David Hicks protests

[rederob]

I'm sure that Hicks was a 'naughty' boy. Do all naughty boys go around the world, leave their wives and children at home, carry a gun and aid and abet terrorists? Some naughty boy!

No bel.
The naughty boys stay at home, get drunk and beat their wives!
I have never defended Hicks' actions.
Nor would I defend our country's actions in respect of Hicks.
The simple question I ask is who has committed the worse offence?
Hicks, in fighting for his (silly in my view) beliefs?
Or a government that let one of its citizens rot in jail, without charge for as long as it did?
Then that very government, with release imminent, laments the US government's tardiness.
Many people want to attack a misguided young man who could never be charged under Australian law or international law.
Some even believe Hicks might be a danger at home, upon release - let's face it, he was labelled "the worst of the worst".
If Hicks is now a danger, it will probably be due more to what he has endured at Guantanamo.

 

[2020hindsight]

as I said back there , we'll all have the opportunity to ask him his thoughts on that when he becomes a member of ASF after Xmas - that is if the USA govt lets him talk - despite the fact that AUS govt will not interfere in that (allegedly)

And depends on the sedition laws I guess - I'm sure that can be twisted to mean anything. (bit like the patriot stuff in US)

As I made vague reference to back there, I'd love to be more informed about what can and can't be said under new sedition laws (anyone know? - but be careful in what you say lol)

 

[bel532]

No bel.
The naughty boys stay at home, get drunk and beat their wives!
I have never defended Hicks' actions.
Nor would I defend our country's actions in respect of Hicks.
The simple question I ask is who has committed the worse offence?
Hicks, in fighting for his (silly in my view) beliefs?
Or a government that let one of its citizens rot in jail, without charge for as long as it did?
Then that very government, with release imminent, laments the US government's tardiness.
Many people want to attack a misguided young man who could never be charged under Australian law or international law.
Some even believe Hicks might be a danger at home, upon release - let's face it, he was labelled "the worst of the worst".
If Hicks is now a danger, it will probably be due more to what he has endured at Guantanamo.

Let us stop with all this legalise jargon. Hicks aided and abetted terrorists in two continents Europe and Asia, pure and simple. let's see if he has learned his lesson or is he stiil inculculcated with Fundamentalist Islamic mayhem!

 

[happytown]

Let us stop with all this legalise jargon. Hicks aided and abetted terrorists ...

cheers

 

[2020hindsight]

happytown - likewise , Canberra has gone on to formalise the fact that in their opinion it wasn't a retrospective charge... or should that be formal lies?

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1887902.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/
ABC Four corners transcript. Plus tons of other research on the case.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: After more than five years at Guantanamo Bay, and a legal battle that reached the US Supreme Court, David Hicks has pleaded guilty to a charge of material support for a terrorist organisation.
TERRY HICKS: David was - yeah, you could tell he was - he was desperate. He wanted to - he - he's had enough. He just wanted to get out of the place.
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI, DEFENCE COUNSEL FOR DAVID HICKS: I don't think David is going to be able to show any real emotion until he gets off a plane in Australia.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: Hicks' plea came after a year of solitary confinement, and the first time, in more than two years, he'd seen his family.
JOSHUA DRATEL, DEFENCE COUNSEL FOR DAVID HICKS: It is certainly not different than what has been alleged in -in parts of the charge sheet. It's certainly not anything - it's not any blockbuster, in terms of types of conduct, that would make him a terrorist, or somebody who, we believe, should do any more time in custody.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: In a formal statement, David Hicks admitted he trained and fought with a terrorist organisation.
ALEXANDER DOWNER, FOREIGN MINISTER: On the basis of his admission of guilt, he was a supporter of Al-Qaeda, which is the world's most wicked terrorist organisation, by a very big margin.

COLONEL LAWRENCE WILKERSIN, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO COLIN POWELL: I'm not naive. I know that they probably worked out - I'm quite sure they worked out - a plea bargain, that would allow the United States to appear to have effected a reasonably fair proceeding, would allow David Hicks to return to Australia, and satisfy Prime Minister Howard's needs.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Hicks says he accepted responsibility after he was shown notes taken by interrogators. Now, the allegations against David Hicks will never be tested, and Hicks has agreed not to speak to the media for the next 12 months. But, five years ago, at the beginning of his Guantanamo detention, he did tell his story.

Tonight on Four Corners we bring you, in David Hicks' own words, that first account of what he did in Afghanistan, the account he has now accepted amounts to material support for a terrorist organisation.

In May 2002, at Guantanamo Bay, David Hicks was interviewed by the Australian Federal Police for more than five hours. An official from the Department of Foreign Affairs sat in on the interview. The reconstructions in this program are taken directly from a transcript of that interview. Then, as now, David Hicks didn't deny that he trained with Al-Qaeda, and was with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban when the United States attacked Afghanistan.

OFFICER J: Just in your own words, what can you tell me about your time in Afghanistan?
DAVID HICKS: Yes, I did go and receive training, but not with the intent to take any action against the government, or the Northern Alliance, at that time.
OFFICER J: Do you agree that you were captured by members of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan?
DAVID HICKS: Yes.
OFFICER J: What were you doing in Afghanistan at that time?
DAVID HICKS: I was travelling in a taxi.
OFFICER J: Where had you been?
DAVID HICKS: Kunduz.
OFFICER J: What were you doing there?
DAVID HICKS: With the intention to fight.
OFFICER J: With whom?
DAVID HICKS: What do you mean, with whom?
OFFICER J: Well, you said you were going to fight.
DAVID HICKS: We were the foreigners under the Taliban.
OFFICER J: All right, and you were going to - you said you intended to fight. Against whom?
DAVID HICKS: Northern Alliance.

etc etc
PS might surprise you bel, but I've sat in one of those chairs at a military court martial - but I digress.

 

[bel532]

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1887902.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/
ABC Four corners transcript. Plus tons of other research on the case.

etc etc
PS might surprise you bel, but I've sat in one of those chairs at a military court martial - but I digress.

He is guilty of consorting with terrorists. So what's your point?

 

[2020hindsight]

bel there are countless points to make that have already been made
a) you don;t seem to know much about christian values of forgiveness
b) these bugas lol - tonight's news - guilty of mmm maybe , just maybe .... "associating", sorry, "consorting with terrorists" (yes?)

like sold em rocket launchers (i.e. to terrorists) .
Question buddy - what do you suggest happens to them (assuming guilty of course)??
sheesh I thought this only happened in "24" (Jack Bauer etc)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1891227.htm
ADF officer in court over rocket launcher theft
Two men have appeared in a Sydney court to face charges over the theft of eight rocket launchers from a Defence Forces depot in Sydney.

Forty-six-year-old Shane Della Vedova is a captain working in the ammunitions area. He was brought into the dock after his co-accused, 39-year-old Dean Taylor, a former Defence Force member.

Both men bear the clean-cut and fit look of army officers. The magistrate has been surprised by an application from the Defence Forces for Captain Della Vedova to be released into its custody.

The lawyer for Taylor says the allegations go back to 2002 and the witnesses may be unreliable. He says the serious charges will be denied.

NOtice something in that post ... "they dress in suits" what !! you mean they dont hold placards or wear tee-shirts "I'm a Terrorist ???" sheesh , when will you blokes wake up .

PS back to Hicks ( you have to read the whole thing - and lol with as open a mind as you can muster

DEBBIE WHITMONT: It'll never be known how the legal debate about David Hicks' intention might have played out in the military commission. But even commission supporters like Richard Samp say that fighting as a soldier in a civil war isn't a war crime.

RICHARD SAMP, CHIEF COUNSEL, WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION: To take part in a freedom fight can mean many different things. If by what you mean taking part in a freedom fight you mean blowing up the World Trade Centre, blowing up trains in Spain, blowing up subways in London, then, yes, I would say that meets the definition of a war criminal.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: What about fighting, guerrilla warfare?

RICHARD SAMP, CHIEF COUNSEL, WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION: If one is intending to engage in guerrilla warfare as part of an insurgent group that's involved in a civil war, and one is only targeting military targets, then that would not be a war crime.

 

[2020hindsight]

OFFICER L: And was that still important after you heard about September 11, getting home?

DAVID HICKS: That's why I went back to get all my stuff. So I knew that the border would be closed again, I went back inside Afghanistan before it all happened. Everything of mine was in Afghanistan. I was -

OFFICER J: Everything of yours was back in Afghanistan?

DAVID HICKS: Yeah, all my clothes, all my documents, like birth certificate, stuff like that.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: According to Hicks, he had no choice but to join in against the Northern Alliance. Three days after he got back to Afghanistan, he was told the border was closed. He said he waited as long as he could at an Al-Qaeda guesthouse with three other foreigners. An Al-Qaeda commander, Saif al Adel, told the foreigners they had to leave the guest house - the 'mahad'.

DAVID HICKS: We had three decisions to make. One was go back to - go to the airport, go to the mountains or go to Kabul, and the three of us, none - none of the four of us wanted to do that, so we just hang in mahad, and it lasted for quite a few weeks and in the end we got kicked out.

OFFICER J: So why was he - I don't understand. Why was he so keen for you to go to one of these locations?

DAVID HICKS: 'Cause we weren't allowed to stay in the city in their places any more. People were abandoning it.

OFFICER J: Why was that?

DAVID HICKS: Everyone that was there, they went to these free places 'cause they were afraid of American air strikes. We ended up in one of the last places that people were using and he said, "You can't stay here any longer. If you don't take one of these three decisions then you're on your own." And Afghanistan's not a place to be without money and not knowing, so - so all of us, the four of us, we chose the airport.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Two of the three who were with Hicks up to that point were from Britain and have now been released from Guantanamo without charge. The fourth - a former Australian soldier - wasn't captured.

bel, continuing ...
c) He says he went back to Afghanistan for his "certificates"..
His dad said he went back to Afghanistan for his passport.
Either way seems reasonable to me

d) I guess I have to make the point yet again that were he a pom, he'd have been free. But no doubt you'll ignore that point yet again
PS Why not concentrate your energies in catching that Aussie that wasn't captured ?!!

PPS had you seen the show, you would have seen what the NA did to a lot of the foreigners there - who should have been entitled to Geneva Convention you'd think - (sorry, who knows what you'd think - but that's what I'd think anyway) .
They just shot em !! You're right , Hicks was lucky, he was sold for cash instead.

PPS again - Howard pretends "he got 5 years , about right all good - question then is, if the Aus govt appealed to US to get him out of solitary early in his detention - and succeeded - and then after a year or so the US put him back in solitary - for the remaining period of more than one year - then what changed? - and why didnt the Aus govt appeal again ? "

 

[Captain_Chaza]

If you sleep with rats/terrorists
Train with rats/terrorists to kill civilians

What in the hell are you?

A lack in IQ will never be a plausible excuse to any victim or their family!


Just my Opinion FWIW

PS Burn the Bugger before he burns a member of your family!

 

[rederob]

He is guilty of consorting with terrorists. So what's your point?

bel
The point is ...
you have missed it.
You want to make this "all about Hicks".
It's really more about the actions that surround Hicks' case.
There is little "legalese jargon" involved.
It's about anyone's ability to be dealt with fairly.
It's about having a government that cares if you are in trouble overseas, and ensures your case will at the very least be expedited and supported to the maximum extent possible.
Our government does not care, and showed a similar attitude in their dealings with another Australian citizen, Ahmed Aziz Rafiq, released (without charge - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1326981.htm) after a year's confinement.
Similarly, Minister Downer showed little concern about the person subject of this item - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1115748.htm - who was released last month after almost 3 years without charge.
Both the above are now "loose" again in Australia.

 

[2020hindsight]

Back to Shane Della-Vedova for a minute ,
if you go to google and search for his name, you get this option :-

Army - The Soldier's Newspaper
WO2 Shane Della-Vedova with a damaged Sea Dart missile, worth $2 million, before its destruction by the Joint Ammunition Logistics Organisation at Singleton ...
www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1064/topstories/story09.htm

sadly, when you click on the link , it is "no longer available".
This man was in charge of missiles (some obviously very expensive, $2 million sheesh) and (possibly) went on to sell them to "people" variously called "terrorists" and also "criminals". Split hairs if you wish. This bloke is a worry. (lol - hope there's only one of em in the army - in charge of munitions - if there are two, and I have the wrong one, I apologise I am referring to the bloke who was arrested today for selling weapons)

Here I'm gonna be brave a make an attempt at a light-hearted comment ( just a jest ok) . There is another Shane Della-Vedova who is a fertilizer distributor.
Now I hope the bloke who is charged never falsifies his identity and orders a heap of ammonium nitrate (commonly used on farms for blowing stumps - and incidentally used in many car bombings) - which as you know is both a fertilizer and an explosive.

 

[rederob]

If you sleep with rats/terrorists
Train with rats/terrorists to kill civilians

What in the hell are you?

A lack in IQ will never be a plausible excuse to any victim or their family!


Just my Opinion FWIW

PS Burn the Bugger before he burns a member of your family!

Charlie
You simply joint the ranks of the bigots and ignorant with your puerile comments.
Well done, as always.

 

[2020hindsight]

a few more excerpts from that interview - interesting

OFFICER L: Effectively, you were being directed by the Al-Qaeda at that stage?
DAVID HICKS: I'd say so, yeah. We were under the Taliban basically. Everyone, including Al-Qaeda themselves, were under the Taliban. Have to be, they wouldn't have existed. The orders were coming from the Taliban.
OFFICER J: So, what was your understanding of the situation?
DAVID HICKS: That we were in the ****.
OFFICER J: Did you discharge any weapons in the direction of enemy troops?
DAVID HICKS: No.
OFFICER J: Did anyone with you discharge weapons in the direction of enemy troops?
DAVID HICKS: No.
OFFICER J: Why did you wish to assist the Al-Qaeda?
DAVID HICKS: I didn't see myself as assisting them, as you put it, the Al-Qaeda. Basically, I was stuck where I was. There wasn't much I could do about it.
OFFICER L: The situation - it's quite possible that you could have been sitting there with a United States or an Australian armed serviceman in front of you, which you would have had to fight. How would you?
DAVID HICKS: I knew that wouldn't happen.
OFFICER L: How can you predict that?
DAVID HICKS: Why would they risk the lives of their own men when they've got someone that's going to do it for them that's already been fighting against the Taliban that knows them well? Why would they go on the frontline when they've got a whole army for them? So I never had a thought in my mind that I'd come up against a western - or one of my own people's troops.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Hicks became separated from the other foreigners. He went to Kabul, where he met someone he knew who was going to Kunduz. Once there, Hicks said he was told to go to the front line. But a few hours after he got there, it collapsed.

DAVID HICKS: I got to the front line about 12 o'clock, 1 o'clock in the afternoon and they said in the night - I went to the back section. They said in the night we can go forward under cover of dark up into the front trenches. That was what we were meant to do. OK, we prayed the evening prayer about 10 minutes after sunset and the next minute all these people started running towards us. They said, "There's no more frontline, get out of here." Next minute the bullets were flying and the Northern Alliance came over the trench with tanks. So there was about 200-300 people of all mixed nationalities, foreigners, we started walking and I spent two and a half, three days after that walking back towards Kunduz, being chased by the Northern Alliance, being fired upon.

I wonder if we went back through these posts and erased all the ones that have him shooting at Aussies , etc - how many posts would we have left (?)

 

[Captain_Chaza]

I don't care what you say 2020

I will not be giving him my vote as
"The Australian of the Year"

This man is a sick human being and if he were an animal would be put down
There would be no question about that

Such is life on this Land


Crikey! These half -wits threaten our peaceful social fabric every day and then expect us to put them away and re-habilitate them into society

YES they do!

But only when they are caught out

SHAME SHAME SHAME!

Why Bother with such trash?
There are a lot of Good people out there that may need some help

Why help a fully-trained terrorist that got caught-out before he could do/repay his training

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

My attitude to David Hicks is as follows.

He is on a par with Lord Haw Haw in the Second WW and Hanoi Jane Fonda during the War in South Vietnam.

He has gone against Australia's national interest and aligned himself with our enemies.

He has paid the price, being imprisoned under a not very intelligent, punitive, US Army system.

He has suffered, but no less than he would have made others suffer had his Islamist mates been in the ascendancy.

He will serve out his term in an Australian prison.... not a picnic (I've been a visitor to a gaol in Australia and would suggest he request the same lighting at night as in Guantanomo Bay)

He is supported by people who appear to have a simplistic notion of justice and fairness.

He will be pursued ad infinitum by the press, and have no peace or rest in his "new" life in Australia.

He will be used by "Justice" and "Human rights groups" for their own ends.

Garpal

 

[2020hindsight]

For anyone who's interested, My attitude to this is as follows :-
We are discussing it, and as long as we spend time listening to points of view other than our own, then with this broad range of opinions, (albeit basically pro or against) we will all come out of this more educated.

Here I want to post something from wikipedia about "the Irish Troubles" - troubles? talk about a euphemism!!. Now this is not an attempt to pretend I'm anything but a worker myself - will be for a bludy long time yet, lol

But I find comfort in the fact that the Irish Troubles (30+, almost 40 years of bombings and bloodshed) was apparently mainly carried on by people who were working class. Sure the two sides were mainly separated by religious beliefs - but some of society decided to ignore that - (and that was news to me and I found that interesting) . Now I'm choosing to see that as a positive - and to suggest that if we spend more time and effort educating ourselves, then this can only help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles Religion, class and region.
Religion and class are the two major determinants of political allegiance in Northern Ireland. Almost all Protestants are Unionists, and the overwhelming majority of Catholics are nationalists; many republicans. Working class Catholics and Protestants are more likely to support paramilitary groups and radical political parties on either side. Moreover, the paramilitaries have their strongholds in urban working-class areas and it is this social class which is the most segregated along sectarian lines.

The radical political parties associated with paramilitaries have sometimes offered far more radical political analyses than the more middle-class and conservative parties. Sinn Féin, from the late 1970s, adopted a radical "anti-imperialist" perspective of the political situation, comparing it to "liberation struggles" elsewhere such as in the Palestinian Territories and South Africa. Their analysis also defined the conflict partly in terms of "class struggle", although unlike the Marxist Official IRA, they did not take this to mean that the loyalist working class were potential allies. Loyalists in the 1970s even advocated majoritarian forms of an "independent Ulster". There is little support for this idea today. In the 1980s, some loyalists, notably John McMichael of the UDA (who was assassinated by the PIRA), advocated a power-sharing, egalitarian solution to the conflict, which they released in a pamphlet titled, "Common Sense".

Gee I love that article title "common sense" - shame the bloke who wrote it (advocating power-sharing) was assassinated
As I infer above, IMO, let's try not to prejudge, let's read what evidence is out there, and lets' treat this thread as a chance to collect evidence and get educated.

 

[2020hindsight]

He is on a par with Lord Haw Haw in the Second WW and Hanoi Jane Fonda during the War in South Vietnam.

Lord Haw Haw is an interesting one yes. Herewith a few idle comments- ignore em if you wish. He was hanged after the war, when others (similar ) were not ??.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_haw_haw William Joyce, (took over broadcasting from Mitler in 1939), an American-born citizen raised in Ireland, where, although a Catholic, as a teenager he informed on the IRA rebels to the British forces during the Anglo-Irish War. He was also formerly a senior member of the British Union of Fascists, and fled England when tipped off about his planned internment on August 26, 1939.

... After Joyce took over (broadcasting to UK) , Mitler was paired with the American-born announcer Mildred Gillars in the Axis Sally program and also broadcast to ANZAC forces in North Africa. Mitler survived the war and appeared on postwar German television. Joyce was captured by British forces in northern Germany just as the war ended, tried, and eventually hanged for treason on January 3, 1946. As an American citizen and naturalised German, Joyce could not have been convicted of treason against the Crown, except that the prosecution successfully argued on a technicality that having lied about his nationality to obtain a British passport and to vote, Joyce thus owed allegiance to the King.

The decision to hang him was made perhaps because of the fear his alleged omniscience had inspired. As J.A. Cole has written, "The British public would not have been surprised if, in that Flensburg wood, Haw-Haw had carried in his pocket a secret weapon capable of annihilating an armoured brigade."

Other British subjects willingly made propaganda broadcasts, including Raymond David Hughes, who broadcast on the German Radio Metropole; and John Amery, while other, such as P. G. Wodehouse, did so under coercion..

The case against Joyce is pretty confused you'd think - and it's also confusing / inconsistent that Mitler ( who made similar broadcasts to Anzacs in Nth Africa) went on to become a TV anouncer in Germany after the war
As usual, the law appears to be a bit of an ass.

Interesting also that as a young man and a Catholic, Joyce informed on the IRA to the Brits.

 

[chops_a_must]

He is on a par with Lord Haw Haw in the Second WW and Hanoi Jane Fonda during the War in South Vietnam.

You are on a computer. Chances are you are using an IBM or IBM derived technology.

What is the difference, Mr. Dehomag?

Cheers,
Chops.

 

[bel532]

bel
The point is ...
you have missed it.
You want to make this "all about Hicks".
It's really more about the actions that surround Hicks' case.
There is little "legalese jargon" involved.
It's about anyone's ability to be dealt with fairly.
It's about having a government that cares if you are in trouble overseas, and ensures your case will at the very least be expedited and supported to the maximum extent possible.
Our government does not care, and showed a similar attitude in their dealings with another Australian citizen, Ahmed Aziz Rafiq, released (without charge - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1326981.htm) after a year's confinement.
Similarly, Minister Downer showed little concern about the person subject of this item - http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1115748.htm - who was released last month after almost 3 years without charge.
Both the above are now "loose" again in Australia.

I'm sick to death of so called Aussies getting into trouble overseas aka the recent Lebanese conflict (what the hell were they doing in a well known 'trouble spot' in the first place?), and expecting our Government to help them out. I put Hicks in that category. Once you leave this country and consort with terrorists, or place yourself deliberately in a trouble spot, then it's your problem, not ours, period.

I couldn’t believe the sight of all the so called Aussie/ Lebanese whinging about the lack of Federal Government assistance to get them out of a hole they dug themselves into. What is their prime loyalty - Australia or Lebanon and why were so many there for so long in the first place?.