David Hicks protests

Garpal Gumnut · 16 February 2007

rederob said:
porkpie
I guess we need to lock up everyone that has been trained to kill, irrespective of who, where or how.
The statistics on Vietnam vets that inflicted death or harm on their families or themselves is quite frightening!

A natural extension of the principles the US is now practising would allow the Chinese to pay the Taliban in Afghanistan to capture US soldiers (for example), spirit them to North Korea, and charge them for attempted murder etc., on court principles favourable to the Chinese.

Hicks seems to be a silly young man with delusions of doing something great for Allah, but never having the actual opportunity to fire a shot in anger.

Garpal
Hicks was not "caught", he was "bought".
The issue of him "taking his medicine" is relevant on two counts.
First, Hicks needs to have something that warrants treatment. Being "trained to kill" and being in possession of ammunition do appear somewhat weak cases in times of war if one has not killed or used any ammunition!
Secondly, his "medicine" should be something that would be sanctioned by a higher authority as fit for purpose. In this case we are left with an imbecilic Bush who continues to get bad advice and, rather than admit error, would rather "stay the course" in the hope that at some point it turns out to be right.
Is it not curious that Australia is the only Westernised nation that has a prisoner left in Guantanamo Bay? On that count, you need to listen to what Malcolm Fraser had to say today:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...ks-guilt/2007/02/15/1171405368385.html?page=2

Dear rederob,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Being in possession of a weapon and ammunition in a cabal of organised military, particularly as I remember from a photo of him, a shoulder held rocket launcher, unfortunately does deem one guilty. Look up the Rules of War, Geneva, etc conventions
Much as one would be if smoking in a non smoking zone and a policeman saw a butt leave your thumb and smoke exit your mouth.

I also believe that this guy served in Kosovo, at a time when people weren,t dressing the Christmas Tree or celebrating Eid.

As for Malcolm, he is a toff without a cause, a PM who achieved little in a time when he could have, a grunting hoarse old soldier, who has no won battles to look back upon.

Garpal

wayneL · 16 February 2007

Garpal Gumnut said:
Dear rederob,

Being in possession of a weapon and ammunition in a cabal of organised military, particularly as I remember from a photo of him, a shoulder held rocket launcher, unfortunately does deem one guilty. Look up the Rules of War, Geneva, etc conventions
Much as one would be if smoking in a non smoking zone and a policeman saw a butt leave your thumb and smoke exit your mouth.

It would seem the entire military of the "coalition of the willing" should be detained then, by that logic.

rederob · 16 February 2007

Garpal
Your reply is appreciated.
It is also not well informed, but that will always be a problem for people that do not understand the basic tenets of law, let alone the rules of war.
For example, displaying a weapon (rather than concealing it) is in accordance with the rules of war.
Are you impying Hicks is "guilty" because he is a soldier?
I am hazy on your points as Hicks is not accused of breaking any known laws applicable to war.
On the other hand the US has not adopted any regular conventions and is creating a whole new set of rules to be applied to people that have been denied every principle of natural justice.
I was not aware that Hicks "served in Kosovo". Was that tea or coffee he served, or perhaps he offered ammunition?
And on Fraser: He faltered under the worst Treasurer in a generation - yes, little Jonny Howard!

Freeballinginawetsuit · 16 February 2007

I have it on a reliable source that Fraser was the most arrogant PM tripping on the RAAF VIP fleet, Whitlam was a true 'Gentleman' who always conversed and ready to have a personal one to one.

Incidently Prince Charlie whilst travelling was a true 'strange one', I will not say what he did .

Anyway the Hicks situation has progressively become a truly tragic event that brings immeasurable shame on our Government, Little Johnny and regretably us as a nation.

Personally I am the first to admit I have sat on my hands although disgusted at our Governments lack of fortitude and independance for our citizen. Recently I sent two emails, one to my local member and one to Canberra.

Too late, but if enough kick up a fuss maybe this debacle will reach an end ON OUR ACTIONS and not Bush's chronies terms.

Bobby · 16 February 2007

Reflecting on Abdul Hicks mental state, he may be able to claim insanity on all charges.

His defence team could argue that the prognosis of his disease is self evident, stop getting pissed & chasing chicks Mad'ness !

Have Fun
Bob.

2020hindsight · 16 February 2007

david mcleod deserves Order of Aust medal, imo (and so does Maj Michael Mori) ... only way to fight this propoganda coming out of canberra and howard and downer and ruddock is with the truth...
"staking out of embassies that were closed and had been closed for 12 years," - far out .... are they serious!!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1849874.htm
Charges used to demonise Hicks: lawyer
David Hicks's Australian lawyer says new charges brought against his client are an attempt to demonise Hicks at a time when the political climate is turning in his favour. New allegations made against the Guantanamo Bay inmate have been dismissed as vague and fatuous by his lawyer, David McLeod.

The Pentagon has released charge sheets alleging Hicks did surveillance training, collected intelligence on a US embassy in Afghanistan and armed himself with weapons intended for use against the US.

But Mr McLeod argues that there is nothing new about the charges. "You would think that there would be a clearer picture as to what it is that David is alleged to have done, and yet we are still met with vague assertions involving staking out of embassies that were closed and had been closed for 12 years, attempting to murder people when it's admitted that he hasn't fire a shot at anyone," he said

But Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has encouraged people to read the charge sheets that have been released..... etc

obviously with this military commission, there is absolutely no way Hicks can get a fair trial - (see early posts quoting Maj Mike Mori). Never suspected that if I lived long enough, I might finally agree with Fraser on one matter at least.

Garpal Gumnut · 16 February 2007

rederob said:
Garpal
Your reply is appreciated.
It is also not well informed, but that will always be a problem for people that do not understand the basic tenets of law, let alone the rules of war.
For example, displaying a weapon (rather than concealing it) is in accordance with the rules of war.
Are you impying Hicks is "guilty" because he is a soldier?
I am hazy on your points as Hicks is not accused of breaking any known laws applicable to war.
On the other hand the US has not adopted any regular conventions and is creating a whole new set of rules to be applied to people that have been denied every principle of natural justice.
I was not aware that Hicks "served in Kosovo". Was that tea or coffee he served, or perhaps he offered ammunition?
And on Fraser: He faltered under the worst Treasurer in a generation - yes, little Jonny Howard!

Dear rederob,

Your opinions do not correlate with my experience in service in declared war zones.

A mob of QC's may give you contrary advice, but check:
1. Rules of engagement
2. Geneva Conventions.

David Hicks needs resolution, more so, now, that he has been taken up by guys like you for other agendas, and by my "side" to punish and make an example.

There is nothing wrong with this.

The Romans were much more efficient in cases like this.
Garpal

rederob · 16 February 2007

Garpal Gumnut said:
Dear rederob,

Your opinions do not correlate with my experience in service in declared war zones.

A mob of QC's may give you contrary advice, but check:
1. Rules of engagement
2. Geneva Conventions.

David Hicks needs resolution, more so, now, that he has been taken up by guys like you for other agendas, and by my "side" to punish and make an example.

There is nothing wrong with this.

The Romans were much more efficient in cases like this.
Garpal

Garpal
Hicks never "engaged" anyone.
Please be clear about what you believe constitutes the offences that Hicks can be charged with - based on either law or conventions.

If you did indeed serve, you should know that that your enemy will take up arms against you. Accordingly, seeing Hicks has been photographed with weapons suggests he had the potential to be a combatant.
Being a combatant in a war zone carries no offence of itself, and would afford Hicks "prisoner of war" status on capture.
Again, if you have served, you will be aware of the conventions that govern the treatment of your enemies.
If your enemies are likely to have committed war crimes, there are well established conventions that enable prosecution of such offences.
The greatest "crime" that Hicks (and most of the Taliban) can be accused of is not wearing a "uniform". But this would be impossible as the war that the US declared was against an "army" that had wore uniforms.
Thus we get into a semantic argument from here on the so called "war on terror".

Going back a step now, if you were ever a soldier in a war zone, and were captured, what would make you think that you should be treated differentlyto Hicks. Answer that question first, please.

wayneL · 17 February 2007

Garpal Gumnut said:
There is nothing wrong with this.

The Romans were much more efficient in cases like this.

Garpal

That is, if you want our society to be like Rome.

2020hindsight · 17 February 2007

Wayne, I liked that post you made some time ago when you pointed out that the Military officer assigned to defend one of the terrorist suspects - Osama BL's driver as I recall - (a bit closer to the action that Hicks I think you'll agree) - and did it successfully - had since had to resign from the army. (you'd have to assume that they'd screwed up the prosecution case with "embellishment")

Here's a hypothetical..
Suppose you had an election between Theodore Roosevelt and GW Bush....

http://antiwar.com/quotes.php A few quotes by Theodore Roosevelt:-
1. Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official.
2. It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.
3. That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
4. To befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

And here's a few quotes by George W Bush:-
5. Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
6. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
7. We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace.
8. I think war is a dangerous place.
9. I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.
10. The role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.
11. If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road.
12. I can tell you this: If I’m ever in a position to call the shots, I’m not going to rush to send somebody else’s kids into a war.
13. Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.
14. These people are trying to shake the will of the Iraqi citizens, and they want us to leave...I think the world would be better off if we did leave...
15. Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.
16. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously--and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.

and one by Mrs Barbara Bush on ABC's "Good Morning America,"
17. Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? …Barbara Bush

Garpal Gumnut · 17 February 2007

wayneL said:
That is, if you want our society to be like Rome.

Dear wayneL,

A good point. Lots of downsides to Rome, Class distinction, slavery, cruelty, exploitation,

Much like the modern European Union states.

But Rome at its height had an efficient army, not that I would have liked to be captured by them, or by the Taliban for that matter.

Garpal

2020hindsight · 17 February 2007

just watching the show "around the world in 80 treasures" Dan Cruickshank (top show) - he checks out USA's roots -
after the first show ( archaeological) , he (surprisingly) adds a political slant in 2nd show...
1. the 1851 colt revolver - with all the implications
2. thomas jefferson, who drafted "all men are created equal" - yet allegedly had thousands of slaves, (5000?)
3. "the statue of liberty is hollow", and finally
4. "accept the american way... or feel the consequences.!"

frequent references to "the enigma of american values" or words to that effect

Would I have posted something like this prior to hicks? - probably not !
I have many friends in USA ! they are gr8 people. sadly not in power.

rederob · 17 February 2007

Garpal
I asked you earlier;
"Going back a step now, if you were ever a soldier in a war zone, and were captured, what would make you think that you should be treated differently to Hicks."

Anything to add?

Garpal Gumnut · 17 February 2007

rederob said:
Garpal
I asked you earlier;
"Going back a step now, if you were ever a soldier in a war zone, and were captured, what would make you think that you should be treated differently to Hicks."

Anything to add?

Dear rederob,

Nothing in a word.

War is an ugly form of diplomacy.

If you sign up, you assume that the other side are not going to be gentle folk if you are captured. Its a given.

Ask any ex POW.

Garpal

rederob · 17 February 2007

Garpal Gumnut said:
Dear rederob,

Nothing in a word.

War is an ugly form of diplomacy.

If you sign up, you assume that the other side are not going to be gentle folk if you are captured. Its a given.

Ask any ex POW.

Garpal

Ah
But Hicks is not a POW, never "engaged" anyone, or fired a shot in anger.
Yet he will be made an example of - so that we know this "war on terror" is fair dinkum.
Hicks has variously been descibed as "the worst of the worst".
That now describes the level of justice that has been meted out in his case.
Far from "winning hearts and minds", which is essential if the US is to be credible on the world scene, the Democrats yesterday delivered Bush and his adherents a harsh blow in Congress, while some 60% of Americans now want out of Iraq.
Meanwhile our political leaders are happy with the way Hicks is being treated, and reckon we did the right thing finding all those weapons of mass destruction, or the next best thing.
Instead, they helped turn a country that was no external threat to the world, into the most dangerous place on earth to live, and a safe harbour for any journeyman terrorist.
Top marks to the coalition of the killing.

Garpal Gumnut · 17 February 2007

rederob said:
Ah
But Hicks is not a POW, never "engaged" anyone, or fired a shot in anger.
Yet he will be made an example of - so that we know this "war on terror" is fair dinkum.
Hicks has variously been descibed as "the worst of the worst".
That now describes the level of justice that has been meted out in his case.
Far from "winning hearts and minds", which is essential if the US is to be credible on the world scene, the Democrats yesterday delivered Bush and his adherents a harsh blow in Congress, while some 60% of Americans now want out of Iraq.
Meanwhile our political leaders are happy with the way Hicks is being treated, and reckon we did the right thing finding all those weapons of mass destruction, or the next best thing.
Instead, they helped turn a country that was no external threat to the world, into the most dangerous place on earth to live, and a safe harbour for any journeyman terrorist.
Top marks to the coalition of the killing.

Dear rederob,

As they would say on Little Britain,

Get Real !!!!

He wasn't over there on a Flight Centre smell the poppies tour !!!!

Garpal

rederob · 17 February 2007

Garpal Gumnut said:
Dear rederob,

As they would say on Little Britain,

Get Real !!!!

He wasn't over there on a Flight Centre smell the poppies tour !!!!

Garpal

Garpal
I think he was.
In fact, I have evidence he was.
Better evidence than you could find to the contrary.
Evidence you would be happy to kill for!

On topic, your preference is to punish someone for something they never did, certainly something that nobody beforehand in the justice system could reasonably be tried for.
There are few that doubt Hicks was "foolish", or a tad worse.
Was he a terrorist, a soldier, or neither?
I don't know.
He was certainly misguided.
I prefer to think that Australians would be prepared to fight for justice, over injustice.
That some are willing to throw Hicks to the wolves of war says as much about them as those who are contriving to pervert reasonable standards of humanity.
And at the end of the day, I always ask..."if he was your son?"

Freeballinginawetsuit · 17 February 2007

rederob said:
Garpal
He was certainly misguided.
I prefer to think that Australians would be prepared to fight for justice, over injustice.

WTF.......they are one in the same, if used in the context of youre arguement.

And 'Justice' is entirely dependant on the origin of historical viewpoint. I'm sure western history varies greatly over the eastern version.....and others.

2020hindsight · 17 February 2007

Rederob…I’m not a lawyer, but on behalf of anyone with a sense of smell when it comes to rotten political claptrap – and rotten injustice with no pretence of morality (usa version - masters of spin) - I thank you for enunciating what I have been thinking

The fact that Johnny Howard has come round almost 180 degrees on this is enough justification in my mind for any stance I have made in the past. Others (the USA?) might come round one day (but I wouldn’t bet on it, the stakes and consequences of losing this case are getting ... ridiculous )

As Mori says – had he been offered a military court martial up front, the defence would have agreed, and it would have been fairly dealt with long ago.
As Fraser says – no way can he get a fair trial now – he is a political scapegoat.

I'm personally starting to worry whether , - DESPITE the election years ahead ( 2007 for aus, and 2008 for usa) that they will "bunker down" and "stitch him up bigtime".

Rederob - my guess is that if you're a lawyer, you see this every day in australian courts anyway
but surely - .. this one takes the cake !!

wayneL · 17 February 2007

rederob said:
Garpal
I think he was.
In fact, I have evidence he was.
Better evidence than you could find to the contrary.
Evidence you would be happy to kill for!

On topic, your preference is to punish someone for something they never did, certainly something that nobody beforehand in the justice system could reasonably be tried for.
There are few that doubt Hicks was "foolish", or a tad worse.
Was he a terrorist, a soldier, or neither?
I don't know.
He was certainly misguided.
I prefer to think that Australians would be prepared to fight for justice, over injustice.
That some are willing to throw Hicks to the wolves of war says as much about them as those who are contriving to pervert reasonable standards of humanity.
And at the end of the day, I always ask..."if he was your son?"

Red,

In matters of investing we are in sharp contrast with each other. Here, I am right with you. I think Australians who support this governments actions in this regard will someday look back... and regret it.

Cheers

David Hicks protests

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

rederob

Freeballinginawetsuit

Bobby

2020hindsight

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

rederob

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

2020hindsight

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

2020hindsight

rederob

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

rederob

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel

rederob

Freeballinginawetsuit

2020hindsight

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

David Hicks protests

Ross Island Hotel

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Ross Island Hotel

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Ross Island Hotel

Ross Island Hotel

Ross Island Hotel

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency