# David Hicks leaves prison today



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2007)

He's served his time and should be allowed get on with his life.

Lets hope he now shrinks into the relative anonymity of history and is a lesson for others contemplating similar behaviour.

gg


----------



## jackson8 (29 December 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He's served his time and should be allowed get on with his life.
> 
> Lets hope he now shrinks into the relative anonymity of history and is a lesson for others contemplating similar behaviour.
> 
> gg




think is going to be a rough road ahead for him, could be a few people out there who may hold bit of a grudge against him. has been given the reputation of being a terrorist and likely that will stay with him for the rest of his life

you know what they say " if **** gets thrown at you some of it is going to stick" or something like that
whether his exploits are true or not or just blown out of proportion by the usa and media 
dont think he could do much harm here if that ever was his intent
i live in adelaide so will keep ear out for any gossip and i am sure there will be plenty of it till people find something else to distract there attention


----------



## Nyden (29 December 2007)

jackson8 said:


> think is going to be a rough road ahead for him, could be a few people out there who may hold bit of a grudge against him. has been given the reputation of being a terrorist and likely that will stay with him for the rest of his life
> 
> you know what they say " if **** gets thrown at you some of it is going to stick" or something like that
> whether his exploits are true or not or just blown out of proportion by the usa and media
> ...




It may take many years, but he will find a normal life. It just may take until he ages / his appearance changes enough not to be recognised, is all.

Everyone, no matter how wicked, deserves a second chance if they're willing to really change.

I wish him well, so long as he doesn't get up to more naughty things


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 December 2007)

he's no doubt about to have his first beer in 6 years 
I still reckon he'd make an interesting drinking companion.


----------



## Rocket man (29 December 2007)

Good he's now a free man.. no thanks to Johnny Howard who left him in the care of the Americans for 5 years without trial while other world leaders got their citizens out to face trial much quicker

dont approve of David's actions but deserved much fairer trial and treatment


----------



## agro (29 December 2007)

I still can't see why this man is being treated as a celebrity especially when he was fighting against coalition forces.

history repeats itself.


----------



## stargazer (29 December 2007)

Hi

Nyden


> Everyone, no matter how wicked, deserves a second chance if they're willing to really change




Sorry Nyden cannot agree with you on that satement.  Some dispicible acts should not be forgiven.

cheers
SG


----------



## doctorj (29 December 2007)

Nothing like trial-by-media.


----------



## adobee (29 December 2007)

stargazer said:


> Hi
> 
> Nyden
> 
> ...





I  too think some acts dont get a second chance... 

however not in this case.. if he has served his time then he is free to move on.. we all have to live by the rules..


----------



## Nyden (29 December 2007)

stargazer said:


> Hi
> 
> Nyden
> 
> ...





But, if someone can change; become a new person after a grand realization or the likes, why not?

If this world is all there is, if there is no afterlife - taking away somebodies entire life as punishment (an eye for an eye; yet another contradicting religious belief...the lord offers forgiveness to all, but sends 'em to hell? Hmpf)

I know all too well, more than most I'm sure - that hatred, & lack of forgiveness keeps you trapped in pain, fear, & even more hatred.

Despite what the media likes to portray; the world is anything but black & white. What makes one person a murderer? Are they just differently wired chemically in their brains (nature), or was this a result of their bad upbringing (nurture)?

In either case, it is not their fault that they are unstable. Obviously though, when one is dangerous others, & unwilling to submit to help, mandatory help should be provided under lock & key.

Should a man be locked away for his entire life for catching his cheating wife in bed with another man, and making the mistake of killing them in a blind rage? Obviously that isn't stable behaviour, but who benefits from him being locked away? He needs help, treatment. Mandatory, of course! In an institution, but being locked in a prison cell doesn't fix anything. Doesn't bring anyone back, doesn't help him, all it does is feed the desire for revenge.

We've been brought up in this society that needs revenge, & justice - which is wrong.

Why do you think Osama Bin Laden does what he does? Did he suddenly wake up one morning in his adulthood & decide he wants to destroy the world? Or was he raised with delusions, or did certain events in his life lead to his hatred?


We as a society tend to be more forgiving to someone who kills out of what we deem to be justice, or revenge (ie killing a rapist), but that act in itself is purely evidential of what emotions can lead to...& why these criminals do what they do. That rapist may have been under similar immense emotional pain - ie childhood molestation. (I'm not excusing anything, by all means - as I said, they need help, & if they can't be helped, well then ; help under lock & key!)



Can't be bothered reading it all? Here's the gist of it! Criminals need help, not prison cells. It's religious nonsensical garbage that a person can be evil, they can not. Only damaged.


----------



## Whiskers (29 December 2007)

My main curiosity about Hicks is why the gag order preventing him from talking about his period in Afganistan and US detention. I think those terrorists over there die for their beliefs, don't they? 

If he was a terrorist risk would you release him on the condition that he not discuss anything? If he was a hard core mercenary or terrorist or war criminal I would be far more concerned with what he does... and get him convicted and spend as much time in jail as possible.

On face value it would certainly seem that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Whether he was a threat to allied forces as a soldier or terrorist or committed any war crimes is something we may never know, because of the US military so called court order preventing him from speaking.

I'm wondering whether the US military has more to hide and fear of criminal (and political) consequences than Hicks does.


----------



## arminius (29 December 2007)

it takes a wise person to recognise what you stated nyden. there is a cause for all actions...most dont care about that. 

he did the crime, (whatever it was?)
he done his time

good luck to you d hicks. 

hope he gives his story to the abc, and please not 60 mins/todaytonight/aca.


----------



## Julia (29 December 2007)

Whiskers said:


> Whether he was a threat to allied forces as a soldier or terrorist or committed any war crimes is something we may never know, because of the US military so called court order preventing him from speaking.



So are you saying that if he does eventually "tell his story" you will necessarily believe what he says?
He's hardly likely to say "well now, I was devoted to Osama bin laden - that's why I spent time training in various terrorist camps - and believed in terror towards the West, Australia included" is he???

Doctorj:  "trial by media"??
I'm only aware of the coverage by the ABC but, if anything, it was somewhat sympathetic to him (as usual with their left bias) and essentially concluded that he was a fairly simple, misguided individual.  I don't know, any more than anyone else, but would probably agree with that.

Doubt very much that he represents any sort of threat to us or anyone else.
Hopefully he will simply fade into obscurity.

The one person in this whole sorry saga for whom I have much respect is his father.  He has, throughout what must have been a terrible ordeal for him, been calm and reasonable, standing by his son without any sense of hysteria or blame.  My heart goes out to him and I hope he's now able to return to some sort of relatively normal existence.


----------



## jackson8 (29 December 2007)

arminius said:


> it takes a wise person to recognise what you stated nyden. there is a cause for all actions...most dont care about that.
> 
> he did the crime, (whatever it was?)
> he done his time
> ...




in my own personal opinion
really his only crime was to get involved with an organisation which are fighting for what ....they beleive in ....... even though he is not part of that culture nor is it his heritage

nobody in their right mind in australia would beleive in or support terrorism and i definetly dont whether it be al quade or the clu clux clan

in some of these countrys re iraq, afganistan other world powers would have us beleive that any form of resistance to invading forces is an act of terror. just look at iraq invaded for what?
iraq is not the only country that has been ruled by a ruthless dictator there are many others . where are the nato forces ousting them out

its all conjecture and for most of us we will never really know or fully understand how the super powers work or know to what ends they plan


----------



## Whiskers (29 December 2007)

Julia said:


> So are you saying that if he does eventually "tell his story" you will necessarily believe what he says?
> He's hardly likely to say "well now, I was devoted to Osama bin laden - that's why I spent time training in various terrorist camps - and believed in terror towards the West, Australia included" is he???




Your right Julia, he's hardly likely to admit anything like that even if it were true.

Ideally I would have liked to have seen a public (not military) trial to see what both sides had to say in an orderly enviornment.

I think this whole thing is more about the inner workings of the American CIA. We tend to forget that in the murky cloud of trial by media that the US was playing and then Hicks' lawyer played catch-up and went tit for tat until they gaged the whole thing, it was the CIA and the Bush administration pulling the strings and changing the rules in determination to release what they wanted into the media.

I'm curious to hear from him and his lawyers what really happened from his perspective, mainly in Guantanamo Bay and see how the other side responds and see what good investigative journalists come up with, seeing as we aren't having a trial. I'm initially interested in his treatment by the CIA interigators, but who knows what else there is to find?

The thing that bugs me is he is obviously not a serious threat to anyone, otherwise they wouldn't have let him out under any circumstances. Having decided that and let him out albeit with a gag order that as I understand they can re-arrest him if he breaches, they are obviously far more concerned about what he can say about them.

Maybe after the US presidential elections assuming the Democrats win, we might start to see something come out anyway.


----------



## explod (30 December 2007)

jackson8 said:


> in my own personal opinion
> really his only crime was to get involved with an organisation which are fighting for what ....they beleive in ....... even though he is not part of that culture nor is it his heritage
> 
> nobody in their right mind in australia would beleive in or support terrorism and i definetly dont whether it be al quade or the clu clux clan
> ...




Good post, you are putting your finger near the pulse.   (Withour checking dates) During the cold war the Soviet Union tried to pummel Aphganistan and the USA et al. continued since. (and related countries in the region)  Why? for the gas and oil.   What has it done ? not allowed the residents of those areas to live normal lives for two generations.  If you want to do a bit of objective checking (Google) you will find Bin Laden and his ilk have been trying to stick up for these people.  With no financial resources (compared to USSR and USA) they have had to use primitive bombs on thier backs.   If a dog is treated with hate it becomes a killer.  Do it to intelligent families for two generations and they become terrorists, pure and simple.

I am fed up with a community that does not think, (exceptions here) we follow the simplistic lines for our own comfort and are swayed by the crap fed out by our politicians via the idiot box. 

Perhaps David Hicks was a fair thinker as many others at that age over history have been and have proved to be ahead of the pack and changed the world.   May be wrong but he has done his time and we should look think and try to see outside the box before writing everything off.  IMHO


----------



## robert toms (30 December 2007)

He made the mistake of being influenced by the Muslim God, instead of our God of Mammon.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 December 2007)

robert toms said:


> He made the mistake of being influenced by the Muslim God, instead of our God of Mammon.




Don't despair, from some news reports today he's found Mammon again. 

gg


----------



## moXJO (30 December 2007)

He did his time, and will eventually collect a book deal and interview fees once the gag is off. Good luck to him. Never agreed with what he did but looks like he lived the fantasy of a boys own adventure of guns, shooting and armies. Not only that but he survived without being maimed or killed. What the US did was wrong but probably saved him from a bullet in the head and got him back to Aus where thoughts of war are the last thing on his mind. Not only that but he now stands to profit from his ordeal.

Yeah I know guantanamo torture blah blah; at least he gets a second chance at life...


----------



## numbercruncher (30 December 2007)

Folks at the Courier mail had this to say .... Give the impression they dont like him much ...




> CONVICTED terrorism supporter David Hicks was in hiding last night after smugly walking from prison without apologising for joining the ranks of the Taliban in the war in Afghanistan.
> 
> A defiant Hicks – dressed in a green polo shirt, blue jeans and black sports shoes – left South Australia's Yatala prison yesterday morning with his head held high and mouth tightly clenched.




http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22984072-952,00.html


----------



## jackson8 (30 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Folks at the Courier mail had this to say .... Give the impression they dont like him much ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




the odds are stacked against him no matter what , and that kind of obviously bias journalism is a good indication of the kind of treatment he will receive

can you imagine going in to join up at an library and saying that your name is david hicks or applying for a bank account or any number of other circumstances where you would need to reveal your identity

he is a household name just as  father xmas or the easter bunny


----------



## dhukka (30 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Folks at the Courier mail had this to say .... Give the impression they dont like him much ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is typical of the dumbed down puerile crap you expect from our media. 



> CONVICTED terrorism supporter David Hicks was in hiding last night after smugly walking from prison without apologising for joining the ranks of the Taliban in the war in Afghanistan.




The first sentence is enough to offend anyone with a modicum of intellect. The application of the word terrorism has reached farcical proportions. The generally accepted definition of a terrorist seems to be someone who opposes western hegemony as propagated by the United States and blindly supported until recently by the Australian Government. 

Hands down the largest and most prolific terrorist organization of the 20th was the United States government. What was the invasion of Iraq if not an act of terrorism? It would be quite easy to assert that George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard and the rest of so called 'coalition of the willing' are supporters of terrorism. 

I don't condone what Hicks did, but he is no less guilty of terrorism than the publicly elected officials that knowingly sent Australian troops to fight in an illegal and unjustified war.


----------



## ithatheekret (30 December 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He's served his time and should be allowed get on with his life.
> 
> Lets hope he now shrinks into the relative anonymity of history and is a lesson for others contemplating similar behaviour.
> 
> gg




You know in a perfect world that would more than likely be the case .

His punishment was gaol , he's been there done that , but reality says he will cop flak from many .

The sorry thing popped its head up again , of course a journos badge is all over it . I bet he's [Hicks] sorry alright , sorry he ever got such silly thoughts in his head in the first place .

The chap survived his Guantanumo ordeal , that would take a bit of getting over in the first place . To be quite frank all I've seen is a mob of anarchists set about putting another anarchist to trial . That may seem like an odd comment , but even those in control who do not conform to the basic principals of our society , finding themselves above the law , need to be addressed promptly .

The do as I say not as I do crowd .

I do find it disturbing that he [Hicks] would even contemplate taking up arms against a fellow Australian , if true , what the heck was he on ?

Whatever is was lets hope that his displeasure has weaned it out of him .

Under our laws he committed a criminal act , he has been punished by being sent to gaol , that was the punishment period . Getting that through to the masses in an entirely different matter .

Poor old Hicks , I can just imagine him singing " thanks for the memories ".

But what if ...... it was poor Aussie housewife and kids , minus a dad , taken in service to his country . ?????

A mere sorry would never do then , but now he will have to live with his past and that alone would be extremely conflicting . I don't think he will be getting over this too soon .

I do think we can strike out the anonymity thoughts though , even my youngest children know who he is . Perhaps he could serve the community better by coming out with his story and donating the proceeds to the victims of crime fund , at least there he could become the beacon of what *NOT* to do . 

You see anyone can stuff up , but it takes a responsible person to admit that and an even more responsible person to share that with others , so others can witness for themselves , the right way to move within the ordained structure of our society . 

But firstly he would have to steer around the negativity , before anything positive could be achieved . 

He is fortunate to have a staunch father by his side and supporters who will forgive his mistake or be willing to overlook it . 

There's a whole pack of blokes in Yatala who haven't got anything close to that , but they too deserve a chance and respectful treatment , two wrongs never make a right . But it is a fact that one can learn from their mistakes , only if one choses to in the first place .


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

I think I'd prefer to follow the lead of Dick Smith (who financed much of his defense) than some twisted Courier Mail article on this occasion 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/30/2128858.htm?section=justin
Hicks spends first night free in secret location



> In a statement read by his lawyer, Mr Hicks thanked his supporters, with a special mention to Dick Smith who was instrumental in the 'Fair Go For David' campaign.
> 
> "*I would've liked to have seen him with a proper trial with a jury. Unfortunately that didn't happen, but that's as it is," Mr Smith said*.


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

ithatheekret said:


> You know in a perfect world that would more than likely be the case .
> 
> His punishment was gaol , he's been there done that , but reality says he will cop flak from many .




The rest of your post almost makes this terrorist sound like a scout guide. He wanted to take part in a change or support of a group that would've had women firmly ensconced under tents without rights or voices. If nothing else think about that! He left prison without the dignity to at least apologize for the inconvenience he put a lot of people through, whatever you think, he did cause inconvenience and at least he ought to have had the manners to say sorry, he chose, again, chose to take the wrong road,  look's like the trouble a lot of people went through to ensure hes' rights were respected were wasted on this individual on this instance.


----------



## prawn_86 (30 December 2007)

I dont see why he should apologise

I have pretty strong views on this topic.

He has served his sentence and therefore that is, in effect, his apology.

Has the US government apologised for detaining him illegally for 5 years beyond all measure of respect and dignity, and even beyond the Geneva Convention. Imagine the outcry that would happen if a US citizen was treated the same way.

Has the Aus government apologised (or compensated) for not caring about the fact he was held illegally?

I dont support what he did, but that imo, is massively offset by the way the governments holding him acted. He too his a human being and should be subject to the same rights as any other human, "terrorist" or not.


----------



## chops_a_must (30 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Doctorj:  "trial by media"??
> I'm only aware of the coverage by the ABC but, if anything, it was somewhat sympathetic to him (as usual with their left bias) and essentially concluded that he was a fairly simple, misguided individual.  I don't know, any more than anyone else, but would probably agree with that.




As compared to who Julia? CNN, ACA? Would you class the BBC as having a left bias?

The thing that I guess would swing most people's opinions, is that we simply aren't allowed to know anything. That in itself speaks volumes. What are the US and probably, more importantly, ex Australian governments and diplomats got to hide when it comes to this? Perhaps because they knew he was being tortured, and did nothing about it? Hmmm....


> was in hiding



OK. So he is still on the run is he? Hmmm.... I guess we are all in "hiding" then aren't we?

Prawn... totally agree with you.


----------



## ithatheekret (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> The rest of your post almost makes this terrorist sound like a scout guide. He wanted to take part in a change or support of a group that would've had women firmly ensconced under tents without rights or voices. If nothing else think about that! He left prison without the dignity to at least apologize for the inconvenience he put a lot of people through, whatever you think, he did cause inconvenience and at least he ought to have had the manners to say sorry, he chose, again, chose to take the wrong road,  look's like the trouble a lot of people went through to ensure hes' rights were respected were wasted on this individual on this instance.




I think ........ I see what it is your putting forward , but I'm blowed if I know how you concluded that from my post . Not to mention the last time I took any notice , I don't recall seeing guides armed to the teeth .

Are we going down the human alienation path ? 

If so I'll pass on views that boundary on primordial and rely on a metaphysical concept . That would call for us to look beyond the perceptible to our senses . That means we would have to dehumanize Hicks . 

To do so would mimmick exactly what your complaint espouses to and I won't join those ranks , two wrongs don't make a right . 

Then there's the bit about a waste of rights on an individual . 

You just shot your argument in the foot there .


----------



## numbercruncher (30 December 2007)

Yes that article I linked was Interesting to see the Individual papers take on it, I saw virtually the same article on another website ommitting a few words like " Smugly "


I hope David does well and adjusts to society, hes had two doses of brainwashing, once from the Islamofascists and once from the American Government ...... Ouch!

Lets not make him out as some Folk Hero, or as some sort of Frankenstein eternal crim.

G/luck Mr Hicks. I hope you stick to your pledge.

We should all appreciate that freedom is a privledge thats so easy to take forgranted.


----------



## jackson8 (30 December 2007)

i am yet to find any information  that descibes what it is that david hicks did which was unlawfull

did he attack or murder invading troops in afghanistan
has he committed any crimes against humanity or one single person
was he party to organiseing terrorist attacks on western society

or is he someone who didnt quite fit into our society who therefore tried to find meaning in himself by other methods

some people just dont fit into our society so they take other means to justify their existance 
is he evil or a bad person , or just a wayward individual looking for a meaning to his life 

half the world is trying to kill the other half . whos right and whos wrong

none of us actually know what he is really like   takes quite a bit of time to get to know someone


----------



## rederob (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> He left prison without the dignity to at least apologize for the inconvenience he put a lot of people through, whatever you think, he did cause inconvenience and at least he ought to have had the manners to say sorry, he chose, again, chose to take the wrong road,  look's like the trouble a lot of people went through to ensure hes' rights were respected were wasted on this individual on this instance.



Hicks was never captured by the Americans; they bought him!
Hicks was one of millions that still today fight for a cause, no matter what we think of the rights or wrongs.
It is difficult to say sorry for having beliefs that are not shared by broad minded individuals such as visual.
Hicks' detention was illegal, and a few brave souls, Major Mori in particular, defended his right to a fair hearing.
Hicks plea bargained his way to freedom, and carries the label of a "supporter of terrorism".
Better that than an illegal system of proscribed detention and the prospect of a kangaroo court that needed justification for its existence - a guilty  verdict in the offing?
I wonder if Hicks will remain in oblivion if he's offered a chance to star as himself in Michal Moore's next blockbuster, "Hicksville": A story about a wayward Aussie bush kid flung into war torn Bosnia only to be catapulted into Afghanistan where he was sold to Americans who kept him hogtied in Cuba until one brave American soldier thumbed his nose at Uncle Sam and repatriated him into the arms of his daddy.


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

ithatheekret said:


> I think ........ I see what it is your putting forward , but I'm blowed if I know how you concluded that from my post . Not to mention the last time I took any notice , I don't recall seeing guides armed to the teeth .
> 
> Are we going down the human alienation path ?
> 
> ...




The rights I referred to are the right that his supporters said weren't respected. I didn't think any of his rights were being abused. You seem to not want to dehumanize hicks yet his intentions are being somewhat minimized or essentially minimized. He meant to kill and main, he meant to bring in change that would've been detrimental to the majority of the population. This guy didn't make a mistake he made a choice and he should've been kept in Cuba until the war is over.


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

jackson8 said:


> i am yet to find any information  that descibes what it is that david hicks did which was unlawfull
> 
> did he attack or murder invading troops in afghanistan
> has he committed any crimes against humanity or one single person
> ...




He was fighting for the taliban an organization that thinks women should be neither heard nor seen. Does that qualify as a human rights crime? or does that come under not knowing what is right or wrong. 

Are you telling me that even the little that we see on the news or hear in documentaries or read in books by people who've personally experienced this organization crimes against humanity especially women still means that you can't decide if they are good or bad?


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> This guy didn't make a mistake he made a choice and he should've been kept in Cuba until the war is over.




As Fraser points out, the war on terror (as defined by Bush) will never end.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/opinion/items/200702/s1849110.htm


> David Hicks has been held for five years in Guantanamo Bay. The Australian Government has said it is quite happy with the rules and the conduct of Military Tribunals and indeed that it's quite happy with the conditions of people in prisons in Guantanamo Bay. The British Government was not and got its citizens out. The American Government would not allow any American to be tried in Guantanamo Bay. The Government now says it wants a speedy trial for David Hicks.
> 
> *At any point it could have demanded that David Hicks be tried in the normal justice system in the United States, either in a civilian court or in a military court martial. *That would have overcome all delays. It never did so. When complaints were made about the treatment of Hicks, the Government relied on responses from the United States administration to deny claims of mistreatment, of conditions which many would regard as torture.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

But then Fraser presided over a "different" kind of Liberal Party, didn't he.



> In this opening I want to emphasise the importance of human rights in government and what happens if human rights are pushed aside. Since the terrible attacks in the United States on 9/11, 2001, governments in many places, including Australia, have played on the politics of fear and unfortunately and more tragically on the politics of division.
> 
> Drastic new laws have been introduced which diminish the rights of all Australians. There are some who believe those laws will only apply to people who are different, to the other, to people who are not like us and who do not deserve to be treated as well as we expect to be treated.
> 
> ...


----------



## dhukka (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> The rights I referred to are the right that his supporters said weren't respected. I didn't think any of his rights were being abused. You seem to not want to dehumanize hicks yet his intentions are being somewhat minimized or essentially minimized. *He meant to kill and main, he meant to bring in change that would've been detrimental to the majority of the population.* This guy didn't make a mistake he made a choice and he should've been kept in Cuba until the war is over.




In the bolded sentence above change _'He'_ to _'George Bush'_, change '_meant to_' to _'did'_ and change _'would've'_ to _'has'_ and you have a neat summary of the situation in Iraq.


----------



## chops_a_must (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> He was fighting for the taliban an organization that thinks women should be neither heard nor seen. Does that qualify as a human rights crime? or does that come under not knowing what is right or wrong.
> 
> Are you telling me that even the little that we see on the news or hear in documentaries or read in books by people who've personally experienced this organization crimes against humanity especially women still means that you can't decide if they are good or bad?




So... does that mean you are a supporter of rape, widespread murder, food hoarding and corruption amongst opponents of the Taliban? Lets face it, both sides in Afghanistan are just as bad as each other. Hence, neither have majority support. We just don't hear the massive abuses committed by opponents of the Taliban because they are allied to us, and it is not a good look to admit that.

But what you are saying, seems to suggest that you are a supporter of these human rights abuses. Especially as you attack people who remain neutral. Yes, the Taliban are horrible. But, the opposition are no better. You don't seem to realise that.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

visual, Hicks applied to join the Australian Military. 
Must be your turn !


----------



## jackson8 (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> He was fighting for the taliban an organization that thinks women should be neither heard nor seen. Does that qualify as a human rights crime? or does that come under not knowing what is right or wrong.
> 
> Are you telling me that even the little that we see on the news or hear in documentaries or read in books by people who've personally experienced this organization crimes against humanity especially women still means that you can't decide if they are good or bad?




i think to make a decision as to whether someone or any organisation is good or evil would be to over simplify the situation. if we look back thru historical  or even biblical history the world , society and its behavioural structure has been forever changeing

obviously what was acceptable 2000 years ago is not acceptable now .some nations and countries have made much progess in humane rights but these same countries are still responible for invading others. what happened to the american indians and their land also aborigines in australia
these invaders may not seem as barbaric nor hold on to rituals that oppress women as much as some middle eastern countries have but they still have raped and pillaged in other ways and to this day do the same

i think this is more of a philosophical argument than any


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 December 2007)

jackson8 said:


> i think to make a decision as to whether someone or any organisation is good or evil would be to over simplify the situation. if we look back thru historical  or even biblical history the world , society and its behavioural structure has been forever changeing
> 
> obviously what was acceptable 2000 years ago is not acceptable now .some nations and countries have made much progess in humane rights but these same countries are still responible for invading others. what happened to the american indians and their land also aborigines in australia
> these invaders may not seem as barbaric nor hold on to rituals that oppress women as much as some middle eastern countries have but they still have raped and pillaged in other ways and to this day do the same
> ...




I suppose that shows the transition from "basic survival function" to a rational, civilised, compassionate, understanding and loving species is an ongoing learning process.Many countries still in the quoted mode.


----------



## ithatheekret (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> I didn't think any of his rights were being abused.




I've managed to understand that much already .


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

jackson8 said:


> i think to make a decision as to whether someone or any organisation is good or evil would be to over simplify the situation.



....


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> As Fraser points out, the war on terror (as defined by Bush) will never end.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/opinion/items/200702/s1849110.htm




Fraser, right! the same Fraser who supported Mugabe and is silent now even as millions starve deliberately.

Tell me do we only worry about human rights if the abused is white and Australian but turn the other cheek if the abuser is black and so is the abused.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> Fraser, right! the same Fraser who supported Mugabe and is silent now even as millions starve deliberately.
> 
> Tell me do we only worry about human rights if the abused is white and Australian but turn the other cheek if the abuser is black and so is the abused.



yep those libs are a real worry


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> So... does that mean you are a supporter of rape, widespread murder, food hoarding and corruption amongst opponents of the Taliban? Lets face it, both sides in Afghanistan are just as bad as each other. Hence, neither have majority support. We just don't hear the massive abuses committed by opponents of the Taliban because they are allied to us, and it is not a good look to admit that.
> 
> But what you are saying, seems to suggest that you are a supporter of these human rights abuses. Especially as you attack people who remain neutral. Yes, the Taliban are horrible. But, the opposition are no better. You don't seem to realise that.




chops you are incoherent, better have a lie down and rest a bit, maybe you'll get up refreshed and more clear headed


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> yep those libs are a real worry




Fraser is  nothing more than someone who is redundant and doesn't want to accept it. A bit like Bob Hawke, or Paul Keating.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

Who guest speaks at Human Rights Conferences etc
don't worry visual - you wouldn't understand..



> I am delighted this Human Rights Education Conference is being held, it is timely, it is important. *The more understanding there can be about basic human rights for men, women and children, for people of all religions, for minorities, for the disadvantaged, for all people, the better it will be and the sooner our society will return to one of decency and charity*.
> 
> This forum will cover a wide spectrum in human rights. From the origins of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself to the class room, how to inspire students with ethical leadership,    etc




PS I'm still waiting for you to equal Hick's record of applying to join the military at least once


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Who guest speaks at Human Rights Conferences etc
> don't worry visual - you wouldn't understand..




Oh dear is that hypocrisy I smell, I don't qualify as human, well seeing that I'm not even worth having a discussion with that involves disagreeing with you. Just to recap human rights are vitally important as long as people agree with you. Otherwise they may as well be left to rot. I'll remember that should I ever undertake traitorous activities against my country


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

visual said:
			
		

> traiterous etc



and so - 
on a completely different topic
what do you think about fighting with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance - 
 and being captured by the NA , without weapons, in the back of a truck, trying to leave the country when it got competely out of hand.

and for that matter fighting in Kosova with the KLA - with whom "we", the west , sided (eventually and belatedly)


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> and so -
> on a completely different topic
> what do you think about fighting with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance -
> and being captured by the NA , without weapons, in the back of a truck, trying to leave the country when it got competely out of hand.
> ...





No hindsight, not so fast, human rights-for all or only for those who agree with you or you agree with!


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> I'll remember that should I ever undertake traitorous activities against my country



I was commenting on this statement visual
obviously I disgaree with your assumptions. 

Since you disagree with Fraser, I assume you disagree with (most/) much of what he has to say in that article from which I have now posted 3 excerpts.  
whatever..

and again ... when are you gonna catch up to Hicks on the matter of applying for military service?


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I was commenting on this statement visual
> obviously I disgaree with your assumptions.
> 
> Since you disagree with Fraser, I assume you disagree with (most/) much of what he has to say in that article from which I have now posted 3 excerpts.
> ...





Who guest speaks at Human Rights Conferences etc
don't worry visual - you wouldn't understand..

Actually whatever is right, this above is more important than your 3 posts, answer or .................................................


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

> how to inspire students with ethical leadership



as I say - don't worry about it


----------



## chops_a_must (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> chops you are incoherent, better have a lie down and rest a bit, maybe you'll get up refreshed and more clear headed




Hardly.

You are saying we shouldn't treat Hicks with decency because the side he supported wouldn't. What I am saying is the main opposition to his "side" are just as bad, yet, by implication, you are supporting them. Once again, given your logic, we should treat yourself accordingly as well.


P.S. - I don't think it is necessarily prudent in using out of context political support 25 years down the track. After all, Mugabe was a popular, democratically elected leader at the time. You can't tell what is going to happen 25 years down the track, and not allowing someone to change positions in that time is silly. You could go through endless examples of this sort of political support, e.g. Mandela and Suharto etc etc. that has no real relevance to current matters.


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> as I say - don't worry about it




Please give me at least, the benefit of your leadership skill or inspiration or whatever I really need to understand are human rights for all or just the people you agree with or agree with you, unlike you I've kept the question the same , no chopping or changing here and definitely no smoke screens as changing subject.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> Please give me at least, the benefit of your leadership skill or inspiration or whatever I really need to understand are human rights for all or just the people you agree with or agree with you, unlike you I've kept the question the same , no chopping or changing here and definitely no smoke screens as changing subject.



ok - here'e your answer
somewhat similar to what I've said on other threads like Abs and Global Warming etc - 

*but obviously human rights for all.*

and 
should we get such human rights, even you, visual, will be entitled to share the benefits. 

but note that Fraser warns that there is every chance that anti-terror laws are gonna be destructive rather than helpful.  

PS I'm sure you recognise this picture...


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> ok - here'e your answer
> somewhat similar to what I've said on other threads like Abs and Global Warming etc -
> 
> *but obviously human rights for all.*
> ...




should we get such human rights, even you, visual,

so grudgingly even I benefit, no leadership skill there!2020hindsight!


----------



## Julia (30 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> As compared to who Julia? CNN, ACA? Would you class the BBC as having a left bias?
> 
> The thing that I guess would swing most people's opinions, is that we simply aren't allowed to know anything. That in itself speaks volumes. What are the US and probably, more importantly, ex Australian governments and diplomats got to hide when it comes to this? Perhaps because they knew he was being tortured, and did nothing about it? Hmmm....
> 
> ...



Chops:  You have included the phrase above "Ok.  So he is still on the run is he?
Hmmm.  I guess we are all in "hiding then aren't we?" after quoting my post from earlier in the thread, clearly giving the impression that I made this latter comment.  I didn't.  I don't know who did.  
Please make it clear who you are quoting and don't attribute to me something I have not said.  You might like to make a correction, stating whom the quote was actually from.


----------



## Julia (30 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> and
> should we get such human rights, even you, visual, will be entitled to share the benefits.



I realise Visual can speak for herself, but (nothing to do with your actual argument which has become somewhat silly), I find the above comment unnecessarily condescending, patronising and personal.


----------



## Julia (30 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Lets not make him out as some Folk Hero, or as some sort of Frankenstein eternal crim.
> 
> 
> 
> We should all appreciate that freedom is a privledge thats so easy to take forgranted.




About says it all, really.


----------



## Julia (30 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Lets not make him out as some Folk Hero, or as some sort of Frankenstein eternal crim.






> We should all appreciate that freedom is a privledge thats so easy to take forgranted.




About says it all, really.


----------



## chops_a_must (30 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Chops:  You have included the phrase above "Ok.  So he is still on the run is he?
> Hmmm.  I guess we are all in "hiding then aren't we?" after quoting my post from earlier in the thread, clearly giving the impression that I made this latter comment.  I didn't.  I don't know who did.
> Please make it clear who you are quoting and don't attribute to me something I have not said.  You might like to make a correction, stating whom the quote was actually from.



It was a quote from within a newspaper article posted above. Had it been yours, I would have quoted it correctly.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

Julia said:


> I realise Visual can speak for herself, but (nothing to do with your actual argument which has become somewhat silly), I find the above comment unnecessarily condescending, patronising and personal.



Julia,
well its true! 

If the sentiments in that conference (to which I was referring) where Fraser gave that speech (from which I quoted three excerpts) gets some foothold - and I personally can't see the future going anywhere other than towards more Human Rights (can you?) - I mean Bush will be stepping down around end of next year  then ... ? we should all end up with more human rights.  

I agree its tricky, and the Haneef case is a classic test - I'm sure the AFP would do it differently next time for instance.  

Apart from that I pointed out to visual that Hicks had 
a) fought in Kosova on the same side as the west 
b) tried to join the Australian Army, and
c) ended up in Afghanistan fighting against the Northern Alliance.
d) was arrested by the NA unarmed in the back of a truck and sold to the yanks. 

a) and b) are surely mitigating circumstances
and c) and d) - well - no need to give him more than 6 years imo - although visual says he should be imprisoned until the end of the war on terror.   

He's never fought against Australia end of story.

PS Guantanamo is arguably becoming an albatros around the US neck imo. 

PS are you aware Julia that when Hicks was returned to Aus, the yanks wouldn't let him fly through their air space?  - ok ok - they've made their point.   and He won't do it again. 

Just let's stop talking about him deserving to be in jail for the next "n" years - where n is "n-ything"


----------



## Julia (30 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia,
> well its true!
> 
> If the sentiments in that conference (to which I was referring) where Fraser gave that speech (from which I quoted three excerpts) gets some foothold - and I personally can't see the future going anywhere other than towards more Human Rights (can you?) - I mean Bush will be stepping down around end of next year  then ... ? we should all end up with more human rights.
> ...




I wasn't commenting on the argument.  Rather on your phrase "even you,Visual" as though Visual is someone less than deserving of human rights.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

Julia , maybe you need to read it in context ...



			
				visual said:
			
		

> I really need to understand are human rights for all or just the people you agree with or agree with you






			
				2020 said:
			
		

> but obviously human rights for all, and
> should we get such human rights, even you, visual, will be entitled to share the benefits




i.e. whether or not you agree with me, (visual disagrees with me you might have noticed) - then yes, human rights for all


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Hardly.
> 
> You are saying we shouldn't treat Hicks with decency because the side he supported wouldn't. What I am saying is the main opposition to his "side" are just as bad, yet, by implication, you are supporting them. Once again, given your logic, we should treat yourself accordingly as well.





What?
who are you supporting chops? 
By the way although you keep making snide remarks I'll remind you that I haven't so far ever turned my back to my country, but please when I do, remind me. Now back to hicks, are you supporting hicks in his endeavor's or as someone who's paid the price of his stupidity. Clear that up, because so far it looks like you are supporting a thinking stuck in the 7 century.

As for Fraser, Mugabe got to this position over a long time, it didn't happen overnight, remember him making a statement against Mugabe? or even now that the country is spiraling out of control has he made any comment? so stick with the facts will you?


----------



## visual (30 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia , maybe you need to read it in context ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




hindsight, your contempt for those who disagree with you, keeps popping up, very artistic use of quotes, by the way, is that because you actually have no argument or because you know that you really are supporting a traitor?


----------



## chops_a_must (30 December 2007)

visual said:


> What?
> who are you supporting chops?
> By the way although you keep making snide remarks I'll remind you that I haven't so far ever turned my back to my country, but please when I do, remind me. Now back to hicks, are you supporting hicks in his endeavor's or as someone who's paid the price of his stupidity. Clear that up, because so far it looks like you are supporting a thinking stuck in the 7 century.
> 
> As for Fraser, Mugabe got to this position over a long time, it didn't happen overnight, remember him making a statement against Mugabe? or even now that the country is spiraling out of control has he made any comment? so stick with the facts will you?




I don't think Hicks ever turned his back on his country...

I don't support the Taliban or the NA. But as far as I'm concerned, US soldiers are fair game just about anywhere in the world.

Who knows? In 10 years he might be proven to be in the right. Orwell and Hemingway both were 10 years later, even though, at the time they surely would have been thought of in the same vein as Hicks. I'm still yet to see any credible crime he could have committed in Australian law, let alone another country's where he was not located.

As to Fraser, well, when I last checked, neither he nor Thatcher were leaders of their respective countries. I'd say his feelings are pretty implicit in his human rights statements...


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2007)

visual said:


> you really are supporting a traitor?



Can we please clear this up once and for all. WHAT exactly made him a traitor to this country?


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 December 2007)

visual 
if you are a lady, you needn't join the army ok..

(what a shame they didn't take Hicks... ever thought of that ?
I mean , after Kosovo, all he wanted was adventure - and he sure as hell got that in spades)


----------



## visual (31 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> visual
> if you are a lady, you needn't join the army ok..
> 
> (what a shame they didn't take Hicks... ever thought of that ?
> I mean , after Kosovo, all he wanted was adventure - and he sure as hell got that in spades)





hindsight, sexist as well! 
Do you ever wonder why the Australian army rejected him? looks like they made a good decision. As for adventure, fighting on the side of an organization that actively suppressed women and wants to do that all over the world is an adventure? is it, well there you go. Night.


----------



## visual (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I don't think Hicks ever turned his back on his country...
> US soldiers are fair game just about anywhere in the world.




American soldiers are fair game, did you say? shakes head, and acknowledges that arguing with an idiot is nothing more than an exercise in looking as stupid as you. So chops, have a good life.


----------



## ithatheekret (31 December 2007)

ithatheekret said:


> You know in a perfect world that would more than likely be the case .
> 
> His punishment was gaol , he's been there done that , but reality says he will cop flak from many .
> 
> ...





This is the post I put up that started the friction .

Read the answering post from Visual , who mistakenly thinks I am on his [Hicks] side , the side I am on is equality , one country one law for all . This includes rights , but I refuse to kick a bloke when he's down . I truely hope he has learnt his [Hicks] lesson . Human rights belong to all mankind , but you show me a government that actually adheres to them . Just because they struggle with decency , doesn't mean I will lower my standards to conform to grandstanding politicians thoughts , a journo's mutterings or whom ever trys to debate that we should abandon a fundamental principal many of us hold dear .

I've been accused of dehumanizing Hicks , nice attempt to twist my words , when in fact the only thing I am standing up for and refuse to budge on are his rights as a human being , even if he stuffed up ...... and that's just putting it nicely . Quite frankly its fortunate you are a lady , otherwise my words would have been harsher , the comments were unAustralian in my view.

If I were to start assuming anything , firstly it would be that Visual has a limited view , tunnel vision or has been swept up in the hysteria .
I think she needs to lie down as she suggested to Chops , wake up in the morning and remember the standard she spruiked .

He has paid his dues , are we now to hunt him down and make life so hard for him he wants to leave ? Thoughts like that use to start lynch mobs , would she be there with the rope I wonder ?

Bollocks to all of that , no dogs bollocks fits better . He has paid his debt to society as has been decreed and past down in sentence which he pleaded to . That plea as I recall it was one of Guilty .

Now when it gets to the nitty gritty , had he managed to be in a combat contact with our ADF , he wouldn't be here .


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2007)

visual said:


> American soldiers are fair game, did you say? shakes head, and acknowledges that arguing with an idiot is nothing more than an exercise in looking as stupid as you. So chops, have a good life.




Unfortunately, because of their government's actions, they are rightly fair game in most parts of the world. And certainly, when I see them in Fremantle, in no uncertain terms, I let the US sailors know that they aren't welcome there.

But you know, calling someone an idiot/ stupid, is pretty rich when you can't get your spelling and grammar correct, no?


----------



## visual (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Unfortunately, because of their government's actions, they are rightly fair game in most parts of the world. And certainly, when I see them in Fremantle, in no uncertain terms, I let the US sailors know that they aren't welcome there.
> 
> But you know, calling someone an idiot/ stupid, is pretty rich when you can't get your spelling and grammar correct, no?




chops, you insult the very people who when the proverbial hits the fan should that ever happen, we will as surely as tomorrow is new year's eve need them. By the way I wouldn't worry about my grammar and spelling I'd worry more about when you are going to cross someone with the same ignorance as yourself , but maybe the Americans are way smarter than some literate kid who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.
By the way if I got that saying wrong ,:


----------



## onemore (31 December 2007)

Sorry I haven't read any previous post.

I'm not just talkin about *Hicks.*

But it's the age old problem of diff religious beliefs.
You believe in Jesus,someone believes in Mohammed , someone believes green men from space,ect ect ect.

The (fanactic's) are going to fight for their beliefs.
What can you do about it?  

I don't know what he's problem was or is , or agender,or beliefs are,but he is out of goal now.


The biggest problem is Religion not Hicks.


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2007)

visual said:


> chops, you insult the very people who when the proverbial hits the fan should that ever happen, we will as surely as tomorrow is new year's eve need them.



No mate. Those are the type of people that create the *hit hitting the fan. And the last thing I want is for them to be around me. Especially if it means that missiles are aimed in the vicinity of where I live. I don't want or need that.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 December 2007)

visual said:


> as surely as tomorrow is new year's eve



you posted that after midnight visual -  *today *is new year's eve 

ok - ok now I'm being datist I spose . 
(PS happy new year's eve)  

chops - thought for new year's eve.  ....
"when the bovine excrement hits the reciprocating oscillating mechanism situated in the middle of the room, the resulting explosion of matter is not necessarily evenly distributed around the walls" - something like that anyway  

ava good one all.

PS Hicks is out - older wiser - he won't be so stupid again - we all move on.
PS and lol ,  Dick Smith is a lot poorer.


----------



## visual (31 December 2007)

ithatheekret said:


> This is the post I put up that started the friction .
> 
> Read the answering post from Visual , who mistakenly thinks I am on his [Hicks] side , the side I am on is equality , one country one law for all . This includes rights , but I refuse to kick a bloke when he's down . I truely hope he has learnt his [Hicks] lesson . Human rights belong to all mankind , but you show me a government that actually adheres to them . Just because they struggle with decency , doesn't mean I will lower my standards to conform to grandstanding politicians thoughts , a journo's mutterings or whom ever trys to debate that we should abandon a fundamental principal many of us hold dear .
> 
> ...




If I misunderstood you accept my apologies, however this talk of human rights, and giving him a chance, sorry, personally I would've left him in Cuba, kept him there until the war is over. As for my being a lady, I thought you were all for equality!:surely a good argument trumps gender? or am I mistaken. 

To re-cap hicks is fighting for an organization, that  actually wants less human rights, so I find it ironic that his supporters in fact use that very argument to defend his right to freedom. Two wrongs don't make a right, but unfortunately with people like him we only need to fail once to get it wrong, personally I'd much rather have him in a place where at least I knew he couldn't do any harm.


----------



## visual (31 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> you posted that after midnight visual -  *today *is new year's eve
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not quite hindsight, when you take into account daylight saving I still had half an hour to go,ha,:

As for Smith as in Dick, no wrong again, hindsight, we are the poorer, yes us the taxpayers, do you honestly think Smith will absorb those costs without his accountant somehow making them into some sort of charity deduction? please. Plus the rest will be made up in extra sales for his products and possibly a book somewhere down the road, maybe something like, My role in freeing Australia's first terrorist.


----------



## ithatheekret (31 December 2007)

onemore said:


> Sorry I haven't read any previous post.
> 
> I'm not just talkin about *Hicks.*
> 
> ...





Actually wars and conflicts generally use to start due to territorial expansionism much like Japan and Germany attempted , then of course the Helen of Troy sagas can be added in , Gold , Sugar , Oil or some other need .
Yet when it really boils down to it , we go to war because its in our interests to do so . The costs of the no-fly zone after the 1st Gulf war , look how long they kept that up , imagine the costs involved over and over , year after year . That money had to be replaced or made up for somehow , then abracadbra the invasion .


----------



## Superfly (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> As compared to who Julia? CNN, ACA? Would you class the BBC as having a left bias?
> 
> The thing that I guess would swing most people's opinions, is that we simply aren't allowed to know anything. That in itself speaks volumes. What are the US and probably, more importantly, ex Australian governments and diplomats got to hide when it comes to this? Perhaps because they knew he was being tortured, and did nothing about it? Hmmm....
> 
> ...




As far as Guantanamo is concerned. No longer can the Hicks types shout back to the US soldiers something like "see you in New York with my lawyer"... now they are shut down and out of circulation. 

Hicks was part the security detachment guarding Kandahar airport. When the *hit hit the fan he ran for Pakistan and got turned in. Why people give this traitor the benefit of doubt goes to show how conplacent some have become. 

Who can seriously say with a straight face that the ABC is not a left wing mouth piece...

The more that is known, the more the bad guys can train & be prepared to resist under stress...


----------



## Superfly (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I don't think Hicks ever turned his back on his country...
> But as far as I'm concerned, US soldiers are fair game just about anywhere in the world.




You are a disgrace...


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2007)

Superfly said:


> Who can seriously say with a straight face that the ABC is not a left wing mouth piece...



I wish it was!

We simply don't have a left wing in Australia. (Well, one with any force at least.)


----------



## Superfly (31 December 2007)

dhukka said:


> This is typical of the dumbed down puerile crap you expect from our media.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Your trying to land a job as a journalist with the ABC or CNN right ?


----------



## Superfly (31 December 2007)

The amount of anti-Americanism on this thread is shameful... 

If the traitor had been held by say "China" or any other but the US....wonder if there would have been such a storm drummed up by the left...


----------



## Superfly (31 December 2007)

dhukka said:


> the publicly elected officials that knowingly sent Australian troops to fight in an illegal and unjustified war.




So 9/11 wasn't enough for you ? ..... do we have to wait until a dirty bomb is detonated inside the CBD of a western city, killing 10's of thousands before the west can take action....

Of course that would never happen.... would it...


----------



## Doris (31 December 2007)

Did anyone see the brilliant David E Kelly's episode last July of Boston Legal called _Guantanamo By the Bay_?  
Love this show's social issue targets and exposure.

Alan Shore sues the United States on behalf of a client who was held and tortured at Guantanamo Bay for two years. This fictitious character was an innocent British doctor donating his time, helping out in Afganistan when he was hauled off with claims he had links with terrorism. The whole lack of human rights off-US-soil was the theme. The human rights that the US proclaims as its basic philosophy within and without the US were torn to shreds. Not all Americans are _Bushed!_  David E Kelly supports the Democrats.

Alan: "I realize that jurisdiction barriers are prohibitive. We don't let little things like the law stand in our way in this great country. The law for example recognizes the Geneva Convention, but we say the hell with it. The law has very strict regulations on domestic wire-tapping, we say the hell with it. The law says if you shoot someone with a shotgun mistaking him for a quail, you should call the police."

Denny: "This is America. Human rights are so yesterday here".

I'd like to see an "post mortem" trial in Australia.  Maybe the US saved face by coercing Hicks into pleading guilty and he clutched at the straw to end his hell. Human rights should allow him to contravene the prohibition of his talking about his detention.  Would the Rudd government hand him back to the US if he did?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2007)

agro said:


> I still can't see why this man is being treated as a celebrity especially when he was fighting against coalition forces.
> 
> history repeats itself.






Below is a quote from news.com.au 

Lets hope Mr.Hicks behaves like a gentleman and fades into obscurity.

Otherwise I'd be expecting Kev07 to tighten any laws allowing him to profit from his crimes.



> Hicks has pledged to honour the media gag order imposed as part of his plea bargain with the US military, which expires in March.  Although his father has said Hicks does not want to write a book, Hicks may be tempted.
> 
> According to his father, publishers have approached him and cited legal advice that proceeds-of-crime laws can be circumvented.
> 
> ...


----------



## dhukka (31 December 2007)

Superfly said:


> So 9/11 wasn't enough for you ? ..... do we have to wait until a dirty bomb is detonated inside the CBD of a western city, killing 10's of thousands before the west can take action....
> 
> Of course that would never happen.... would it...




Actually I'd say it's more than likely given that the United States has ratcheted up their self-appointed role as policeman of the world. The hysteria that surrounds a few thousand yanks being incinerated in a couple of buildings continues to amaze me. Compared to the death and destruction bought about by acts of terrorism of the United States during the 20th century 9/11 is small potatoes.

As the CIA teaches, 'blowback' is an inevitable outcome of meddling in the affairs of other countries. Incidentally it is listed as one of the reasons for the 9/11 attacks in the commission's report. Go figure.


----------



## visual (31 December 2007)

dhukka said:


> Actually I'd say it's more than likely given that the United States has ratcheted up their self-appointed role as policeman of the world. The hysteria that surrounds a few thousand yanks being incinerated in a couple of buildings continues to amaze me. Compared to the death and destruction bought about by acts of terrorism of the United States during the 20th century 9/11 is small potatoes.
> 
> As the CIA teaches, 'blowback' is an inevitable outcome of meddling in the affairs of other countries. Incidentally it is listed as one of the reasons for the 9/11 attacks in the commission's report. Go figure.





Do you set out to offend intentionally or a you someone who offends to see the reaction he gets. Either way, as a human being you rate lowly.

Joe you told me I was being racist and that I offended you, yet these type of statements against innocent Americans continually go unchallenged by you, is it becasue you agree with these sentiments or because you see  these lowlifes as a talking point? Surely some kind of direction on what's acceptable is required.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 December 2007)

visual said:


> Do you set out to offend intentionally or a you someone who offends to see the reaction he gets. Either way, as a human being you rate lowly.
> 
> Joe you told me I was being racist and that I offended you, yet these type of statements against innocent Americans continually go unchallenged by you, is it becasue you agree with these sentiments or because you see  these lowlifes as a talking point? Surely some kind of direction on what's acceptable is required.



visual
why not do yourself a favour - 
watch Fahrenheit 9/11.
And note that many Americans are now very critical of Bush and Iraq as well.


----------



## visual (31 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> visual
> why not do yourself a favour -
> watch Fahrenheit 9/11.
> And note that many Americans are now very critical of Bush and Iraq as well.




A Michael Moore documentary! a very discredited documentary maker.

Hindsight, human rights for all! right, except the people you and your friends think are expendable, what about the human rights of the 3 thousands Americans murdered for being simply Americans.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 December 2007)

visual said:


> A Michael Moore documentary! a very discredited documentary maker.
> 
> Hindsight, human rights for all! right, except the people you and your friends think are expendable, what about the human rights of the 3 thousands Americans murdered for being simply Americans.



ok 
you know best (I mean lol, I recall you telling me you knew my families medical trials and tribulations better than I did   - and btw your quote about the age of Haneef's baby was also mmm :bs 

I finally see where you were going with that argument
gee but your arguments are hard to follw visual 

Problem is (if you think about it) that counter terrorism laws have a big risk of being counter productive.  - just as Iraq was 100% counterproductive (or do you disagree?)

If you want us to be at war forever, (and remember that recent "wars" have nearly broken the US bank) then you'll find that things will spiral into one ugly mess real fast.  

Moderate islamic groups must be encouraged - even to the point of turning in extremists within their ranks.  It ain't gonna happen with confrontation attitudes is it? 


but to ask one simple question ... your turn to answer... do you agree that Iraq was 100% counterproductive with respect to the war on terror?


----------



## robert toms (31 December 2007)

On Dec 20th was the anniversary of the 1989 US attack on Panama.The number of Panamanian casulties are estimated of being up to 4000 ,mostly civilian.
Even Bob Hawke,Australian PM at the time,condemned the American action.Hawke's condemnation was out of character for any Australian PM.
There were some parallels between the attack on Panama and that on Iraq...not the least being that they were defenceless.
I think that there is an adage "the bigger the foe,the bigger the victory",but of course ,the corollary to this is"the more defenceless the foe ,the bigger the coward".
My member of parliament,Alexander Downer,was on the local news last night postulating on the evil David Hicks.
More than a little rich coming from that mighty warrior,or perhaps he was only trying to justify his own subervience to the Americans,in this case,regarding the treatment of Hicks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 December 2007)

robert toms said:


> My member of parliament,Alexander Downer,was on the local news last night postulating on the evil David Hicks.



rob, I noticed that - and his carefully chosen words - as if Hicks attacked us etc 
:topic  My guess is that Downer and Fraser no longer see eye to eye? 
 - despite Fraser doing his best at the time to hand over the Lib leadership to Downer rather than Howard (old history of course)?


----------



## ithatheekret (31 December 2007)

Well said Robert , an educated summary and one I applaud .


----------



## visual (31 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> ok
> you know best (I mean lol, I recall you telling me you knew my families medical trials and tribulations better than I did   - and btw your quote about the age of Haneef's baby was also mmm :bs
> 
> I finally see where you were going with that argument
> ...




2020hindsight,
your family medical history is none of my concern the birthdate of haneef's daughter is well documented, only people like you need to make excuses otherwise your little theories would fall apart. Mu argument hard to follow? for who? you? well  seeing that you can't even get your own arguments right, I understand. 

Seeing that my arguments are hard to follow I won't waste my time answering you question, would hardly like to be confronted by more death is good as long as I agree with the people doing the killing! now would I?


----------



## visual (31 December 2007)

robert toms said:


> On Dec 20th was the anniversary of the 1989 US attack on Panama.The number of Panamanian casulties are estimated of being up to 4000 ,mostly civilian.
> Even Bob Hawke,Australian PM at the time,condemned the American action.Hawke's condemnation was out of character for any Australian PM.
> There were some parallels between the attack on Panama and that on Iraq...not the least being that they were defenceless.
> I think that there is an adage "the bigger the foe,the bigger the victory",but of course ,the corollary to this is"the more defenceless the foe ,the bigger the coward".
> ...





So the Americans got up ome day and decided, hmmmm what to do! I know I'll bomb Panama! and went and did it, is that what you are saying?


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 December 2007)

visual said:


> 2020hindsight,
> your family medical history is none of my concern the birthdate of haneef's daughter is well documented, only people like you need to make excuses otherwise your little theories would fall apart. Mu argument hard to follow? for who? you? well  seeing that you can't even get your own arguments right, I understand.
> 
> Seeing that my arguments are hard to follow I won't waste my time answering you question, would hardly like to be confronted by more death is good as long as I agree with the people doing the killing! now would I?



simple question
unsimple answer 
gee but you'd get along fine with my mother-in-law lol


----------



## dhukka (31 December 2007)

visual said:


> Do you set out to offend intentionally or a you someone who offends to see the reaction he gets. Either way, as a human being you rate lowly.
> 
> Joe you told me I was being racist and that I offended you, yet these type of statements against innocent Americans continually go unchallenged by you, is it becasue you agree with these sentiments or because you see  these lowlifes as a talking point? Surely some kind of direction on what's acceptable is required.




Your emotional reaction to my words are of no interest to me. If you choose to be offended that's your choice. I am interested in rational thought and argument but you haven't offered any. I see you resort to the usual platitudes about innocence. Unfortunately for Americans, the foreign policy pursued by their government and ruling elite makes them prime targets for acts of terrorism. American citizen's need to be aware that certain groups want to murder them. Innocence has nothing to do with it. 

You seem to think I am singling out Americans but the same applied to Australians blown up Bali. As an Australian citizen you should be aware that if your government supports an illegal and unjustified war on a largely muslim population, that when in a muslim dominated country such as Indonesia there are certain groups that consider you a target. Incidentally a friend of mine was a casualty of the Bali bombing.  

The above does not suggest that those killed in such incidents as 9/11 or Bali in any way deserved it but to demonstrate that innocence is irrelevant. However if you are so concerned about the innocent, how about innocent Iraqi civilians? Or is an Australian or American life more valuable? We know the US government's view on that particular question:



> *Television interview, "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996:*
> 
> *Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq: *"We have heard that a half million children have died.  I mean,
> that's more children than died in Hiroshima.  And -- and you know, is
> ...


----------



## Julia (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> But as far as I'm concerned, US soldiers are fair game just about anywhere in the world.


----------



## moXJO (31 December 2007)

I'll throw this out there...what would people’s opinions be if he was caught in Iraq instead of Afghanistan doing the same thing???


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2007)

Julia said:


>




Sure. Can you tell me where abouts in the world US soldiers are welcome by the people of the countries they are in? I just can't feel sorry for soldiers killed in Iraq.

It's dramatic, but I know, and fair enough too, that I would be fair game as a civillian in a muslim country. Not because of anything I have done personally, but because of the ideology my nationality represents. As dhukka pointed out above, the US are really the catalyst for the death of innocents (and yes, deliberate tension on that word). And that's the reality of the situation our esteemed leaders have made for us.


----------



## visual (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Sure. Can you tell me where abouts in the world US soldiers are welcome by the people of the countries they are in? I just can't feel sorry for soldiers killed in Iraq.
> 
> It's dramatic, but I know, and fair enough too, that I would be fair game as a civillian in a muslim country. Not because of anything I have done personally, but because of the ideology my nationality represents. As dhukka pointed out above, the US are really the catalyst for the death of innocents (and yes, deliberate tension on that word). And that's the reality of the situation our esteemed leaders have made for us.




So presumably the moderators are asleep, shame on all of you!


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It's dramatic, but I know, and fair enough too, that I would be fair game as a civillian in a muslim country. Not because of anything I have done personally, but because of the ideology my nationality represents.



chops - I agree entirely, but just want to add that we were "unpopular" with AQ from prior to Iraq  (and obviously more so now after Iraq).

But I seem to recall Bin Laden chided Australia (he was supporting the Bali bombers) saying that we deserved it because we had gone into East Timor. 

The man is (always was) an idiot - and a madman.  His reasoning is off with the pixies.  Trouble is, by going into Iraq, we have changed AQ the group into AQ the movement.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> chops - I agree entirely, but just want to add that we were "unpopular" with AQ from prior to Iraq  (and obviously more so now after Iraq).
> 
> But I seem to recall Bin Laden chided Australia (he was supporting the Bali bombers) saying that we deserved it because we had gone into East Timor.
> 
> The man is (always was) an idiot - and a madman.  His reasoning is off with the pixies.  Trouble is, by going into Iraq, *we* have changed AQ the group into AQ the movement.





Dear 2020, (and chops if you wish)  I have 4 questions 

Who are "we" , can you define?

What is "we"'s culpability?

Can you quantify it in any way, e.g. in historical comparison?

What is your evidence that "we" has changed AQ the group into AQ the movement?

Thanks 

gg


----------



## chops_a_must (31 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> chops - I agree entirely, but just want to add that we were "unpopular" with AQ from prior to Iraq  (and obviously more so now after Iraq).
> 
> But I seem to recall Bin Laden chided Australia (he was supporting the Bali bombers) saying that we deserved it because we had gone into East Timor.
> 
> The man is (always was) an idiot - and a madman.  His reasoning is off with the pixies.  Trouble is, by going into Iraq, we have changed AQ the group into AQ the movement.




That's the problem really isn't it? I don't think any muslims apart from extremist groups really cared about us post east-timor. But since Iraq, and perhaps a few other things, I'd say we as westerners and as Australians are disliked by the majority of the muslim world. We've opened a can of worms, and I don't think it can be changed very easily. So long as the prevailing attitudes abound.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 January 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Dear 2020, (and chops if you wish)  I have 4 questions
> Who are "we" , can you define?
> What is "we"'s culpability?
> Can you quantify it in any way, e.g. in historical comparison?
> ...



garpul
firstly happy new year 
mmm
against the background of my quote, I would say "we" are australia (or SHOULD BE  Australia - autonomous, 

unfortunately, you'd have to say we are arguably now the lapdog of USA. 

as such (if tarred with the same brush as USA) we are liable to branded with the likes of John Bolton ... (US "Ambassador to the UN till 18 months ago..) 
Let's just call it an attitude thing .... e.g. 



> Diplomacy is not an end in itself if it does not advance U.S. interests.
> John Bolton
> 
> I don't do carrots.
> ...





As for the rise of AQ?
AQ means "database" it started as a few Sunnis who talked the Muja into letting them help fight the Russians.  Did well etc - after which Bin Laden wanted to entice the US into attacking Afghanistan, believing he could beat them on their terms / home briar patch.  USA were on top - until

they took their eye off the ball and went to Iraq. And since then AQ numbers have swelled massively. 

I can post youtubes if you wish.  But my guess is that you wouldn't contest that? (yes?) 

PS wouldn't be surprised if Andrew Bolton was related to this bloke  - same manners, and not dissimilar attitude.

From another thread ...


2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/poetica/stories/2007/1837933.htm
> "What I Heard About Iraq'
> a radio summary of the progress of the Iraqi situation  - from early days of the 2003 war to the third anniversary  ..
> 
> ...


----------



## arminius (1 January 2008)

its rather heartening to see that not all aussies get their info from murdochs  'Daily Terrorist'. some people however need to understand that fully grown men and women dont wake up and say to themselves, 'hmm i think i'll strap a bomb to my waist today and die after lunch', for no reason. 

the americans in particular are reaping what they have sown over the past few decades. simple. 
i feel sorry for their troops, but i dont feel sorry for their society, which unfortunately includes their armed forces. 
in very broad terms, we as a nation got our desserts at bali, but now the nation chose to be rid of the cause. with the howard governments demise, those who might strap a few kilo of semtex and ball bearings to their chest will be more inclined to look elsewhere for a target, most likely something with stars and stripes printed on it.   

we need to build friendships. we need to give ground. we need to acknowledge past mistakes. 

before the first crusade back in the day, christians and muslims got on like a house on fire. pope urban II wanted their land, and christianity took it. 

with the fall of communism, the US needed an enemy. they soon created one. how convenient that many corporations- KBR, general dynamics, rayethon, etc are making squillions. hmmmmmmm.

who pays? iraqi civilians, us troops, mat locke, luke worlsley and others, aussie civilians at bali. everyone pays. 

if we are scared of those muslims, we dont question our leaders. 
glad to see not everyone is scared.
happy new year! it will be a good one. (esp come november)


----------



## explod (1 January 2008)

arminius said:


> its rather heartening to see that not all aussies get their info from murdochs  'Daily Terrorist'. some people however need to understand that fully grown men and women dont wake up and say to themselves, 'hmm i think i'll strap a bomb to my waist today and die after lunch', for no reason.
> 
> the americans in particular are reaping what they have sown over the past few decades. simple.
> i feel sorry for their troops, but i dont feel sorry for their society, which unfortunately includes their armed forces.
> ...





A good post, happy new year to you and all others on ASF too.

I fear that November is a long way off and that in order to detract attention from the shocking mess the the USA economy is in we are most certainly in for some surprises.   The newspaper this morning talks of Iran firing up a neclear power plant this year should give a hint at the possibilities.

In my view if the US can have nuclear power, then Iran have the right to say "so should we".     But those who talk to God in the great halls of the Pentigon I feel sure will have other ideas.


----------



## dalek (1 January 2008)

arminius said:


> its in very broad terms, we as a nation got our desserts at bali




While it might be easy to make this sort of comment from a computer tucked safely in some leafy suburb, thankfully, I'm sure it would be a view not shared by most Australians.


----------



## jackson8 (1 January 2008)

arminus said:


> its in very broad terms, we as a nation got our desserts at bali




i think that it is this tit for tat mentality  that  causes  a lot of violence to start with ,  terrorism in my veiw is like blackmail . you give me this or i will !!!!
 everyone should stand up for what they beleive in but too attack the innocent is not acceptable . the people murdered in bali are not the casualties of war but just innocent people with no political pursuasion or wrongfull desires towards the party who took their lives

did all the people , women , children who died from the dealings of the IRA deserve there penalty simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time


----------



## explod (1 January 2008)

dalek said:


> arminius said:
> 
> 
> > its in very broad terms, we as a nation got our desserts at bali
> ...




I agree with this, the tragedy at Bali was a loser for everyone.   However the emotion of the Bali episode allowed (among other events) continued facades to be placed in front of truth.

As the crap is removed by the change of government here and the changes coming in the US most peple will realise they have been sold a lemon.

History will not be kind to the recent past government and the real story of David Hicks will soon be told in the first person.     It will be interesting to see what unfolds.

Till that time this thread has probably run its course, in my humble opinion


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 January 2008)

jackson8 said:


> did all the people , women , children who died from the dealings of the IRA deserve there penalty simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time



good point jackson - half of those explosives bought with US dollars by US sponsors. 
but they don't do it any more - pretty much not since 9/11. 

- just an observation. 

Is the world becoming more civilised ?? - or is it just deckchairs on the Titanic?  

PS with that cheery thought I'm off to the beer frig.  So much for that New Year's resolution!   (and I've been practicing saying "a glass of milk and a bowl of water for my dog" for ,,,,  mmm about 6 hours


----------



## Julia (1 January 2008)

Interesting comment on David Hicks' legal situation:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22991441-7583,00.html


----------



## rederob (2 January 2008)

Julia said:


> Interesting comment on David Hicks' legal situation:
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22991441-7583,00.html



Julia
The "crime" was a concotion of a military court system that has failed every test of fairness placed on it.
Furthermore, had Hicks been deported to Australia, and not Guantanamo Bay, it is improbable that Hicks would have been charged with any offence at all.
As for the control order placed on Hicks, it was fair given that it is (apparently) known that Hicks has consorted with organisations listed in our anti terrorism legislation.
Peter Faris may be a good criminal lawyer, but it is disingenuous to confuse a plea bargain with actual guilt.  Faris knows this, but the article may have sucked in an unthinking public that see "QC" after the writer's name and assume it must be true.


----------



## Superfly (2 January 2008)

rederob said:


> Julia
> The "crime" was a concotion of a military court system that has failed every test of fairness placed on it.
> Furthermore, had Hicks been deported to Australia, and not Guantanamo Bay, it is improbable that Hicks would have been charged with any offence at all.
> As for the control order placed on Hicks, it was fair given that it is (apparently) known that Hicks has consorted with organisations listed in our anti terrorism legislation.
> Peter Faris may be a good criminal lawyer, but it is disingenuous to confuse a plea bargain with actual guilt.  Faris knows this, but the article may have sucked in an unthinking public that see "QC" after the writer's name and assume it must be true.





An unthinking public goes along with thinking that the US is the bad guy here....just what the left wants ... 

"Assume it must be true" ... prove it's not ? 

Hicks has his chance and isn't taking it.... hmmmmmm something the traitor doesn't want revealed maybe..something the traitor not telling us....?

"Apperently" Hicks consorted with terror organisations ?... prove Hicks did not ....


----------



## Superfly (2 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Sure. Can you tell me where abouts in the world US soldiers are welcome by the people of the countries they are in? I just can't feel sorry for soldiers killed in Iraq.
> 
> It's dramatic, but I know, and fair enough too, that I would be fair game as a civillian in a muslim country. Not because of anything I have done personally, but because of the ideology my nationality represents. As dhukka pointed out above, the US are really the catalyst for the death of innocents (and yes, deliberate tension on that word). And that's the reality of the situation our esteemed leaders have made for us.






Sure the people of Kuwait are happy, South Korea, sure the people of France 60 years ago, it goes on. Who saved Australia 60 years ago. Ask the people of the Phillippines what happens to the local ecomony when a small loud mouthed minority ( like you ) get a US base shut down...  name another country with the power of the US...none... so it not possible to compare actions... would you rather a China be the dominant world power.... 

You are a disgrace....


----------



## chops_a_must (2 January 2008)

Superfly said:


> Sure the people of Kuwait are happy
> You are a disgrace....




I'm sure the people of Kuwait are smart enough to realise the military power they were attacked with, was largely paid for by the US.

The US sure as hell wouldn't have come to our rescue if they weren't attacked first, just as they didn't the French, who they morally (independence and all that jazz) should have fought for, to defend in the first place.

People aren't that dumb so as to forget those things.

It's time for you to stop playing the man... 

P.S. - I'm sure the massive numbers of rape victims are incredibly upset about US bases closing down in the Philippines.


----------



## Superfly (2 January 2008)

dhukka said:


> Your emotional reaction to my words are of no interest to me. If you choose to be offended that's your choice. I am interested in rational thought and argument but you haven't offered any. I see you resort to the usual platitudes about innocence. Unfortunately for Americans, the foreign policy pursued by their government and ruling elite makes them prime targets for acts of terrorism. American citizen's need to be aware that certain groups want to murder them. Innocence has nothing to do with it.
> 
> You seem to think I am singling out Americans but the same applied to Australians blown up Bali. As an Australian citizen you should be aware that if your government supports an illegal and unjustified war on a largely muslim population, that when in a muslim dominated country such as Indonesia there are certain groups that consider you a target. Incidentally a friend of mine was a casualty of the Bali bombing.
> 
> The above does not suggest that those killed in such incidents as 9/11 or Bali in any way deserved it but to demonstrate that innocence is irrelevant. However if you are so concerned about the innocent, how about innocent Iraqi civilians? Or is an Australian or American life more valuable? We know the US government's view on that particular question:




When children are delibratley put in harms way ( militrary sites in crowded areas, schools ) as shields. 

You blame Bali on Iraq... Rudd may have you believe that 500 troops make us a target... we are a western non muslim nation... that makes us a target anyway... and noboby cares about or what Australia does o/s, Australia has a tiny international presence... but we are lucky to have such regular high level meetings with the US and enjoy such protection, if Rudd doesn't do to much damage to it. Name another country with a population of Australia that has such a relationship with the US.


----------



## Superfly (2 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> The US sure as hell wouldn't have come to our rescue if they weren't attacked first, just as they didn't the French, who they morally (independence and all that jazz) should have fought for, to defend in the first place.




So was America attacked when her troops entered WW1 to save France ? No is the answer comrade Chops. 

To say the US would have allowed Australia to fall in WW2 is pure hype talk, it did not happen..there are many fallen US servicemen across the pacific that you should thank that you can now mouth off like you do. Remember that next time you shout your bigman words at the US Navy guys in Fremantle ( from behind a large fence I'm sure ).


----------



## chops_a_must (2 January 2008)

Superfly said:


> So was America attacked when her troops entered WW1 to save France ? No is the answer comrade Chops.



ROFL!!!!!!

Not only here, but in other threads you have proved in fact to be a cretin of the highest order. Now, perhaps you don't realise that you are one, but these links should help you in some kind of self-realisation towards stated problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Atlantic#Unrestricted_submarine_warfare


----------



## Superfly (2 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> ROFL!!!!!!
> 
> Not only here, but in other threads you have proved in fact to be a cretin of the highest order. Now, perhaps you don't realise that you are one, but these links should help you in some kind of self-realisation towards stated problem:
> 
> ...




A passenger ship torpedoed is not a Peral Harbour / 9/11, not American soil.

And going by your arguement, then even if Pearl Harbour had not happened, then it would not have taken much of an event somewhere in the pacific to cause the US to intervene in WW2 for Australia. 

Back to your poster boy Hicks...


----------



## Superfly (2 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> I don't think Hicks ever turned his back on his country...
> 
> But as far as I'm concerned, US soldiers are fair game just about anywhere in the world.




You are a disgrace...


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2008)

Superfly said:


> Remember that next time you shout your bigman words at the US Navy guys in Fremantle ( from behind a large fence I'm sure ).




pffft
no superfly
he stands there with his shanghai and challenges the warship to a fight


----------



## rederob (2 January 2008)

Superfly said:


> An unthinking public goes along with thinking that the US is the bad guy here....just what the left wants ...
> 
> "Assume it must be true" ... prove it's not ?
> 
> ...



Twisting words, and logic, is silly.
I made no remark on the US being "the bad guy".  Although the US has sanctioned a military court system that is patently unfair and allows evidence to be admitted even if obtained under torture.  It's not about what the "left" wants.  It's about fair treatment, which I think most people believe they have a right to receive in all circumstances.
If you want to be clever, define the charges that would be mounted against Hicks in an Australian court of law?
Or how about telling us where "enemy combatant" fits in to our legal system?
And then tell us what evidence against Hicks, if tried in Australia, would be admissible?


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2008)

rederob said:


> Twisting words, and logic, is silly.
> I made no remark on the US being "the bad guy".  Although the US has sanctioned a military court system that is patently unfair and allows evidence to be admitted even if obtained under torture.  It's not about what the "left" wants.  It's about fair treatment, which I think most people believe they have a right to receive in all circumstances.
> If you want to be clever, define the charges that would be mounted against Hicks in an Australian court of law?
> Or how about telling us where "enemy combatant" fits in to our legal system?
> And then tell us what evidence against Hicks, if tried in Australia, would be admissible?



thanks rob,   - for your professional assistance here 

and what would have happened to him if he were a pom ? 

might recall that was a (late onset) strategy looked into there by his lawyers - no chance of justice as an Aussie, so revamp his British links etc.

Probably better for him to have gone "through" the system as an Aussie I guess. (in the interests of settling down faster)


----------



## RichKid (2 January 2008)

*A quick mod note to those debating in this and similar threads:*

- Discussions of this nature on political issues often become complex and heated; this is fine on ASF as long as you follow ASF's code of conduct and posting guidelines.

- Please deal with arguments and perspectives rather than with assumptions about the poster making the statement (ie avoid being unnecessarily personal). Please don't drag previous confrontations from other threads into this argument unless it is on point (ie relevant to the topic directly at hand- be strict in your interpretation of 'relevant').

- A handful of loose, overly emotive comments can sometimes drag us a long way off the topic, so please be careful. You may  pm each other if it's a tangential issue related to a personality clash.

- We need to promote and preserve these types of fundamental debates to ensure a healthy democracy and state of knowledge about the truth (so that we have a proper basis upon which to base our judgment). I encourage you all to show the same responsible and constructive attitude towards political issues as you show in other threads- the last thing we need is apathy in this country imo.

Thank you everyone for maintaining what is overwhelmingly a great spirit of responsibility & discipline here on ASF. 

Enjoy the New Year!

RichKid
-moderator

PS Tip- If someone makes what blatantly appears to be a ridiculous or offensive remark, try to state the assumptions underlying your reaction to it (ie why are you 'outraged'). The debate can then proceed on the basis of those stated assumptions or reasons for outrage (eg value of human life, particular humans, when is it justifiable to take a life, if at all) but tie it all in to the debate at hand.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2008)

RichKid said:


> the last thing we need is apathy in this country imo.



thanks Richkid 

just on the subject of apathy - 

what's that saying? , "they did a recent poll , and found that 50% of aussies are apathetic.. and the rest couldn't care less ?"

or if you prefer ...
" Is the current state of political awareness in Aus caused by ignorance or apathy?  I don't know
and I don't care."


----------



## chops_a_must (2 January 2008)

Superfly said:


> A passenger ship torpedoed is not a Peral Harbour / 9/11, not American soil.



Ah yeah... so what was the justification for attacking North Vietnam again?



Superfly said:


> And going by your arguement, then even if Pearl Harbour had not happened, then it would not have taken much of an event somewhere in the pacific to cause the US to intervene in WW2 for Australia.



But the point is, they didn't, and weren't going to. We were just a convenient south pacific base. After PNG was secured, our forces were left to fend for themselves and were continually criticised by the US. Not exactly a sympathetic ear. 

I'm sure the US, given economic ties with Nazi Germany, wouldn't have declared war on them if it was feasible to only fight the Japanese.

Hicks is far from a poster boy. But a society is judged by how it stands up for its weakest members...


----------



## Uncle Festivus (2 January 2008)

Um, I'm sick of the very words David Hicks; can't we just let him vegetate by himself and be done with him once and for all?


----------



## Sprinter79 (2 January 2008)

Australia has only ever been a handy outpost for the US, nothing more, nothing less. We are a target because of our association with the US, however small, but because of recent decisions we are a target none the less.

DH (hahaha) has been through an experience no one on this forum could ever imagine, and regardless of your views, he needs some time to re-adjust. What about that other dude... I can't even remember his name  he's faded into obscurity, and the same will happen with DH.


----------



## Julia (2 January 2008)

rederob said:


> Julia
> The "crime" was a concotion of a military court system that has failed every test of fairness placed on it.
> Furthermore, had Hicks been deported to Australia, and not Guantanamo Bay, it is improbable that Hicks would have been charged with any offence at all.
> As for the control order placed on Hicks, it was fair given that it is (apparently) known that Hicks has consorted with organisations listed in our anti terrorism legislation.
> Peter Faris may be a good criminal lawyer, but it is disingenuous to confuse a plea bargain with actual guilt.  Faris knows this, but the article may have sucked in an unthinking public that see "QC" after the writer's name and assume it must be true.



Rob, I really don't need a rehash of Hicks' situation.  I simply posted a link which I found quite an interesting point of view.


----------



## moXJO (2 January 2008)

rederob said:


> Twisting words, and logic, is silly.
> I made no remark on the US being "the bad guy".  Although the US has sanctioned a military court system that is patently unfair and allows evidence to be admitted even if obtained under torture.  It's not about what the "left" wants.  It's about fair treatment, which I think most people believe they have a right to receive in all circumstances.
> If you want to be clever, define the charges that would be mounted against Hicks in an Australian court of law?
> Or how about telling us where "enemy combatant" fits in to our legal system?
> And then tell us what evidence against Hicks, if tried in Australia, would be admissible?




Law aside it probably saved his life regardless. If he had not of been caught what was stopping him from digging a deeper hole for himself? As I said before; he got out with his life. I'm sure the NA wouldn’t have been so fair if they held on to him. You say he was hard done by I say they saved his life. The easiest thing would have been to use a 3 cent bullet and save all the hassle. But that’s not what happened.

Yes I understand legal we can’t pin charges on him but I think he got what he deserved and probably what he needed to cleanse his mind of playing war games


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2008)

Julia said:


> Rob, I really don't need a rehash of Hicks' situation.  I simply posted a link which I found quite an interesting point of view.



Julia - gee I find your style strange, and unfair on the readers of your suggested reading.

a) You post a link
b) you make no reference to which point you are highlighting (more than one there)
c) when someone makes assumptions and goes to the trouble of responding , 
d) you reply (again vaguely) that you simply found the website and/or some of the points made there "an interesting point of view".   

Now you criticise me when I post excerpts - often bold highlights.  I would maintain that the latter option (extracting the excerpts of interest)  a far more logical way to run a chatroom 

Joking ok?, but here's an example of your style taken to the extreme ...

Here's an interesting discussion or two on George W Bush  
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=george+w+bush&meta=


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2008)

As I posted elsewhere,  does the name Della Vedova or Abdul Rahman mean anything to anyone ? - any concern there ??  (apologies to anyone else who accidentally shares those surnames lol) 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...e/2007/04/06/1175366473932.html?page=fullpage

remember a year ago (on 5th Jan?) - 

a post that read like this .... ??

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/01/05/1822271.htm


> Rocket launcher suspect linked to terrorism group
> Posted Fri Jan 5, 2007 9:48pm AEDT
> Updated Fri Jan 5, 2007 10:24pm AEDT
> 
> ...


----------



## rederob (2 January 2008)

Julia said:


> Rob, I really don't need a rehash of Hicks' situation.  I simply posted a link which I found quite an interesting point of view.



Julia
I simply posted a quick rebutttal of Faris's legal bunkum.
I did not "rehash" Hick's situation.
If Faris wants media attention from the law, then he needs to get it right.
Frankly, his article was quite nonsensical.
In case you are not aware, Faris, a former head of our National Crime Authority, believes that evidence from victims of torture is quite acceptable.
That's a more interesting perspective in my view.


----------



## rederob (2 January 2008)

moXJO said:


> Law aside it probably saved his life regardless. If he had not of been caught what was stopping him from digging a deeper hole for himself? As I said before; he got out with his life. I'm sure the NA wouldn’t have been so fair if they held on to him. You say he was hard done by I say they saved his life. The easiest thing would have been to use a 3 cent bullet and save all the hassle. But that’s not what happened.
> 
> Yes I understand legal we can’t pin charges on him but I think he got what he deserved and probably what he needed to cleanse his mind of playing war games



moXJO
I'm not sure of your points.
Hicks was one of hundreds "sold" to the Americans.
There is a litany of Guantanamo detainees that were never charged, including some legitimate missionaries - albeit Arabic - yet Uncle Sam (and brother John) wanted us to believe they were the worst of the worst.  Former Minister Downer still considers Hicks a sinister terrorist. 
I don't know what drugs they are on, or think we are on, but I would like some just in case .


----------



## visual (2 January 2008)

For people so intend on defending even a convicted terorrist, you guys seem pretty hostile to people who don't agree with you. Faris is a lawyer, you guys base your opinions on . what? the papers, on what the ABC tells you, or rather what they think you should know, hardly call that an informed opinion. But I don't suppose defending a terorrist or terorrists who play soldier without a uniform and hide behind women and children would hardly have anyone else defending them! unless they share the same ideology and are traitors themselves. But so be it.


----------



## Julia (2 January 2008)

2020 and Rederob
I simply said that I found the article quite interesting because, frankly, that's all it was to me.  I wasn't promoting Faris's point of view or disputing it.
I read it, thought it might add something to the debate, posted it and forgot about it.

I agree with those who have suggested it's time to hopefully let him fade into obscurity, as has Mr Habib as far as I can tell.
I don't imagine any of us have ever met him, and are therefore not privy to his thoughts.  My impression (and that's all it is) is that he was a not very bright young man, somewhat of a misfit, who was attracted to the idea of adventure in a foreign country.  Perhaps his comprehension of the politics of the people he trained with was somewhat superficial.  Or perhaps he really hated America, had no respect for Australia, and was quite clear about his intentions.  I have no idea and doubt anyone on this forum has either.
Rederob, you say he was tortured, or at least imply it.  How do you know this?

Whatever the case above, I absolutely do not support his detention without trial.  He has been well and truly punished - if that was required - for his stupidity and that should be that.  Over.  Let's all move on.

I will, however, be interested in any book/film deals and how that is handled.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/28/2104231.htm


> Army captain pleads guilty to stealing rocket launchers
> Posted Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:20pm AEDT
> 
> *An Army captain has pleaded guilty to stealing and possessing 10 rocket launchers from the Australian Defence Force *(ADF).
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/20/2124083.htm


> Ex-Army officer bailed over stolen rocket launchers
> Posted Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:06pm AEDT
> A Supreme Court judge has granted bail to a Sydney man accused of possessing rocket launchers stolen from the Army.
> 
> ...




Summary:-
1. Dean Taylor to stand trial this year - currently on bail - (remember that Hicks was in solitary confinement with torture for 5 years ... whilst we were told he might do us some damage if he was freed ?) 

2. Rocket launcher sale charges against Della Vedova dropped - but guilty of stealing .... we find out Della Vedova's sentence this month.

3. Both these blokes are entitled to justice - but so too was Hicks!

4. If Hicks got 5 years,  how long do you reckon Della-Vedova should get? 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/28/2104231.htm

IMO ...
a) people who complain about Hicks and Haneef - to the exclusion of cases like these stolen rockets - are just devouring what you are front-page-fed by the media, and
b) the media who plaster their front pages with hot "govt sponsored" topics (that sell), do not necessarily use proper perspective / weight etc. 
c) as for the likes of ex foreign minister Downer (and his one eyed bias against Hicks - with virtually no comment about this other case) - sorry , but these days I feel nauseous when I see him on TV.


----------



## doctorj (2 January 2008)

Lets not forget that he actually did nothing illegal in Afghanistan under Australian, US, Afghani or International law. The law under which the US charged Hicks was retrospectively applied (which in itself is interesting - why should an Australian in Afghanistan be subject to US law at all, retrospective or otherwise?). But before he was charged by a retrospective law he arguably shouldn't be subject to at all, he was held for years without charge, and most likely a victim of a variety of torture, in contravention of the Geneva convention despite Afghanistan, Australia, Cuba and the USA all being signatories to it.

What he did may have been stupid, dangerous, childish, irresponsible, offensive and may have ultimately led him to carrying out a terrorist act (who knows?) there's a good arguement that he's not guilty of anything. 

Yet we can sit here behind our keyboards, in our airconditioned studies fresh from watching Fox News and label him a terrorist.  *sigh*


----------



## Whiskers (2 January 2008)

Very well put Doc.

I absolutely agree there. 

I just feel that after all that others have said about him, now that he is back in Aus the least we can do is let him have his say.

I don't have any problems with him selling his story. Heck many other 'convicted' criminals have sold their stories. Anyway, we are supporting him on the dole for now. If he sells his story for a significant sum he will be off the state payroll. That seems to be good enough reason for me.


----------



## rederob (2 January 2008)

Julia said:


> Rederob, you say he was tortured, or at least imply it.  How do you know this?



Julia
I don't recall saying or implying Hicks was tortured.
It is widely reported that methods at Guantanamo included "torture", although I guess it depends on how anyone wants to define it.
Then again I don't think Guantanamo was a guest house as suicide attempts probably run into the thousands (New York Times reported 350 in 2003 alone, and even the medical base acknowledges that during mass suicide attempts its 48 bed hospital was inadequate).

Changing tack slightly, many want Hicks to personally apologise (including Premier Rann).
Hicks has agreed to comply fully with his plea bargain agreement, which is onerous and far reaching, and prevents him making media statements until its expiry in early March. 
Who knows what he will say.  Or if he really wants to say anything at all.

I only hope that a Labor government never abandons its citizens and defends their rights to full and fair processes regardless of their alleged sins.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 January 2008)

Julia said:


> 2020 and Rederob
> 1. Or perhaps he really hated America, had no respect for Australia, ... I have no idea and doubt anyone on this forum has either.
> 
> 2. Rederob, you say he was tortured, or at least imply it.  How do you know this?
> ...



Julia, 
1. He wanted to join our military.  He was knocked back due to educational qualifications.  Incidentally, as far as I know, you're the first to suggest he "has no respect for Australia" 

2. see below
3. next post
back to the question of torture
2. This was discussed at length on the first Hicks thread .... great article (thanks happytown ) from NY Times 21March07

Now Hicks goes into (gruesome) detail right? - on many matters of torture- 
including white plastic objects etc -  might offend etc - 
there are photos of said white objects being used at Abu Ghraib - articles on varius websites  ... 

sure, he subsequently had to sign a form saying that he denied most of these claims to get out of the place (well helloooo - maybe if you were being tortured,     you might happily say anything   ...

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=136867&highlight=plastic#post136867 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=136502&highlight=plastic#post136502


> new york times ....
> " By RAYMOND BONNER
> Published: March 20, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 January 2008)

for point 3.  Interesting that Ruddock claimed (early april last year when the sentence was handed down) that the US were not able to give Hicks such an instruction / gag order about contact with the press.  

YET Hicks is honouring it anyways.  

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=142264&highlight=ruddock#post142264



			
				2020 said:
			
		

> 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.*
> 
> 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' jail. Speaking to ABC TV's The 7.30 Report program on Tuesday, Hicks' military lawyer Major Michael Mori said a breach would have serious consequences.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 January 2008)

lol - you read back through the old news articles - like this one (2 weeks before final sentence) where he was drugged for no reason at all !?!?  - what strange strange practices they use these days in the USA legal system. 

- home of the brave , land of the free and all that.  - yeah right lol.
Maybe under other presidents - not under this latest chickenhawk administration. 

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1874963.htm


> Mori demands explanation for Hick's alleged sedation
> AM - Monday, 19 March , 2007  08:24:00
> Reporter: Kim Landers
> TONY EASTLEY: David Hicks' US military lawyer is demanding an explanation about why his client was apparently drugged before being told he was facing fresh charges.
> ...


----------



## visual (3 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia,
> 1. He wanted to join our military.  He was knocked back due to educational qualifications.  Incidentally, as far as I know, you're the first to suggest he "has no respect for Australia"
> 
> Hindsight, in various posts you've stated that hicks tried to join the Australian army but failed, julian knight was in the army, when he killed many people and injured many more, was he too looking for adventure? Or maybe the government shouldn't have him declared a vexacious complainant? after all he also is entitled to leave his life in peace, now that he has destroyed so many. hicks destroyed lives by supporting an organisation that killed many Australians. See the correlation?


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 January 2008)

visual
no question some people who get in the army are "unsafe at any speed"
or in the case of the US - maybe leaning towards "unsafe on any speed?"

that goes for our police force as well  - 

I still think it goes a long way to proving his good intentions towards Australia.  What a shame he wasn't accepted


----------



## visual (3 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> visual
> no question some people who get in the army are "unsafe at any speed"
> or in the case of the US - maybe leaning towards "unsafe on any speed?"
> 
> ...




But seeing that he was rejected and then joined a terorrist organisation rather than making himself suitable for the Australian army shows that he was completely unsuitable and the army got it right.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 January 2008)

He wasn't a good student at school - dropped out early. etc 

Meanwhile the press are stalking him.. and his father
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23000261-5013404,00.html

Question for you visual
Why aren't they stalking Dean Taylor?


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 January 2008)

a great article by Bob Ellis ...
alludes to unfair treatment - but also great lateral thinking - his story would be good for all of us to know !

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2128442.htm



> There are former members of the Third Reich who guarded Jews in Belsen who walk unpoliced around South Australia today; unlike David Hicks. There are former warriors of Imperial Japan who beat, starved and beheaded Australian POWs, availed themselves of Comfort Women and would, if asked, have gone on suicide missions for the Emperor, who visit Sydney unsupervised today; unlike David Hicks. There are former American GIs who slaughtered Vietnamese villagers after raping some of them who can stay out after midnight in any Australian city; unlike David Hicks.
> 
> David Hicks, it seems, is different, another kettle of evil entirely. He’s so different that, despite his fame, his voice has never been broadcast. *He’s so different he can’t (unlike, say, Albert Speer) write of the experience that made him famous.* He can’t badmouth his torturers. He can’t stay overnight with a girlfriend at an address unknown to police. He can’t (for instance) go fishing for week with his son, after seven years apart from him, unless he reports three times in that week in person to local police.
> 
> ...




now by letting Hicks talk / write a book etc - we would all earn something - about the Taliban, about a heap of topics. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer


> Berthold Konrad Hermann Albert Speer, commonly known as Albert Speer (listen (help·info); March 19, 1905 – September 1, 1981), was an architect, author and high-ranking Nazi German government official, sometimes called "the first architect of the Third Reich".
> 
> Speer was Hitler's chief architect before becoming his Minister for Armaments during the war. He reformed Germany's war production to the extent that it continued to increase for over a year despite increasingly intensive Allied bombing. After the war, he was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for his role in the Third Reich. As "the Nazi who said sorry"[1], he was the only senior Nazi figure to admit guilt and express remorse. Following his release in 1966, he became an author, writing two bestselling autobiographical works, and a third about the Third Reich. His two autobiographical works, Inside the Third Reich and Spandau: the Secret Diaries detailed his often close personal relationship with German dictator Adolf Hitler, and have provided readers and historians with an unequalled personal view inside the workings of the Third Reich.


----------



## visual (3 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> He wasn't a good student at school - dropped out early. etc
> 
> Meanwhile the press are stalking him.. and his father
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23000261-5013404,00.html
> ...




So he wasn't a good student,for someone with so much desire to join the army in fact any group with guns, you'd think he'd do his utmost to join a legal outfit, but obviously intelligence isn't one of his strong suits. By the way seeing that he wasn't good at school and dropped out, does that mean we should expect more losers to want to join a terorrist group? I suppose they are the ones who would be attracted to that sort of thing, lets hope our defence lines all succeeded at school then.

By the way, what is it with you and changing subjects, can't you stay on topic when your argument gets shot down in flames?


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 January 2008)

chopper to give back the profits from his book 
.....  nice one lol - good luck !! 
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2128442.htm


> But why is he not let to write about his life, as any human being in world history previously could do? Because of a new law, it turns out, one that says you can’t profit from your account of a life of crime.
> 
> This should mean that Chopper must give his book earnings back, and so must his publisher.






visual said:


> So he wasn't a good student,for someone with so much desire to join the army in fact any group with guns, you'd think he'd do his utmost to join a legal outfit, but obviously intelligence isn't one of his strong suits. By the way seeing that he wasn't good at school and dropped out, does that mean we should expect more losers to want to join a terorrist group? I suppose they are the ones who would be attracted to that sort of thing, lets hope our defence lines all succeeded at school then.
> 
> By the way, what is it with you and changing subjects, can't you stay on topic when your argument gets shot down in flames?




Visual - at this point , I have the option of reading and absorbing the wit of bob ellis again - 
 or reading your post again - and trying to work out where the heck your argument is going. 
sorry - you lose out.

DAMN that's a brilliant article - should be compulsory reading !! - including at school lol 
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2128442.htm

PS visual - I agree , Hicks wasn't a whiz kid.  
refer poetry thread 
"aged but one score years and six , 
 down the road comes david hicks
some say he's as thick as bricks
 but that's another matter ... "   - ok?


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 January 2008)

I'd go further and say  that it is imperative that he be allowed to write a book - and asap.  

If that story is "lost" for any reason  - perhaps him being killed by some lunatic - it would be a tragedy. (imo)


----------



## visual (3 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> chopper to give back the profits from his book
> .....  nice one lol - good luck !!
> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2128442.htm
> 
> ...




Now I'm confused, so what's your reference to him joining the Australian army and being or being seen as a good thing? Are you saying that if you fail to join the Australian army then it is alright to join a terorrist organisation? are the two equal? 

Yep better stick with ellis I think,


----------



## orr (19 February 2015)

And today he approaches a semblance of justice...

Gives hope to those who seek protection of Law; the wheels do turn slow.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 February 2015)

orr said:


> And today he approaches a semblence of justice...
> 
> Gives hope to those who seek protection of Law; the wheels do turn slow.




And still the question remains. 

What was he doing at an Al Qaeda training camp and why ?


----------



## orr (19 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> And still the question remains.
> 
> What was he doing at an Al Qaeda training camp and why ?




What ever it was? It wasn't breaking the Law. 
Which as it happens is your and my only redress against the power of the state.


----------



## IFocus (19 February 2015)

orr said:


> Which as it happens is your and my only redress against the power of the state.





This is the bit that history teaches us repeatedly of how tyrants rise to power subjugation of the law and its processes.

Its a total abomination when people are imprisoned outside of its laws and processes its all so Soviet Union god bless Stalin.


----------



## moXJO (19 February 2015)

Hicks was hardly an innocent bystander. This pos went to war in these countries as a merc to kill (and for the other side), not hand out daisies. Getting off on a technicality because the yanks had done the wrong thing is a separate issue.
He was lucky to get out alive at all. 

Credit to his father for fighting every step of the way. However I think they both believe their own bs about how it went.


----------

