Oppression of Human Rights in Australia

[TheDag]

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.

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.

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!

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[bigsarg79]

but if they did kill someone related to you, I bet your opinion would be completely different. Hicks trained with a group who killed many many Australians, he should be in jail for a long, long time

 

[bigsarg79]

TheDag- umm, hicks admitted that he trained with a terrorist organisation to his family and also in Court

http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2007/12/29/Hicks_released_from_Adelaide_jail
Not this part:
"In March this year, Hicks pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism at a US military hearing at Guantanamo Bay"

 

[TheDag]

TheDag- umm, hicks admitted that he trained with a terrorist organisation to his family and also in Court

You also have missed the point. He trained with a group that was not considered a terroist organisation when it suited the US government to help them take power in Afghanistan but suddenly when they wouldn't bend over backwards and do what the US wanted the status changed and they were considered a terroist organisation. You really need to look into the history to see this full story and the hypocrisy of it. To call a group a terroist organisation based on if they are useful to you or not is stupid. Let's play hypotheticals. Say Kevin Rudd decided tomorrow to bring all troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq and then was critical of the US for remaining. In response the US decides to label the Australian government a terroist organisation. Would that be fair? I'm sure you wouldn't agree with the US decision. Likewise even before the US helped the Taliban through Osama Bin Laden they already knew he was against the US having troops in Saudi Arabia. The US still chose to support them for one reason and one reason only. The USSR was supporting the Northern Alliance (the group the US has recently helped into power in Afghanistan!) and the Taliban opposed the Northern Alliance. Bin Laden has never made a secret of fact he is anti-US. So what responsibility is the US going to take for the deaths that occoured under the Taliban seem as the Taliban would never have been in power if the US hadn't interfered in the first place? At least they are accomplices to murder. David Hicks on the other hand trained with them but I have never heard of him actually being involved with the fighting. So to claim he should go to jail for a lon, long time for something he did not do and did not assist in is against the principles of law that we have here in Australia. It is also against the principles of US laws. Training with a group is not the same as assisting in killing or actually killing.

but if they did kill someone related to you, I bet your opinion would be completely different. Hicks trained with a group who killed many many Australians, he should be in jail for a long, long time

My opinion might be different while I am emotional and not thinking about things rationally. However in the past I know I have responded emotionally and then later been able to think rationally about it and realise my first reaction was wrong. If it was someone related to me I'm sure I would respond emotionally at first but later be able to respond without emotion.

Did you hear about the RSL saying he should apologise to them for what he did. I have spoken to soldiers who faught in WW2 and they have told me of the atrocities by Australian troops AGAINST JAPANESE POW'S. have never once heard an apology from the RSL to the Japanese. Funny how it is ok for us to commit war crimes simply because we won the war. I'm not in any way excusing or condoning what Japan did but we were guilty of the same thing. Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[bigsarg79]

I didn't mention anything about hicks apologising. He stated he trained with them and stated he knew about the September 11 attacks before they happened. I don't think Hicks should apologise, I just think he should spend a long time in jail

 

[bigsarg79]

oh sorry, Osama wasn't a terrorist, I'm sure he is a stand up type of guy.......

 

[TheDag]

I didn't mention anything about hicks apologising. He stated he trained with them and stated he knew about the September 11 attacks before they happened. I don't think Hicks should apologise, I just think he should spend a long time in jail

oh sorry, Osama wasn't a terrorist, I'm sure he is a stand up type of guy.......

These two posts of yours show that you clearly don't read other peoples posts before responding. If you had read my post then you would clearly see that I never claimed you said anything about David Hicks apologising and you would also clearly see that I made the claim that Osama was not a stand up sorta guy BEFORE THE AMERICAN HELPED HIM AND SUPPLIED HIM WITH WEAPONS AND TRAINING. Please try and read what is said or if your not going to then just say straight out you couldn't be bothered understanding what other posters are saying then I will know to just ignore you in the future.

 

[GodsoldierClintus]

Suppose I joined a religious organization overseas...a Christian one who for whatever reason committed attacks in a Muslim country. Yes I was stupid...I may have killed innocent lives. I might even be a complete nut. Some of those Muslims that I killed may have even been Australian...

Given that I am an Australian citizen the government should still be calling for my extradition provided it has those agreements with the country in question to be tried under Australian law...even if all those things were proven. If I am a terrorist, fine deal with it. If I am a traitor, deal with that too. But because I am a citizen of this country and because there are extradition agreements in place...I should be returned to this country pure and simple. You can't just go and change the law to suit your own needs at any given time. The whole justice system stands because everybody at anyone time can trust that the law is as it stands and cannot be changed at any given moment. It is, may I add, the same circumstance we as Christians base our Salvation...that God doesn't just change his mind and decide that after all Jesus wasn't enough and he will just kill us all anyway.

Correct me if I was wrong but Hicks fought with the Taliban and trained with them yes...but against Australia? No. And even if he did...he still should have been extradited. There is no argument. The treatment of the Hicks case was against Australian law.

 

[Cooch]

You also have missed the point. He trained with a group that was not considered a terroist organisation when it suited the US government to help them take power in Afghanistan but suddenly when they wouldn't bend over backwards and do what the US wanted the status changed and they were considered a terroist organisation. .

You ignore the time issue.
You also ignore context.

At the time that the US was assisting certain organisations, those organisations were engaged in what was essentially a domestic guerilla war against the Russian military. No matter how you regards the funding of groups with dodgy records, such warfare against combat troops in a recognised war-zone - even by non-state actors, is not classed as terrorism.

Hicks knowingly joined and assisted a group which had delliberately attacked civilian targets, outside a warzone and which had no combat role or support role to the armed forces. As such, by this time, they were clearly terrorists by any reasonable standard.

Time and the change of targets is important in this discussion. You accuse the US of ignoring inconvenient factors . I'm sure that you don't want to do the same yourself in this debate.

Dash Cham............. Peter

 

[TheDag]

At the time that the US was assisting certain organisations, those organisations were engaged in what was essentially a domestic guerilla war against the Russian military. No matter how you regards the funding of groups with dodgy records, such warfare against combat troops in a recognised war-zone - even by non-state actors, is not classed as terrorism.

Actually this is not quite correct. The Taliban were fighting the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance were backed by the Russians (USSR at the time) which is why the US supported the Taliban. The reason I classed the Taliban as terroists when the US helped them is because Bin Laden who controls the Taliban had already declared his views which was that the US should get out of Saudi Arabia. The recent attacks still had the same message. So in that regards while they were involved in civil war and the US helped them they were not terroists but at the exact same time they were terroists because of actions taken by them in other countries.