Free David Hicks

[johnny]

Nope, they are NOT soldiers, they are rebels at best. They don't represent a nation or a government and are sure as hell no regular army. No matter how much you try to bend the issue, they are terrorists, same as Al Qaeda, and rules that apply to Iraqi regulars for instance, do not apply to them.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Since he walked with the Taliban, who are widely recognised as a bunch of terrorists, he is everything BUT innocent. Therefore he deserves just as much a fair trial as the Taliban themselves have given to their captives in the past, which is 0.0

If he is not innocent, then what is he guilty of? Being a taliban? Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not, in my possibly biased opinion, a valid reason to shut someone in a box for three years.

Also, the fact that they mistreat their prisoners is no reason for you to. Well, possibly a reason, but not one that would give your actions international acceptance.

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: He's caught hanging out with taliban terrorists in a warzone, carrying a gun. He's a terrorist.

That definition can't be right. A person who carries a gun in a warzone he is simply a soldier. If he carries a gun in some non-military settlement, with an intention to shoot civilians, then he is a terrorist. [/QUOTE]It's NOT just a matter of him being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Here are the charges against him:

In the voided indictment of Hicks, the United States government had alleged:

that in November 1999 Hicks travelled to Pakistan, where he joined the paramilitary Islamist group, Lashkar-e-Toiba (Army of the Faithful).

that Hicks trained for two months at a Lashkar-e-Toiba camp in Pakistan, where he received weapons training, and that during 2000 he served with a Lashkar-e-Toiba group near the Pakistan-Kashmir.

that in January 2001 Hicks travelled to Afghanistan, then under the control of the Taliban regime, where he presented a letter of introduction from Lashkar-e-Toiba to Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda member, and was given the alias "Mohammed Dawood".

that he was sent to al-Qaeda's al-Farouq training camp outside Kandahar, where he trained for eight weeks, receiving further weapons training as well as training with land mines and explosives.

that he did a further seven-week course at al-Farouq, during which he studied marksmanship, ambush, camouflage and intelligence techniques.

that at Osama bin Laden's request, Hicks translated some al-Qaeda training materials from Arabic into English.

that in June 2001, on the instructions of Mohammed Atef, an al-Qaeda military commander, Hicks went to another training camp at Tarnak Farm, where he studied "urban tactics," including the use of assault and sniper rifles, rappelling, kidnapping and assassination techniques.

that in August Hicks went to Kabul, where he studied information collection and intelligence, as well as Islamic theology including the doctrines of jihad and martyrdom as understood through al-Qaeda's fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

that in September 2001 Hicks travelled to Pakistan and was there at the time of the September 11 attacks on the United States, which he saw on television.

that he returned to Afghanistan in anticipation of the attack by the United States and its allies on the Taliban regime, which was sheltering Osama bin Laden.

that on returning to Kabul, Hicks was assigned by Mohammed Atef to the defence of Kandahar, and that he joined a group of mixed al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters at Kandahar airport, and that at the end of October, however, Hicks and his party travelled north to join in the fighting against the forces of the U.S. and its allies.

that after arriving in Konduz on 9 November 2001, he joined a group which included John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban"). This group was engaged in combat against Coalition forces, and during this fighting he was captured by Coalition forces.


So I will defer judgement on whether this makes him a terrorist or an armed combatant who can be held as a POW. It's clear that his life prior to Afghanistan isn't all clean cut either. In 1999, Hicks travelled to Albania (leaving behind a failed relationship and two children), where he joined the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary organisation of ethnic Albanian Muslims fighting against Serbian forces in the Kosovo War, and served with them for two months. But the conflict in Kosovo was almost over by the time he arrived and he saw no fighting. After his return to Australia, Hicks converted to Islam and began to study Arabic.

I have to admit that my gut tells me to throw away the key on him; he sounds like a terrorist or at the very least a terrorist supporter, and it seems clear that he was involved with the Taliban at least to some degree.

But there's a bigger issue here and it's not a simple one either. The US has always stood for freedom and justice, and no matter HOW much it may be distateful for us, Hicks DOES deserve his day in court. If we allow his rights to be trampled on, what is to happen to ours? Yet calls for his freedom seem to be misplaced. His past actions do not speak well for him (at least going on what facts or information at our disposal).

Additionally, the Australian government doesn;t seem to want to go to bat for this guy. Surely, given the friendly relations between the two countries, the Australian government could secure his release for trial in his home country. You have to ask yourself, why not?


As an aside, but a pertinent one, here are the actual articles of the Third Geneva Conventions.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_...tion#Article_3

Read the definitions of what constitutes a POW there. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Iron Greasel]

Originally posted by johnny: Nope, they are NOT soldiers, they are rebels at best. They don't represent a nation or a government and are sure as hell no regular army. No matter how much you try to bend the issue, they are terrorists, same as Al Qaeda, and rules that apply to Iraqi regulars for instance, do not apply to them.

What makes them terrorists? Hanging out in a warzone, carrying a gun, as Sir Krustin put it, Doesn't sound very terroristy. Most armies tend to do that. What did this Hicks character do against the civilian populace?

Also, what exactly do you mean with "They don't represent a nation or a government"? Foehammer's post makes them sound a bit too organized for civilians.

[ZFR]

Originally posted by johnny: Nope, they are NOT soldiers.

If they are not soldiers then they can't be treated as POWs...

[ 11-19-2006, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: ZFR ]

[johnny]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Nope, they are NOT soldiers, they are rebels at best. They don't represent a nation or a government and are sure as hell no regular army. No matter how much you try to bend the issue, they are terrorists, same as Al Qaeda, and rules that apply to Iraqi regulars for instance, do not apply to them.

What makes them terrorists? Hanging out in a warzone, carrying a gun, as Sir Krustin put it, Doesn't sound very terroristy. Most armies tend to do that. What did this Hicks character do against the civilian populace?

Also, what exactly do you mean with "They don't represent a nation or a government"? Foehammer's post makes them sound a bit too organized for civilians. [/QUOTE]What makes him a terrorist ? Let's see...where to begin....the fact that he willingly joined the most brutal and barbaric regime since Stalin and/or Hitler ? The fact that he trained in all sorts of camps together with members of Al Qaeda, Taliban, and god knows what other pieces of crap ? The fact that Osama himself had him running errands ? The fact that he submitted to a group of people who are connected to those bastards in Indonesia who killed dozens of Australian tourists, his own friggin fellow countrymen for crying out loud, in the hotel bombing ?

Nope, doesn't sound very terroristy to me...tell me something, are you that blind, or is it that you don't want to see ?

And what i meant with "they don't represent a nation or a government", is that the Taliban was never elected democratically, they simply seized power, and the whole world looked the other way. then they started implementing all sorts of stone age laws, and again the world looked the other way, in disgust perhaps. Then they started to ethnically cleanse the lands of all who didn't think highly of the Taliban, such as artists, docters, and all the usual victims of powermongering retards, and the world kept looking the other way. Then they started to train young muslims to go on suicide missions abroad, and they finally had our attention. But i'm drifting off here, they never represented the Afghan people, they slaughtered and enslaved them, that's not the same as ruling a nation. No other government recognised the Taliban as a legitimate government as far as i know, so there you have it.

[ 11-19-2006, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: johnny ]

[johnny]

Originally posted by ZFR: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Nope, they are NOT soldiers.

If they are not soldiers then they can't be treated as POWs... [/QUOTE]And that's exactly what they are doing right now, aren't they ?

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by ZFR: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Nope, they are NOT soldiers.

If they are not soldiers then they can't be treated as POWs... [/QUOTE]Actually that is NOT true. Article four of the Third Geneva convention outlines it (shortened for space - read the previously posted link for the FULL details) but these passages are of particular relevance:

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory,
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces

and lastly,

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly

So POWs consist of more than simply soldiers. David Hicks appears to fall under one or more of those categories and can be classified as a POW and held and treated as such.

Apologies for the length.

Edit: The issue with David Hicks isn't whether he should be held as a POW or whether he was actually a terrorist, or a soldier. The broader issue is whether he has been held too long and should have his day in court. Don't lose sight of the big picture.

[ 11-19-2006, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Micah Foehammer ]

[Havock]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Havock: [ Why should he go free while his cohorts continue to rot?? Is it because he is Austrailian and they are not,

Yes. The Australian government should work to free him because he is an Australian citizen, yes. Just as the British govt. negotiated the release of their nationals. [/QUOTE]Ahhhhh, I see. Well, who will negotiate for is comrades in arms? Maybe I should apply for Austrailian citizenship so I can get special treatment too.

[Leonis]

Originally posted by Havock: Ahhhhh, I see. Well, who will negotiate for is comrades in arms? *edit*

The Afghani Government?

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by Leonis: quote: Originally posted by Havock: Ahhhhh, I see. Well, who will negotiate for is comrades in arms? *edit*

The Afghani Government? [/QUOTE]That would really be nice of them, if it's the "government" that was in charge when he was detained, since it would include Osama. In other words, not likely to happen. I don't want to say that the US is being perfectly on the up and up at Gitmo, but POW's are not the same as criminals, and the difference should be noted. He was detained in active duty for the "enemy". Personally, I don't want a confirmed terrorist sympathizer in my neighborhood. The fact that he was detained armed, with others that were armed, and engaged with our forces tells me all I need to know about whether he was a combatant or not.