David Hicks leaves prison today

[Superfly]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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 ....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

A man charged with supplying stolen Army rocket launchers is suspected of having connections with a group plotting to blow up the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor.

A joint police and ASIO operation picked up Sydney man Abdul Rahman in the Sydney suburb of Leumeah early this morning.

Police allege the 28-year-old received seven anti-armour rocket launchers stolen from the Australian Defence Force and passed two on to one man and five to another.

The person who received five is facing terrorism charges in an unrelated matter.

That person was one of a group of 15 people arrested and charged after raids on homes in Sydney and Melbourne in November.

Rahman has been charged with 17 offences, including dishonestly, receiving stolen property and supplying a prohibited weapon without authorisation.

Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty says he has evidence of plans to use the weapons on a building in Sydney.

 

[rederob]

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]

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]

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.