Free David Hicks

[machinehead]

All the more reason for Bush and his cronies to hold him as a POW because there would be no trial needed and he could be held for as long as "The War on Terror" lasts. Access to him could/would be completely cut off. Sorry Wellard but that counter charge sounds kind of tin-foil hat to me. Do you have a link?

[wellard]

Well it has to be proven in court so just like any other accusation (for example terrorist) it is all just conjecture / rumor until he is given a day in court OR (and it is a good argument you put foreword a few posts ago) he is treated like a POW.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by machinehead: 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]OK... http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/git...ks604chrg.html [/QUOTE]That's not proof Ed. Those are charges, and in this country, he's "innocent until proven guilty" of those charges. Right? Isn't the onus of proof on the accuser a bastion of democracy?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by machinehead: All the more reason for Bush and his cronies to hold him as a POW because there would be no trial needed and he could be held for as long as "The War on Terror" lasts. Access to him could/would be completely cut off. Sorry Wellard but that counter charge sounds kind of tin-foil hat to me. Do you have a link?

Well he's not being held as a P.O.W. so he needs to be charged.

What if they nabbed you on vague suspicion of being part of a terror cell (unproven of course) and held you without trial for years as an "enemy combatant"? Is this really the type of behaviour you endorse?

[wellard]

There are only 3 possible reasons that David has not been tried IMO

1) The prosecution is incompetent and after 5 years they have nothing on him.

2) They are scared about information he will reveal in court

3) He is innocent


I actually suspect number 1 more than the others [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]
but a FAIR trial will prove all [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[robertthebard]

So now it's up to us to prove that anybody we capture on a battlefield is a prisoner of war? That's mind boggling, but it's how I read that. Once you prove he's a prisoner of war, you can hold him as a prisoner of war...
I have a better idea; release him, and send him to Australia on a no fly list, and see how long it takes him to commit an act of terrorism in Australia, or to try and find a way to get right back to fighting alongside his "brothers". You see, of all the things in this discussion that really get in my head, the one thing that the "Free him" side of the discussion seem to overlook is that he chose to go to Afghanistan, he chose to "sign up" with the Taliban, and ultimately Al Queada. He chose to leave his wife and kids, convert to Islam, and pick up a rifle. Now, instead of allowing him to face the consequences, it's "Prove he was a soldier for enemy before you hold him as a POW".
Where was he captured? Did the CIA go to his home in Australia one night, and snatch him away from his wife and kids? No, he chose to abandon them to join the Jihad. What a hero...

[Bithron]

He made the choice to join the Taliban, so he should pay for it...

[johnny]

Oh for god's sake let him go so he can finish his training and start blowing up stuff, like hotels with Australian tourists inside, apparently some people here aren't satisfied until he had a least the chance to prove his rotten and twisted intentions. I'd like to see their reactions when after his release, he immediately rejoins ranks with his bastard brethren, and starts firing at coalition forces again.

[johnny]

Originally posted by wellard: There are only 3 possible reasons that David has not been tried IMO 1) The prosecution is incompetent and after 5 years they have nothing on him. 2) They are scared about information he will reveal in court 3) He is innocent I actually suspect number 1 more than the others [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] but a FAIR trial will prove all [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I have another option for you, that seems more likely to me than anything else.

They don't care what he has done, because he's caucasian Taliban/Al Qaeda, the lowest lifeform on the planet if i may say so, and they decided it's way more fun to torture him for a while before putting him out of his misery with a neckshot. That's how i would have done it too, because releasing him is not really an option.

[wellard]

Originally posted by robertthebard: So now it's up to us to prove that anybody we capture on a battlefield is a prisoner of war? That's mind boggling, but it's how I read that. Once you prove he's a prisoner of war, you can hold him as a prisoner of war...

I have no problem with him being held as a prisoner of war, nor I suspect do most Australians. But if the USA want to hold him as a POW then treat him like a POW.