1
   

Bring David Hicks home (from Guantanamo) before Christmas!

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2007 11:16 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
On what basis do you believe Mr. Hicks has been done an injustice? Do you believe the circumstances of his capture were fabricated? Do you believe the Military Tribunal did not hear evidence and render a just verdict?


Go back & read the background to this thread, georgeob1.

What you want to know is there.

I, for one, have no wish to spend a considerable amount of time going over information that has already been repeated time & again here because you are just catching up now.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2007 11:35 pm
georgeob1 wrote:


Oh really? In what capacity do you make this assertion? "Infinitely higher..." -- what the hell does that mean? Mere hyperbole I think.


The article I posted is American. Infinitely higher means aiming for something that is beyond reproach. Mere hyperbole is what you posted.

georgeob1 wrote:

I have the impression you are from Australia, not the U.S. True?


I'm as Aussie as the day is long. Where do you hail from?

georgeob1 wrote:

On what basis do you believe Mr. Hicks has been done an injustice?


The charge that he pleaded guilty to places him in the least dangerous category of any suspected "terrorist". He should have been released five years ago.

The injustice is that the US admin would not allow him the right to a legal council for five goddamned years. Put yourself in his shoes, George.

And don't forget that the Taliban and Al Quaeda were being funded by the USA through Pakistan's ISI right up to and shortly after, the illegal invasion of Afghanistan. That would make Hicks an ally of the US government, at the time he joined the Taliban.

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you believe the circumstances of his capture were fabricated?


No. Do you believe that the circumstances surrounding the illegal invasion of Iraq were fabricated?

georgeob1 wrote:
you believe the Military Tribunal did not hear evidence and render a just verdict?


It was what is commonly called a "plea-bargain", George. So that's another "no" from me.

georgeob1 wrote:

I hesitated to interrupt this two or three way mutually supportive conversation, but I was getting concerned about all the hyperventillation - someone might faint.


When you manage to extract your cranium from your anus, we can all breathe a sigh of relief, George. :wink:
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2007 11:43 pm
Standard terms in any plea bargain. Nothing unusual here.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2007 11:49 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Standard terms in any plea bargain. Nothing unusual here.


You are actually endorsing a blatantly one-sided power situation?
Does the truth of the situation count for anything?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2007 11:52 pm
When playing poker, if I draw four aces, I generally play them.

Please enlighten me. What is the truth of the situation with respect to Mr Hicks?
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 12:04 am
georgeob1 wrote:


Please enlighten me. What is the truth of the situation with respect to Mr Hicks?


What would you like to know about the case? This thread will tell you most of it, if you are in any way interested. Try starting from page one, Obiwan. :wink:

http://nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoons/new/2003-10-25%20I%20love%20Free%20Speech%20Bush%20Hicks%20Guantanamo%20550wb.JPG
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 12:10 am
I see nothing at all on this thread about the circumstances of Hicks' capture, what he was really doing there, and what were the alternative reasons for his associations with the group with which he was fighting. Just a lot of heavy breathing and mutual reinforcement among self-righteously indignant people who appear to take it as a given that the CIA must have snatched him from his backyard barbecue.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 12:11 am
georgeob1 wrote:
When playing poker, if I draw four aces, I generally play them.

Please enlighten me. What is the truth of the situation with respect to Mr Hicks?


Please enlighten us, georgeob1, on precisely what your gripe is.

If you want us to take your arguments seriously, then tell us which bit of the David Hicks case you find so objectionable.

Come on, this is a rather lazy, sloppy way of putting some sort of counter position!

Exactly what is your argument? Confused
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 12:16 am
In fact I have no gripes about this case. None at all. Hicks was captured by our armed forces fighting on the side of our enemy, a terrorist organization which had repeatedly and seriously struck at our country. We captured him and have held him throughout the conflict to date, and have accepted his offer of a plea bargain so he could get an early release.

Both justice and mercy have been well served.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 12:19 am
georgeob1 wrote:
I see nothing at all on this thread about the circumstances of Hicks' capture, what he was really doing there, and what were the alternative reasons for his associations with the group with which he was fighting. Just a lot of heavy breathing and mutual reinforcement among self-righteously indignant people who appear to take it as a given that the CIA must have snatched him from his backyard barbecue.


Wrong.

What you see is pretty much how the Australian mainstream press has reported David Hicks's situation.
With comments on developments from the participants of this thread.

Could it be that you're the one whose doing the heavy breathing? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 12:27 am
georgeob1 wrote:
In fact I have no gripes about this case. None at all.


So what are you curious about? What are you doing here, Obiwan?

georgeob1 wrote:
Hicks was captured by our armed forces fighting on the side of our enemy, a terrorist organization which had repeatedly and seriously struck at our country.


David gave himself up. Al Quaeda was set up and funded by your CIA. When Hicks signed up, your country was funding his training. No evidence available supports your claim that they attacked your country.

georgeob1 wrote:
We captured him and have held him throughout the conflict to date, and have accepted his offer of a plea bargain so he could get an early release.


He surrendered. Remember that. If you don't know the difference between surrendering and being captured, try wikipedia. His trial after almost six years was the result of a deal done between our corrupt admin, and your corrupt admin. His plea-bargain was the result of his realisation that he was dealing with the most corrupt US admin in the history of your nation.

georgeob1 wrote:
Both justice and mercy have been well served.


You still don't quite get what is really happening here, do you Obiwan?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 12:32 am
georgeob1 wrote:
In fact I have no gripes about this case. None at all. Hicks was captured by our armed forces fighting on the side of our enemy, a terrorist organization which had repeatedly and seriously struck at our country. We captured him and have held him throughout the conflict to date, and have accepted his offer of a plea bargain so he could get an early release.

Both justice and mercy have been well served.


George1, he was not exactly "fighting" when he was captured.

His "crime" is more about what he might have done, rather than anything he did do in Afghanistan.

I'm not answering any more of your posts until you educate yourself on the issues of this case.

What this has to do with "justice & mercy" completely beats me.
You live in quite a strange space, George.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 01:02 am
Georgeob1
Hicks was convicted of a crime that did not exist prior to his capture. As I see it he gave himself up, was improsoned for 5 years in maximum security and convicted of a crime he did not committ or reasonably did not know existed. The 5 years confinement does not contribute as time served.

Hicks was tried and convicted under US law for committing a crime (that did not exist) in a country where US laws are not usually recognised. Hicks was convicted of assisting residents of that country to defend themselves against an invader.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 01:54 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Standard terms in any plea bargain. Nothing unusual here.


So...five years solitary confinement, not even charged, under circumstances of captivity considered appalling by any civilised being is standard practice for you?


You have said enough.



The only excuse for your nonsense is blind prejudice, but even that you ought to be capable of fighhting.


You are a perfect exampe of the people I discussed in a previous post...all for justice and rights, until someone annoys them, then, off wioth the trammels of pretend civilisation.


Your views are almost as barbaric as those of the terrrorists you affect to despise, until their tactics are ones you can fool yourself into believing are ok, when done by America.


Pah.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 01:59 am
dadpad wrote:
Georgeob1
Hicks was convicted of a crime that did not exist prior to his capture. As I see it he gave himself up, was improsoned for 5 years in maximum security and convicted of a crime he did not committ or reasonably did not know existed. The 5 years confinement does not contribute as time served.

Hicks was tried and convicted under US law for committing a crime (that did not exist) in a country where US laws are not usually recognised. Hicks was convicted of assisting residents of that country to defend themselves against an invader.


That's one of the reasons that Howard, unlike leaders of other US arse lickers on this, like the UK, gave for allowing this **** to go down, until the second it became an electoral liability....ie that Hicks couldn't be tried under Oz law because there was no law existing at the time that made his alleged acts illegal.

Actually, accoding to a recent book on this, Howard was no arse licker on this, but was busy geeing the US up to invade!
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 02:09 am
Dlowan, I think the major issue is, that Hicks was, in fact a US ally. Al Queada was created and funded by the US. It's documented fact.

That is why his case was not properly investigated, and that is why his plea-bargain was made, and accepted.

He has every right to sue the US gov for wrongful imprisonment, and compensation for criminal torture.

We haven't heard the last of this. Not by a long shot.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 03:01 am
I'm not persuaded. The U.S. did not "create" al quaeda. On the contrary, it was bittterly opposed to the U,S, from its inception. Hicks was an armed member of an extra-national terrorist organization that atttacked this country repeatedly. The rest is just sophistry.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 03:08 am
georgeob1 wrote:
I'm not persuaded. The U.S. did not "create" al quaeda. On the contrary, it was bittterly opposed to the U,S, from its inception. Hicks was an armed member of an extra-national terrorist organization that atttacked this country repeatedly. The rest is just sophistry.



http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-131003234.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a012498partlyculpable

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

There's many more sites, George.

Now cite how and when they attacked your country "repeatedly", please. :wink:
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 03:14 am
Builder wrote:
Dlowan, I think the major issue is, that Hicks was, in fact a US ally. Al Queada was created and funded by the US. It's documented fact.

That is why his case was not properly investigated, and that is why his plea-bargain was made, and accepted.

He has every right to sue the US gov for wrongful imprisonment, and compensation for criminal torture.

We haven't heard the last of this. Not by a long shot.




No, the plea bargain has destroyed those "rights", after the US's careful construction of a place outside any law failed to be proof against its own laws.

Al Quaeda was certainly funded by the US for a time, as was Saddam, at one of those times (there are many more) when the US acted on its belief that the use of terror is only wrong when others use it, and ok when it serves US interests, but I don't know that the US STARTED Al Quaeda?
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 03:21 am
dlowan wrote:




No, the plea bargain has destroyed those "rights", after the US's careful construction of a place outside any law failed to be proof against its own laws.


Yeah, I guess he'd have to try a civil case for compensation then.

dlowan wrote:
Al Quaeda was certainly funded by the US for a time, as was Saddam, at one of those times (there are many more) when the US acted on its belief that the use of terror is only wrong when others use it, and ok when it serves US interests, but I don't know that the US STARTED Al Quaeda?


It's not pretty, but this is one of the few links left on that issue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,209260,00.html
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 0.07 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 05:41:32