Confessed Terrorist Hicks

[Superfly]

Hello Superfly.
In another thread I challenged you to outline the charges an Australian court could level at Hicks.

Are you up to that challenge or not?

For the record, and you could always go to the plea bargain agreement signed by Hicks, or the charge sheet (Hicks was never formally charged in the legal sense) Hicks admitted to providing material support for terrorism. In fact, by sheer association it was impossible for Hicks to defend his innocence against this charge. Alternatively, Hicks would have had to prove he was never where he was, rather than anything he actually did.

So, in law, Hicks is not a terrorist, was never charged with committing an act of terrorism, and never pleaded guilty to "being a terrorist".
qed

The other thread you were asked to prove what you implied... you didn't..

You posted " Apperently Hicks consorted with terror organisations" ... prove Hicks did not ...

The go by the article in the Australian, that you did your best to discredit but can't.

" If Hicks had committed no crime then he should not have remained in custody in Australia '.

" The law considers a confession sufficient evidence of a crime" ...

So if Hicks has been so hard done by, then why does Hicks not prove his innocence...?

Not up to Australia to charge Hicks... we have his confession, he is guilty by law until he proves otherwise...

 

[Superfly]

Can an ASF Mod please remove the "why" option, has been placed in after and was not part of the poll.

 

[Prospector]

Well, Australia would have to find something to charge him with first! And that was the problem the US had too.

And yeah, in Kosovo he was on the 'good guys' side - ie the Muslims who were being exterminated by the rabid Catholics. Funny that rarely gets a mention.

I suspect I would not like Hicks at all; however what the US did to him (and others) is disgusting. And after five years in that hell hole what choice did he have.

And I voted 'why' too!

 

[professor_frink]

Can an ASF Mod please remove the "why" option, has been placed in after and was not part of the poll.

why?

 

[Superfly]

Well, Australia would have to find something to charge him with first!
And I voted 'why' too!

Not up to Australia to charge Hicks ... we have his confession, he is guilty by law until he proves otherwise.

 

[chops_a_must]

I vote why.

However, he is still possibly a very dangerous person to the Australian people and should be (and of course is) being watched VERY closely by ASIO/FP. The reasons why he went to the Stans in the first place are more than likely still in his illadjusted blood.

I keep bringing up Orwell and Hemingway as similar characters and adventurers as Hicks, although one group is literate. But who would be prepared to say now they should have been cracked down upon on return? It appears that anyone that goes on these sort of trips has their views moderated, because they see first hand the atrocities of both sides.

Hicks was the signal flare for western forces in Kosovo - does that mean anyone involved in that conflict has iladjusted blood? There's iladjusted and dangerous blood just about every where you look. About 3/4 of my friends, probably me as well, are fairly iladjusted/ maladjusted, but the last time I looked, it wasn't a crime.

I think you can do better than that Kennas...

 

[Superfly]

why?

Integrity.... something the Hicks fan club lacks....

 

[doctorj]

You know someone is losing an debate when...

Integrity.... something the Hicks fan club lacks....

I guess the point of the why is because some questions are invalid. Why answer 'no' to a question when the assumptions on which the question is based are flawed?

 

[2020hindsight]

a good article on Guantanamo ...
http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/media2006pt1/inweekly20Apr06.htm

These blokes were taken into custody in Bosnia ... then as the Bosnian High Court relased them without charge (no evidence against em despit searching all possible computers etc ) - the US military (outside) cuffed em - took em to Guantanamo - including torture even during the flight there !!

The U.S. maintains Guantánamo prisoners are not protected by the Geneva Conventions and that Guantánamo is beyond the reach of U.S. law. In so doing, the U.S. has attempted to create a new category of human beings wholly exempt from the protection of any law.

The U.S. position is that it may seize anyone, anywhere, at any time, if there is reason to believe that person is an "enemy combatant"—someone who is part of or "supporting" (even unwittingly) Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or forces "associated" with these groups. The global dragnet cast by this definition is so broad that an attorney for the U.S., arguing before Judge Green in December 2004, admitted it would include a little old lady from Switzerland who gave money to an Afghan charity organization that—unbeknownst to her—funneled the contribution to Al Qaeda.

Guantánamo is devoid of living things. The ground is covered in gravel. The cells are housed in brown sheds, surrounded by a chain-link fence topped with razor wire.

The trust and strength of character these men have shown is a wave wearing down rock over time; it is a single blade of grass, somehow managing to grow among Guantánamo gravel.

If we extinguish that humanity with lawlessness and cruelty, we extinguish hope for the future of humankind. For when we causelessly take away a person's freedom, we erode our own. But as we join with others around the world fighting unjust imprisonment and torture, we honor and preserve our humanity. This is the lesson of Guantánamo.

IMO , such actions as the bravery of blokes such as these will indeed be waves that "wear down the rock" with time.

And ironically - isn't that pretty close to what Jesus taught?
how to beat the Romans?
"forgive them for they know what what they do" ?

 

[nioka]

" The law considers a confession sufficient evidence of a crime" ...
..

No matter how it was obtained?????????????? Had I been in his shoes I would have confessed to enough crimes to clear 90% of the unsolved crimes for the past 50 years.

 

[megla]

However, he is still possibly a very dangerous person to the Australian people

I would postulate that considering his reported skills base verses the quality of discourse provided here, that this forum has more potential and ability to harm Australian people than he!

Before standing up for a successful legal system, should one consider whether they will be considered a terrorist supporter? I think the chasers interpreted his guilty plea correctly: "He pleaded anything to get me out of here."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXs8wtiHieY

If your motivation to confess to something is done through fear or intimidation, does it count as a true confession? If a person held a gun to my head asked if it is true I got Britney Spears pregnant, hell I'd answer YES without a blink.

Whether he is innocent or guilty of any moral or legal laws is not really clear.

What we know is selectively fed to us through managed media. None of those who really know what is going on are allowed to explain any of it. Leads you to repeat that wise man from the Bush administration:

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

””Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing (Rumsfeld)

 

[Superfly]

a good article on Guantanamo ...
http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/media2006pt1/inweekly20Apr06.htm

These blokes were taken into custody in Bosnia ... then as the Bosnian High Court relased them without charge (no evidence against em despit searching all possible computers etc ) - the US military (outside) cuffed em - took em to Guantanamo - including torture even during the flight there !!

Why do you concenrate on where Hicks was held and not on what Hicks did to end up there...

We have Hicks confession ... Hicks can now challenge that and is not .. now there's a "why" question...

The old pictures on TV of a skinny Hicks are the only ones been shown, but on his appearence in Guantanamo a reproter wrote Hicks is a short chubby bloke... so he put kilos on in this so called "hell hole"...

"Inculding torture on the way home" ... evidence of this ?

 

[Superfly]

No matter how it was obtained?????????????? Had I been in his shoes I would have confessed to enough crimes to clear 90% of the unsolved crimes for the past 50 years.

Hicks may now challenge that in an Australian court ( what all his crew were saying the whole time he was held in Cuba, that he should be in an Australian court ) and Hicks is not ... If Hicks has been hard done by, then he has now the chance to sought it out and IS NOT...

Why ?

 

[chops_a_must]

The old pictures on TV of a skinny Hicks are the only ones been shown, but on his appearence in Guantanamo a reproter wrote Hicks is a short chubby bloke... so he put kilos on in this so called "hell hole"...

Dude, you've obviously never seen what heavy doses of Zyprexa will do to someone in a week, have you? Given they were known to be drugging him, I'd say that's what they were feeding him.

Plus, he's looking fairly thin again now by the looks.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. Why do you concenrate on where Hicks was held and not on what Hicks did to end up there...

2. We have Hicks confession

3. The old pictures on TV of a skinny Hicks are the only ones been shown, but on his appearence in Guantanamo a reproter wrote Hicks is a short chubby bloke... so he put kilos on in this so called "hell hole"...

4. "Inculding torture on the way home" ... evidence of this ?

1. because no where else in the world would they be able to extract those confessions and go that route of a sham trial pretending it has any similarity with justice

well since they've closed Abu Ghraib - incidentally I once heard Cosgrove on the tactics used there (AG) - he was outraged!!

2. those confessions you place so much faith in - tell me exactly what he says in these confessinos that makes you think he is still a threat.
3. (groan)
4. read the article superfly
http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/media2006pt1/inweekly20Apr06.htm

In October 2001, their lives were shattered when the U.S. insisted that Bosnia arrest the six men””all Muslims of Algerian descent””based on unfounded U.S. allegations that they were involved in a plot to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Bosnia. One by one, each man was taken into custody.

As news of the arrests filled Bosnian media, not one fled. The men spent three months in jail while the federal prosecutor investigated the charges. No stone was left unturned””investigators searched computer files, phone records, questioned witnesses and the men.

Finally, the federal prosecutor recommended to the Bosnian high court that the six be released. He had identified no evidence to justify their detention. The high court agreed, and ordered their release.

Despite this order, the U.S. placed tremendous pressure on Bosnians to turn over the six to U.S. custody, threatening to withdraw support if Bosnia failed to comply. As the six were released from jail in Sarajevo on Jan. 18, 2002, they were turned over to nine soldiers and then hooded, handcuffed, and jammed into waiting vehicles. The huge crowd of community members that had gathered to protest the seizure tried to prevent the cars from passing; wives strained to catch glimpses of their husbands.

As Mohamed Nechla tells it, the six were taken to an airport and handed over to the Americans, who removed Mohamed's hood, placed sensory-deprivation goggles on his eyes, a mask on his mouth, and coverings over his ears. The pain from the extremely tight wrist restraints was excruciating. He cried, "My hands!" His hands and arms grew numb.

He was placed in a seated position on the floor of the plane. If he slumped or fell, he was slammed back upright by soldiers. The flight lasted several hours.

When the plane landed, they were in an extremely cold place. Mohamed believes it was Turkey or Germany. There were dogs barking very close to him. He was terrified they would bite or attack him.

They boarded a second plane. Mohamed's hands were still in pain. The trip lasted many hours. Before the plane landed, he was given an apple””the only food he received during his nearly two-day journey.

After the plane landed, he was painfully dragged to a bus by his biceps. Soldiers repeatedly screamed, "Don't move! Don't talk!" When the bus stopped, Mohamed was pulled down the boarding stairs. He was dragged to a gravel area and placed in a painful position, with his legs straight out in front of him, shackled, and his wrists still shackled.

Soldiers screamed insults about him and his family. A soldier punched his head. The intensely hot sun pounded down on him. He fainted. A soldier shoved him upright. A long time passed. He began to have difficulty breathing through the mask and felt he was going to suffocate. He cried out for help. A soldier snapped the mask against his face. He began to cry. Mohamed had arrived in Guantánamo.

btw, Hicks made claims about flights (and similar treatment) as well -
initially denied by US
then "proven" to be true.

btw also - Mori has already been honoured by the Aus legal fraternity -
and you just may find that no lawyers are prepared to take your side of the argument ...
(then again - lol - never get between a lawyer and a pile of money , as Keating would have said)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/12/2058338.htm

Major Mori was presented with a civil justice award by the Australian Lawyers Alliance at their national conference in Hobart today.

 

[Kimosabi]

Did Hicks actually kill anyone???

Maybe we should be focusing more on those who are responsibly for the death of over a Million Innocent Iraqi's...

 

[happytown]

...

Hicks can now challenge that and is not .. now there's a "why" question...

...

...

2. Furthermore, upon acceptance of this offer by the Convening Authority:

...

b. I agree that I will not communicate with the media in any way regarding the illegal conduct alleged in the charge and the specifications or about the circumstances surrounding my capture and detention as an unlawful enemy combatant for a period of one (1) year. I agree that this includes any direct or indirect communication made by me, my family members, my assigns, or any other third party made on my behalf.

...

4. In exchange for the undertakings made by the United States in entering this Pretrial Agreement, I voluntarily and expressly waive all rights to appeal or collaterally attack my conviction, sentence, or any other matter relating to this prosecution whether such a right to appeal or collateral attack arises under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, or any other provision of United States or Australian law. In addition, I voluntarily and expressly agree not to make, participate in, or support any claim, and not to undertake, participate in, or support any litigation, in any forum against the United States or any of its officials, whether uniformed or civilian, in their personal or official capacities with regard to my capture, treatment, detention, or prosecution.

...

David Matthew Hicks (accused)
26/03/07

...

cheers

 

[Agentm]

http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/shared/2440377524.pdf


just read the document, or the conclusion..



also...

http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/shared/2435666621.pdf​

K. Conclusion​

Accordingly, and on all three grounds consistently applied by the Supreme Court of the United States, the offence created by Section 950v(25) MCA, when applied to the activities of David Hicks in Afghanistan between December 2000 to December 2001 is a clear and straightforward case of a retrospective criminal law. As such it is a classic retrospective (ex post facto) offence within at least three of the Calder v Bull categories of unlawful criminal legislation. Consequently, it is prohibited by the Constitution of the United States of America and also violates treaties to which Australia and the United States are parties, namely Article 99 GC3 and Article 15 of the ICCPR and contravenes the Australian Criminal Code.

The attempt to apply the section 950v(25) MCA offence to Hicks plainly violates the substance of the guarantee against ex post facto laws in the US Constitution. The provision is therefore unconstitutional and invalid on its face. The only doubt relates to whether Hicks, as a non-citizen held outside the sovereign territory of the United States, has the standing to seek a remedy before the US federal courts for the violation of the
principle of non-retrospectivity. Until this question has finally been determined by the US Supreme Court, in practical terms, there is no constitutional obstacle in the United States to applying a retrospective criminal law to David Hicks, although this could not happen legally to any citizen of the United States.
The suggestion that the offence of Providing Material Support for Terrorism under the MCA is merely a codification of an existing Law of War or an existing domestic law of the United States, and is therefore not a retrospective criminal law, is untenable. This is a recently invented and new war crime created with the passing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 on 17 October 2006. ​

http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/shared/2440377524.pdf

 

[megla]

happytown & agentm - 'nuff said! Well done

 

[rederob]

Not up to Australia to charge Hicks ... we have his confession, he is guilty by law until he proves otherwise.

We do not have a "confession".
We have a "plea bargain" outcome.
Hicks agreed that he was guilty of the charges that were put to him - none conceding to him being a "terrorist".
These "charges" have no legal precedent or parallel in any country of the world.

Superfly, my challenge to you remains open.
How about you really do put up?
Or you can abide by the alternative.