Saddam sentenced to the old noose and drop

[Ready]

Have a look in the front of your passport. It says:

"The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, being the representative in Australia of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, requests all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance and protection of which he or she may stand in need."

This means that even if you are accused of committing a crime in a foreign country the Australian government EXPECTS (it is couched in more diplomatic terms) the foreign government to ensure that you, the accused, are not tortured, are not imprisoned without trial, are provided with legal counsel if you cannot afford such and so forth.

If you are charged, have a fair trial with decent legal counsel, lose and are sentenced to a term of imprisonment then the Australian government simply stands and watches. In cases where this is not forthcoming then the Australian government is expected to make representations on your behalf.

This is the Australian government's obligation to you as a citizen. Your obligation is to file truthful income tax returns, not exceed the speed limit and not sell drugs to schoolchildren. It is a two-way street.

 

[Boyanich]

Have a look in the front of your passport. It says:


This means that even if you are accused of committing a crime in a foreign country the Australian government EXPECTS (it is couched in more diplomatic terms) the foreign government to ensure that you, the accused, are not tortured, are not imprisoned without trial, are provided with legal counsel if you cannot afford such and so forth.

If you are charged, have a fair trial with decent legal counsel, lose and are sentenced to a term of imprisonment then the Australian government simply stands and watches. In cases where this is not forthcoming then the Australian government is expected to make representations on your behalf.

This is the Australian government's obligation to you as a citizen. Your obligation is to file truthful income tax returns, not exceed the speed limit and not sell drugs to schoolchildren. It is a two-way street.

I don't have a passport so you'll have to excuse me but I'll take your word it says ""The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, being the representative in Australia of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, requests all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance and protection of which he or she may stand in need."
BUT...does it also give the definition as "This means that even if you are accused of committing a crime in a foreign country the Australian government EXPECTS (it is couched in more diplomatic terms) the foreign government to ensure that you, the accused, are not tortured, are not imprisoned without trial, are provided with legal counsel if you cannot afford such and so forth."

Or is that your slant on things?

Upon entering somebody elses country it would also be presumed that you would behave in a civil manner and abide by all laws of that country.

Hey...and that is what the Australian Government would like the other country to observe...but we don't always get what we want.

When are these people going to take responsiblity for their own actions?


I will also ask you, did Hicks have a current passport..and if he did, did he have the correct visa etc. to enter the countires he did...? Was he on a holiday or did he have a working visa?

 

[Liverpool]

Maybe..if he committed his crimes in Australia.   But he chose...as is his right..to leave here...and "allegedly" do these things.

Boyanich,
Exactly!
HE chose to go to Afghanistan. HE chose to get involved with a terrorist organisation. HE chose to get involved with the Taliban. HE chose to fight against Coalition troops (which involves Australian troops).

The minute he chose to align himself with a foreign nation's government against troops representing HIS own country, then that to me is treason, and all rights under the banner of an Australian citizenship should be waived.

For people now to speak about the plight of this individual, astounds me.

It would also be interesting to read/hear people's views if he killed Australian troops.

It would be interesting to read/hear people's views if he was NOt captured and made it back to Australia, and committed a terrorist act in Melbourne, using the training and techniques learnt whilst in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

It would also be even more interesting to read/hear people's views on this individual if his terrorist act killed relatives of some of the people who are supporting David Hicks today.

I'm sure the compassion for him then would be slightly altered.

We should be glad he is off the streets, and in custody, simple as that.

This is the Australian government's obligation to you as a citizen. Your obligation is to file truthful income tax returns, not exceed the speed limit and not sell drugs to schoolchildren. It is a two-way street.

Ready,
You forgot to add "joining and training with an illegal terrorist organisation in a foreign country" to your list.

 

[Ready]

I don't have a passport so you'll have to excuse me but I'll take your word it says ""The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, being the representative in Australia of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, requests all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance and protection of which he or she may stand in need."
BUT...does it also give the definition as "This means that even if you are accused of committing a crime in a foreign country the Australian government EXPECTS (it is couched in more diplomatic terms) the foreign government to ensure that you, the accused, are not tortured, are not imprisoned without trial, are provided with legal counsel if you cannot afford such and so forth."

Or is that your slant on things?

Upon entering somebody elses country it would also be presumed that you would behave in a civil manner and abide by all laws of that country.

Hey...and that is what the Australian Government would like the other country to observe...but we don't always get what we want.

When are these people going to take responsiblity for their own actions?


I will also ask you, did Hicks have a current passport..and if he did, did he have the correct visa etc. to enter the countires he did...?   Was he on a holiday or did he have a working visa?

Quite beside the point, but I wouldn't think you'd waltz into Pakistan without a current passport and valid visa. How he came to be in Afghanistan may be more open to question.

However, why do you reckon I said "it is couched in more diplomatic terms"? There is a difference between what it SAYS, and what it MEANS. And of course we don't always get what we want, which is why last time I checked history still records Barlow and Chambers as having been strung up by their necks in Pudu Prison.

It doesn't matter whether you take responsibility for your own actions or not (and in the real world it would appear that some people do not, and since their actions still have to be dealt with it might be pertinent to spare all the fist-pounding and deal with the consequences). You could walk up to the next person you see and shoot them in the face but as discussed previously you would, in Australia, still get a fair trial with adequate legal representation before spending the rest of your life behind bars. In other countries you should still be extended these rights, on the basis that the one person who is wrongly identified and thus wrongly accused needs all the help he or she can get.

 

[Ready]

Boyanich,
Exactly!
HE chose to go to Afghanistan. HE chose to get involved with a terrorist organisation. HE chose to get involved with the Taliban. HE chose to fight against Coalition troops (which involves Australian troops).

The minute he chose to align himself with a foreign nation's government against troops representing HIS own country, then that to me is treason, and all rights under the banner of an Australian citizenship should be waived.

For people now to speak about the plight of this individual, astounds me.

It would also be interesting to read/hear people's views if he killed Australian troops.

It would be interesting to read/hear people's views if he was NOt captured and made it back to Australia, and committed a terrorist act in Melbourne, using the training and techniques learnt whilst in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

It would also be even more interesting to read/hear people's views on this individual if his terrorist act killed relatives of some of the people who are supporting David Hicks today.

I'm sure the compassion for him then would be slightly altered.

We should be glad he is off the streets, and in custody, simple as that.

This is the Australian government's obligation to you as a citizen. Your obligation is to file truthful income tax returns, not exceed the speed limit and not sell drugs to schoolchildren. It is a two-way street.

Ready,
You forgot to add "joining and training with an illegal terrorist organisation in a foreign country"  to your list.

Since one of your heroes in Philip Ruddock has already pointed out that Hicks could not be charged with treason in Australia, that would seem a rather invalid argument.

Let us, however, say that he hypothetically could be charged with such a crime. What standard of proof do we use? You advocate stripping all his rights immediately on being suspected of treason, with no recourse to anything so troublesome as a fair trial.... an idea that was enormously popular in Soviet Russia.

Please spare us any future handwringing posts about the great Australian way of life since you seem quite happy to openly compromise the most critical aspects of it on a whim. It's how you treat the least of your citizens that defines your country. :wavey

 

[Tigers of Old]

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....

Initially I thought the Corby comparison was a very relevant point Boyanich.
However as we know Chapelle was caught and tried in the same country.

If Hicks had comitted the crimes IN AMERICA where he's been held for 5 years without being charged then it would be a good argument. However as we know these accusations were levelled against him in Afghanistan, so if this argument had any grounding he should be charged and tried there ala Saddam Hussein in Iraq. As we know he's been locked down in Guantanamo since forever..

The US's reasoning that Hicks is an 'unlawful combatant' hence his detention outside the normal protections of U.S. law and those guidelines of the Geneva Conventions, is perhaps feasible, perhaps not.
However guilty or innocent, it's pretty much a disgraceful act by the American/Australian government to have kept an untried Australian citizen behind bars for this long.

Personally I think despite whatever Hicks has been alleged to have done he should have been given a fair trial eons ago.

I don't care about Hicks but I do care about justice and basic human rights and that seems in short supply in this case.

 

[Liverpool]

Since one of your heroes in Philip Ruddock has already pointed out that Hicks could not be charged with treason in Australia, that would seem a rather invalid argument.

That's true, because he didn't commit the crime here...but my point being that I think it doesn't matter where his crime was committed. If he decided to take arms up, with a foreign entity against soldiers from the country he is a citizen of, then he should forfeit and waive any rights he has as a citizen of that country (in his case, Australia).
That's just my opinion.

Let us, however, say that he hypothetically could be charged with such a crime. What standard of proof do we use? You advocate stripping all his rights immediately on being suspected of treason, with no recourse to anything so troublesome as a fair trial.... an idea that was enormously popular in Soviet Russia.

Well, considering the ALP are the traditional "red raggers", then I'm surprised someone like yourself doesn't agree more with a policy that is in line with Soviet Russia! ;D


From your post Ready, and RemoteTigers, and a couple others on here...it seems the main issue is that he hasn't had his trial yet.
Its not the fact the the allegations are serious, that the capture of him may have saved many lives, including many Australia....its seems that the only issue is that poor Hicks hasn't had his trial yet.

What I don't understand, is why would the US and Australian Governments hold this bloke so long, if what they have on him isn't so serious that it deserves the continuous incarceration of Hicks?

 

[Boyanich]

Ready- "Please spare us any future handwringing posts about the great Australian way of life since you seem quite happy to openly compromise the most critical aspects of it on a whim. It's how you treat the least of your citizens that defines your country. "

Ready, but it is a great way of life. So why would someone want to take an illegal substance into Indonesia? Or why would anybody want to take up arms and fight against it and it's allies?

And the bloke you are talking about, Hicks, really doesn't give a toss about Australia or it's way of life. Surely he showed that by his political/mercenary ideals, but then he attempts to change his citizenship.

Would you change your citizenship? Would you change from Richmond to Collingwood, or even from Holden to Ford?

So, for my way of thinking...who cares how long he stays incarcerated.
But if you want to argue that at least Saddam Hussein had a fair trial, fair enough. Try Hicks...then dispatch him.

What people do in their country is their business. If you don't like their political or justice system, don't go there.

Ready, it sounds to me you are using an arguement of "Colonialism". Imposing your good intentions, high morales and values on other countries that you may believe are less civilised than ourselves.

It's complicated isn't it.

But if Mr Hicks had of stayed at home with his (Step-) Mum and Dad, played footy on Saturday afternoon, or gone to the races, back at work on Monday...he wouldn't be in this bind.

Ahhhh....it must've been the Australians/Americans/Afganistans...somebody other than David Hicks, that made him travel overseas and alledgedly commit these crimes against humanity.

 

[RemoteTiger]

Ahhhh....it must've been the Australians/Americans/Afganistans...somebody other than David Hicks, that made him travel overseas and alledgedly commit these crimes against humanity.   

You support Ready's and my arguement in your own posts - what Hicks has to have supposed to have done is alledged - not proven! Get him to face his accuses in as court of law and then we can all say good riddens to him if proven guilty - however if proven otherwise we have incarcerated an innocent man for 5 years. Now that is not what the Australian way of life is about.

With reference to your points about him (and others) commiting a crime in another country - which means he is outside Australian Law - however it is incumbant on our Government to ensure that all Australians no matter where - are treated humanely - even if the crime they commited is under another countries jurisdiction, the Australian Government must protect the basic human rights of it's citizens. Once proven guilty under that countries law then the Australian perpetrator  must face the consequencies of that law - if it is capital punishment then the Australian Government has to plead for clemency as capital punishment of an Australian Citizen under Australian Law is not legal - if the country still wishes to go ahead with the sentence then the Australian Government may appeal to higher bodies such as the World Court - but even then that court is unwilling to impose law over another country's jurisdiction. Remember the Australian who was hanged in Singapore for drug offences.

Now in Hicks case the Australian Government has not protected Hicks in any way shape or form - why?

1) Howard is so far up Bushes arse you can only see Howard's bootlaces! Nah he is a suck but surely he is not that bad!

2) Howard is privy to intelligence that shows Australia is under real threat if certain events come to pass in Asia Pacific and therefore we need the USA as allies and as such Howard does not want to rock the boat and lose the US! Possible with all Indonesia being predominaely Islamic

3) There are domestic political ramifications which are positive to the conservative parties in both the US and Australia (NB. Blair - The England Labor Prime Minister soon got the English prisoners out of Guantanamo) - Fear can make voters believe anything - I personally cannot see the advantage but then again maybe it is all a political diversion away from Howard's and Costello's poor running of the country's finances of late, pushing through workplace reform and the Australian Access Card - I'm only guessing there!

4) Howard policy towards the USA is the same as Harold Holt's 1960's philosophy of "all the way with LBJ"! I don't know if you remember the Vietnam War - I do because I was in line for the draft of 1973 - hence I took a real interest - the middle east of today has the same aroma around it of Vietnam back in the 1970's - we were scared back then that it could erupt into a third world war - the "free" world against the "communist" world which was threatening through the domino theory of world domination. History shows it was all *smile*. Today however I think there maybe some truth in a religious war - the Islamic against the Christians and Jews. And the underlying prize is control of world oil which both the US and European free worlds have become totally addicated too. Australia is not far behind.

Lastly Hicks' case maybe another of those cases where the truth will never be found because there are so many angles to it that depending which angle you view it from you gain a different "truth". However the one fact that stands out like dogs balls is that he has not had his day in court - after 5 years that is atrocious.................

 

[Boyanich]

Remoter Tiger,

I agree with many of your arguments but although many of these things are alleged (becaase I'd hate to get sued for saying he actually did it) one thing is pretty certain..

He wasn't plucked off the Glenelg Beach while playing beach cricket.

That is my point. Why does he, or anyone else want to take risks by travelling to these countries, why do people when travelling to these countries wish to test that countries "legal system"?

If they do wish to take these risks, that's their concern.

I would say the same for Tony Bullimore, the yachtsman. If he wants to keep capsizing in dangerous waters...let him, but don't call out mayday..at our expense.

 

[RemoteTiger]

Remoter Tiger,

I agree with many of your arguments but although many of these things are alleged (becaase I'd hate to get sued for saying he actually did it) one thing is pretty certain..

He wasn't plucked off the Glenelg Beach while playing beach cricket.

That is my point.    Why does he, or anyone else want to take risks by travelling to these countries, why do people when travelling to these countries wish to test that countries "legal system"?

If they do wish to take these risks, that's their concern.

I would say the same for Tony Bullimore, the yachtsman.   If he wants to keep capsizing in dangerous waters...let him, but don't call out mayday..at our expense.

Boyanich - what has happened to the Australian belief of give a bloke a fair go - of extending a helping hand to those in the world who are less fortunate or are in need of urgent help.

Have Australians become so myopically focused on "What's in it for me" that we have lost our heritage? Have we become so wrapped up in a world of instant gratification for ourselves that we say "bugger you Jack, I'm alright" - it is not the Australia that I grew up in - maybe the greedy 1980s have left an indelible tattoo on each of us that all we seek is our own greed and satisfaction.

I wonder if this means the Australian tradition of mateship is *smile*? Do we look after our mates anymore - or - do we leave them high and dry when they get into a bit of strife?

Nah! Who gives a *smile*? I'm alright, bugger the rest! hoo roo.................

 

[Anduril]

Top post RT :clap :clap

Don't think it is in the Govt's interests to have Hicks home now as it will focus attention on his treatment and their Pontius Pilate attitude.

 

[jb03]

Remoter Tiger,

I agree with many of your arguments but although many of these things are alleged (becaase I'd hate to get sued for saying he actually did it) one thing is pretty certain..

He wasn't plucked off the Glenelg Beach while playing beach cricket.

That is my point.    Why does he, or anyone else want to take risks by travelling to these countries, why do people when travelling to these countries wish to test that countries "legal system"?

If they do wish to take these risks, that's their concern.

I would say the same for Tony Bullimore, the yachtsman.   If he wants to keep capsizing in dangerous waters...let him, but don't call out mayday..at our expense.

Boyanich - what has happened to the Australian belief of give a bloke a fair go - of extending a helping hand to those in the world who are less fortunate or are in need of urgent help.

Have Australians become so myopically focused on "What's in it for me" that we have lost our heritage? Have we become so wrapped up in a world of instant gratification for ourselves that we say "bugger you Jack, I'm alright" - it is not the Australia that I grew up in - maybe the greedy 1980s have left an indelible tattoo on each of us that all we seek is our own greed and satisfaction.

I wonder if this means the Australian tradition of mateship is *smile*ed? Do we look after our mates anymore - or - do we leave them high and dry when they get into a bit of strife?

Nah! Who gives a sh!t? I'm alright, bugger the rest! hoo roo.................

This post is too long RT. Can you just let me know if there is anything in it for me and I'll read it.

 

[RemoteTiger]

Remoter Tiger,

I agree with many of your arguments but although many of these things are alleged (becaase I'd hate to get sued for saying he actually did it) one thing is pretty certain..

He wasn't plucked off the Glenelg Beach while playing beach cricket.

That is my point.    Why does he, or anyone else want to take risks by travelling to these countries, why do people when travelling to these countries wish to test that countries "legal system"?

If they do wish to take these risks, that's their concern.

I would say the same for Tony Bullimore, the yachtsman.   If he wants to keep capsizing in dangerous waters...let him, but don't call out mayday..at our expense.

Boyanich - what has happened to the Australian belief of give a bloke a fair go - of extending a helping hand to those in the world who are less fortunate or are in need of urgent help.

Have Australians become so myopically focused on "What's in it for me" that we have lost our heritage? Have we become so wrapped up in a world of instant gratification for ourselves that we say "bugger you Jack, I'm alright" - it is not the Australia that I grew up in - maybe the greedy 1980s have left an indelible tattoo on each of us that all we seek is our own greed and satisfaction.

I wonder if this means the Australian tradition of mateship is *smile*ed? Do we look after our mates anymore - or - do we leave them high and dry when they get into a bit of strife?

Nah! Who gives a sh!t? I'm alright, bugger the rest! hoo roo.................

This post is too long RT.  Can you just let me know if there is anything in it for me and I'll read it.

:clap :clap :clap :rotfl :rotfl

 

[Ready]

Ready- "Please spare us any future handwringing posts about the great Australian way of life since you seem quite happy to openly compromise the most critical aspects of it on a whim. It's how you treat the least of your citizens that defines your country. "

Ready, but it is a great way of life.   So why would someone want to take an illegal substance into Indonesia?   Or why would anybody want to take up arms and fight against it and it's allies?

And the bloke you are talking about, Hicks, really doesn't give a toss about Australia or it's way of life.  Surely he showed that by his political/mercenary ideals, but then he attempts to change his citizenship.

Let's revisit this again. It's not what Hicks allegedly did that defines us, it's how WE as a society treat him that defines us. No matter what he did or didn't do.

What people do in their country is their business.   If you don't like their political  or justice system, don't go there.

Ready, it sounds to me you are using an arguement of "Colonialism".   Imposing your good intentions, high morales and values on other countries that you may believe are less civilised than ourselves.

It's complicated isn't it.

I didn't know Lee Kuan Yew posted on PRE. :headscratch

It is hubris to think the Western world can solve all the developing world's problems but the majority of the world's population are in enough trouble as it is without being treated like scum by their governments.

To make polite and diplomatic representations in this regard does not cost us much and may achieve little but that small and incremental improvements may be possible makes it our obligation as the more fortunate minority in this troubled world. :wavey

 

[Liverpool]

Boyanich - what has happened to the Australian belief of give a bloke a fair go - of extending a helping hand to those in the world who are less fortunate or are in need of urgent help.
Have Australians become so myopically focused on "What's in it for me" that we have lost our heritage? Have we become so wrapped up in a world of instant gratification for ourselves that we say "bugger you Jack, I'm alright" - it is not the Australia that I grew up in - maybe the greedy 1980s have left an indelible tattoo on each of us that all we seek is our own greed and satisfaction.
I wonder if this means the Australian tradition of mateship is *smile*ed? Do we look after our mates anymore - or - do we leave them high and dry when they get into a bit of strife?
Nah! Who gives a sh!t? I'm alright, bugger the rest! hoo roo.................

Remote,
Gee....this post of yours brought a tear to my eye...patriotic, flag-waving, giving mates a fair go, helping mates when in trouble....it really is touching.

Its just a shame that Hicks was given a fair go, and the freedom to travel where he wanted, and he chose to get involved with another country's armed forces, as well as an illegal terrorist organisation.

Where was Hicks' helping hand to his mates, as he learnt how to assassinate people in the Al-Qaeda training camps?
Where was Hicks' helping hand to those less fortunate, as he learnt urban guerilla warfare in the deserts of Afghanistan?
I wonder if Hicks thought about greed as he received money from being a mercenary on Kosovo and Afghanistan?
Did Hicks think about "whats in it for me" as he laernt the extreme Islamic doctrine taught to him by his murdering Al-Qaeda buddies?
Maybe he spent too much time in the 1980's also with all this thinking of himself and not everyone else.

And I wonder if Hicks would have thought about that Australian tradition called "mateship", if he had an Aussie soldier in the cross-hairs of his rifle?

Only one person is to blame for the predicament David Hicks finds himself...that isn't George Bush.....and I'm sorry to disappoint you further, but it isn't John Howard....it isn't even Bin Laden.
It's David Hicks, the man himself, who if he thought about the qualities of mateship, fellow Australians, heritage, and traditions....the qualities you blame the rest of us (especially John Howard and the Government) for lacking....he would not be in an orange jumpsuit, sitting in a jail for 5 years, and accused of serious crimes.

Don't blame the rest of us Remote.....blame David Hicks.
He has to take responsibility for his own actions, just like the rest of us do.

From "The Age"...I've highlighted some interesting parts:


Why he can't return
January 7, 2007

In the campaign to gain the release of David Hicks, it has been alleged that the Government has abandoned him, does not care whether he gets a fair trial and has done nothing to secure his release.

The Government believes that Mr Hicks should be tried. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said exactly the same this week. We are deeply unhappy about the length of time this has taken, but those who say more could be done for Mr Hicks are perhaps unaware of the extent of the assistance he has received.

The Government has already arranged 17 visits by Australian officials to check on Mr Hicks' welfare. That is not neglect of an Australian citizen. We have spent more than $300,000 on Australian legal consultants assisting Mr Hicks.

We follow up matters raised by Mr Hicks, his family or counsel and have sought further information from US authorities on Mr Hicks' conditions of detention and access to appropriate medical and other care.

We are now seeking further information on his mental health after his father, Terry, expressed his concerns to me at a recent meeting in Adelaide. Mr Hicks snr has said that he understands there is a limit to what the Government can do, given the United States' continued determination to try his son.

Mr Hicks' US lawyer, Major Michael Mori, and others say it would be as simple as picking up the phone and asking for David Hicks' return. It is not that simple. The US made it clear early on that a detainee would not be repatriated unless the detainee would be prosecuted. Under our law at the time, that was not possible.

That is what distinguishes the case of David Hicks from that of Mamdouh Habib. We made the same, continuous representations regarding Mr Habib — charge him or release him — and his return was arranged immediately after we were told he would not be charged.

The comparison is often made to Britain and the fact that Britain's citizens have been released. Why, they say, can't David Hicks be brought back to Australia?

The simple answer is that Mr Habib and the released UK citizens had neither been charged under the military commission process nor been designated as eligible for trial. Mr Habib and the last of the British citizens were released on the same day — January 11, 2005. There are British residents who remain in Guantanamo Bay and there is a 20-year-old Canadian who has been there since he was 16.

I have also heard those advocating for Mr Hicks say he has not been charged. Mr Hicks was charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder and aiding the enemy in June 2004. The charges expired when the US Supreme Court ruled the military commission process was unlawful because it was established without the express authority of Congress. It now has the authority of Congress, with a new act on military commissions passed last year.

I should address the argument that Mr Hicks could have been charged with offences under Australian law. The best legal minds at the Government's disposal remain adamant that is not the case. That decision is more complicated than simply identifying a criminal offence. The likelihood of success, available defences, the facts in question and the rules of evidence in Australian courts must all be considered.

The Australian Federal Police considered offences existing in 2001, including offences set out in the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. The AFP asked the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to consider all available evidence regarding Mr Hicks' alleged involvement with the Kosovo Liberation Army, Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaeda/Taliban forces. The DPP advised that prosecution was not available.

I have also heard the argument that Mr Hicks should be brought home and placed under a control order.

As the Government made clear when they were introduced, control orders are a necessary tool to safeguard the community in circumstances where criminal offences may not be made out.

A criminal trial is preferable to relying on a control order and the US has consistently said it will charge and try Mr Hicks.

In the meantime, the Government will continue to focus on ensuring that any process is as fair as possible. We have secured specific assurances regarding Mr Hicks: he will not face the death penalty and if he is found guilty he will be able to serve out any sentence in Australia.

I have heard the Opposition Leader, Mr Rudd, and the former shadow attorney-general, Nicola Roxon, say the process is unfair because there is no presumption of innocence, no right of appeal and no right of an accused to know all the evidence against them.

The new military commission process makes it quite clear they are wrong on all counts.

In fact, the new act incorporates a number of fundamental safeguards, including:

■ The presumption of innocence;
■ A right to be present throughout the trial;
■ A right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses;
■ A ban on evidence obtained by torture;
■ Access to all evidence the prosecution intends to adduce at trial;
■ The provision of military defence counsel — no one can deny Major Mori has done an outstanding job — and the ability to retain civilian defence counsel;
■ The option to remain silent or testify at trial;
■ Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt;
■ Double jeopardy protections; and
■ An appeal process right up to the US Supreme Court.

The provisions are very clearly set out in section three of the act passed by Congress.

The announcement during the week by the US Office of Military Commissions that Mr Hicks would be among the first detainees to be charged is welcome.

The regulations covering the military commissions must be proclaimed by January 15 and the US Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, has assured me that soon after that date Mr Hicks will be charged.

I have been criticised for suggesting that part of the reason Mr Hicks' trial has been delayed is because people have mounted legal challenges to the military commission process. That is their right, but it does not mean people can then argue "because it has taken so long he should be released".

I have also heard it said that I have been urging an Australian citizen to plead guilty. I have done no such thing, but I have outlined options — and the US system allows for plea bargains.

Mr Hicks' "day in court" might be delayed by further challenges. Indeed, it is Major Mori's duty to explore and advise his client on any possible challenge to the lawfulness of proceedings, the likelihood of success and the consequences if they fail.

He has been a very effective advocate and has vigorously pursued his client's interests. I hope that when charges are brought he does an equally effective job of defending him inside the commission.

Earlier this week, our chief military prosecutor criticised the delay in the Hicks matter. Some were surprised when I agreed with her. The fact that a trial has not yet occurred frustrates us and the Government will vigorously protest against any hint of institutional inertia.

The US Government has given us certain assurances. We expect them to be honoured.

Philip Ruddock is the federal Attorney-General

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/why-he-cant-return/2007/01/06/1167777323596.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

 

[Dyer'ere]

Where was Hicks' helping hand to his mates, as he learnt how to assassinate people in the Al-Qaeda training camps?
Where was Hicks' helping hand to those less fortunate, as he learnt urban guerilla warfare in the deserts of Afghanistan?
I wonder if Hicks thought about greed as he received money from being a mercenary on Kosovo and Afghanistan?
Did Hicks think about "whats in it for me" as he laernt the extreme Islamic doctrine taught to him by his murdering Al-Qaeda buddies?
Maybe he spent too much time in the 1980's also with all this thinking of himself and not everyone else.

And I wonder if Hicks would have thought about that Australian tradition called "mateship", if he had an Aussie soldier in the cross-hairs of his rifle?

Liverpool, this post of yours brought a tear to my eye. So patriotic. It appealed to my emotions.

A few questions, on what basis do you conclude that Mr Hicks actually committed the acts you mention? Did you read court transcripts? Was it part of the ratio handed down by the judge? Or part of the justification for sentencing?

Obviously a patriot like yourself wouldn't assassinate the character of a fellow Australian on hearsay. You must have some pretty powerful evidence. Would you care to share it?

 

[RemoteTiger]

Where was Hicks' helping hand to his mates, as he learnt how to assassinate people in the Al-Qaeda training camps?
Where was Hicks' helping hand to those less fortunate, as he learnt urban guerilla warfare in the deserts of Afghanistan?
I wonder if Hicks thought about greed as he received money from being a mercenary on Kosovo and Afghanistan?
Did Hicks think about "whats in it for me" as he laernt the extreme Islamic doctrine taught to him by his murdering Al-Qaeda buddies?
Maybe he spent too much time in the 1980's also with all this thinking of himself and not everyone else.

And I wonder if Hicks would have thought about that Australian tradition called "mateship", if he had an Aussie soldier in the cross-hairs of his rifle?

Liverpool, this post of yours brought a tear to my eye. So patriotic. It appealed to my emotions.

A few questions, on what basis do you conclude that Mr Hicks actually committed the acts you mention? Did you read court transcripts? Was it part of the ratio handed down by the judge? Or part of the justification for sentencing?

Obviously a patriot like yourself wouldn't assassinate the character of a fellow Australian on hearsay. You must have some pretty powerful evidence. Would you care to share it?

Liverpool,

Dyer'ere has summed up my immediate reaction to your post too - it is hearsay until proven in a court of law - 5 years is far too long for a person to await trial - for any crime anywhere!

I have asked myself why I feel so strongly about the Hicks case and whilst it is fundamental to our democracy our way of life that the accused gets to front his accuses with a jury or a judge to decide - I also think it has more to do with me having a 22yo son living overseas for a couple of years and thinking what if he got caught up in a country that has draconian laws and he was sentenced to death for breaching a law which is not recognised as a law here in Australia - how could I help him? what would I expect my Government to do? Thank God he his home now - safe and sound and about to move to Melbourne to study at La Trobe Uni.

If my son got involved with terroism and it was proven in court of law I would want only 10 minutes in his cell with him - to kick his arse until his nose bled - then I would be asking myself for the rest of my life "where did I go wrong with him?"

PS - When I was in my 20s (and I bet you too) I made some monumental *smile*-ups - one landed me in the slammer and if the bloke I hammered had died I would have done a lot more time (caught him in bed with the ex - the old Police Sergeant said wisely - mate ya hit the wrong one) - has Hicks as a young idiot made a monumental *smile* up - have those drug runners in Asia done the same - I know you pay for your mistakes but sometimes I think the penalty far outweighs the crime commited by a young foolish mind. Call me soft if you like - but the nation that treats its criminals most severely is China - they simply put them in a line and shoot them - yet the crimes continue to be committed by others - prohibition, death sentences never work as a deterant - what is the answer? - buggered if I know.................

 

[RemoteTiger]

Why he can't return
January 7, 2007


http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/why-he-cant-return/2007/01/06/1167777323596.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

And from another angle..............

Why they don't want Hicks home too soon

Norman Abjorensen


WERE the Bush Administration to have a sudden fit of uncharacteristic compassion and decide to free Australian prisoner David Hicks from Guantanamo Bay, it is most unlikely he would be on his way home at least in the foreseeable future.

It is a safe bet that the Australian Government would be exerting strong diplomatic pressure in Washington to prevent such an occurrence, and in the unlikely event of it happening anyway, would be hell-bent on at least delaying it.


Why? Because 2007 is an election year, and a free and media-accessible David Hicks in Australia would be like a human billboard advertising all that is wrong with Iraq, justice American-style and the mindless adherence of Howard and his conga line to Uncle Sam and its disastrous adventurism.


With opinion polls showing more and more Australians opposed to the war in Iraq, and a Labor Party just itching for a fight on the issue, David Hicks would become an issue in himself first-hand testimony not only to the brutality meted out to him and others like him, but also to the reluctance of his own Government to act on his behalf.


Put simply, his presence would be an ongoing embarrassment to the Government. It might even occur to someone to ensure he is enrolled and nominate him for a seat in parliament against one of those who has acquiesced in his incarceration, like Philip Ruddock or Alexander Downer.


In any event, he would be the ghost of Banquo: the figure sacrificed who can tell all. The Government, quite clearly, would do all in its power to have him kept well out of the way such as in Guantanamo Bay.


Not only has Hicks been denied even the rudiments of natural justice, reliable and undenied reports suggest he has been tortured and at the connivance of his own Government which must be to a great majority of Australians an act as disturbing as it is despicable.


Even the most vociferous critics of the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have hesitated to call it a concentration camp, but an authoritative account of life inside the centre at the US naval base suggests that is exactly what it is.


The Oxford English Dictionary defines a concentration camp as "a camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc., esp. as organised by the Nazi regime in Germany before and during the war of 1939-45".


The term applies to situations where those held are persons selected for their conformity to broad criteria without judicial process, rather than having been judged as individuals, and is in sharp counter-distinction to prisoner-of-war camps, a category that the United States has been careful to avoid so as not to come under the Geneva Conventions which confer certain basic rights.


A former US army Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, James Yee, who was himself charged with being a spy and held in solitary confinement for 76 days, published in 2005 For God and Country, the first detailed account of what was happening inside this man-made hellhole, and to which, through its inactivity and statements made, the Australian Government has given its support.


All charges were subsequently dismissed and the laying of the charges is itself now being investigated by Congress. Would an Australian government dare to inquire into the imprisonment of David Hicks? Not this one.


The publicised excesses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have been written off as an aberration by the US propaganda machine, but Yee's account, which has not been repudiated, suggests a systematised approach to Muslim detainees, at once brutal and designed to degrade and humiliate, has been inculcated into the military routine.


One must really wonder about the concept of a war on terror a war without a tangible enemy that can be engaged in conventional combat.


It is hard to escape the feeling that America needed to shed blood preferably Arab blood, or any Muslim blood in the wake of September 11, and with its lamentably fruitless hunt for Osama bin Laden yielding no results, it turned to Afghanistan and then Iraq.


Finally, Saddam Hussein an evil and brutal man, but by no means the worst was strung up on the gallows to avenge this primeval blood lust.


The United States got its corpse.


Poor misguided David Hicks, it seems, is a casualty of collateral damage in this fantastic and entirely unjustifiable exercise.


Don't hold your breath for an early return.


Dr Norman Abjorensen teaches politics at the Australian National University.

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your%20say&subclass=general&story_id=548241&category=Opinion&m=1&y=2007

 

[Liverpool]

Liverpool, this post of yours brought a tear to my eye. So patriotic. It appealed to my emotions.

A few questions, on what basis do you conclude that Mr Hicks actually committed the acts you mention? Did you read court transcripts? Was it part of the ratio handed down by the judge? Or part of the justification for sentencing?

Obviously a patriot like yourself wouldn't assassinate the character of a fellow Australian on hearsay. You must have some pretty powerful evidence. Would you care to share it?

Dyer'ere,
I think it's the Yanks who have the powerful evidence on our "mate", Mr Hicks.

I cannot see why a fellow Australian would be kidnapped off the streets in Afghanistan, handed over to one of our staunchest allies, and then accused of fighting against us?
Who would gain out of that?

Why would the Yanks, anger an ally such as us, by holding an innocent Australian for 5 years, for no apparent reason?
What would the Yanks gain out of that?

Why would the Howard Government, risking a backlash for going against everything this country holds dear, let this go on for so long, on just "hearsay"?
What would the Howard Government gain out of that?

There are logical answers for all these questions above, however, you and Remote seem to be ignoring them, on some notion that because he is an Aussie, then we should be treating him as a "mate".

For a start, there must be some solid evidence for Hicks to be charged, but others (such as the UK detainees) were released without charge.

What Hicks is accused of, and charged with, is everything that is un-Australian......yet people like yourself and Remote aren't questioning Hicks' history in Kosovo, and his actions in Afghanistan, but are questioning why people like myself aren't treating him as a "mate" and a fellow Australian, who we should be fighting tooth and nail to prise from the Yanks.
I'll tell you why....because someone like Hicks couldn't give a stuff about you, me, or any other Australian...that's why!

We could argue back and forth over whether he is innocent or not (I think I have made my views quite clear), however I think we ALL agree on that his case should have been heard by now.
That I will grant you.

Liverpool,

Dyer'ere has summed up my immediate reaction to your post too - it is hearsay until proven in a court of law - 5 years is far too long for a person to await trial - for any crime anywhere!

Remote,
I agree with you!
I think the case should have been heard by now too.
But you have to ask yourself....WHY?

* Why would the Yanks charge an innocent Australian citizen, if he was going about his daily business in Afghanistan?
* What the hell was an Aussie doing in Afghanistan around the 9/11 period anyway?
* Who is going to gain what....by capturing/arresting an Aussie, fabricating evidence and accusing him with some serious crimes.....and then holding him for 5 years while they gather 'evidence' and charge him?

The Yanks? the Howard Government? WHO?

We can say its all "hearsay" until it appears in a court of law.....but I disagree.
Its not hearsay at all....they have evidence, enough to charge him with, enough to think he is a danger to people.....and like Judge Judy states "if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, then its a duck".  

Oh...thanks for the article....just more Howard-bashing, yet not one word questioning David Hicks and his actions in both Kosovo and Afghanistan.

It seems everyone is more interested in the delay of his trial, rather than the seriousness of his actions.