David Hicks

[Red_Bull]

According to the BBC, David Hicks will only serve 9 months of prison after being sentenced by a military judge. For those not acquainted with the story, Hicks was caught in Afghanistan in 2002 having recieved training from the terrorist organisations rampant in that part of the world. I can't remember if it was the Taliban or Al Quaeda, but it really doesn't matter. Fact is, he turned his back on Australia and went to fight alongside the terrorists responsible for the despicable acts we've seen over the years. He's pleaded guilty to the charges laid against him, presumably to escape more serious charges and is now heading home.

I think that the penalty he's recieved is far too light. As far as I'm concerned, he should rot in Guantanamo for the rest of his life, instead of which, he's returning home, probably to a heroes welcome. It will glamourise terrorism and he'll probably make millions once his book is published and media interviews given. Its quite disturbing. Anyone else have views on this?

[unknownspeedster]

he can never publish a book and make a profit, besides that ur exactly on the money with my opinion of this "Australian"

[Hidden_Hunter]

I hope they make him serve part of his sentence here in a general prison, given the repuation of what happens to people like sex offenders I don't imagine a terrorist would be well received.

At least the media can't proclaim he is innocent anymore, given he's a convicted terrorist.

[unknownspeedster]

he is going to adelaide's yatala prision, its high security prison thats a work camp.

[jayhawk]

If a book were to be written, all monies should be seized and given to the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq who were victims of al queda or the taliban.

[nomix]

Seven years confinement is not enough if he actually did support terrorist organisations like Al Quida, he should recieve a harder sentence. And as he is convicted, he probably did.

No, Jetsetter, I am not doubting his guilt. Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Red_Bull]

Originally Posted by unknownspeedster

"Australian"

As far as I'm concerned, he gave up the right to be an Australian as soon as he joined Al Quaeda. He also tried to apply for British citizenship. He couldn't give a stuff about us, so why should Howard and co. care for him?

[Firecat]

I don't have much faith in these military tribunals, and I think he should have been prosecuted through the Australian court system.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Hidden_Hunter

I hope they make him serve part of his sentence here in a general prison, given the repuation of what happens to people like sex offenders I don't imagine a terrorist would be well received.

That's what I was thinking. I'll be amazed if he survives his sentence. I would also agree with Firecat about the use of military tribunals, it's a complex issue.

[AnGuRuSO]

Man what a stupid kid, I wonder what he was thinking.

[HondaF1]

Bugger, so if he's coming back to Adelaide then we really are going to be "Hicksville"

[Hidden_Hunter]

Redbulls post also shares my sentiment, I bet this fucker will get a heroes welcome on return to Australia.

Me and my friend at uni were thinking of making our own little campaign about David Hicks if he gets a heroes welcome, flyers reminding people of the fact he's a convicted terrorist and was willing to harm australia and its allies

[Magnet]

I'm not saying that he is or isn't guilty, but imagine yourself in Guantanamo, stuck there for five years, where basically anything goes, as no international law stands.

Wouldn't you pretty much admit to anything just to get the hell out of there?

[nomix]

That is a very important point, even if you look away from the human side of torture, you can never look away from the fact that any sort of torture, both psychological and physiological, tends to give you a lot of crap if they guy is guilty, even more if he isn't.

But I guess they have more evidence than a written statement where he says he's a bad guy.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Hidden_Hunter

Redbulls post also shares my sentiment, I bet this fucker will get a heroes welcome on return to Australia.

If he does then that would be a damn shame. I like your plan. Why in the hell would people cheer for someone who would happily blow them up? I don't get it.

Military tribunals and the whole "enemy combatant" thing aside, Guantanamo seems like a hell hole. The gov't says that they can hold people indefinitely as they are prisoners of war. But first, this a "war on terrorism", a war on an idea. All the terrorists aren't just going to get together and sign a treaty with the US on a battleship. This shit won't stop, so how long do you hold them? Second, if they are prisoners of war, why the fuck aren't we abiding by international laws and treating them decently? We treated the Nazis way better and they killed way more people.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by tigger

But first, this a "war on terrorism", a war on an idea. All the terrorists aren't just going to get together and sign a treaty with the US on a battleship. This shit won't stop, so how long do you hold them?

Thank you for a very high quality point, that is absolutely true.

Second, if they are prisoners of war, why the fuck aren't we abiding by international laws and treating them decently? We treated the Nazis way better and they killed way more people.

That is because they are not prisoners of war, they are enemy combattants, which is something COMPLETELY different. Aren't they holding members of the Taliban armed forces? Taliban was a government, so I don't see how they would not be POWs, tbh. Then again, the American administration knows best.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by nomix

That is because they are not prisoners of war, they are enemy combatants, which is something COMPLETELY different. Aren't they holding members of the Taliban armed forces? Taliban was a government, so I don't see how they would not be POWs, tbh. Then again, the American administration knows best.

I know the White House loves that "enemy combatant" tag. I don't think it's so far removed from a "POW", but it does allow them to nab just about anyone they want, including US citizens, and hold them indefinitely without a trial. On one hand I can see the benefit of this, on the other it seems to be an idea courtesy of Hitler or Stalin's Russia. The whole situation (enemy combatants, Patriot Act) may not be so bad for ordinary Americans, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

[nomix]

Yes, it's not like terrorists are harmless.

Then again, it's not like rapists and serial killers are harmless, so to be quite sure, everyone suspected of commiting murder or rape should be locked away until they're proven innocent. That's logic.

Terrorism in it self, is not a strategic danger for a country, at least not for a country like the US. The problem is, it instills fear, and fear is allways the objective of the terrorist. That, and making sure we give up more and more freedom, when we start doing that, they win.

The whole enemy combattant thingy is just bullcrap. It's something the administration has made up in a meeting, OK, I guess they used a couple of meetings to deciede what to call it, because it fit their wishes.

Right.

[zenkidori]

I see a lot of bitching about how the US and it's allies don't play fair with terrorists, affording them rights under geneva and such, but what about the terrorists? When was the last time you heard about them treating anyone fair?

IMHO when you send children out into the streets with explosives, ball bearings and rat poison strapped to thier waists to kill random people, you forfeit any and all rights you may have once been able to claim.

But then, some people find it fun to always be on the side of the underdog, even if it is a rabid donkey raping shit eater.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by zenkidori

I see a lot of bitching about how the US and it's allies don't play fair with terrorists, affording them rights under geneva and such, but what about the terrorists? When was the last time you heard about them treating anyone fair?

That really is irrelevant. "The worst problem in fighting the mafia, is doing it without falling to their level". What does that mean? That means, that if we advocate freedom, democracy and human rights, we don't do it with the exact opposite values. That's hypocracy.

IMHO when you send children out into the streets with explosives, ball bearings and rat poison strapped to thier waists to kill random people, you forfeit any and all rights you may have once been able to claim.

I am sorry, but there are no mention in the geneva convention that states anything like that, and henceforth, that is not acceptable.

But then, some people find it fun to always be on the side of the underdog, even if it is a rabid donkey raping shit eater.

I am on the side of human rights. On the side of democracy, freedom and everything that goes with it.

I am oposed to terrorism, it is a truely grusom thing, and any terrorist is an idiot. But first, we need to determine what terrorism is, if attacks by organized militias against military targets needs to be terrorist attacks, for instance.

But I am also oposed to state terrorism, to unjust wars, when governments throw freedom on the ground and kicks it, just to gain some personal power.

That's the side I am on.