Guantanamo Bay: FOI reveals Howard government knew David Hicks would not get a fair trial      :(

Date
    December 29, 2013


The Howard government made contradictory public statements about the fairness of the military commission trial in the US of former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks, according to new documents.

The heavily redacted documents, obtained under freedom of information, include emails, advice and cables between Australian government officials and US officials in relation to the US military commission process and Mr Hicks' case.

Human rights advocate and lecturer Aloysia Brooks - who is married to Mr Hicks - obtained the documents, which show the Attorney-General's Department was aware the military commission could allow evidence obtained by the use of torture due to its broader definition of what torture was.

The January 2007 departmental background briefing document says there are some protections against the use of statements obtained by torture. But it warned: ''However, the US definition of torture opens the possibility that evidence obtained by the infliction of severe mental suffering which does not result in 'prolonged mental harm' or which is inflicted by methods other than those set out in the manual will not be considered to be 'torture' and so will be admissible before a military commission. A statement alleged to be the product of coercion may also be admitted into evidence in certain circumstances.''


The briefing document was prepared in response to government requests for talking points to compare the new rules of the military commission to other international war crimes tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. But an adviser warned that a comparison between the rules was ''not useful'' because the international courts had rules protecting ''fair trial rights'' that were not present to the same degree in the commission.

The documents also warns that there was no requirement for ''unlawful combatants'' to be warned before they were interrogated, to have a lawyer present before they were charged, or for the interrogation to be recorded.

In December 2006, then attorney-general Philip Ruddock was quoted as saying ''We are certainly pressing the US and have received certain assurances from them that a fair trial should be possible under the scheme that they've legislated for.''

After receiving the departmental advice, he began to distance the federal government from the issue of the fairness of the new military commission process.

On February 18, 2007, he said it ''will ultimately be a matter for the United States government and the courts''.

He defended the commission, pointing to ''due-process safeguards'' for defendants.

Ms Brooks said the documents revealed ''the inconsistency between the public statements made by members of the former Howard government and the internal conversations relating to David's treatment and their knowledge of the unfairness of the military commissions process''.

''This is about much more than David Hicks. I believe the Australian public have a right to know of the lengths their government went to to present the most favourable interpretation of events, rather than the reality of the situation for Guantanamo Bay prisoners.''

But Mr Ruddock told Fairfax Media on Saturday that he believed everything he said was ''consistent''.

''I have always made it clear that when you are another jurisdiction the rules of that jurisdiction apply,'' Mr Ruddock said.

Mr Hicks was apprehended in 2001 and held for more than five years in Guantanamo Bay before being pressured into a plea bargain in which he was convicted of providing material support for terrorism.

Lawyers for Mr Hicks have launched an appeal to overturn his conviction.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/guantanamo-bay-foi-reveals-howard-government-knew-david-hicks-would-not-get-a-fair-trial-20131228-300oy.html#ixzz2onkyBWj6

Never trust your government.

The truth always comes out sooner or later, but sensible people knew all along that Howard was a crook.

Howard should go before the Hague for war crimes.

The company the "progressives" keep - Hicks: an Islamic fundamentalist and terrorist wannabe.

Well pansi, did he not get Australia involved in the illegal Iraq war?.      :(

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 6:38am:

Never trust your government. The truth always comes out sooner or later, but sensible people knew all along that Howard was a crook. Howard should go before the Hague for war crimes.

The idiot wasn't on holidays there. It wasn't like he was in the Bahamas! He was joining up to kill innocent people and Coalition soldiers. Anyone who believes otherwise is just as much of an idiot as Hicks.

In another time David Hicks would have been hung for high treason

Well he was sent to Guantanamo, don't know what you expected, but definitely not a fair trial.

red baron wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 6:52am:

In another time David Hicks would have been hung for high treason

Yes but in another we probably would have gone to war to protect his rights.

The attorney general at that time was a disgrace to Australia.

THIS IS A WITCH HUNT... >:( >:( >:( >:( :P :P

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:01am:

red baron wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:52am: In another time David Hicks would have been hung for high treason Yes but in another we probably would have gone to war to protect his rights.

lol. His rights to be a part of an Islamic fundamentalist group? F*cken' Jesus Christ.  ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 6:50am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:38am: Never trust your government. The truth always comes out sooner or later, but sensible people knew all along that Howard was a crook. Howard should go before the Hague for war crimes. The idiot wasn't on holidays there. It wasn't like he was in the Bahamas! He was joining up to kill innocent people and Coalition soldiers. Anyone who believes otherwise is just as much of an idiot as Hicks.

and GUESS WHAT AP>>> he didnt die in a roof cavity????????..

but its okay for lefties to make a thread about him AINT IT. ::) ::) ::)

they wont see it though.. >:(

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 6:50am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:38am: Never trust your government. The truth always comes out sooner or later, but sensible people knew all along that Howard was a crook. Howard should go before the Hague for war crimes. The idiot wasn't on holidays there. It wasn't like he was in the Bahamas! He was joining up to kill innocent people and Coalition soldiers. Anyone who believes otherwise is just as much of an idiot as Hicks.

Irrespective of why he was there and killing innocent people was not one of them at the point Australia invaded he was not involved.

He was caught unarmed leaving the country and he had never been a combatant in the action, he was never charged for the reason he was there.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:01am: red baron wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:52am: In another time David Hicks would have been hung for high treason Yes but in another we probably would have gone to war to protect his rights. lol. His rights to be a part of an Islamic fundamentalist group? F*cken' Jesus Christ.  ::)

or making bombs at their bomb making factory. ::) ::)

I have often wondered what he might have done had he not been picked up on that bus???...but we can only guess really..

personally I dont give a rats about the little turd the left can have him he is all theirs.

cods wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:06am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:50am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:38am: Never trust your government. The truth always comes out sooner or later, but sensible people knew all along that Howard was a crook. Howard should go before the Hague for war crimes. The idiot wasn't on holidays there. It wasn't like he was in the Bahamas! He was joining up to kill innocent people and Coalition soldiers. Anyone who believes otherwise is just as much of an idiot as Hicks. and GUESS WHAT AP>>> he didnt die in a roof cavity????????.. but its okay for lefties to make a thread about him AINT IT. they wont see it though..

they wont see it though

I tend to agree, I seriously doubt that anyone will interpret your hieroglyphics this time.

Guilty or not (in this case clearly guilty), no one deserves Guantanamo.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:08am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:50am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:38am: Never trust your government. The truth always comes out sooner or later, but sensible people knew all along that Howard was a crook. Howard should go before the Hague for war crimes. The idiot wasn't on holidays there. It wasn't like he was in the Bahamas! He was joining up to kill innocent people and Coalition soldiers. Anyone who believes otherwise is just as much of an idiot as Hicks. Irrespective of why he was there and killing innocent people was not one of them at the point Australia invaded he was not involved. He was caught unarmed leaving the country and he had never been a combatant in the action, he was never charged for the reason he was there.

he did DINE with OSAMA and was swept away by him..he changed to Muslim ... why would you go out of your way to contact terrorist if you didnt share something with them????

never mind he has the support of the left.. and I am sure he is thrilled.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:11am:

cods wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:06am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:50am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:38am: Never trust your government. The truth always comes out sooner or later, but sensible people knew all along that Howard was a crook. Howard should go before the Hague for war crimes. The idiot wasn't on holidays there. It wasn't like he was in the Bahamas! He was joining up to kill innocent people and Coalition soldiers. Anyone who believes otherwise is just as much of an idiot as Hicks. and GUESS WHAT AP>>> he didnt die in a roof cavity????????.. but its okay for lefties to make a thread about him AINT IT. they wont see it though.. they wont see it though I tend to agree, I seriously doubt that anyone will interpret your hieroglyphics this time.

I thin k your wrong  only one eyed lefties refuse to face the truth...

your support for Hicks is overwhelming really...in fact lets have a WITCH HUNT on Howard would, be the call of the day... ::) ::)


again thats fine.. if it clears the air.. DO IT..



yet when it comes to dying in a roof.... you dont want to know...

it s a WITCH HUNT no one from the left really cares about 4 young men... only David Hicks... ::) ::)

its very clear very clear indeed...

Hicks was on Howards watch....

if Hicks was on krudds watch would you reaction be the same???


dont make me laugh.,. >:( >:(

Stratos wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:11am:

Guilty or not (in this case clearly guilty), no one deserves Guantanamo.

Guilty of what ???

Certainly not the retrospective charges that it took 7 years to manufacture ??

Stratos wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:11am:

Guilty or not (in this case clearly guilty), no one deserves Guantanamo.

they were different times.. Bin Laden was alive and well... and a Huge threat.. 9/11 was very raw....I am sure there are prisons all over the world that we dont even know about that are much worse....

what if.. one day a member of Bin Ladens evil cell..tells the world that Hicks was a member of their army..and in fact was going to car bomb Australian Embassies.. or something..

whatever he did or didnt do.. we only have HIS word for it..

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:17am:

Stratos wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:11am: Guilty or not (in this case clearly guilty), no one deserves Guantanamo. Guilty of what ??? Certainly not the retrospective charges that it took 7 years to manufacture ??

oh guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time..

I am sure you are right.

cods wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:17am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:11am: they wont see it though I tend to agree, I seriously doubt that anyone will interpret your hieroglyphics this time. I thin k your wrong  only one eyed lefties refuse to face the truth... your support for Hicks is overwhelming really...in fact lets have a WITCH HUNT on Howard would, be the call of the day... again thats fine.. if it clears the air.. DO IT.. yet when it comes to dying in a roof.... you dont want to know... it s a WITCH HUNT no one from the left really cares about 4 young men... only David Hicks... its very clear very clear indeed... Hicks was on Howards watch.... if Hicks was on krudds watch would you reaction be the same??? dont make me laugh.,.

Think you will find that I support Julian Assagne's rights and opposed Gillards position ??? As an Australian we have a duty to ensure that he is fairly treated. Mt position in this area is consistent.

Have I ever told you about the time I passed out after working in a roof space on a 40 degree day ??? Actually coming down from a 50 degree plus roof area into lovely cool 40 degree air was wonderful.

You would be badly mistaken to think that I have no sympathy for the families one of the reasons that I think that further torturing them with no result they will accept the likely outcome is a poor option.

The Liberals position has nothing to do with 4 young men, its about getting Labor.

cods wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:17am: Stratos wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:11am: Guilty or not (in this case clearly guilty), no one deserves Guantanamo. Guilty of what ??? Certainly not the retrospective charges that it took 7 years to manufacture ?? oh guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.. I am sure you are right.

I am right but that isn't what I said.

He was in the wrong place at the wrong time but there is no charge for that.

cods wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:17am: Stratos wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:11am: Guilty or not (in this case clearly guilty), no one deserves Guantanamo. Guilty of what ??? Certainly not the retrospective charges that it took 7 years to manufacture ?? oh guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.. I am sure you are right.

Has anyone mentioned that the charges Hicks was convicted on have since been ruled to not be legal and thrown out in US courts ???

A great shame that this piece of crap is free.

>:( >:(

They didn't want him to get a fair trial... how would it look in the papers if a PM 'allowed' 'terrorists' to escape summary justice and cop due process of Law?

Wee Johnnie would have looked like a puny little short-arse on the international stage.. wait a minute....

Yet Ye Poms send up a Royal for ten years for knocking an armed Taliban on the head....

You see - it's all right to do nasty things as long as you are the Guv'nah and have a 'monopoly on violence' as the socialists tell us is such a wonderful thing....

Of course, you need to understand violence first - unlike say Peace Studies professors at UNE - and realise and accept that governments have historically been the greatest perpetrators of violence in history**.... and that violence of the individual against government CAN be a 'just cause' self-defence as is a Right....

** under the reign of the socio-fascists (Fascists by any other name) these types embraced the philosophy fully that they were 'entitled' to exercise violence against the people at whim... very feudal.. if that peasant doesn't bow low enough, a Samurai has the 'right' to lop off his head...

Now think about it..**

At the time Hicks was involved, it was a localised conflict, and neither Australia nor the US had any involvement at all.

By the time Aus and the US did become involved, Hicks was already out of the picture, combat-wise, and was actually
picked up while attempting to leave the country. He was unarmed at the time of his capture.

At no time, therefore, did Hicks undertake combat operations against Aus or US forces.

At worst, he should have been regarded as a prisoner-of-war, with all the rights that entails (Geneva Convention etc).

Treated more humanely after capture, he may have been willing to provide them with valuable background info, even
though he was no longer part of the 'enemy'.

The whole thing was handled badly from start to finish, by both us and the Seppolians, and for Howard to use him as
a political football was simply disgraceful (although I expected no better from Howard).

All this 'traitor' talk is pure bullshyt. Always was, always will be.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:01am: red baron wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:52am: In another time David Hicks would have been hung for high treason Yes but in another we probably would have gone to war to protect his rights. lol. His rights to be a part of an Islamic fundamentalist group? F*cken' Jesus Christ.  ::)

That’s right, Mistie. A Muslim fundamentalist group that, only a war ago, waa in a coalition with the US to defeat the Evil Empire.

How times change, eh?

Just think, these "progressives" defend your right to "work" at the uni. How sinister is that?

We all know what you get up to there.

FriYAY wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

A great shame that this piece of crap is free. >:( >:(

Agree with that.
I would have given him 30 years.

FriYAY wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

A great shame that this piece of crap is free. >:( >:(

Would you rather he was a biscuit?

I’m sure we can make him one, FriYay. Maybe we can get him into the Anzac Day Parade.

Would that do it for you?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

FriYAY wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 8:08am: A great shame that this piece of crap is free. >:( >:( Agree with that. I would have given him 30 years.

You’re a Yarpie from the UK and have never been to war.

You don’t count.

David Hicks is more Aussie than you. Believe it or not, he now gets a vote.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 12:00pm:

FriYAY wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 8:08am: A great shame that this piece of crap is free. >:( >:( Would you rather he was a biscuit? I’m sure we can make him one, FriYay. Maybe we can get him into the Anzac Day Parade. Would that do it for you?

Awwww, it's too trik pony.

Whats wrong Head Vet? Missing getting gobbies from the grunts?

Need gooks sneaking around to get it up now do you Rambo?

;D ;D ;D ;D

::)

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 12:03pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 11:59am: FriYAY wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 8:08am: A great shame that this piece of crap is free. >:( >:( Agree with that. I would have given him 30 years. You’re a Yarpie from the UK and have never been to war. You don’t count. David Hicks is more Aussie than you. Believe it or not, he now gets a vote.

Funnily enough ive been to war as many times as you then....

Difference is, i dont pretend i have.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:01am: red baron wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:52am: In another time David Hicks would have been hung for high treason Yes but in another we probably would have gone to war to protect his rights. lol. His rights to be a part of an Islamic fundamentalist group? F*cken' Jesus Christ.  ::)

No his rights as an Australian to be charged in due course and then to get a fair trial in a reasonable time frame - OH yeah and also to not be tortured let alone with what was tantamount to the approval of Australia.

No Australian government should be supporting an Australian getting an unfair trial as evidence now seems to prove was the case.

Howard Govt Knew Hicks Would Not Get Fair Trial.

And all the conservatives support this ???

I would be happy to let him rot in jail yes.

Look at the places he went - Kosovo, Afghanistan - just on holiday was he???

bugger him.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

I would be happy to let him rot in jail yes. Look at the places he went - Kosovo, Afghanistan - just on holiday was he??? bugger him.

Holiday, my arse! When is he gonna publish those selfies he took with the AK-47's and the grenade launchers? Hmmm, I wonder...

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:05am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:01am: red baron wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:52am: In another time David Hicks would have been hung for high treason Yes but in another we probably would have gone to war to protect his rights. lol. His rights to be a part of an Islamic fundamentalist group? F*cken' Jesus Christ.  ::) That’s right, Mistie. A Muslim fundamentalist group that, only a war ago, waa in a coalition with the US to defeat the Evil Empire. How times change, eh? Just think, these "progressives" defend your right to "work" at the uni. How sinister is that? We all know what you get up to there.

He was part of an Islamic fundamentalist group that wanted to take over India and convert it to Islam.

This is the group he was training with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Taiba

Why do you clowns support such people? The "progressives" would be the first people they'd put up against the wall.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:00pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 12:51pm: I would be happy to let him rot in jail yes. Look at the places he went - Kosovo, Afghanistan - just on holiday was he??? bugger him. Holiday, my arse! When is he gonna publish those selfies he took with the AK-47's and the grenade launchers? Hmmm, I wonder...

Lashkar-e-Taiba[edit]

On 11 November 1999, Hicks travelled to Pakistan to study Islam[24][30] and began training with Lashkar-e-Taiba in early 2000.[31][32] In the U.S. Military Commission charges presented in 2004, the U.S. accused Hicks of training at the Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13]

In a March 2000 letter to his family, Hicks wrote:


don't ask what's happened, I can't be bothered explaining the outcome of these strange events has put me in Pakistan-Kashmir in a training camp. Three months training. After which it is my decision whether to cross the line of control into Indian occupied Kashmir.

In another letter on 10 August 2000, Hicks wrote from Kashmir claiming to have been a guest of Pakistan's army for two weeks at the front in the "controlled war" with India:


I got to fire hundreds of bullets. Most Muslim countries impose hanging for civilians arming themselves for conflict. There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally.[33]

During this period, Hicks kept a notebook to document his training in weapon use, explosives, and military tactics, in which he wrote that guerrilla warfare involved "sacrifice for Allah". He took extensive notes on, and made sketches of, various weaponry mechanisms and attack strategies (including Heckler & Koch submachine guns, the M16 assault rifle, RPG-7 grenade launcher, anti-tank rockets, and VIP security infiltration).[34] Letters to his family detailed his training:


I learnt about weapons such as ballistic missiles, surface to surface and shoulder fired missiles, anti aircraft and anti-tank rockets, rapid fire heavy and light machine guns, pistols, AK47s, mines and explosives. After three months everybody leaves capable and war-ready being able to use all of these weapons capably and responsibly. I am now very well trained for jihad in weapons some serious like anti-aircraft missiles.[35]

In January 2001, Hicks was provided with funding and an introductory letter from Lashkar-e-Taiba. He travelled to Afghanistan to attend training.[13] According to Hicks' autobiography Guantanamo: My Journey, he was unfamiliar with the name Al-Qaeda until after his detainment in Guantanamo Bay.[36]

Afghanistan[edit]

Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground ..............

Should have left the bastard locked away.

Al-Qaeda were training people like Hicks so they could slip through the airport and not be racially profiled. An arab would get noticed.

woody2014 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:12pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 12:51pm: I would be happy to let him rot in jail yes. Look at the places he went - Kosovo, Afghanistan - just on holiday was he??? bugger him. Holiday, my arse! When is he gonna publish those selfies he took with the AK-47's and the grenade launchers? Hmmm, I wonder... Lashkar-e-Taiba[edit] On 11 November 1999, Hicks travelled to Pakistan to study Islam[24][30] and began training with Lashkar-e-Taiba in early 2000.[31][32] In the U.S. Military Commission charges presented in 2004, the U.S. accused Hicks of training at the Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13] In a March 2000 letter to his family, Hicks wrote: don't ask what's happened, I can't be bothered explaining the outcome of these strange events has put me in Pakistan-Kashmir in a training camp. Three months training. After which it is my decision whether to cross the line of control into Indian occupied Kashmir. In another letter on 10 August 2000, Hicks wrote from Kashmir claiming to have been a guest of Pakistan's army for two weeks at the front in the "controlled war" with India: I got to fire hundreds of bullets. Most Muslim countries impose hanging for civilians arming themselves for conflict. There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally.[33] During this period, Hicks kept a notebook to document his training in weapon use, explosives, and military tactics, in which he wrote that guerrilla warfare involved "sacrifice for Allah". He took extensive notes on, and made sketches of, various weaponry mechanisms and attack strategies (including Heckler & Koch submachine guns, the M16 assault rifle, RPG-7 grenade launcher, anti-tank rockets, and VIP security infiltration).[34] Letters to his family detailed his training: I learnt about weapons such as ballistic missiles, surface to surface and shoulder fired missiles, anti aircraft and anti-tank rockets, rapid fire heavy and light machine guns, pistols, AK47s, mines and explosives. After three months everybody leaves capable and war-ready being able to use all of these weapons capably and responsibly. I am now very well trained for jihad in weapons some serious like anti-aircraft missiles.[35] In January 2001, Hicks was provided with funding and an introductory letter from Lashkar-e-Taiba. He travelled to Afghanistan to attend training.[13] According to Hicks' autobiography Guantanamo: My Journey, he was unfamiliar with the name Al-Qaeda until after his detainment in Guantanamo Bay.[36] Afghanistan[edit]

You understand that there is not one word in all that which relates to anything he was charged with ???

viewpoint wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away.

He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

woody2014 wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:12pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 12:51pm: I would be happy to let him rot in jail yes. Look at the places he went - Kosovo, Afghanistan - just on holiday was he??? bugger him. Holiday, my arse! When is he gonna publish those selfies he took with the AK-47's and the grenade launchers? Hmmm, I wonder... Lashkar-e-Taiba[edit] On 11 November 1999, Hicks travelled to Pakistan to study Islam[24][30] and began training with Lashkar-e-Taiba in early 2000.[31][32] In the U.S. Military Commission charges presented in 2004, the U.S. accused Hicks of training at the Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13] In a March 2000 letter to his family, Hicks wrote: don't ask what's happened, I can't be bothered explaining the outcome of these strange events has put me in Pakistan-Kashmir in a training camp. Three months training. After which it is my decision whether to cross the line of control into Indian occupied Kashmir. In another letter on 10 August 2000, Hicks wrote from Kashmir claiming to have been a guest of Pakistan's army for two weeks at the front in the "controlled war" with India: I got to fire hundreds of bullets. Most Muslim countries impose hanging for civilians arming themselves for conflict. There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally.[33] During this period, Hicks kept a notebook to document his training in weapon use, explosives, and military tactics, in which he wrote that guerrilla warfare involved "sacrifice for Allah". He took extensive notes on, and made sketches of, various weaponry mechanisms and attack strategies (including Heckler & Koch submachine guns, the M16 assault rifle, RPG-7 grenade launcher, anti-tank rockets, and VIP security infiltration).[34] Letters to his family detailed his training: I learnt about weapons such as ballistic missiles, surface to surface and shoulder fired missiles, anti aircraft and anti-tank rockets, rapid fire heavy and light machine guns, pistols, AK47s, mines and explosives. After three months everybody leaves capable and war-ready being able to use all of these weapons capably and responsibly. I am now very well trained for jihad in weapons some serious like anti-aircraft missiles.[35] In January 2001, Hicks was provided with funding and an introductory letter from Lashkar-e-Taiba. He travelled to Afghanistan to attend training.[13] According to Hicks' autobiography Guantanamo: My Journey, he was unfamiliar with the name Al-Qaeda until after his detainment in Guantanamo Bay.[36] Afghanistan[edit] You understand that there is not one word in all that which relates to anything he was charged with ???

But it shore tells you about the little prick


Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13]
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

viewpoint wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away. He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia.

White guy training with terrorists in Afghanistan.  :-/ :-/

woody2014 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:35pm: You understand that there is not one word in all that which relates to anything he was charged with ??? But it shore tells you about the little prick Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13]

Yes but it also tells us about that government and the fact that they would have been willing to have any Australian treated in the same manner. It wasn't really about David Hicks, potentially it could have been anyone.

Sparky wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:39pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away. He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia. White guy training with terrorists in Afghanistan.

Incorrect.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:53pm:

woody2014 wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:40pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:35pm: You understand that there is not one word in all that which relates to anything he was charged with ??? But it shore tells you about the little prick Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13] Yes but it also tells us about that government and the fact that they would have been willing to have any Australian treated in the same manner. It wasn't really about David Hicks, potentially it could have been anyone.

 

If they want to train with terrorists   >:( >:( >:( >:(

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 2:15pm:

Sparky wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:39pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away. He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia. White guy training with terrorists in Afghanistan.  Incorrect.

So he was on holiday then?

woody2014 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:53pm: woody2014 wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:40pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:35pm: You understand that there is not one word in all that which relates to anything he was charged with ??? But it shore tells you about the little prick Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13] Yes but it also tells us about that government and the fact that they would have been willing to have any Australian treated in the same manner. It wasn't really about David Hicks, potentially it could have been anyone.   If they want to train with terrorists

What makes you think that had any connection with the Howard governments decisions ??

Look at the way they treated Dr Haneef, If you want to be related to a terrorist ????

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

woody2014 wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 2:21pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:53pm: woody2014 wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:40pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:35pm: You understand that there is not one word in all that which relates to anything he was charged with ??? But it shore tells you about the little prick Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13] Yes but it also tells us about that government and the fact that they would have been willing to have any Australian treated in the same manner. It wasn't really about David Hicks, potentially it could have been anyone.   If they want to train with terrorists  What makes you think that had any connection with the Howard governments decisions ?? Look at the way they treated Dr Haneef, If you want to be related to a terrorist ????

FFS Another red herring   >:( >:( >:( 

FriYAY wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 12:00pm: FriYAY wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 8:08am: A great shame that this piece of crap is free. >:( >:( Would you rather he was a biscuit? I’m sure we can make him one, FriYay. Maybe we can get him into the Anzac Day Parade. Would that do it for you? Awwww, it's too trik pony. Whats wrong Head Vet? Missing getting gobbies from the grunts? Need gooks sneaking around to get it up now do you Rambo? ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)

Not anymore, old son. I’ve got you now.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 11:55am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:05am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:01am: red baron wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:52am: In another time David Hicks would have been hung for high treason Yes but in another we probably would have gone to war to protect his rights. lol. His rights to be a part of an Islamic fundamentalist group? F*cken' Jesus Christ.  ::) That’s right, Mistie. A Muslim fundamentalist group that, only a war ago, waa in a coalition with the US to defeat the Evil Empire. How times change, eh? Just think, these "progressives" defend your right to "work" at the uni. How sinister is that? We all know what you get up to there. He was part of an Islamic fundamentalist group that wanted to take over India and convert it to Islam. This is the group he was training with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Taiba Why do you clowns support such people? The "progressives" would be the first people they'd put up against the wall.

Believe it or not, we clowns support someone in Hicks’ situation having actual evidence for their alleged crimes put before a court of law.

In the case of David Hicks, that never happened because the military tribunal - with all its powers - had no evidence. Hicks took a plea bargain  and pleaded guilty to a crime he says he didn’t commit.

A retrospective crime that doesn’t exist in Australia. And how could Hicks even be tried in the US?

He couldn’t - hence rendition and Guantanamo Bay. Hicks was sold to the US for the princely sum of $200.

Instead of Wikileaks links, Mistie, why don’t you post evidence of an actual crime?

I can’t imagine "progressives" advocating throwing the book at someone - anyone - over rumours and smoke-fire allegations, but that’s just what you’re doing. You want Taliban-style justice.                     

Good work, comrade. This is "progress".                                 

woody2014 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:53pm: woody2014 wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:40pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:35pm: You understand that there is not one word in all that which relates to anything he was charged with ??? But it shore tells you about the little prick Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13] Yes but it also tells us about that government and the fact that they would have been willing to have any Australian treated in the same manner. It wasn't really about David Hicks, potentially it could have been anyone.   If they want to train with terrorists   >:( >:( >:( >:(

What exactly is the prescribed sentence for "training with terrorists"? Last I looked, we didn’t have such a law.

It would make the work of private security firms, soldiers of fortune, the French Foreign Legion, etc, etc, etc, a little difficult - not to mention the CIA.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 5:27pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:03pm: Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 11:55am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:05am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:01am: red baron wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:52am: In another time David Hicks would have been hung for high treason Yes but in another we probably would have gone to war to protect his rights. lol. His rights to be a part of an Islamic fundamentalist group? F*cken' Jesus Christ.  ::) That’s right, Mistie. A Muslim fundamentalist group that, only a war ago, waa in a coalition with the US to defeat the Evil Empire. How times change, eh? Just think, these "progressives" defend your right to "work" at the uni. How sinister is that? We all know what you get up to there. He was part of an Islamic fundamentalist group that wanted to take over India and convert it to Islam. This is the group he was training with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Taiba Why do you clowns support such people? The "progressives" would be the first people they'd put up against the wall. Believe it or not, we clowns support someone in Hicks’ situation having actual evidence for their alleged crimes put before a court of law. In the case of David Hicks, that never happened because the military tribunal - with all its powers - had no evidence. Hicks took a plea bargain  and pleaded guilty to a crime he says he didn’t commit. A retrospective crime that doesn’t exist in Australia. And how could Hicks even be tried in the US? He couldn’t - hence rendition and Guantanamo Bay. Hicks was sold to the US for the princely sum of $200. Instead of Wikileaks links, Mistie, why don’t you post evidence of an actual crime? I can’t imagine "progressives" advocating throwing the book at someone - anyone - over rumours and smoke-fire allegations, but that’s just what you’re doing. You want Taliban-style justice.                      Good work, comrade. This is "progress".

Just as I thought, you bend over backward for him. He admits being part of such a group but that doesn't seem to matter; in fact, it appear to make you and others more determined to protect him.

Do you think Lashkar-e-Taiba or any other militant group you side with will really save you from bourgeoisie capitalism? That is the real enemy, isn't it? Islam is just an allie for you in this idiotic war.   

Sparky wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:39pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away. He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia. White guy training with terrorists in Afghanistan.  :-/ :-/

Does that mean any white guy who undertakes Karate training in Japan becomes an enemy of Australia too? What about those that do Muai Tai Thailand? or Silat in Indonesia?

Hicks was just a bored white boy who watched to many Rambo movies and thought he would have a little adventure ... I don't believe he at any time intended to fight against Australia or the US, he just want the photo opp. He sh1t himself as soon as things got serious

Was he an idiot, sh1t yeah, did he deserve to get shot, sure ... but he didn't, and for the US to just make up charges and then for Howard to support them is deplorable ... who's the real traitor? Hicks to his own people? or the govt. of Australia to it's citizens?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 5:27pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:03pm: Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 11:55am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:05am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 7:01am: red baron wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:52am: In another time David Hicks would have been hung for high treason Yes but in another we probably would have gone to war to protect his rights. lol. His rights to be a part of an Islamic fundamentalist group? F*cken' Jesus Christ.  ::) That’s right, Mistie. A Muslim fundamentalist group that, only a war ago, waa in a coalition with the US to defeat the Evil Empire. How times change, eh? Just think, these "progressives" defend your right to "work" at the uni. How sinister is that? We all know what you get up to there. He was part of an Islamic fundamentalist group that wanted to take over India and convert it to Islam. This is the group he was training with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Taiba Why do you clowns support such people? The "progressives" would be the first people they'd put up against the wall. Believe it or not, we clowns support someone in Hicks’ situation having actual evidence for their alleged crimes put before a court of law. In the case of David Hicks, that never happened because the military tribunal - with all its powers - had no evidence. Hicks took a plea bargain  and pleaded guilty to a crime he says he didn’t commit. A retrospective crime that doesn’t exist in Australia. And how could Hicks even be tried in the US? He couldn’t - hence rendition and Guantanamo Bay. Hicks was sold to the US for the princely sum of $200. Instead of Wikileaks links, Mistie, why don’t you post evidence of an actual crime? I can’t imagine "progressives" advocating throwing the book at someone - anyone - over rumours and smoke-fire allegations, but that’s just what you’re doing. You want Taliban-style justice.                      Good work, comrade. This is "progress".                                  Just as I thought, you bend over backward for him. He admits being part of such a group but that doesn't seem to matter; in fact, it appear to make you and others more determined to protect him. Do you think Lashkar-e-Taiba or any other militant group you side with will really save you from bourgeoisie capitalism? That is the real enemy, isn't it? Islam is just an allie for you in this idiotic war.

Now you’re just sounding hysterical. The real enemy is the post-September 11 move against humble Western principles like Habeus Corpus and the right to fair trial.

Belonging to any group - bikies, neo-Nazi organizations, Lashkar-e-Taiba, or even the School of Hygeine Studies at your own uni - is not a crime.

Make it a crime and we’ll talk about it. Until then, David Hicks represents the embodiment of the dearth of human rightsand Western values - a role, he says, he’s not too comfortable with. He just wants to get on with his life, and yes, he’s now against Islamic fundamentalism.

If you don’t understand any of this, Mistie, don’t. If you want a world of Medieval Taliban-style juatice, no problem. Argue this, don’t pretend to be something you’re not.

You’re an anti-Enlightenment reactionary - treasure it, Mistie.

We do.

woody2014 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 2:31pm: woody2014 wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 2:21pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:53pm: woody2014 wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:40pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:35pm: You understand that there is not one word in all that which relates to anything he was charged with ??? But it shore tells you about the little prick Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13] Yes but it also tells us about that government and the fact that they would have been willing to have any Australian treated in the same manner. It wasn't really about David Hicks, potentially it could have been anyone.   If they want to train with terrorists  What makes you think that had any connection with the Howard governments decisions ?? Look at the way they treated Dr Haneef, If you want to be related to a terrorist ???? for goodness sake Another red herring

RED herring - look at the topic fella ????

It is about the government being aware that Hicks was not getting a fair trial ??? Not about if you think he is guilty of anything or not ???

Like it or not it is our governments responsibility to ensure that our people are treated fairly in this type of situation or any other.

Of course he couldn’t  get a fair trial. The entire process of renditions and offshore justice in Cuba intends to do just this.

US citizens got fair trials in the US. British citizens were sent home. Australian citizens were shelved indefinitely in Guantanamo, which was the stated policy of the Howard government. How could it possibly be fair?

The knuckleheads are arguing for no trials, and no sentences. Presumably they want anyone the Afghans want to hand over for a couple of hundred dollars.a piece to be taken out and shot - or detained indefinitely.

For the knuckleheads, this is "progress".

The whole bummer about Hicks is nobody else wanted him and we had to have him back here.

Sparky wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 2:25pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 2:15pm: Sparky wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:39pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away. He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia. White guy training with terrorists in Afghanistan.  Incorrect. So he was on holiday then?

Been my point all along.
Kosovo and Afghanistan????!

We arent talking a normal Suburban Aussie on holiday with his wife and kids here.

These are not quite the Costa Del Sol....

He was and had been fighting in warzones with and for Muslim forces.

He deserves no sympathy.

Sparky wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

The whole bummer about Hicks is nobody else wanted him and we had to have him back here.

How does his presence here change the taste of your breakfast?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

He deserves no sympathy

he also doesn't deserve to be held without charges or, later on, on trumped up charges. If they had shot him in a war zone, almost nobody would defend him, and rightly so ... however, you do not change the rules when they don't work in your favour.

The rules of fair trial and a right to be treated fairly make up the whole basis of western culture. Throw that out the door and you are just as bad as those rag heads you are fighting.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Sparky wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 2:25pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 2:15pm: Sparky wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:39pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away. He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia. White guy training with terrorists in Afghanistan.  Incorrect. So he was on holiday then? Been my point all along. Kosovo and Afghanistan????! We arent talking a normal Suburban Aussie on holiday with his wife and kids here. These are not quite the Costa Del Sol.... He was and had been fighting in warzones with and for Muslim forces. He deserves no sympathy.

No-one here is talking about sympathy.  This is about 'justice' for an individual.  He did not commit an offence, the Australian Government lied to us (fact is....he was in solitary confinement..........we were told he 'had a room of his own,' and that he was getting exercise......fact is he was allowed 20 minutes each fortnight.)

I'm no fan of Hicks but his crappy ineffective antics pale well into relevant insignificance when you learn the true extent to which our Government phucking lied to us.

It seems to be an emerging recurring theme from the Hayseed years.

The deeper issues are of importance, Andrei, and the two I have just referred to are petty in the overall scheme of things.  Lies, phucking lies to us. 

But.....the story of Hicks exposes a much nastier cancer.

I often read the Father of my Son-in-Law.....a USA Southerner (a Man from Dixie) posting on FaceBook how we must never trust Government, and so, we should arm ourselves to the teeth with as many weapons of war as we can get our hands on as a precautionary defence against it.

While it seems I am told by some here that I am a 'leftie,' I am warming to the description if it means I will challenge outright bloody lies which amount to a dishonest attack on civil rights.

Sparky wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

The whole bummer about Hicks is nobody else wanted him and we had to have him back here.

They say the same about one Andrei Hicks. Thing is, the two Hicks are Australian citizens.

If Andrei ever got done for hanging out in a war zone with a Koran, I’d expect the Australian government to apply all the normal proceedures if another country wanted to indict him.

Mind you, as a British citizen, he would get just that, so why bother with the Aussies?

When it comes to Yank justice, our government - Labor or Liberal - carries on like a third world vassal state.

Mistie and the rest call this "progress".

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 6:31pm:

Now you’re just sounding hysterical. The real enemy is the post-September 11 move against humble Western principles like Habeus Corpus and the right to fair trial. Belonging to any group - bikies, neo-Nazi organizations, Lashkar-e-Taiba, or even the School of Hygeine Studies at your own uni - is not a crime. Make it a crime and we’ll talk about it. Until then, David Hicks represents the embodiment of the dearth of human rightsand Western values - a role, he says, he’s not too comfortable with. He just wants to get on with his life, and yes, he’s now against Islamic fundamentalism. If you don’t understand any of this, Mistie, don’t. If you want a world of Medieval Taliban-style juatice, no problem. Argue this, don’t pretend to be something you’re not. You’re an anti-Enlightenment reactionary - treasure it, Mistie. We do.

Yawn. When you bend over backward to support and protect Bolt, Jones, Devine, Ackerman, Murdoch, and others like them, then I'll take you seriously. But you've been on a campaign to have them censored. Your "justice" is highly selective. We both know this isn't about justice. This is about taking the side of any fringe group or individual that helps break down the "hegemony" of Westernisation and/or bourgeoisie capitalism.

You useful idiots really show your true colours when you support Islamic fascists like this.

The whole Hicks saga is a stain on our reputation as a nation ruled by law. . .AFP officials interviewed Hicks early on in his incarceration at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp and new he hadn’t done anything like fire on allied soldiers.

John Useless Howard then panicked in 2007 and we had the kangaroo court trial of Hicks and the forced plea deal. Just the last in many inglorious acts by the worst PM we ever had before the simian became PM.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 9:44am:

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:31pm: Now you’re just sounding hysterical. The real enemy is the post-September 11 move against humble Western principles like Habeus Corpus and the right to fair trial. Belonging to any group - bikies, neo-Nazi organizations, Lashkar-e-Taiba, or even the School of Hygeine Studies at your own uni - is not a crime. Make it a crime and we’ll talk about it. Until then, David Hicks represents the embodiment of the dearth of human rightsand Western values - a role, he says, he’s not too comfortable with. He just wants to get on with his life, and yes, he’s now against Islamic fundamentalism. If you don’t understand any of this, Mistie, don’t. If you want a world of Medieval Taliban-style juatice, no problem. Argue this, don’t pretend to be something you’re not. You’re an anti-Enlightenment reactionary - treasure it, Mistie. We do. Yawn. When you bend over backward to support and protect Bolt, Jones, Devine, Ackerman, Murdoch, and others like them, then I'll take you seriously. But you've been on a campaign to have them censored. Your "justice" is highly selective. We both know this isn't about justice. This is about taking the side of any fringe group or individual that helps break down the "hegemony" of Westernisation and/or bourgeoisie capitalism. You useful idiots really show your true colours when you support Islamic fascists like this.

Lock them up in Gitmo and I will defend them too....

I may take my time about it, but if they wait long enough, eventually I'll get there. :D :D :D

Sparky wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

Al-Qaeda were training people like Hicks so they could slip through the airport and not be racially profiled. An arab would get noticed.

Were they ?

The question is simply, do all Australians deserve a fair trial.  Yes or No.

Some assume that is a given right, but over the last 10 years, it cannot be assumed so.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 11:05am:

The question is simply, do all Australians deserve a fair trial.  Yes or No. Some assume that is a given right, but over the last 10 years, it cannot be assumed so.

IN AUSTRALIA   ;) ;)

Sparky wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:39pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away. He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia. White guy training with terrorists in Afghanistan.  :-/ :-/

I guess Dnarever was stood behind him when they took the little shite prisoner.........he trained with the enemy, and he would have fought with them against the Coalition which included Australians, if he hadn't bottled-it when the action got too close.

That's what happens with wannabes, when the going gets tough, they get going.........

He should be treated as any traitor would be ...........his buddy Ben-laden would have binned him like the garbage he is.

He should have been shot.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 9:44am:

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:31pm: Now you’re just sounding hysterical. The real enemy is the post-September 11 move against humble Western principles like Habeus Corpus and the right to fair trial. Belonging to any group - bikies, neo-Nazi organizations, Lashkar-e-Taiba, or even the School of Hygeine Studies at your own uni - is not a crime. Make it a crime and we’ll talk about it. Until then, David Hicks represents the embodiment of the dearth of human rightsand Western values - a role, he says, he’s not too comfortable with. He just wants to get on with his life, and yes, he’s now against Islamic fundamentalism. If you don’t understand any of this, Mistie, don’t. If you want a world of Medieval Taliban-style juatice, no problem. Argue this, don’t pretend to be something you’re not. You’re an anti-Enlightenment reactionary - treasure it, Mistie. We do. Yawn. When you bend over backward to support and protect Bolt, Jones, Devine, Ackerman, Murdoch, and others like them, then I'll take you seriously. But you've been on a campaign to have them censored.

Have I now?

Why would I want them censored? As I understand it, they’re also subject to the law, including laws like racial vilification which Bolt and Jones have both been proven to have broken.

In a court of law, Mistie, not a plea bargain with the US military after 5 years in solitary confinement.

The Broadcasting Tribunal is another media code Bolt and Jones are subject to, and this includes "progressive" regulations about not telling porkie pies. Can you believe it?

Yes, if someone tells a fib on a mass broadcasting medium, we have rules to deal with it. Unbelievable. Bolt and Jones, of course,  have both been held to account on a number of occasions. Piers and the lovely Miranda are solely  newspaper columnists. As far as I’m aware, they’ve never been proven guilty of anything. Murdoch’s News International, as we all know, has been proven guilty of illegal surveillance, bribery, misleading the public (and the courts), and a host of other crimes. Murdoch even apologised.

Still, if you support people spreading fibs in the mass media, you’re perfectly free to do so. You already support kidnapping and imprisonment without trial for members of Muslim fundamentalist groups. Why not do away with all systems that aim to facilitate reason, justice and, dare I say it, truth? it’s only Western values, after all.

Yawn.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Sparky wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:41pm: [quote author=Jim_Puddle-Duck link=1388261099/42#42 date=1388288374][quote author=unbiased_view link=1388261099/39#39 date=1388287418]Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away.   He should have been shot.

There you go, Mistie. David Hicks shouldn’t have been indefinitely imprisoned without trial, he should have been murdered.

I’ll bet those "progressives" at the uni don’t agree with civilized values like this, eh?

Typical.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Sparky wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:39pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away. He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia. White guy training with terrorists in Afghanistan.  :-/ :-/ I guess Dnarever was stood behind him when they took the little shite prisoner.........he trained with the enemy, and he would have fought with them against the Coalition which included Australians, if he hadn't bottled-it when the action got too close. That's what happens with wannabes, when the going gets tough, they get going......... He should be treated as any traitor would be ...........his buddy Ben-laden would have binned him like the garbage he is. He should have been shot.

Its not specifically about Hicks it is about the principal of the Australian government supporting Australians overseas. Making sure that Australians are treated fairly. Charged with something and taken to a fair trial.

In this case the Australian government clearly supported an Australian being treated unfairly and unreasonably - even approving of torture. It could have been you or anyone else.

woody2014 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 11:05am: The question is simply, do all Australians deserve a fair trial.  Yes or No. Some assume that is a given right, but over the last 10 years, it cannot be assumed so. IN AUSTRALIA

Any and all Australians being treated unfairly in legal processes overseas is OK?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 5:13pm:

viewpoint wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Sparky wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:39pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away. He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia. White guy training with terrorists in Afghanistan.  :-/ :-/ I guess Dnarever was stood behind him when they took the little shite prisoner.........he trained with the enemy, and he would have fought with them against the Coalition which included Australians, if he hadn't bottled-it when the action got too close. That's what happens with wannabes, when the going gets tough, they get going......... He should be treated as any traitor would be ...........his buddy Ben-laden would have binned him like the garbage he is. He should have been shot. Its not specifically about Hicks it is about the principal of the Australian government supporting Australians overseas. Making sure that Australians are treated fairly. Charged with something and taken to a fair trial. In this case the Australian government clearly supported an Australian being treated unfairly and unreasonably - even approving of torture. It could have been you or anyone else.

;) ;) That is if your a Wannbee Terrorist  >:(

What if I went and joined a cult like the Branch Davidians? Would that make me a wannabe terrorist too?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 11:03am:

Sparky wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:35pm: Al-Qaeda were training people like Hicks so they could slip through the airport and not be racially profiled. An arab would get noticed. Were they ?

Maybe. After all, it makes perfect sense that Al Qaida would recruit blond, European suicide bombers to avoid the racial profilers, metal detectors, luggage x-rays, explosives tests and security checks at the airports.

They’d just use the non-terrorist queue to get through security.

Mistie’s highlighted the sinister "progressive" censorship plot to target posts like these. Just think, the "progressives" want sensible posts like this to be rubbed out with black textor. 

Typical.

woody2014 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 5:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 5:13pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Sparky wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:39pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:23pm: Gutless little Walter Mitty who "trained" with the nutters, wanted to be like them but when the bullets started flying crapped himself and was caught by US soldiers cowering in fear trying to dig himself into the ground .............. Should have left the bastard locked away. He was caught by the northern alliance trying to leave Afghanistan and he was unarmed. He never took part in the hostilities and was therefore not an enemy combatant. He was unwilling to fight against Australia. White guy training with terrorists in Afghanistan.  :-/ :-/ I guess Dnarever was stood behind him when they took the little shite prisoner.........he trained with the enemy, and he would have fought with them against the Coalition which included Australians, if he hadn't bottled-it when the action got too close. That's what happens with wannabes, when the going gets tough, they get going......... He should be treated as any traitor would be ...........his buddy Ben-laden would have binned him like the garbage he is. He should have been shot. Its not specifically about Hicks it is about the principal of the Australian government supporting Australians overseas. Making sure that Australians are treated fairly. Charged with something and taken to a fair trial. In this case the Australian government clearly supported an Australian being treated unfairly and unreasonably - even approving of torture. It could have been you or anyone else. That is if your a Wannbee Terrorist

The point is it was never proven that he was ??? That is the problem the Australian government is meant to ensure their is a charge and fair trial to establish this guilt.

Had he really been guilty they would not have needed an illegal kangaroo court or required 7 years to create retrospective charges which have since been ruled illegal and thrown out. They may not have even needed to torture him.

No, Dnarever, they needed to torture him because of the regulations. It’s not as if David Hicks knew the code for any ticking time bombs or anything.

It’s not as if he even resisted questioning.

He was tortured because it’s what you do with prisoners, and this is the return to civilized values the knuckleheads are advocating.

I honestly don’t know why they just don’t join the Taliban and be done with it.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29^th, 2013 at 7:59pm:

If Andrei ever got done for hanging out in a war zone with a Koran, I’d expect the Australian government to apply all the normal proceedures if another country wanted to indict him.

??????????
The only thing reasonable in your post son is that I'm an Aussie citizen.

So it’s not reasonable to suggest that if you were kidnapped and illegally detained by a foreign country for not breaking any laws, our government would have something to say about it?

Strange. The British and Amerikan governments beg to differ. None of their citizens stayed in Guantanamo. No US ones even went there.

You’re right, Andrei. If my version of reason didn’t sound completely foreign to you, I’d be forced to question it.

Mistie’s writing a PhD on this issue as we speak.

STOP THE AUSSIE CITIZENS.

STOP THE AUSSIE CITIZENS.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 5:27pm:

What if I went and joined a cult like the Branch Davidians? Would that make me a wannabe terrorist too?

Kinda think you're the type.........would you be involved in mass suicide.....nah.....you love BSing far too much......

Just another wannabe!

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 5:04pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:31pm: Now you’re just sounding hysterical. The real enemy is the post-September 11 move against humble Western principles like Habeus Corpus and the right to fair trial. Belonging to any group - bikies, neo-Nazi organizations, Lashkar-e-Taiba, or even the School of Hygeine Studies at your own uni - is not a crime. Make it a crime and we’ll talk about it. Until then, David Hicks represents the embodiment of the dearth of human rightsand Western values - a role, he says, he’s not too comfortable with. He just wants to get on with his life, and yes, he’s now against Islamic fundamentalism. If you don’t understand any of this, Mistie, don’t. If you want a world of Medieval Taliban-style juatice, no problem. Argue this, don’t pretend to be something you’re not. You’re an anti-Enlightenment reactionary - treasure it, Mistie. We do. Yawn. When you bend over backward to support and protect Bolt, Jones, Devine, Ackerman, Murdoch, and others like them, then I'll take you seriously. But you've been on a campaign to have them censored. Have I now? Why would I want them censored? As I understand it, they’re also subject to the law, including laws like racial vilification which Bolt and Jones have both been proven to have broken. In a court of law, Mistie, not a plea bargain with the US military after 5 years in solitary confinement. The Broadcasting Tribunal is another media code Bolt and Jones are subject to, and this includes "progressive" regulations about not telling porkie pies. Can you believe it? Yes, if someone tells a fib on a mass broadcasting medium, we have rules to deal with it. Unbelievable. Bolt and Jones, of course,  have both been held to account on a number of occasions. Piers and the lovely Miranda are solely  newspaper columnists. As far as I’m aware, they’ve never been proven guilty of anything. Murdoch’s News International, as we all know, has been proven guilty of illegal surveillance, bribery, misleading the public (and the courts), and a host of other crimes. Murdoch even apologised. Still, if you support people spreading fibs in the mass media, you’re perfectly free to do so. You already support kidnapping and imprisonment without trial for members of Muslim fundamentalist groups. Why not do away with all systems that aim to facilitate reason, justice and, dare I say it, truth? it’s only Western values, after all. Yawn.

I see. It's all about the law. Let's change the law and make murder and rape legal. After all, the law dictates what's moral.  ::)

What Bolt and Jones have done - express opinions - pales in comparison to being part of a fundamentalist group that kills for religion. 

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 11:03am: Sparky wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 1:35pm: Al-Qaeda were training people like Hicks so they could slip through the airport and not be racially profiled. An arab would get noticed. Were they ? Maybe. After all, it makes perfect sense that Al Qaida would recruit blond, European suicide bombers to avoid the racial profilers, metal detectors, luggage x-rays, explosives tests and security checks at the airports. They’d just use the non-terrorist queue to get through security. Mistie’s highlighted the sinister "progressive" censorship plot to target posts like these. Just think, the "progressives" want sensible posts like this to be rubbed out with black textor.  Typical.

I am not advocating censorship at all. The longer you "progressives" keep talking, the sooner people realise the sinister groups and individuals you side with.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 11:39am:

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 5:04pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 29th, 2013 at 6:31pm: Now you’re just sounding hysterical. The real enemy is the post-September 11 move against humble Western principles like Habeus Corpus and the right to fair trial. Belonging to any group - bikies, neo-Nazi organizations, Lashkar-e-Taiba, or even the School of Hygeine Studies at your own uni - is not a crime. Make it a crime and we’ll talk about it. Until then, David Hicks represents the embodiment of the dearth of human rightsand Western values - a role, he says, he’s not too comfortable with. He just wants to get on with his life, and yes, he’s now against Islamic fundamentalism. If you don’t understand any of this, Mistie, don’t. If you want a world of Medieval Taliban-style juatice, no problem. Argue this, don’t pretend to be something you’re not. You’re an anti-Enlightenment reactionary - treasure it, Mistie. We do. Yawn. When you bend over backward to support and protect Bolt, Jones, Devine, Ackerman, Murdoch, and others like them, then I'll take you seriously. But you've been on a campaign to have them censored. Have I now? Why would I want them censored? As I understand it, they’re also subject to the law, including laws like racial vilification which Bolt and Jones have both been proven to have broken. In a court of law, Mistie, not a plea bargain with the US military after 5 years in solitary confinement. The Broadcasting Tribunal is another media code Bolt and Jones are subject to, and this includes "progressive" regulations about not telling porkie pies. Can you believe it? Yes, if someone tells a fib on a mass broadcasting medium, we have rules to deal with it. Unbelievable. Bolt and Jones, of course,  have both been held to account on a number of occasions. Piers and the lovely Miranda are solely  newspaper columnists. As far as I’m aware, they’ve never been proven guilty of anything. Murdoch’s News International, as we all know, has been proven guilty of illegal surveillance, bribery, misleading the public (and the courts), and a host of other crimes. Murdoch even apologised. Still, if you support people spreading fibs in the mass media, you’re perfectly free to do so. You already support kidnapping and imprisonment without trial for members of Muslim fundamentalist groups. Why not do away with all systems that aim to facilitate reason, justice and, dare I say it, truth? it’s only Western values, after all. Yawn. I see. It's all about the law. Let's change the law and make murder and rape legal. After all, the law dictates what's moral.  ::) What Bolt and Jones have done - express opinions - pales in comparison to being part of a fundamentalist group that kills for religion.

Are you arguing to change the law for false imprisonment and torture? Or do you just want to let those laws slide?

Being a member of a fundamentalist group that kills for religion is not illegal either. We tried that once with Tim Anderson and the Ananda Margas after the Hilton Bombing.

And we found them innocent. All evidence now points to the police doing the bombing.

Bolt and Jones do not just express opinions. In Jones’ case, his opinions are exchanged for cash. In Bolt’s case, his opinions are exchanged for influence. Both have been caught expressing opinions they knew weren’t true. Both have been caught saying the same fib, over and over, in what can only be called a media campaign.

Bolt famously said the Stolen Generation never happened. He demanded names, and when he was given them, he pretended they didn’t exist. He used his column in the widest read Australian newspaper to claim that no Aboriginal children had ever - ever - been forcibly removed from their parents. This followed the Bringing Them Home report, which, as everybody knows, proved that they were.

Bolt wasn’t expressing an opinion. He was knowingly spreading a lie. Jones does exactly the same. Such hubris can only be possible when you believe that your audience are chumps.

The thing is though, Mistie, with fibs on that scale, the truth usually comes out in the end. Tim Anderson got off, David Hicks was released, and Bolt and Jones have no credibility left.

And this is why we don’t arrest, torture or kill people based on lies: the truth comes back to get us.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 11:32am:

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 5:27pm: What if I went and joined a cult like the Branch Davidians? Would that make me a wannabe terrorist too? Kinda think you're the type.........would you be involved in mass suicide.....nah.....you love BSing far too much......

Exactly.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 12:19pm:

Are you arguing to change the law for false imprisonment and torture? Or do you just want to let those laws slide? Being a member of a fundamentalist group that kills for religion is not illegal either. We tried that once with Tim Anderson and the Ananda Margas after the Hilton Bombing. And we found them innocent. All evidence now points to the police doing the bombing. Bolt and Jones do not just express opinions. In Jones’ case, his opinions are exchanged for cash. In Bolt’s case, his opinions are exchanged for influence. Both have been caught expressing opinions they knew weren’t true. Both have been caught saying the same fib, over and over, in what can only be called a media campaign. Bolt famously said the Stolen Generation never happened. He demanded names, and when he was given them, he pretended they didn’t exist. He used his column in the widest read Australian newspaper to claim that no Aboriginal children had ever - ever - been forcibly removed from their parents. This followed the Bringing Them Home report, which, as everybody knows, proved that they were. Bolt wasn’t expressing an opinion. He was knowingly spreading a lie. Jones does exactly the same. Such hubris can only be possible when you believe that your audience are chumps. The thing is though, Mistie, with fibs on that scale, the truth usually come out in the end. Tim Anderson got off, David Hicks was released, and Bolt and Jones have no credibility left. And this is why we don’t arrest, torture or kill people based on lies: the truth comes back to get us.

This is panning out exactly the way I thought it would. Bolt et al. are morally repugnant for expressing a view, but Hicks is innocent even though he admits be part of a terrorist organisation that is committed to overthrowing India and converting it to Islam by violent means. "Progressive" morality on show for all to see.