Free David Hicks

[Davros]

I have to wonder why there is such opposition to this man being tried? Why are people so opposed to seeing this guy get just deserts? (whatever they may be)

I really don't care if he is tried and set free or tried and convicted and locked away for ever. Guilty or innocent is irrelevant to the whole blimmin argument - the argument is that he should be TRIED.

Sadly it is the people who want to deny him a trial that are the ones that are playing their own form of judge jury and executioner. That applies to anyone who opposes this guy from getting a trial. It's difficult to evaluate how they elevate their responses to the level of civilised, and yet contrast it with the exact same sort of judge jury and executioner system that classed the Sadman (saddam) as barbaric and earned him the death penalty.

Too mnay people - too much wood - too many trees. I have been pleased to see that more people in this thread are taking the time to reflect though and that is promising.

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by johnny: No, we don't have the facts, but since you started this thread, it's only natural that you provide us with them. [img]tongue.gif[/img] For instance, i'd still like to know where mr. Hicks was arrested and what was he doing there ? Was he carrying firearms ? Was he shooting at coalition forces ? Or was he at the wrong place at the wrong time ? WHAT ?!?!?

Well Johnny facts are hard to come by since Mr. Hicks as not been able to defend himself in a court of law or even been able to talk to the press or have indeed more than 4 or 5 phone calls to his family in all those years.

Firstly - I have no problem with him being held as a POW (the US govt deny him this right) at least he would be treated under the Geneva Convention.

Secondly - If he has committed an act of 'terror' rather than just being a soldier for the "losing side" then lock the arsehole away for life no problems with that at all!


Ok some details that may or may not be correct ...

"He was captured on the 9 December 2001 near Kunduz in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance." Yes that is over two years before the USA invasion of Iraq BUT a month or more after the first small contingents of allied troops arrived in Afghanistan.

It appears that he was fighting as a soldier for what he believed in and had been in the area well before the awful Sept 2001 attack on the USA. There is nothing I can find that shows a hint that he was involved in any fight against the Americans. It seems to be that at worse he was involved in fighting other Muslims. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]


Of course it should be up to the hang em high brigade to show what proof they have ...... but that would be justice and we can't have that can we? [img]graemlins/dunno.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Emphasis mine.
Once again, where was he captured? I have asked this countless times, and been told that that has yet to be proven in court. As I said, where he was captured isn't as much a part of the case as what he was doing there. According to letters he sent to his parents, he was training to fight the Jewish propaganda machine.
Fact: The US did not go to Adelaide Australia and arrest him on principle. I would also put forth that he wasn't alone when caught. Put all this nobody knows where he was caught crap in the stool, where it belongs. He was captured near Kunduz. Last I knew, that's not in Australia. This is not an allegation, nor a charge, this is cold, hard reality. Deal with it, but don't put it on me because you have a hard time accepting it for what ever reason. (Although I believe the reason is that it's fun to bash US policy.)
What ever the truth is about what he was doing there, despite the fact that there is plenty of public information in regard to that, will come out in court, and then he'll get what ever fate is his. After it's over, he may wish he'd just been left to rot. Be that as it may, to sit there and tell me over and over that nobody knows where he was is, as I said before, denial. See a shrink, but don't lay your foibles off on me. The where he was fact was posted on page two, by Wellard. Unlike other dialogs that we've been in, where you decided to go off on a tirade against me personally, I'm going to put this here, now: I didn't post where he was caught, Wellard did. This fact was presented by the Free him side of the discussion. The timeline of events on the site that was linked to shows clearly that he was in Afghanistan. So, back off. It's a fact, and it doesn't require a jury to determine it.
As to his trial, it's been pointed out that the delay isn't on the government, but on the defense for several detainees. So I guess you can let that part go too. Detainees won a decision in SCOTUS that tribunals were unconstitutional, and so the process has to start all over again. I guess they should have thought about how long they were going to sit in jail before they decided to challenge the courts, and ultimately, it won't help them.

[Timber Loftis]

Fact Allegation: The US did not go to Adelaide Australia and arrest him on principle. I would also put forth that he wasn't alone when caught. Put all this nobody knows where he was caught crap in the stool, where it belongs. He was captured near Kunduz. Last I knew, that's not in Australia. This is not an allegation, nor a charge, fact, this is cold, hard reality supposition. Deal with it, but don't put it on me because you have a hard time accepting it for what ever reason that I'm comforatable playing judge, jury, and exectuioner. What ever the truth is about what he was doing there, despite the fact that there is plenty of potentially true or potentially false public information in regard to that, will has not yet come out in court, and then he'll get what ever fate is his that's the whole frikkin point.

Fixed it for ya.

I quit. There are no FACTS until there is a trial. RTB I'm surprised at your blindingly stupid refusal to see this obvious truth. You can state no facts. None exist. There is one legal FACTFINDER in America -- the tribunal. Not you. Not the New York Times. Not the Army. Not Dick Cheney. So, there are no facts to review here, and that's the point. I refuse to discuss anything you state as fact, becasue such a thing does not exist, not leagally anyway.

At this point in time, under our laws, the man is innocent. He is in jail, and has neither been charged with nor convicted of a crime. He is an innocent man in jail, without recourse, with no opportunity to prove that he did or did not do whatever it supposedly is that he did or did not do.

[ 11-30-2006, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[shamrock_uk]

[quote]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:

At this point in time, under our laws, the man is innocent. He is in jail, and has neither been charged with nor convicted of a crime. He is an innocent man in jail, without recourse, with no opportunity to prove that he did or did not do whatever it supposedly is that he did or did not do.

QFT.

[ 11-30-2006, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[johnny]

You know it's time to bury a thread when people resolve to namecalling to get their point across.

[Timber Loftis]

Ayup. I removed it. But, that's why I'm bowing out now. There's nothing to discuss here. You guys keep arguing the merits of a case that does not exist. There are, legally, 2 and only 2 "facts" established in this case so far:

1. The fact that a man is in jail, indefinately, without any charges filed against him, and with no recourse; and

2. The fact that there are no - ZERO - none - zilch other facts currently existent in this case.

[ 11-30-2006, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[johnny]

Lame. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Might as well close it anyway, this is going nowhere. All i want to say about this is that i don't give a rats ass what happens to this guy. If he gets his trial, fine, if they let him rot, just as good. Not my concern.

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by johnny: You know it's time to bury a thread when people resolve to namecalling to get their point across.

.


This is the best post in 11 pages. [img]graemlins/graduate.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Ayup. I removed it. But, that's why I'm bowing out now. There's nothing to discuss here. You guys keep arguing the merits of a case that does not exist. There are, legally, 2 and only 2 "facts" established in this case so far: 1. The fact that a man is in jail, indefinately, without any charges filed against him, and with no recourse; and 2. The fact that there are no - ZERO - none - zilch other facts currently existent in this case.

Exactly.

[Memnoch]

It's getting close to time to move on from this. I'm not sure that further discussion is adding any more value. The fact is there are two entrenched positions, and fair enough.

We'll see how much more we can get out of it. If we keep going in circles - well, it's pointless going in circles, isn't it. I think the purpose of this thread, which was to raise awareness of the issue, has been accomplished.

My 2c: whether he's Australian or not, I don't believe that anyone should be held in prison, indefinitely, without trial or an opportunity to defend themselves or even know what they were charged with. If it was for a limited period because of a perceived threat to many, many more people if the individual was free, maybe. But certainly not for five years. It goes against the principles of democracy we stand for. Just because the Taliban or OBL or Al-Qaeda or whoever do it doesn't mean that we should do it too. Because by doing that, the terrorists have won - they have forced us to make changes in our democratic way of life.

[ 12-01-2006, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]