Can you please provide evidence to back up this statement. In particular proof that the aim of the organisation was to overthrow the Australian Government. Please note I will only accept as evidence facts from before the conflict started. Once Australia joined the conflict it is a different story as they al qaida can justifiably say they have only added australia to the list because of its involvement in the conflict. Al Qaida's stated aims before spet 11 was to get the USA out of Saudi Arabia.Hicks joined, trained with and supported a known terrorist organisation that has as its aim the overthrow of Australia's (amongst others) system of government, civil rights, and way of life.
Also he had joined the Taliban which was a recognised government. Taliban were not a terroist organization. If you don't think they were a recognized government why did the US help them keep power. Al Qaida heavily backed the Taliban government but the Taliban were still a recognized government NOT a terroist organization. If you are going to say governments can be terroist organisations then lets name the US government one. Before there was any proof of any connections with Iraq (which are simply al qaida did some training there) the US government condemned Iraq. With no proof (and still none) they have also condemned North Korea. The US government went on to attack Iraq in what is really an illegal move. After all the US went to the UN and was going to have a vote. IOnce it became clear they would lose the vote they withdrew the resolution and attacked anyway. Simply because the US is supposedly a good country thats ok somehow!
I wonder why Nazis were persecuted for war crimes. After all if it is wrong to take action against your own government then surely they were doing the right thing by supporting their government. This shows there are other factors to be taken into consideration. Also bear in mind that there is reasonable doubt that he took action against Australian troops or any of its allies. The only clear thing is that he was with them. He may have had the intention of following through with action of course. Then think about how the law works here in Australia. You don't get charged unless you have actually attempted to commit a crime.He chose to arm himself and participate as a civilian combatant in a conflict on the side opposed to that which was supported by the Australian government and for which Australian troops were fighting.
I agree that if treated as a POW he would still be in detention unless a agreement was made to send him to Australia with restrictions on travel. However he would have been entitled to protection against mistreatment. If your wondering what mistreatment then Red Cross International did a report on Guantanamo Bay and were very critical of conditions and treatment.It is highly questionable as to whether the Geneva Conventions apply in Hicks' case, as he does not appear to meet the criteria. Neither does Al Qaida or the Taliban.
If, however, we accept that Hicks should be treated as a POW, then it follows that he should still be in detention because the conflict has not yet finished.
You still miss the point. If it is murder or accesory to murder charges then he should not have been held in a miltary prison and he should not have faced a military court. Military courts do not have the same rules as civilian courts. That is why I say that Australia failed its legal obligations. To be tried in a country that you are not a citizen of and in which you have commited no crime is at the very best highly questionable.What has actually happened is that Hicks has admitted - and plead guilty to - giving material support to an organisation that has openly boasted about its many murders. Therefore the charge for which he has been sentenced is very similar to "accessory to murder" or "conspiracy to murder". In this light, especially when his time in detention was considered when sentence was pronounced, Hicks has spent no more time behind bars than he ought, and (IMHO) less than he should have.
Upvote
0