Free David Hicks

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: And along those same lines, weren't you just arguing that David Hicks deserves his day in court? Innocent before proven guilty? WHY don't you grant the US the same privlege before condemning them out of hand for ALLLEGED atrocities?

Because the US is already proven guilty of war crimes at Abu Ghraib, and they haven't charged or convicted Hicks with anything.

And because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Until Hicks is given a fair trial, I'll consider the US govt. guilty in the same way they're considering him guilty. Fair enough?

Gunatanamo Bay is just another Abu Ghraib. It'll all come out at some point, just like it did there. There's no smoke without a fire. Just remember that.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: And along those same lines, weren't you just arguing that David Hicks deserves his day in court? Innocent before proven guilty? WHY don't you grant the US the same privlege before condemning them out of hand for ALLLEGED atrocities?

Because the US is already proven guilty of war crimes at Abu Ghraib, and they haven't charged or convicted Hicks with anything.

And because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Until Hicks is given a fair trial, I'll consider the US govt. guilty in the same way they're considering him guilty. Fair enough?

Gunatanamo Bay is just another Abu Ghraib. It'll all come out at some point, just like it did there. There's no smoke without a fire. Just remember that. [/QUOTE]No not fair enough, because Abu Ghraib was Abu Ghraib. That doesn't mean that the same things happened at GITMO that happened there. It doesnt mean that it didn't - but it doesn't mean that it did either. You are blindly assuming guilt with none proven! Where there's smoke there is fire is a lame lame counter argument' You have to administer justice equally. Yet you blindly ASSUME the US is guilty, without proof; while expecting us to blindly accept David Hicks innocence. Sorry but if that is how you expect to convince people to support this issue, then you have lost before you started.

Wellard eloquently argued that Hicks detention of four years was excessive. His argument, well made, called for equal treatment and proper justice. That arguement I could and DID support. But I won't accept it, or argue it ANY further with someone who isn't willing to convey the same rights and privleges to the very people that he demands them of. Sorry but you lost my support.

Hicks WAS found in a war zone, at Kunduz, in a group of Taliban forces with Al-Qaeda support which were fighting against Coalition troops. THAT alone is sufficient for him to be held either as a POW or as a guerilla. You might not want to believe those facts, BUT THEY ARE FACTS!

How do you think he ended up at GiTMO? Walked up to some Northern Alliance soldier, and said "Hi! My name's David Hicks. I fought with the Taliban and supported AL-Qaeda. Would you please take me to the nearest airport so I can go home? Looks like I backed the wrong horse." Use some common sense.

Yorick, the US HAS charged Hicks! If you had read the links I posted, you would have read the charges. You don't have to believe them - that's your perogative. But don't claim that he hasn't been charged. You seriously need to read the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague conventions to understand just what the rights and protections afforded POW and NON-POW's are.

I've had my say, you can debate this issue with someone else. I'm sure that johnny and RTB will be willing to pick up the gauntlet for me.

[machinehead]

At Abu Ghraib charges were brought and trials held for the people who did the torturing and guess what? People went to jail. It could be argued that they did not go high enough up the chain of command, but it happened. If Mr. Hicks has been tortured then shame on us and one day the guilty if any should be punished. I'll make this point one last time and then I'm done - he should be treated as a POW because he was captured bearing arms on the battlefield which means he should be held in prison for the duration of the conflict. If the war goes on for 30 years or more then it's tough shit for him! He doesn't deserve any sympathy and most certainly should not get a walk.

[robertthebard]

Yeah. Those are some serious charges he's brought. At the maximum security prison I was in for a bit, they had a goon squad, and they beat up inmates too. The ones that threw cups of piss on the guards, or worse. The one's that lit their mattresses on fire, etc. I've heard the stories about how the goon squad rushed them for no reason, even though I was two cells down, and knew exactly what happened. Us against them. That's the mentallity in any prison setting, and any excuse can be used to justify saying that Them is wrong.
Fact: If you don't want to deal with those types of situations, stay out of things that will put you in them. A native born Australian, captured with Taliban/Al Queada forces, in Afghanistan. Who's to blame for that?

[TheCrimsomBlade]

As far as I can see he very lucky he is even
alive after the cowardly attacks made on the
United States by his Taliban Al Queada friends.

Too Bad we bother with any Prisoners of War,
they should just be shot on the spot then there
wouldn't be any chance of torture.

The war will soon be over and all those prisoners can be shot for the war crimes against the U.S.A.
as well as the other 41 countries they have killed civilians and poisened in the past 5 years.

If the U.S.A had just stayed out of the 2nd world
we wouldn't have to listen the rest of the world
wineing about their unlawful citizens in battle
zones they don't belong in because they wouldn't
ever had the chance to get there. That is unless the rest of the NAZI army was there too.
But Oh wait we destroyed the german Army in 1946
and saved the world from the NAZI's and now these
same people we helped free are on the side of
another group of people that want every non arab
DEAD.
Maybe all you free David the world Killer should
come to New York and and visit the twin towers.
Oh Damn they aren't there any more because his friends destroyed them along with 3000 other people including 104 other Austrailians. Yeah save dave for a Gallow Hanging.

[Sever]

Like i said early on in the thread, a brick wall.

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by 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. .

Wow Robert. A new level.

Mind telling me what he's innocent of?

HE HASN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME.

and

ACCORDING TO YOUR GOVERNMENT HE'S NOT A PRISONER OF WAR.

Your government cannot under it's own rules, take a man and lock him up for no reason, without charging him with a crime and trying him before a court. Guantanamo Bay is an affront to the ideals America is attempting to spread through the world. [/QUOTE]Ok, I'm confused. A new level of what? Wanting to know how he defined torture? Have you ever served an extended time in a correctional facility of any kind? I'm not talking about a night in the drunk tank either. I'm talking a stay of several years. I have. I have seen the stuff that sparks riots, and the things that inmates will try to pass off as torture. You'll have to excuse me if I tend to draw on my own life experiences when confronted with life type issues. I could have wasted away for the 5 1/2 years I spent in prison, if I'd chosen too. I could have spent those years blaming society for my incarceration too, if I'd chosen to. I didn't. I took my lumps and went on.
The difference is that I didn't declare war on a foreign power. Oh, wait, that's right. The Taliban, nor Al Quaeda had the balls to declare war. Instead, they sneak attacked the US. Now, a "soldier" in their little band of guerilla warriors gets captured, and decides to file charges alledging all kinds of charges against the people that are holding him. In my personal experience, this is the typical reaction of people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. Nobody forced him to convert to Islam, and nobody forced him to join in the battle. He made that decision himself. He abandoned his wife and kids to do it, and now I'm supposed to feel sorry for him? Nope.
A lot of the stuff he listed in his complaint would be thrown out of any court in the world due to the nature of the statements. Hearsay is inadmissable evidence in most courts. "I heard this", and "I've been told this" mean squat in a court of law. I'm not going to go through the list of stuff that I suspect wouldn't be admissable, but I will say that if a judge looks at it, and has to throw out a large part of it, they may consider dimissing the whole thing. If the plaintiff wants hearsay evidence to be part and parcel of his complaint, he doesn't have much of one, if any.
As has been pointed out though; in your eyes, the US is guilty of all of these atrocities, just because he says it happened. You aren't willing to consider the fact that maybe he can't handle the consequences of his actions, and that the ultimate definition of torture may be that he can't go to the convenience store when he wants to. As far as I can see from your posts, evidence that there is no grounds for saying that the US is stepping around the Geneva Conventions might as well have not been posted, you won't take the time to read them anyway, even when they are quoted for you.
As I said, I would like to see evidence of his torture, not that he says he's been tortured. Otherwise, it's the "Feel sorry for me" syndrome. The man is a member of a terrorist organization. He made the choice to become a member, and moved from Australia to Afghanistan to participate in their Jihad. He didn't get to die, and get his virgins, and now he's mad. Prove I'm wrong. Pure and simple, all you are going on is his word of what's happening there, and as an American, I really hope that it's all fiction. I already understand that this administration is kinda shady sometimes. However, past wrong doings, and his word, with knowledge of what's happened elsewhere, is not proof.

[machinehead]

[Sever]

Originally posted by machinehead:

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Exactly!

[Aelia Jusa]

Is there really any need for all the side remarks about the quality of argument or whether people are listening or not? I think it's adding nothing but antagonism to a debate about something that is, in the eyes of many, an important issue. There have been a lot of valid and interesting points made from both sides and any failure to read sufficiently or misinterpretation or exaggeration has come from BOTH sides, not just one. I can't see that this debate is any different from any other internet discussion - most people who are invested enough to contribute have fairly entrenched views and are not prepared to concede any points. As such, in debating an issue for which there is plenty of grey rather than simple black or white both sides refuse to acknowledge nuances which may weaken their position. We all know this as we have all participated in such discussions before. So if you think points are being deliberately or carelessly ignored, then say them again or give up.


Regarding issue of whether the Guantanamo detainees deserve their fate because their actions were their own free will, that is of course true. There are two problems I can see with this argument though - one, it's debatable whether they can be said to have 'known the consequences' beforehand and therefore willingly chose to risk it, because the consequences as they are for 'enemy combatants' were essentially made up when they were captured with the new classification. Two, whether they chose to risk the consequences or not does not mean that the consequences are just. There is frequent outcry over what we consider to be unjust consequences for crimes in other countries, in particular punishments for women under Sharia law like stoning after adultery. It is entirely possible to agree that the detainees may be guilty of crimes and deserve consequences but not agree with what the consequences that are being meted out are. It does not mean that you think that all the detainees are upstanding citizens and should be immediately released and given medals if you think that what is being done to them is unjust or immoral.

I also agree that the fact that detainees have complained of torture (as many apart from just the three cited have, I think all the British detainees that have been released claimed to have been tortured) does not mean it has happened. But it doesn't mean it hasn't happened either. Considering the extent and prevalence of the allegations, they should be being investigated by neutral parties (i.e. not the military) and I don't think this has been allowed.