 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Neil Appleby 
Joined: 11 Feb 1998
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: David Hicks Officially Innocent |  |
|
from Civil Liberties Australia
http://www.cla.asn.au/News/hicks-officially-innocent-pentagon-admits/
_________________
After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: Re: David Hicks Officially Innocent | |
|
This seems to say that he was innocent because there was no statute against "providing material support to terrorism". As a technical defence against the indefensible, this seems worth a blush. I understand that there is little dispute that Hicks fought for the Taliban, one of the cruellest, most vicious and misogynistic sects in the world. I also understand that he has now recanted those beliefs after a series of thoroughly unpleasant consequences. Even if he is technically innocent, he will always be a man who fought against civilised values, and recanted once he got caught. A period of silence on his part would be welcome.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: Re: David Hicks Officially Innocent | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: |
This seems to say that he was innocent because there was no statute against "providing material support to terrorism". As a technical defence against the indefensible, this seems worth a blush. I understand that there is little dispute that Hicks fought for the Taliban, one of the cruellest, most vicious and misogynistic sects in the world. I also understand that he has now recanted those beliefs after a series of thoroughly unpleasant consequences. Even if he is technically innocent, he will always be a man who fought against civilised values, and recanted once he got caught. A period of silence on his part would be welcome. |
Of course, many would simply counter that he would have been much better off funding and training Saddam Hussein's regime and refusing to recant for it; that way he could have been in line for a medal of honour.
The suggestive application of law beyond its scope can presumably be made in either direction, so the question needs to be asked: Why did you see fit to choose one arbitrary suggestion over another?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: Re: David Hicks Officially Innocent | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: |
This seems to say that he was innocent because there was no statute against "providing material support to terrorism". As a technical defence against the indefensible, this seems worth a blush. I understand that there is little dispute that Hicks fought for the Taliban, one of the cruellest, most vicious and misogynistic sects in the world. I also understand that he has now recanted those beliefs after a series of thoroughly unpleasant consequences. Even if he is technically innocent, he will always be a man who fought against civilised values, and recanted once he got caught. A period of silence on his part would be welcome. |
^Of course, many would simply counter that he who have been much better off funding and training Saddam Hussein's regime and refusing to recant for it; that way he could have been in line for a medal of honour.
The suggestive application of law beyond its scope can presumably be made in either direction, so the question needs to be asked, why did you see fit to choose one arbitrary suggestion over another? |
Gosh, probably just that the post was about, ah, erm, David Hicks. There is a "what made you sad today" thread ; if you're quick, you could find a way to interject your Iraq War obsession into that, while you're online.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: Re: David Hicks Officially Innocent | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: |
This seems to say that he was innocent because there was no statute against "providing material support to terrorism". As a technical defence against the indefensible, this seems worth a blush. I understand that there is little dispute that Hicks fought for the Taliban, one of the cruellest, most vicious and misogynistic sects in the world. I also understand that he has now recanted those beliefs after a series of thoroughly unpleasant consequences. Even if he is technically innocent, he will always be a man who fought against civilised values, and recanted once he got caught. A period of silence on his part would be welcome. |
^Of course, many would simply counter that he who have been much better off funding and training Saddam Hussein's regime and refusing to recant for it; that way he could have been in line for a medal of honour.
The suggestive application of law beyond its scope can presumably be made in either direction, so the question needs to be asked, why did you see fit to choose one arbitrary suggestion over another? |
Gosh, probably just that the post was about, ah, erm, David Hicks. There is a "what made you sad today" thread ; if you're quick, you could find a way to interject your Iraq War obsession into that, while you're online. |
Okay, fair enough. So, would you support retroactive charges against those who funded and trained Saddam Hussein's regime?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well, actually, i don't support retroactive charges against David Hicks. I just think he should be deeply ashamed of what he did, and adopt a position of remorseful obscurity. Perhaps while Cleaning the toilets in a school for women refugees, since he militarily supported the guys that like to shoot girls for seeking education. If he gets compensation under the law, well, technically then so be it, though I can think of about a billion places where that money would morally be better spent.
Those who funded and armed Saddam should adopt the same recommended positon of repentance and contrition. And once again, for the record and for the umpteenth time, I believed throughout that the Iraq aggression was stupid and wrong, and that GWB was the worst president in US history, with a record of failure that worsts Hoover, McKinley, Grant or any other likely nominees.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | Well, actually, i don't support retroactive charges against David Hicks. I just think he should be deeply ashamed of what he did, and adopt a position of remorseful obscurity. Perhaps while Cleaning the toilets in a school for women refugees, since he militarily supported the guys that like to shoot girls for seeking education. If he gets compensation under the law, well, technically then so be it, though I can think of about a billion places where that money would morally be better spent.
|
I don't want him to get compensation, I don't care if they can't prove anything, he basically went over there and supported a fight against his own side. I don't think he should be allowed in the country. Put simply, I'd like to know, Is he still on their side?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What he did is not the point. In particular, it is irrelevant because HE IS INNOCENT. All citizens of all civilised countries are INNOCENT UNLESS PROVED GUILTY IN A FAIR TRIAL.
It doesn't matter what you think of Hicks. He was illegally punished without trial and without the opportunity to defend himself. The whole POINT of a free, democratic country, the thing our ancestors fought and died for, is the rule of law and right to a fair trial. Hicks didn't get that. He was punished but he is NOT GUILTY of anything unless and until he gets a fair trial.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | What he did is not the point. In particular, it is irrelevant because HE IS INNOCENT. All citizens of all civilised countries are INNOCENT UNLESS PROVED GUILTY IN A FAIR TRIAL.
It doesn't matter what you think of Hicks. He was illegally punished without trial and without the opportunity to defend himself. The whole POINT of a free, democratic country, the thing our ancestors fought and died for, is the rule of law and right to a fair trial. Hicks didn't get that. He was punished but he is NOT GUILTY of anything unless and until he gets a fair trial. |
I think we agree on that bit about him being innocent and entitled under the law to compensation. It seems a shame, but even moral cretins get legal protection, agreed. Now, do you think there's any chance that some people see him not as a moral cretin, but as a kind of hero or symbol of resistance to the Australian and US government, rather than a scumbag who fought for a putrid cause against the democracy that he is now relying on ...? And if so, do you think it might matter what one thinks of him and how he is described ?
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby
Joined: 11 Feb 1998
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't like what he did either, but I like even less the pathetic actions of the Australian government in going along with trumped up CIA charges. An Australian citizen was illegally imprisoned and our laws and protections were over-ridden. That's very bad. I hope he sues the pants off them.
_________________
After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't I just hope he doesn't do anything worse than he already has. actually I really hope he goes back there and stays there.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | What he did is not the point. In particular, it is irrelevant because HE IS INNOCENT. All citizens of all civilised countries are INNOCENT UNLESS PROVED GUILTY IN A FAIR TRIAL.
It doesn't matter what you think of Hicks. He was illegally punished without trial and without the opportunity to defend himself. The whole POINT of a free, democratic country, the thing our ancestors fought and died for, is the rule of law and right to a fair trial. Hicks didn't get that. He was punished but he is NOT GUILTY of anything unless and until he gets a fair trial. |
I think we agree on that bit about him being innocent and entitled under the law to compensation. It seems a shame, but even moral cretins get legal protection, agreed. Now, do you think there's any chance that some people see him not as a moral cretin, but as a kind of hero or symbol of resistance to the Australian and US government, rather than a scumbag who fought for a putrid cause against the democracy that he is now relying on ...? And if so, do you think it might matter what one thinks of him and how he is described ? |
that's the worry
I don't think hes innocent, I think they just brought the wrong charges against him.
don't forget if he hadn't gone over there, shown he was supporting the enemy, let that pic be taken with the missile etc etc etc, he would not have been in the clink in the first place. like I said before, where does his loyalty lie?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby
Joined: 11 Feb 1998
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
In relation to David Hicks, what makes Australia a better place to live than say Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Hong Kong? I mention Kuwait and Hong Kong because I have lived and worked in both.
As far as I'm aware, Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). These are the rules for living that transcend national prejudices. I list a few here:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
I think David Hicks could easily argue that he was afforded none of these Human Rights. Again, I hope he sues the pants off the government.
_________________
After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Neil Appleby wrote: | In relation to David Hicks, what makes Australia a better place to live than say Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Hong Kong? I mention Kuwait and Hong Kong because I have lived and worked in both.
As far as I'm aware, Australia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). T
....... |
Really. I'm shocked. I look at Manus, Nauru, Christmas Island, the treatment of Aboriginal Australians. I think you're mistaken Neil. It's the economy. We can't afford to be signatories.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Neil Appleby wrote: | | I don't like what he did either, but I like even less the pathetic actions of the Australian government in going along with trumped up CIA charges. An Australian citizen was illegally imprisoned and our laws and protections were over-ridden. That's very bad. I hope he sues the pants off them. |
That's true.
I hope though he only wins one dollar fifty. The Government did behave badly & illegally.
However, he still is a racist little turd in my view & I loathe the cause clbre status given to him - not for the case - he was unjustly treated: no two ways but for his views and actions - I still recall the video his Dad made of him where he was unashamedly anti semitic & looked to liberate Indian Kashmir from the infidels. I also recall Leigh Sales book: Detainee 002 - the case of David Hicks some years ago - nothing like a bit of light holiday reading . 
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
