Saddam sentenced to the old noose and drop | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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

RemoteTiger

Woof!
Jul 29, 2004
4,646
98
Liverpool said:
It seems everyone is more interested in the delay of his trial, rather than the seriousness of his actions.

You hit the nail right square on the head - a court of law will decide the seriousness of his actions - not the media not the Governments of US or Australia, not you or I but a constitutionally convened court of law.

The Delay of his trial is against everything our troops are fighting for right now - freedom, justice and liberty.

If Hicks had of been tried and found guilty or not guilty within 3 to 9 months of his capture then I would not be concerned about him, his actions - he would be just another Neville Nobody - but because he has had his freedom, justice and liberty rights removed - as a fellow Australian citizen I find that deplorable.......
 

Liverpool

How did that Julia and Kevin thing work out? :)
Jan 24, 2005
9,054
1
Melbourne
RemoteTiger said:
You hit the nail right square on the head - a court of law will decide the seriousness of his actions - not the media not the Governments of US or Australia, not you or I but a constitutionally convened court of law.

I agree.
But you have to admit, David Hicks' actions are very dubious, to say the least.

RemoteTiger said:
The Delay of his trial is against everything our troops are fighting for right now - freedom, justice and liberty.

If you asked the troops in Afghanistan about David Hicks and his trial, it would be interesting to hear their response.
I have a feeling that other adjectives would be at the forefront of their minds when talking about Hicks, rather than freedom, justice, and liberty!

RemoteTiger said:
If Hicks had of been tried and found guilty or not guilty within 3 to 9 months of his capture then I would not be concerned about him, his actions - he would be just another Neville Nobody - but because he has had his freedom, justice and liberty rights removed - as a fellow Australian citizen I find that deplorable.......

I agree.
But you have to go one step further, and ask yourself WHY......WHY has it been 5 years?
I think with the seriousness of the charges, and let's be honest, we don't know what Hicks "the person" is like.
Maybe he is someone we can't just release into the community awaiting a trial...maybe he is mentally unstable....and maybe the prosecution need time to thoroughly gather evidence and proof of the allegations.
Remember, the Americans have "double jeopardy"....the last thing we want is an Australian citizen, trained as a terrorist, has a rushed trial, gets off, comes back to Australia, and then we find out that he really is a serious piece of work.
I think someone like that getting off and being a danger to the community here, would be more deplorable, than holding him while we make 100% certain whether he has committed what he is accused of, or not.
 

RemoteTiger

Woof!
Jul 29, 2004
4,646
98
Liverpool said:
But you have to go one step further, and ask yourself WHY......WHY has it been 5 years?
I think with the seriousness of the charges, and let's be honest, we don't know what Hicks "the person" is like.
Maybe he is someone we can't just release into the community awaiting a trial...maybe he is mentally unstable....and maybe the prosecution need time to thoroughly gather evidence and proof of the allegations.
Remember, the Americans have "double jeopardy"....the last thing we want is an Australian citizen, trained as a terrorist, has a rushed trial, gets off, comes back to Australia, and then we find out that he really is a serious piece of work.
I think someone like that getting off and being a danger to the community here, would be more deplorable, than holding him while we make 100% certain whether he has committed what he is accused of, or not.

My limited understanding of the legal situation is that the Americans endeavored to try him under a military commision - this was contested and was deemed illegal by the US Supreme Court. The reason it has taken longer is that the American Government had to create a new "legal Military Commission" which would stand examination from the US Supreme Court. Interestingly this new legal military commission can only try non-Americans because it is deemed that the process for Americans should be their normal justice system.

Further the Americans have kept Hicks at Guantanamo Bay as it is outside the jurisdiction of the "normal" American legal processes.

Why have they done this for Hicks? Because they feel they have a case against him but it would not stand up in a "normal" court of law - whilst his defence counsel believe they do not have a case at all - If the Americans did have something significantly bad against David Hicks they would have pushed him through the American Legal System and paraded him around as a scoundrel and trumpted a great victory for freedom and justice.

I also read now that the prosecution would be interested in a plea bargin with Hicks' counsel which could have him home in Australia just before Christmas 2007 - my narrow minded tunnelled vision view of that is the prosecution have not got a particularly strong case against him and that 5 years incarceration would be the maximum they could get if Hicks is found guilty - worse though if he was found not guilty and the huge multi-million dollar payout the US and Australian Governments would have to make in compensation.

Plus being the cynic I am - Hicks coming home just before Christmas 2007 would be after our Federal Elections - but you will say I am just Howard bashing there! Howard is a political animal and will do what is best for himself first his party second and Australia a distant third.

Liverpool said:
But you have to admit, David Hicks' actions are very dubious, to say the least.

On what has been presented to us you would have to agree that your statement above holds some truth but - No I don't agree with it - because IMO we have only heard one side of the story plus media speculation plus US propaganda - when we hear Hicks' side of the story we can all then agree or disagree with your "David Hicks' actions are very dubious" statement.

Liverpool - my wife tells me I can be a pedantic prick - but - IMO lets get all the facts first then make our decision - Hicks maybe as guilty as sin - but lets prove it - then we can all argue about the leniancy of his sentence.............As always good to discuss with you.....RT
 

Boyanich

Tiger Matchwinner
Jan 13, 2004
922
0
Regional Victoria
Liverpool....your wasting your time buddy,

They can stipulate their argument as much as they like...but the truth remains...KICKS was not plucked from Kerford Street beach.

He's locked away....and the squeaky wheels are making noise...but there isn't much oil being applied.
 

RemoteTiger

Woof!
Jul 29, 2004
4,646
98
Boyanich said:
Liverpool....your wasting your time buddy,

They can stipulate their argument as much as they like...but the truth remains...KICKS was not plucked from Kerford Street beach.

He's locked away....and the squeaky wheels are making noise...but there isn't much oil being applied.

"The truth remains?"

Prove that "truth" I will agree with you!

But to date it has not been proven - do you Boyanich believe everything the media feeds you?

If that is the case you would be a monachist, a Liberal/National Party voter and follow Collingwood - so why you on Puntroadend then? :hihi
 

Liverpool

How did that Julia and Kevin thing work out? :)
Jan 24, 2005
9,054
1
Melbourne
RemoteTiger said:
Liverpool - my wife tells me I can be a pedantic prick - but - IMO lets get all the facts first then make our decision - Hicks maybe as guilty as sin - but lets prove it - then we can all argue about the leniancy of his sentence.............As always good to discuss with you.....RT

That's fine.
Good to talk to you too, Remote.

RemoteTiger said:
"The truth remains?"
Prove that "truth" I will agree with you!
But to date it has not been proven - do you Boyanich believe everything the media feeds you?
If that is the case you would be a monachist, a Liberal/National Party voter and follow Collingwood - so why you on Puntroadend then? :hihi

Just a quick one....what is the media feeding us?

As far as I'm concerned, there have been many views from the media from both sides of the fence....some supporting Hicks, some not so supportive.
These are just opinionated pieces, such as us using this forum as a means to express our views.

Then we have the media reporting on what he is accused of, and what he has alleged to have done....as well as what crimes the US are charging him with.

Therefore, from what I can see, the media are only reporting facts, on what he has alleged to have done, and what the US are doing with him regarding this.....and also their opinionated editorials from their paid journalists.

By the way, I'm a Lib voting monarchist.....but you bombed out on the Collingwood bit....but as Meatloaf once said, : "Two outta three ain't bad!" ;)
 

Boyanich

Tiger Matchwinner
Jan 13, 2004
922
0
Regional Victoria
Remote Tiger,

You have our views and I have mine.   But yours seem somewhat distorted.

Because I hold a view on a subject that you don't agree with, you resort to placing people in boxes.

Where is the logic that because I do not feel the least bit sorry for Hicks, that I vote a certain way, favour a certain form of society, or even follow collingwood?

I thought the wheels were just squeaky, but now I think they are wobbly as well. 
 

RemoteTiger

Woof!
Jul 29, 2004
4,646
98
Boyanich said:
Remote Tiger,

You have our views and I have mine.   But yours seem somewhat distorted.

Because I hold a view on a subject that you don't agree with, you resort to placing people in boxes.

Where is the logic that because I do not feel the least bit sorry for Hicks, that I vote a certain way, favour a certain form of society, or even follow collingwood?

I thought the wheels were just squeaky, but now I think they are wobbly as well. 

You missed my point and it was an attempt to be jocular - if people believed on face value everything they read or are told by the media then they would be those things Monachist Conservative and a Collingwood supporter - because that is all the media feeds us - I'll try not to bring humour into our discussion again - even though I see Liverpool caught on to it!

Lastly I believe your view on the subject is based on information from the media - unless of course you are an intelligence analyst or in the legal area of the US Army.

In truth I am not questioning your belief but I am questioning where the information and "facts" of your belief are eminating from! If the media is right then I will be with you 100% but just in case they have it a tad tainted I will let a court of law decide Hicks' fate!

My apologies too - fancy saying to a fellow Tiger that he might be a bloody Collingwood supporter - best go wash my computer keyboard with soap..... :hihi
 

Boyanich

Tiger Matchwinner
Jan 13, 2004
922
0
Regional Victoria
Apology accepted, but you miss my point too...

If he committed his crime in Australia, he probably would receive a fair trial...as per Jihad Jack Thomas.

But he didn't commit the crimes here, so who are we to interfere.

Yes yes..Australian citizen and all that...but surely he has relinquished that...if not by his actions of betrayal then by his application to become a Bristish Citizen.

So who cares....just bring on the footy!
 

Dyer'ere

Licensed to kazoo
Sep 21, 2004
19,101
6,953
It seems to me that there is a clear difference between the two sides of the debate on this thread. That's not to say that there aren't a great many differences but there is one common clear differentiating factor.

David Hicks has not been proven guilty. Until then he is innocent IMO.

There is a clear presumption of guilt in many of the posts.

Your supporting arguments are not strong IMO, Liverpool. Just because the US has charged him amounts to no proof whatsoever.

The US has bungled plenty in Iraq. GWB has just conceded that "mistakes were made" and the very legislation that Hicks was to be charged under was successfully challenged by Hicks' defence.

Irrespective of the credibility of the case ATM, I think David Hicks is innocent until proven guilty and that is central to my belief that justice has not been served in this matter.
 

Liverpool

How did that Julia and Kevin thing work out? :)
Jan 24, 2005
9,054
1
Melbourne
US sets terror trial rules
January 19, 2007 - 6:54AM

The US Defence Department has drafted a manual for trying detainees at the Guantanamo, Cuba, jail that would allow terror suspects to be imprisoned, convicted and executed on the basis of hearsay evidence or coerced testimony.

According to a copy of the manual obtained by Associated Press, a terror suspect's defence lawyer cannot reveal classified evidence in their defence until the Government has had a chance to review it.

The manual, sent to Congress today and scheduled to be released later by the Pentagon, is intended to track a law passed last year in which lawmakers restored President George Bush's plans to have special military commissions try terror suspects.

Those commissions had been struck down earlier in the year by the Supreme Court.

The Pentagon manual could spark a fresh confrontation between the Bush administration and Congress, now led by Democrats, over the treatment of terror suspects.

Last September, Congress, then led by Republicans, sent Bush a bill granting wide latitude in interrogation and detention of alleged enemy combatants.

The legislation also prohibited abuses such as mutilation and rape but granted the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.

Passage of the bill, which was backed by the White House, followed more than three months of debate that included angry rebukes by Democrats of the administration's interrogation policies and a short-lived rebellion by some Republican senators.

The Detainee Treatment Act, separate legislation championed in  2005 by Republican Senator John McCain, prohibited the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners held by either the military or the CIA. It was approved overwhelmingly by Congress despite a veto threat by Bush, who eventually signed it into law.

The Pentagon manual is aimed at ensuring that enemy combatants, the Bush administration's term for many of the terror suspects held at Guantanamo, ``are prosecuted before regularly constituted courts affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised by civilized people,'' according to the document.

As required by law, the manual prohibits statements obtained by torture and ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment'' as prohibited by the Constitution.

However, the law does allow statements obtained through coercive interrogation techniques if obtained before December 30, 2005, and deemed reliable by a judge.

Almost 400 detainees suspected of having links to the al-Qaeda network or the Taliban militia that once ruled Afghanistan still are held at the US military prison at Guantanamo.

Australian detainee Hicks has been held by US authorities since his capture among Taliban forces in Afghanistan in December 2001.

The 31-year-old Adelaide-born father-of-two had previously pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. But after the US Supreme Court in June declared illegal the military tribunals set up to try Hicks and other Guantanamo Bay inmates, those charges were dropped.

Former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Guantanamo Bay prison was built to hold "the worst of the worst'' terrorists. About  380 have been transferred or released. The Defence Department is planning trials for at least 10 suspects
.

Democrats have said they would like to reconsider detainee legislation to deal with the possibility that the President has too much latitude to interpret standards set by the Geneva Conventions on prisoner treatment. They say the current law might deny detainees legal rights.

Democratic Representative Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he planned to scrutinise the manual to ensure that it does not "run afoul'' of the Constitution.

"I have not yet seen evidence that the process by which these rules were built or their substance addresses all the questions left open by the legislation. This committee will fulfill its oversight responsibility to make sure this is the case,'' Skelton said.

Republican Senator Arlen Specter and some Democrats have said the legislation will be shot down by the courts as unconstitutional because it bars detainees from protesting their detentions. Under the law, only individuals selected for military trial are given access to a lawyer and judge; other military detainees can be held until hostilities cease.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/us-sets-terror-trial-rules/2007/01/19/1169095940815.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
 

RemoteTiger

Woof!
Jul 29, 2004
4,646
98
Liverpool said:
Former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Guantanamo Bay prison was built to hold "the worst of the worst'' terrorists. About  380 have been transferred or released. The Defence Department is planning trials for at least 10 suspects.

My pol science uni professor taught me to look not only at the statements being made but who is making those statements and what line is that person pushing - for usually all sides of politics have a tendency to manipulate the truth to suit their argument/philosophy.

For this reason I have difficulty in believing anything said by Mr. Donald Rumsfeld - remember he was one of those who told us of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The mysterious weapons that were never found!

IMO he is still trying to justify his decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanastan etc. etc. instead of doing the real job which must be done - finding Osma Bin Laden.

Question - If the American Democracy is the greatest democracy in the world as we are constantly told - and at the heart of that democracy is the freedom, justice and liberty - which the American Constitution is the foundation stone and the judicial system the operational processes for that democracy to exist - then why don't they use the justice system from the greatest democracy in the world to prosecute David Hicks?

Why not use the World Court?

Why not use the laws under the Geneva Convention?

Is it because the evidence against Hicks would not stand up under any of those judicial systems?

If because of this new kind of war named "Terrorism" we have to define new draconian military commissions to bring some kind of judicial process into the case - then aren't we stooping as low as the terrorists themselves in not providing basic human rights? Because of this have not the Terrorists had a victory of sorts - in that they have changed our judical processes to be like their own religiously constituted kangaroo courts?

The US Founders philosophy of - "All men are equal" seems to have been thrown out the window.

Lastly Donald Rumsfeld did a lot of the military work for George Bush who has very close connections to Halliburton inc. who have built an oil pipeline through Afghanastan and Pakistan to ships waiting in a port on the Indian Ocean to transport the oil to the USA - that pipeline was given approval by the new Afghanistan Government once the Taliban were removed - interestingly the new Afghanastan Government was made up of ex-senior executives from Halliburton - I wonder how much money Rumsfeld and Bush make each day from that pipeline?

The Halliburton information came from  the totally left wing movie Fahrenheit 911 - again Michael Moore the producer had a line to push - but if only a small % of what he says is true - then the US people are being led astray by the White House..................
 

RemoteTiger

Woof!
Jul 29, 2004
4,646
98
Anduril said:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/backlash-over-hicks-trial-rules/2007/01/19/1169095981221.html

Why do I get the feeling the prosecutions case against Hicks is founded on hearsay and statements obtained by coercion - plus - they are giving him no recourse to challenge the lawfullness of his detention - now that smells of not being able to sue the American or Australian Governments  should Hicks detention be in fact unlawful.

Are holes starting to appear in the prosecutions case? - has the media being doing a beat up job on Hicks? - there will be more twists and turns in this true story before the final curtain is drawn.............
 

Anduril

You bow to no one!
Jul 29, 2004
6,305
0
Melbourne
jb03 said:
His biggest crime is deserting his kids.

How many Australians knew he had kids? (Wouldn't want to humanise him would we? Let's just keep showing that posed pic taken of him in Serbia.)

Now even Kennett is speaking out:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-repatriation-overdue-kennett/2007/01/21/1169330766419.html
 

baktiger

Tex Walker....
Dec 17, 2002
907
1
Coburg, Melbourne
Anduril said:
jb03 said:
His biggest crime is deserting his kids.

How many Australians knew he had kids? (Wouldn't want to humanise him would we? Let's just keep showing that posed pic taken of him in Serbia.)

Kids that he essentially abandoned. That side of his family want nothing to do with
him. In fact, I think the quote in the article a few week(s) ago was that he can *smile* off.