David Hicks

[The Chad Cometh]

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?

[slash666]

well this is what I found on wikipedia:

David Matthew Hicks also known as Abu Muslim al-Austraili and Muhammed Dawood (born August 7, 1975) is an Australian citizen with a unique role in legal history.

After five years in legal limbo, he confessed to a retroactive charge of "providing material support to terrorism." as part of a deal to break the legal impasse that had prevented his release to Australia.

Hicks was captured in Afghanistan and was held and tried as an unlawful combatant by the United States Government at Guantanamo Bay. His detainee number was 002.

Of the 500 detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Hicks is one of four detainees formally charged with offences. Hicks served as an infantryman with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Originally, his trial before a U.S. military commission was due to begin in November 2005. However, the original charges against him were dropped following the Supreme Court Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling invalidating the constitutionality of the commission process. On September 29, 2006, the US Senate and US House of Representatives passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which resumed proceedings against Hicks with fresh charges.

On March 26, 2007, Hicks entered a guilty plea to the charge of providing material support for terrorism. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, of which all but nine months were suspended.

On May 20, 2007, Hicks arrived back in Australia and will serve the time remaining of his sentence in an Adelaide prison. He will be kept in solitary confinement in South Australia's highest-security ward, G Division, as he serves the rest of his nine-month sentence.

he pleaded guilty, so there you are!

[freedom78]

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?

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

[Loaded NightraiN]

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?

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

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

[freedom78]

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 

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

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. 

[stolat]

well this is what I found on wikipedia:

David Matthew Hicks also known as Abu Muslim al-Austraili and Muhammed Dawood (born August 7, 1975) is an Australian citizen with a unique role in legal history.

After five years in legal limbo, he confessed to a retroactive charge of "providing material support to terrorism." as part of a deal to break the legal impasse that had prevented his release to Australia.

Hicks was captured in Afghanistan and was held and tried as an unlawful combatant by the United States Government at Guantanamo Bay. His detainee number was 002.

Of the 500 detainees imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Hicks is one of four detainees formally charged with offences. Hicks served as an infantryman with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Originally, his trial before a U.S. military commission was due to begin in November 2005. However, the original charges against him were dropped following the Supreme Court Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling invalidating the constitutionality of the commission process. On September 29, 2006, the US Senate and US House of Representatives passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which resumed proceedings against Hicks with fresh charges.

On March 26, 2007, Hicks entered a guilty plea to the charge of providing material support for terrorism. He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, of which all but nine months were suspended.

On May 20, 2007, Hicks arrived back in Australia and will serve the time remaining of his sentence in an Adelaide prison. He will be kept in solitary confinement in South Australia's highest-security ward, G Division, as he serves the rest of his nine-month sentence.

he pleaded guilty, so there you are!

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.

[Booker Floyd]

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

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

[2112]

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.

[polluxlm]

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.

[TAP]

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 

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

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. 

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

[freedom78]

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.

[C0ma]

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.

[TAP]

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.

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.

[freedom78]

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.

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."

[TAP]

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.

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.

[2112]

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.

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

[C0ma]

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.

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."

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

[polluxlm]

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.

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

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?

[sic.]

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

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