Kauri
E/W Learner
- Joined
- 3 September 2005
- Posts
- 3,428
- Reactions
- 11
2020hindsight said:
Thats no problem if you get to make up the rules as you go along...
2020hindsight said:so of the two charges, the attempted murder doesn't seem to have any grounds (never fired a shot at anyone - admitted by prosecution), and the second is retrospective.
Prime Minister John Howard says he does not believe the passage of retrospective laws in Australia is appropriate, despite Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks being charged under a retrospective law in the United States.
The Federal Opposition has accused the Government of double-standards over the draft charges announced for Mr Hicks, one of which was only passed into American law last year.
Labor is asking why the Government cannot introduce retrospective laws to enable Mr Hicks to be tried in Australia.
Mr Howard says what America decides to do is a matter for them.
"I don't equate what the US is doing with the passage of a retrospective criminal law in Australia, making offences that were not criminal offences at the time David Hicks did the things he's alleged to have done, crimes when they weren't at the time," he said.
2020hindsight said:http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1839870.htm
PM rejects call for retrospective Aust law for Hicks
seems to me, Mr Howard, you cant even see the total moral worthlessness of your statements, and, therefore the moral poverty you bring to the position you are holding as the leader of our country , and the ultimate upholder of its sense of values (and Australian-ness btw).
Julia said:Bob,
Hicks is undeniably foolish, to say the least. That said, he should not be incarcerated without charge for five years.
I do think his father has behaved with immense dignity throughout what must be a dreadful ordeal for him. He has been constant, but has refrained from hysteria. Compare his behaviour with that of the Corby Clan.
Julia
Don't the US have that whole evil "freedom of assembly" thing going on?Garpal Gumnut said:Sometimes one has to look beyond simplistic values such as those expressed by the foregoing posters and appreciate the base enormity of the cause with which Hicks has aligned himself.
chops_a_must said:Don't the US have that whole evil "freedom of assembly" thing going on?
Also:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
I guess emotions and vengeance win out hey? What's the difference between what the US are doing now, and what the Japanese did in Changi? Who cares right? It's not me, I don't have to worry about it!
Funny that. The Japanese still say the same about us.Garpal Gumnut said:Dear Chops,
I appreciate your concern for process but fear that this present clash of values is one in which the West cannot afford to fight with one hand tied behind its back. These guys are fighting for an emotional/religiose ideal which respects not western ideas of fair trial, process and liberty. The Japanese in Changi were aggressors, unfeeling, brutes, who starved and tortured our forefathers in pursuit of a cult of worship of a shady emperor. Hicks and al qaeda and the bali murderers do not have anything in common with Australian POWs during WW2. In fact if they got the upper hand I am quite sure that Changi would more than suit their purposes for the imprisonment of western intellectuals and defence personnel prior to their disposal under their ideas of a fair law. Garpal
chops_a_must said:Funny that. The Japanese still say the same about us.
That we were the aggressors in WWII.Garpal Gumnut said:Sorry mate, lost you there, what do the Japanese still say about us? Garpal
I would argue that USA (and AUS) attacked Afghanistan, and Hicks found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. And/or regrets it maybe?Garpal Gumnut said:The Japanese in Changi were aggressors, unfeeling, brutes, who starved and tortured our forefathers in pursuit of a cult of worship of a shady emperor.
2020hindsight said:More importantly, the actions of the current USA administration have been totally counterproductive. i.e have exacerbated the situation 100 fold.
2020hindsight said:I would argue that USA (and AUS) attacked Afghanistan, and Hicks found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. And/or regrets it maybe?
I agree Nicks. As the ABC said this morning, this is all one terrible precedent for any of our soldiers who are captured in the future.Nicks said:If the (anyone) declared war in the USA and ..(if any of us) was captured, should he be kept in prison for many years and charged with committing a crime..
Timing of Hicks charges 'an act of bastardry'
The Australian lawyer for David Hicks has accused the US military of an act of bastardry for waiting until the departure of his legal team to announce new charges. David McLeod has just returned from visiting his client at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, saying Hicks is a broken man.
....
Mr McLeod says he was with Hicks for four days but the US military waited until he left to announce the charges. "The fact that the day after we had spent four days with him, charges are presented to him in our absence, [that's] an act of bastardry on any scale," he said.
Mr McLeod also says he was interrogated during his latest trip to Guantanamo Bay. He claims he was subjected to an aggressive interrogation by an American military officer for speaking out in the media. "This is what happens when a lawless place like Guantanamo Bay is subject to scrutiny," he said. "They hate it, they don't want it, they don't invite, they don't encourage it. And when people speak out about it like myself - I get shirt-fronted."
Charges questioned. Mr McLeod says retrospective charges to be laid against his client are more evidence of an unfair system. He says the charge of providing material support for terrorism was enacted four months ago, while Hicks has been held for more than five years. "It doesn't apply to Americans, under the American constitution, charges cannot be preferred retrospectively to Americans," he said. "So here we have a process again designed specifically for non-Americans."
Prospector said:Oh yeah!
You know, if this wasnt so tragic for David Hicks this whole thing would be laughable.
The US couldnt find Osama, yet within a couple of months the Indonesian Govt had found the Bali bombers. And then we have Jihad Jack who has been charged with liaising with Osama and now he is not allowed to contact Osama on his mobile. So we have an average Australian being able to contact Osama, but the US cant even find him?
robert toms said:Garpal...can you tell me just what western interests are ?
Especially in Iraq,seems to be a strategic disaster ?Counter productive and only in the interests of those that oppose "western interests".The jihadist extremists,as opposed to western extremists,have had their view of west justified by a cowardly,dishonest ,unprovoked attack on a defenceless Iraq.
By western extremists I mean,of course,the Coalition of the Willing.
It seems that western interest in the Iraq invasion was the oil,otherwise the other reasons,ie dictatorship,democracy,WMD's etc are too silly to contemplate.The "shock and awe" has proved anything but that.
How do you think western interests are best served ? I heard a US politician say that the Iraq invasion has been their biggest foreign policy disaster in living memory.
When you vilify David Hicks remember that there are political leaders in this country that urged violence and death on others...just to ingratiate themselves with their foreign policy masters in Washington.These individuals are much more culpable than David Hicks...and they have never been brought to account.
nor should the words of pro-government activists (as history is sadly teaching us).Garpal Gumnut said:The physical movements or contacts of anti-government activists should not be used as a proof for a just or unjust war.
Rocky III painted the muja heroes -robert toms said:One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Who defines who is a terrorist?
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?