David Hicks

[tigger]

Originally Posted by nomix

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.

Ditto . The current administration in the US has used the events of 9/11 to rob people of thier rights and give the executive branch unprecedented power. Bush truly believes that he can pick and choose laws to obey and that the Constitution is just an old scrap of paper. I don't know what the hell is end goal is, but it sure doesn't seem like maintaining a true, free democracy (if we had one in the first place ).

Originally Posted by nomix

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.

Well said. Just because chicken-shit terrorists don't obey the Geneva convention doesn't mean we shouldn't. Have we ever actually fought someone who obeyed it? There are days when I look at the paper and think that Iraq should be turned into an irradiated glass parking lot. Then I remember that if we ran around completely annihilating stuff at random we'd be no better than the fundamentalist tyranny we're trying to combat.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by tigger

Ditto . The current administration in the US has used the events of 9/11 to rob people of thier rights and give the executive branch unprecedented power. Bush truly believes that he can pick and choose laws to obey and that the Constitution is just an old scrap of paper. I don't know what the hell is end goal is, but it sure doesn't seem like maintaining a true, free democracy (if we had one in the first place ).

I agree. As for the constitution, I think JibJab got it right. "And then I'll ammend the contitushonn".

But I think Bush loves Churchill, if I am not mistaken, it was he that said "I will not let a piece of paper stop this", or something in that fashion.

Well said. Just because chicken-shit terrorists don't obey the Geneva convention doesn't mean we shouldn't. Have we ever actually fought someone who obeyed it? There are days when I look at the paper and think that Iraq should be turned into an irradiated glass parking lot. Then I remember that if we ran around completely annihilating stuff at random we'd be no better than the fundamentalist tyranny we're trying to combat.

Well, no country follows the geneva convention fully in war. The US surely did not during WW2, not even on the political level. There was strong agreement in the allied governments, all of them, that bombing civilians was 'ok'. In a strategic perspective, they were right, it did affect the war effort of Germany, even if Germany couldn't put fighters in the air, not because of a lack of fighters, but because of a lack of pilots. The reason why Churchill didn't face trial, is that the allied won. Not that I am comparing Churchill to Hitler.

Remember when the planes hit WTC? Remember 9/11? CNN sent pictures from the Gaza strip, of Palestinians celebrated. It was horrible to see. And it was condemned by many people as inhumane.

But let me just add, that in 1945, the allies bombed Dresden, destroying it TOTALLY. People cheared in London.

Does this mean that the British were monsters? Inhumane barbars? No. Britain was in war with Germany, Germany was the enemy. Germany had bombed England. For the love of God, Germany occupied half of Europe.

Same goes for the Palestinians. Israel has for the last 60 years, with more or less solid support from the US, occupied Palestine, they have bombed the occupied ereas several times over the years, and to them, Israel, and their strong ally America, would been seen as an enemy, however correct that perseption would be.

It's all psychology.

But the big issue IS that you just can't ignore human rights and the likes.

[zenkidori]

One funny thing I've noticed is that when there is some terrible murder, serial killer, rapist or whatever, a lot of people are calling for them to get terrible treatment, and have the same things happen to them, etc. but when on the matter of terrorism, people turn around and say the US and allies are bad and need to treat these people like normal soldiers.

Interesting double standard.

IMO when you cross the line from a normal soldier into a guerilla or terrorist "freedom fighter" you don't deserve nor can expect to be treated like a regular soldier.

[Firecat]

Hmmm. Not sure about that. I think if a guerilla or regular soldier start going after civilians, that turns you into a "terrorist"....but if the regular soldier or guerilla stick to fighting each other, they deserve the same treatment.

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Hmmm. Not sure about that. I think if a guerilla or regular soldier start going after civilians, that turns you into a "terrorist"....but if the regular soldier or guerilla stick to fighting each other, they deserve the same treatment.

I'd have to agree. Those who almost explicitly target civilian populations deserve no quarter. Also, just because we try to keep the "moral upper hand" doesn't mean that we will coddle terrorists. I'm pretty sure that the Geneva Convention still allowed for a soldier to gun his enemy down and take POWs, which is part of the reason I have such a problem with Bushs actions and rhetoric. He had all the tools he needed to conduct a war, he just wanted more power.

This is a very different war than WWII imo, and I don't know if the allies would've attacked civilian areas (on the scale) they did if the Axis powers hadn't done so first. First and foremost, terrorists don't represent a state (like the Nazis did), so you can't pick a city and level it in retribution. Second, I don't think they've even really done enough damage to us for us to seriously consider a more, err, Israeli approach to the situation; that "Well, you killed 10 of us, so well kill 60 of you. Have a nice day" practice of theirs (which I respect and loathe at the same time). A couple thousand citizens and a similar amount of soldiers is nothing compared to WWII.

If we want to draw comparisons to a previous US war, I think Vietnam would be more appropriate. We where fighting an ideology, war planning and diplomacy sucked, and we learned after a lot of wasted money and men that nation building is hit-or-miss.

[nomix]

Originally Posted by zenkidori

One funny thing I've noticed is that when there is some terrible murder, serial killer, rapist or whatever, a lot of people are calling for them to get terrible treatment, and have the same things happen to them, etc. but when on the matter of terrorism, people turn around and say the US and allies are bad and need to treat these people like normal soldiers.

Well, if someone raped a female friend of mine, I would get angry. I would probably be able to beat that SOB to death. But that doesn't mean that I think the goverment should do that.

I think the biggest problem for the US today, is the fact that they are in fact letting the terrorists win. The only parties in this conflict that is gaining on the situation, is the governments which centralize power, and the terrorists who achieve their objectives.

IMO when you cross the line from a normal soldier into a guerilla or terrorist "freedom fighter" you don't deserve nor can expect to be treated like a regular soldier.

Then the same must go for people who break the laws of society. If you are suspected of breaking the law, we don't need evidence of any sort as long as we are sure in our minds they have something to do with it.

In effect, what terrorists do, is break the laws of war, what criminals do, is break the law of society.

We can't continue to advocate rights for the population of the world by blatently ignoring them. Period.

Originally Posted by tigger

This is a very different war than WWII imo, and I don't know if the allies would've attacked civilian areas (on the scale) they did if the Axis powers hadn't done so first. First and foremost, terrorists don't represent a state (like the Nazis did), so you can't pick a city and level it in retribution. Second, I don't think they've even really done enough damage to us for us to seriously consider a more, err, Israeli approach to the situation; that "Well, you killed 10 of us, so well kill 60 of you. Have a nice day" practice of theirs (which I respect and loathe at the same time). A couple thousand citizens and a similar amount of soldiers is nothing compared to WWII.

If we want to draw comparisons to a previous US war, I think Vietnam would be more appropriate. We where fighting an ideology, war planning and diplomacy sucked, and we learned after a lot of wasted money and men that nation building is hit-or-miss.

Quality post.

[zenkidori]

Originally Posted by Firecat

Hmmm. Not sure about that. I think if a guerilla or regular soldier start going after civilians, that turns you into a "terrorist"....but if the regular soldier or guerilla stick to fighting each other, they deserve the same treatment.

I would agree with that, but this is clearly not the case with these terrorists.

[nomix]

Well, what about Taliban warriors that fought the US army in Afghanistan?

And I still don't think we have the right to rewrite the law just so it fits our brand new motives of the week.

[Austere]

This whole David Hicks thing is a trumped-up load of horseshit media circus bollocks. David Hicks is nothing more than a stupid loser with a penchant for petty vandalism, drunken abusiveness and mishegas. He's certainly not the embodiment of terrorism. *He* isn't terrorism. He's just a man. He's not worth all this hand wringing and the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. He's really not a cold, calculated, evil terrorist mastermind like the news media *love* to make him out to be.
You have to understand that he's always been a loser; He was expelled from school when he was thirteen and spent his days getting drunk and stoned and generally fucking himself up. He drifted around, knocked-up some broad and went from one dead-end job to another.

He first went to Pakistan to learn Arabic and study Islam and while he was there he was attracted to the idea of signing up to a 'military training camp'. It wouldn't have taken much to get him on board; just to tell him he'll get to blow shit up and shoot guns off!
I heard on the telly (ages ago and I don't remember where) that he once tried to join the Australian army but they wouldn't have him because he's such an idiot. So we know he was already that way inclined. To a putz like him there was probably not a huge difference between The Australian Defence Force and this Military Training Thingy.

The 'military training camp' turned out to be a 'fundamentalist Islamic sect' that indoctrinated him quite nicely (remember he's already Islamic and he's an idiot to boot) and had him fighting their holy war against Indian armed forces within a few months.
The Islamic cultists accepted him and gave him approval and made him feel needed. He felt like he belonged, probably for the first time in his life. He was brainwashed and I have a feeling that he wasn't totally aware of the scope of what he was doing. How does a bloke from Salisbury end up fighting for Pakistan in an attack against India?
Did he plot day and night with cunning, calculated plans of pure evil and then work for years to enact those plans to the letter? Or did he just drift aimlessly and allow himself to be manipulated by those around him?

It's likely that he killed Indian soldiers. It's less likely (but still possible) that he was amongst those who apparently killed Indian civilians. It's distinctly possible that he's never actually killed anyone (I don't personally believe that but we just don't know). There's no doubt that the sect is evil and that they committed many atrocities against India but we're focusing on what we know Hicks himself, did.
Apparently while he was with the sect he met Osama bin Laden (before any of the likes of us knew or cared who that was) and apparently he helped to translate some of his fellow cultists incessant ramblings into English. After 9/11 he again went out to fight against the opposing forces only this time the opposing forces were American and he was captured within weeks. Allegedly he wasn't actually fighting when they caught him - He was unarmed and just sitting on the ground with a few of his fellow cultists (probably playing canasta or some shit). This is presumably the reason why he wasn't simply killed on sight.

Of all the stuff he could have done, might have done and did do; that's all we know about. We don't know if he killed anybody or blew anybody up or assassinated anybody or if he had anything at all to do with 9/11 or even if he committed any actual terrorist acts at all. Even after 5 years of constant physical and psychological torture at Guantanamo Bay that's all we know. And they knows how to do their torturin' real good!

He's an asshole, an idiot and quite likely a killer but all we know and all we charged him with was being a member of a group that we had declared it illegal to be a member of. That's it.

Now, i'm no military tribunal but I don't exactly think that calls for him to be hung from the highest tree. I think the 5 years he's already done plus the nine months he'll do here should be enough to make him think twice about joining another group of militant fucks.

Upon his release he'll probably get what's coming to him and then some. I hope he gets shunned and part of me hopes that somebody spits on him. There is absolutely no goddamn chance of him 'coming home to a heroes welcome'. Not even our frickin soldiers come home to a frickin heroes frickin welcome!

I don't like him but I don't think he's the kind of guy that we need to hope dies. Save that for that Martin Bryant fellow - he's way worse.