David Hicks protests

[moXJO]

That’s just it 2020 it’s not that cut and dry and I’m sure the US is putting the laws in their favor so he doesn’t simply walk on a technicality. If he had of been caught by the northern alliance he would be dead so at least his still breathing. Is it right he hasn’t had a trial no ,is he lucky to still be alive yes

firstly,

international conventions or treaties;

thence

practice of states;

thence

general principles of domestic law;

thence

judicial decisions;

thence

teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations;

thence

Yeah in a perfect world let me know where it is.Wasnt it Illegal for us to go into Iraqi ,so you can scratch a few of those international conventions and treaties off the list.Dont hold your breath for the above list to be followed anytime soon

Its more like money ,news Ramps and how pollies interpret public opinion. Check out the Bilal Skaf case and tell me public opinion on the pollies didn’t influence that decision.When the public cares enough the pollies will probably do something.

Yes the law does matter.But take what you will from it ,but I dont care that Hicks is in his current situation.And considering he made a choice of living that lifestyle I dont care that he hasnt been returned home just yet.And untill Maj Mori can spin a bit more and do it for long enough for sentiment to change.Then I doubt the public cares that much atm either.

 

[chops_a_must]

Maj Mori made the point that (some of) the early charges, since abandoned, revolved around him being out of uniform. - But Mori pointed out that the CIA were there in exactly that predicament as well.

And considering the US seems to have a lot of trouble telling friend from foe, why should we actually believe anything that they are telling us about him? Lol!

 

[happytown]

It is not uncommon to mistakenly believe 'jus ad bellum' and 'jus in bello' are one and the same operationally.

cheers

 

[2020hindsight]

It is not uncommon to mistakenly believe 'jus ad bellum' and 'jus in bello' are one and the same operationally.

Not sure of this one happy, (I'm guessing "might is right?, justice through war, maybe?) but here are some others :-

Bella gerant allii, tu felix Austria nube.
Translation: "Others may lead wars, you, happy Austria, marry." Referring to Austria's cunning policy in early modern times to marry into all important royal houses. [ I wonder if the quote was really intended for Australia?]

Bellum se ipsum alet
Translation: "Let war pay for itself"

Is fecit, cui prodest.
Translation: "Done by the one who profits from it."

Iura novat curia.
Translation: "The law is known to the court." This is the principle that it is the court's job to interpret the law, and the constitution.

Iustitia omni auro carior.
Translation: "Justice is more precious than all gold."

Iustitia omnibus.
Translation: "Justice for all.", motto of the District of Columbia. (Washington DC)

Summum ius summa inuria.
Translation: "More law, less justice." (Cicero, De officiis I, 10, 33)

 

[happytown]

cheers 2020,

Studied IHL, international humanitarian law, aka the laws of war - loved every minute of it, in spite of the horrific nature of the subject and all that it entails.

Remember one harrowing recitation given to us by an inordinately brave and eventually lucky african refugee about how a group of them were approached during a particular conflict and "offered":

"long sleeve;

short sleeve; or

singlet".

Depending on their response they either had their hand, up to their elbow, or their entire arm macheted off on the spot.

But I digress, 'jus ad bellum' deals with laws governing the resort to force, 'jus in bello' deals with laws governing conduct during a conflict.

And those Austrians may have been on to something.

cheers to all

 

[porkpie324]

Totally agree with Agentm's comments, throw the key away. What sort of trial do the victims of these terrorists receive, and Hicks could be standing next to anyone on a train when the mufti calls him up to do his duty for islam and take scores of inocent people with him.porkpie

 

[BIG BWACULL]

C.I.A trained Osama bin ladin, Bin Laden Trained hicks Therefore Hicks must be C.I.A Let hicks go free you cant just change and alter laws after a person has been caught in order to crucify him. Let Hicks GO, Let him be tried in his own country and let his people decide.

 

[nioka]

C.I.A trained Osama bin ladin, Bin Laden Trained hicks Therefore Hicks must be C.I.A Let hicks go free you cant just change and alter laws after a person has been caught in order to crucify him. Let Hicks GO, Let him be tried in his own country and let his people decide.

Now there's a thought. Are the CIA agents who trained Osama going to be tried along side Hicks.

 

[2020hindsight]

'jus ad bellum' deals with laws governing the resort to force, 'jus in bello' deals with laws governing conduct during a conflict.

happytown - thanks for that - gee it would be great if you could amplify your comments - specially since you have studied the matter- the subtlety of the two definitions still escapes me - and the fact that the Northern Alliance and the CIA were fighting for our side, and not-in-uniform is surely relevant yes? (to Hicks case).

I only know what the situation was in the Vietnam days. got to bury a few noble young soldiers who came home in lead lined coffins. Never could understand the 21 rifle salute - except that the sound of 21 rifles at a military funeral is a guaranteed trigger for mothers, sisters , wives, brothers etc to start crying. "when will they ever learn" as the song goes.

 

[happytown]

2020,

Briefly,

Laws governing the resort to the use of force are very few, as under article 2(4) of the UN charter, the use of force in international relations is prohibited - with 2 exceptions:

article 51 right to self-defence; and

chapter VII security council resolution.

Some schools of thought also contend that there is an emerging third exception - that of humanitarian intervention as asserted by nato in Kosovo.

Laws governing conduct during conflict are many and include, historically, the Geneva laws (accommodating humanitarian aspects) and the Hague laws (accommodating military aspects) - ie war crimes and acceptable use of weaponry etc.

The ICC, as born from the 1998 Rome Statute, is the most recent attempt to codify these but has a glaring hole in the form of article 98 that allows countries to, effectively, remove themselves from the jurisdiction, as it where. The US, in particular, has used this loophole to devestating effect.

As for the CIA and NA not being in uniform being relevant - it all boils down to the venue - likely in the Hague, not likely in Guantanamo.

The situation is obviously a lot more complex than I have alluded to above.

cheers

 

[2020hindsight]

Laws governing the resort to the use of force are very few, as under article 2(4) of the UN charter, the use of force in international relations is prohibited - with 2 exceptions:
1.article 51 right to self-defence; and
2.chapter VII security council resolution.
Some schools of thought also contend that there is an emerging third exception - that of humanitarian intervention as asserted by nato in Kosovo.

Laws governing conduct during conflict are many and include, historically, the Geneva laws (accommodating humanitarian aspects) and the Hague laws (accommodating military aspects) - ie war crimes and acceptable use of weaponry etc.

The ICC, as born from the 1998 Rome Statute, is the most recent attempt to codify these but has a glaring hole in the form of article 98 that allows countries to, effectively, remove themselves from the jurisdiction, as it where. The US, in particular, has used this loophole to devestating effect.

As for the CIA and NA not being in uniform being relevant - it all boils down to the venue - likely in the Hague, not likely in Guantanamo.

brilliant m8. Shame the press don't express it as clearly. So in the course of an attack on Afghanistan (outside the rules) we capture someone who would allegedy prefer to flee than to shoot back, and then take 5 years to think of a charge (including a retrospective one) in a court specially invented for the occasion that is only suitable for USA to charge aussies using a loophole, article 98, whereby you can place yourself above the internationally rcognised rules. good one.

By the way, I'm not saying the man was entitled to a ticker tape parade - just that the black and white of the situation painted by some proves nought but the ability of the press and the govt to doctor spins.

 

[happytown]

2020,

Further with the ICC (International Criminal Court), it deals with the prosecution of what are termed 'war crimes' (conduct during conflict) and is a court of last resort, insofar as signatories, including Australia, codify the Rome Statute elements domestically, such that if a war crime was suspected of being committed by an Australian outside of Australia, or was suspected of being committed by any nationality inside Australia (recognising exception of article 98), then the first port of call, curially speaking, would be a prosecution by the Cth using the International Criminal Court Act (2002) Cth. If, and only if, Australia, as a signatory with domestic codification, failed to prosecute an alleged war crime would the ICC come into play.

As to article 98, the US, whilst not a signatory to the ICC (indeed highly critical of it, with concerns, including that it would simply be a tool to use politically against the US by its enemies) was significantly involved in the construction of the Rome Statute, including the insertion of article 98, with the end result that although the US is not bound by it, nonetheless it is quite happy and legally able to use the article 98 exemptions to its benefit to ensure that US citizens will never be placed before the court.

Further the USA Patriot Act has some sections that have been, arguably unkindly, described as The Hague Invasion Act, whereby, in essence, the US reserves the right to repatriate its citizens, using any means necessary, from anywhere in the world back to the US. No law but our own.

The Geneva Conventions still operate and indeed, breaches of these are picked up by the Rome Staute elements. Whilst the US is not a signatory to the relevant Additional Protocols, being discussed in the David Hicks situation, it has nonetheless stated that whilst not bound it will afford its protections.

From here it becomes a matter of you say potato I say potarto.

cheers

Further, re crimes in Afghanistan:

"Afghan parliament approves bill on amnesty for 'war criminals' by Sardar Ahmad

Thu Feb 1, 7:28 AM ET

KABUL (AFP) - Afghanistan's warlord-filled parliament has approved a bill ruling out judicial proceedings against men accused of rights abuses in the past 25 years of conflict, a spokesman said.
The lower house approved the legislation on Wednesday saying it was in the
interests of peace and reconciliation, parliament secretariat spokesman Haseeb Noori told AFP on Thursday.
It has to be passed by the upper house before being sent to President Hamid
Karzai for signing into law.
..."

 

[vida]

Why does it matter where he got training, all training is basically the same I would think. The american defences forces have been trained and are just as dangerous as anyone and have killed more people than Hicks, and he has killed no one. In fact when they return to civilian life in USA when the war ends, they will be psycho cases and very scary indeed, its not easy to recover from such trauma. The government have committed treason by going against all that is democractic involving us in this war and should be tried and punished. Its all politics and disgusting and meaningless.

C.I.A trained Osama bin ladin, Bin Laden Trained hicks Therefore Hicks must be C.I.A Let hicks go free you cant just change and alter laws after a person has been caught in order to crucify him. Let Hicks GO, Let him be tried in his own country and let his people decide.

 

[BIG BWACULL]

all i trying to say is If they (U.S)want to start pointing fingers maybe they should start looking into there own government for solutions to their answers.
They trained this guy to combat the soviets now its come to bite them in the ass.

 

[2020hindsight]

2020,

Further with the ICC (International Criminal Court), it deals with the prosecution of what are termed 'war crimes' (conduct during conflict) and is a court of last resort, insofar as signatories, including Australia, codify the Rome Statute elements domestically, such that if a war crime was suspected of being committed by an Australian outside of Australia, or was suspected of being committed by any nationality inside Australia (recognising exception of article 98), then the first port of call, curially speaking, would be a prosecution by the Cth using the International Criminal Court Act (2002) Cth. If, and only if, Australia, as a signatory with domestic codification, failed to prosecute an alleged war crime would the ICC come into play.

As to article 98, the US, whilst not a signatory to the ICC (indeed highly critical of it, with concerns, including that it would simply be a tool to use politically against the US by its enemies) was significantly involved in the construction of the Rome Statute, including the insertion of article 98, with the end result that although the US is not bound by it, nonetheless it is quite happy and legally able to use the article 98 exemptions to its benefit to ensure that US citizens will never be placed before the court.

Further the USA Patriot Act has some sections that have been, arguably unkindly, described as The Hague Invasion Act, whereby, in essence, the US reserves the right to repatriate its citizens, using any means necessary, from anywhere in the world back to the US. No law but our own.

The Geneva Conventions still operate and indeed, breaches of these are picked up by the Rome Staute elements. Whilst the US is not a signatory to the relevant Additional Protocols, being discussed in the David Hicks situation, it has nonetheless stated that whilst not bound it will afford its protections.

From here it becomes a matter of you say potato I say potarto.

cheers

Further, re crimes in Afghanistan:

"Afghan parliament approves bill on amnesty for 'war criminals' by Sardar Ahmad

Thu Feb 1, 7:28 AM ET

KABUL (AFP) - Afghanistan's warlord-filled parliament has approved a bill ruling out judicial proceedings against men accused of rights abuses in the past 25 years of conflict, a spokesman said.
The lower house approved the legislation on Wednesday saying it was in the
interests of peace and reconciliation, parliament secretariat spokesman Haseeb Noori told AFP on Thursday.
It has to be passed by the upper house before being sent to President Hamid
Karzai for signing into law.
..."

points to ponder
1. do you think Hicks should be treated worse than Ivan Molat ?
2. If the Afghans have forgiven rival Taliban warlords, are we, as arms-length observers, entitled to overrule?
3. the USA appear to have pronounced themselves "above international law"? a class of their own ?? do they then wonder why they are becoming despised?
4. Is the US using the defense "we have enemies who will twist the truth, therefore we will twist the truth at the point of origin, i.e. the legislation itself? " -
5. "BUT of course we will continue to sell the case that we are the upholders of freedom. truth, justice, superman, and the American way."

They trained this guy to combat the soviets now its come to bite them in the ass.

It would be funny m8, if it wasnt so laughable

Why does it matter where he got training, all training is basically the same I would think. The american defences forces have been trained and are just as dangerous as anyone and have killed more people than Hicks, and he has killed no one.

as if American "defences" have any moral authority (or elementary education? - watch fahenheit 9/11) to get it half right!

PS THIS THREAD HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE AMERICANS - IT IS ABOUT AUSTRALIANS !!
(I suspect it will have a lot to do with Australian acceptance of US assurances in the future)

 

[2020hindsight]

PS as I posted elsewhere, I met a young 16 yr old Afghan Mujahadeen - back in the early 80's - emigrated to Australia - had a Russian bullet so close to his spine to be inoperable. Hero in those days - yet his mates that stayed behind - some probably became Taliban - some possibly became extremists. I mean - sheesh - that was only 25 years ago.
PS . Gee I love rednecked ill-informed comments that take this argument up to a level of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

 

[happytown]

2020,

I hear what you are saying.

Morally, my opinion on the David Hicks situation is that it is understandable, in light of the composition of the current Australian and US administrations, yet inexcusable.

Legally, my opinion is less polite.

cheers

 

[moXJO]

PS as I posted elsewhere, I met a young 16 yr old Afghan Mujahadeen - back in the early 80's - emigrated to Australia - had a Russian bullet so close to his spine to be inoperable. Hero in those days - yet his mates that stayed behind - some probably became Taliban - some possibly became extremists. I mean - sheesh - that was only 25 years ago.
PS . Gee I love rednecked ill-informed comments that take this argument up to a level of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Or they joined northern alliance, as for redneck ill-informed comments everyone is entitled to an opinion and just because you spout off ill informed comments of your own doesn’t make you right. If you disagree fine. Don’t try and subdue people with differing opinions by calling them rednecks its a cheap ploy made by the over emotional to get their own way.

Hicks wasnt some innocent civilian. If he hadn't have been caught then it makes you wonder what he would have done in the coming years.

 

[2020hindsight]

as for redneck ill-informed comments everyone is entitled to an opinion

The most ill-informed comments have been what's been pumped out of Washington and Canberra.
I take it you think he was a mercenary on big bucks, and you've already hung him since "he deserves everything he's getting". Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.
I'll live with the finding of a fair trial. (provided it's bloody urgent).

Having said that - the fact that they continue to torture the man with solitary confinement is - a serious blot on the chances of a fair trial don't you think?
I mean, Brigitte gets 10 years without solitary confinement. (and he appears to be one cunning dude who deserves all our criticism).
Hicks already has 5 years of solitary confinement, some without sunshine, Aus govt initially appealing against it, then ignoring him when they did it again.

Meanwhile:-

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has raised the case of Australian terrorism suspect David Hicks with the new United States Defence Secretary. Mr Downer met Robert Gates in Germany overnight.

Prime Minister John Howard says Mr Downer reinforced the Federal Government's concerns about the lengthy time taken to bring the Guantanamo Bay detainee to trial.

Even the C of E Archbishop in Melbourne is leading prayers for Hicks - gotta feeling you're becoming one of a shrinking minority - IF , that is, you are one of the ones saying "throw away the keys".

 

[2020hindsight]

PS I wonder if the Fed Govt's interest has anything to do with an election year?