David Hicks leaves prison today

[jackson8]

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




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

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]

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




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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .

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]

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

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]

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.

Instead of seeking fair treatment for Hicks, the Government supported the establishment of Military Tribunals. The first attempt to do so was outlawed by the US Supreme Court, much to the credit of that court. President Bush then went to Congress and sought to have Congress pass a law which would replace his Executive Decree. Many of the conditions of the new Tribunals mirror the conditions contained in the original Presidential Decree. It will be difficult to believe that such tribunals provide justice.

It would have been possible for the United States Congress to insist on "full and fair procedures designed to arrive at the truth, to protect the innocent, and to convict the guilty." But Congress did not do that. "In many instances" the changes "institutionalise violations of fair trial rules?"

An analysis of the rules of the military commissions reveals the following flaws:

1. While those rules purport to prohibit evidence obtained through torture, other rules make it likely that convictions may be achieved on such tainted evidence. Coercive interrogations are permitted. It is up to the President to define that which is coercion and that which goes too far and becomes torture.

2. The Israeli Supreme Court outlawed any step towards torture in 1999. It is clear the United States is prepared to take several steps in that direction and evidence obtained through coercion, which in many cases will in fact be torture, on normally accepted definitions, will be allowed. The military judge only has to find such evidence reliable.

3. Hearsay evidence is to be permitted, second or third hand.

4. The Defence is not able to test that evidence, it will not able to confront the source or challenge its accuracy.

5. The Prosecution can deny access to so-called classified evidence, to deny access not only to the Defendant but to the Defendant's Counsel.

6. Methods used in obtaining that evidence will also be hidden.

When we go further into it, we find, an analysis of the legislation reveals, that alternative "interrogation techniques" employed on a number of CIA detainees held in Guantanamo Bay are indeed classified. Under such rules and with such a history, the only fair conclusion is that evidence induced from torture will be allowed.

We are indeed told that interrogation techniques include water-boarding, extreme sleep deprivation and hypothermia. Evidence obtained through coercion, including cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is explicitly permitted.

There are many other aspects that will mitigate against any possibility of a fair trial. The rules definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" and who therefore is subject to trial, is broad enough to include civilians with no connection to armed conflict.

Can anyone really believe overall such rules can result in a fair trial? Does the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General believe such rules can provide a fair trial? If they do, they believe such rules should also be transferred to the Australian justice system, or are they saying that Hicks is guilty and the rules are good enough for him, and if they convict him, well, that is his fault. That is how tyrants through the ages would have justified many of their acts of tyranny.

In his defence of his Government's behaviour, the United States Ambassador is reported in The Age yesterday as saying that Hicks is ideologically ruthless, fanatic, he will kill Australians and Americans without blinking an eye. The Ambassador went on to argue that, because of the War on Terror, it was fair enough to keep Hicks in jail while that war continues. That is keeping him in jail for ever because, as defined by President Bush, the War on Terror will never end. It is also making a total mockery of the trial process.

 

[2020hindsight]

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.

Many of us are not aware that the Australian Government, in the name of making us all safer, has legislated for more severe measures than those adopted by other democratic countries. For example, if ASIO believes that any one of you may have observed something of interest to ASIO in pursuit of their anti-terrorist activities, you can be secretly arrested and interrogated for a week at a time. ASIO do not have to believe that you know anything, they do not have to believe that you are planning anything, only that you have observed something you may not know you have observed. In other words, the Government has legislated to give ASIO powers to detain a person known to be innocent, known not to be planning or executing any crime.

If you answer the questions of the authorities to their satisfaction that is all right. But if you do not, if they believe you are reluctant or not cooperative, you can be charged and even go to jail for five years.

As a defence against such prosecution, if you can prove that you never knew anything, then you will be judged innocent but how do you prove you don't know what you never knew in the first place? Such is the law in Australia as it stands today. There are many other aspects of terrorism legislation which give us great cause for concern.

In recent times, people have suffered as a result of the Government's policies. The Government would justify its actions on the basis that it is making us all safer. I would argue that the Government is making us less safe,... etc

 

[dhukka]

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]

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]

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

 

[jackson8]

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]

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

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.