David Hicks- back in Australia (1 Viewer)

[BritneySpears]

His treatment is acceptable by all legal standards and whatever happened to him is what he asked for. I am not frightened for the slightest by your so called dangerous precedent set by David Hicks treatment. I know deep down in my heart that I will never go to Afghanistan or Pakistan and no I will never fight for Islam therefore I will never be arrested for terrorism and I will never be sent to Guantanamo. I have nothing to to fear. If there is anything to worry about from his treatment, it should be for terrorists and their cohorts.

 

[ari89]

His treatment is acceptable by all legal standards and whatever happened to him is what he asked for. I am not frightened for the slightest by your so called dangerous precedent set by David Hicks treatment. I know deep down in my heart that I will never go to Afghanistan or Pakistan and no I will never fight for Islam therefore I will never be arrested for terrorism and I will never be sent to Guantanamo. I have nothing to to fear. If there is anything to worry about from his treatment, it should be for terrorists and their cohorts.

LOL

 

[Serius]

Also, I can't resist briefly discrediting the arguments about tax payers footing his 500k return home bill. The fact that he flew home in a luxury aircraft is incidental. The US would not let him fly home on a commercial flight so a special flight had to be chartered. The flight the federal government chose was for their own convenience, not as a special favour to Hicks. Had he flown on a less comfortable aircraft the cost of chartering it and paying for security would have been about the same and so would the taxpayers' bill.

Hicks recieved no special luxury treatment. All he was offered was a standard meal. Other than that the only benefit of the luxury flight was that he got to sit in a comfy seat and watch a movie. Something most of us can enjoy everyday. Hardly "luxurious" treatment.

He could have flown in a military aircraft, not only would it be alot less confortable, but there would be more security and it would cost about 68$ to fly him. Only problem would be timing it, because australian aircraft flights from the US to australia arent that frequent.

Oh and in your previous post you forgot 2 critical points.

1. It was a military matter, not a civilian one. Military courts operate outside of the common courts and so they should, its a different world where murder isnt usually the crime but rather who you killed, why, and how. Men who are asked to lay down their lives for their country, to kill others and to risk being killed,its a different world to the one we know.

2. The information about Hicks was sensitive. If they trialed him straight away operatives would have been at risk, plans would have been public and alot of shit would have hit the fan. A closed court at the time would have been difficult because of american laws and the public outcry would have been pretty big.

I am not saying those two points are the be all and end all, it doesnt make it right but its more to consider. When you way everything up i think they did just about the only thing they could have at the time. Besides, who gives a fuck if he had to wait for trial, he was found guilty anyway so he served his time and no harm was done against an innocent man.

 

[Serius]

I got 68$ because thats about how much it costs for someone in the military who is on leave, and their spouse or retired military and spouse to fly on a miliary aircraft.[dependants too i beleive, so young children if you have em] Its not really an exact figure because it gets bumped up abit depending on how often theres a flight, if theres room in the cargo with all the supplies or whatever, but the point is its rediculously cheap.

As far as i know, his trial was carried out perfectly legally and with no real malice. How could they when he allready confessed? military matters i think are alot different to civilian ones. I thought i allready explained that. In the military its legal to kill people, its legal to do alot of really bad things, but other things you cant do without repercussions. Bigger things are at stake and bigger punishments [i.e death] are handed out. It wasnt a civilian matter, he didnt attack civilian targets, his group wasnt aimed at the pentagon or whatever, it was a straight up military matter so he should get charged in a military court.

What plans? no idea, its probably still sensitive. You could easily find out if you were in the military, but the point is you cant just have a public trial over a military matter like this, it gives away too much information to people you dont want to give it to. Thats part of the reason the military have their own court system, so only trusted people hear the details that others dont need to know about.

Lastly, what you are implying is that Hicks was innocent and for some reason he confessed right? well that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me and you come across as a little... foolish? fanatical? whatever it is it isnt rational and intelligent. He pleaded guilty, he confessed and i choose to take it at face value. I dont need to question something where he admited he was in the wrong, he isnt an innocent man. case closed. Once again in the military they dont have the whole "inocent until proven guilty"thing and they dont like to let people go who they know is a terrorist just because they dont have enough evidence, cause hey turns out they might just end up being responsible for madrid eh? Once again its a military deal, terrorists or enemy combatants[whatever else you want to classify him with, totally confused over this, POW maybe?] arent the types of people who kill their wife in a crime of passion and then go to jail for it, if they make the wrong decision many people end up dying when mustafa plants a bomb on the subway. Theres more at stake, its a much bigger deal and iam willing to let them have a few discretions when the stakes are that big. I am willing to allow them that for our national security, and if it ever ends up biting me in the ass and me or someone i care about is trialed as a terrorist then so be it, that can be my sacrifice for living in a safe country.

 

[circusmind]

His treatment is acceptable by all legal standards and whatever happened to him is what he asked for. I am not frightened for the slightest by your so called dangerous precedent set by David Hicks treatment. I know deep down in my heart that I will never go to Afghanistan or Pakistan and no I will never fight for Islam therefore I will never be arrested for terrorism and I will never be sent to Guantanamo. I have nothing to to fear. If there is anything to worry about from his treatment, it should be for terrorists and their cohorts.

Why don't we just go ahead and deny basic rights to everyone we dislike. Go team!

 

[jb_nc]

Why don't we just go ahead and deny basic rights to everyone we dislike. Go team!

we do it to abos

 

[lala2]

We waste the taxpayer's money just to bring some idiot back home? At least he had the audacity to thank us! I say we should've let him rot in jail a little longer.

 

[BritneySpears]

Okay Britney maybe you personally have nothing to worry about. Neither do I. I have no interest in going to Afganistan. This in no way makes Hicks' treatment acceptable. Are you saying it is okay for governments to ignore the law if that omission would not affect you personally? Your little rant proves nothing.

Aren't you contradicting yourself telling us you have nothing to worry about then said his treatment set a dangerous precendent for australians? His treatment set a warning for any future rambo wannabe's in australia and it is highly unlikely that anyone would repeat the same mistake as him which is a good thing. He was treated fairly in Guantanamo, he had access to the worlds best lawyers and can launch endless legal challenges from his jail cell. In the end he was treated with ten thousand miles first class pvt jet journey back home. He have nothing to complain but thank the australian government and the people for their endless support and generousity to a man who wanted to destroy his own country and kill its people. Australians have nothing to worry from his trial and no australians will be sent to guantanamo, unless they are terrorists fighting in afghanistan or elsewhere. Your scaremongering attempts failed miserably.

Military courts are closed to public scrutiny. Evidence gained under coersion is accepted. Hersay evidence can be used. And instead of judges experienced in the legal system, he is judged by army guys who are obviously going to hate him. It is hardly a fair trial.

Where is your source that evidence under coercion is accepted in US military court? Do you have any examples? Who have been convicted by US military court under confession extracted under coercion? Did you know that Nuremberg trials are also Military tribunal, were they unfair too? Did you know that tokyo trials were also Military Tribunals? :rofl: I must say that your assumption Civilian court=perfect, Military court=unfair is just stupid. I have heard heaps of unfair trail in civilian court in which rapist got free and murderer walk away with suspended sentence. If you want to make such accusations at least provide us with evidence.

You say its a different world. I agree. But why does this mean we should dispence with the rules of evidence that ensure a fair trial in our civilian legal system. Your logic is "military situations are different, therefore, the different method of trial is justified." Just because they are different does not prove the need for a different legal system. Care to explain the reasoning behind this assumption. Is there any actually reason why could he not have simply been tried by a civilian court?

he was captured in warzone, he was a taliban fighter and he fell under military jurisdiction and the military have every right to put him on trial. He was NOT under civilian court jurisdiction. He cannot choose which court he wants to trial him.

Haha yeah. The old he was found guilty. Who wouldn't have confessed in his situtation, faced with indefinate imprisonment at Guantamo Bay? Why was he given such a light sentance if he is a dangerous terrorist? His confession is meaningless and to a charge of "providing material support to the enemy" which was made up so they'd have something to charge him with and applied retrospectively. There is no evidence that he participated in any terrorist activity. All that can be proved is that he was "hanging out with bad people" which is not a crime. Until of course they made it a crime years after he supposedly did it.

I would not confess for a crime I didnt do. He confessed because he knew he was guilty. If he was innocent there will be no reason to jail him. he was given a light sentence because he already served 5 years in jail. How many more years do you want to serve him? There are plenty of evidence from his own letter to his father that he participated in terrorists activities such as fighting indian soldiers with muslim terrorists in kashmir.

Even if we accept that his confession was valid and he is guilty this is hardly an exscuse. If the police unlawfully imprison someone, it is still a crime even if that person turns out to be guilty. At the time Hicks was imprisoned they did not know he would confess and had no evidence. He was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.

Police can detain anyone who is a suspect of comitting a crime for a certain period. It is NOT a crime to detain someone who is a suspect. There are thousands of people detained in australian jail who are NOT yet found guilty.He was already proven guilty and he is in jail, where he belongs.

So my initial point that the Australian and US governments handling of the matter was appaling still stands. Whether you like Hicks or hate him (which as I have said is fair enough) I just hope you can acknowledge the way he was treated was wrong. Thats all.

The way he was treated was a perfect treatment for terrorists and all terrorists must be treated that way. Except a luxury flight back to their country.

 

[BritneySpears]

Now onto you Britney. Serius' posts are at least well written and make some reasonable points. You on the other hand strike me as particularly ill-informed and un-intelligent. Your writting style screams "uncouth bogan." But enough of the personal attacks, I find it much more satisfying (not to mention easy) to deconstruct your arguments.

No. Simply because something does not effect me personally does not me that I would be so narrow minded as to be unconcerned by it. If we disregard human rights and the right to a fair trial it degrades our political and legal system which effects all Australians.

Your so called danger of precedent does not effect anyone in australia, it only effect terrorists who purposely went to afghanistan/pakistan. It has no effect whatsoever on australians. It only scares terrorists and their supporters that they could be locked away in guantanamo which is good for the rest of australians. It made this country safer.

Here is my evidence Britney:
(http://www.cvt.org/main.php/Advocacy/TortureisUn-American/FAQs:MilitaryCommissionsAct)
Q. Does the MCA allow the use of evidence obtained under coercion?
A. The MCA bars the admission of evidence obtained by cruel and inhuman treatment, except any obtained before Dec. 30, 2005, when Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act that a judge declares reliable and probative.
If you don't believe me Google it. Numerous sources support this. They've outlawed it now. But all this stuff they obtained before 2005 would be admissable. No wonder he confessed and took 9 months.
Britney's likely response: "Yeh but hez was a fucken terrorist they shud be able ta torcha cunts lyke that!"

yeah 2005! he was trialled in 2007 my friend he had every right to retract his confession if they were found to be done under coercion. Besisdes NO ONE is convicted with confession extracted under coercion.

Yes. In the case of Nuremberg this was over 50 years ago. Both these examples are from different jurisdictions. It is totally irrelevent. The only similarity is the name "military tribunal."

Or another similarity would be they trialled war criminals such as david hicks and Hitler's men?

In never made that assumption. All I'm saying is civilian trials are fairer. Here is my evidence:
Yeah its from Wikipedia but this is a well footnoted section, which I checked out. I chose this as it provides a good summary. Also see my other points above. If you don't believe me check it out but serious dont just come back and say its from wiki and therefore wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_military_commission
The Guantanamo military trials do not operate according to either system of justice. The differences include:
The accused are not allowed access to all the evidence against them. The presiding officers are authorized to consider secret evidence the accused have no opportunity to refute.
It may be possible for the commission to consider evidence that was extracted through coercive interrogation techniques before the enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act [3]. However, legally the commission is restricted from considering any evidence extracted by torture, as defined by the Department of Defense.[4]
The Appointing Officer in overall charge of the commissions is sitting in on them. He is authorized to shut down any commission, without warning, and without explanation.
The proceedings may be closed at the discretion of the Presiding Officer, so that secret information may be discussed by the commission.
The accused are not permitted a free choice of attorneys, as they can only use military lawyers or those civilian attorneys eligible for the Secret security clearance.[5]
Because the accused are charged as unlawful combatants, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that an acquittal on all charges by the commission is no guarantee of a release. [6]

See the article you quoted contradict your own posts. And those techinicalities and power of the presiding officer does not effect the fairness of the trial.

No he can't. This does not prove the military trial is fair. Just that it is the current status quo. Like serius you are using a fallatious appeal to authority without assessing the merits of the system.

He maintaned his innocence for five years. Then when they offered him a chance to return home after just 9 months, he suddenly changed his mind. What a suprise. Easy to say you wouldn't confess Britney, interesting to see if you'd change your tune after 5 years in Gitmo.

Or he suddenly knew that admitting his guilt is the right thing to do and the cause he fought for that is his fellow terrorists did not accept him as one of theirs and have no reason to defend them? If he was not guilty he would not plead guilty, because there will not be any evidence to convict him, and he would be free in a few months. He knew he was guilty because his evidence were so strong(the fact that he was captured behind enemy lines) admitted his guilt and now he is in jail, under a free and fair trial.

Police can detain suspects for 24 hours, then they have to release them or bring them before a court. Big difference between 24 hours and 5 years! If they are refused bail and placed on remand there has at least been a summary hearing to determine that there is a prima face case against them. Furthermore, no one is placed on remand in solitary confinement 23 hours a day for five years!!!

Police can detain suscpects indifinitely with the permission of court. They can detain throughout their trials one year, two year or five years. In the case of David Hicks, he could have been put on trial 3 or 4 years ago but thanks to his scrupulous lawyers' endless appeal their trials were delayed. He can only blame himself, other inmates and his lawyers for all those wasted years.

Perfect for terrorists. He's not even charged with terrorism. Just "material support for terrorism." There is no evidence he engaged in any actual acts of terrorism. Getting realease after 6 years is far from perfect treatment. If he really was a dangerous terrorist he should be locked away for life!
SERIOUSLY GUYS IM NOT TRYING TO MAKE YOU LIKE HICKS. I JUST WANT YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HIS TREATMENT WAS UNFAIR.

Also don't bother pointing out the numerous spelling and grammatic errors indubitably present in this post. There was just so much nonsense to take apart it couldn't be helped.

Whether he actually blew up a bus in kashmir or shot a coalition troops in afghanistan is irrelevant. He is a terrorist, he admitted that in a free and fair trial. The military commission knew that despite him being a terrorists, everyone have a chance of rehabilitating themselves and David Hicks after serving five years in Guantanamo will have little incentive to go to Afghanistan to fight for people who rejected him. They are giving him a chance to rebuilt his life and as his supporter you should thank the military comission. They are not cruel people like you who ask for harsh punishment unnecessarily.

 

[Sparcod]

Britney Spears- I don't mean to be rude but if you have something long and argumentative to say, at least use proper grammar and structure your sentences the correct way.

Whether he actually blew up a bus in kashmir or shot a coalition troops in afghanistan is irrelevant. He is a terrorist, he admitted that in a free and fair trial. The military commission knew that despite him being a terrorists, everyone have a chance of rehabilitating themselves and David Hicks after serving five years in Guantanamo will have little incentive to go to Afghanistan to fight for people who rejected him. They are giving him a chance to rebuilt his life and as his supporter you should thank the military comission. They are not cruel people like you who ask for harsh punishment unnecessarily.

Let's keep it simple. He was labelled as a 'suspected terrorist', not a 'terrorist'. He was left there for 5 years without trial and without giving his side of the story. In my view, this 'suspect' was locked up without any proof that he was a terrorist. I'm saying that the trial and hearing should've happened ages ago. Why did it take so long? Did something happen to the key?

Maybe he was an evil guy but authorities were against that 'innocent till proven guilty' principle. It was more like ' you're guilty till proven innocent'.

'nuff said.

 

[BritneySpears]

Yuck. Yuck. Yuck. (Vomits everywhere)

Re: Britney

I can't be bothered discrediting you point by point again. You have basically repeated the same stuff again, which I have already addressed. You have no references to support any of your claims. I think anyone can see I've already torn you apart sufficiently in previous posts.

What reference do I need to discredit you while your own reference contradict your own point? I made no claim whatsover regarding David Hicks, I said he was a terrorists because he admitted so and plead gullty in a free and fair trial. while your accusations are sheer speculation. You accused the military commission of using torture to extract confession while you failed to give us anyone who is convicted on the basis of confession extracted from torture. I think you ran away because you cannot keep up with your conspiracy theory.

Let's keep it simple. He was labelled as a 'suspected terrorist', not a 'terrorist'. He was left there for 5 years without trial and without giving his side of the story. In my view, this 'suspect' was locked up without any proof that he was a terrorist. I'm saying that the trial and hearing should've happened ages ago. Why did it take so long? Did something happen to the key?

Maybe he was an evil guy but authorities were against that 'innocent till proven guilty' principle. It was more like ' you're guilty till proven innocent'.

Let's keep it simple, he already admitted his guilt that he is a terrorists. He already admitted he trained with al qaeda, taliban, Lashkar-e-Toiba and provided material support whatever that is. He is already trialed found guilty and in jail.

Yes something happened to the key, the key was stolen by his fellow inmate and his scrupulous lawyers. The trial could have happened almost 3 years ago but was delayed by him, his fellow inmate and his lawyers.Details of his aborted trials are in wikipedia. Read it.

By the way Sydney-Melbourne terrorists group who planned to bomb sydney, nuclear reactor and melbourne etc have been held in jail for almost 2 years right here in Australia, they are accused and are suspect but not yet found guilty. They are already in jail since two years ago which proves my argument that the authorities can held suspected terrorists/criminals as long as they want of course with the court permission. Why are they in jail ? what happen to innocent until proven guilty eh :rofl:

 

[sam04u]

God damn neo-cons/American ass crawlers. Who funded terrorists in Afghanistan? Oh that's right, it was the Americans.

 

[sam04u]

The U.S Government funded Taliban/Al'qaeda. It's no conspiracy or myth, it's a fact. It's a known fact.

 

[BritneySpears]

Seriously good point. They nail some nobody moron like Hicks but they havent caught any of the big players including those that funded al Quada and the taliban. Surely giving them money and weapons constitutes "material support for the enemy." I say we lock a few former US government officials in gitmo indefinately. If they turn out to be innocent, who cares? Its a small price to pay for our national security!

Abu Faraj al-Libi Holidaying in Caribbean tropical paradise Guantanamo
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Roasted and obliterated with two 500 bomb
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Holidaying in Caribbean tropical paradise Guantanamo
Abu Ayyub al-Masri (apparently killed by his own men)
Abu Zubaydah Holidaying in Caribbean tropical paradise Guantanamo

The U.S Government funded Taliban/Al'qaeda. It's no conspiracy or myth, it's a fact. It's a known fact.

fact without evidence is called accusation at best, lies to be precise.

 

[sam04u]

Google Operation Cyclone dip-shit.

 

[Sparcod]

Let's keep it simple, he already admitted his guilt that he is a terrorists. He already admitted he trained with al qaeda, taliban, Lashkar-e-Toiba and provided material support whatever that is. He is already trialed found guilty and in jail.

Yes but he was locked up for 5 years for 'supporting' terrorism rather than carrying out a terrorist act. So please explain to me why the ringleader of the Bali bombers (who in fact CARRIED OUT the attacks) only got 2 years?

Isn't there something wrong there?

 

[BritneySpears]

Yes but he was locked up for 5 years for 'supporting' terrorism rather than carrying out a terrorist act. So please explain to me why the ringleader of the Bali bombers (who in fact CARRIED OUT the attacks) only got 2 years?

Isn't there something wrong there?

he was locked up because he wanted to be locked up. US wanted to put him on trial long time ago but he refused, instead he and his fellow murderous terrorists with the help of their lawyers launched endless appeals against the military comission. Read the timeline clearly given in David Hicks article in wikipedia if you are in doubt.

Why don't you ask Indonesian judges for giving them such lenient sentence. To my knowlege the actual people who carried out the attacks were given death sentence and life imprisonment. If you are talking about Abu bakr Bashir, kindly forward your displeasure to indonesian embassy not me they'll surely have better explanation.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

we do it to abos

Actually we do the opposite to abos. We give them more rights.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Like the right to die 20 years earlier on average than white people?

Only in the sense that white people allow them in pubs now- they're the ones incapable of coping with it.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Fuck off I just sounded like a filthy lefty ewwwwww wash that stink off me.

.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................
.....................................?