Why should David Hicks be stripped of royalties for his auto-biography ?

Remove this Banner Ad

There is no evidence he was involved in terrorism. It is time people realised the only reason he pleaded guilty to it was to avoid torture, as he commented on yesterday.

So the ban on him making money has to be lifted.

Of course he is not going to say that he hoped to fight American and Australian troops with the taliban.............
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Where is the proof Hicks fought for Al-Quada aside from media and government reports which were biased and proven to be factually incorrect.

Why are people so quick to condemn a man without knowing the true facts ?
With what i have read about Gitmo Bay and Military crimes against civilians in Iraq, the US forces are hypocrites and no better than the Taliban
 
In general I agree with 'Son of Sam' type laws because I don't consider it just for a criminal to profit from his crimes.

The problem I have with the federal literary proceeds of crime laws is that:

(a) in cases like Hicks, they are applying a punishment for a matter that was not adjudicated by an Australian court (with potentially dodgier standards of proof than we'd accept here), and

(b) they don't actually require that you be convicted of the crime in order for them to apply.

There's some discussion of how they work and how they may apply in the Hicks case here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2007-08/08rp27.htm

taking emotion out of it (hes a traitor!!!11) the bolded above, is the most important part.
 
t dont think they would have been fomenting a nascent terror group versus the Israelis. Dont know where you got that perception.

Black september, the group that did the Munich olympic massacre, CIA reportably paid them not to hit American targets :rolleyes: and protected some guys the Isreali's had contracts on.
 
Where is the proof Hicks fought for Al-Quada aside from media and government reports which were biased and proven to be factually incorrect.

Why are people so quick to condemn a man without knowing the true facts ?
With what i have read about Gitmo Bay and Military crimes against civilians in Iraq, the US forces are hypocrites and no better than the Taliban

Ahh yes he was a backpacker trying to save the world.
 
I am certain if Hicks was actually proven to have fought for Al-Quada, he would have been executed in Gitmo Bay,

The American hick military do not take kindly to their own Aryan brothes turning on their own 'race' ....
 
I am certain if Hicks was actually proven to have fought for Al-Quada, he would have been executed in Gitmo Bay,

The American hick military do not take kindly to their own Aryan brothes turning on their own 'race' ....

I am running out of pointy tin foil hats, due to gillards tax to shut down all Australias aluminum smelters, but you win a large one.

If they executed all the AQ guys they wouldn't have the over crowding at gitmo or realeas 1000s back to the middle east.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Time has proven you and this comment to be the deranged bloodthirsty whackjob, it first appeared.

Murder advocate, champion of the efficacy of torture.

lol, what do you reckon he was doing over there?

Would you have given the same sympathy to the people this dirt bag wanted to kill for the thrills?
 
If Chopper Read made money and a career off of writing and telling his stories, I don't see why David Hicks can't.

Chopper's contained a lot of fiction and licence with the truth (if you could sort out what was what). Hicks would tell about Gitmo because it is sympathetic to him and plays well with the bleeding hearts. The story should be about why he ended up there, what he was doing and why he was doing it when he was captured.

Whilst he probably didn't give material support to terrorism as has been quoted today, what was he doing there?

Was he just a poor accidental tourist who was in the wrong place at the wrong time or was he some halfwit that was considered too dumb for the Army (a feat in itself) but chose, himself, to jump on any cause that would give him the greatest opportunity to hunt and kill another human being for the thrill of it?
 
Chopper's contained a lot of fiction and licence with the truth (if you could sort out what was what). Hicks would tell about Gitmo because it is sympathetic to him and plays well with the bleeding hearts. The story should be about why he ended up there, what he was doing and why he was doing it when he was captured.

Whilst he probably didn't give material support to terrorism as has been quoted today, what was he doing there?

Was he just a poor accidental tourist who was in the wrong place at the wrong time or was he some halfwit that was considered too dumb for the Army (a feat in itself) but chose, himself, to jump on any cause that would give him the greatest opportunity to hunt and kill another human being for the thrill of it?

Who's to say that Hicks' book doesn't detail the "why"? Has anyone here actually read it yet?
 
Would like to see him take action against Australian government for not representing him to help protect his human rights.

Oops, that was whilst the little deputy Johnny was on duty and we all know who pulled his strings

love to see him take action against Brandis!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top