Here Today... Gone To Hell!

What does the rest of the world think about the treatment of Aussie David Hicks who was locked up for 5 years in Guantanamo Bay without being formally charged. He was locked up and badly mistreated/tortured by American 'interogators' who asserted that he was a terroist because he did some army training in Afganastan.

It was only this year when they finally broke his spirit and as a result of pressure from Australian lobby groups that the Americans pressed 'formal' charges and released him back to Australia.

This is one of the worst human rights cases in American and Australian history ever.
No Geneva convention rules happening anywhere near Guantanamo....

hmm not to familar with this... Was he a solider??

Yeah, I don't like the way Guantanamo is used. In fact, it often looks detestable. The world leader cannot abuse human rights, and then wag a finger at the starving and the sick in Africa for its abuses. Securing human rights for the whole world is imo the most important matter of global politics right now.

What Army was he training with in Afghanistan?

Obviously an Australian furthering his military career by training with the Taliban is in no way suspicious... I'm sure he was in no way a danger to the western world...

If you don't want fleas, don't lay with dogs.

Whether he's actually guilty of something or was conspiring with terrorists...I don't know.  But I'm not a big fan of people being held without charges.  Temporarily, while a case is prepared...ok.  But not this seemingly endless process.  If they're Taliban, let them be considered POWs, since we're still engaging Taliban forces.  That's fair, and in accordance with the Conventions.  But they aren't held as POWs, and the Bush administration is trying to claim that that means they're not covered by Geneva, which is shit.

Are you kidding me?!?!Geneva Concention protects soliders.. Not cowards who dress up as little old ladies and suicide bomb evrything  :no:

But you see, David Hicks wasn't even charged with that ^

Definitely agree. But that douchebag should be glad he gets to serve out a sentence in the comfort of an Australian prison, given that he was fighting for people who treat their prisoners  by beheading them , disembowelling them and leaving them to die in the desert, or ripping them apart with their limbs tied to motorcycles.

But there is no evidence that it was Al Queda that he was training with.
I heard that it was a Thai? unit he was with - just using the equipment......

David Hicks did 5 years hard time in Guantanamo - he is a broken man.......

His father stated that he fought for the Taliban and what I posted above is what the Taliban does.

The torture techniques used by the Americans on David Hicks should also be under scrutiny. Hell, even the English pulled their men out of there for humane reasons.

Just beacause the American techniques aren't as obvious as ripping off limbs whilst being tied to motorbikes doesn't mean they aren't as bad.....

You either survive your limb being ripped off by a motorbike or you don't.........

Not one motorbike, four motorbikes. How about beheading, what's the survival rate for that?

He should have thought about that the shit would hit the fan if he played with talibans.

Actually, they protect much more than soldiers.  You should read it, before making such limited assertions. 

What's the survival rate for 5 years of psychological torture?

Higher than the rate for beheading.

At least that's a nice clean cut ^

If he's guilty of something, then by all means imprison him.  I just don't believe that we need to sink to the level of torturing POWs or "enemy combatants."

I agree totally. But he's extremely low on my sympathy list.

Beheading people is a little more harsh than what he went thru at Guantanamo.

Fuck him! The mere fact he went back to train with the Taliban after Sept 11 means he should be given ZERO sympathy bfrom anyone. Hell didn't treason used to be a captal offence?

well this is what I found on wikipedia:


he pleaded guilty, so there you are!

It may still be, but an Australian can't commit treason against the US, and Australia has abolished capital punishment.

Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention to qualify as POWs under Article 4, detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Again not those cowards

First, the fact that you think it's "the Geneva Convention" rather than the Geneva ConventionS is part of the problem.  You're referring to one article of one convention.  There are four Geneva Conventions, and many, many articles.  The fourth protects civilian populations living under an occupying force.  Now, the Taliban are, by definition, either formal military or civilian population.  If they're civilian population, then their aggressive actions are domestic criminal acts, punishable by Afghan law.  The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits torture in such cases.  If they're a formal military, then they're POWs, and torture is prohibited by the Third Geneva Convention.  Neither way is torture acceptable.   

Second, it's interesting that you bring up this particular passage, in that by torturing "enemy combatants," I'm afraid some of our own personnel are conducting "military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war," but I'm sure we'll demand that these protections are extended to them, nonetheless.   

Finally, even it the Conventions didn't prohibit torture, I don't think we should tacitly accept them as perfect or complete.  The fact that some try to find loopholes or end-arounds suggests that they need to be revisited and revised.  After all, they haven't been revised since the Cold War ended, meaning that they tend to deal with interstate war, and neglect civil wars.  Of course, as civil wars can only have ONE state sponsored army, all rebellious armies are, therefore, in Geneva free conflicts which, by your logic, is somehow a good thing.  And surely you realize that that is a very cheap way to try to get around the true purpose of these treaties. 

1. You'r quoting Wikpedia!
2. By this stage of the game, to save what was left of David Hick's sanity - he had to get out of there pronto! - that what's the formalities of the court case were all about.
3. David Hicks now has a gag order on him.
4. There had to be some charge, to justify 5 years of torture!
6. The Australian government should have acted on this matter years ago.

Brilliant logic.  I can tell you put a lot of thought into this situation.

I have to agree that imprisoning him in Guantanamo for 5 years was wrong.

They should have shot him as they got him.
But than intelligence might not have gotten info out of him.

Guilty by suspicion, hm?

Nice.

Not strictly related, but has there ever been a war where at least one side didn't completely ignore the GCs?

Sure.   Of course, it was before there WERE Geneva Conventions.

That's right, Milosevic was obviously a stickler for the guide lines of the GC.
Saddam gasing a few thousand Kurds must have been a loose interpretation of the GC.

Sorry, maybe I didn't phrase that very well. Are there any wars since the GCs were established where both sides have (more or less) stuck to them.

You phrased it fine.  It was just my way of saying "no."

ok, I get it now.

Hanging around with extremist talibans makes you autosemiguilty.
Training with them makes you guilty to Preparation for Terrorism.

I miss read your first response for some reason myself...

Autosemiguilty? That a new term?

I agree with the high probabillity, but if we don't stick to our own fundemental principles, who else will?

Hanging around extreme conservatists makes you narrow-minded by definition.