Fair Trial For Hicks?

[bunsen burner]

He's in all probability a lost soul who got caught up in something be it for the romance of it all or perhaps he did feel a genuine empathy for the taliban and co. Maybe he just got sucked in? Who knows?

Most likely something like this, but at the end of the day he fought for the opposition. It's hard to deny he was a traitor.

Does that justify 3 years in a ********hole in cuba? I don't think so. Either bring him home and try him or put in front of an international tribunal and do the same. Either way it shouldn't take three years as there surely wouldn't be a mountain of evidence one way or the other.

I'm sure everyone has a different opinion on what sort of punisment he deserves. Given that we woun't be able to try him, the only option for punishment is to leave him in the hands of the US.

I'm of the opinion that 3 years is about right. And that's three very tough years. There's a huge difference between serving a three year sentence and being incarcerated indefinitely with no idea how long you will be in for.

 

[bunsen burner]

no way, he is being used as a scapegoat by 'the lying rodent' for political gain, keeping the neo-cons happy

1) How so?
2) Would the ALP or any other party in power make decisions that would disadvantage their position so close to an election?

Is there anything else you can do except for one-sided rants and raves about the govt or are you a one trick pony?

 

[afc9798]

The problem is, you people equate a fair trial with being found innocent. There is overwhelming evidence against him, and when he is found guilty I can assure that you will be up here bleating, whether you have looked at that evidence or not.

Tim, it would be good to see your massive evidence against David Hicks as this would allow those who haven't seen it to form an opinion. The flaw in your argument is that under these conditions, it would be fair for the Taliban to capture American/Australian soldiers as enemy combatants, imprison them indefinitely, beat and torture them and then finally subject them to a trial under their own military guidelines after many years in confinement. Would you as an Australian, be happy to see this happen, or if it did, would you prefer that your countrymen were at least tried under something resembling a fair system. I know this is totally hypothetical, but it is the equivalent of what you are suggesting is a fair trial and that we are asked to accept as just.

Drug traffickers and criminals receive total support from the Australian Government when they are imprisoned in foreign countries, yet you are happy for one of our own to rot, simply to appease our American masters.

 

[Contra Mundum]

That's the type of world Hicks wants to live in, so he shouldn't have any complaints about it.

Tell me what is the evidence - Michael Mori does'nt seem to think so nor does any organisation of lawyers in Australia [who you would think would know a thing or too about trials of evidence]

How is it sovereigntymeans something for English people but not our fair dinkum Prime Minister

 

[bunsen burner]

Tim, it would be good to see your massive evidence against David Hicks as this would allow those who haven't seen it to form an opinion. The flaw in your argument is that under these conditions, it would be fair for the Taliban to capture American/Australian soldiers as enemy combatants, imprison them indefinitely, beat and torture them and then finally subject them to a trial under their own military guidelines after many years in confinement. Would you as an Australian, be happy to see this happen, or if it did, would you prefer that your countrymen were at least tried under something resembling a fair system. I know this is totally hypothetical, but it is the equivalent of what you are suggesting is a fair trial and that we are asked to accept as just.

Yes, so tue. But would you be happy for Hicks to go unpunished for being a traitor?

Drug traffickers and criminals receive total support from the Australian Government when they are imprisoned in foreign countries,

That's a joke, right?

 

[afc9798]

Yes, so tue. But would you be happy for Hicks to go unpunished for being a traitor?




That's a joke, right?

I haven't yet seen any evidence that he is a traitor. However, if he is proven guilty (by a proper trial), I would suggest as you have, that he has served his time.

Australians in these cases are awarded immediate access to consular staff, legal aid is almost always appointed immediately and conditions are often negotiated that are outside that of other prisoners. To my recollection, Hicks was afforded none of these support methods (until it started to fester into a problem for the Govt.) until years after his capture. Perhaps full support was a little strong in my original post, but I think the above explains what I mean.

 

[BlueMark]

When Hicks fought for the Muslims in Kosovo he was considered to be one of the good guys.

So as a convert he goes to Afganhistan for further religious education and some further training. While he is there Sept 11 happens and he gets drafted by the Taliban. When the US invades he tries to get out of the country and is picked up with other foreigners (Germans) at a check point manned by Northern Alliance troops (who have been offred a bounty for any Taliban they pick up) and handed over to the US.

What he is guilty of is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He did not fight either the US troops or Nth Alliance troops. Nor has the been any evidence that he was proposing to. In fact there is plently of evidence to suggest he was trying to get out of the country asap and that he had decided that what the Taliban and al-Queada were offering was not what he was seeking in the way of furthering his Islamic education..

It should be noted that the Germans captured with Hicks where released at the Germans Governments request.

Will he recievce a fair trial, not a chance.

Given that there are hundreds of Austrailans serving in foreign armies ranging from the Foreign Legion, British, US and Israeli amongst them it would be difficult to charge Hicks under any Australian law as it would compromise the others as well.

Statements that he is a traitor are ridiculous, if he had actively planned or participated in actions against against the US or our troops then the accussation could be made.

 

[Jars458]

The problem is, you people equate a fair trial with being found innocent. There is overwhelming evidence against him, and when he is found guilty I can assure that you will be up here bleating, whether you have looked at that evidence or not.

You are a grade A moron.

How does supporting a fair trial come close to saying somone is innocent. You must be stupid.

 

[Mr Q]

The problem is, you people equate a fair trial with being found innocent. There is overwhelming evidence against him, and when he is found guilty I can assure that you will be up here bleating, whether you have looked at that evidence or not.

That statement's almost Jane-esque in its idiocy.

I equate a fair trial with one concerned with actually finding out the truth of the accusation, and pronouncing sentence based upon the outcome. Noone is saying that Hicks shouldn't face trial, and if that's the case, then whether he has or has not committed a crime is a matter for the courts. If he is found guilty, then he has to suffer the consequences.

However, one of the planks of our society is that we are all entitled to a fair trial; another is that you are innocent until proven guilty. This military tribunal has a body of six people, only one of who has legal training; that one is apparently not permitted to pass that training on to the others. That looks to me like a kangaroo court designed to return a pre-determined result.

The only fair way to try Hicks is in front of a properly constituted court, run by people with a knowledge of the law. The military tribunal cannot have this by its very structure. The legal system exists for a reason - to provide a framework upon which the fair application of the law can be applied. To take the legal system out of the equation destroys that framework.

The balance of probabilities indicates Hicks is probably guilty; however that proof must be tested in a court of law, or all the posturing of the West to freedom and justice may as well be thrown out the window.

 

[Jars458]

Most Australians wouldn't be happy if a person who fought for our enemy was allowed to come back to our country without having to answer his actions..

I think you are right but surely that's a problem with the law and not Hicks fault per se.

That has now been fixed,

But at the end of the day he has spent two years in custody without being tried for whatever he did

Even Martyn Bryant got better treatment than that.

 

[medusala]

If there are two aussie security officials taken hostage in iraq, they are more than likely mercanary.

Under the geneva convention i dont think they are protected, so they will be killed, which they deserve.

Where is Stan now to apply the same logic to Hicks?

 

[BlueMark]

Well if we accept that Hicks was a member of the Taliban, which for all intents and purposes was the Government of Afganhistan (which some argue) then he is a enemy combatant, protected by the conventions and should be regarded as a POW.

If Hicks is regarded as a mercenary, then every Australian serving in a foreign army can so be considered.

I still maintain that Hicks case he was in the wrong place at the wong time and if guilty of anything, he is guilty of misguided adventurism in persuing his religious education

There is one thing that is rarly mentioned, is that Hicks applied to join the AAustralian Army but did not make it through the selection process due to a low level of education. ie he was barely literate.

 

[medusala]

I agree BM, if ASIS or whoever determine that he doesnt represent a future threat then what is the point of keeping him detained? At the least they should make a token bargain ie how abou transferring him to serve 6-12 mths in an Aussie prison and then quietly release him under some elaborate excuse/amnesty. He sounds like a bloke who just wanted to go to war rather than a hardcore religious fanatic.

 

[dan warna]

I agree BM, if ASIS or whoever determine that he doesnt represent a future threat then what is the point of keeping him detained? At the least they should make a token bargain ie how abou transferring him to serve 6-12 mths in an Aussie prison and then quietly release him under some elaborate excuse/amnesty. He sounds like a bloke who just wanted to go to war rather than a hardcore religious fanatic.

because it would be a humiliating defeat for the US government.

the Brits released earlier this year have been a thorn in the side of blair, unfortunately for the brits the EVEN MORE pro US conservatives offer little to enthuse them

if he is released it will be after a howard victory, and then folks will prob forget come the 2007 election, however if he is released BEFORE The election, could be damaging for howard, and that could be marginally damaging for bush too...

 

[Bombers 2003]

The Taliban were well known for their fair trials. Let him have one of those.

Definatly.Pity he isnt Female,then the Taliban would give a 'fair trial'.

 

[funkyfreo]

because it would be a humiliating defeat for the US government.

the Brits released earlier this year have been a thorn in the side of blair, unfortunately for the brits the EVEN MORE pro US conservatives offer little to enthuse them

if he is released it will be after a howard victory, and then folks will prob forget come the 2007 election, however if he is released BEFORE The election, could be damaging for howard, and that could be marginally damaging for bush too...

On the other hand if he were released NOW I think that any major fuss would risk making Labor look like a terrorist supporter, and could play into the coalition's hands in terms of scaring people to Libs.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Well if we accept that Hicks was a member of the Taliban, which for all intents and purposes was the Government of Afganhistan (which some argue) then he is a enemy combatant, protected by the conventions and should be regarded as a POW.

If Hicks is regarded as a mercenary, then every Australian serving in a foreign army can so be considered.

I still maintain that Hicks case he was in the wrong place at the wong time and if guilty of anything, he is guilty of misguided adventurism in persuing his religious education

1-I'm shocked here,BM,Are u defending the Taliban?.
2-Untrue and u know it.
3-He could of received a better religious education in any number of Muslim countries,inclueding Egypt and Syria.

 

[funkyfreo]

1-I'm shocked here,BM,Are u defending the Taliban?.
2-Untrue and u know it.
3-He could of received a better religious education in any number of Muslim countries,inclueding Egypt and Syria.

I don;t see that as "defending" the Taliban, just stating that they did technically "govern" Afgahnistan at the time. If someone said so and so was a german officer so should be treated under conventions, it would not mean they were defending the Nazis.

It gets back to, if he is guilty give him a trial and lets find out, and punish him for what he is guilty of. I don't think many of us are unfamilar with our judicial system are we? Get accused, go to trial, get a decision, serve time if found guilty. Next please.

 

[Bombers 2003]

I don;t see that as "defending" the Taliban, just stating that they did technically "govern" Afgahnistan at the time. If someone said so and so was a german officer so should be treated under conventions, it would not mean they were defending the Nazis.

That would be different circumstances,not related to what BM is saying.

 

[funkyfreo]

That would be different circumstances,not related to what BM is saying.

I don't see the difference? Reading your respective posts... I'll have another look.

 

[BlueMark]

I do not see how I was defending the Taliban. What I was stating was fact, the Taliban had appointed ambassadors, made laws, collected taxes and even negoitated trans Afganhistan piplines with the US.

Re point 2, say we suddenly had a conflict with one of the nations that many Australians currently serve in. Lets say Australian troops are sent in as part of a peace keeping force into the West Bank and there is a clash between Australian and Israeli troops. Does that make the Australians serving in the IDF traitors? How about the many Australian that served in the Serbian Army during the 90s, our allies in the US and UK fought the Serbs. Does that make those Aussies, many of whom have returned to Australia traitors?

Hicks certainly could have receivced further education elsewhere, but he like many others went to Afganhistan, it was for want of a better word 'trendy' to do so. Remember Hicks served with many of these guys in Kosovo when they were the 'good guys', so travelling onto Afganhistan is not unlikely as it may seem. Further when Hicks went to Afganhistan he had no way of knowing what was going to happen, he was caught up in events.

 

[Bombers 2003]

I do not see how I was defending the Taliban. What I was stating was fact, the Taliban had appointed ambassadors, made laws, collected taxes and even negoitated trans Afganhistan piplines with the US.

Re point 2, say we suddenly had a conflict with one of the nations that many Australians currently serve in. Lets say Australian troops are sent in as part of a peace keeping force into the West Bank and there is a clash between Australian and Israeli troops. Does that make the Australians serving in the IDF traitors? How about the many Australian that served in the Serbian Army during the 90s, our allies in the US and UK fought the Serbs. Does that make those Aussies, many of whom have returned to Australia traitors?

Hicks certainly could have receivced further education elsewhere, but he like many others went to Afganhistan, it was for want of a better word 'trendy' to do so. Remember Hicks served with many of these guys in Kosovo when they were the 'good guys', so travelling onto Afganhistan is not unlikely as it may seem. Further when Hicks went to Afganhistan he had no way of knowing what was going to happen, he was caught up in events.

BM.
1-On your second point.In Law it would make them renegades at best. 'Traitors' in some circumstances especially if australian troops were killed in direct contact,or at least they could be tried for treason on return .Your second example is rather complicated,but in general i would think it depends on circumstances.On the balance of probability,i would tend to answer 'no',but would need to look at particular cases[Major war criminals etc.].
2-Are you saying that Hicks was only folloing the example of his mates?.

 

[BlueMark]

Yeah pretty much he was. When the Taliban took over Afganhistan. Afganhistan and Pakistan where the places to be if you wanted to further your Islamic education. Hicks and many Western converts headed there during the 90s, but for many it was to radical for them, including Hicks,after the inital fervour eased, he certainly wrote to his father that he was complentating coming home.

As a sidenote, there is an Australian living in Melbourne, who served in the British SS Friekorps during WW2 and he is recieving a war pension from the government. (amazing what you learn on the History channel)

 

[Bombers 2003]

Yeah pretty much he was. When the Taliban took over Afganhistan. Afganhistan and Pakistan where the places to be if you wanted to further your Islamic education. Hicks and many Western converts headed there during the 90s, but for many it was to radical for them, including Hicks,after the inital fervour eased, he certainly wrote to his father that he was complentating coming home.

As a sidenote, there is an Australian living in Melbourne, who served in the British SS Friekorps during WW2 and he is recieving a war pension from the government. (amazing what you learn on the History channel)

On sidenote,i'm not aware of this,presumably a british Pension?.

 

[BlueMark]

Nope an Australian one. I only learnt of it a couple of months ago myself. I was watching a documentary on the Freikorps. The entire unit never numbered more than 37 troops and a lot where killed in the fighting before the fall of Berlin. Those who survived were in the main interrogated by the allies and let go. A couple hardcore Nazis where sentenced to prison terms. The doco makers tracked one of the survivors to Melbourne who didn't want to talk and seemed quite bewildered by the appearence of the film makers.