1
   

Bring David Hicks home (from Guantanamo) before Christmas!

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 02:16 pm
I agree that Howard (Oz PM) & Downer (federal Minister for Foreign Affairs) have both been extraordinarily slack over this, Builder. But Ruddock is Attorney General & as such should be held equally accountable, in my book.)







(Just curious, Builder. You're an Australian living in Persia?
Welcome to A2K, anyway. Sorry I neglected to welcome you earlier.)
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 02:21 pm
From today's morning paper.:

At least six months before Hicks is given a hearing
Penelope Debelle
January 7, 2007/Sunday AGE


GUANTANAMO Bay detainee David Hicks will not have his guilt or innocence examined by a tribunal for at least another six months under the first proposed timetable laid out by the United States Office of Military Commissions.

Tribunal chief prosecutor Colonel Moe Davis said pending court challenges could again derail trials and the timetable was changeable.

"I don't see us getting to trial on the merits until some time this (northern hemisphere) summer," he said.

The Office of Military Commissions confirmed during the week that Hicks, 31, held at Guantanamo Bay without trial for five years, was likely to be among the first group charged.

However Hicks' US defence lawyer, Major Michael Mori, attacked the integrity of the proposed new military commissions after the Federal Government was assured Hicks would be charged.

Major Mori said he was troubled that the Government was being told Hicks would be charged, when the person who should decide that was yet to be appointed.


Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said his US counterpart, Alberto Gonzales, had told him there was enough evidence to charge Hicks and he would be among the first Guantanamo detainees to be charged.

Major Mori said the assurances showed "the political fix was in" and that Hicks' case would not be independently evaluated and reviewed.

Mr Ruddock replied it was "not inappropriate to check on the progress of the matter and to receive advice as to the likely timetable for resolving issues relating to Mr Hicks".

He said a trial timetable could be influenced by factors including detainees exercising their rights to challenge the process. .... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/months-before-hicks-hearing/2007/01/06/1167777325019.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 02:42 pm
Hmmmm...

I'm with Major Mori (Hicks' appointed US military lawyer). (US readers should know that he's been brilliant in performing his duties as Hicks' lawyer. Some Australians have suggested he should ne named Australian of the Year!)

It does look like a speedy political fix to quieten growing anger & dissent in Australia.

"Tribunal chief prosecutor Colonel Moe Davis said pending court challenges could again derail trials and the timetable was changeable."

Well of course! That's what they & the Australian federal government are counting on! Then they can blame future delays on Hicks' legal challenges, as has been done in the past! Catch 22.

"Major Mori said he was troubled that the Government was being told Hicks would be charged, when the person who should decide that was yet to be appointed."

More than troubling, it's outrageous. It smacks of the Oz & US government collusion to take the heat off the Australian government. Remember, this is an election year in Oz. What do you think the chances are that Hicks will be tried before the federal election? Rolling Eyes

To me, this is just more stalling. Hicks looks like serving at least five and a half years before facing the courts. That's the issue here. That he should have spent 5 years already in Guantanamo Bay, in appalling conditions, without a trial. That's by far a more serious crime than any he might be "guilty" of by the new commission. This has more to do with Australian & US politics than anything else!
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 02:54 pm
Philip Ruddock, the Australian federal Attorney general, attempts to answer the critics in a lengthy article in the Sunday AGE. And explain why he is "deeply unhappy" at the progress that's been made so far. This is the most I've heard from him about this issue, in 5 years!:

Why he can't return
Philip Ruddock
January 7, 2007/Sunday AGE


http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/06/JTHICKS_narrowweb__300x288,0.jpg

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. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/why-he-cant-return/2007/01/06/1167777323596.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Jan, 2007 03:15 pm
These are the charges against David Hicks, as outlined by the previous US military commission. For these he has detained at Guantanamo Bay for over 5 years, still counting ..... Surely 5 years in that hell hole is more than sufficient to pay for these "crimes"?:

The charges

Hicks was charged by a U.S. military commission, on August 26, 2004; however, that commission was subsequently abolished and the charges thus voided when on June 29, 2006, in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the United States Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions were illegal under United States law and the Geneva Conventions.

The indictment prepared for the previously scheduled trial had alleged that Hicks had trained and conspired in various ways, and was guilty of "aiding the enemy" while an "unprivileged belligerent". No specific acts of violence were alleged. He was detained in December 2001.

In the voided indictment of Hicks, the United States government had alleged:

that in November 1999 Hicks travelled to Pakistan, where he joined the paramilitary Islamist group, Lashkar-e-Toiba (Army of the Faithful).
that Hicks trained for two months at a Lashkar-e-Toiba camp in Pakistan, where he received weapons training, and that during 2000 he served with a Lashkar-e-Toiba group near the Pakistan-Kashmir.

that in January 2001 Hicks travelled to Afghanistan, then under the control of the Taliban regime, where he presented a letter of introduction from Lashkar-e-Toiba to Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda member, and was given the alias "Mohammed Dawood".

that he was sent to al-Qaeda's al-Farouq training camp outside Kandahar, where he trained for eight weeks, receiving further weapons training as well as training with land mines and explosives.

that he did a further seven-week course at al-Farouq, during which he studied marksmanship, ambush, camouflage and intelligence techniques.
that at Osama bin Laden's request, Hicks translated some al-Qaeda training materials from Arabic into English.

that in June 2001, on the instructions of Mohammed Atef, an al-Qaeda military commander, Hicks went to another training camp at Tarnak Farm, where he studied "urban tactics," including the use of assault and sniper rifles, rappelling, kidnapping and assassination techniques.

that in August Hicks went to Kabul, where he studied information collection and intelligence, as well as Islamic theology including the doctrines of jihad and martyrdom as understood through al-Qaeda's fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

that in September 2001 Hicks travelled to Pakistan and was there at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, which he saw on television.

that he returned to Afghanistan in anticipation of the attack by the United States and its allies on the Taliban regime, which was sheltering Osama bin Laden.

that on returning to Kabul, Hicks was assigned by Mohammed Atef to the defence of Kandahar, and that he joined a group of mixed al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters at Kandahar airport, and that at the end of October, however, Hicks and his party travelled north to join in the fighting against the forces of the U.S. and its allies.

that after arriving in Konduz on 9 November 2001, he joined a group which included John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban"). This group was engaged in combat against Coalition forces, and during this fighting he was captured by Coalition forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 07:26 am
msolga wrote:
I agree that Howard (Oz PM) & Downer (federal Minister for Foreign Affairs) have both been extraordinarily slack over this, Builder. But Ruddock is Attorney General & as such should be held equally accountable, in my book.)







(Just curious, Builder. You're an Australian living in Persia?
Welcome to A2K, anyway. Sorry I neglected to welcome you earlier.)


I'm actually from an emergent island called Krakatoa, but it's still an active volcano, so we can't register the dirt as a nation yet.

I hear where you are coming from with the Ruddock issue, and I concur.

He's a shining light of guarded centrism in a sea of rightards. I like him.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 12:14 pm
So Hicks is an Australian citizen, then applies for British citizenship. He gets denied,
("On March 17, 2006, the Home Office alleged during its appeal case that Hicks had admitted in 2003 to the Security Service (British intelligence agency MI5) that he had undergone extensive terrorist training in Kashmir and Afghanistan.")
I have no sympathy for him.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 01:58 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
So Hicks is an Australian citizen, then applies for British citizenship. He gets denied,
("On March 17, 2006, the Home Office alleged during its appeal case that Hicks had admitted in 2003 to the Security Service (British intelligence agency MI5) that he had undergone extensive terrorist training in Kashmir and Afghanistan.")
I have no sympathy for him.


So, you're another of these who is happy to have what may be untrue allegations imprison someone in solitary confinement in an illegal hell foerver with no trial worthy of the name and without access to what is alleged against them?


I have no sympathy for you.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 02:13 pm
I didn't ask for any.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 02:34 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
I didn't ask for any.


BTW
I have been in a similiar situation and did not expect sympathy from anyone. I used my own resources to be removed from the situation where I did nothing wrong. I would explain more, but it is not worth the risk of it happening again.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 02:46 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
So Hicks is an Australian citizen, then applies for British citizenship. He gets denied,
("On March 17, 2006, the Home Office alleged during its appeal case that Hicks had admitted in 2003 to the Security Service (British intelligence agency MI5) that he had undergone extensive terrorist training in Kashmir and Afghanistan.")
I have no sympathy for him.


This might come as a surprise to you, but the people training Hicks were trained and funded by the CIA.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Hidden_Face_of_Terrorism.htm

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_saudi.html

http://www.oilempire.us/qaeda.html
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 02:59 pm
I wish Hicks a speedy release

just why I wish this I have no idea
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 03:22 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
I wish Hicks a speedy release

just why I wish this I have no idea


Because he's been held for years without trial, knowedge of exactly what he is accused of, years of it in soitary confinement, is deeply mentally affected by the cruelty of his confinement, and will never, if the US and Oz governments have their way, face a tribunal that even US army legal peope think remotely fair, the operating procedures of which were held to be illegal by the US Supreme Court and human rights people, and is a citizen of a country which is ruled by a government which, unlike the rest of the western world, has been content to allow such outrageous treatment of one of its citizens?

I suspect he's an idiot. Even idiots deserve fair trial.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 03:29 pm
dlowan wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
I wish Hicks a speedy release

just why I wish this I have no idea


Because he's been held for years without trial, knowedge of exactly what he is accused of, years of it in soitary confinement, is deeply mentally affected by the cruelty of his confinement, and will never, if the US and Oz governments have their way, face a tribunal that even US army legal peope think remotely fair, the operating procedures of which were held to be illegal by the US Supreme Court and human rights people, and is a citizen of a country which is ruled by a government which, unlike the rest of the western world, has been content to allow such outrageous treatment of one of its citizens?

I suspect he's an idiot. Even idiots deserve fair trial.
I cant disagree. But is he a nasty islamic terrorist?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 03:34 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
I wish Hicks a speedy release

just why I wish this I have no idea


Because he's been held for years without trial, knowedge of exactly what he is accused of, years of it in soitary confinement, is deeply mentally affected by the cruelty of his confinement, and will never, if the US and Oz governments have their way, face a tribunal that even US army legal peope think remotely fair, the operating procedures of which were held to be illegal by the US Supreme Court and human rights people, and is a citizen of a country which is ruled by a government which, unlike the rest of the western world, has been content to allow such outrageous treatment of one of its citizens?

I suspect he's an idiot. Even idiots deserve fair trial.
I cant disagree. But is he a nasty islamic terrorist?


Who the **** knows?


I think (nobody, even his US army lawyer, is allowed to know all the allegations) it is alleged that he would have liked to be at one stage, and was caught on his way to fight the forces that invaded Afghanistan. Or on his way home.


That is kind of the decision that a fair tribunal might be in a position to make, don't you think?

One problem is that he broke no Australian law that existed at the time.


It is likely that he would go "free" if repatriated, although there are laws to cover what he is alleged to have done now. However, the anti terror laws mean the Oz government would be able to impose all sorts of restrictions on him, and that, plus what I suspect will be lasting mental disability from the cruelty of his treatment, is likely to render him bloody harmless.

I don't think he is accused of actually hurting anyone, so one might imagine that he has served a reasonable sentence, anyway, for training to hurt people.

Personally, if the tribunals in Guantanamo were as the US military lawyers would want them to be, as opposed to the travesty that Bushco have set in place, I would have no problem with his being tried by the Yanks...or would have had no problem if his trial had not been so indefensibly delayed and his treatment been so terrible.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 03:46 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
tryingtohelp wrote:
I didn't ask for any.


BTW
I have been in a similiar situation and did not expect sympathy from anyone. I used my own resources to be removed from the situation where I did nothing wrong. I would explain more, but it is not worth the risk of it happening again.


Then one might be forgiven for being surprised that the experience led you to have neither compassion nor rationally based distaste for such a thing being perpetrated upon others.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 04:31 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
But is he a nasty islamic terrorist?


Steve, I suspect he was actually a misguided "adventurer". No one is making him out to be a hero. I'm certainly not. He's an Australian citizen whose civil rights have been allowed to severely abused by our government's unquestioning support of Bush's misguided "war on terror". In my opinion he is a political prisoner.
Nothing David Hicks has done (go back & read the US allegations) warrants the outrageous treatment he has already received, say nothing being used in the future for some sort of political show trial at the hands of the US.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 04:38 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
tryingtohelp wrote:
I didn't ask for any.


BTW
I have been in a similar situation and did not expect sympathy from anyone. I used my own resources to be removed from the situation where I did nothing wrong. I would explain more, but it is not worth the risk of it happening again.


I doubt that you've been in anything like a "similar situation" to 5 years in Guantanomo Bay & abandoned by your own government to boot. You don't know what you're talking about.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 07:29 pm
msolga wrote:
tryingtohelp wrote:
tryingtohelp wrote:
I didn't ask for any.


BTW
I have been in a similar situation and did not expect sympathy from anyone. I used my own resources to be removed from the situation where I did nothing wrong. I would explain more, but it is not worth the risk of it happening again.


I doubt that you've been in anything like a "similar situation" to 5 years in Guantanomo Bay & abandoned by your own government to boot. You don't know what you're talking about.


I wonder what "resources" she thinks Hicks ought to be using?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2007 11:10 pm
God knows, Deb. Some of Australia's most influential, legal, ethical, political, religious & military leaders have spoken out about the shocking injustice of Hicks' situation & have appealed to our government to do something about it urgently. But to no avail. He's still there (in solitary confinement still, the last we've heard) & there's no clear end in sight. He clearly has no "resources" left to speak of. He's being destroyed by what he's had to endure. Our government is simply not open to any deviation from the official US line. That's all it boils down to. Too bad if most of the civilized world is now well & truly turned off & revolted by US "war on terror", too bad if people all over the world are appalled by the the shocking inhumanity & injustice of Guantanoma Bay. Our government is locked into staying the course with Bush, right or wrong. It is like they're in some sort of weird time warp. Too bad that David Hicks is the unfortunate pawn in this distressing situation. Nothing he has done warrants the 5 years of sheer hell he's been through.
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 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 11:32:40