Well said---the basic premise we hold up our system of justice is "innocent untill proven guilty" he should have been brought home 5 years ago and put in our adversary system. One phone call from our PM would have done this.Anduril said:
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Saddam sentenced to the old noose and drop
- Thread starter Tigerfan
- Start date
Liverpool said:
No Liverpool it is time for you to get real - all those rhetorical questions you ask above are valid and should be answered - in a court of law.
The very reason our troops and the American troops are fighting in the middle east at the moment is to provide freedom and democracy to Iraq plus maintain our democracy which holds deep in it cradle the beliefs of Freedom, Justice and Liberty. What the US is doing to Hicks is making a mockery of the fundamental reason for which 3000 US (and 1 Australian) troops have given their lives for.
And if it were Iran or Syria or North Korea who had hold of Hicks for 5 years without a trial our Government would be making great noises about an Australian citizen being wrongfully imprisoned because no world justice system or process had been completed - and the invalid way our enemies treat their prisoners.
This smacks of Howard and Ruddick playing scare politics again - keep the voters scared and then you can tell them anything and they will believe it!
thejinx said:
Why should he?
Saddam was tried in the country he committed the crimes.
Schapelle Corby and the Bali-9 have been tried in the country they committed their crimes.
Why should Hicks be treated any different?
Hicks should be tried in the country he committed the crimes he is accused of, under the laws of the new Afghani Government.
What this model citizen that people want to rush back to Australia is accused of:
* that in November 1999 Hicks travelled to Pakistan, where he joined the paramilitary Islamist group, Lashkar-e-Toiba (Army of the Faithful).
* that Hicks trained for two months at a Lashkar-e-Toiba camp in Pakistan, where he received weapons training, and that during 2000 he served with a Lashkar-e-Toiba group near the Pakistan-Kashmir.
* that in January 2001 Hicks travelled to Afghanistan, then under the control of the Taliban regime, where he presented a letter of introduction from Lashkar-e-Toiba to Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda member, and was given the alias "Mohammed Dawood".
* that he was sent to al-Qaeda's al-Farouq training camp outside Kandahar, where he trained for eight weeks, receiving further weapons training as well as training with land mines and explosives.
* that he did a further seven-week course at al-Farouq, during which he studied marksmanship, ambush, camouflage and intelligence techniques.
* that at Osama bin Laden's request, Hicks translated some al-Qaeda training materials from Arabic into English.
* that in June 2001, on the instructions of Mohammed Atef, an al-Qaeda military commander, Hicks went to another training camp at Tarnak Farm, where he studied "urban tactics," including the use of assault and sniper rifles, rappelling, kidnapping and assassination techniques.
* that in August Hicks went to Kabul, where he studied information collection and intelligence, as well as Islamic theology including the doctrines of jihad and martyrdom as understood through al-Qaeda's fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.
* that in September 2001 Hicks travelled to Pakistan and was there at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, which he saw on television.
* that he returned to Afghanistan in anticipation of the attack by the United States and its allies on the Taliban regime, which was sheltering Osama bin Laden.
* that on returning to Kabul, Hicks was assigned by Mohammed Atef to the defence of Kandahar, and that he joined a group of mixed al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters at Kandahar airport, and that at the end of October, however, Hicks and his party travelled north to join in the fighting against the forces of the U.S. and its allies.
* that after arriving in Konduz on 9 November 2001, he joined a group which included John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban"). This group was engaged in combat against Coalition forces, and during this fighting he was captured by Coalition forces.
Both the US and Australian Governments have obviously thought that this person, with the amount of weapons training, contacts, and mental state...is still a danger to society.
For the Australian Government to risk losing 'political points' by keeping him imprisoned for this length of time, shows that US/Australian intelligence have a thorough idea of what trouble he could cause if released by a court (especially if he is tried under our legal system, which is SOFT at the best of times!), and do not want to risk him being let into the general community and to disappear back into helping fellow extremists.
If that is the case, then let him rot there for another 10 years!
I do not see any reason whatsoever that Hicks would be firstly captured, kept for this long, and still not tried....if he was innocent of these accusations.
RemoteTiger said:
Hopefully the court of law you are speaking of does try him soon, and the sentence is carried out within 30 days.
Let me say this, and hopefully it will clear us any future misunderstandings.
As far as I'm concerned, this bloke is a traitor and a danger to society.
If he didn't get captured in Afghanistan when he did, what's to say he wouldn't be here training fellow "Australians" in similar tactics he has been taught?
I do agree that it would have been much better to try him sooner, however, let me say that if he doesn't get tried for another 10 years, my family and I won't be losing any sleep that this terrorist/mercenary is behind bars.
As for bringing him back here....what a joke.
We have had countless Australians commit crimes overseas, and do they get to come back to Australia to be tried?
No.
So why should Hicks be treated any differently?
Finally, I agree that the Coalition forces are in Iraq as fighters of freedom, justice, and liberty.
However, even after the Yanks went through Nazi Germany, they still held the Nuremberg Trials.
Hopefully Hicks also receives his trial, and maybe even a similar fate to the Nazis at Nuremberg.
Anduril said:
Nothing disgraceful about it.
Those Nazis deserved what they got for their crimes against humanity.
And my comment certainly isn't as disgraceful as an Australian citizen joining a terrorist organisation to kill Australian soldiers, learning techniques to kill civilians, and to be associated with Bin Laden and his fellow extreme-Islamic murderers.
He gets no sympathy from me.....but I do agree with many of you that the trial should go ahead, simply so he can serve the sentence that he deserves, and the whole matter can then be forgotten.
While the trial date is still in limbo, then the bleeding-hearts will still complain in their droves over this cold-hearted mercenary, who would kill half of us if he had the chance to, especially after receiving terror-training and learning extreme-Islam ideals.
The mind boggles!
Liverpool said:
Liverpool from your posts on other subjects you have a far superior mind to the mind that made that statement above - you know full well this is media and yank propaganda until proven in a court of law - is this a classic case of trial by media - is this the justice standard that "our-boys" are fighting for in the middle east?
Due to the length of time he has been held it is questionable whether Hicks will get a fair trial - could you imagine the backlash - egg on the face if Hicks was exonerated on all yet to be laid charges? Let alone the money the American and Australian Governments would have to shell out in damages.
So IMO it is arguable that the truth will ever be realised!
Most probable outcome - Hicks will be found guilty on some minor charges (compared to those you claim in your statement) and sentenced to a term in gaol less the 5 years of his current incarceration.
With reference to your Nuremburg similarity statements - the Nuremburg Trials commenced 6 months after the capture of the first prisoner Hermann Goering - nothing like the current situation of 5 years after the prisoner (Hicks) was captured.
The Nuremberg Trials: Chronology
May 6, 1945
Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering surrenders to the Allies. Goering is at first toasted with champagne, but later is transferred to Bad Mondorf in Luxembourg.
November 20, 1945
The trial of the major war criminals by the International Military Tribunal begins at 10 a.m. in Nuremberg, Germany.
November 21, 1945
The defendants enter their pleas of "Not Guilty." Goering tries to make a statement, but is prevented by the Court from doing so. Justice Robert Jackson delivers his opening statement for the prosecution.
So - being unbiased - the fact of the Hicks matter is that the American and Australian Governments have erred in taking so long in getting Hicks in front of a trial - guilty or not guilty - the governments have stuffed up in this instance.
RemoteTiger said:
Remote,
Let's for a minute say that this is all propaganda, as you suggest:
* What was the aim of arresting/capturing an Australian citizen, going about his daily affairs in Afghanistan?
* What is the point of then accusing him of all these made-up charges of terrorism training and associations with Bin Laden?
* What are the American/Australian Governments trying to gain by holding him for 5 years in a 'point scoring'/scare-tactics exercise, when I would have thought any such decision in holding an innocent man this long, could cause a massive backlash against both Governments and their policies, if anything?
As for a fair-trial.....the Yank/Aussie Governments are now in a no win situation.
If he is found guilty, then people will say it was a 'kangaroo court' (we even heard/read people saying that after the Hussein verdict, even though he was well-known as one of the biggest murderers of the 20th century! :
If he is found not-guilty, then people will be up and arms about holding an 'innocent' man for 5 years, etc.
This no-win situation has been caused by themselves however, and I have already stated that the trial should have been conducted well before 5 years has been completed.
However, I won't accept that this man is innocent, and I won't accept that what he is accused of is just media and Yank propaganda.
There is no logic whatsoever in conducting such an exercise, right from the initial arrest in Afghanistan through to the 5th year anniversary this week.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/01/10/1168105052462.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2
Liverpool said:
And from the other side of the fence -
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/de...l&story_id=546993&category=General&m=1&y=2007
"Mori hits back at Hicks prosecutor"
Amazing how we as a people can let this happen to one of our citizens - it flies in the face of everything we stand for!
Another interesting article re George Bush's announcements yesterday -
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/de...l&story_id=546987&category=Opinion&m=1&y=2007
"Bush untiring in his long march of folly"
Quote -
"No, I would turn to another, less flamboyant, far more modern politician for prophecy, an American who understood, just before the 2003 launch of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, what would happen to the arrogance of power. For their relevance this morning, the words of the former Republican Pat Buchanan deserve to be written in marble: "... we will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the 'On to Berlin' bravado with which French poilus and British tommies marched in August 1914.
"But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict ... terrorist attacks in liberated Iraq seem as certain as in liberated Afghanistan. For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world ... the one endeavour at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon ... We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before."
RemoteTiger said:
Remote,
We, and our Government, have let this happen to one of our citizens because they are accused of committing actions AGAINST fellow citizens and what our country stands for. He showed no compassion, loyalty, or support towards HIS country and its citizens, yet you cry out loud against the contempt we have shown back to him and the state he put himself in.
If what Hick's is accused of is just Yank and media propaganda, as you suggest, then can you tell me the aim of kidnapping an innocent Australian off the streets in Afghanistan, send him to Cuba, and keep him imprisoned for 5 years?
It doesn't make sense, does it?
So let's assume he is guilty of the charges.......do we really care for someone, whether they are Aussie or not, if they are so determined to learn and train with a terrorist organisation, with the single notion to kill people who do not follow similar extreme views of the Koran, and the Islamic religion?
So we really give a stuff about someone, who if the chance was given to them, would kill and maim Australians in the name of Allah and his buddy Bin Laden?
The only point of your argument I agree with, is that I also would have preferred the case to be heard well before now.......but even then, as more of the allegations are released, and we learn more about this mercenary called Hicks, then the more I couldn't give a stuff if he didn't have a trial for another 5 years.
Instead of deriding the US/Aussie Governments, we should be applauding them for capturing someone dangerous like Hicks before he made it back to Australia to continue his "war" here.
Everything we stand for?
We stand for talking up arms against allies of the Austrailian Government?
We stand for mercenary militia?
We stand for the persecution of others for their beliefs, by taking up arms and being paid to do so?
C'mon. This bloke wasn't picked up on a beach enjoying a little too much sun.
We stand for talking up arms against allies of the Austrailian Government?
We stand for mercenary militia?
We stand for the persecution of others for their beliefs, by taking up arms and being paid to do so?
C'mon. This bloke wasn't picked up on a beach enjoying a little too much sun.
Boyanich - Everything we stand for is a right to Freedom and Justice - if as you say Hicks has done all these things then yes lets "throw the book at him" - but none of it is proven until a court of law properly conducted says so! And that is what All Australians stand for!
PS Stop believing everthing the papers write about this bloke - let a court of law find the truth - if that is still possible. I'm not defending Hicks alleged indiscretions - but - I will defend his right to fair and immediate justice - which is the right of every Australian!
PPS I don't want him freed I want the truth borne out in a court of law - if guilty so-be-it - if not guilty so-be-it! But immediately not 5 years after the fact!
PS Stop believing everthing the papers write about this bloke - let a court of law find the truth - if that is still possible. I'm not defending Hicks alleged indiscretions - but - I will defend his right to fair and immediate justice - which is the right of every Australian!
PPS I don't want him freed I want the truth borne out in a court of law - if guilty so-be-it - if not guilty so-be-it! But immediately not 5 years after the fact!
Liverpool said:
The Snowtown murderers committed crimes against fellow citizens, and they got a trial.
Julian Knight committed crimes against fellow citizens, and he got a trial.
Ivan Milat committed crimes against fellow citizens, and the citizens of other nations, and he got a trial.
It doesn't matter what you are accused of or whether you are obviously guilty or not, in a liberal democracy you get charged and the opportunity to defend yourself in court, and without having first been tortured or a confession beaten out of you.
Why do we believe in these things? Because they are there to protect the one accused who is innocent, not the ninety-nine who are guilty. The ninety-nine guilty men are sentenced and imprisoned and everyone lives happily ever after.
Maybe..if he committed his crimes in Australia. But he chose...as is his right..to leave here...and "allegedly" do these things.
Why is it, when people leave Australia, for what ever reason...when they get themselves in the shyte they cry out for the government to bail them out?
Corby, The other model sheila, Hicks, those that went holidaying in Lebanon (now there's a safe place for a vacation), and there are many others....
For crying out loud it doesn't take too many brain cells- You don't touch drugs, especially in Indonesia or other strict asian countries. Or going on holidays in a country in a region that is always in a state of political instability, or to far away places where democracy, health..or even life itself is not valued as it is in Australia.
The Australian Government isn't Superman. It can't be everywhere holding everyone's hand when they are caught out in some hell hole.
Yes...WE live in a democracy. And in that democracy..we are allowed to choose. If you choose to leave that democracy (for a place that we do not have treaties or friendly relations) and you get caught breaking their law..or are even framed breaking there law,
That's your tough luck!
Why is it, when people leave Australia, for what ever reason...when they get themselves in the shyte they cry out for the government to bail them out?
Corby, The other model sheila, Hicks, those that went holidaying in Lebanon (now there's a safe place for a vacation), and there are many others....
For crying out loud it doesn't take too many brain cells- You don't touch drugs, especially in Indonesia or other strict asian countries. Or going on holidays in a country in a region that is always in a state of political instability, or to far away places where democracy, health..or even life itself is not valued as it is in Australia.
The Australian Government isn't Superman. It can't be everywhere holding everyone's hand when they are caught out in some hell hole.
Yes...WE live in a democracy. And in that democracy..we are allowed to choose. If you choose to leave that democracy (for a place that we do not have treaties or friendly relations) and you get caught breaking their law..or are even framed breaking there law,
That's your tough luck!
Ready said:
My point Exactly!!!!
They were allowed a free and open process...because..
They were committed in AUSTRALIA!
The United States is also a liberal democracy, or is supposed to be.
On your other point, Australians who commit crimes overseas are only given government assistance consistent with the beliefs of Australian liberal democracy.
The Australian government isn't bothered if you commit a crime overseas, are charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced.
What the Australian government is concerned about is the government of another state subjecting Australian citizens to things we do not believe in -- detention without trial, torture, inhuman conditions in the prison, the death penalty and so forth.
On your other point, Australians who commit crimes overseas are only given government assistance consistent with the beliefs of Australian liberal democracy.
The Australian government isn't bothered if you commit a crime overseas, are charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced.
What the Australian government is concerned about is the government of another state subjecting Australian citizens to things we do not believe in -- detention without trial, torture, inhuman conditions in the prison, the death penalty and so forth.
The beautiful thing about our democracy is, we can have opposing views....isn't that great!
Surely we must agree on that.
And that means you must agree that I have the right to say,
I couldn't give two hoots about him or any other person that goes to a foreign country, with the knowledge that what they are doing is likely to lead to a situation where they are in the shyte.
Hear, hear!
Surely we must agree on that.
And that means you must agree that I have the right to say,
I couldn't give two hoots about him or any other person that goes to a foreign country, with the knowledge that what they are doing is likely to lead to a situation where they are in the shyte.
Hear, hear!
