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
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
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.
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
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.
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 .
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.
OK. So he is still on the run is he? Hmmm.... I guess we are all in "hiding" then aren't we?was in hiding
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.
Hicks was never captured by the Americans; they bought him!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 .
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
This guy didn't make a mistake he made a choice and he should've been kept in Cuba until the war is over.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?