You are here: Home › News Archive › David Hicks is full of shit

David Hicks is full of shit

This shit makes me sick. I never agreed with David Hicks being held for years without charge by our allies. But I really don’t agree with fucking idiots thinking he is some sort of hero.

David Hicks is a dick.

He fought for assholes. He fought for repression, stupidity and everything we are against. Yet the canape munching fuckwits of Australia think he’s some sort of hero.

David Hicks appeared at the Sydney Writers’ Festival to discuss his autobiography Guantanamo: My Journey. And along for the ride was an audience of 900 credulous fools, who gave him a standing ovation and queued at a book signing afterwards.

What the fuck.

Source

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

67 Responses to "David Hicks is full of shit"

Minutiae says:

May 24, 2011 at 6:03 am

[B]Ted Lapkin has a VERY strong opinion about this. A little too strong. While I agree with some of what he says abotu HIcks and his sympathizers, he takes a very hard stance. Too hard.

From what I have read and putting things together over this whole mess for the last several years, Hicks was a dumb, ignorant insecure twat. He fell into something for whatever reason. Perhaps he wanted to belong. Perhaps he thought he saw what ‘the cause’ was once trying achieve and believed it was noble. The fact he is lying or changing his story should not be a shock to anyone. There are many factors in that, some of them Hicks fault and some of them not. Who gives a fuck.

Lapkin is a cunt. He says it is ok that Hicks can lie and ridicules 900 people for being there and applauding him. The really annoying bit about Lapkin’s whinge is his rant about how the government is paying for it. I want to know how many times a large group of people (larger than 900) had listened to a politician lie then had been applauded by those people which was paid for by the government.

Who gives a shit about Hicks. Who gives a shit about 900 people who went to see him. Lapkin, get out there and whinge about shit that matters.

[/B]

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 24, 2011 at 6:09 am

Have to back Minutiae here.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
dwarfthrower says:

May 24, 2011 at 6:16 am

The man has a story to tell, some people seem to be interested in hearing it. No skin off my nose.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Pirate says:

May 24, 2011 at 6:20 am

Thanks for the info Minutiae. You got a good point.

The thing that bugs me about this is that (according to the author) that hicks is lying about what he did and changing his story.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Minutiae says:

May 24, 2011 at 6:27 am

dwarfthrower;1670375 wrote: The man has a story to tell, some people seem to be interested in hearing it. No skin off my nose.

Reads more like an opinion than a story.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
dwarfthrower says:

May 24, 2011 at 6:31 am

Minutiae;1670378 wrote: Reads more like an opinion than a story.

Haven’t read it. Don’t plan to. But I’d expect an autobiography to contain a little bit of opinion here and there.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
ShinymetalASS says:

May 24, 2011 at 6:38 am

Regardless of your opinion on Hicks, being held in custody without any charges being laid is a slight abuse of procedure and affords the accused no natural justice. The notion that Hicks is a lying wanker is incidental.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
PsychoNavigator says:

May 24, 2011 at 6:39 am

If I was to write an autobiography, I’d end every chapter with the line, “…and that was the first and last time I ever sucked dick for a rail of coke.”

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 24, 2011 at 6:59 am

ShinymetalASS;1670385 wrote: Regardless of your opinion on Hicks, being held in custody without any charges being laid is a slight abuse of procedure and affords the accused no natural justice. The notion that Hicks is a lying wanker is incidental.

Whatever Hicks’ various versions of history say, it doesn’t absolve the Australian & American governments of their behaviour of the last decade.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
cranky says:

May 24, 2011 at 7:34 am

Pft… You don’t have to agree with America’s methods to appreciate that David Hicks knew what he was getting into when he decided to travel to some shit hole backwards muslim infested third world dust bowl to receive military training.

If you hold up a bank and then complain when you get shot by police you are the same level of fuckwit.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DickButt says:

May 24, 2011 at 7:46 am

While the article author clearly has a bone to pick with this former enemy combatant, he raises some interesting points of difference.
I support the government capturing any money he makes from this book under proceeds of crime, it wont come close to recouping what the nation spent making sure he didn’t “commit suicide” in prison.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
NotAllHere says:

May 24, 2011 at 8:01 am

Since when did all the red-necks come out to play?

What is abhorrent is that the Australian government still recognise Hicks’ conviction from a genuine Kangaroo Court.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
ezer says:

May 24, 2011 at 8:18 am

ignoring the article completely, i still question why hicks was allowed back to aus at all. he fought on the side against us, in my mind when they released him he should have gone to the country he quite clearly loved so much he was wiling to die for, Afghanistan.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Blink says:

May 24, 2011 at 8:42 am

DermottBanana;1670389 wrote: Whatever Hicks’ various versions of history say, it doesn’t absolve the Australian & American governments of their behaviour of the last decade.

Which makes absolutely no fucking sense at all.

You might as well have said “whatever that bloke at the muffler shop says about Maseratis, it doesn’t absolve Queensland sugar cane farmers of their behaviour of the last decade”

I mean really. Just look at what the fuck you wrote.

That’s the best you can come up with?

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
royale says:

May 24, 2011 at 8:56 am

cranky;1670391 wrote: Pft… You don’t have to agree with America’s methods to appreciate that David Hicks knew what he was getting into when he decided to travel to some shit hole backwards muslim infested third world dust bowl to receive military training.

If you hold up a bank and then complain when you get shot by police you are the same level of fuckwit.

Cranky has spoken wisely.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
katana says:

May 24, 2011 at 8:56 am

I was in a bar one night talking to a guy who was involved in the investigations into Habib and Hicks. When I asked about did he think they were guilty, his comment was “Where there is smoke there is fire”. I have known him for quite a while and know his connections. They were both guilty and are lucky they are not still in Gitmo.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Minutiae says:

May 24, 2011 at 9:00 am

ezer;1670402 wrote: ignoring the article completely, i still question why hicks was allowed back to aus at all. he fought on the side against us, in my mind when they released him he should have gone to the country he quite clearly loved so much he was wiling to die for, Afghanistan.

Its never that easy: The fundamental problem is what country will take someone when the country they have citizenship does not want them? I am pretty sure Afghanistan will not want him.

At the end of the day, he was fool who was punished. He is out and deserves his freedoms and anything that comes with it, whether any of us like it or not. Much the same that any person who was imprisoned deserves a chance to prove they are heading down an acceptable path according to accepted social guidelines/laws.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 24, 2011 at 9:13 am

Blink;1670408 wrote: Which makes absolutely no fucking sense at all.

You might as well have said “whatever that bloke at the muffler shop says about Maseratis, it doesn’t absolve Queensland sugar cane farmers of their behaviour of the last decade”

I mean really. Just look at what the fuck you wrote.

That’s the best you can come up with?

Your obsession, Blink, with attacking anything I write, rather than reading it first, is more evident here than it usually is.
If you need me to spell it out clearer though: whatever the truth of the Hicks matter, his treatment at the hands of the US and Australian governments coat neither of them in glory.

Whatever Hicks has done (and just like the rest of you I haven’t read his book or his case notes or sat in at the military tribunal where he admitted to whatever he admitted to in order to be sent back to Aus), John Howard (not one of David Hicks’ strongest supporters) has said on numerous occasions Hicks broke no Australian law. And it’s not a difficult concept to understand that if you haven’t broken any laws, you shouldn’t be punished.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 24, 2011 at 9:15 am

ezer;1670402 wrote: ignoring the article completely, i still question why hicks was allowed back to aus at all. he fought on the side against us, in my mind when they released him he should have gone to the country he quite clearly loved so much he was wiling to die for, Afghanistan.

You’re invited to present any evidence to back your claim he fought against his own country.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
TheGorn says:

May 24, 2011 at 9:22 am

Hicks is a cockfag terrorist wannabe but you know bogans – they love an underdog that’s being oppressed by ‘the man’.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 24, 2011 at 9:25 am

katana;1670415 wrote: I was in a bar one night talking to a guy who was involved in the investigations into Habib and Hicks. When I asked about did he think they were guilty, his comment was “Where there is smoke there is fire”. I have known him for quite a while and know his connections. They were both guilty and are lucky they are not still in Gitmo.

Oh fuck. Your mate told you in a pub they were guilty?
Convinces me.
Makes me wonder why we have things like courts or judicial systems.
Oh yeah – they’re so Shiny can get up and strut her stuff, eh?

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
That_Bloke says:

May 24, 2011 at 9:26 am

TheGorn;1670423 wrote: Hicks is a cockfag terrorist wannabe but you know bogans – they love an underdog that’s being oppressed by ‘the man’.

But this is outweighed by the Bogan’s hatred of Muslims “not respecting our culture” & brown people.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Zanadou says:

May 24, 2011 at 9:50 am

Ignoring the “subject” altogether, you know what’s the worst thing about this? The tone of voice in that article is what I’d expect in an internet forum (like this!) or on a personal blog written in red, shouty, bold text (“I’m right—while everyone else who doesn’t agree with me is wrong—FUCK YOU!!!”), not in Times New Roman in a newspaper.

It looks like the internet has allowed the media to lower itself in research terms (look at Channel Nine and pictures of dead Bin laden, for example), and now in writing/article creation as well. Do I get space in The Age to write an 800 words rant about the evils of My Little Ponies now? No? No?? Note that this is in the ‘article’ section of the paper (and web site) not the ‘opinion’ part. God, this is what’s wrong with traditional news media now: the intenet-blog-ifacation of them all.

Lapkin seemed to be trigged by the “audience of 900 credulous fools” giving a “standing ovation”… but it’s possible that those people were just being polite. Just clapping after a speech. Who knows? Y’know, the people applauding at John Howard’s autobiography launch might have been doing the same.

Christ… basically Lapkin has writing an “article” because…. out there SOMEONE (possibly!) has a different opinion to him.

Get the fuck out of my newspaper.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Hairyman says:

May 24, 2011 at 10:02 am

Zanadou;1670438 wrote: Ignoring the “subject” altogether, you know what’s the worst thing about this? The tone of voice in that article is what I’d expect in an internet forum (like this!) or on a personal blog written in red, shouty, bold text (“I’m right—while everyone else who doesn’t agree with me is wrong—FUCK YOU!!!”), not in Times New Roman in a newspaper.

It looks like the internet has allowed the media to lower itself in research terms (look at Channel Nine and pictures of dead Bin laden, for example), and now in writing/article creation as well. Do I get space in The Age to write an 800 words rant about the evils of My Little Ponies now? No? No?? Note that this is in the ‘article’ section of the paper (and web site) not the ‘opinion’ part. God, this is what’s wrong with traditional news media now: the intenet-blog-ifacation of them all.

Lapkin seemed to be trigged by the “audience of 900 credulous fools” giving a “standing ovation”… but it’s possible that those people were just being polite. Just clapping after a speech. Who knows? Y’know, the people applauding at John Howard’s autobiography launch might have been doing the same.

Christ… basically Lapkin has writing an “article” because…. out there SOMEONE (possibly!) has a different opinion to him.

Get the fuck out of my newspaper.

Can you put the boobies back into your avatar?

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Scythe says:

May 24, 2011 at 10:17 am

ShinymetalASS;1670385 wrote: …being held in custody without any charges being laid is a slight abuse of procedure and affords the accused no natural justice.

The world would be a much better place if natural justice continued to exist outside of people believing it does. Unfortunately, the world provides many examples otherwise.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
PompadourJay says:

May 24, 2011 at 10:19 am

Zanadou;1670438 wrote: Ignoring the “subject” altogether, you know what’s the worst thing about this? The tone of voice in that article is what I’d expect in an internet forum (like this!) or on a personal blog written in red, shouty, bold text (“I’m right—while everyone else who doesn’t agree with me is wrong—FUCK YOU!!!”), not in Times New Roman in a newspaper.

It looks like the internet has allowed the media to lower itself in research terms (look at Channel Nine and pictures of dead Bin laden, for example), and now in writing/article creation as well. Do I get space in The Age to write an 800 words rant about the evils of My Little Ponies now? No? No?? Note that this is in the ‘article’ section of the paper (and web site) not the ‘opinion’ part. God, this is what’s wrong with traditional news media now: the intenet-blog-ifacation of them all.

Lapkin seemed to be trigged by the “audience of 900 credulous fools” giving a “standing ovation”… but it’s possible that those people were just being polite. Just clapping after a speech. Who knows? Y’know, the people applauding at John Howard’s autobiography launch might have been doing the same.

Christ… basically Lapkin has writing an “article” because…. out there SOMEONE (possibly!) has a different opinion to him.

Get the fuck out of my newspaper.

A lot of speakers, typically politicians, have “plants” in the audience. When a bunch of people start clapping at an event like that it is almost impulsive to join in. Not agreeing or disagreeing, just sayin’

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
ShinymetalASS says:

May 24, 2011 at 10:50 am

Scythe;1670447 wrote: The world would be a much better place if natural justice continued to exist outside of people believing it does. Unfortunately, the world provides many examples otherwise.

No shit, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to strive for it.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DickButt says:

May 24, 2011 at 11:32 am

Zanadou;1670438 wrote: Blah blah chest beating etc…

Christ… basically Lapkin has writing an “article” because…. out there SOMEONE (possibly!) has a different opinion to him.

Get the fuck out of my newspaper.

Have you ever heard of an opinion piece?

DermottBanana;1670426 wrote: Oh fuck. Your mate told you in a pub they were guilty?
Convinces me.
Makes me wonder why we have things like courts or judicial systems.
Oh yeah – they’re so Shiny can get up and strut her stuff, eh?

I like you, not because you are right (you are not), not because you are fun (you are not), but because you probably dont even understand that you are trolling.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
PsychoNavigator says:

May 24, 2011 at 11:47 am

DickButt;1670466 wrote: I like you, not because you are right (you are not), not because you are fun (you are not), but because you probably dont even understand that you are trolling.

Pfft, like you know anything about trolling. :rolleyes:

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DickButt says:

May 24, 2011 at 11:54 am

PsychoNavigator;1670470 wrote: Pfft, like you know anything about trolling. :rolleyes:

Is your notion of “funny” self supporting, or are other people assisting you as you attempt to prove yourself the biggest jackass on this website? Watch out dwarftosser, this cocksocket is after your title!

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
PsychoNavigator says:

May 24, 2011 at 12:00 pm

DickButt;1670472 wrote: Is your notion of “funny” self supporting, or are other people assisting you as you attempt to prove yourself the biggest jackass on this website? Watch out dwarftosser, this cocksocket is after your title!

I wish I could quit you.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
cocco says:

May 24, 2011 at 1:11 pm

I am expressing an opinion.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Scythe says:

May 24, 2011 at 11:17 pm

ShinymetalASS;1670461 wrote: No shit, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to strive for it.

Oh I agree, we construct our own reality. It’s not really ‘natural’ justice, though, in the way most people mean when they use the term.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Blink says:

May 25, 2011 at 12:19 am

DermottBanana;1670418 wrote: Your obsession, Blink, with attacking anything I write, rather than reading it first, is more evident here than it usually is.
If you need me to spell it out clearer though: whatever the truth of the Hicks matter, his treatment at the hands of the US and Australian governments coat neither of them in glory.

Whatever Hicks has done (and just like the rest of you I haven’t read his book or his case notes or sat in at the military tribunal where he admitted to whatever he admitted to in order to be sent back to Aus), John Howard (not one of David Hicks’ strongest supporters) has said on numerous occasions Hicks broke no Australian law. And it’s not a difficult concept to understand that if you haven’t broken any laws, you shouldn’t be punished.

Have we crossed swords before? I confess I don’t remember it. It would possibly happen less if you had a greater mastery of the written word.

As for reading what you wrote, I certainly did. I even took what you’d said and paraphrased it (I thought) quite cleverly to make a point about your original statement. Perhaps you missed that one as well? In any case, you didn’t say in your previous post anything about the AUS and US govts treatment of Hicks, you just said that it didn’t excuse their behaviour for the past decade.

If you want to get into that side of things: Hicks and others of his ilk from many nations were engaged in armed, military conflict. Unlike a war between nations, the US and allies were fighting an organisation made up of these people. How do you classify them? As a legitimate enemy combatant? As a non-uniformed combatant? As terrorists? You can’t just hold them as you normally would until the war is over…it doesn’t work like that.

As for Hicks having broken no Australian law – that’s not exactly true. He hasn’t broken a law inside Australia and fallen under the jurisdiction of our courts. He could possibly be classified as an enemy combatant as he was fighting for people we are actively waging a kind of fucked-up war against but that’s beside the point. He has been involved in armed conflict against a nation, been captured and imprisoned by that nation as is their right. As you said in your post, it’s not a difficult concept to understand. I don’t give a fuck that he’s back in Australia mind you…he’s served his time. What I do take offense with is when people start throwing the words “innocent” and “shouldn’t be punished” aroudn with regard to him.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Blink says:

May 25, 2011 at 12:21 am

ShinymetalASS;1670461 wrote: No shit, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to strive for it.

Actually as a lawyer Shiny, I’m really interested in how you would classify Hicks….and how you would proceed once he was captured in combat?

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
kerb says:

May 25, 2011 at 12:27 am

Blink;1670543 wrote: As for Hicks having broken no Australian law – that’s not exactly true. He hasn’t broken a law inside Australia and fallen under the jurisdiction of our courts. He could possibly be classified as an enemy combatant as he was fighting for people we are actively waging a kind of fucked-up war against but that’s beside the point.

From memory he wasn’t able to be tried as an enemy combatant or for treason as Australia (& NATO & the US) never formally declared war on Afghanistan, as the Taliban were never recognized as a legitimate government. Well, by anyone other than Pakistan, Saudi Arabia & the UAE anyway.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
nrejones says:

May 25, 2011 at 1:14 am

You’re all suprised they lauded him? @ Sydney writers festival of all places?

That thing is basically the communist party, the angry feminists, and gay mardi-gras organising committee all rolled into one.

I’m suprised he wasn’t carried off on their hippy shoulders whilst George Negus sprayed him with champagne.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Blink says:

May 25, 2011 at 3:38 am

kerb;1670545 wrote: From memory he wasn’t able to be tried as an enemy combatant or for treason as Australia (& NATO & the US) never formally declared war on Afghanistan, as the Taliban were never recognized as a legitimate government. Well, by anyone other than Pakistan, Saudi Arabia & the UAE anyway.

Which makes me think that the Geneva convention needs an overhaul to incorporate things like Al Qaeda terrorists / militants.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
gz86 says:

May 25, 2011 at 4:02 am

Long time lurker, first time got around to registering. Just wanted to comment that SMH has published a rejoinder by Mary Kostakidis.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/we-stood-up-for-hicks-because-australia-failed-to-when-it-mattered-20110524-1f2e5.html

I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle (naive, young & stupid seems to explain most of his actions.) Good on SMH for publishing both IMHO.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 25, 2011 at 6:37 am

Blink;1670571 wrote: Which makes me think that the Geneva convention needs an overhaul to incorporate things like Al Qaeda terrorists / militants.

The Geneva Convention does not need an overhaul to deal with al Qaeda any more than it does to deal with the mafia, or the boy scouts.
If someone’s a civilian, and they commit a crime, there are law courts to deal with them.
As elsewhere in this thread, you’re invited to show us evidence that Hicks committed a crime.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Blink says:

May 25, 2011 at 6:57 am

DermottBanana;1670615 wrote: The Geneva Convention does not need an overhaul to deal with al Qaeda any more than it does to deal with the mafia, or the boy scouts.
If someone’s a civilian, and they commit a crime, there are law courts to deal with them.
As elsewhere in this thread, you’re invited to show us evidence that Hicks committed a crime.

Considering he’s entered a guilty plea to the military court for providing material support for terrorism, I’m pretty sure that’s a given. I’ll leave you to look it up on Google. “Guilty” would equal an admission to having committed a crime, just in case there was any confusion.

As for being a civilian, I’m pretty sure that the term for someone who engages in armed combat against a nation’s army isn’t termed a “civilian”. Depending on which side of the fence you’re on “militant”, “rebel”, “freedom fighter” would be appropriate, but can you really believe he’s a civilian?

PS Just been told that your’e actually Aurelius? Can it be true? Aurelius had much better arguments, as I recall.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Boobmeister says:

May 25, 2011 at 6:59 am

I’m going to go out on a limb here and state that Pirate is full of more shit than Hicks.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
cranky says:

May 25, 2011 at 7:09 am

Boobmeister;1670621 wrote: I’m going to go out on a limb here and state that Pirate is full of more shit than Hicks.

In breaking news the sky is blue, lava is hot and Boobmeister craves cock.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 25, 2011 at 7:15 am

Blink;1670620 wrote: Considering he’s entered a guilty plea to the military court for providing material support for terrorism, I’m pretty sure that’s a given. I’ll leave you to look it up on Google. “Guilty” would equal an admission to having committed a crime, just in case there was any confusion.

As for being a civilian, I’m pretty sure that the term for someone who engages in armed combat against a nation’s army isn’t termed a “civilian”. Depending on which side of the fence you’re on “militant”, “rebel”, “freedom fighter” would be appropriate, but can you really believe he’s a civilian?

PS Just been told that your’e actually Aurelius? Can it be true? Aurelius had much better arguments, as I recall.

Regarding the Geneva Convention/civilian thing, if someone is not a member of a national military (and there’s little doubt the rebels/freedom fighters/militants of which you speak weren’t) then yeah, they’re a civilian. And if a civilian commits a crime, they are dealt with in the same way any other criminal is. Countries have been trying such people as criminals for a very long time. Ireland & Spain being good illustrations of this in recent times.
The whole argument that different rules were needed post 9/11 has always been a furphy. If they’ve committed crimes, try them as criminals.

As for Hicks’ situation specifically, I’d hardly be the only person who questions the legitimacy of the Guantanamo military justice system (again, refer previous paragraph). I have not read Hicks’ book. I haven’t read Hicks’ case file. (Neither has the foreign minister of the time, Alexander Downer. His failure to is probably of a more serious concern) But John Howard said on several occasions Hicks had not broken any Australian laws, and Howard & Downer never stated publicly what laws Hicks did break.
And, as I said, if you haven’t broken laws, you shouldn’t be punished.

I used to post as Aurelius. His arguments might have been coherent or not. Yours Blink rarely have been.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Boobmeister says:

May 25, 2011 at 7:19 am

cranky;1670623 wrote: In breaking news the sky is blue, lava is hot and Boobmeister craves cock.

Only your cock. It makes me wet. In the anus.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
bobdown says:

May 25, 2011 at 9:10 am

I’d love a fuckin’ holiday in Cuba.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Boobmeister says:

May 25, 2011 at 9:13 am

A fucking holiday bob? Or would a normal holiday suffice?

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
bobdown says:

May 25, 2011 at 9:15 am

Boobmeister;1670658 wrote: A fucking holiday bob? Or would a normal holiday suffice?

Just as long as I gets the free orange suit and those sexy bracelets.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Blink says:

May 26, 2011 at 4:24 am

DermottBanana;1670625 wrote: Regarding the Geneva Convention/civilian thing, if someone is not a member of a national military (and there’s little doubt the rebels/freedom fighters/militants of which you speak weren’t) then yeah, they’re a civilian. And if a civilian commits a crime, they are dealt with in the same way any other criminal is. Countries have been trying such people as criminals for a very long time. Ireland & Spain being good illustrations of this in recent times.
The whole argument that different rules were needed post 9/11 has always been a furphy. If they’ve committed crimes, try them as criminals.

As for Hicks’ situation specifically, I’d hardly be the only person who questions the legitimacy of the Guantanamo military justice system (again, refer previous paragraph). I have not read Hicks’ book. I haven’t read Hicks’ case file. (Neither has the foreign minister of the time, Alexander Downer. His failure to is probably of a more serious concern) But John Howard said on several occasions Hicks had not broken any Australian laws, and Howard & Downer never stated publicly what laws Hicks did break.
And, as I said, if you haven’t broken laws, you shouldn’t be punished.

I used to post as Aurelius. His arguments might have been coherent or not. Yours Blink rarely have been.

You’re wrong about their status as civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
But right about them being tried as criminals.

Regarding your second paragraph, why do you keep mentioning Australian laws? If I’m in Italy and break an international law, or an Italian law, it doesn’t matter that I haven’t broken an Australian law. Fair enough that Hicks should have had access to the same level of consular support as any other Australian overseas, but apart from that I fail to see the point. As for Howard and Downer never stating publicly what law Hick’s did break…again what has that got to do with anything? The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister should involve themselves in every such case?

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DickButt says:

May 26, 2011 at 4:52 am

I fail to see why so many people seem to care about the why, when it matters for so little.
He was caught as an armed combatant fighting against the American(?) forces, he became their prisoner of war.
They tried him, he pled guilty.
Fuck off with your stupid olive branch waving “that should be overturned because I personally have no faith in their due process” liberalism, Mary.

Simple facts, no background needed. Caught, tried, found guilty.
Proceeds of his book are indeed proceeds of crime, as are his speakers fees for when he enters the professional speaking circuit.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Scythe says:

May 26, 2011 at 5:28 am

DickButt;1670796 wrote: I fail to see why so many people seem to care about the why, when it matters for so little.
He was caught as an armed combatant fighting against the American(?) forces, he became their prisoner of war.
They tried him, he pled guilty.
Fuck off with your stupid olive branch waving “that should be overturned because I personally have no faith in their due process” liberalism, Mary.

Simple facts, no background needed. Caught, tried, found guilty.
Proceeds of his book are indeed proceeds of crime, as are his speakers fees for when he enters the professional speaking circuit.

Except that your facts are wrong. As you should have seen, since the posts above you have already pointed out that he wasn’t a ‘prisoner of war’.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Fitty says:

May 26, 2011 at 6:06 am

DickButt;1670796 wrote: I fail to see why so many people seem to care about the why, when it matters for so little.
He was caught as an armed combatant fighting against the American(?) forces, he became their prisoner of war.
They tried him, he pled guilty.
Fuck off with your stupid olive branch waving “that should be overturned because I personally have no faith in their due process” liberalism, Mary.

Simple facts, no background needed. Caught, tried, found guilty.
Proceeds of his book are indeed proceeds of crime, as are his speakers fees for when he enters the professional speaking circuit.

Man, you’re a retarded cockbag, for using ‘liberal’ as a slur if for nothing else. ‘No background needed’ is such a cop out. I don’t think anyone arguing against you in this thread thinks Hicks is a stand up bloke, but Hicks isn’t the issue; the issue is the US charging about the world in a manner totally inconsistent with their purported values of free and open justice. Try to step away from the facts of this particular situation, and think about the broader consequences of someone being ‘found guilty’ in the manner Hicks was.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Minutiae says:

May 26, 2011 at 6:11 am

Blink;1670792 wrote: You’re wrong about their status as civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
But right about them being tried as criminals.

My interpretation of unlawful combatant is that it was a convenient label used the Bush administration to obfuscate a few of their practices coming out of the war in Afghanistan.

Just because the US uses and has made it part of some congressional act does not mean it is legal or right around the rest of the world.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Minutiae says:

May 26, 2011 at 6:14 am

Zanadou;1670438 wrote: Ignoring the “subject” altogether, you know what’s the worst thing about this? The tone of voice in that article is what I’d expect in an internet forum (like this!) or on a personal blog written in red, shouty, bold text (“I’m right—while everyone else who doesn’t agree with me is wrong—FUCK YOU!!!”), not in Times New Roman in a newspaper.

It looks like the internet has allowed the media to lower itself in research terms (look at Channel Nine and pictures of dead Bin laden, for example), and now in writing/article creation as well. Do I get space in The Age to write an 800 words rant about the evils of My Little Ponies now? No? No?? Note that this is in the ‘article’ section of the paper (and web site) not the ‘opinion’ part. God, this is what’s wrong with traditional news media now: the intenet-blog-ifacation of them all.

Lapkin seemed to be trigged by the “audience of 900 credulous fools” giving a “standing ovation”… but it’s possible that those people were just being polite. Just clapping after a speech. Who knows? Y’know, the people applauding at John Howard’s autobiography launch might have been doing the same.

Christ… basically Lapkin has writing an “article” because…. out there SOMEONE (possibly!) has a different opinion to him.

Get the fuck out of my newspaper.

Zanadou… while this is very well said and much similar to my view on the matter, I find it hard to take you seriously wihtout hot asian cleavage in your avatar.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 26, 2011 at 9:49 am

Blink;1670792 wrote: You’re wrong about their status as civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
But right about them being tried as criminals.

Regarding your second paragraph, why do you keep mentioning Australian laws? If I’m in Italy and break an international law, or an Italian law, it doesn’t matter that I haven’t broken an Australian law. Fair enough that Hicks should have had access to the same level of consular support as any other Australian overseas, but apart from that I fail to see the point. As for Howard and Downer never stating publicly what law Hick’s did break…again what has that got to do with anything? The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister should involve themselves in every such case?

Why I refer to what the Australia PM said, or the Australian Foreign Minister, is that they were the most prominent persons advocating for his detention. And the specification of ‘Australian law” was made by them, not me.
But let’s look at the countries Hicks *was* in.
What countries were they Blink? And what laws of those countries did he breach?
Because I’ve never heard much about Hicks being in America, or breaking American laws. But last I heard, they were the only country to have taken any action against him.
And whatever Donald Rumsfeld and his friends might think, fighting against American interests isn’t a crime.
Is it?

And whatever Rumsfeld and his friends may think, a civilian is a civilian is a civilian.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Scythe says:

May 26, 2011 at 10:08 am

DermottBanana;1670833 wrote: What countries were they Blink? And what laws of those countries did he breach?
Because I’ve never heard much about Hicks being in America, or breaking American laws. But last I heard, they were the only country to have taken any action against him.
And whatever Donald Rumsfeld and his friends might think, fighting against American interests isn’t a crime.
Is it?

And whatever Rumsfeld and his friends may think, a civilian is a civilian is a civilian.

Leaving aside anything else:

* 9/11 was a deliberate attack against the United States by non-state actors
* The perpetrators of this act were conclusively traced to Afghanistan, where the powers of the day have been shown to have provided sanctuary and support for the terrorist network.
* Therefore, UN and international law recognises causus belli in the case of the invasion of Afghanistan
* David Hicks was captured in Afghanistan, allegedly fighting on the side of a non-state actor against whom it was not possible to ‘declare war’ as the term is recognised under international law.
* Failing the above, Hicks cannot be considered a ‘lawful combatant’ as defined under the Geneva convention.
* So by default, under said Convention, he would be considered a ‘non-lawful combatant’, and be subject to civil trial in the nation against which he had commited crimes

Where it gets tricky is that the definiton of ‘non-lawful combatant’is vague at best, and that nations, even those who have signed the convention, feel justified in claiming that their own laws in such areas take precedence over international treaties. Which is where Hicks and the other detainees got screwed.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
nosfer2d2 says:

May 26, 2011 at 10:47 am

My personal position was that I favoured the poor dad who just wanted his son to be dealt with so he knew what was going on, not kept in limbo forever whilst the prosecution dicked about. The Americans had dealt with their own chap relatively quickly but could not get around to even charging Hicks for years. The detention without trial was the offensive part, not the trial per se ( flawed as it was). see treatment of John Walker Lindh for comparison.

When Hicks finally did face a tribunal he got basically time served already plus some time in Australian jail.

Regardless of your feelings about what he was doing in the Middle East it did take far too long to get him to trial.

Part of the delay was the woeful inability of the US government and military to come up with a tribunal system that was capable of even appearing fair. One might strongly suggest that a more genuinely reasonable and balanced approach form the beginning would have enabled the US to speed up the trial process. it certainly would have helped public perception of what they were doing.

And Hicks never went to trial, he did a plea deal to get the hell of Gitmo.

One might say the US wanted to be rid of an embarrassment they could no longer contain.

On the plus side, Hicks had a decent lawyer provided by the US military who worked hard for his client, much harder and fairer than anyone captured by the Taliban could ever expect to be given.

The lawyers should be recognised for doing the right thing here and fighting for the rights of someone the system tried to bury and forget. Not the Australian system but the system nonetheless.

And the fact that Britain would not let its citizens be treated by the Gitmo tribunals and Australia would was the offensive part. We are at least the equal of the UK in our government and peoples right to be treated properly by our allies in the US.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 26, 2011 at 11:28 am

Scythe;1670842 wrote: Leaving aside anything else:

* 9/11 was a deliberate attack against the United States by non-state actors
* The perpetrators of this act were conclusively traced to Afghanistan, where the powers of the day have been shown to have provided sanctuary and support for the terrorist network.
* Therefore, UN and international law recognises causus belli in the case of the invasion of Afghanistan
* David Hicks was captured in Afghanistan, allegedly fighting on the side of a non-state actor against whom it was not possible to ‘declare war’ as the term is recognised under international law.
* Failing the above, Hicks cannot be considered a ‘lawful combatant’ as defined under the Geneva convention.
* So by default, under said Convention, he would be considered a ‘non-lawful combatant’, and be subject to civil trial in the nation against which he had commited crimes

Where it gets tricky is that the definiton of ‘non-lawful combatant’is vague at best, and that nations, even those who have signed the convention, feel justified in claiming that their own laws in such areas take precedence over international treaties. Which is where Hicks and the other detainees got screwed.

Scythe,
Your assessment of 9/11 is giving status where it is not due.
The attacks done against the Pentagon, New York and that other plane were crimes. Nothing more.
And those who broke laws relating to those crimes should have been punished in a normal judicial process. Obviously, those on the planes couldn’t be dealt with, but anyone who planned and aided their crimes should have been (and have been?) dealt with appropriately.
Hicks has – to my knowledge anyway – never been linked to those crimes.

I’m not sure where your claim that the perpetrators were traced to Afghanistan comes from.
Afghanistan, at the time, was under the rule of the Taliban.
The Taliban weren’t involved in the 9/11 crimes (were they?).
So what has one to do with the other?

According to one of the SMH reports, Hicks was actively involved in combat in the Pakistan-India dispute in Kashmir. According to the other report, he was working with humanitarian organisations there.
Both reports agree he undertook some training in Afghanistan, although the nature of the training varies depending on who you read.

Being involved in combat between India and Pakistan may be in contravention of laws. Probably of one of those nations or other. Depending on what he did.
Receiving training, of whatever type, is probably not illegal.

So, again, I ask Hicks’ critics and those who are arguing he’s some kind of bogey man, to outline what he has done which is so heinous? And why he’s not entitled to tell his story, and be paid by those who wish to hear it?

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
ezer says:

May 26, 2011 at 12:53 pm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/in-david-hickss-own-words/story-e6frg8yx-1111115167069

some interesting letters he wrote.

That night we crossed the LOC (thought to be Line of Control in Kashmir) four people each with rocket propelled grenades 200m from a bunker holding two soldiers. I hope one (soldier) was the same one who killed the two civilians. (from an incident earlier witnessed in which Indian soldiers killed civilians)

Jihad is still valid today and will be for all time. The West is full of poison. The western society is controlled by the Jews with music, TV, houses, cars, free sex takes Muslims away from the true Islam keeps Islam week and in the third world.

The West lives in the dark in a narrow sort of living. Allah will use his servants to punish non-believers in this world.

we are asked to sacrifice our lives for Allahs cause why not? There are many privileges in heaven. It is not just war it is jihad.

there are more but i have to go

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
ewe2 says:

May 26, 2011 at 2:43 pm

I’m with Zanadou, its not like locking up a stupid bogan was the greatest public relations coup. Only stupid bogans would think that concepts like justice actually apply. But spending more than a second over the shit coming out of the IPA is wasted time. Especially when our wonderful media pays for shit like that.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
nrejones says:

May 27, 2011 at 4:47 am

Scythe’s assessment that ” 9/11 was a deliberate attack against the United States by non-state actors” is the correct one.

The plan deliberately attacked, or tried to attack, the United State’s centres of command and control ( this in itself gives the attack a war like character).

All of the hijackers were foreign nationals,15 were saudi, 1 lebanese, 1 egyptian, and 2 were from the the UAE. They were orchestrated by an organisation, Al-Qaeda, whose stated aim is to attack US interests to achieve its politcal agenda.

Bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda, lived in Afghanistan and conducted operations with the Taliban for the 5 years prior to September 11. His guerilla forces in Afghanistan assisted the Taliban in killing Afghan citizens who resisted. There was, and is, a high degree of co-operation between the Talban and Al Qaeda. Hicks was fighting for the Taliban. So i don’t think its too suprising that Hicks was treated as an enemy combatant.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 27, 2011 at 6:13 am

nrejones;1671021 wrote: Scythe’s assessment that ” 9/11 was a deliberate attack against the United States by non-state actors” is the correct one.

The plan deliberately attacked, or tried to attack, the United State’s centres of command and control ( this in itself gives the attack a war like character).

All of the hijackers were foreign nationals,15 were saudi, 1 lebanese, 1 egyptian, and 2 were from the the UAE. They were orchestrated by an organisation, Al-Qaeda, whose stated aim is to attack US interests to achieve its politcal agenda.

Bin Laden, the head of Al Qaeda, lived in Afghanistan and conducted operations with the Taliban for the 5 years prior to September 11. His guerilla forces in Afghanistan assisted the Taliban in killing Afghan citizens who resisted. There was, and is, a high degree of co-operation between the Talban and Al Qaeda. Hicks was fighting for the Taliban. So i don’t think its too suprising that Hicks was treated as an enemy combatant.

War-like character? Show me a single attack in wartime that involved the destruction of a high-profile civilian office building?
That Bin Laden and his mates were resident in Afghanistan does not make the Afghani government of the time responsible for the attacks any more than the Australian government is responsible for the illegal activities of anyone resident in Sydney.
As you point out, the hijackers were civilians from a variety of countries. Does that mean their crime gave the US cause for war against Egypt? Lebanon? Saudi Arabia?
In the real world, government are held responsible for the acts they sanction, and which are carried out by their own employees. Not by civilians with no connection to the regime of their country of birth, or residence.

Even the US military tribunal which charged and imprisoned him stated Hicks was not involved in violent activities. They allege he received weapons training from Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan, went to Afghanistan and met some al Qeada members, attended an al Qaeda weapons training camp in Afghanistan, translated some books from Arabic into English, traveled to Pakistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks, returned to Afghanistan, worked with the Taliban forces in northern Afghanistan and there was captured by Afghani pro-US forces, and handed to the Americans.
None of those activities are sufficient to gain any sort of bogeyman status. They’re even difficult to twist into being classified as ‘crimes’ (can any of the law-talking people clarify?).

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Scythe says:

May 27, 2011 at 9:03 am

DermottBanana;1671044 wrote: Show me a single attack in wartime that involved the destruction of a high-profile civilian office building?

Ok.

DermottBanana;1671044 wrote: That Bin Laden and his mates were resident in Afghanistan does not make the Afghani government of the time responsible for the attacks any more than the Australian government is responsible for the illegal activities of anyone resident in Sydney.
As you point out, the hijackers were civilians from a variety of countries. Does that mean their crime gave the US cause for war against Egypt? Lebanon? Saudi Arabia?
In the real world, government are held responsible for the acts they sanction, and which are carried out by their own employees. Not by civilians with no connection to the regime of their country of birth, or residence.

I strongly suggest you look up the series of events that led to World War I. They actually bear a striking similarity.

And for the record, those countries you mentioned are irrelevant, because the terrorist acts weren’t committed at the behest of those governments, they were committed in their capacity as members of a terrorist organisation, which is a non-state actor, and therefore impossible to ‘declare war’ against in terms of international law. However, they were being actively sheltered and protected by the Taliban, to the extent that it was often impossible to untangle the two organisations, which has generally been accepted as sufficient causus belli by the international legal community. It’s Iraq that they question.

DermottBanana;1671044 wrote: Even the US military tribunal which charged and imprisoned him stated Hicks was not involved in violent activities. They allege he received weapons training from Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan, went to Afghanistan and met some al Qeada members, attended an al Qaeda weapons training camp in Afghanistan, translated some books from Arabic into English, traveled to Pakistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks, returned to Afghanistan, worked with the Taliban forces in northern Afghanistan and there was captured by Afghani pro-US forces, and handed to the Americans.
None of those activities are sufficient to gain any sort of bogeyman status. They’re even difficult to twist into being classified as ‘crimes’ (can any of the law-talking people clarify?).

The issue (at least the one i’ve been talking about) is not whether he actually committed crimes. The issue is whether the United States was justified in capturing him, holding him and trying him in the manner it did.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 27, 2011 at 9:49 am

Scythe, the primary difference between the events of 1914 and 2001 are that in 1914, the ‘terrorists’ were agents of a foreign power. Which pretty much goes against what you’re trying to prove.

Has there been any evidence to show the Taliban and the 9/11 perpetrators were involved with each other? Other than the claims the 9/11 planners were resident in Afghanistan at the time?
But then, given where Mr bin Laden eventually was located, can we have any faith in the claims where he was in 2001?

As for whether the US was justified in capturing him [they didn't], holding him and trying him, would the Russians/Israelis/Tongans have any more claim to holding/trying him if his captors had been the recipients of the captive Hicks handed him to them? Since he was neither fighting the Americans, nor a US citizen. Apart from their self-imposed role as king of the world, what right did they have to have anything to do with Mr Hicks?

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
Scythe says:

May 27, 2011 at 11:42 am

DermottBanana;1671097 wrote: Scythe, the primary difference between the events of 1914 and 2001 are that in 1914, the ‘terrorists’ were agents of a foreign power. Which pretty much goes against what you’re trying to prove.

No, not really. The difference is that in one case they were agents of a nation (sort of), and in the other they were independant. The response is of the same type, only in one case it was to attack the terrorists in their training camps and bases of operation, and in the other to directly attack the terrorist’s national backers, since the terrorists were in fact (if you believe the Black Hand were responsible) part of that nation’s military and government.

DermottBanana;1671097 wrote: Has there been any evidence to show the Taliban and the 9/11 perpetrators were involved with each other? Other than the claims the 9/11 planners were resident in Afghanistan at the time?
But then, given where Mr bin Laden eventually was located, can we have any faith in the claims where he was in 2001?

You mean like this? Again, nobody (except you, apparenly) disputes that the Taliban and AL Qaeda were in bed together, and had been for years.

DermottBanana;1671097 wrote: As for whether the US was justified in capturing him [they didn't], holding him and trying him, would the Russians/Israelis/Tongans have any more claim to holding/trying him if his captors had been the recipients of the captive Hicks handed him to them? Since he was neither fighting the Americans, nor a US citizen. Apart from their self-imposed role as king of the world, what right did they have to have anything to do with Mr Hicks?

That’s what a civil trial should have determined. The fact that he was a self-confessed member of a terrorist organisation that had killed civilians in half a dozen countries was sufficient grounds to capture him and hold him for arragnment and allow him to submit a writ of habeas corpus.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
DermottBanana says:

May 27, 2011 at 7:42 pm

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to prove Scythe.
You concede the difference between 1914 and 2001 is the link to a foreign government; but the lack of such a link in 2001 is my point.
The 9/11 events were crimes. Done by civilians. And should have been treated as such. No government anywhere was responsible for them. They have pretty much nothing to do with what happened to Hicks and seem to have only entered this thread as a strawman by yourself at #57.

Hicks was supporting one side in a civil war in Afghanistan.
That is a crime against America no more than it is a crime against Tonga.
He was captured, and handed over to the Americans. And from there, their incompetence took hold of events and we got the result we have now.
But the reality is he did nothing against the Americans. He does not appear, even based on the allegations of the Americans, to have violated any laws.

And my position has been consistent from the start – if he is a civilian (and always has been), and has committed crimes, he should be dealt with by a criminal justice process. And if he hasn’t broken laws, he should be free to speak about his experiences, and be paid by those who wish to hear him.
The relevance of my earlier statements about Downer & Howard saying he hasn’t broken any Australian laws is that without breaking Australian laws, the Australian government has no claim over his income in their ‘proceeds of crime’ rules.

On a slightly related point, I note that the SMH today is reporting that Mamdoub Habib has had his passport returned this week, after the government conceded he was not a terrorism suspect.
Another piece of evidence against the flawed Guantanamo Bay process and the complicity of the Howard-Downer foreign affairs regime.
I hope his financial payout stung the government – they deserved it.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply
nrejones says:

May 28, 2011 at 7:35 am

DermottBanana;1671044 wrote: War-like character? Show me a single attack in wartime that involved the destruction of a high-profile civilian office building?

There would be too many to name. Al Qaeda targeted the US command and control qua the Pentagon ( successfully), and the White House( unsuccessfully-the jet crashed elsewhere).

DermottBanana;1671044 wrote: That Bin Laden and his mates were resident in Afghanistan does not make the Afghani government of the time responsible for the attacks any more than the Australian government is responsible for the illegal activities of anyone resident in Sydney.

Bin Laden and Al qaeda were not mere ‘residents’. They were in active cooperation with the Taliban who was giving them a safe haven. Bin Laden’s guerilla forces were helping the Taliban kill Afghans who resisted. Afghanistan was essentially the strategic HQ of Al Qaeda and the Taliban knew it.

DermottBanana;1671044 wrote: As you point out, the hijackers were civilians from a variety of countries. Does that mean their crime gave the US cause for war against Egypt? Lebanon? Saudi Arabia?
In the real world, government are held responsible for the acts they sanction, and which are carried out by their own employees. Not by civilians with no connection to the regime of their country of birth, or residence.

Al Qaeda were, and are, a terrorist NGO which wants certain political aims. The US knew Afghanistan was where they were training people and planning their ops. The Taliban were helping them achieve this. The complicity between the Taliban and Al Qaeda couldn’t have been more clear. S

DermottBanana;1671044 wrote: Even the US military tribunal which charged and imprisoned him stated Hicks was not involved in violent activities. They allege he received weapons training from Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan, went to Afghanistan and met some al Qeada members, attended an al Qaeda weapons training camp in Afghanistan, translated some books from Arabic into English, traveled to Pakistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks, returned to Afghanistan, worked with the Taliban forces in northern Afghanistan and there was captured by Afghani pro-US forces, and handed to the Americans.
None of those activities are sufficient to gain any sort of bogeyman status. They’re even difficult to twist into being classified as ‘crimes’ (can any of the law-talking people clarify?).

The short version of a long story is that Hicks chose to get trained by Al Qaeda, and after September 11 occured he chose to return to Agghanistan and was found bearing arms for Al Qaeda/The Taliban in guarding an tank installation.

VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Log in to Reply

Login
Password

Leave a Reply Cancel reply