I think the key difference here is that the Taliban was a terror-harboring government with a direct connection to the 9/11 plot. We were justified in invading Afghanistan, and Hicks is, by extension, an accomplice to terrorism.Vilham wrote:
That is what i was talking about... you dont blame the soldiers in iraq for doing their job do you. So why blame this guy for doing his?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
I don't see how Afghanistan is an illegal war... Iraq is debatable on the other hand...
Comon guys put on your thinking caps. Do people have to spell everything out to you?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- David Hicks Pleads Guilty to Supporting Terrorism
Regardless of his guilt, he should never have been locked up for 5 years without trial. What's worse, fighting with the Taliban, or keeping someone in mostly solitary confinement for an indefinite period of over 5 years? ...and without even the chance to formally object to it or not. Now he may as well plead guilty, everyone's already assumed his guilt, and his conviction is a foregone conclusion.
It's all part of a process blah, blah, blah... to be honest, since I'd never even heard of David Hicks before all this, I don't give a rats arse what happens to him once he's convicted. But as an Australian citizen I'm disgusted that little johny bent over and parted his cheeks once again on behalf of Australia. How can anyone call him a leader?
It's all part of a process blah, blah, blah... to be honest, since I'd never even heard of David Hicks before all this, I don't give a rats arse what happens to him once he's convicted. But as an Australian citizen I'm disgusted that little johny bent over and parted his cheeks once again on behalf of Australia. How can anyone call him a leader?
I think most people here are missing the point.
THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. The military court has allowed heresay evidence and evidence under coercion.
He is an Australian citizen and as cospengle says, John Howard "parted his cheeks once again on behalf of Australia" even though this jail is in clear breach of two words
GENEVA CONVENTION
And for all you americans, get off your high horse. You are not the world sherrifs. So stop acting like it.
THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. The military court has allowed heresay evidence and evidence under coercion.
He is an Australian citizen and as cospengle says, John Howard "parted his cheeks once again on behalf of Australia" even though this jail is in clear breach of two words
GENEVA CONVENTION
And for all you americans, get off your high horse. You are not the world sherrifs. So stop acting like it.
Agreed, he should've been pocessed, tried and convicted right away.cospengle wrote:
Regardless of his guilt, he should never have been locked up for 5 years without trial. What's worse, fighting with the Taliban, or keeping someone in mostly solitary confinement for an indefinite period of over 5 years? ...and without even the chance to formally object to it or not. Now he may as well plead guilty, everyone's already assumed his guilt, and his conviction is a foregone conclusion.
It's all part of a process blah, blah, blah... to be honest, since I'd never even heard of David Hicks before all this, I don't give a rats arse what happens to him once he's convicted. But as an Australian citizen I'm disgusted that little johny bent over and parted his cheeks once again on behalf of Australia. How can anyone call him a leader?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Further to that: a lot of the evidence cannot be tested properly because it is classified!thehootman wrote:
I think most people here are missing the point.
THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. The military court has allowed heresay evidence and evidence under coercion.
He is an Australian citizen and as cospengle says, John Howard "parted his cheeks once again on behalf of Australia" even though this jail is in clear breach of two words
GENEVA CONVENTION
And for all you americans, get off your high horse. You are not the world sherrifs. So stop acting like it.
Yes, he was Australian, so what? He was a soldier with a legal government, which is not a crime under any law.Pug wrote:
Last time I checked, Austrialia sent troops to Afghanistan. But I guess it's okay to have your own countrymen fighting against your own troops.Bubbalo wrote:
As a soldier, in a war, which isn't a crime.
So does that mean that if the CIA kills an innocent person a US Marine can be tried for the crime?Turquoise wrote:
I think the key difference here is that the Taliban was a terror-harboring government with a direct connection to the 9/11 plot. We were justified in invading Afghanistan, and Hicks is, by extension, an accomplice to terrorism.Vilham wrote:
That is what i was talking about... you dont blame the soldiers in iraq for doing their job do you. So why blame this guy for doing his?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
I don't see how Afghanistan is an illegal war... Iraq is debatable on the other hand...
Comon guys put on your thinking caps. Do people have to spell everything out to you?
Bet he never even aimed at an Aussie.
yes of course it does.Bubbalo wrote:
So does that mean that if the CIA kills an innocent person a US Marine can be tried for the crime?Turquoise wrote:
I think the key difference here is that the Taliban was a terror-harboring government with a direct connection to the 9/11 plot. We were justified in invading Afghanistan, and Hicks is, by extension, an accomplice to terrorism.Vilham wrote:
That is what i was talking about... you dont blame the soldiers in iraq for doing their job do you. So why blame this guy for doing his?
Comon guys put on your thinking caps. Do people have to spell everything out to you?
It's a crime in the US, I'm surprised its not in Austrialia. Fighting against your own country is not a crime? Unless he already revoked his citizenship of course...Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, he was Australian, so what? He was a soldier with a legal government, which is not a crime under any law.Pug wrote:
Last time I checked, Austrialia sent troops to Afghanistan. But I guess it's okay to have your own countrymen fighting against your own troops.Bubbalo wrote:
As a soldier, in a war, which isn't a crime.
Personally I hope he is spared jail in Australia as soon as he gets there.
I hope he then kidnaps any American tourists that he sees in Oz and keeps them tied up in a basement for 5 years on rations and with a 10,000w floodlight which penetrates the eyelids making it impossible to ever get a good nights sleep.
I know thats what I would be thinking if I was him. I would want revenge.
I hope he then kidnaps any American tourists that he sees in Oz and keeps them tied up in a basement for 5 years on rations and with a 10,000w floodlight which penetrates the eyelids making it impossible to ever get a good nights sleep.
I know thats what I would be thinking if I was him. I would want revenge.
Should it be? It assumes that a defense force is infallible.Pug wrote:
It's a crime in the US, I'm surprised its not in Austrialia. Fighting against your own country is not a crime? Unless he already revoked his citizenship of course...Bubbalo wrote:
Yes, he was Australian, so what? He was a soldier with a legal government, which is not a crime under any law.Pug wrote:
Last time I checked, Austrialia sent troops to Afghanistan. But I guess it's okay to have your own countrymen fighting against your own troops.
Either way, it's irrelevant, because it was the US that held and tried him.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-03-28 06:56:33)
Exactly. Australia had nothing to do with it.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- David Hicks Pleads Guilty to Supporting Terrorism