November 01, 2005

David Hicks is a Bad Man There have been bipartisan calls in the Australian Parliament for a full inquiry into fresh allegations that Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks was tortured and sexually abused by American soldiers. The military lawyer for Hicks, Major Michael Mori, says he has witness accounts and photographic evidence to back the claims.
posted by Wolof 19 years ago
  • For those of you who are as clueless as I, here's a bit of background: Wikipedia article and Amnesty International..
  • The last line lets us know the outcome of this... "A spokeswoman for the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the Federal Government would refer any new material to the Bush Administration to be tested." yep, the truth will come out now!
  • I don't think too many Aussies are that concerned about Hicks. People I talk to are more concerned about the abuses of innocent people, this guy is not much of a source of worry.
  • Path, thanks for the background info.
  • the abuses of innocent people Tell me what this guy is guilty of besides being an idiot, oh oracle.
  • Don't be stupid.
  • See last Monday's Four Corners? Didn't think so.
  • Oh boo hoo. Nobody I've spoken to about this guy gives a damn. He signed up with Al Qaeda and went to fight with them in Afghanistan. Sympathy ends.
  • Why don't you dig the show up and have a look? Quite interesting, really.
  • Can't say I know much about Hicks' case apart from the links here, but it always seemed to me that the benchmark of any system of justice was how it treats even the most thoroughly unsympathetic individuals, be they rapists, perverts, traitors or whatever of the mad, bad and sad. By those lights I'd say it's definitely only right for Australian Parliamentarians to demand answers on this and that the apparent regime at Guantanamo does make hollow any rhetoric from the present administration about being a force for freedom in the world.
  • I'm with you on that Wolof. This trial next month should turn out to be an embarrassment for both the US and Australia. I caught a repeat of the show on Monday. Here is the transcript. Of note: DEBBIE WHITMONT: 200 British MPs across all parties demanded that the nine British detainees at Guantanamo be sent home. Britain's highest ranking lawyer, the Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith took the Americans on in Washington. LORD GOLDSMITH, UK ATTORNEY GENERAL: We had some good, intensive negotiations. There were some concessions or clarifications. DEBBIE WHITMONT: The Australian Government claimed any deals won by the British would also apply to Australia. But it didn't work that way. By mid 2004, David Hicks had been charged and most of the Britons were back home. Lord Goldsmith had come to the conclusion that no amount of negotiation could make the military commissions fair or independent. LORD GOLDSMITH, UK ATTORNEY GENERAL: I made clear our position that we wanted our nine citizens either to be tried in accordance with standards we regarded as fair standards or to be returned to us. DEBBIE WHITMONT: Lord Goldsmith told Four Corners there were certain rights he believed couldn't be compromised. The right not to be tortured and the right to have a fair trial. LORD GOLDSMITH, UK ATTORNEY GENERAL: At the end of the day, you make a judgement on the basis of all of the elements to see whether or not there was sufficient guarantees for fair trials. Sadly, at the end of the day, I wasn't satisfied that there were.
  • Goldsmith? The one who told Blair that the Iraq invasion would be legal? For fuck's sake, you can believe none of these people.
  • That wasn't actually the point. It is the fact that Hicks could be in Australia now if the government had a spine. Who do you believe Chyren? Where did you get your version of this story?
  • Too gutless to save one of our own Probably requires registration, but since they throw a bit of work my way, perhaps you could manage it? Ta v. much.
  • > British citizens don't have to put up with this scheiße. babar ahmad has to put up with a different kind. ahmad was arrested by police in britain in 2003 but released without charge. by virtue of the extradition act 2003, he was rearrested in 2004 under a u.s.-issued warrant. as far as i understand it, the charges against him in the u.s. depend on the patriot act's measures to charge those who lend support to terrorism. one objective analysis i've read suggests that the charges against ahmad in the u.s. could not be brought in britain because they would not constitute crimes. a description of the extradition act. free babar ahmad campaign.
  • Hicks is a Pom now.
  • roryk: one objective analysis i've read suggests that the charges against ahmad in the u.s. could not be brought in britain because they would not constitute crimes. The Australian government used the same reasoning for Hicks ie there was no law enacted in Australia at the time of the alleged offence. If they bring him back to Australia they have to let him go.
  • Australian David Hicks faces a maximum sentence of seven years in jail for aiding al-Qaeda, as part of a plea deal at a Guantanamo Bay military tribunal. Under the deal, Hicks also withdrew claims he was abused in US detention. He will serve his term in Australia. It is in addition to the five years he has already spent at the prison camp.
  • The only thing that pisses me off about Hicks is he was so goddamn piss-weak. He pretty much fucks up the Australian reputation as unstoppable killing machines during war. What's really telling is that due to the Yanks' spectacular attempts at winning hearts and minds with their unbelievable activities over the last few years, a man who would otherwise be regarded as a piece of loathsome mercenary shit by most of us now earns considerable sympathy.
  • "He pretty much fucks up the Australian reputation as unstoppable killing machines during war." "a man who would otherwise be regarded as a piece of loathsome mercenary shit by most of us" What are you talking about? Cites please for 'unstoppable Australian killing machines' and 'mercenary'.
  • Mad Max.