1
   

Bring David Hicks home (from Guantanamo) before Christmas!

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 10:23 am
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/02/18/19cartoon_gallery__470x331,0.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 06:08 pm
So what's the delay, then?
He hasn't even been officially charged yet!
This is just another US PR excercise to make it look as if John Howard is being taken seriously in an election year.
And of course there will be delays! If not from Hicks' legal team, from those representing the other Guantanamo detainees who are up for trial. The US authorities are counting on it!:


Last Update: Monday, February 19, 2007. 9:28am (AEDT)

Hicks trial could be over by year's end, US says

The American military lawyer prosecuting Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks says there is a strong probability that his case can be completed by the end of this year.

Hicks, who is from Adelaide, has been detained at Guantanamo Bay for five years and is in the process of being charged with attempted murder and providing material support for terrorism.

Colonel Moe Davis says the trial could be delayed if there are challenges by Hicks's defence team.

But Colonel Davis has told the ABC's Newsradio that as things stand it is likely a verdict will be brought down in the case by the end of the year.

"I can't guarantee that but that's certainly what we're aiming for," he said.

"We expect the charges will be referred.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1850856.htm
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Feb, 2007 06:58 am
Bush pledge to Howard over Hicks
February 20, 2007 - 6:41PM/the AGE

US President George Bush is pledging to do all he can to speed up David Hicks' trial, promising the Australian will be "first in line" to get his day in court.

Mr Bush made the promise to Prime Minister John Howard during a telephone call this morning, in which he vowed to "do everything he could to make sure the process was pushed along".

"He said that Hicks was the first in the line, and he understood very much the concerns that I had," Mr Howard said.

Under growing pressure from his own backbench and aware of increasing concerns in the community over the US handling of the Hicks case, Mr Howard has put Washington on notice that it needs to act without delay.

A Crikey Morgan Poll of 400 voters in Mr Howard's electorate of Bennelong found 62 per cent of people wanted the government to ask the US to return Hicks to Australia.

Thirty one per cent believe Hicks should remain in US custody to face trial.


Mr Howard, who will raise the matter with US Vice President Dick Cheney when they meet on Saturday, said Mr Bush understood his concerns.

"He was sensitive to that," he told ABC Radio.

"I said that there could be no more significant slippage in the process of moving towards David Hicks in getting his day in court, that the concern in this country was in relation to his continued detention without trial."

Adelaide-born Hicks, 31, has been in the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for more than five years since being picked up in Afghanistan in late 2001.

Former military judge Susan Crawford is considering the charges recommended against Hicks - attempted murder and providing support from terrorism.

Once the charges have formally been served, there is a 120-day deadline for the military commission trial to begin.

But if Hicks' trial is further delayed by appeals outside his control, the government has hinted it is looking at alternatives to return him to Australia.

Under current laws the government cannot impose control orders to manage a situation like Hicks' return but Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says he is examining his options.

"There are difficulties and these are matters that I have to look at, if these matters are going to be pursued," he told SBS Television's Insight program.

"I am looking at all the potential options that I might have to address in various circumstances."

Mr Ruddock raised the issue of how Hicks might feel if he was brought home before getting a chance to clear his name.

But Hicks' US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, said: "David Hicks won't complain if they bring him home (and) he didn't get to clear his name."

"David will do whatever he's asked," he said.


And as Treasurer Peter Costello urged the public not to sanctify Hicks, Mr Ruddock maintained he was entitled to a presumption of innocence.

"I think some of the rhetoric has got out of control here, as if he was some poor innocent abroad backpacking through the sights and the sounds of Afghanistan," Mr Costello told the Macquarie Radio Network.

"He was in Afghanistan because he had been trained by al-Qaeda, he had been given weapons training, this was the organisation which he knew had just murdered thousands of people in New York, including Australians.

"Australians died in the World Trade Centre, so by all means the man is entitled to a trial, but let's not sanctify what he did or why he was there."

When reminded that many in government had not always presumed Hicks innocent, Mr Ruddock said that he, as principal law officer, always had.

"I have never asserted guilt," he said.

AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bush-pledge-to-howard-over-hicks/2007/02/20/1171733756081.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Feb, 2007 07:58 am
Interesting, isn't it?
John Howard receives those worrying (for him) poll results this morning & suddenly he's talking to George Bush about his concerns about David Hicks! Howard is even talking about bringing Hicks home if it looks like there will be extended delays in him being tried ! Amazing.

I've been trying to research how the plea bargaining process actually works, with regard to US military court cases. Without too much success. Does the defendant agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge than originally mooted & receive a lighter sentence for "cooperating" with the US military authorities? Or something along those lines? If so, that's what I suspect will happen. They'll do a (face saving for the US & Oz governments) deal & get him home before the Australian election (expected to be in November).

If anyone has reliable knowledge of how plea bargaining works it'd be very interesting to know more.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Feb, 2007 08:11 am
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/02/20/svHICKS_wideweb__470x381,0.jpg
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Feb, 2007 05:58 pm
Rudd to discuss Hicks trial with Cheney
February 22, 2007 - 12:04AM/the AGE

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says he will tell US Vice President Dick Cheney in "unequivocal terms" that terror suspect David Hicks cannot get a fair trial in a US military commission.

Mr Cheney is due to arrive in Sydney late Thursday and to meet with Mr Rudd on Friday.

Mr Rudd said he would make his views on the military commission clear to the US vice president.

"There is no secret on our position," Mr Rudd said on ABC TV's Lateline program.

"I will be saying what I've said publicly.


"I'm not going to canvas in advance what will become part of a confidential conversation. But I'll just say this: when it comes to a US military commission it simply doesn't pass the basic test of justice."

The commission would have no presumption of innocence, the normal rules of evidence would not apply and its composition was an issue, Mr Rudd said.

He said Hicks should face prosecution in a US civilian court or an Australian court.


Adelaide-born Hicks, 31, has been in the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for five years after being picked up in Afghanistan in late 2001.

Former military judge Susan Crawford is currently considering the charges recommended against Hicks - attempted murder and providing support from terrorism.

Once the charges have formally been served, there is a 120 day deadline for a military commission trial to begin.


But a United States Court of Appeals ruling, which bans enemy combatants from challenging their detention in American courts, appears to have set the scene for a new US Supreme Court battle.

Lawyers for Hicks and other Guantanamo Bay inmates are expected to appeal the ruling and a time-consuming court stoush could mean their military commission trials could be put on hold for months - or possibly a year or more - pending a resolution.

Responding to a question about whether, should he become prime minister, he would pardon Hicks if he was found guilty in a military court but sent to Australia to serve his sentence, Mr Rudd said he would "take advice from the attorney-general's department".

"That'll be the responsible course of action," Mr Rudd said. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Rudd-to-discuss-Hicks-trial-with-Cheney/2007/02/22/1171733852074.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 06:42 pm
Yeah, yeah ...

Promises, promises ....

We've heard promises before. We want to know when he'll be out of there & back home, Mr Cheney! Like a definite date!



Hicks near head of queue: Cheney
February 24, 2007 - 11:33AM

Vice-President Dick Cheney says everything is being done by his government to have Australian terror suspect David Hicks brought to trial as soon as possible.

Mr Cheney was speaking to reporters after holding talks in Sydney with Prime Minister John Howard. .. <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-near-head-of-queue-cheney/2007/02/24/1171734061328.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Feb, 2007 07:51 pm
No, unfortunately not THE US military court case.
(I got quite excited for a few seconds, when I read this headline!)
No, a case in Australia's Federal Court, that the Federal Government has breached its protective duty toward David Hicks, filed by his lawyers.:


Last Update: Monday, February 26, 2007. 11:45am (AEDT)

Govt seeks to have Hicks court case dismissed

The Australian Government is arguing in the Federal Court in Sydney that a case brought by lawyers for David Hicks should not be allowed to proceed.

Lawyers for Hicks have filed an application in the Federal Court, arguing that the Federal Government has breached its protective duty towards the Guantanamo Bay detainee.

They want to argue that the Australian Government should have asked the United States Government to have Hicks returned to Australia.


But the Commonwealth is seeking to have the case dismissed before it is heard.

Solicitor-general David Bennett has told Justice Brian Tamberlin he has being asked to interfere in the area of international negotiations between executive governments, which is inappropriate.


A small group of Hicks supporters, including former Guantanamo Bay inmate Mamdouh Habib, are in court for the hearing, which is set down for two days.

Former Family Court chief justice Alistair Nicholson QC believes there is a case to answer.

"It's strongly arguable that they've broken the law because to counsel or procure a person who's entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions, as Hicks is, a trial of such a person before an illegal tribunal is clearly an offence against International Criminal Court statute and it's also an offence in Australian law," he said.

Federal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock has cautioned against publicly debating the court case.

Mr Ruddock says it is up to the court to deal with the case.

"One of the principles of law in Australia is that you don't argue the case in the public arena, and there's a good reason for it - you don't get all the evidence, you don't get all the material," he said.

"People need to be able to make up their mind, untainted by a broader public debate that can sometimes be one-sided."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1856798.htm
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:33 am
No obligation to help Hicks: Government
February 26, 2007 - 2:24PM/SMH

A Sydney courtroom packed with supporters of terrorist suspect David Hicks has been told the Australian Government has no legal obligation to help the Guantanamo Bay inmate.

The Government might have a moral obligation to assist Australian people abroad, but there was no legal basis for a Federal Court challenge to Hicks's incarceration by United States authorities, the Federal Court was today told.

A team of lawyers has launched the action in a bid to force the Government to take steps to bring Adelaide-born Hicks home. ...<cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/no-obligation-to-help-hicks-government/2007/02/26/1172338528152.html
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 04:51 am
Hicks' US military trial 'a war crime'
February 26, 2007 - 11:03AM/the AGE

Former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson says the prime minister, foreign minister and attorney-general could be charged with war crimes for insisting David Hicks face trial before a US military commission.

Mr Nicholson said the commission was not a properly constituted court and it could not deliver a fair trial to the terrorist suspect.

He said war crimes legislation clearly made that an offence on the basis that kangaroo courts should not be established to try a regime's enemies.

"We are saying it is strongly arguable that they have broken the law because to counsel or procure a person who is entitled to protection of the Geneva convention as Hicks is, a trial of such a person before an illegal tribunal is clearly an offence against the international criminal court statute," he told ABC radio.

"It is also an offence in Australian law."

Mr Nicholson said that constituted a war crime.

"It is so defined under the relevant legislation," he said. ...<cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-us-military-trial-a-war-crime/2007/02/26/1172338514194.html
0 Replies
 
anton bonnier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 12:34 am
As Hicks allowed himself to be convinced that he was doing the "right" thing in leaving Ausie to fight (kill) for his religious beliefs.... to my mind, it would leave him at the mercy of whoever caught him.... he, at least,was not executed the day he was captured, nor did he die trying to kill his "enemy". If he has "lost" 6 years of his youth being imprisoned, is that not a small price to pay for the lives that could of been lost through his "beliefs". I feel sure there are much greater ills to protest over than Hicks, who was ready to kill for whatever reason
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 04:55 am
anton bonnier

Check out those US military tribunal charges. There is no mention of having killed anyone. They seem to be based on what he might have been thinking of doing. If you think it's fine for someone to be locked up for over five years without a trial, tortured & kept in solitary confinement for extended periods because of what he might have done if the opportunity arose, then that's your right, I guess. And if you think the military tribunals will provide David Hicks with a fair trial, then you're in disagreement with many highly respected legal authorities in Australia. All I've learned about from your post is your political bias & your complete lack of compassion for a fellow human being.
0 Replies
 
anton bonnier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 07:55 pm
msolga.

For your information.. I'm non political, they are all tarred with the same brush, I only vote for whom I consider would be able to do the best for our country... in the short time they are in power to do so.
I "believe" anyone who willingly leaves Australia to join a terrorist organization... especially one that ordains through their religion that it's a "godly" thing to indiscriminantly kill anyone who does not "believe" the gastly things they do. He deserves and has earned, what ever he gets and anyone that thinks otherwise... to me, is a politically correct biased person and shows complete lack of compassion for the innocents that most likely have been saved from a potential religiously motivated mass murderer who willingly left his country to follow what he "believed"
I do not respect your so called "respectable legal authorities" they live and think by the written word in a law book not by sensible reasoning.. you only have to see the ridiculous sentences given on a regular basis... plus, how much they bleed the general public through the power they have obtained via their profession.
I don't know what has driven you to "say" so much about this pitiful religiously driven husk of humanity, when there are so many worthwhile humans, who could benefit from same deep obsession you have in this matter.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 10:14 pm
It's about the simple justice that we take for granted. Imagine if a citizen of that hypocritical monstrosity, the United States, was locked up by a foreign power for 5 years without so much as a trial, let alone actually being found guilty of a crime. They would go to war over it.
0 Replies
 
anton bonnier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 10:50 pm
Wilso.
There is no such thing as "simple Justice" sounds great, but what does it mean... justice is cost affective, the more money (power, armies, bombs and guns) the more chance you have of getting your "simple" justice... let me tell you mate, it just aint there, it's all to do with what and who you are... you guys aren't wanting "justice" he's already had that by being in the position he is... you want the mealy mouth.. look at every loophole and letter of the law that we are are caught up in here in Australia.. if you count the amount of money this arshole has cost to us and the USA... just to give political "justice to one animal called Hicks... if you had used that to feed a few dying of starvation African children... THAT would be "simple justice" after all what's the cost of his life against the life of many.
0 Replies
 
anton bonnier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 10:52 pm
Wilso.
There is no such thing as "simple Justice" sounds great, but what does it mean... justice is cost affective, the more money (power, armies, bombs and guns) the more chance you have of getting your "simple" justice... let me tell you mate, it just aint there, it's all to do with what and who you are... you guys aren't wanting "justice" he's already had that by being in the position he is... you want the mealy mouth.. look at every loophole and letter of the law that we are are caught up in here in Australia.. if you count the amount of money this arshole has cost to us and the USA... just to give political "justice to one animal called Hicks... if you had used that to feed a few dying of starvation African children... THAT would be "simple justice" after all what's the cost of his life against the life of many.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 11:19 pm
The concepts ARE very simple. If a person is arrested, they are charged, and tried. We've got a person here who has been locked up by a foreign government, and it's taken more than five years to finally lay charges for a crime that didn't even exist when he was arrested. If you were arrested, you'd want your day in court. So would YOU accept imprisonment without charge or trial, or are you a hypocrite?
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 11:34 pm
Hicks was actually a U.S. ally. He trained with the Mujahaddin, who were being funded by the CIA and the MI5 through Pakistan's ISI.


A change in political stance changed David's status from ally to enemy overnite.

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20011005.htm


Between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries trained and fought with the Afghan Mujaheddin. The CIA, Britain's MI6 and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) initiated a plan to launch guerrilla attacks into the Soviet Socialist Republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Thousands more came to train in the hundreds of military training camps in Pakistan and along the Afghan border. These camps became virtual universities for future Islamic radicalism. The CIA, under the Direction of William Casey, stepped up the war against the Soviet Union in 1986 by persuading the U.S. Congress to provide the Mujaheddin with American-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down Soviet planes and provide U.S. advisers to train the guerrillas. Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI initiative to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight with the Afghan Mujaheddin. Apparently, none of the intelligence agencies involved considered the consequences of bringing together thousands of Islamic radicals from all over the world. These Islamic volunteers have their own agendas and have now turned their hatred against the Soviets towards Americans.

The war left a legacy of expert and experienced fighters, training camps and logistical facilities, elaborate Trans-Islam networks of personal and organizational relationships, a substantial amount of military equipment including 300 to 500 unaccounted-for Stinger missiles, and a sense of power and self-confidence over what had been achieved.

Among these thousands of foreign recruits was a young Saudi student, Osama bin Laden. He first traveled to Peshawar in 1980 and met the Mujaheddin leaders, returning frequently with Saudi donations for the cause until 1982, when he decided to settle in Peshawar. He brought in his company of engineers and heavy construction equipment to help build roads and depots for the Mujaheddin. In 1986, he helped build the Khost tunnel complex, that the CIA was funding as a major arms storage depot, training facility and medical center for the Mujaheddin, deep under the mountains close to the Pakistan border. For the first time in Khost he set up his own training camp for Arab Afghans, who now increasingly saw this lanky, wealthy and charismatic Saudi as their leader.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 11:49 pm
Oh Builder. Don't you know how inconvenient the truth is?
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 11:56 pm
Wilso wrote:
Oh Builder. Don't you know how inconvenient the truth is?


That depends on your country of origin, Wilso.

Aussies love hearing the truth.

However grim it might be. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Beached As Bro - Discussion by dadpad
Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour - Discussion by msolga
Australian music - Discussion by Wilso
Oz Election Thread #6 - Abbott's LNP - Discussion by hingehead
AUstralian Philosophers - Discussion by dadpad
Australia voting system - Discussion by fbaezer
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:59:46