Free David Hicks

[johnny]

Just go look for some harar and halal statements and see for yourself, i tire of people who constantly ask for links. Wheter or not this is a new part of their religeon i wouldn't know, but this subject has been more than once the center of discussion overhere, among other controversial statements in that so called holy book.

[machinehead]

Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)
Note that Al-Ghazali is one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Johnny, show me the trial transcripts that prove his guilt or give it a rest.

Yorick, do the same for the folks in charge of the prisoners at Gitmo or give THAT a rest. [/QUOTE]Er no... it's proven that they're holding Hicks without trial, want to use evidence gleaned from torture, and have held him as an "enemy combatant" to get around Geneva convention rules. That's all very much proven Micah. [/QUOTE]We're just going to have to agree to disagree on what is proven and what isn't in that case. I not going to change my mind on what I think has been proven and neither will you. So let's just leave it at that on the issue of what is fact, what is proven and what is conjecture.


As to the issue of Hicks trial: if you want him tried then allow the system to work as it is intended. (Apolgies for the length of this but I can't find one link to list all of this - so I had to cut and paste)

Here's the time line on the charges, trial dates and pertinent court rulings (TL first brought this up at the Oasis but I've tweaked it a bit - added some details):

Hicks was captured in late November, early December 2001 (news reports vary slightly) by Northern Alliance forces near Kunduz Afghanistan.

In April of 2002, he was turned over to US Military and was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where he has been incarcerated.

In June of 2002, Esam Fouad Hamdi, filed a habeas petition on behalf of his son, Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

In June 28, 2004, The supreme court ruled in favor of Hamdi. Eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold indefinitely a *U.S. citizen* without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review.

In August 2004 Hicks was charged by the US, with the charges to be heard before a military tribunal. In August 2004 pre-trial hearings commenced, followed by further hearings in November 2004. Hicks's trial was initially set for January 10, 2005.

In July 2004, Salim Ahmed Hamdan was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism. He subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the military commission convened to try him was illegal and lacked the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. (slightly out of sequence as the charges against Mahdan were filed before the charges against Hicks ...)

On November 9 2004, After reviewing Hamdan's habeas petition, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan's favor, finding that the United States could not hold a military commission unless it was first shown that the detainee was a prisoner of war.

On July 15, 2005, a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit three-judge panel of Arthur Raymond Randolph, John G. Roberts, Jr. and Stephen F. Williams, unanimously reversed the decision of the District Court.

On 7 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case.

On 29 June 2006, the Supreme Court announced its decision . The Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention.

The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Oct. 17, 2006) Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Act's stated purpose is to "facilitate bringing to justice terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants through full and fair trials by military commissions, and for other purposes. Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention.

So for the last two years the delays have ALL been about trying to resolve which jurisdiction Hick's case SHOULD be tried in, and not some attempt by the US government to hold Hicks indefinitely without trial. While you may not LIKE the fact that it took two years, that is the system that we work in. Sorry its not to your liking.

Additionally, Hicks defense team was simultaneously exploring an attempt to have Hicks declared a British citizen and obtain his release in that fashion.

In September 2005, it was realised that Hicks may be eligible for British citizenship through his mother, as a consequence of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

On 5 July 2006, Hicks was registered as a British citizen, albeit only for a few hours—Home Secretary John Reid personally intervened to revoke Hicks' new citizenship almost as soon as it had been granted, citing a provision of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 allowing the Home Secretary to "deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.

Some other interesting facts:

As of November 2005, 76 detainees had been transferred to the custody of other governments, including the United Kingdom, France, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Interestingly, even the American government has exempted its nationals from the process.

Regrettably for David Hicks, the Australian government has been exceptional in this respect. The Australian Prime Minister confirmed in July 2005 that he was ‘satisfied that the military commission process in relation to David Hicks…will provide a proper measure of justice’. It is perhaps unsurprising then (though somewhat curious) that one strategy employed by David Hicks’ lawyers has been to attempt to obtain British citizenship for Mr. Hicks.

Like I said before, this is a matter for your own government to deal with. They just haven't had any spine for it, until just this past Tuesday, November 28:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...n-of-hicks.php

[ 11-30-2006, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Micah Foehammer ]

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Let's try this approach: Seek Confessions.

How about these then (okay not a true confession)

In a letter to his father on 14 February 2000, he said ‘I am now officially a Taliban member’. Even the Charge Sheet prepared by the United States Department of Defense acknowledges Mr Hicks’ connection to the Taliban.

In November 2005, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation programme Four Corners broadcast for the first time a transcript of an interview with Hicks, conducted by the Australian Federal Police in 2002. In this interview Hicks acknowledged that he had trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, learning guerilla tactics and urban warfare.

Not my words, not the US government words, but words directly from David Hicks himself.

Since we're all interested in the truth. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by machinehead: Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745) Note that Al-Ghazali is one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time.

Brilliant!


The word for it in Arabic is Al-Taqiyya.

"Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a
time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from
physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be
"Dissimulation."

Shi'as justify the practice using the following verse from the Qur'an:

"[Yusufali 16:106]Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith, but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty."

And the following

"[Shakir 3:28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends (awliyaa) rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard (tattaqoo) yourselves against them, guarding carefully (tuqatan); and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming."


According to Shi'a interpretation of these verses, 3:28 is telling that believers should not take unbelievers as Walis rather than believers; those who do it will lose the wilayat (5:55) of God, that is unless they are using taqiya/protecting themselves, and doing so with caution.

On the other hand, most Sunnis generally assert that the Shi'a doctrine of taqiyya isn't in accordance with its acceptable use (to save one's life). They assert that Shi'as have been using taqiyya as a tool of deception, not to save their own lives, but to cause strife for the Sunni Calipha (which was resented by Shi'as) and to legitimize their own minority faith in the eyes of a majority by whom it is constantly surrounded.


Sorry for the triple post .....

[ 11-30-2006, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Micah Foehammer ]

[johnny]

We all seem to suffer from that in this thread. Ah well...better a triple poster than a detainee at Gitmo.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by johnny: We all seem to suffer from that in this thread. Ah well...better a triple poster than a detainee at Gitmo.

I just can't seem to land the quad though.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Let's try this approach: Seek Confessions.

How about these then (okay not a true confession)
*snip*[/QUOTE]Fine. Take 30 seconds and put those words in front of an IMPARTIAL JUDICIAL BODY and let them find him guilty. It's a PROCESS. Could those diary letters be forged by the government to frame him? Unlikely. But it is *his right* to confront the accusations, argue against them, and be held up before a judge/jury. What *you* think those mean or what *I* think those mean, mean nothing.

Any evidence you present here only argues more in favor of the fact that the case against him is ripe and should be presented to a jury. Delays are unseemly at this point.

Again, I reiterate that the problem here is that the Admin and Justice Dept are being obtuse about the whole military tribunal thing. Ain't no one getting a damned trial until they finally bludgeon through a military tribunal plan that the courts will sign off on...... And that could take a few more years.

[ 11-30-2006, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Let's try this approach: Seek Confessions.

How about these then (okay not a true confession)
*snip*[/QUOTE]Fine. Take 30 seconds and put those words in front of an IMPARTIAL JUDICIAL BODY and let them find him guilty. It's a PROCESS.



Again, I reiterate that the problem here is that the Admin and Justice Dept are being obtuse about the whole military tribunal thing. Ain't no one getting a damned trial until they finally bludgeon through a military tribunal plan that the courts will sign off on...... And that could take a few more years. [/QUOTE]I'm not disagreeing about the need for a trial - I never have. I also agree about it being a process. That was the point of my first point in the trilogy. And I do agree that Bush and Rummy have played just a tad bit fast and loose with the rules (Does THAT shock you?) But the court system is working it out. Isn't that what it's supposed to do? Isn't that WHY folks like Hamdan and Hamdi are able to bring their cases before SCOTUS?

I'm not trying to TRY his case here. I simply listed the charges against him in an attempt to clarify what crimes he has and has not been charged with. It's obvious that different people will interpret those charges in different ways. Fine.

Sent you a PM.

[ 11-30-2006, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Micah Foehammer ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Yorick said: Best thing said in this conversation yet. Ht the nail on the head. You so need to run for office. I'll vote for you!

Tsk, tsk, Yorick, careful before you speak. I'd also run on a platform to outlaw triple posting. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Well ya gotta take the good with the bad! [img]tongue.gif[/img]