keep digging!



> The general group of pharmacological agents commonly known as hallucinogens can be divided into three broad categories: psychedelics, dissociatives, and deliriants.
> 
> The deliriants (or anticholinergics) are a special class of dissociative which are antagonists for the acetylcholine receptors (unlike muscarine and nicotine which are agonists of these receptors). Deliriants are considered to be true hallucinogens as users will have conversations with people who aren't there, or become angry with a 'person' mimicking their actions, not realizing it is their own reflection in a mirror (which could be dangerous if they became aggressive towards a glass mirror). While the regular dissociatives can produce effects similar to lucid dreaming (where one is consciously aware they are dreaming), the deliriants have effects akin to sleepwalking (where one doesn't remember what transpired during the experience).
> *
> ...



It can't be primarily classified as an halucinogen, as then it would not legally be able to be sold. But chemically, it is classed in the group.

IFF he was given the proper dose, why haven't they disclosed that information? These are pretty obvious techniques. Ever heard of "truth serum"? Over time, substances such as these have been used to interrogate. I suggest this time was no different.


----------



## greggy (28 March 2007)

I reckon David Hicks will be back here just before the election.  His delay in being tried, over 5 years, was fast becoming a growing problem for the Howard Govt.  Lets hope that in the future if a similar situation occurs that the Govt takes action more quickly on the issue as it did for the now convicted drug smuggler, Miss Corby.


----------



## bingk6 (28 March 2007)

rederob said:


> I am curious as to the level of comprehension of those that support the US cause.
> Charles, do take care to read what I post, and not choose words that suit your cause: Lest I accuse you of not being too bright.
> I suspect very few actually realise that Hicks has only pleaded guilty to one of the charges at this point in time.
> And if anyone cared to read the charge sheet, they would realise Hicks' ability to defend that charge would be extremely tenuous.
> ...





Totally agree with this.

After 5 years locked up in solitary confinement for up to 22 hours everyday, it is a miracle that he has not gone completely bonkers. This military trial has been setup to bring about a conviction, why ?, because the US and AUS govts would both look foolish if the guilty verdict was not forthcoming after locking the guy up for 5 years without charge. So, irrespective of whether Hicks is guilty or not, it ultimately boiled down to 2 choices, plead guilty and we'll make it easier for you to get out, or plead innocent and we'll fight this all the way, with appeals upon appeals, which could potentially drag it out for another 5 years.

Faced with these options, what would you expect Hicks to do ?? Off course, he'll plead guilty just to get the F out of there, and I don't believe anybody could blame him either.

The sad thing is our PM, with his legal background, refuses see the situation for what it is (He's bright enough to see it for what it is, but is just unwilling to bring himself to say so). As far as he is concerned, the trial is fair and since Hicks confessed, he must be guilty, so the Aust govt's position is correct all along. What can you say,  It would be a real tragedy if this govt manages to extract some political mileage from this disgraceful episode. Can't wait for the next federal election to throw our spineless govt out.


----------



## bel532 (28 March 2007)

I can't wait for people to comprehend that the Western World is fighting an adversary that is committed to nothing less than its total destruction. Hicks is a part, albeit a small part, of their aim to destroy the freedom and liberty enjoyed by Western democracies.

Reminds me of all those 'do gooders' (maybe sympathisers might be a more apt description) who couldn't or refused to see the 'true' face of Facism prior to WW11 or the true face of totalitarian Communism.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> I can't wait for people to comprehend that the Western World is fighting an adversary that is committed to nothing less than its total destruction. Hicks is a part, albeit a small part, of their aim to destroy the freedom and liberty enjoyed by Western democracies.
> 
> Reminds me of all those 'do gooders' (maybe sympathisers might be a more apt description) who couldn't or refused to see the 'true' face of Facism prior to WW11 or the true face of totalitarian Communism.
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who will not see"



Go back to circa 1900 and start reading about ME history from then on.

Yes, we have a problem now with Islamists. But there are reasons why this is happening.

Cause ===>>>> Effect


----------



## bingk6 (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Hicks is a part, albeit a small part, of their aim to destroy the freedom and liberty enjoyed by Western democracies.




Whoa! how do you know that? I certainly hope that you didn't reach that conclusion by him pleading guilty  . The reality is that this entire exercise was NOT designed to find the truth and that is where the problem lies. 

Off course, if he was found guilty by a fair and proper trial - throw the book at him and nobody would complain. It just seems to me that he took the path of least resistance - which is understandable under the circumstances. All that anybody wants is the truth and for justice to be served. Right now, we will never really know whether he is really guilty or not.

With regards to the islamic issues, off course there are problems there, but we are discussing specifically Hick's trial.

Just my


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Reminds me of all those 'do gooders' (maybe sympathisers might be a more apt description) who couldn't or refused to see the 'true' face of Facism prior to WW11 or the true face of totalitarian Communism. "There are none so blind as those who will not see"



bel , 1. What would be your opinion of someone who went to Spain to fight Fascsm in the 30s? (eg Orwell)  - presumably you'd be totally behind them?   Fits right in there with your post I would have thought .

2. What would be your opinion of someone who went to Kosovo to fight with KLA against ethnic cleansing (beside NATO) ? You say below that when Hicks did this, he deserves all he gets. (you brought up KLA after all). Is there a contradiction here?

Ever considered that this matter is not as black and white as you imply - especially in 1999 - 2000 when the battle lines hadn't been drawn as clearly as they have now. ?

PS I don't think anyone has any problem with reasonable laws against terrorism (Aussie style, possibly even mainland USA style - but not Guantanamo).  But at least that won't be charges based on retrospective law (as Hicks got).

PS Hicks might meet you one day and ask "when the moslems in Bosnia and Kosovo were being slaughtered, was it that you didnt want to see, or couldnt see?"


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> bel , 1. What would be your opinion of someone who went to Spain to fight Fascsm in the 30s? (eg Orwell)  - presumably you'd be totally behind them?   Fits right in there with your post I would have thought .
> 
> 2. What would be your opinion of someone who went to Kosovo to fight with KLA against ethnic cleansing (beside NATO) ? You say below that when Hicks did this, he deserves all he gets. (you brought up KLA after all). Is there a contradiction here?
> 
> Ever considered that this matter is not as black and white as you imply - especially in 1999 - 2000 when the battle lines hadn't been drawn as clearly as they have now. ?



Ah go easy on Bel, 2020. Clearly he/she is the victim here...

...of propaganda.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2007)

wayneL said:


> propaganda.?



bel, speaking of propaganda, back there in #365 and #369 I posted some Wikipedia stuff on Orwell.
He's kinda relevant to your post because, after he'd been around a bit, 
a) he strongly disliked fascism (fascist bullet through his neck)
b) he strongly disliked communism ("Animal Farm"), and
c) he particularly didnt like "the thought police" from the "ministry of truth" ("Nineteen eight four") - based on his WWII experiences as a professional spin doctor with the military.   


> #365 and #369 , Another phrase is 'Big Brother', or 'Big Brother is watching you'. Today, security cameras are often thought to be modern society's big brother. The current television reality show Big Brother carries that title because of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
> 
> The phrase 'thought police' is also derived from Nineteen Eighty-Four, and might be used to refer to any alleged violation of the right to the free expression of opinion. It is particularly used in contexts where free expression is proclaimed and expected to exist.
> 
> Variations of the slogan "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others", from Animal Farm, are sometimes used to satirise situations where equality exists in theory and rhetoric but not in practice. For example, an allegation that rich people are treated more leniently by the courts despite legal equality before the law might be summarised as "all criminals are equal, but some are more equal than others". This appears to echo the phrase Primus inter pares - the Latin for "First Among Equals", which is usually applied to the head of a democratic state.



"all criminals are equal, but some are more equal than others" -  yep - poms worse than Hicks are free today and have been for years


----------



## nomore4s (28 March 2007)

What really annoys me about this whole matter is that if an American citizen was treated this way by anyone else they would be crying blue murder, but its alright for them to do what they want in "the war against terror".


----------



## moXJO (28 March 2007)

halucinogens, lies/fabrications keep flogging that dead horse.You know after kosovo he allegedly joined lashka-e-toiba in kashmir and fired upon Indian soldiers in 2000.The list goes on....
cuddly factor gone


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2007)

moXJO said:


> halucinogens, lies/fabrications keep flogging that dead horse.You know after kosovo he allegedly joined lashka-e-toiba in kashmir and fired upon Indian soldiers in 2000.The list goes on....
> *cuddly factor gone*




Mo,

You are mixing up the issues here, as are many. The issue is of a *fair trial*.

This latest trial, 5 YEARS late and much alleged mistreatment later. is not a FAIR trial.

If found guilty of something (and not something trumped up especially for the occasion) deal with him accordingly.

If not, let the poor bastid go.

That is the issue and it's as simple as that.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2007)

moXJO said:


> halucinogens, lies/fabrications keep flogging that dead horse.You know after kosovo he allegedly joined lashka-e-toiba in kashmir and fired upon Indian soldiers in 2000.The list goes on....
> cuddly factor gone



 Mox, "poms worse than Hicks are free today and have been for years."  is that a lie?.  Seems that when we inherited the British legal system, and allegedly our sense of justice, the bits about retrospective law and habeus corpus went straight over most of our heads.


----------



## rederob (28 March 2007)

moXJO said:


> halucinogens, lies/fabrications keep flogging that dead horse.You know after kosovo he allegedly joined lashka-e-toiba in kashmir and fired upon Indian soldiers in 2000.The list goes on....
> cuddly factor gone



Irrespective of what Hicks did or did not do, the "justice" applied to his case is unique, and continues to be developed as the Guantanamo detainees get their day in court.

The simple test everyone can apply is if they would be happy to subject themselves to the court system that Hicks' is presently subject to, should they be subject to any allegation they wish to defend.

By the way, if you are wondering if you would be granted an appeal, should the verdict fall the wrong way, join the queue.


----------



## bel532 (28 March 2007)

Surely you can't expect me to place Hicks in the same light as those who fought against Facism in the Spanish Civil War? Are you really that naive, or is this just your method of spitting out anti-Western propaganda?

Hicks was in Kosovo because he believed in all the propaganda thrust into his head by the extreme Muslim movement. His admiration of Bin Laden and all that he stands for explains Hicks' hatred of Western society and its Liberal Democratic values.

He was no hero in Kosovo or anywhere else for that matter.

We have a duty to our children and future generations to ensure that all those who wish to thrust their ideological, woman hating, extreme strict religious habits on our society are made to understand that this behaviour is not acceptable.


----------



## chops_a_must (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> We have a duty to our children and future generations to ensure that all those who wish to thrust their ideological, woman hating, extreme strict religious habits on our society are made to understand that this behaviour is not acceptable.



Ok. Why is Fred Nile not in jail then?


----------



## Julia (28 March 2007)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:


> cmon....a therapeutic dose!.
> 
> Maybe DH just pleaded guilty because the carrot dangled was more appealing than if it was removed,
> 
> Its not as if he would have held much hope in any form of justice being afforded him by the US Military!...they would have been busy covering thier backsides with lies/fabrications.....bending any possability of a fair trial for the poor bugger.




I've never suggested Hicks has received a fair trial or would have had he elected to plead not guilty.  My comment was purely on the basis of Chops saying that he had been fed nothing but hallucinogens for days (apologies if those are not the exact words) which struck me as an overstatement, particularly if none of us actually knows what he may have been given and for what.  Just trying to reduce the amount of hysteria and hyperbole, that's all.

OK, new question:  assuming he gets to come home to Australia to jail here, will he become a hero/martyr, with thousands flocking to visit him?  Probably. And what will that do to/for his undoubtedly already damaged psyche?


----------



## moXJO (28 March 2007)

wayneL said:


> Mo,
> 
> You are mixing up the issues here, as are many. The issue is of a *fair trial*.
> 
> ...




I thought the case was on hold while U.S. courts debated whether the military tribunals were legal. The  rules had to be re-written after being  ordered to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court, which had found the original set-up unconstitutional.Which when done hicks was the first to trial.

So in effect it was more fair than what it was.

At least these Guantanamo guys are being watched by the world in a more favourable light.There is a much greater scrutiny on what is going on after the Abu Ghraib prison abuse.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (28 March 2007)

Julia said:


> I've never suggested Hicks has received a fair trial or would have had he elected to plead not guilty. My comment was purely on the basis of Chops saying that he had been fed nothing but hallucinogens for days (apologies if those are not the exact words) which struck me as an overstatement, particularly if none of us actually knows what he may have been given and for what. Just trying to reduce the amount of hysteria and hyperbole, that's all.
> 
> OK, new question: assuming he gets to come home to Australia to jail here, will he become a hero/martyr, with thousands flocking to visit him? Probably. And what will that do to/for his undoubtedly already damaged psyche?




Julia,

No doubt Hicks will be afforded some following.....human nature. IMO he never was afforded justice from the outset that any Australian citizen should be afforded and our Government ensure..........a timely and fair trial.

No doubt Hicks was no Angel, but the US treated him unjustly IMO and our PM stood by and enabled that to happen......even promoted it. SHAME!.

Cheers


----------



## bel532 (28 March 2007)

Has Fred Nile:

* issued a Jihad against women?

* banned all forms of music a la the Taliban in Afghanistan?

*issued a Fatwah forcing all women to dress in strict Islamic code?

etc. etc.

I live in Victoria so maybe I haven't heard about it. It would certainly be news to me.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Hicks was in Kosovo because he believed in all the propaganda thrust into his head by the extreme Muslim movement.



I dont think he was even a moslem when he went to Kosovo. 

simple question bel - what did you think of the slaughter of moslems in Bosnia ?


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
> In 1999, Hicks traveled to Albania, where he joined the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary organisation of ethnic Albanians fighting against Serbian forces in the Kosovo War, and served with them for two months. [12] On returning to Australia Hicks applied to join the Australian Army but was rejected due to his level of education.[10] Hicks then converted to Islam and began to study Arabic



what a shame he wasn't accepted in Aust Army 

As I posted back there a bit ...


> As for NATO being slow to go into Kosovo, (by comparison to Hicks - not that I'm suggesting we should all be taking these things on ourselves) - international opinion seems to wait until things get totally out of control before they act. (the blood soaked doll that "galvanised" world opinion and NATO / UN will to act in Kosovo; or I guess the bloodbath after the East Timor elections for that matter, after which Aus / UN finally acted )
> 
> Wikipedia :- "the threats [by international community] intensified once again but a galvanising event was needed. They got it on September 28 when the mutilated corpses of a family were discovered outside the village of Gornje Obrinje; the bloody doll from there became the rallying image for the ensuing war.  "
> 
> Maybe you're into a Hollywood version of what Bosnia and Kosovo was like, go watch the likes of "Behind Enemy Lines", Owen Wilson - about downed pilots in Kosova, or Bosnia, forget). typical Hollywood, bludy gruesome etc




Speaking of Hollywood, Rambo III treats Mujahadeen as heroes (and they were just "Taliban in their infancy")


> The best-known mujahideen were the various loosely-aligned Afghan opposition groups that fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan during the 1980s and then fought against each other in the subsequent Afghan Civil War.
> 
> The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter and Reagan administrations, Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China, several European countries, Iran, and Pakistan (during the Zia-ul-Haq military regime). The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.
> 
> ...



bel, you're probably right, one of us is probably, if not naive, then somewhat incapable of thinking outside that square that the authorities would have us believe.


----------



## Julia (28 March 2007)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:


> Julia,
> 
> No doubt Hicks will be afforded some following.....human nature. IMO he never was afforded justice from the outset that any Australian citizen should be afforded and our Government ensure..........a timely and fair trial.
> 
> ...




Agree entirely on the justice question, Freeballing.
I will, however, be interested to see how much of a cause celebre he becomes when he returns.
The only hero in this whole sorry saga, imo, is his father who must have lived through any parent's worst nightmare and has somehow remained sane and mostly reasonable.  He's the one who deserves our respect.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Has Fred Nile:
> 
> * issued a Jihad against women?
> 
> ...




Picking at straws..........plenty of straws to pick in World/Society's/Religious History.

Relevance to Hicks issue?


----------



## bel532 (28 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I dont think he was even a moslem when he went to Kosovo.
> 
> what a shame he wasn't accepted in Aust Army




Thank goodness the Army had enough common sense to see Hicks would be totally unsuitable for the army.

It is patently obvious that prior to travelling to Kosovo he was already considering converting to Islam. His time there simply cemented his thoughts.

And of course I do not agree with the slaughter of the Kosovars, that is just a provocative, unrelated statement on your part.

Thank goodness the Americans were there to sort out the Serbs whilst the Euros were just standing by and did nothing (same as the Dutch)!


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (28 March 2007)

The Americans sort out the Serbs......where from? their planes?!


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> And of course I do not agree with the slaughter of the Kosovars, that is just a provocative, unrelated statement on your part.



 well m8, nor did DH.  Only difference between you and him on that score is that he acted, and you talked. (not that I'm suggesting we should all go off sorting out the world's problems. )

by the way I meant to post link to Wikipedia back there ...(re Ronald Regan championing the Mujahadeen / infant Taliban) . Taliban went to Washington and were welcomed - ? - did you know that ?  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahadeen


----------



## chops_a_must (28 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Has Fred Nile:
> 
> * issued a Jihad against women?



Or course he hasn't, he hates Islam. He does however, campaign incredibly hard for the reduction in funding to female health services.


			
				bel532 said:
			
		

> * banned all forms of music a la the Taliban in Afghanistan?



He has tried to. He rallies against just about every band that comes here. Lol! The Marilyn Manson debate was rather funny.

Haha, Stryper:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rvzwXqixjXM
Man, these guys were marsh mellows and Christian rockers, and he still didn't like it!


			
				bel532 said:
			
		

> *issued a Fatwah forcing all women to dress in strict Islamic code?



Worse, he tells men what to wear. Lol!

But of course he doesn't promote "Jihad" or issue "Fatwahs" because he is isn't a muslim!


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2007)

nothing to do with Hicks, but interesting notes on the Taliban. - no question they were ridiculously tough on women / murderous even.  - converting World Aid donated soccer field to slaughter amphitheatre etc - (I recall quote from Taliban spokesman at the time .. "If you wanted us to play soccer, you should have given us TWO fields - the first most importantly for slaughter, the second maybe for soccer" ).

  Interesting comparison with Tunisai (anthems thread) where wearing of the hijab is illegal in some circumstances.   Drug production under Taliban dropped - Wikipedia implies they stopped 99.8% of production (?) - rewarded handsomely by USA.  "Following the fall of the Taliban regime, the areas controlled by the Northern Alliance resumed opium production[4] and by 2005 production was 87% of the world's opium supply."   No such thing as "emphatically 100% good news" from that part of the world it seems. 


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
> Treatment of women. Women were made to wear the burqa, a traditional Islamic dress in accordance with the Taliban's interpretation of Islamic law. Women were also not allowed to study after the age of 8. According to the four madhabs the covering of the face is an obligation. This is held by a minority of Muslim scholars, however, in light of recent movements involving women's rights. There were many reports of Muslim women being beaten by the Taliban for violating the Shariah.
> 
> Drugs.  Opium poppies have traditionally been grown in Afghanistan, and, with the war shattering other sectors of the economy, it became the number one export of the country. Opium cultivation continued to thrive during most of the Taliban period, despite attempts to ban it. However, in 2000 the Taliban enforced its ban to the maximum extent; even punishing drug cultivators and dealers with summary executions.
> ...



Back to women's dress,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab "applies to all Muslim men and women."  - presumably budgie smugglers would definitely be banned as well. 


> Islam's holy book, the Qur'an, orders Muslims to dress in a "modest" fashion. *Following verses are generally interpreted as applying to all Muslim men and women.   *
> Surah an-Nur ayah 31 says: "And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent."



I still recall that scene from movie Ghandi, where he says during one of his hunger strikes to one of his Hindi followers, "I want you to adopt a Moslem boy" .. reluctant " no probs" from the follower.... "and", says Ghandi , "to bring him up as a Moslem".


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2007)

The NA better not try exporting that heroin to Bali, they'll end up on death row with Scott Rush .   And I guess the 48 million USD that the Taliban were given for getting rid of opium production has been well and truly swamped by payments to NA for (amongst other things) resurrecting that crop.


----------



## tdkx669 (29 March 2007)

I didn't get why people support a guy who can be terrorist. Who might be harmfull for Australia. And people are jumping to help him and bring back to australia. Its really surprising to me we always support convict such as Corby and now Hicks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> .. "If you wanted us to play soccer, you should have given us TWO fields - the first most importantly for slaughter, the second maybe for soccer"



actually they used to hang the men from the goalpost crossbar at one end, and shoot the women on the 16 yaerd line at the other.  - make sure the spectators at each end got their money's worth  -  
PS the Taliban were extremists with an insane sense of justice.  Surely we must aim to make our justice system as transparently perfect as we can .  (despite the old joke "you want justice?, go to a whorehouse -  you want to get screwed?, go to court )


----------



## greggy (29 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> I can't wait for people to comprehend that the Western World is fighting an adversary that is committed to nothing less than its total destruction. Hicks is a part, albeit a small part, of their aim to destroy the freedom and liberty enjoyed by Western democracies.
> 
> Reminds me of all those 'do gooders' (maybe sympathisers might be a more apt description) who couldn't or refused to see the 'true' face of Facism prior to WW11 or the true face of totalitarian Communism.
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who will not see"




Hi Bel532,

You may have missed the point here.  All along many people have been saying that deserved a fair trial within a reasonable amount of time.  In other words, natural justice.  I feel that Mr Hicks was foolish to somehow get involved in the situation. This does not mean that we're sticking up for Osama and his hairy mates. They are indeed a bunch of evil dudes.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Thank goodness the Army had enough common sense to see Hicks would be totally unsuitable for the army.!



Quick comments from the peanut gallery - 
1. You know don't you bel, that the US has lifted the requirement for servicemen/women to have clean criminal record. ? 
2. Did you watch Fahrenheit 9/11, especially the part where they target poor black areas for GI recruiting drives.


----------



## moXJO (29 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> well m8, nor did DH.  Only difference between you and him on that score is that he acted, and you talked. (not that I'm suggesting we should all go off sorting out the world's problems. )
> 
> by the way I meant to post link to Wikipedia back there ...(re Ronald Regan championing the Mujahadeen / infant Taliban) . Taliban went to Washington and were welcomed - ? - did you know that ?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahadeen





And supporting a terrorist organization is a great act as well? Here we have a guy that trained in camps to kill ,was on the front lines in Afghanistan even if only for a few hours, and when it got to hot tried to flee and was caught. Are you trying to make a hero out of this guy or support the Taliban’s actions?Even if there was only a slight chance he put our troops at risk in anyway then his lock up was well deserved.

Iraqi was a huge F*up we had no right going in there but Afghanistan was a different ball game altogether


----------



## greggy (29 March 2007)

moXJO said:


> And supporting a terrorist organization is a great act as well? Here we have a guy that trained in camps to kill ,was on the front lines in Afghanistan even if only for a few hours, and when it got to hot tried to flee and was caught. Are you trying to make a hero out of this guy or support the Taliban’s actions?Even if there was only a slight chance he put our troops at risk in anyway then his lock up was well deserved.
> 
> Iraqi was a huge F*up we had no right going in there but Afghanistan was a different ball game altogether



Iraq has turned out to be a complete mess.  More resources should be put in Afghanistan to put an end to the terrorists' game there.  I feel that the Iraq situation has taken away the focus from the progress being made in Afghanistan.


----------



## happytown (29 March 2007)

tdkx669 said:


> I didn't get why people support a guy who can be terrorist. Who might be harmfull for Australia. And people are jumping to help him and bring back to australia. Its really surprising to me we always support convict such as Corby and now Hicks.




You don't have to support the person to support the process.

cheers


----------



## bel532 (29 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> well m8, nor did DH.  Only difference between you and him on that score is that he acted, and you talked. (not that I'm suggesting we should all go off sorting out the world's problems. )
> 
> by the way I meant to post link to Wikipedia back there ...(re Ronald Regan championing the Mujahadeen / infant Taliban) . Taliban went to Washington and were welcomed - ? - did you know that ?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahadeen




Dont' give me that old turkey about the USA helping the Taliban, that's a lie that has been totally descredited

The USA helped the Mujahadeen in fighting the Soviets and, as far as I am aware, the Taliban (as an extremist religious cult) did not, at a that time, exist. They came into power AFTER the overthrow of the Soviets and, of course, some of the Mujahadeen (probably partly for their own self preservation) 'converted' to the extreme form of Islam espoused by the Taliban.

The USA never directly helped the Taliban but it certainly helped the Mujahadeen in their fight against the Soviets aspart of the Cold War.


----------



## bel532 (29 March 2007)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:


> The Americans sort out the Serbs......where from? their planes?!




Well the Americans certainly did a lot more than the Euros who coudn't clean up the mess in their own back yard  without the help of the Yanks. 

Remember the Kosovars who were slaughtered whilst the Dutch looked the other way?


----------



## Happy (29 March 2007)

Like in cold war there are those who fight and those who make it possible, like supplies, monies.

By now Iraq would run out of stash of weapons, but with helping hand from neighbours, things will go on forever.

One of the conspiracy theories is that WMD were not found because were moved, sudden reactivation of enrichment could be a ploy to be able to declare legitimate scientific or weapon grade nuclear material, kind of dirty nuclear material washing.

Little Hicksups, are just pawns insignificant peanuts, but for some, even on this forum constant supply of excitement and desire to fight for every human right.

Now when GUILTY plea was entered, could we look at the person as declared terrorist aide?


----------



## robert toms (29 March 2007)

Now that the British naval people have admitted that they entered Iranian waters,perhaps this should stop all of this media speculation....and an apology etc from Britain should  help defuse the situation?
We should stop treating them as misguided and innocent pawns in the big game ?
Have they too admitted their guilt?


----------



## happytown (29 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Remember the Kosovars who were slaughtered whilst the Dutch looked the other way?




No, perhaps you could remind us

I do, however, remember the dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica (note that's srebrenica in bosnia, not kosovo), that were literally left to their own devices by NATO (whose primary partner is the US) and the UN whilst thousands of bosnians were slaughtered

Far from looking the other way, they were taken hostage and requests for NATO close air support (and remembering who NATO's primary partner is) went mostly unfulfilled

However, I stray, please elighten us as to when the kosovars were slaughtered as the dutch looked the other way (for it may have indeed happened, I just don't remember it)

And yes, I recognise that the more bellicose the argument the further we all stray from the core principles being discussed in this thread that may or may not be too sophisticated for some 

cheers


----------



## Happy (29 March 2007)

robert toms said:


> Now that the British naval people have admitted that they entered Iranian waters,perhaps this should stop all of this media speculation....and an apology etc from Britain should  help defuse the situation?
> We should stop treating them as misguided and innocent pawns in the big game ?
> Have they too admitted their guilt?







> From ABC, March 28, 2007
> 
> GPS EVIDENCE CLEARS BRITISH SAILORS OF WRONGDOING, VICE-ADMIRAL SAYS
> 
> ...




Probably plot thickens a bit, could be desperate attempt to save face, or attempt to get legitimate reason to extend their military activities to rescue sailors.


----------



## bel532 (29 March 2007)

happytown said:


> No, perhaps you could remind us
> 
> I do, however, remember the dutch peacekeepers in Srebrenica (note that's srebrenica in bosnia, not kosovo), that were literally left to their own devices by NATO (whose primary partner is the US) and the UN whilst thousands of bosnians were slaughtered
> 
> ...




It's a pity the Euros can't fix up the mess 'in their own backyard' instead of constantly relying on the  USA.

When will the Euros grow up and stop relying on the USA  to sort out their problems? The Cold War has been dead and buried for some time now.

You comment still does not explain why the Dutch 'looked the the other way' whilst the massacre was taking place.

Here is the info re the massacre at Sebrenica from Wilkependia(I am surprised you are unaware of this horrendous event):

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity."[6]

The United Nations had previously declared Srebrenica a UN protected "safe area", but they did not prevent the massacre, even though 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers were present at the time.[7] The massacre included several instances where preteen children and women were also killed.[8] The list of people missing or killed in Srebrenica compiled by the Federal Commission of Missing Persons so far includes 8,373 names.[9]


----------



## happytown (29 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> It's a pity the Euros can't fix up the mess 'in their own backyard' instead of constantly relying on the  USA.
> 
> When will the Euros grow up and stop relying on the USA  to sort out their problems? The Cold War has been dead and buried for some time now.
> 
> ...




read my post again

cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> Dont' give me that old turkey about the USA helping the Taliban, that's a lie that has been totally descredited.



bel, suppose I said there was plenty of evidence on the web that in mid May 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Taliban for poppy crop removal.- in addition to the humanitarian moneys.  (Chances are it was all "poppy-crop " )

Now there is every chance that one of my posts back there was wrong in part - makes no difference to the point however. (my quote back there that the Taliban had actually achieved 99.8% reduction in opium poppy, as I found on Wikipedia - I put a question mark against that point of the post when I posted it) - turns out that this could well be wrong, and that the Taliban "possibly only reduced production to drive up the price". 

The point I was trying to make or rather emphasise was more that there had been dealings between Washington and Taliban. The fact that the money changed hands is enough. Back in those days, the Taliban weren't the bogey men they now are. Slowly but surely they have become demons. Now that the battle lines are drawn , I agree entirely with chasing down AQ.  But Hicks has found himself on the wrong team - and I'm confident he regrets it.  I'm also confident that USA feels that way too, otherwise they wouldn't be talking down the severity of his crime so much. (although again time will tell on that score too - praps I'm misinterpreting Moe Davis.  Maybe he is saying Hicks will spent his life in an Adelaide jail ?  It's all timing - before or after the election in Nov ? lol). 


> http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html  How Washington Funded the Taliban, by Ted Galen Carpenter
> 
> Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 14 books on international affairs including the forthcoming "Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington's Futile War on Drugs in Latin America" (Palgrave/ St. Martin's).
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2007)

further to previous, here's an article by Jared Israel * - allegedly posted 5 June 2001* (= prior to 9/11), titled "Washington: Parent of the Taliban and Colombian Death Squads"
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm


> IS WASHINGTON 'AIDING' COLOMBIA AND THE TALIBAN?
> OR IS IT IN FACT SUPPORTING ITS OWN CREATIONS?
> 
> The "Does the drug war justify us giving aid to monsters?" argument confuses the real relationship between Washington and said monsters, such as the Colombian military/death squads, and the Taliban authorities in Afghanistan.
> ...



On the subject of drugs and (it seems) a link between Afghanistan's Taliban and KLA, they also say this...


> Washington pretends to oppose drugs. But its favorite Balkans terrorist group relies on the drug business for cash. Washington could devastate the drug trade by simply arresting this organization. That would easy to do because the organization is the KLA. It was set up by Germany and the U.S. and it is trained by "Western special forces," that is, by the U.S. and Britain). ...
> 
> ..Interpol estimates that Kosovo Albanians may control 40 percent of the European heroin trade. In Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic, they may have as much as 70 percent of the market, according to the estimates.
> 
> ....Opium from Afghanistan and Pakistan is exported to Turkey, where it is refined into heroin, and then moved by Turkish gangs to the Balkans. There, lieutenants of the Fifteen Families, operating from anarchic border towns around ill-defined Balkan borders, take over and administer the drugs' movement across the continent. In cities across Europe, smaller Kosovo Albanian gangs oversee storage, sale and distribution... etc  (this is in para 4 of "further reading")



  all interesting stuff,  messy whichever way you look at it).


----------



## bel532 (29 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> bel, suppose I said there was plenty of evidence on the web that in mid May 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Taliban for poppy crop removal.- in addition to the humanitarian moneys.  (Chances are it was all "poppy-crop " )
> 
> Now there is every chance that one of my posts back there was wrong in part - makes no difference to the point however. (my quote back there that the Taliban had actually achieved 99.8% reduction in opium poppy, as I found on Wikipedia - I put a question mark against that point of the post when I posted it) - turns out that this could well be wrong, and that the Taliban "possibly only reduced production to drive up the price".
> 
> The point I was trying to make or rather emphasise was more that there had been dealings between Washington and Taliban. The fact that the money changed hands is enough. Back in those days, the Taliban weren't the bogey men they now are. Slowly but surely they have become demons. Now that the battle lines are drawn , I agree entirely with chasing down AQ.  But Hicks has found himself on the wrong team - and I'm confident he regrets it.  I'm also confident that USA feels that way too, otherwise they wouldn't be talking down the severity of his crime so much. (although again time will tell on that score too - praps I'm misinterpreting Moe Davis.  Maybe he is saying Hicks will spent his life in an Adelaide jail ?  It's all timing - before or after the election in Nov ? lol).




You are obviously very confused.

The USA helped the Taliban on this issue and this issue only -the removal of poppy crops was a very worthwile issue, as it was creating such havoc amongst people around the world and especially in the USA.

That does not mean that the USA supported the Taliban in all their demonic thrusts to impose their fundamentalist point of view on all their citiizens especially their women.Surely you don't support that? 

If the Taliban did not utilise all that money for the purpose of removing the poppy crops, that is another issue. Unfortunately history is full of examples of aid money not being used for the purpose for which it was intended

I think you are still confusing the Taliban with the Mujahdeen, which the USA did support as a means of thwarting the expansionist of the Soviets in the Cold War period.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2007)

bel , I know the Mujahadeen, and I know the Taliban.  I helped a young Mujahadeen settle into Aus - had a Russian bullet near his spine - inoperable.  He was considered a hero of course , a la Rambo III movie, and Reagan superlatives etc .  

But lol, why do you think that in July 2001, that Colin Powelll was talking to Mujahadeen ? - Afghanistan by then was run by the Taliban ? They gave em $43 million ?? USD ?? dont you see ??

Anyway, you have replied to one of my posts, but I think Ive already answered in my second .  The $43 million was strongly criticised by the likes of Scheer. - and as I say in previous post , this was prior to 9/11. 

Maybe you should read some more about "How the USA financed the Taliban"  (note not the Mujahadeen) :-  plenty more here
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=...s=OOO&q=washington+funded+taliban&btnG=Search

PS you obviously didn't watch the SBS Insight program on this.  Michael Mori said it on ABC TV that the Taliban had been welcomed in Washington/ supported by Washington.   I take it you disagree?? you are on shakey ground with your arguments.  Or is it , dare I say , that you "refuse to see". (as per another post back there somewhere)

PS The Taliban went way off the rails.  Lunatic fringe - no argument from me there.
I posted a poem back there .. #23 on poetry thread (strictly the poem is about mother nature, but anyway)


> If I were the God of Love..as the Islamic followers say,
> And men draped in BLACK!! said that wives should be stoned, if suspected of going astray,
> And just on the word of some madman..and quoting My name all the way,
> To kill her by pellets from rampaging zealots, - I’d probably lean towards “nay”... etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2007)

heck, given that you could probably find someone in the US administration and/or CIA to say that they had a pretty good idea that the money going to Taliban was getting to AQ (mid late 2001), and that US embassies in Africa were being blown up, maybe there's a case that someone else is arguably vulnerable to a possible charge (retrospective) of "providing material support for terrorists".


----------



## robert toms (30 March 2007)

I hear that Blair suggest that the British sailors were tortured or coerced into making confessions.Interesting that this took a few days ,whereas Hicks held out for years before making any confessions.
There are some logical observations in there somewhere,but when the politicians get involved everything goes to excrement.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2007)

I agree Robert, - I think we discussed that way back there in this thread.  Guantanamo is a terrible precedent. 

A couple of articles about things going "wrong" in Afghanistan.  Also a photo of the crowd .. (these are the people we are trying to win over  )... they don't look too "won over" to me.  When the Aussies went into East Timor, they won over the people.  When the USA goes into a country with their bombers  (and the inevitable excuses about "collateral" or "peripheral" damage), they simply make things worse.   

Then they leave an ambush and shoot at vehicles for the next 10 km ???  They obviously hate the place -no chance that they'll achieve a damned thing.
You'd have to wonder if they're helping or hindering - with them on your side, you're on a hiding to nothing.

And of course the Afghan President Karzai is being hailed as a US puppet - and these people don't hold back when they suspect they are being manipulated.  


> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-07-afghan-bombing_x.htm
> The U.S. bombing has sparked opposition from Afghans angered at the rising death toll of civilians. Afghan lawmakers blame the rising civilian toll for a surge in support for the Taliban.
> 
> Afghan President Hamid Karzai took the unusual step last month of summoning the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry, and telling him "every effort" should be made to ensure civilians' safety.
> ...





> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-03-04-afghanistan-attack_N.htm   Wounded Afghans say U.S. forces fired on civilians after suicide bomb.
> JALALABAD, Afghanistan (AP) — U.S. Marines fleeing a militant ambush Sunday opened fire on civilian cars and pedestrians on a busy highway in eastern Afghanistan, wounded Afghans said. Up to 16 people were killed and 34 wounded in the violence, officials said.
> A suicide attacker detonated an explosives-filled minivan as the American convoy approached, then militant gunmen fired on the troops inside the vehicles, who returned fire, the U.S. military said.
> 
> ...





> caption with the photo reads :-  After violence along a busy highway that left 16 Afghans dead, hundreds of people blocked the road and threw rocks at police, with some demonstrators shouting "Death to America! Death to Karzai," a reference to President Hamid Karzai.


----------



## happytown (30 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> ...  Also a photo of the crowd .. (these are the people we are trying to win over  )... they don't look too "won over" to me.
> ...




2020,

m8, they're not afghanis, they're pakistanis after their world cup effort    

Of more interest, however, have a read of the attached pdf file

It is a sate dept, released through foi, official notes on telephone conversation between mullah omar (yes the supreme taliban leader) and a state dept official in 1998, makes for extremely interesting reading

Enjoy

cheers 

N.B. Some of it has been redacted, obviously to hide intel sources.


----------



## bel532 (30 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> bel, suppose I said there was plenty of evidence on the web that in mid May 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Taliban for poppy crop removal.- in addition to the humanitarian moneys.  (Chances are it was all "poppy-crop " )
> 
> Now there is every chance that one of my posts back there was wrong in part - makes no difference to the point however. (my quote back there that the Taliban had actually achieved 99.8% reduction in opium poppy, as I found on Wikipedia - I put a question mark against that point of the post when I posted it) - turns out that this could well be wrong, and that the Taliban "possibly only reduced production to drive up the price".
> 
> The point I was trying to make or rather emphasise was more that there had been dealings between Washington and Taliban. The fact that the money changed hands is enough. Back in those days, the Taliban weren't the bogey men they now are. Slowly but surely they have become demons. Now that the battle lines are drawn , I agree entirely with chasing down AQ.  But Hicks has found himself on the wrong team - and I'm confident he regrets it.  I'm also confident that USA feels that way too, otherwise they wouldn't be talking down the severity of his crime so much. (although again time will tell on that score too - praps I'm misinterpreting Moe Davis.  Maybe he is saying Hicks will spent his life in an Adelaide jail ?  It's all timing - before or after the election in Nov ? lol).





To simply take one instance where the USA gave money to the Taliban SPECIFICALLY to remove the poppy crop is certainly 'gilding the lily'. You just can't take ONE instance where the USA provided the funds to the Taliban for a very SPECIFIC purpose and then conclude that the USA was a supporter of the Taliban, very strange logic indeed! It is still obvious that you are still confuised bewteen the Mujahadeen and the Taliban. I have heard this argument from other people and I am not sure if this a deliberate attempt to confuse these two organisations to place the USA in a bad lght in its fight (which is also our fight) against fanatical Muslim terrorists and their supporters. I find this very scary!

How do you know that Hicks regrets his actions, and if he does, is it just because he has been caught? Is he really sorry that he has taken up arms with a fundamentalist organisation that wants to FORCIBLY take civilisation back to the Middle Ages? I have not heard or seen anything to indicate that he has any regrets whatsoever..


----------



## wayneL (30 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> To simply take one instance where the USA gave money to the Taliban SPECIFICALLY to remove the poppy crop is certainly 'gilding the lily'. You just can't take ONE instance where the USA provided the funds to the Taliban for a very SPECIFIC purpose and then conclude that the USA was a supporter of the Taliban, very strange logic indeed! It is still obvious that you are still confuised bewteen the Mujahadeen and the Taliban. I have heard this argument from other people and I am not sure if this a deliberate attempt to confuse these two organisations to place the USA in a bad lght in its fight (which is also our fight) against fanatical Muslim terrorists and their supporters. I find this very scary!
> 
> How do you know that Hicks regrets his actions, and if he does, is it just because he has been caught? Is he really sorry that he has taken up arms with a fundamentalist organisation that wants to FORCIBLY take civilisation back to the Middle Ages? I have not heard or seen anything to indicate that he has any regrets whatsoever..



Bel

You haven't read your history yet have you?


----------



## Kauri (30 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> How do you know that Hicks regrets his actions, and if he does, is it just because he has been caught? Is he really sorry that he has taken up arms with a fundamentalist organisation that wants to FORCIBLY take civilisation back to the Middle Ages? I have not heard or seen anything to indicate that he has any regrets whatsoever..




 How can anyone know what he feels, he has been held incomunicado in conditions that rival those of the Middle Ages,


----------



## bel532 (30 March 2007)

Kauri said:


> How can anyone know what he feels, he has been held incomunicado in conditions that rival those of the Middle Ages,





You evidently know very lttle, if anything, of the history of the Middle Ages! I am sure if was held in prison in the Middle Ages he would not have looked as healthy as he did when in made his appearance in court.


----------



## bel532 (30 March 2007)

wayneL said:


> Bel
> 
> You haven't read your history yet have you?




I have read my history very well, you just like to obfuscate it!


----------



## Kauri (30 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> You evidently know very lttle, if anything, of the history of the Muddle Ages! I am sure if was held in prison in the Middle Ages he would not have looked as healthy as he did when in made his appearance in court.




  How healthy did he look??? Could you post a link so I can see...


----------



## wayneL (30 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> I have read my history very well, you just like to obfuscate it!



I would love for you to demonstrate my obfuscation. Till then you're speaking tosh.


----------



## Sean K (30 March 2007)

Kauri said:


> How healthy did he look??? Could you post a link so I can see...



I think he had put on weight actually. That's probably because he's been in a cell for years not getting any exercise and eating Maccas. I did watch a show during the week claiming the prision there is better than some in the US. That interview was with a US Army Officer.....


----------



## greggy (30 March 2007)

kennas said:


> I think he had put on weight actually. That's probably because he's been in a cell for years not getting any exercise and eating Maccas. I did watch a show during the week claiming the prision there is better than some in the US. That interview was with a US Army Officer.....




I too think he's definitely put on weight.  He needs a good haircut though.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2007)

bel,  here's a hypothetical legal tennis match - that either or both of USA and Hicks knowingly gave "support" to "terrorists".

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html How Washington Funded the Taliban, by Ted Galen Carpenter

1. NAIVITY.  Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute . ....(U.S. officials gave USD43 mill and )... "were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion." .
score (US : Hicks)  15-0.

OK OK , you make the point that it is acceptable for the USA to be naive on this matter.   Presumably Hicks can also use this argument .   15- all.

2. MORALITY ... "Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, U.S. cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant ...."
score 30-15 

OK OK , 30-30.   

3.  THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME. " Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. For the State Department to ignore that connection and agree to subsidize the Taliban was inexcusably obtuse. "

Apart from the fact that the naivity factor just ramped up 5 fold, they lose points because they can't communicate between the "anti-terror" department and the "anti-opium" dept.  (which appears to be off in a back room, maybe smokin the profits?) 

If they didn't know by 2001 that the Taliban were evil they should have - they would have tripped over the sign below for instance on the way to the UN in 1998. 

It's a nonsense to say that they could give support to Taliban *(almost 3 years later in mid 2001)* thinking it wouldn't benefit AQ who were well known to be gearing up there.

Also happytown's transcript of that phone conversation between a "USG official" and Taliban (Omar) proves that they were right onto Bin Laden in Aug 1998. .."7(C) our (air)strikes are in no way directed at the Afghan people or the Taliban, (just AQ).   Bin Laden is like a guest who was shooting at neighbours out of the host's windows" 
Score 40-30. 

OK OK, let's accept that Hicks knew this stuff wasn't what he was taught at Sunday school. - wasn't a church picnic etc (all those clever similes that the pollies keep coming up with) 
40-40.

4. CUNNING, REWRITING THE LEGAL SYSTEM RETOSPECTIVELY , and 
5. COVERUP  (Abu Ghraib mmm  )
sorry,  here Hicks has a perfect defence - he's too dumb (on the record).

game to USA. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B165CUYEJxs



> PS :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar (this is the bloke on the phone to USG in happytown's post ..). Mullah Mohammed Omar (born c.1959, Nodeh, near Kandahar[1]) or simply Mullah Omar, is the reclusive leader of the Taliban of Afghanistan and was Afghanistan's de facto head of state from 1996 to 2001. He is also known as Commander of the Faithful, as declared by his followers in 1994.
> 
> Since the 2001 war in Afghanistan began he has been in hiding and wanted by U.S. authorities for harboring Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. He is believed to be hiding in Pakistan.  Despite his former political rank, and his current high status on terrorism wanted lists[2], not much is publicly known about this man. Few photos of him exist. During his tenure as "emir" of Afghanistan, most of the contact between that country and the rest of the world was via his foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawakkil.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2007)

greggy said:


> He needs a good haircut though.



 Greggy, (and kennas) - you know why he has long hair don't you? - they said it was so that he could wrap it over his eyes to "turn off" the constantly-on-lights when he wanted to sleep -  
And put on weight because no exercise - he was given a hard time by the other inmates in the exercise area who accused him of cooperating etc with CIA and prison management.

PS which in turn would suggest he's reformed , you'd think (? )


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2007)

Guess the evidence for contrition  that we didn't have yesterday, we have today.
I agree with Kauri .. can't recall many opportunities he has had till now ... 
May not be good enough for bel of course .
bel seems to say "you make one mistake that's it.  except for Uncle Sam who is exempt" .

" In a statement read to the tribunal on his behalf, Hicks said he owed *apologies to many people, including his family, Australia and the US.*  He has also thanked Australians for their compassion and forgiveness and *has promised not to betray their support*."

He;ll be back in Aus by end june (a full 5 or 6  months before the election, what a coincidence  )


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1886350.htm
> Hicks apologises, thanks Aust for support, By Michael Rowland
> 
> Confessed terrorism supporter David Hicks has apologised to Australia and the United States after being convicted by a US military commission at Guantanamo Bay.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2007)

PS couple of words spring to mind,  Noble words in my opinion. 
"Contrition " - even has a meaning in theology ,.. remorse .. arising from the love of God (perfect) - or fear of divine punishment (imperfect)
(oops gotta feeling that following God was one the things that got him into trouble in the first place)

"Forgiveness" - seem to recall Jesus said something on that topic  

PS you're right bel, I have intentionally put the one before the other.

PPS I can see Chaser now .... "that'll be 20,000 Heil Marys" 

PPS Now that that's over, maybe time to make the inside of him as "healthy" as the outside of him appears to be in some eyes  - allegedly as unfit as bugary lol.


----------



## Happy (31 March 2007)

*David Hicks plea*



> From ABC, March 31, 2007,
> 
> By Michael Rowland and wires
> 
> ...




Conspiracy theorists have two choices accept it or keep going.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2007)

PS I would like to apologise for my many misdeeds and obfuscations - just as long as everyone else does too 

PS I notice is originates from "to make dark" 
Yet, I could have sworn that collectively, we have shed a lot of light on this topic  
Heck even the pollies seem to be suddenly "enlightened".  Marvellous things those elections.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2007)

interesting extract from that Reuters article happy..


> 1.Hicks's plea agreement bars him from speaking to the media for one year and says if he ever sells the rights to his story, the Australian Government will get the money.
> 2. He was also banned from taking legal action against the United States.
> 3. Hicks had previously said he was abused by the US military but said in his plea agreement he had "never been illegally treated while in US custody".



1. why one year? the election is only 6 or 8 months or so ?
2. lol, my guess is Major Mori is likely to be silenced as well - and probably wants to move on with his job (his new job?) - bound to be in civvy street if he wants to make equivalent of Colonel.
3. I guess it's forgiveness time all round.


----------



## rederob (31 March 2007)

*Re: David Hicks plea*



Happy said:


> Conspiracy theorists have two choices accept it or keep going.



What conspiracy?
Accept what?

We should never accept injustices, and that it is our ally - the US - that continues to perpetrate them says little for our choice of friends.

Just in case you missed it, and many have to date, *there was no "trial".*
This will have pleased the US more than Hicks, as the fabric of charges laid against Hicks is woven into guilt by "association" rather than specific "acts".


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2007)

Happy said:


> 1. Little Hicksups, are just pawns insignificant peanuts,
> 2. but for some, even on this forum constant supply of excitement and desire to fight for every human right.
> 3. Now when GUILTY plea was entered, could we look at the person as declared terrorist aide?



happy 
1. probably right, but possibly the implications are massive, - heck you could go out on a limb (over a hypothetical beer) and argue that we are discussing tactics and attitudes that might start the next war - and you could possibly say it will affect US / AUS relations a smidgeon 
2. fighting for human rights? bad thing ? lol
3. I would prefer to say lets define our terms with the addition of the word "past tense".


----------



## Kauri (31 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> interesting extract from that Reuters article happy..
> 
> 1. *why one year? the election is only 6 or 8 months or so ?*
> 2. lol, my guess is Major Mori is likely to be silenced as well - and probably wants to move on with his job (his new job?) - bound to be in civvy street if he wants to make equivalent of Colonel.
> 3. I guess it's forgiveness time all round.





*Hicks get nine months
*

_31st March 2007, 8:30 WST

_



> A U.S. military tribunal has sentenced Australian David Hicks to just nine months in prison after he pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism.




  Well, a win all round for George and Johnny... George gets vindicated by a guilty plea and Johnny sweeps it under the carpet until after the election, by which time we will all have forgotten about it.



> Hicks's plea agreement bars him from speaking to the media for one year and says if he ever sells the rights to his story, *the Australian Government will get the money.*



   Will that make the Govt. guilty of benefitting from terrorism??? Surely that would warrant a year or two in Guantanamo.


----------



## bel532 (31 March 2007)

wayneL said:


> I would love for you to demonstrate my obfuscation. Till then you're speaking tosh.




There's no obfuscati on my part. It's quite simple:

All these supporters of this pro terrorist Hicks want him back on the streets, so he can continue his 'jihad' against the West. Now that is intelligent!

I say incarcerate him until he vows (on the Koran or the bible whichever he believes in at the time) that he will NOT engage in terrorist activities. This is assuming, of course, that we can trust him to tell the truth. Maybe his father can vouch for him, now that would be something!


----------



## numbercruncher (31 March 2007)

Why dont they just return him to Afghanistan, thats where they found him, thats obviously where he wanted to be !!

Re-issue his AK47 and drop him off at the Kabul Airport, everyones happy then including Jihad Hicks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> All these supporters of this pro terrorist Hicks want him back on the streets, so he can continue his 'jihad' against the West. Now that is intelligent!



 My idea of intelligent ( not) is to waste 5 years trying to rewrite the rule book so that someone caught in Afghanistan when we invaded can be tried for something, anything , who cares if it's retrospective 

while at the same time...
someone like Willy Brigitte is happily collecting all the intelligence about Lucas Hts and the electricity grid, etc - marries a girl with military training (now there's a coincidence I find hard to accept) and Australian security knows nothing about him,  has to be told by France!.   In fact the trial against him plotting against Australia has to happen in Paris.

You like Chasers, bel? see the one where a man dressed in Arab clothing asks questions at the Bridge, and at Lucas Hts - and then someone does it wearing a suit ?  Do you see what they were getting at ?   (PS  write to them and ask em to explain - nothing like a well explained joke as they say )

Yes we should have good and meaningful and effective anti-terror laws .. Incidentally , even the experts differ... (and certainly some of the laws permitting lock-up-no-recourse are a worry).  This is from a previous post.  Note " overreaction and short term thinking may actually make Australia more vulnerable" (but no doubt you think he's unintelligent too) 



2020hindsight said:


> This bloke seems to be convinced that our laws on terror are little more than kneejerk reactions designed to placade the public.
> For the paper you'll have to read the attached pdf file.
> towards the end he says "If we strive for the illusory goal of full protection from terrporism, we risk doing even greater damage to our society and its freedoms and values." .






> http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/staff/WilliamsG/
> George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales...
> A barrister, ....(freedom of speech), the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Case (freedom from racial discrimination) and Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (review of government action and the rule of law) and in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal of Fiji, including in Republic of Fiji v Prasad (legality of the 2000 coup). ....


----------



## rederob (31 March 2007)

bel532 said:


> There's no obfuscati on my part. It's quite simple:
> 
> All these supporters of this pro terrorist Hicks want him back on the streets, so he can continue his 'jihad' against the West. Now that is intelligent!
> 
> I say incarcerate him until he vows (on the Koran or the bible whichever he believes in at the time) that he will NOT engage in terrorist activities. This is assuming, of course, that we can trust him to tell the truth. Maybe his father can vouch for him, now that would be something!



Bel
You really are not too bright  - intelligent, if you prefer - are you, despite your protestations to know so much?
You seem unable to come to grips with concepts of justice, preferring instead to attack a person that will never be given an opportunity to now tell his story contemporaneously, let alone through a trial process.
Whatever Hicks' views or actions may may be, on the basis of your "argument" what we need to do is get *everyone *to swear on a bible or their book of preference, and vow not to engage in terrorist activities.
You would argue that we only need to get the Hicks of this world to do this, I suggest.
However, how do we "weed out" all the other potential terrorists from those we can easily label?
The reality is that we cannot.
Indeed, there is a very close analogy between the actions of drug syndicates and terrorist organisations in that they target the least likely to be noticed to perpetrate their dastardly deeds.

I was only going to post in reply to your nonsensical assertion that "pro Hicks" meant pro terrorist.  But your ability to draw illogical conclusions from your statements that are essentially non sequiturs is quite obfuscatory.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2007)

Kauri said:


> Hicks gets nine months..



lol - Kauri - I thought you were joking.   

... getting pretty hard to differentiate between truth and jokes 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17870312/


> Australian Hicks must serve 9 months
> Guantanamo detainee sentenced to 7 years, with bulk of time suspended.. etc


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (31 March 2007)

Considering everything......a good result for DH and must be a relief  .

A good reminder to all to never 'Associate' ..... its a heftier sentence than most, requiring little more substantiation than heresay and an interrigators notes. 

Thats completely aside from the length of due legal process... yada yada.


----------



## greggy (31 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Greggy, (and kennas) - you know why he has long hair don't you? - they said it was so that he could wrap it over his eyes to "turn off" the constantly-on-lights when he wanted to sleep -
> And put on weight because no exercise - he was given a hard time by the other inmates in the exercise area who accused him of cooperating etc with CIA and prison management.
> 
> PS which in turn would suggest he's reformed , you'd think (? )



Hi 2020 Hindsight,

Throughout this process, I like many others was calling for Mr Hicks to get a fair trial within a reasonable amount of time. I feel that one's right to natural justice is crucial in a democracy.  I didn't come into this debate from a anti-US point of view.  I for one am a supporter of Australia's strong relationship with the US, but realise that sometimes mistakes are made (e.g. Iraq has turned out far worse than anyone expected).
As for Mr Hicks, I was just commenting on his appearnce, long haired and overweight.  People were speculating that he would turn up to court in very thin shape.
I see many homeless people on the streets of Melbourne, having worked as a volunteer helping street kids, in far worse shape. Those in jail, though not a nice place to be, are fed and cared for much better than those who reside on Melbourne's streets.


----------



## bingk6 (31 March 2007)

Kauri said:


> Will that make the Govt. guilty of benefitting from terrorism??? Surely that would warrant a year or two in Guantanamo.




LOL - Johnny might be interested if George tells him how good the food is at Guantanamo.


----------



## billhill (31 March 2007)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> And put on weight because no exercise




I read somewhere that troops that serve at guantanamo had to fill out a questionaire declaring whether they had issues with force feeding inmates. Maybe DH had the weight put on at the request of the australian government. They wouldn't want him coming back to oz looking like a nazi concentration camp survivor.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2007)

billhill said:


> I read somewhere that troops that serve at guantanamo had to fill out a questionaire declaring whether they had issues with force feeding inmates. Maybe DH had the weight put on at the request of the australian government. They wouldn't want him coming back to oz looking like a nazi concentration camp survivor.



Bill, You would have to assume that it's being carefully stage managed, wouldn't you.

I mean , Moe Davis is complimenting Howard and Ruddock personally
- even complimenting Michael Mori, who - no matter how good a job he did - was his opposition for chrissake - how often does it happen that lawyers compliment each other lol. 

I mean, they've all been doing "presentation before the press" courses, yes?.   Hint of damage control to my untrained eye.   Downplaying the severity of the case, handshaking all round , etc etc .  Strange.  No way do they still believe Hicks is the bogey man they once claimed.    I heard Moe David interviewed, asked why he said "Hicks was one of the worst", he replied (in effect)  "he was one of the first",  i.e. one of the first captured, and hence one of the first into court - hardly replied to the question at all ?? 

and in the end, Hicks isn't allowed to talk about any of this for 12 months. And Law Council of Australia have picked up on the "coincidence" that Hicks gets out of jail just after the election. - and is gagged a bit longer still  

His dad has said that his son might be gagged, but no way he is.  


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1886515.htm
> ...Greens leader Bob Brown says Hicks's sentence is a political fix designed to keep him out of the political spotlight during this year's federal election campaign.
> 
> 'Second chance'.  The chief prosecutor at the US military tribunal hearing the case against Hicks says the 31-year-old is very fortunate and getting a second chance.  *Air Force Colonel Moe Davis has paid tribute to defence lawyer Major Michael Mori, saying Hicks owes him a great debt.*
> ...




Meanwhile (and only slightly related - I mean, only in that it's also called "a court" - and who are we to argue, after this latest sham...) 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1886613.htm


> Iran's ambassador to Moscow was meanwhile quoted as saying the the British sailors and marines may face trial, suggesting legal action had already started.


----------



## billhill (31 March 2007)

All too true unfortuanately 2020. Really what is the point of a gag on him other then preventing him from being a major issue at the next election. I just hope the rest of australia can see through this propaganda. Mind you i think his old man will try and shake things up a bit on his return.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 April 2007)

An interesting difference of opinion
Ruddock championing Hicks right to free speech (??)) 
	

		
			
		

		
	





	

		
			
		

		
	
   yet Mori is arguing severe penalties for speaking out.  

*This would have to be the first time that anyone has dared to say that we can make a decision independent of USA !!*  damage control for sure.



> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1889044.htm
> Hicks' media gag order can't be enforced: Ruddock
> Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says the gag order on convicted terrorist David Hicks cannot be enforced when he returns to Australia.
> 
> ...


----------



## bel532 (4 April 2007)

billhill said:


> I read somewhere that troops that serve at guantanamo had to fill out a questionaire declaring whether they had issues with force feeding inmates. Maybe DH had the weight put on at the request of the australian government. They wouldn't want him coming back to oz looking like a nazi concentration camp survivor.





Maybe people haven't or are unwilling to accept the bleeding obvious -inspite of the bleating and whinging Hicks was well looked after. 

To compare Guantanamo Bay to the Nazi concentration camps really shows your ignorance. Maybe you should visit these camps one day to really discover what the Nazis did to people!


----------



## bel532 (4 April 2007)

billhill said:


> All too true unfortuanately 2020. Really what is the point of a gag on him other then preventing him from being a major issue at the next election. I just hope the rest of australia can see through this propaganda. Mind you i think his old man will try and shake things up a bit on his return.





The best thing we can do is to send Hicks back to his mates in Afghanistan. I'm sure they will look after him! They might even give him a medal for a great acting performance


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> The best thing we can do is to send Hicks back to his mates in Afghanistan. I'm sure they will look after him! They might even give him a medal for a great acting performance




and the worst thing we can do is send people with prejudices to act as Aussie representatives in any foreign country.  - including Afghanistan.


----------



## billhill (4 April 2007)

bel532 said:
			
		

> Maybe people haven't or are unwilling to accept the bleeding obvious -inspite of the bleating and whinging Hicks was well looked after.
> 
> To compare Guantanamo Bay to the Nazi concentration camps really shows your ignorance. Maybe you should visit these camps one day to really discover what the Nazis did to people!




For one i am an avid WW2 enthusiest so don't lecture me on what nazi concentration camps were really like. I've read enough to realise the horrors that were endured. Second i did not compare guantanamo to a nazi concentration camp i merely speculated that his weight gain may have been due to being force fed so as to make him appear healthier on his appearance in the public eye. If he did come back malnourished and excessively skinny this would not bode well for the government. I never said these comments were true but that they could be a possibility.



			
				bel532 said:
			
		

> The best thing we can do is to send Hicks back to his mates in Afghanistan. I'm sure they will look after him! They might even give him a medal for a great acting performance




As for DH maybe he is acting and maybe he has done some bad things. This however is irrelevent in the sceme of things as the real issue is to do with human rights, moral values and a fair system of justice. If we ignore the geneva convention on torture as has been claimed to occur at guantanamo then we as a western society can have no standing whatsoever in telling other countries such as china to lift their game. You may think their is no inhumane treatment or injustice going on at guantanamo but the brittish government would beg to differ and i'm sure they have more reliable sources then you. If you want to support retrospective laws then don't whinge when china invades and condems you to prison without charge for aiding and abbetting the Australian enemy (in reality for being a POW) which is essentailly what the US government are doing. DH deserves a fair hearing. If he broke a law of the time he should pay the price, however if he didn't we have no right to treat him in the current manner.


----------



## bel532 (4 April 2007)

billhill said:


> For one i am an avid WW2 enthusiest so don't lecture me on what nazi concentration camps were really like. I've read enough to realise the horrors that were endured. Second i did not compare guantanamo to a nazi concentration camp i merely speculated that his weight gain may have been due to being force fed so as to make him appear healthier on his appearance in the public eye. If he did come back malnourished and excessively skinny this would not bode well for the government. I never said these comments were true but that they could be a possibility.
> 
> 
> As for DH maybe he is acting and maybe he has done some bad things. This however is irrelevent in the sceme of things as the real issue is to do with human rights, moral values and a fair system of justice. If we ignore the geneva convention on torture as has been claimed to occur at guantanamo then we as a western society can have no standing whatsoever in telling other countries such as china to lift their game. You may think their is no inhumane treatment or injustice going on at guantanamo but the brittish government would beg to differ and i'm sure they have more reliable sources then you. If you want to support retrospective laws then don't whinge when china invades and condems you to prison without charge for aiding and abbetting the Australian enemy (in reality for being a POW) which is essentailly what the US government are doing. DH deserves a fair hearing. If he broke a law of the time he should pay the price, however if he didn't we have no right to treat him in the current manner.




You sound like a legal person who likes splitting hairs.

If you associate with criminals you are immediately considered very suspect and there is no doubt that Hicks associated himself with criminals, in this case Al-Qaeda. I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. You live by the sword, you die by the sword!


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. You live by the sword, you die by the sword!



 bel, they had married couples on that Insight program on Hicks - who also disgreed on this lol.  and vehemently. 
True, many don't have any sympathy for him.  Personally, I trust the assessment of the Michael Mori's of this world that he is reformed.   But you can harbour your dislike for him to your last breath if you wish.  Me, I follow that forgivenss stuff that JC used to talk about. 

One thing I am very uncertain about ,   
I think the Bible mentions "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc".  but (I assume) in the Old Testament (?).  

And not after JC turned up , i.e. the New Testament. (?)

And the Koran has a lot in common with the Old Testament (?)  - maybe even includes it (??)

And they just never got the message about forgiveness - in fact took it all to a new level with the "cutting off hands of thieves " etc (?)  
Just guessing here.


----------



## billhill (4 April 2007)

bel532 said:
			
		

> You sound like a legal person who likes splitting hairs.




No quite far from it. In fact I have a extreme disliking for the legal industry (blood sucking opportunists). Although I do like splitting hairs. I just believe in a fair go no matter who you are.



			
				2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Me, I follow that forgivenss stuff that JC used to talk about




What was that quote from schindler's list, something like "real power is being able to forgive".


----------



## bel532 (4 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> bel, they had married couples on that Insight program on Hicks - who also disgreed on this lol.  and vehemently.
> True, many don't have any sympathy for him.  Personally, I trust the assessment of the Michael Mori's of this world that he is reformed.   But you can harbour your dislike for him to your last breath if you wish.  Me, I follow that forgivenss stuff that JC used to talk about.
> 
> One thing I am very uncertain about ,
> ...





Until Hicks is 'reformed' doesn't he represent a terrorist risk? Even, if he 'says' he is contrite, can we trust him or are wee foolish enough to take his father's word as gospel?


----------



## greggy (4 April 2007)

It will be a relief to many now that Mr Hicks has finally had his trial.  I for one am a little bit surprised as to why he plead guilty to charges.  Some say that he wanted to get out of there asap while many others will argue that he was indeed gulity and was just honest thinking that he would get a shorter sentence this way.  Throughout this process I've been totally amazed as to how this process took so long. Hopefully, the authorities will learn from it.  I hope that when Mr Hicks returns to Australia that he will serve out his sentence and then become a law abiding citizen.  Hopefully, he will not get involved in any further military operations overseas.  Irrespective of any crimes committed, this is the land of the fair go and once he's finished his sentence then may be he will be given the opportunity to start a normal life once again.  This will be my last contribution on this topic as Mr Hicks will soon becoming back to Australia to serve out the rest of his term.  This has been a very interesting thread to say the least and my participation in it was my interest in seeing Mr Hicks receive natural justice.  Some people may have incorrently described me as anti-American, pro-Taliban etc but this far from being the case.  Much of the hard work being done in Afghanistan, led by the US, to stamp out any remaining terrorist camps is IMO to be applauded.  If action had not been taken to oust the Taliban Govt in '01 I firmly believe that there could well have been even further terrorist attacks. Thank you to all fellow contributors to this thread, even those that I've disagreed with.  Its great that we live in a country that respects and tolerates different opinions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 April 2007)

greggy said:


> Hopefully, he will not get involved in any further military operations overseas.



Greggy you are aware aren't you that USA say that if Hicks breaks any of his "life time parole conditions"  that they will come and get him - whereever he is.  The way it sounded they meant it.  I mean I bet that would even be in Australia under the nose of the govt - or without disclosing it.  (I only say that because te Aus Govt have been shown to be 110% submissive on this entire question, compared to the Brits for instance)

The really interesting condition imo was the question of speaking out within 12 months  - lol - Ruddock saying he can't for the life of him work out how the USA court thinks they can impose something like that in Australia 

I recall 10  or 20 years ago, a US court handing down a sentence to a boy , I think he was a Navejo, who had murdered his father.  The sentence was ( wait for it) to go out into the world as a Mormon missionary ( to somewhere like Aus no doubt, lol - not too far from a McDonalds )   and spread the good word, lol.   They are so lacking when it comes to seeing the moral bankrupcy of these sort of actions.   

The "half life" of a moral principle over there is about the same as an electoral term. (imo).  Likewise the half life of a political puppet or CIA trainee ( Bin Laden etc) .  many of  whom are todays flavour of the year - only to be a problem in 5 or 10 years 

PS your posts are very elegant sir - you are obviously a gentleman - albeit a placard carrying one at the demo 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1889990.htm


> Hicks won't risk speaking to media, lawyer says
> The Australian lawyer for convicted terrorism supporter David Hicks says his client will not jeopardise the chance to reunite with his family, simply to tell his story.   Hicks was ordered not to talk to the media for a year as part of his plea bargain with the United States military commission, which sentenced him to nine months in jail.
> 
> But Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has indicated the gag order cannot be enforced when he returns to Australia.
> ...



LOL, thought for the day - we might even see him as a member of ASF after Xmas  - but he won't be able to post on this thread ok ? !! - lol - vested interest.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 April 2007)

David Hicks has admitted his guilt and should be allowed serve out his time in South Australia.

It is interesting that SA should have spawned a war criminal from its population.

It has a long history of tolerance and acceptance of difference, particularly post Don Dunstan.

Perhaps its a regression to the mean.

Let him now serve his time and be forgotten, as he should be.

Garpal


----------



## rederob (4 April 2007)

Garpal
Hicks was never charged with being a war criminal.
He pleaded guilty to material assisting terrorism.

US (and other coalition) soldiers have a sad legacy of proven war crimes  (http://www.nogw.com/warcrimes.html) and as Kauri has pointed out in other posts, attracted sentences that suggest they were just fun loving, naughty boys.


Greggy
Hicks' case never proceeded to trial.

Hicks' incarceration and legal process will continue to be discussed in legal forums for a long time to come.  And I suspect the "true" story will be hunted down by the media as soon it is clear that Hicks' has, in Australia, a right to free speech - even in jail!
As Ruddock notes, tho, Hicks won't be holding any press conferences when he's returned to Australia.


----------



## bel532 (4 April 2007)

rederob said:


> Garpal
> Hicks was never charged with being a war criminal.
> He pleaded guilty to material assisting terrorism.
> 
> ...




I'm sure that Hicks was a 'naughty' boy. Do all naughty boys go around the world, leave their wives and children at home, carry a gun and aid and abet terrorists? Some naughty boy!


----------



## rederob (4 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> I'm sure that Hicks was a 'naughty' boy. Do all naughty boys go around the world, leave their wives and children at home, carry a gun and aid and abet terrorists? Some naughty boy!



No bel.
The naughty boys stay at home, get drunk and beat their wives!
I have never defended Hicks' actions.
Nor would I defend our country's actions in respect of Hicks.
The simple question I ask is who has committed the worse offence?
Hicks, in fighting for his (silly in my view) beliefs?
Or a government that let one of its citizens rot in jail, without charge for as long as it did?
Then that very government, with release imminent, laments the US government's tardiness.
Many people want to attack a misguided young man who could never be charged under Australian law or international law.
Some even believe Hicks might be a danger at home, upon release - let's face it, he was labelled "the worst of the worst".
If Hicks is now a danger, it will probably be due more to what he has endured at Guantanamo.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 April 2007)

as I said back there , we'll all have the opportunity to ask him his thoughts on that when he becomes a member of ASF after Xmas   - that is if the USA govt lets him talk - despite the fact that AUS govt will not interfere in that (allegedly)

And depends on the sedition laws I guess - I'm sure that can be twisted to mean anything.   (bit like the patriot stuff in US)

As I made vague reference to back there, I'd love to be more informed about what can and can't be said under new sedition laws (anyone know? - but be careful in what you say lol)


----------



## bel532 (5 April 2007)

rederob said:


> No bel.
> The naughty boys stay at home, get drunk and beat their wives!
> I have never defended Hicks' actions.
> Nor would I defend our country's actions in respect of Hicks.
> ...





Let us stop with all this legalise jargon. Hicks aided and abetted terrorists in two continents Europe and Asia, pure and simple. let's see if he has learned his lesson or is he stiil inculculcated with Fundamentalist Islamic mayhem!


----------



## happytown (5 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> Let us stop with all this *legal*ise *jargon*. Hicks *aided and abetted* terrorists ...




cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 April 2007)

happytown -   likewise , Canberra has gone on to *formalise* the fact that in their opinion it wasn't a retrospective charge... or should that be *formal lies*?


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 April 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1887902.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/
ABC Four corners transcript.  Plus tons of other research on the case. 


> DEBBIE WHITMONT: After more than five years at Guantanamo Bay, and a legal battle that reached the US Supreme Court, David Hicks has pleaded guilty to a charge of material support for a terrorist organisation.
> TERRY HICKS: David was - yeah, you could tell he was - he was desperate. He wanted to - he - he's had enough. He just wanted to get out of the place.
> MAJOR MICHAEL MORI, DEFENCE COUNSEL FOR DAVID HICKS: I don't think David is going to be able to show any real emotion until he gets off a plane in Australia.
> DEBBIE WHITMONT: Hicks' plea came after a year of solitary confinement, and the first time, in more than two years, he'd seen his family.
> ...



etc etc
PS might surprise you bel, but I've sat in one of those chairs at a military court martial  - but I digress.


----------



## bel532 (5 April 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1887902.htm
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/
> ABC Four corners transcript.  Plus tons of other research on the case.
> 
> ...





He is guilty of consorting with terrorists. So what's your point?


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 April 2007)

bel there are countless points to make that have already been made 
a) you don;t seem to know much about christian values of forgiveness
b) these bugas lol - tonight's news - guilty of mmm   maybe , just maybe .... "associating", sorry, "consorting  with terrorists"  (yes?)

like sold em rocket launchers (i.e. to terrorists)  .
Question buddy - what do you suggest happens to them (assuming guilty of course)??
sheesh I thought this only happened in "24" (Jack Bauer etc)


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1891227.htm
> ADF officer in court over rocket launcher theft
> Two men have appeared in a Sydney court to face charges over the theft of eight rocket launchers from a Defence Forces depot in Sydney.
> 
> ...



NOtice something in that post ... "they dress in suits"  what !! you mean they dont hold placards or wear tee-shirts  "I'm a Terrorist ???"   sheesh , when will you blokes wake up .

PS back to Hicks ( you have to read the whole thing - and lol with as open a mind as you can muster 


> DEBBIE WHITMONT: It'll never be known how the legal debate about David Hicks' intention might have played out in the military commission. But even commission supporters like Richard Samp say that fighting as a soldier in a civil war isn't a war crime.
> 
> RICHARD SAMP, CHIEF COUNSEL, WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION: To take part in a freedom fight can mean many different things. If by what you mean taking part in a freedom fight you mean blowing up the World Trade Centre, blowing up trains in Spain, blowing up subways in London, then, yes, I would say that meets the definition of a war criminal.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 April 2007)

> OFFICER L: And was that still important after you heard about September 11, getting home?
> 
> DAVID HICKS: That's why I went back to get all my stuff. So I knew that the border would be closed again, I went back inside Afghanistan before it all happened. Everything of mine was in Afghanistan. I was -
> 
> ...



bel, continuing ...
c) He says he went back to Afghanistan for his "certificates"..
His dad said he went back to Afghanistan for his passport.  
Either way seems reasonable to me

d) I guess I have to make the point yet again that were he a pom, he'd have been free.  But no doubt you'll ignore that point yet again 
PS Why not concentrate your energies in catching that Aussie that wasn't captured ?!!

PPS had you seen the show, you would have seen what the NA did to a lot of the foreigners there - who should have been entitled to Geneva Convention you'd think - (sorry, who knows what you'd think - but that's what I'd think anyway) .
They just shot em !!  You're right ,  Hicks was lucky, he was sold for cash instead.

PPS again - Howard pretends "he got 5 years , about right all good - question then is, if the Aus govt appealed to US to get him out of solitary early in his detention - and succeeded - and then after a year or so the US put him back in solitary - for the remaining period of more than one year  - then what changed?  - and why didnt the Aus govt appeal again ? "


----------



## Captain_Chaza (5 April 2007)

If you sleep with rats/terrorists
Train with rats/terrorists to kill civilians

What in the hell are you?

A lack in IQ will never be a plausible excuse to any victim or their family!


Just my Opinion FWIW

PS Burn the Bugger before he burns a member of your family!


----------



## rederob (5 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> He is guilty of consorting with terrorists. So what's your point?



bel
The point is ...
you have missed it.
You want to make this "all about Hicks".
It's really more about the actions that surround Hicks' case.
There is little "legalese jargon" involved.
It's about anyone's ability to be dealt with fairly.
It's about having a government that cares if you are in trouble overseas, and ensures your case will at the very least be expedited and supported to the maximum extent possible.
Our government does not care, and showed a similar attitude in their dealings with another Australian citizen, Ahmed Aziz Rafiq, released (without charge - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1326981.htm) after a year's confinement.
Similarly, Minister Downer showed little concern about the person subject of this item - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1115748.htm - who was released last month after almost 3 years without charge.
Both the above are now "loose" again in Australia.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 April 2007)

Back to Shane Della-Vedova for a minute , 
if you go to google and search for his name, you get this option :- 



> Army - The Soldier's Newspaper
> WO2 Shane Della-Vedova with a damaged Sea Dart missile, worth $2 million, before its destruction by the Joint Ammunition Logistics Organisation at Singleton ...
> www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1064/topstories/story09.htm



sadly, when you click on the link , it is "no longer available".
This man was in charge of missiles (some obviously very expensive, $2 million sheesh) and (possibly) went on to sell them to "people" variously called "terrorists" and also "criminals".   Split hairs if you wish.  This bloke is a worry. (lol - hope there's only one of em in the army - in charge of munitions - if there are two, and I have the wrong one, I apologise   I am referring to the bloke who was arrested today for selling weapons)

Here I'm gonna be brave a make an attempt at a light-hearted comment ( just a jest ok) .  There is another Shane Della-Vedova  who is a fertilizer distributor. 
 Now I hope the bloke who is charged never falsifies his identity and orders a heap of ammonium nitrate  (commonly used on farms for blowing stumps - and incidentally used in many car bombings)  - which as you know is both a fertilizer and an explosive.


----------



## rederob (5 April 2007)

Captain_Chaza said:


> If you sleep with rats/terrorists
> Train with rats/terrorists to kill civilians
> 
> What in the hell are you?
> ...



Charlie
You simply joint the ranks of the bigots and ignorant with your puerile comments.
Well done, as always.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 April 2007)

a few more excerpts from that interview - interesting


> OFFICER L: Effectively, you were being directed by the Al-Qaeda at that stage?
> DAVID HICKS: I'd say so, yeah. We were under the Taliban basically. Everyone, including Al-Qaeda themselves, were under the Taliban. Have to be, they wouldn't have existed. The orders were coming from the Taliban.
> OFFICER J: So, what was your understanding of the situation?
> DAVID HICKS: That we were in the ****.
> ...




I wonder if we went back through these posts and erased all the ones that have him shooting at Aussies , etc - how many posts would we have left (?)


----------



## Captain_Chaza (5 April 2007)

I don't care what you say 2020

I will not be giving him my vote as 
"The Australian of the Year"

This  man is a sick human being and if he were an animal would be put down
There would be no question about that

Such is life on this Land


Crikey! These half -wits  threaten our peaceful social fabric every day and then expect us to put them away and re-habilitate them into society 

YES they do!

But only when they are caught out

SHAME SHAME SHAME!

Why Bother with such trash?
There are a lot of Good people out there that may need some help

Why help a fully-trained terrorist that got caught-out before he could do/repay his training


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 April 2007)

My attitude to David Hicks is as follows.

He is on a par with Lord Haw Haw in the Second WW and Hanoi Jane Fonda during the War in South Vietnam. 

He has gone against Australia's national interest and aligned himself with our enemies.

He has paid the price, being imprisoned under a not very intelligent, punitive,  US Army system.

He has suffered, but no less than he would have made others suffer had his Islamist mates been in the ascendancy.

He will serve out his term in an Australian prison.... not a picnic (I've been a visitor to a gaol in Australia and would suggest he request the same lighting at night as in Guantanomo Bay)

He is supported by people who appear to have a simplistic notion of justice and fairness.

He will be pursued ad infinitum by the press, and have no peace or rest in his "new" life in Australia.

He will be used by "Justice" and "Human rights groups" for their own ends.

Garpal


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 April 2007)

For anyone who's interested, My attitude to this is as follows :-
We are discussing it, and as long as we spend time listening to points of view other than our own, then with this broad range of opinions, (albeit basically pro or against) we will all come out of this more educated.

Here I want to post something from wikipedia about "the Irish Troubles" - troubles? talk about a euphemism!!.  Now this is not an attempt to pretend I'm anything but a worker myself - will be for a bludy long time yet, lol  

But I find comfort in the fact that the Irish Troubles (30+, almost 40 years of bombings and bloodshed) was apparently mainly carried on by people who were working class.  Sure the two sides were mainly separated by religious beliefs - but some of society decided to ignore that - (and that was news to me and I found that interesting) . Now I'm choosing to see that as a positive - and to suggest that if we spend more time and effort educating ourselves, then this can only help.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles Religion, class and region.
> Religion and class are the two major determinants of political allegiance in Northern Ireland. Almost all Protestants are Unionists, and the overwhelming majority of Catholics are nationalists; many republicans. Working class Catholics and Protestants are more likely to support paramilitary groups and radical political parties on either side. Moreover, the *paramilitaries have their strongholds in urban working-class areas* and it is this social class which is the *most segregated along sectarian lines.*
> 
> The radical political parties associated with paramilitaries have sometimes offered far more radical political analyses than the more middle-class and conservative parties. Sinn Féin, from the late 1970s, adopted a radical "anti-imperialist" perspective of the political situation, comparing it to "liberation struggles" elsewhere such as in the Palestinian Territories and South Africa. Their analysis also defined the conflict partly in terms of "class struggle", although unlike the Marxist Official IRA, they did not take this to mean that the loyalist working class were potential allies. Loyalists in the 1970s even advocated majoritarian forms of an "independent Ulster". There is little support for this idea today. *In the 1980s, some loyalists, notably John McMichael of the UDA (who was assassinated by the PIRA), advocated a power-sharing, egalitarian solution to the conflict, which they released in a pamphlet titled, "Common Sense"*.



Gee I love that article title "common sense" - shame the bloke who wrote it (advocating power-sharing) was assassinated  
As I infer above, IMO, let's try not to prejudge, let's read what evidence is out there, and lets' treat this thread as a chance to collect evidence and get educated.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 April 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He is on a par with Lord Haw Haw in the Second WW and Hanoi Jane Fonda during the War in South Vietnam.



Lord Haw Haw is an interesting one yes.  Herewith a few idle comments- ignore em if you wish. He was hanged after the war, when others (similar ) were not ??.  


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_haw_haw William Joyce, (took over broadcasting from Mitler in 1939),  an American-born citizen raised in Ireland, where, although a Catholic, as a teenager he informed on the IRA rebels to the British forces during the Anglo-Irish War. He was also formerly a senior member of the British Union of Fascists, and fled England when tipped off about his planned internment on August 26, 1939.
> 
> ... After Joyce took over (broadcasting to UK) , Mitler was paired with the American-born announcer Mildred Gillars in the Axis Sally program and also broadcast to ANZAC forces in North Africa. Mitler survived the war and appeared on postwar German television. Joyce was captured by British forces in northern Germany just as the war ended, tried, and eventually hanged for treason on January 3, 1946. As an American citizen and naturalised German, Joyce could not have been convicted of treason against the Crown, except that the prosecution successfully argued on a technicality that having lied about his nationality to obtain a British passport and to vote, Joyce thus owed allegiance to the King.
> 
> ...



The case against Joyce is pretty confused you'd think - and it's also confusing / inconsistent that Mitler ( who made similar broadcasts to Anzacs in Nth Africa) went on to become a TV anouncer in Germany after the war  
As usual, the law appears to be a bit of an ass.

Interesting also that as a young man and a Catholic, Joyce informed on the IRA to the Brits.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 April 2007)

Garpal_Gumnut said:
			
		

> He is on a par with Lord Haw Haw in the Second WW and Hanoi Jane Fonda during the War in South Vietnam.




You are on a computer. Chances are you are using an IBM or IBM derived technology.

What is the difference, Mr. Dehomag?

Cheers,
Chops.


----------



## bel532 (5 April 2007)

rederob said:


> bel
> The point is ...
> you have missed it.
> You want to make this "all about Hicks".
> ...




I'm sick to death of so called Aussies  getting into trouble overseas aka the recent Lebanese conflict (what the hell  were they doing in a well known 'trouble spot' in the first place?), and expecting our Government to help them out. I put Hicks in that category. Once you leave this country and consort with terrorists, or place yourself *deliberately* in a trouble spot, then it's your problem, not ours, period.

I couldn’t believe the sight of all the so called Aussie/ Lebanese whinging about the lack of Federal Government assistance to get them out of a hole they dug themselves into. What is their prime loyalty - Australia or Lebanon and why were so many there for so long in the first place?.


----------



## rederob (6 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> I'm sick to death of so called Aussies  getting into trouble overseas aka the recent Lebanese conflict (what the hell  were they doing in a well known 'trouble spot' in the first place?), and expecting our Government to help them out. I put Hicks in that category. Once you leave this country and consort with terrorists, or place yourself *deliberately* in a trouble spot, then it's your problem, not ours, period.
> 
> I couldn’t believe the sight of all the so called Aussie/ Lebanese whinging about the lack of Federal Government assistance to get them out of a hole they dug themselves into. What is their prime loyalty - Australia or Lebanon and why were so many there for so long in the first place?.



bel
Ah!
You cannot really be a citizen if you don't really have an Australian name or appearance.
The classic response of a xenophobe.
Hicks' case has nothing to do with "who's problem it is", except for those people that "personalise" the issue.
Those that disagree will disagree because they fail to understand that when you are part of a civilised society you extend a broad range of rights and responsibilities to all other members, without distinction.
Fundamental to a civilised society is a system of laws, at the heart of which is a presumption of innocence.
So irrespective of where you are and what you are alleged to have done, we have an expectation that if we ever are in trouble abroad our government will come to our aid.
Again, to some the above idea is just do-gooder craap.
Which means that Australia should have left our citizens in Bali to fend for themselves after the bombings because they ignored Government warnings that it was not safe to go there.
Because, as bel says, "once you leave this country and ...place yourself *deliberately* in a trouble spot, then it's your problem, not ours, period.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 April 2007)

rederob said:


> Hicks' case has nothing to do with "who's problem it is", except for those people that "personalise" the issue.



Rob, apart from the fact that I agree with most of what you've said, I think we are all going to have to "personalise" this (sometime this year before he returns to civvy street) to the extent that we should be ready to say something (or nothing, whatever) -  should we meet this bloke in the street.  What he will probably prefer I guess with be nothing.

Personally I would love to have a chat with him - Or better still, when the stupid yanks stop trying to dictate to us about the rights of Aussies to Freedom of Speech - I would like him to be interviewed (in person) on the ABC for instance.  

I know one thing I won't do - and that is go up to him wearing a prejudiced white peaked hood with eyes cut out.


----------



## macca (6 April 2007)

HI Rederob,

<You cannot really be a citizen if you don't really have an Australian name or appearance.>

I believe Bel was referring to the clamouring hordes not the physical appearance of each individual when this line was written.

I do tend to agree with Bel on this one, they chose to have permanent residency in an area that has been a war zone for a number of years, yet as soon as things got tough, WE, you and I, are expected to pay for their rescue, hardly fair when there are a number of issues that need funds right here in Oz, without wasting money on people who choose not to live here.

As far as Hicks is concerned, I do believe that he should have had his day in court long before this, I don't think he is a person that we need in this country, but he is an Ozzie so he is entitled to return here.

Anyone who thinks that anything he has done is good, or that he should be admired, is sadly in need of a reality check. 

He is not someone who grew up in a situation without options, as do young Muslim men in Islamic countries, rather he is someone who chose to go and be trained to kill people that disagree with the Muslim lifestyle.

He volunteered to learn how to kill anyone who subscribes to the christian way of life, he volunteered to learn how to kill US, men  women and children here in Australia.

Would you like to be living next to him ?


----------



## bel532 (6 April 2007)

rederob said:


> bel
> Ah!
> You cannot really be a citizen if you don't really have an Australian name or appearance.
> The classic response of a xenophobe.
> ...




You are trying to *deliberately* 'muddy the waters'. There is no comparision, whatsoever, between those Aussies (and others) that went to Bali and got burnt, maimed or murdered by terrorists, and those Aussie/Lebanese who *knowingly *travelled (and stayed for some considerable time) to a well known troublespot. Not only that, after they had placed themselves in this well known trouble spot, they whinged and moaned forever after about our Federal Government. 

What were so many Lebanese (20,000 according to some reports) doing there in the first place? I hope they wern't collecting welfare cheques from the Aussie Government whilst they were there!


----------



## robert toms (6 April 2007)

I live within one km of "youth farm" now defunct,it was called "yubelong". This is where David Hicks spent some of his youth.
It was farm for wayward boys without home life etc...trying to teach them skills on the farms. I remember once a young boy knocking on our day early one winter morning wanting to use the phone.
Unlike many of us Hicks did not have many options,he came from the wrong side of the tracks...and when he did start to become aware he made the wrong choices...not the choices that the vast majority of us would make. He wanted somewhere to belong and fell into the wrong hands.
Somehow I can  see some parallels with some Australian soldiers that came home bragging how many that they had killed after the initial invasion of Iraq.
We train soldiers to kill people from other countries and justify this because a government tells them to. Hardly in defence of Australia!
I trust that Hicks has well and truly learnt a lot from his experiences,it will take longer for a lot of others to do the same...if they ever do.


----------



## rederob (6 April 2007)

bel
You want to have it both ways.
If the government tells you it's dangerous to be somewhere and you get hurt, it's not your fault if you were a tourist, but it is your fault if another country suddenly declares war on you?
Then, to "flavour" your argument you add the spurious notion that they (whoever this mysterious "they" are) you toss in the notion "they" might be collecting welfare cheques.
And you tell me that I am trying to muddy the waters!
Really.

macca
You won't find me suggesting that Hicks is a good lad.  I frankly don't know.
The weight of evidence is that he followed his faith, in a manner I could never support, and has paid a high price.
If he lived next door I don't think I would care a hoot, although I would not like the media attention , so a few doors away would be a better deal.


----------



## rederob (6 April 2007)

2020
If I met Hicks in the street, I'd walk by.
If Hicks wanted to talk to me (and there is no reason he would), I would be an interested listener, but that's about all.

I would be more interested in talking to Major Mori, a person who I do respect.


----------



## bel532 (6 April 2007)

rederob said:


> bel
> You want to have it both ways.
> If the government tells you it's dangerous to be somewhere and you get hurt, it's not your fault if you were a tourist, but it is your fault if another country suddenly declares war on you?
> Then, to "flavour" your argument you add the spurious notion that they (whoever this mysterious "they" are) you toss in the notion "they" might be collecting welfare cheques.
> ...




Are you serious when you state that "it is your fault if another country suddenly declares war on you?" Do you realy believe that those Lebanese/Australians were NOT aware that Lebanon was a dangerous place to visit? There is nothing mysterious about the 'they' I refer to in my post. If you had read it carefully it would be very obvious that I am referring to the Aussie/Lebanese, who else would it be? I reiterate why were there so many Aussie/lebanese 'visiting' lebanon and, by some accounts, for a considerable period of time. 

Aussie is certainly a great place.You place yourself in a trouble spot, ignore all warnings, and then expect the Government to get you out of trouble! Do you know how many have returned to Lebanon and do they expect the Federal Government to get them out *again*, if trouble reoccurs?

The same apllies to those Vietnamese/Aussies and others who travel to SE Asia to peddle drugs, get caught and expect the Federal Government to extricate them.


----------



## rederob (6 April 2007)

bel
So if I was an "Aussie/Aussie" or an "Irish/Aussie" in Lebanon, that would be ok?
The government should help me because I am not a "Lebanese/Aussie", and they clearly knew Israel was going to declare war and never deserved to be helped.
Yes, I can see the logic - Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi.

As a "Czech/Aussie" I guess I am lucky not to have been holidaying in Prague when the Russians invaded.


----------



## bel532 (6 April 2007)

rederob said:


> bel
> So if I was an "Aussie/Aussie" or an "Irish/Aussie" in Lebanon, that would be ok?
> The government should help me because I am not a "Lebanese/Aussie", and they clearly knew Israel was going to declare war and never deserved to be helped.
> Yes, I can see the logic - Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi.
> ...




Are you seriously suggesting that the 'Aussies 'who went to Lebanon did* not* know it was a war zone? We are not that naive! Oz is certainly a great country when its citizens can travel to a war ridden country in great numbers and then expect the Government to extricate them when things get tough! Oz is certainly the land of 'milk and honey'! 

Incidentally, since Israel was also under attack,
did the Federal Government help any Aussie/Israelis to leave and return to Australia? I never heard of any.


----------



## rederob (6 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> The same apllies to those Vietnamese/Aussies and others who travel to SE Asia to peddle drugs, get caught and expect the Federal Government to extricate them.



This is another discussion again.
bel's argument immediately assumes you are guilty if you are charged with possessing drugs.
Have a chat to Michelle Leslie's dad if you hold such well-founded views :
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/models-drugs-bust/2005/08/22/1124562774586.html
Leslie's case remains controversial.
At least her ecstacy on release was visible.


----------



## bel532 (6 April 2007)

rederob said:


> bel
> So if I was an "Aussie/Aussie" or an "Irish/Aussie" in Lebanon, that would be ok?
> The government should help me because I am not a "Lebanese/Aussie", and they clearly knew Israel was going to declare war and never deserved to be helped.
> Yes, I can see the logic - Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oi, oi, oi.
> ...






rederob said:


> This is another discussion again.
> bel's argument immediately assumes you are guilty if you are charged with possessing drugs.
> Have a chat to Michelle Leslie's dad if you hold such well-founded views :
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/models-drugs-bust/2005/08/22/1124562774586.html
> ...




Leslie aside, I have no time for drug peddlers. They are the scum of the earth, as they ruin many, many lives. Aside from LESLIE (small time) and the Bali Nine, most Aussies caught trying to import drugs into Australia are Vietnamese Aussies. Remmember the fuss about the one caught in Signapore and executed?


----------



## rederob (6 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the 'Aussies 'who went to Lebanon did* not* know it was a war zone? We are not that naive! Oz is certainly a great country when its citizens can travel to a war ridden country in great numbers and then expect the Government to extricate them when things get tough! Oz is certainly the land of 'milk and honey'!
> 
> Incidentally, since Israel was also under attack,
> did the Federal Government help any Aussie/Israelis to leave and return to Australia? I never heard of any.



You will have to educate me about the known war zones around the world.
And then you may want to become an adviser to the many multinational companies that were in Lebanon because it was safe, and had been so for many years.
As for Australia assisting citizens in Israel, there was no need.
Very little Israeli infrastructure was affected, while the chance of getting hit by a rocket was slim, and confined only to northern Israel.
Meanwhile, by every conventional standard, Israel's attack on Lebanon was disproportionate, targeted principally on civilians, and totally destroyed the entire nation's infrastructure. 
But it's yet another interesting diversion from the topic thread, which you seem to have difficulty with, unless you make it personal.


----------



## rederob (6 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> Leslie aside, I have no time for drug peddlers. They are the scum of the earth, as they ruin many, many lives. Aside from LESLIE (small time) and the Bali Nine, most Aussies caught trying to import drugs into Australia are Vietnamese Aussies. Remmember the fuss about the one caught in Signapore and executed?



I share the sentiment.
But Australian Customs has a very different view on who the drug smugglers are:  And if I said more on a public forum it would not be wise.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 April 2007)

rederob said:


> I would be more interested in talking to Major Mori, a person who I do respect.



good point - man's a giant - must follow his career  
but I'd also like to talk to Hicks to get the Downer-to-earth facts, unfiltered by the pollies 

PS anyone agree with me that Scott Rush doesn't deserve death sentence ? (gee I feel for his father - who alerted the police with a view - as I understand it - to having him stopped from leaving Aus in the first place) 

PS don't forget that NA are growing a large percentage of the worlds opium poppy (was it 75%? - posted back there anyway) - production has gone mad since Afghanistan was freed from the Taliban. - presumably under the eye of the UN / USA ?


----------



## chops_a_must (6 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the 'Aussies 'who went to Lebanon did* not* know it was a war zone?



It wasn't you tard. Danger zone is totally different from war zone. You can't help being caught up in a region that is invaded.

By this logic, those caught in Singapore before the Japanese invasion should not have been helped at all in getting out.


----------



## Joe Blow (6 April 2007)

Gents lets not let this discussion degenerate into name calling and personal attacks.

Thanks!


----------



## rederob (6 April 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> Gents lets not let this discussion degenerate into name calling and personal attacks.
> 
> Thanks!



Interesting time to enter, Joe.
So it's ok to say "Burn the Bugger" in relation to Hicks, as posted earlier in this thread, but not pick-up bel on glaring misconceptions.

bel continues to misread, misrepresent and miscontrue, lest there be no misunderstandings.

Step up to the plate with some solid debate, please.


----------



## Joe Blow (6 April 2007)

rederob said:


> Interesting time to enter, Joe.
> So it's ok to say "Burn the Bugger" in relation to Hicks, as posted earlier in this thread, but not pick-up bel on glaring misconceptions.




Rob, my job is to defuse situations where personal attacks and name calling start to creep in. I am not taking sides in this debate nor involving myself in it. Just here to enforce the site rules.



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> bel continues to misread, misrepresent and miscontrue, lest there be no misunderstandings.




Then it may be time to walk away from the debate. Nothing worse than a discussion that goes nowhere. Sometimes you have to simply agree to disagree.


----------



## rederob (6 April 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> Then it may be time to walk away from the debate. Nothing worse than a discussion that goes nowhere. Sometimes you have to simply agree to disagree.



Joe
If there was a "debate" that was going nowhere, I would.
There's very little debate.
Some posters are intent on kicking Hicks, who is already down.
It really doesn't matter if it was Hicks or anyone else that was in Guantanamo as a denial of justice is a denial of justice: The merits of the case are incidental.
I see the "Hicks protest" thread as being about his treatment, not his worthiness.
When I try to bring the discussion back to the issue of how we, as a supposed civilised society, treat one another, there are some that can only relate everything back to the individual.
Every year in the US people are executed for crimes they did not commit.  The majority are found guilty by association or colour or race, rather than the facts.
Captain Chaza says "burn the bugger".
Our government had labelled him the worst of the worst.
And at the end of the day, Hicks never got to trial, so his side was never heard, nor was the case against him ever tested.
Even when Hicks finally has his gag order lifted, anything he says that people disagree with, they won't believe.
Usually in matters like this we can find a "winner" or two, somewhere.
Apart from media moments, one is hard pressed.


----------



## bel532 (6 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It wasn't you tard. Danger zone is totally different from war zone. You can't help being caught up in a region that is invaded.
> 
> By this logic, those caught in Singapore before the Japanese invasion should not have been helped at all in getting out.





You would need to be deaf in both ears and blind in both eyes not to be aware that Lebanon, at that time, was NOT A War/Danger zone. I repeat: Why were so many (in proportion to the total lebanese population) Aussie/Lebanese doing there for all that time? Weren't they lucky they had an easy escape route, courtesy of the Aussie Government. Sorry, I meant the Aussie tax payer!


----------



## chops_a_must (6 April 2007)

bel532 said:


> You would need to be deaf in both ears and blind in both eyes not to be aware that Lebanon, at that time, was NOT A War/Danger zone.





			
				bel532 said:
			
		

> Are you seriously suggesting that the 'Aussies 'who went to Lebanon did not know it was a war zone?



You wouldn't happen to be a major shareholder in MPD would you?


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 June 2007)

Remember Powell? he's the one who was given the job of selling the WMD to the UN - with limited success.  Well if he's convinced they should close Guantanamo, who are we to argue?

well done all who voiced "concerns" - not only were you eventually heard in Canberra (election year and all that), but sounds like you are now being heard in Washington. 

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1948163.htm
Powell urges Bush to close Guantanamo Bay


> ABC  Broadcast: 11/06/2007
> Reporter: Tom Iggulden
> Former United States secretary of state Colin Powell has criticised the legal system that convicted David Hicks, saying it denies natural justice.
> 
> ...




Interesting that Albania / Kosova gets special mention - but Hick's contribution doesn't get a mention .  


> TOM IGGULDEN: President Bush spent his weekend being mobbed by adoring fans in Albania, one of Europe's poorest countries. Languishing in the polls at home and facing protest in his recent swing through Northern Europe, the President clearly enjoyed the support.
> 
> Albania's Prime Minister is one of the few European leaders still enthusiastically contributing to the coalition of the willing in Iraq, describing President Bush as "the greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had".
> 
> ...


----------



## petervan (12 June 2007)

2020hindsight ,did you see 4 corners last night. I watched the last 20 minutes and similar to Hicks the goverment put up the sgt. Schultz defence . Will be interesting to see what they say about Habib now a paper trail leads to the goverment showing them clearly lying.Notice no reporting in the murdoch press about the goverment lying .


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 June 2007)

.. throughout history the dogooders have undone stable societies due to there nancy ways. 

Do you all know more thatn the government?


----------



## petervan (12 June 2007)

Which stable societies have been undone by people telling the truth and doing good. None come to mind


----------



## disarray (12 June 2007)

petervan said:


> Which stable societies have been undone by people telling the truth and doing good. None come to mind




"truth" and "good" aren't absolutes.

as for guantanamo bay, it is yet another example of how bad american foreign policy is. they were much better off outsourcing the torture camps to pakistan where the media doesn't have access and things like "the rule of law" and "geneva convention" tend not to apply.

as for WMD, the allies knew saddam had them because they sold them to him. saddam just moved them across the border into syria when the allies came knocking.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 June 2007)

petervan said:


> - did you see 4 corners last night.



Peter,  nope  - but will do so Thursday night when repeated - thanks!! 

(The ladies of the household usually watch some damned soapie on Monday nights, so if I want to watch,  i have to use the TV in the garage - and last night it was just too bludy cold lol.)  

The show that I wish everyone saw was last week's Cutting Edge on SBS - 2 hours  of it - it was a fantastic review of how Osama BL has emerged.  Anyone else see it ?  

Firstly (and we're only talking 20 years ago) one of a handful of Arabs in Afghanistan - seriously just a few dozen or so, - who went to help fight the Russians.  Seriously rich of course - his father had 50 odd kids with 20 odd wives. 

Made a reputation (fighting hard - tunnel complex as base - which would assist his subsequent escapes), used the press to advantage , photograhed in a cave ( living as Mohammed did) eating the scraps others left etc.  Suddenly 100s of Arabs flock to Afghanistan.  

Then ... he gambled that he could beat USA in "his briar patch" - the mountains that had been so helpful in beating the Russians - then African Embassy attacks, and or course 9/11 -  basically he totally miscalculated - when US / AUS etc attacked and whipped his forces and the Taliban, we was virtually wiped out - no longer a force to be reckoned with - a spent force - and then...

da da ...

We go and attack Iraq,  and sheesh - it was the greatest gift he could have asked for !!  - You had to see the full documentary - such a mistake to go into Iraq sheesh !!!


----------



## Bobby (12 June 2007)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> .. throughout history the dogooders have undone stable societies due to there nancy ways.




Greetings Snake,

Done little posts in the last few months, but I'm back to stick up the dopes 
Infact I'm considering placing a couple of posters into Bobbys wobble jar, that hindsite been in it for some time now.

Bobby.


----------



## disarray (12 June 2007)

america went into iraq because saddam was moving towards using the euro as his defacto oil currency. america wields an enormous amount of power because they essentially get their oil for free (trading oil for $US). a country with the reserves of iraq changing the global defacto oil currency to the euro would mean the US would actually have to start paying real money for oil instead of just printing paper so they invaded. its really not much more complicated than that. the invasion of kuwait, WMD or whatever were just justifications for the pursuit of their "free energy for me" policy.

iraq did have a reasonable justification to invade kuwait. the kuwaitis were drilling close to the iraqi border at an angle and tapping iraqi oil fields which saddam used as justification to invade kuwait.

iraq also did definately 100% for sure possess WMD's, supplied by the americans and the french, and used against northern kurds and southern shia arabs. he just moved them all into syria (which now possesses a reasonable WMD stockpile) to keep the allied forces from finding them.

as for david hicks - he was a muslim jihadi who killed (or attempted to kill) indian, serbian and american soldiers while serving in various conflict zones. he can rot in hell for all i care.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 June 2007)

disarray
I repeat (what SBS said at least ) ...


> when US / AUS etc attacked and whipped his forces and the Taliban, we was virtually wiped out - no longer a force to be reckoned with - a spent force - and then...
> 
> da da ...
> 
> We go and attack Iraq,  and sheesh - it was the greatest gift he could have asked for !!



If you know different to them, then ... so be it I guess.


----------



## disarray (12 June 2007)

yeah i know the taliban got pasted, but afghanistan was largely irrelevant to the overall american strategy. iraq was going to be invaded no matter what because saddam was going to move the oil standard from $US to euros. saddam was a threat to americas voracious appetite for energy so the path was set.

to be totally honest osama is a nobody. the taliban are nobodies. all the US cares about is its energy supply. islamists make convenient boogeymen, but they aren't much of a threat outside that (spectacularly audacious stunts like 9/11 notwithstanding).

in fact iraq is quite the godsend in a way. jihadis from all over the muslim world are coming to iraq to take a shot at americans and are being slaughtered in record numbers. its like iraq is a big barrel and all those psycho muslims are the fish. the bodycount on the islamist side is horrendous.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 June 2007)

There are some background videos on noiruas post (as follows) but not the safe study of the relative strength of Al-Qaida before and after Iraq - it's dramatic.  After 9/11, US had world sympathy (and arguably the moral high ground) - now to thousands - no millions - somehow he does (and we are going backwards bigtime)  :-

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=130198&highlight=leaders#post130198

I extracted this from the Wikipedia that noirua mentioned .  - a long read, but a few interesting facts there ... for instance 
"Al-Qaida" means "database", i.e. the original list of names that Bin Laden had collected after Russia was kicked out of Afghanistan.

If anyone doesn't have time to watch all 5 of those 5 videos ( each about 8.5 minutes = 43 minutes) - then I'll mention that #5 starts with 9/11, that's if you don'e have time to watch how to got to be what he is. 
But in the end it's no where near as good as that Cutting Edge program was last week (hopefully it will be replayed)



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, wrote in The Guardian on Friday, July 8, 2005,
> Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.[43]
> 
> However, Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, rejected Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following:
> ...




On that last point, the Cutting Edge program interviewed a military officer whose men could actually see Bin Laden and could have picked him off, but they checked and , as the officer says "typical we were told not to go there to risky etc".   The Taliban / AQ sent a manout under white flag to negotiate - this officer simply said  " we're not interested in any negotiation except full surrender" (or blow them out of the water implied).  And by the time they did attack, and there were a lot of AQ/Taliban casualities that day,  - Bin Laden had fled.  

But really weakened him "politically". 
then Iraq as I mentioned
and the rest is history.

Needless to say, they conclude that he has been playing the US (and by association the coalition of the willing ) like a puppeteer


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 June 2007)

disarray said:


> to be totally honest osama is a nobody. the taliban are nobodies. all the US cares about is its energy supply. islamists make convenient boogeymen, but they aren't much of a threat outside that (spectacularly audacious stunts like 9/11 notwithstanding).
> 
> in fact iraq is quite the godsend in a way. jihadis from all over the muslim world are coming to iraq to take a shot at americans and are being slaughtered in record numbers. its like iraq is a big barrel and all those psycho muslims are the fish. the bodycount on the islamist side is horrendous.



jeez disarray... 
sometimes I wonder what you're smoking

does anyone else here think that AQ  are "no bodies" - ?  convenient boogeymen? ignore em ?
that their numbers have decreased since Iraq?

so what's the fuss been about Hicks then ?

The yanks are so bludy terrified that (old Texas saying) "they don't know whether to sh*t or go blind". 

And any sensible Australian is also (rightfully) extremely worried


----------



## disarray (13 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> does anyone else here think that AQ  are "no bodies" - ?  convenient boogeymen? ignore em ?
> that their numbers have decreased since Iraq?
> 
> so what's the fuss been about Hicks then ?
> ...




well yeah. the power of nightmares points to the neo-con dominated, zionist sympathetic US using islamic jihadis as the new boogeymen since the fall of the soviet union.

militarily speaking AQ are armed only with AK's, rpg's and some explosives and stand no chance against the technological might of the US army. they have no force projection capability and rely on local cells to organise small scale terror attacks. they are hardly any threat to the global dominance of the west, and the yanks are hardly terrified. sure they ramp up the fear and uncertainty but that is a political tactic as old as time itself to ensure the continued acquiesence of the sheeple, it doesn't mean they are worried.

after afghanistan AQ were hammered yes, and american screwups in iraq have swelled their numbers again. not disagreeing with you there. my point is that an invasion of iraq was a foregone conclusion, however america has botched it so badly the islamists have garnered a lot of sympathy from the muslim world and have come back stronger. had american policy not been so blatantly greedy and short sighted then things would have turned out much differently.

as for david hicks, i don't what all the fuss is about either. the leftists were just making their usual bleating noises to get some attention (as they always do) but the main point is, once again, american policy with regards to gitmo was so flawed the camp became more of a hindrance to their policy than help.



			
				2020hindsight said:
			
		

> jeez disarray...
> sometimes I wonder what you're smoking




you talk a lot without knowing very much don't you?


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 June 2007)

So I take it you don't disagree with the point that I've now tried to make 3 times?  


> disarray
> I repeat (what SBS said at least ) ...
> 
> Quote:
> ...




And btw, this is pretty much identical to what I posted on "videos with a message" thread a coupe of weeks back ...
quoting Richard Dawkins incidentally ( or do think he's an idiot as well)
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=163446&highlight=dawkins#post163446



> BIN LADEN'S VICTORY (Excerpts from article)
> - Richard Dawkins, Saturday March 22, 2003, The Guardian
> 
> *Osama bin Laden, in his wildest dreams, could hardly have hoped for this. A mere 18 months after he boosted the US to a peak of worldwide sympathy unprecedented since Pearl Harbor, that international goodwill has been squandered to near zero. Bin Laden must be beside himself with glee. And the infidels are now walking right into the Iraq trap. *There was always a risk for Bin Laden that worldwide sympathy for the US might thwart his long-term aim of holy war against the Great Satan. He needn't have worried. With the Bush junta at the helm, a camel could have foreseen the outcome. And the beauty is that it doesn't matter what happens in the war.
> ...





> Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat outside his immediate neighbourhood. George Bush is a catastrophe for the world. And a dream for Bin Laden.
> 
> · Richard Dawkins FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor at Oxford University. His latest book is A Devil's Chaplain (Weidenfeld & Nicholson).



http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-1018.html
This is only a fraction of it - if you want the book (with about double that article in the Guardian) you might have to go to the Uni of Sydney library.
And btw, note the date - 


> "I wrote this article on March 18 2003, two days before Iraq was invaded." - so he had pretty good foresight - as did Nelson Mandela and other people who you'll find quoted here in the ASF archives.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (13 June 2007)

Bobby said:


> Greetings Snake,
> 
> Done little posts in the last few months, but I'm back to stick up the dopes
> Infact I'm considering placing a couple of posters into Bobbys wobble jar, that hindsite been in it for some time now.
> ...




Hello Bobby,

Good to see you posting again.
Yes, why do some only post garbage on general chat? Some agenda they have me thinks. Reality will bite them in the ****.

Snake


----------



## disarray (13 June 2007)

not disagreeing with your main points at all. just pointing out that

a) america was going to invade iraq because iraq was going to sell oil in euros, not $US. an invasion was going to happen no matter what, the war on terror just provided a convenient justification.

b) al-quada aren't a threat to us in any traditional sense (ie. invasion, coup d'etat etc.). the "terror" they inspire is out of all proportion to their actual capabilities, it is just the government and media using AQ as a boogeyman to frighten the populace into behaving. proper governments should inspire the populace into behaving but we don't really see much inspiration these days so terror will have to do.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 June 2007)

disarray said:


> (and) al-quada aren't a threat to us in any traditional sense (ie. invasion, coup d'etat etc.). the "terror" they inspire is out of all proportion to their actual capabilities, it is just the government and media using AQ as a boogeyman to frighten the populace into behaving. proper governments should inspire the populace into behaving but we don't really see much inspiration these days so terror will have to do.



and then we get to the question of how much will be spent on security 8- 9 September during 19th APEC meeting in Sydney etc. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia-Pacific_Economic_Cooperation
including cell phones being out of action for some of it etc. 

To say nothing of the amended travel plans of people who used to go to nice quiet Bali for a break 

Likewise, I'm not saying we should overreact - but cripes, the current coalition of the willing will leave the world 1000 times more dangerous than when they came in.


----------



## Julia (13 June 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> the current coalition of the willing will leave the world 1000 times more dangerous than when they came in.



Yep, and more afraid, and considerably more inconvenienced with all the added security which makes travel a nightmare.


----------



## Spaghetti (13 June 2007)

disarray said:


> not disagreeing with your main points at all. just pointing out that
> 
> a) america was going to invade iraq because iraq was going to sell oil in euros, not $US. an invasion was going to happen no matter what, the war on terror just provided a convenient justification.
> 
> b) al-quada aren't a threat to us in any traditional sense (ie. invasion, coup d'etat etc.). the "terror" they inspire is out of all proportion to their actual capabilities, it is just the government and media using AQ as a boogeyman to frighten the populace into behaving. proper governments should inspire the populace into behaving but we don't really see much inspiration these days so terror will have to do.





Never saw this thread before and have not read much of it but will say I am surprised to find I agree with disarray on this. I really do feel Saddam was partly on the way to changing energy prices to Euro, rather than USD. It would have collapsed the US economy.

Still no reason to go to war though, over a currency??.


----------



## disarray (13 June 2007)

Spaghetti said:


> Still no reason to go to war though, over a currency??.




not a currency, free energy. oil paid in $US means = US trades paper for oil = free energy.

if oil trades in euros then the US has to purchase euros which costs them "real" money


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 June 2007)

Julia said:


> Yep, and more afraid, and considerably more inconvenienced with all the added security which makes travel a nightmare.



J, take air travel for instance


----------

