Free David Hicks

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Griefmaker: Maybe he should just make everyone's life easier by opening a vein... [img]smile.gif[/img]

That's not even cloes to funny Mr. Peon.

[wellard]

Originally posted by Arvon: I don't know if this has already been said (I'm not going through 5 pages of thread to find out), but doesn't this really belong on the current events forum?

And save general discussion for worn out joke threads instead hmmmm ....
Well if you took the trouble to read just the first post you would understand why.

The point of the thread was to raise public awareness of someone thrown in jail and tortured for five years with no trial.

To those who have taken the time to read and think about this Australians predicament I wish to offer my thanks regardless of what conclusion you have come too. Those who do not agree with me or the other supporters on the board have put many good arguments foreword. Posts by Micah, Johnny, RTB, machinehead and others have all raised at some time worthwhile points. Others of course just want the bad news to go away either through gross ignorance or plain old-fashioned flame bait. While this thread may be locked down or fade away at least a few more candles have been lit to show that David has not been forgotten, after all THAT was the purpose of the thread

[ 11-26-2006, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[johnny]

People that breach the Geneva convention are guilty of war crimes, so whether they have it on their minds or not, they will pay the piper eventually as so many ex-nazis found out. There is talk of Germany wanting to bring Rumsfeld to trial for example.

Seriously dude, the odds of me ever to live in a luxurious villa on Kashyyk, with a handfull of Wookie servants who constantly bring me cold beer, are better than Germany ever to bring Rumsfeld to trial.

[machinehead]

Originally posted by T-D-C: Ok I an see that this thread is starting to heat up a bit. Everybody remember that we need to think before we post. Any flaming or flame baiting will be dealt with. Don't make me bring Larry in here [img]smile.gif[/img]

NOOOOO, anything but that!!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Seriously though I don't see where letting a topic get a LITTLE heated is a bad thing as long as it stays under control and there are no personal attacks.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by robertthebard: He was captured on a battle field, armed, and fighting against coalition forces.

Prove it. [/QUOTE]So you are saying Hicks is NOT a POW?

Too bad Hugh, you might have just cooked your own guys goose! Here's why:

If you are arguing NO, then be aware that he would likely be classified as one of the following: Guerilla, terrorist and franc-tireurs (part of an irregular military unit). Member of those groups are NOT protected by the terms of the Geneva conventions.

The Hague Convention No. IV from 1907, ruled that ... partisan fighters ..... could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of said convention and THEREFORE are not entitled to prisoner of war status. It went on to say that:

"We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans."

Therefore the terms AND PROTECTIONS of the Geneva convention would NOT apply to Hicks if he were NOT classified as a POW, and he COULD be summarily executed.

(Just so we're clear, I am NOT arguing that. Just thought it might be important for you realize the flip side of the argument.)

As for his detainment, the Geneva convention says only this:

Article 21
The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.

Article 118
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.

Nothing more, nothing less.

So LEGALLY, there is NOTHING in the Geneva Convention that REQUIRES the detaining country to grant the POW a swift and speedy trial, because as a POW he has comitted no crime and he doesn't NEED to be tried. He will be repatriated WITHOUT a trial (unless war crime charges are brought against him) at the cessation of hostilities. Tough news, but maybe Mr Hicks should have chosen his friends more carefully? So, while you can gripe and complain about Mr Hicks being held for what appears to be an indefinite period - there is NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT! And the US is NOT guilty of "war crimes" for holding him as a POW for what appears to be an indeterminate period. Soldiers on BOTH sides in WW2 were held for four years of longer in some cases. Detention does NOT, in and of itself, constitute a "war crime".

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_...n_of_Captivity (look for article 109 and start from there)

In honesty, I had originally argued that his case should be brought to a speedy resolution for two reasons, (1) because I would wish to be afforded the same rights and privilege were I being held "in limbo", and (2) because being held for trial for four+ years seems totally excessive.

BUT, these are more than just criminal charges being levied against Mr Hicks. He's not being held for some charge of grand larceny, but for being a terrorist supporter at the minimum. While YOU may have trouble believing the charges, they appear to be detailed, quite specific, and make Mr Hicks appear to be less than the lily-white innocent I believe you think he is.

And yet, I will STILL support a call for a quick resolution of his case, but under no circumstance will I support a call for his immediate release. He is entitled ONLY to his day in court.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by Arvon: I don't know if this has already been said (I'm not going through 5 pages of thread to find out), but doesn't this really belong on the current events forum?

The point of the thread was to raise public awareness of someone thrown in jail and tortured for five years with no trial.

[/QUOTE]I've heard allegations from Hicks himself that he was tortured, and some general complaints by the human rights commission about the details of prisoner confinement, but do you have any specific details?

[Micah Foehammer]

[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:

Originally posted by robertthebard: [qb] If he's a prisoner of war, America has trampled all over the Geneva convention.

Why? Because he hasn't been released? Because he hasn't had a trial?

Being a POW isn't, in and of itself, a crime. The Geneva Conventions only provide that Mr Hicks be accorded due process to refute charges resulting DIRECTLY from his detainment (i.e. DURING his incarceration) or for subseuent charges of war crimes. That is it! There is NOTHING in the geneva conventions that I can find that affords Mr Hicks the right to refute his status! NOTHING! ZIP! NADA!

And as for Mr Hicks release, the conventions provide ONLY that, as a POW, he is entitled to be repatriated AT THE CESSATION of hostilities! Nothing More!

So please explain exactly how the USA has trampled all over the Geneva Conventions?

Oh and just as a minor point of trivia, it is not the Geneva Convention, but the Geneva ConventionS. There are FOUR conventions, not one.

You know what? Just forget it ........ There isn't any point to providing some facts to some of the BS that's being tossed around here.

Bottom line is Mr Hicks chose some bad friends to play with. Unfortunately, some times in life, no matter how much we may regret the choices we make occasionally we DO have to pay for them.

And yeah, that was a triple post. [img]smile.gif[/img] I was going for the quad, but slipped and ended up with a triple Sochow.

[ 11-26-2006, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Micah Foehammer ]

[robertthebard]

I'm kinda curious about the torture angle too. If the definition is just that he has been held for 5 years or so w/out a trial, then there is no basis for it. I can tell you from personal experience, 90% of people in prison are innocent, just ask them. What he says about his treatment should be taken with a grain of salt. If there was something concrete about torture, then I'd be willing to listen, maybe even dig into it, not that there would be much to find.
So far as I can see, he made his bed, and now must lie in it, and it's not sitting well with him.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by robertthebard: He was captured on a battle field, armed, and fighting against coalition forces.

Prove it. [/QUOTE]So you are saying Hicks is NOT a POW? [/QUOTE]No. Doesn't matter what I say. The US government has said he's not a POW.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Originally posted by robertthebard: [qb] If he's a prisoner of war, America has trampled all over the Geneva convention. Why? Because he hasn't been released? Because he hasn't had a trial?

Because along with the other "enemy combatants" he's been tortured and given treatment it's been legally agreed P.O.W.s are not to receive.