Free David Hicks - Page 9

johnny · 11-25-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by johnny:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by robertthebard:
POW's get to live, albeit in prison, until the end of the war, when, it's my understanding, they are released.

So when does this "war against terror" stop? [/QUOTE]Never. [/QUOTE]So when does Hicks get released or even charged and put to trial? [/QUOTE]When allah says it's time.

Yorick · 11-25-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by robertthebard:
So it's your intention to charge him with being an enemy combatant? In so far as I know, this has never been done, but hey, what ever floats your boat.

Well you tell me. Was he an enemy combatant or not? Does that break any laws? American invaded Afghanistan and he happened to be there. Nothing has been proven. No evidence has been given. No charges laid.

Why is this man in prison?

Aussies are in strange places all over the world. He was not caught trying to blow up American buildings, nor trying to enter the USA. In what was was he "treasonous"? He's Australian, not American.

If there is evidence that he was an Al Qaeda mastermind, then he should be charged and tried, and if not then released.

robertthebard · 11-25-2006, 07:27 PM

He was captured on a battle field, armed, and fighting against coalition forces. This has been pointed out several times in this thread. If you choose to ignore that, because it doesn't satisfy your sense of Justice, or what have you, I'm sorry. Oh, no I'm not. When you are captured by an army that you are fighting against, you are an enemy combatant, not a terrorist, and as an enemy combatant, you are going to be held as a POW. There are no charges to file, fighting on the other side of a conflict is not a crime. From what's been posted, he gave up all ties to Australia, but either way, he chose his side, and got captured. That's the way it goes.

machinehead · 11-25-2006, 07:46 PM

RTB is right, as a POW we have every right to hold on to his punk ass until the conflict is over or he dies of old age, whichever comes first. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] As a POW he should be held according to the Geneva Conventions but he made his bed and I have NO sympathy for him.

Aelia Jusa · 11-26-2006, 01:19 AM

Wasn't the point that enemy combatants and POWs were not the same thing? Several times in this thread the terms have been used interchangeably or as above where Robert has said if you are an enemy combatant then you will be held as a POW - as far as I recall the two classifications were NOT the same thing and enemy combatant was a classification made up specifically for this group of people by the Bush administration. I remember a lot of debate and consternation at the time for the fact that this classification was created and that they were not being simply classed as POWs.

And these enemy combatants were/are supposed to be tried - that is what the military commissions were for (but have now been determined to be unconstitutional I think?) As opposed to POWs who, if the information in this thread is accurate, aren't tried but released at the end of the war.

So if they are not POWs and in fact enemy combatants, and enemy combatants as has been defined by Bush et al will be tried, then it should have happened in a reasonable amount of time. The fact is that most of the people there have not even been charged, Hicks is one of the 'lucky' ones in that regard.

I don't agree that Hicks should be given preferential treatment or we should care about his fate more than the rest simply by virtue of being Australian. I don't like the vague implications of 'you may have thought it was just Arabs in Guantanamo, but look - an Aussie! This is an outrage!'. It should also be noted that the other Australian who was sent to Guantanamo has been released, a year or so ago (Mamdou Habib although I think that is not the correct spelling).

Yorick · 11-26-2006, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by machinehead:
RTB is right, as a POW we have every right to hold on to his punk ass until the conflict is over or he dies of old age, whichever comes first. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] As a POW he should be held according to the Geneva Conventions but he made his bed and I have NO sympathy for him.

Aelia is quite right. "Enemy combatant" is a term the US govt. has used to CIRCUMVENT the Geneva conventions edicts concerning the treatment of P.O.W.s

So which is it boys? Is he a P.O.W. or is he an enemy combatant, because he can't be both.

Interesting reading from 2002 - http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002...0554.1907.html

"Enemy Combatant" is a phrase invented by the US Government in the aftermath of 9/11. There is no clear definition of exactly what an "Enemy Combatant" is, however if the president designates a person under this phrase they can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial by the authorities, with no right to appeal and no right to a lawyer - even if they are a US citizen.

Yorick · 11-26-2006, 01:54 AM

Quote:

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

Prove it.

machinehead · 11-26-2006, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by machinehead:
RTB is right, as a POW we have every right to hold on to his punk ass until the conflict is over or he dies of old age, whichever comes first. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] As a POW he should be held according to the Geneva Conventions but he made his bed and I have NO sympathy for him.

Aelia is quite right. "Enemy combatant" is a term the US govt. has used to CIRCUMVENT the Geneva conventions edicts concerning the treatment of P.O.W.s

So which is it boys? Is he a P.O.W. or is he an enemy combatant, because he can't be both.

Interesting reading from 2002 - http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2002...0554.1907.html

"Enemy Combatant" is a phrase invented by the US Government in the aftermath of 9/11. There is no clear definition of exactly what an "Enemy Combatant" is, however if the president designates a person under this phrase they can be detained indefinitely without charge or trial by the authorities, with no right to appeal and no right to a lawyer - even if they are a US citizen. [/QUOTE]Knew that and I agree - that's why I didn't use that phrase. The use of torture was the reason for circumventing the GC, something that I find morally repugnant. He should be treated as a POW and as such held for the duration however long that might be.

Edit - for bad spelling

[ 11-26-2006, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: machinehead ]

machinehead · 11-26-2006, 02:55 AM

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

wellard · 11-26-2006, 03:09 AM

All claims that have NOT been proven in court.

Just like the claims that David Hicks knows things about the CIA aid given to the Taliban under Bush's administration which was later used against the USA and refuses to promise not to tell all in a law court, and that is the sole reason he is being held without trial.

No wonder Bush is so adamant that Hicks be kept silent.

11-25-2006, 07:27 PM	#83
robertthebard Xanathar Thieves Guild Join Date: March 17, 2001 Location: Wichita, KS USA Age: 60 Posts: 4,537	He was captured on a battle field, armed, and fighting against coalition forces. This has been pointed out several times in this thread. If you choose to ignore that, because it doesn't satisfy your sense of Justice, or what have you, I'm sorry. Oh, no I'm not. When you are captured by an army that you are fighting against, you are an enemy combatant, not a terrorist, and as an enemy combatant, you are going to be held as a POW. There are no charges to file, fighting on the other side of a conflict is not a crime. From what's been posted, he gave up all ties to Australia, but either way, he chose his side, and got captured. That's the way it goes. __________________ To those we have lost; May your spirits fly free. Good Music: Here. Interesting read, one of my blogs.

11-26-2006, 01:19 AM	#85
Aelia Jusa Iron Throne Cult Join Date: August 23, 2001 Location: Brisbane, Australia Age: 42 Posts: 4,867	Wasn't the point that enemy combatants and POWs were not the same thing? Several times in this thread the terms have been used interchangeably or as above where Robert has said if you are an enemy combatant then you will be held as a POW - as far as I recall the two classifications were NOT the same thing and enemy combatant was a classification made up specifically for this group of people by the Bush administration. I remember a lot of debate and consternation at the time for the fact that this classification was created and that they were not being simply classed as POWs. And these enemy combatants were/are supposed to be tried - that is what the military commissions were for (but have now been determined to be unconstitutional I think?) As opposed to POWs who, if the information in this thread is accurate, aren't tried but released at the end of the war. So if they are not POWs and in fact enemy combatants, and enemy combatants as has been defined by Bush et al will be tried, then it should have happened in a reasonable amount of time. The fact is that most of the people there have not even been charged, Hicks is one of the 'lucky' ones in that regard. I don't agree that Hicks should be given preferential treatment or we should care about his fate more than the rest simply by virtue of being Australian. I don't like the vague implications of 'you may have thought it was just Arabs in Guantanamo, but look - an Aussie! This is an outrage!'. It should also be noted that the other Australian who was sent to Guantanamo has been released, a year or so ago (Mamdou Habib although I think that is not the correct spelling). __________________

11-26-2006, 03:09 AM	#90
wellard Dracolisk Join Date: November 1, 2002 Location: Australia ..... G\'day! Posts: 6,123	All claims that have NOT been proven in court. Just like the claims that David Hicks knows things about the CIA aid given to the Taliban under Bush's administration which was later used against the USA and refuses to promise not to tell all in a law court, and that is the sole reason he is being held without trial. No wonder Bush is so adamant that Hicks be kept silent. __________________ fossils - natures way of laughing at creationists for over 3 billion years

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Free David Hicks	wellard	General Discussion	156	11-28-2006 07:17 PM
Win A free Beta weekend and play Guild wars Three days free	TheCrimsomBlade	Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not)	11	02-02-2005 12:03 AM
Free add-on Pack from EB (Download is free)	Ziroc	Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 Also SoU & HotU Forum	8	06-24-2003 04:51 PM
Hey David, um I mean RedBlueFlare, take a look at this...	Black Dragon	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	8	04-19-2002 10:28 AM

11-25-2006, 07:46 PM	#84
machinehead Drizzt Do'Urden Join Date: April 9, 2001 Location: Massachusetts Age: 68 Posts: 630	RTB is right, as a POW we have every right to hold on to his punk ass until the conflict is over or he dies of old age, whichever comes first. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] As a POW he should be held according to the Geneva Conventions but he made his bed and I have NO sympathy for him.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)