Bring David Hicks home (from Guantanamo) before Christmas!

cjhsa wrote:

Nice, and Al Queda member and msolga wants him free. Why don't you take him in girlfriend (assuming he gets out)? I'm sure he won't harm you.

cjhsa

It is reasonable, surely, that a person charged with an offence receives a proper trial without undue delay & have the opportunity to respond to the charges against them? After 5 years of incarceration (including lengthy periods of solitary confinement & torture), finally resulting in just the one pissy charge of "providing material support for terrorism", clearly that hasn't happened in this case.

That's what is all about, boyfriend. The due process of law. Get it?

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Builder wrote:
Found this unsubstantiated mini-biography on David.

Any idea if it's based on truth, msolga?

Article from December 2001 was in The Age.

Quote:
By PENELOPE DEBELLE and STEVE GIBBS

David Hicks, the Australian captured this week with alQaeda fighters, was yesterday portrayed as a troubled man with a dark side and a fascination for fighting. .....

Hi Builder

Is it based on "the truth"? Well, who knows for certain?

For what it's worth, here are my thoughts on the article:

Let's see, the article is dated December 2001:
Not so long after the tragedy of 9/11, closely followed by the invasion of Afghanistan in October ... At that stage there was enormous sympathy toward the US & an acceptance that it had the "right" to retaliate to 9/11. In that context is is quite possible that Terry Hicks could have described his son as a "terrorist". He certainly sounded like a prodigal son (from all the accounts I've read). I'm guessing Terry Hicks responded as a father at the end of his tether with his troublesome son, who had this distressing habit of rushing off recklessly looking for adventure in the wrong places. And he probably thought David would be treated fairly reasonably by Australia's close ally, the US.
But as we have seen, very publicly, Terry Hicks has gone through a huge political transformation as a result of his son's incarceration for so long at Guantanamo Bay.
So if he did call his son a "terrorist" in 2001, that was simply his opinion, at that time. It can't be seen as a confession of guilt by David Hicks, himself. It's interesting that the strongest charge that the prosecution can come up with is "providing material support for terrorism". There is absolutely no proof that David Hicks actually killed anyone in Afghanistan & was involved in combat there. If there was, surely charges against him would reflect this? Heavens above, they've had over 5 years to pin far more damning charges on him, with torture & solitary confinement as "encouragement" to do so.

I find it interesting that the article is from the AGE. Just shows how much perceptions have changed since 2001. The AGE is now one of the most vocal media supporters of the campaign for justice for David Hicks. And rightly so.

Well said. I posted that quote in the interests of fair debate.

I like how you refuted it.

Interesting how public perceptions change, and the media meanderings follow.

0 Replies

Oh, and I forgot to say, that Terry Hicks is sardonically realistic about government inaction, stating publicly that the latest efforts to see justice for his son, are clearly political, and unlikely to be fruitful.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Nice, and Al Queda member and msolga wants him free. Why don't you take him in girlfriend (assuming he gets out)? I'm sure he won't harm you.

cjhsa

It is reasonable, surely, that a person charged with an offence receives a proper trial without undue delay & have the opportunity to respond to the charges against them? After 5 years of incarceration (including lengthy periods of solitary confinement & torture), finally resulting in just the one pissy charge of "providing material support for terrorism", clearly that hasn't happened in this case.

That's what is all about, boyfriend. The due process of law. Get it?

Set up a kangaroo court in your living room.

Many of these detainees are simply too dangerous to attempt to process.

Good luck.

0 Replies

Builder wrote:

...Interesting how public perceptions change, and the media meanderings follow.

A bit of both, really, I think.

Who in Oz would have dreamed, back in 2001, that the Iraq invasion, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghrab (sp?) could possibly occur? We've all done a lot of serious re-evaluating since then, largely due to what we've learned through the media. A huge influence on the groundswell of support for justice for David Hicks (in Oz) is to do with Australians' growing cynicism & disenchantment toward US government under GWB & co. ... & our own government's unquestionable support of everything Bush under Howard. I think support of David Hicks is just part of the backlash.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Set up a kangaroo court in your living room.

Many of these detainees are simply too dangerous to attempt to process.

Good luck.

Well, it'd definitely be well & truly over & done with by now if I had anything to do with it, cjhsa! :wink:

I think, if you do a bit of research, that you'll find that David Hicks is actually pretty small fry in the "dangerous terrorist stakes". The only reason he is still at Guantanamo Bay after all this time is because our government refused to bring him back to Oz to face justice here. (As the British, Spanish & other governments did with their nationals.) And why didn't the Oz government follow the lead of the British & others? Because of it's blind support of Bushco, that's why. This is why so many Australians are just as furious & outraged with our own government, as they are with yours for what has happened to David Hicks. And this is why our government is suddenly so anxious to have the Hicks trial proceed without haste: it's become a hot issue in an election year! We are not impressed! Rolling Eyes

Incidentally, if you've gained the impression that Australians view David Hicks as some sort of unblemished hero, worthy of great admiration, I don't believe that's correct. I don't view him that way, that's for sure. Personally, I think he was rather foolhardy & not particularly clever in his actions. But that's not the point. The point is that he has been used as a pawn, shockingly treated by both your government & mine for more than five years! It is high time that this minor player in this ugly fiasco received some proper justice & is finally treated like a human being. It's as simple as that.

0 Replies

An interesting read on "Guantanamo decorum":

There are no prisoners at Guantanamo, which isn't a prison
Karen Greenberg
March 15, 2007/the AGE

SEVERAL weeks ago, I took the media tour at Guantanamo. From the moment I arrived on a frayed Air Sunshine prop-jet to the time I boarded the same plane to head home, I had no doubt that I was on an alien planet.

Along with two European colleagues, I was treated to two-plus days packed with site visits and interviews (none with prisoners) designed to "make transparent" Guantanamo and its manifold contributions to US national security.

Thanks to our military handlers, I learned a great deal about Gitmo decorum, as the military would like us to practise it. My escorts told me how best to describe the goings-on at Guantanamo, regardless of what my own eyes and previous knowledge told me.

Here, in a nutshell, is what I picked up:

1. Guantanamo is not a prison. The official term is "detention facility". Although the two most recently built complexes, Camps Five and Six, were modelled on prisons in Indiana and Michigan, it is not acceptable to use the word "prison" at Gitmo.

2. Guantanamo has no prisoners, only "enemies". As in "unlawful enemy combatants" or "detained enemy combatants".

3. Once an enemy combatant, always an enemy combatant. "Today, it is not about guilt or innocence. It's about unlawful enemy combatants," Rear Admiral Harry Harris, the commanding officer of Guantanamo, told us. "And they are all unlawful enemy combatants." This despite the fact that the Government also has a category for those deemed "no longer an enemy combatant", which was not mentioned. Nor was the possibility of mistaken detention.

4. No trustworthy lawyers come to Guantanamo. The handlers used the term "habeas lawyers" as a seemingly derogatory catch-all for those who are defending detainees.

It was clear that at Gitmo, detainees are believed to be using lawyers in accordance with directives in an al-Qaeda training manual that was discovered in Manchester in 2000: "Take advantage of visits with habeas lawyers to communicate and exchange information with those outside."

5. Reporters misrepresent Guantanamo. The media arrive with ostensibly open eyes,

yet graciously hosted from morning to night, they go home perversely refusing to be complimentary to their hosts. They suffer from "the chameleon effect", as I was told more than once, taking on the colours of betrayers, and "we just don't understand it".

6. The detainees still possess valuable information. Harris explained: "We have up-and-coming leadership in al-Qaeda and in the Taliban in Afghanistan, (and) we don't know what they look like But their contemporaries are quite often the same individuals that are in the camps here today Sketch artists will work with these detainees and those pictures will be sent out to the forward fighting area." But how reliable would anyone's memory be after five years of isolated detention?

7. Abandon individuality, on either side of the wire. The prisoners were referred to by number.

8. Hard facts are scarce. "You'll notice that we speak vaguely. We can't be specific. You will notice that we talk

in approximate terms and estimates only. Those are operational security measures."

9. Guantanamo houses no contradictions. Islam is treated with respect. The prisoners' food is halal. Every prisoner, even the non-compliant, has a Koran if he wants it. But if you ask about other basic rights, such as the presumption of innocence, a sergeant without a name will chastise you about the dangers posed by enemy combatants.

"We allow two hours of recreation a day in order to comply with the Geneva Convention," we were told. But an escort also pointed out that the authorities need prisoners "to go outside so that we can search their cells for weapons and contraband". Try to explore these differing motives and an officer will reprimand the guide for giving out "misinformation".

10. One final lesson: visitors who fail to reproduce the official narrative will be punished. "Tell it the wrong way and you won't be back," one of our escorts warned me over lunch.

Only time will tell if I got it right.

Karen Greenberg is executive director of the Centre on Law and Security, New York University School of Law, and editor of The Torture Debate in America.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/there-are-no-prisoners-at-guantanamo-which-isnt-a-prison/2007/03/14/1173722553792.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

0 Replies

Quote:

Who in Oz would have dreamed, back in 2001, that the Iraq invasion, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghrab (sp?) could possibly occur?

Hi Msgola

I'm curious about this statement you made. Did neither yourself, nor any of your friends expect anything like this?

I'm not having a go at you, it's just that I fully expected that this sort of thing would be going on. War is a dirty business with very little dignity. The western conditioning to view their wars as clean is a fallacy promoted by our governments for the peace of mind and support of their citizenry. War will never get out of the dirty gutter, because it the nature of any face to face confrontation where people live and die in split seconds. War drives people insane, it corrupts the participants views of the world, it forms bonds that last a lifetime, and participants no longer see life as others.

My point being, it is unrealistic in the extreme to expect soldiers put under stress to behave normally and rationally in all circumstances...just as it is unrealistic to expect that the many in the military will not feel the need to do anything to save their mates.

I don't know if I have any opinion on torture in war. I don't like torture, full stop, but I think I somewhat understand that people practice it in war, and I'm not prepared to judge them on it...

...that said...places like Guantanamo...where it appears a number of people have been released, or sent home...there's little to no justification for mass torture (so the same there likely goes for Abu Graib...though as I don't really know the circumstances, I'm a little less inclined to judge that one)

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Who in Oz would have dreamed, back in 2001, that the Iraq invasion, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghrab (sp?) could possibly occur?

Hi Msgola

I'm curious about this statement you made. Did neither yourself, nor any of your friends expect anything like this?

I'm not having a go at you, it's just that I fully expected that this sort of thing would be going on. War is a dirty business with very little dignity. The western conditioning to view their wars as clean is a fallacy promoted by our governments for the peace of mind and support of their citizenry. War will never get out of the dirty gutter, because it the nature of any face to face confrontation where people live and die in split seconds. War drives people insane, it corrupts the participants views of the world, it forms bonds that last a lifetime, and participants no longer see life as others.

My point being, it is unrealistic in the extreme to expect soldiers put under stress to behave normally and rationally in all circumstances...just as it is unrealistic to expect that the many in the military will not feel the need to do anything to save their mates.

I don't know if I have any opinion on torture in war. I don't like torture, full stop, but I think I somewhat understand that people practice it in war, and I'm not prepared to judge them on it...

...that said...places like Guantanamo...where it appears a number of people have been released, or sent home...there's little to no justification for mass torture (so the same there likely goes for Abu Graib...though as I don't really know the circumstances, Iamb a little less inclined to judge that one)

Hi vikorr

Good to see you back. I thought you'd deserted us!

I'll have to be quick with my response. I'm on the run. More later, perhaps?

Hey, I'm not disputing that war is an extremely ugly, corrupt & cruel business! Who, me? I'm a pacifist!

I was trying to explain Terry Hicks's initial reaction to his son's capture by the US forces in Afghanistan (in response to the article that Builder posted) & his description of him as a "terrorist" at that time. And how his view & that of many Australians changed drastically over time.

I don't think (in 2001) many of us believed that the US would be quite so transparent (& inept!) in it's treatment of the "enemy combatants" who were captured then incarerated in Guantanamo. I suspect that when Terry Hicks made that comment on his son's capture in 2001 that he believed things wouldn't be quite so ruthless!
But that was before the Iraq invasion & all that followed. Early days.

I was attempting (& not succeeding, apparently! :wink: ) to say that perceptions (by Terry Hicks, the AGE newspaper, the Oz public) of the US "war against terror" changed drastically over time.

Does that make sense?

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't think (in 2001) many of us believed that the US would be quite so transparent (& inept!) in it's treatment of the "enemy combatants" who were captured then incarerated in Guantanamo. I suspect that when Terry Hicks made that comment on his son's capture in 2001 that he believed things wouldn't be quite so ruthless!
But that was before the Iraq invasion & all that followed. Early days

Yes, this makes perfect sense. I wasn't sure what your view on such things were.

As for Hick's fathers comments calling his son a terrorist...made perfect sense to me in the circumstances...as does his change in focus over time.

Btw...reason I don't frequent this particular thread too much. I have a problem with how the US has gone about the incarcaration of Hicks, but not the fact he should have been incarcarated (the spoke in that wheel being there doesn't seem to be much to hold him on...amazing!). There's little doubt in my mind that Hicks was training to take part in guerilla wars, and if you are familiar with Al Qaeda, they do supply material support (ie financial, organisational and expert support) and fighters to Islamic conflicts around the world. If you are familiar with Islam and how it divides the world into the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War, and how The Prophet commanded to convert by the sword unless militarily weaker, then convert by conversion until you were strong enough militarily to convert by the sword (these parts seem to be ignored by moderate muslims, but it is part of the fundamentals of the founding of the religion)...then you will understand why I think he should be incarcarated...but, according to law.

As the only problem I have is with the legal process, (to me) there seems little that needs to be said on the subject other than 'stick to your own rules or accept that you are a hypocrite'

I hope that makes sense?

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Builder wrote:
...Interesting how public perceptions change, and the media meanderings follow.

A bit of both, really, I think.

Who in Oz would have dreamed, back in 2001, that the Iraq invasion, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, Abu Ghrab (sp?) could possibly occur? We've all done a lot of serious re-evaluating since then, largely due to what we've learned through the media. A huge influence on the groundswell of support for justice for David Hicks (in Oz) is to do with Australians' growing cynicism & disenchantment toward US government under GWB & co. ... & our own government's unquestionable support of everything Bush under Howard. I think support of David Hicks is just part of the backlash.

At the moment I first saw the twin towers fall, I smelt a rat. I've been in construction long enough to know that those towers were felled by explosives.

Howard is now pulling back from his former rabid support for the shrubbites. It's telling that he no longer sprouts the same propaganda cries. He may have a few screws loose, but his antennae are still working.

Pity it's all too late, Johnny.

:wink:

0 Replies

I hope I never have to go to work in anything you built.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I hope I never have to go to work in anything you built.

You love your humpy too much to move to the city.

0 Replies

Detention challenge may delay full military trial
Penelope Debelle
March 18, 2007/the AGE

THE expected mid-year trial of Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks is under serious threat, with a decision expected shortly on whether the US Supreme Court will hear an expedited challenge to his detention.

The decision, possibly as soon as this week, would open the courts to Hicks and more than 40 other detainees to challenge both their detention and the validity of the second round of military commissions, which US President George Bush has tried to insulate from the courts.

In addition, Hicks' US legal team has lodged in a lower court an application for a stay of his trial in the event of the Supreme Court action proceeding. The application for an injunction in the District Court in Washington asks the courts to suspend Hicks' trial, due to start by July, until the legal challenge has been resolved, a process that could take up to two years.

While the Supreme Court could also announce it wants more information before deciding later in the year, the injunction could potentially still proceed. Hicks' father, Terry, yesterday defended the potential delay, even though it would prolong Hicks' time at Guantanamo Bay.

"It's probably the worst thing out for David because he has been there too long anyway, but if he is going to have to go through the system, let's try and get a fair and just one," Mr Hicks said. "The only way they can do it is to appeal to the courts to do something."

Despite the potential delay, the March 26 arraignment hearing is likely to go ahead and his family are bracing themselves to see Hicks for the first time in 2½ years.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/detention-challenge-may-delay-full-military-trial/2007/03/17/1174080223567.html

0 Replies

Last Update: Monday, March 19, 2007. 12:37pm (AEDT)

Hicks Federal Court case set for May 17

The (Australian) Federal Court will hear a case mounted by lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks against the Australian Government for five days.

The case will begin on May 17, well ahead of the expected start of a Hicks trial at Guantanamo Bay.

The Federal Court has agreed to hear the case as soon as possible.

Lawyers for Hicks argued the matter needed to be expedited, given his impending trial via a military commission.

Hicks is slated for a preliminary hearing at Guantanamo Bay next Monday, with the full trial expected to start around July.

The Australian legal action argues that the Howard Government has breached its duty of care to Hicks as an Australian citizen held abroad, by failing to ensure he is treated according to international standards such as the Geneva Conventions.

Commonwealth lawyers say there is no law that compels the Government to act on Hicks's behalf.

The Hicks lawyers hope that if they win the case it will put further pressure on the Australian Government to remove their client from Guantanamo Bay before he stands trial under the controversial US military commission system.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1875120.htm

0 Replies

Last Update: Monday, March 19, 2007. 5:46pm (AEDT)

Howard may be witness in Hicks's Federal Court case

The Australian lawyer for Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks says the Prime Minister John Howard may be called as a witness in a Federal Court case against the Government.

The legal action argues that the Government breached its duty of care to Hicks.

------

Hicks's lawyer, David McLeod, says most of the evidence should be agreed on without the need to call witnesses.

"It remains to be agreed between the parties," he said.

"If it can't be agreed, then there will be a request for certain witnesses and it may well include Mr Downer and Mr Ruddock and indeed Mr Howard as potential witnesses."

Mr McLeod says the date for the Federal Court hearing could be early enough to bring the Guantanamo detainee home before he faces a military trial in the United States. ........

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1876070.htm

0 Replies

Last Update: Monday, March 19, 2007. 1:11pm (AEDT)

Pentagon investigates Hicks sedation claim

The Pentagon says it is examining allegations that South Australian detainee David Hicks was forcibly sedated at Guantanamo Bay last month.

David Hicks's US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, says the 31-year-old was given medicine which sedated him for almost 24 hours.

Major Mori says it happened last month just as Hicks was told about the new charges he is facing. ... <cont>

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

David Hicks's US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, says the 31-year-old was given medicine which sedated him for almost 24 hours.

Major Mori says it happened last month just as Hicks was told about the new charges he is facing. ... <cont>

In the light of what we already know of his treatment within the walls of that hellhole called gitmo, sedation probably offered some relief to David.

If Howler is to hold onto any form of credibility in this case, Hicks will be home soon.

0 Replies

Builder wrote:

In the light of what we already know of his treatment within the walls of that hellhole called gitmo, sedation probably offered some relief to David.

Apparently he was sedated for something like 24 hours (with with drugs that he assumed were given to him for a stomach ailment he'd reported). Then he was told about those 3 serious serious charges (2 of which were later removed). According to accounts I've heard on ABC radio, it took days for the effects of whatever they gave him to wear off. Strange goings-on!

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Builder wrote:
In the light of what we already know of his treatment within the walls of that hellhole called gitmo, sedation probably offered some relief to David.

Apparently he was sedated for something like 24 hours (with with drugs that were given to him for a stomach ailment he'd reported). Then he was told about those 3 serious serious charges (2 of which were later removed). According to accounts I've heard on ABC radio, it took days for the effects of whatever they gave him to wear off. Strange goings-on!

You're right; they numbed him completely.

How would it feel to be a lab rat in a fledgeling torture camp?

Poor bastard. Sad

0 Replies

Bring David Hicks home (from Guantanamo) before Christmas!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know