According to the Age, David Hicks won’t have any trouble at all complying with his control order. He’s so agoraphobic he can’t go outside.
Since returning to Australia in May this year to serve the rest of the nine-month sentence imposed by the US military tribunal after a negotiated plea deal, Hicks has ventured out into the sunshine once, into the exercise yard at Yatala Labour Prison.
He could not cope, and preferred the enclosed prison and artificial lighting where he felt safer. “He tried to go out, but he just said everything closed in on him,” said his father, Terry Hicks.
On the bright side, it seems like the new government has decided to let Mohammed Haneef get on with providing medical services in Australia.
If what’s been done to David Hicks over years had been done to an animal like me over months, the people responsible would have been put behind bars very quickly.
How is it possible that we animals have better protections than humans do?
pyzo, because you’re not David Hicks and sending you to the glue factory would’vr had no influence on any government’s electoral fortunes, even if your surname was JWH.
But seriously, (apologies, pyzo) I’ve ultimately ended up a bit confused about exactly where Hicks stands right now, within himself.Clearly, he was a bit more than the gun-obsessed idiot inadvertently caught up in world events after 9/11 that I originally thought he was.If the Federal Police evidence, handed over by the Americans is to be believed, (and I admit that’s a pretty big if), he was clearly a Muslim warrior engaged in Jihad against the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, who ‘loved’ and was trained by Ben Laden to fight with the Taliban, not some deluded romantic soldier of fortune.But that was five years or more ago.
Since the first thing he wants to do when he gets home is have a beer, he’s obviously no longer a modern day Muslim. Presumably Guantanamo Bay has cured him of any militaristic leanings.So much so that he’s agorophobic after years of solitary confinement, which would make him utterly useless as a terrorist, one would think. The agorophobia presumably would make a curfew pointless, at least until he is cured. It would also make the obligation of reporting to a police station three times a week virtually psychologically, if not physically impossible.Whatever the Americans did to this Australian citizen in Guantanomo Bay, with the concurrence of the Howard Government, he’s obviously no longer a threat to anyone except himself.
David Hicks was held and systematically tortured at Gitmo in contravention of the Geneva Convention, labelled with a bodgie tag(under which I blog with pride) and denied habeus corpus because Rodent The Bruce felt he had to suck up to an imbecile like Bush43 and his cabal of war criminals.
Pyzo, it’s because people become easily attached to animals possessing functional emotional utility.
John Walker Lindh, the American “enemy combatant” who was also captured in Afghanistan was tried according to US Law, as he was a US citizen, and has been doing easy time on a low security prison farm somewhere in California and has been getting regular vistits from his family for years. Meanwhile Hicks was copping with lawyer-by-trade John Winston Howard’s imprimatur, whatever the torturers at Gitmo could dish out.
If we stand by and do a Pastor Niemoller(his most famous quote) in response to the abuse of Daved Hicks, an Australian citizen of European ancestry, then the way the sedition and anti-terrorist laws now stand in Australia, ASIO or the AFP may kick down your front door at anytime and escort you, or perhaps one of your family to places unknown just to answer a few “friendly questions” without having the benefit/right of a lawyer present.
Smells like a police state to me.
“anti-terrorist laws now stand in Australia, ASIO or the AFP may kick down your front door at anytime and escort you, or perhaps one of your family to places unknown just to answer a few âfriendly questionsâ? without having the benefit/right of a lawyer present.”
Hmm, have you read John Frow’s unaustralia paper?
http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-February-2007/Frow.html
Glen ,
Thanks for the link – challenging stuff to say the least .
Are you aware of any efforts being made to roll back or remove some of these regulations and pieces of legislation? I can’t recall such actions being part of many debates prior to the recent election .
In the 50s at middle head, codes of conduct courses were held where ‘prisoners’ were held for upwards of a week but less than a fortnight in conditions that resonate with gitmo tho’ much softer and the ‘pass’ rate was very low. Multiply that by around 300 and up the ante on the torture and maybe it would be more humane to shoot the poor bastard.
Mr Zorronsky, on TCM recently I watched the film They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? Speaking as one, I wish I hadn’t.
Your mention of shooting David Hicks fills me with misgivings. Do I understand you correctly to be saying that, after having tortured him for five years, that he should now be shot to show compassion. Is this justice human-style?
I must confess that I’m getting skittish about venturing further into the human world. What other evil will a poor horse discover?
pyzo: I think zorronsky’s point was that what Hicks had done to him in Gitmo was worse than being shot.
So far as I know, Labor has ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OF MODIFYING HOWARD’S ANTI TERROR LAWS IN ANY WAY.
Surely Rudd’s most disgraceful failure to date.
I’m sure you’re right, Mr Merkel. Forgive my error.
Strange the way words are, isn’t it? One can get so many meanings from each one. Put a number of them in a long sentence and you could get twenty different possible meanings. Why is human language so imprecise? Does anyone really understand anyone else? Is this why humans are so often at odds with each other and feel so much anger?
Horses don’t have this trouble. The KISS principle. Perhaps we’re lucky!
Poor David.
Paul, of course they won’t.
Sedition never went off the books either.
At best, we can hope for these laws to be quietly killed off in a Law Reform Commission review a decade from now, and that the powers they grant aren’t used too often.
Attorney General McCleland, if he had a free hand. should have denied the AFP request for monitoring Hicks on release for 12 months. I doubt that such post surveillance was ever part of the ‘deal’ done to get him out of Gitmo. It’s a further abuse which may not end after one year. And all the Hicks support team attest to his fragile mental state. Now what if he misses a thrice weekly police visit or throws a fit in Rundle Mall? Will Keelty bundle him off back to Yatala and leak a bit more on the ‘we told you so’ line. Rudd should have quietly informed Keelty that there had been a change of government and AFP procedures in the light of Haneef and other incidents need to take account of change. A sideways move for the commissioner, even an overseas stint, should be under active consideration.
Hear, hear, Pablo.
Good news with respect to Haneef; South East Queensland needs as many doctors as it can get.
Bad news with respect to Hicks; the man’s served his made up sentence for a made up crime by a made up court and ought to be left alone.
I have my own bitch about this one
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22967947-2702,00.html
They put kangaroo skinning in a negative context. And don’t get me wrong, the way we treat animals sucks big time, but the fact is most of us like to eat them so someone is going to have to skin them. I mean the logical failure is just too big… for me to not post over. Arrrrgh!
Few points:
a) The new AG put it into the hands of legally constituted courts. There is what wrong with this exactly? Better deal than he had in Guantanamo. Doesn’t sound to me like Hicks is too fussed, either.
b) Apart from various undertakings regarding hanging out with known terrorists, buggering around with nuclear weapons, visiting Al Qaida websites etc (basically arse-covering exercices on behalf of the AFP and courts), he has to do what? Oh,
3) be home before midnight and check in with cops three times a week. Much like a lot of other parolees.
In other words, give it a rest.
He’s home. In six months he’ll be a footnote in history, and will soon be forgotten.
CK has a pretty good point.
It is not like I have ever seen a parolee have to actually COMPLY with parole conditions, or, heaven forbid, a bailee actually have to COMPLY with bail conditions.
Why would Hicks be any different?
Rejoinder to “few points:”
“The new AG put it(the matter of David Hicks)into the hands of legally constituted courts.”
The former AG, the minister for hiding behind his Amnesty International badge, was utterly convinced for the time that he held office as Australia’s premier lawyer, that Gitmo was legally constituted too.
“In other words, give it a rest.”
I’m sorry, CK, I’m afraid I can’t do that.
Not after five years in Gulag Gitmo. Like Julian Burnside and a few other dangerous radicals, I still think due process matters. After taking a metaphorical shuffle in Hicks’ shackles, it’s easy for me to state: he ain’t heavy, he’s my brother.
“He’s home. In six months he’ll be a footnote in history, and will soon be forgotten.”
Maybe by those who reckon that Hicks got a fair go after surviving 5 years of hell in Gitmo as a political prisoner, but not in this neck of the woods.
Wonder what Her Majesty’s jailers at Yatala will serve up Prisoner Hicks to celebrate the birthday of a cove who knocked about with the “scum of the earth” in Judea a coupla millenia back?
Robert Merkel et al:
This whole farce has been 1% Counter-Terrorism and 99% Spite, Bullying, Crawling and pure Wankery. We pay out taxes for protection against enemies who would do us harm, not for Hollywood-trained action heroes and super G-men to indulge in masturabation disguised as counter-terrorism.
Of course David Hicks should have been detained given the circumstances in which he was found …. but back here in Australia, by PROFESSIONAL and highly experienced officers relying on credible evidence and with the full protection, for all concerned, of our traditional legal system. If he was charged with any crimes, he should have faced justice; if not, he should have been allowed to go about his business after being given very stern warnings. Instead, we have all been dragged down to the level of the terrorists themselves.
I do hope the whole Hicks family enjoys a Merry Christmas and a bright, far happier New Year …. and an Order Of Australia for Terry Hicks too, please.
Well, fondle my fetlock! Graham, I hope that getting a vote of approval from a horse doesn’t upset you but I liked your comment and agree with it.
You demonstrate real horse sense! We are brothers.
Hicks may have serious psychological oroblems with his visits to the local police. This will require him to be fingerprinted every time he visits, apparrently. Recently, he had such a severe anxiety attack being taken fom the prison to a local police station the prison authorities had to abandon the visit.
The magistrate hearing the application for a control order was extremely concerned that all material presented by the Feds was old, and invited Hicks to make a sumission next February, but it appears Hicks is definitely not in any psychological condition to make this statement. His family is concerned about the bad psychological effects of him being released from gaol, and how Hicks will react when pursued by the media.
It seems both Bush and Howard and Ruddock have contravened the Geneva Convention for treatment of POWs here and all 3 should be tried for war crimes.And let us never ever forget that Beaseley’s attiude to Hicks while he was Opposition Leader was basically, “Let him rot in Guantanamo” .
Fair enough POV, EC, and I agree the bloke should be given a break, but the greatest threat to Hicks at this point isn’t the control order, it’s media harassment.
It’s the silly-season and there’s few stories around. So,
a) The pack will be camped outside Holden Hill cop-shop where Hicks has to report three times a week.
b) They’ll find out where he lives, publish the address, and commence the inevitable process of whipping up community outrage, starting with interviewing the neighbours for their reactions re “having a terrorist living next door.”
c) Not to mention the various by-hook-or-by-crook attempts for an exclusive interview.
Agreed. Hick’s father estimates it will take the media 3 days to find his new address. He will not be living with his parents.
The sooner the whole story comes out the better. Bet there are a few people in Australia and America who are hoping it doesn’t!
Funny isn’t it: with horses, what you see is what you get. With humans, well…draw your own conclusions.
Oh come off it pyzo. Horses are just plain weird and unpredictable.
And humans aren’t?
Yeah, they are sometimes, ck, it depends on how one approaches them. It’s mostly about non verbal communication.
There was a professor of medicine at NYU a couple of years back who insisted that before graduates could become interns at “his” teaching hospital, they all, without exception, had to attend a horse aka dude ranch in Dakota for a two week spell. Prof taught ‘em about how to approach and communicate with the animals.
Upon entry into the wards, all attested that bed-ridden patients were far less inclined to tell the junior medics to buck-off. True story.
Pyzo, I hope you take comfort from the tale and get lots of yuletide pats. And, ck, I do enjoy our little spats.
Happy Festivus, EC
Thanks Mr Combatant! I’m really getting a quick course in human behaviour.
The question that is now ‘nagging’ at me is whether or not I’ll eventually end up as a human trapped in a horse’s body.
Quite frankly, on what I’ve discovered thus far about humans, that thought doesn’t appeal to me at all.
Woe that I was born an intelligent, literate horse.
David Hicks would have been forgotten a lot sooner if they had done the the right thing and shot the bastard.
Gaz must be an American. They shoot all their problems!
Noice one Gaz. Get a mullet and thongs for christmas, eh? You fucking nong.
Gaz must be an American. They shoot all their problems!
They don’t as a matter of fact,otherwise they could have put Bush and Cheney against the wall with Hicks.
But as you know,shooting hasn’t been used since Gary Gilmour, most states use lethal injection now,not as good as the electric chair mind you,but the main purpose is achieved just the same.
Noice one Gaz. Get a mullet and thongs for christmas, eh? You fucking nong.
Yeh I did,I also got a nice stubby holder with matching shorts.
And I love you to luvvie.
Mr Gaz, even a horse knows that Americans always shoot (or bomb or burn or irradiate) their problems. Look at the Red Indians, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
What they did to David Hicks is unknown but after their Torture Palace in Abu Graib was finally exposed it can’t have been pretty.
Seems horses are much nicer than many humans. Do you think it’s a genetic thing?
“What they did to David Hicks is unknown but after their Torture Palace in Abu Graib was finally exposed it can’t have been pretty.”
Lay with dogs ya gets fleas.
What you have said is no doubt all true.Your point?
No matter how you carve it up, Hicks threw his lot in with the enemy,he would have known what was in store for him when he was captured.It is not to many years ago, when they would have tied Mr Hicks to a chair and shot him.Yes my country right or wrong,and the politics of the war on terrorism I will leave to others.
Was he treated like shit? No doubt.That does not change the facts of the case,and as far as I am concerned,take up arms against your own,no sympathy, end of story.He is fortunate he was brought to trial period,the troops in the field having found this fucker,may have been judge,jury, and executioner.And Mr Hicks may have been just another missing person.
Mr Gaz, in the equine world there are horses and there are donkeys. It seems there are similar divisions in the human world!
Gaz,
The problem with Hicks is that we, along with the Americans, failed to treat him according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. Guantanomo was created so the Bushites could, among other things, avoid Convention obligations.Of course,Hicks was an idiot, though, since at the time he joined the Taliban, probably technically not a traitor, as we weren’t at war with Afghanistan, of which the Taliban was then the ruling Government, which I understand we did recognise.
He may or may not have been a member of Al Qaeda. I doubt that every Muslim organisation who went to their training camps actually joined them.Its arguable I gather, if he knew of 9/11 at the time he was arrested. So far as he was concerned he thought he was fighting in a civil war against the Northern Alliance. In any case, once he was captured in battle, and handed over to the Yanks, he should have been protected against ill-treatment by the Geneva Convention. One might argue that Al Qaeda didn’t care about the Convention when it killed 4,000 people in the WTC. And that’s blindingly obvious.But that doesn’t give Americans, or by extention us, the right to ignore the Conventions’ obligations. That just makes us as morally reprehensible as Ben Laden, or the Nazis in WW2.
Yes true.You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
Or as my ol dad said once,Only fools and horses like work.The point?
Just like yours, Nil!
And it’s back to the party.
Paul Burns
Dec 25th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Paul you are telling me what I already know.Your point in my mind changes nothing,as I commented previous,Bush,Cheney,Blair,and to some extent Howard, are all party to the monumental fuck up that has been Iraq and Afghanistan, the true reasons for the wars only being known to them.For mine, it was and is still is about the oil,that however,does not excuse Hicks.I have already conceded he was treated like shit,and my only point is,he has got off lightly.
The Geneva convention and all that other bollicks about honor among combatants is for poetry books.If you really do think that the west fights wars with its bollicks tied to notions of honor etc, you are probably as naive as David Hicks.
Would the Israelis be morally reprehensible too, Mr Burns? According to the tellie, they seem to do some terrible things but, for some reason, no one points a hoof at them.
Mr Gaz, the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink shows how compliant we horses are while retaining a degree of independence. Are humans that versatile?
“Are humans that versatile?”
Some to be sure.However,looking at the time it took to get rid of John Howard and his coterie of Donkeys,one did begin to wonder.
Pyzo, I hope you don’t mind if I ask a you a personal question, but do you prefer to work one-out and hoof-tap your comments to keyboard, or do you whinney your words of wisdom to us through a digitally dextrous groom?
Gaz,
I don’t expect war to be conducted honorably. I’ve studied far too much of it and spoken in depth to far too many solfiers to believe that. However, I do believe POWs should be treated honourably as a matter of self-interest so you don’t give the enemy an excuse to treat their prisoners (and our men) badly, and so, if they do, you can charge them with war crimes post war, (provided you’re the winner.)
dear pyzo,
yes, the conduct of Israelis towards the Palestinians constitutes a war crime and crima against humanity in my book, as does the conduct of some Palestinians towards Israelis.I do hope I haven’t derailed this thread into some poinless stoush about the rights and wrongs of Israelis and Palestinians. They are all viscious criminals so far as I’m concerned, and that is my LAST word on it on this thread.
Mr Gaz, I’m glad that Mr Howard was overthrown too. But to use the term, ‘His coterie of Donkeys’ is a total insult to all donkeys. No donkey could be that pathetic!
Mr Combatant, I need to protect the exact nature of my communication technique for fear some crazed capitalist, knowing that somewhere a horse can type, will search me out and exhibit me in a circus on the tellie (which is the same thing). Suffice for me to say that tongue-typing is in vogue in some quarters, even those belonging to grooms.
Mr Burns, like you I am sympathetic to David Hicks. But in the Palestinian Territories there are millions of David Hicks who have served hard time, not for five years, but forty.
However, this thread is about David. So I’m with you!
Here’s some much better news re David Hicks’ state of mind. Father and son will have to walk the paparazzi gauntlet soon enough. Let’s hope the Freak Show Factor is Yesterday’s Papers by the ides of January.
It was the broad perception that Hicks wasn’t getting a fair-go in Gitmo that got him back to Oz well before the last election. Political expediency sprung a political prisoner.
Merry Christmas, David Hicks, and welcome home. Hope you grow to enjoy the freedom for which you so dearly paid.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/25/2127238.htm
“However, I do believe POWs should be treated honourably as a matter of self-interest so you don’t give the enemy an excuse to treat their prisoners (and our men) badly, and so, if they do, you can charge them with war crimes post war, (provided you’re the winner.)”
Look I agree,but at the end of the day we are referring to our enemies, not our own.
Hicks is getting sympathy of that there is no doubt, but it is the way the case has been prosecuted, and the time frame that is of concern.Lets take it for granted he is guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy,you tell me what punishment should be handed down?.
Mr Gaz, I’m glad that Mr Howard was overthrown too. But to use the term, ‘His coterie of Donkeys’ is a total insult to all donkeys. No donkey could be that pathetic!
All right already,my apologies to any Donkey’s reading this.
Even given the excesses of the Xmas season there are some crazy views here.
Hicks was well-treated – he is a grizzler who complains continuously. Now its agrophobia, before it was starvation though at his trial he looked to be a fatty.
Hicks is a convicted terrorist who only the most deranged could see as some sort of hero. He was lucky not to be shot as an enemy combatant and ending up with 5 years in the clink was a very light sentence.
He is also a ratbag who thinks highly of Bin Laden and who saw it has his god-given duty to support the hate merchants in the Taliban by trying to kill Americans and their allies.
Even for LP there are sickeningly stupid comments here. The guy is a creep who deserves zero sympathy.
Geez, Harry, after the warmth and bonhomie of your recent Italian fact finding mission, it didn’t take long for the milk of human kindness to freeze in you veins.
Don Watson’s “Society of Birds” essay in the current “Monthly” is worth a gander. He has a lovely soft touch and uses wit most deftly to amplify his avian observations.
Merry Christmas, professor.
Dear Mr HC, do your initials stand for Howard Clapper or Hicks Censor?
No milk of human kindness for the Taliban or its supporters. None. People who exhibit support for this evil bunch of killers have a real brain disorder. How on earth could they otherwise find any sort of sympathy for these pure pieces of evil? Is it just because they are anti-American?
Hicks has repeatedly revealed his admiration for the Taliban and trained with them militarily. Recent reports suggest his enthusiasm for killing infidels remains high.
You feel sympathy for this turd because he experienced a 5 year sentence?
I’ll pursue the Watson article, thanks.
“Hicks is a convicted terrorist who only the most deranged could see as some sort of hero. He was lucky not to be shot as an enemy combatant and ending up with 5 years in the clink was a very light sentence.”
Harry for fucks sake,I want the bastard shot and then shot again.In fact I would like the Howard government shot,then Bush,then Blair,Hicks again,then Gorden Brown for not having Blair shot.George Bush senior for not having his son shot.Most of all I’d like Oliver Cromwell shot for putting back the monarchy, And most of all me I’ll have another shot of Gin.
Oh by the way Harry I agree with you on this one.The whole thing is a joke,and the left like their attitude to the recent rooting of a 10 yr old Aboriginal child,was as a lefty, an eye opening experience for me.
This blog and a couple of others is the only place you will find justification for some of the weirdness that is going on of late, the mind boggles.
Pyzo, have you read Gulliver’s Travels? You would really, really like it. Especially this bit.
Re David Hicks I gravely fear that ck@#22 is right in every particular. I live in Adelaide and will be watching the media reaction with great interest to see which way they play it.
Harry, when you say Hicks has been ‘treated well’, can I ask how you know this?
Sorry, I should’ve realised that ‘ck[at]22′ which wasn’t meant to be a link, would come up as a bogus email address. My bad.
I’m not so concerned about Hicks now that he’s back in Oz. My main objection was to the fact that an Australian citizen, with the apparent consent of the Australian Govt, was being held in a foreign legal black hole. Now, in Yatala or out on a (admittedly dodgy) control order, he at least exists in the eyes of the law, and therefore will have his basic human rights respected. From here on in, I’m happy to leave it to the courts.
What on earth does this mean?
When the accomplices in the assasssination of Abraham Lincoln were awaiting trial, the authorities received many suggestions from concerned citizens about what should befall them.
One suggestion was that the guilty should be forced to eat themselves to death — that bits be cut off their body and force fed to them.
Is this what “zero sympathy” means?
The Rudd government should assert that the Howard government’s legislation recognising the judicial good standing of US, and only US, military commissions was an abnegation of all of our rights. If you disbelieve that, then imagine how you might feel about the Rudd government recognising the judicial good standing of an Indonesian military commission.
Now some advice for the Rudd government. Having repealed Australian concession of the judicial good standing of US military commissions, how about petitioning the courts to treat Hicks like the dill that he is?
hc [50]:
So you go for appearance, do you? Stuffing a prisoner full of fatty food a fortnight before they go on trial, beating them in places where the bruises don’t show, dressing them in fine clothes, warning them of dire consequences if they deviate from th script just before the public sees them, etc. ad nauseum, are all tricks used by dictatorships for public displays of their enemies ever since the dawn of time. The Imperial Japanese did it, the North Vietnamese did it. And now you’re happy to fall for the same stunt when the Bush regime does it. How naive!
Everyone:
How do you like the pettiness and childish spitefulness that kept David Hicks in prison until both Eid and Christmas were safely out of the way? Does it make you proud to be an Australian?
Pyzo, Couldn’t get Dr. Cat’s link to work, hope this one does the trick. No doubt about it, Mr. Jonny is book-talkin’ to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver's_Travels#Part_IV:_A_Voyage_to_the_Country_of_the_Houyhnhnms
Btw, GGP, you mentioned with pride earlier in the thread about your bloodline and how diligent you are about grooming. Have you ever been excercised by an equestrienne of exquisite empathy named, jinmaro, or do you pointblank refuse to be bridled?
Miss Cat, I have read that book but when I was a foal so I’ll read it again just for you because you sound so nice. Perhaps it has hidden meanings.
Mr Combatant, I don’t bridle at anything as long as it is noble. After all, we horses have a reputation to uphold. What kind of reputation do humans have?
My venture into the human world is in its infancy but, so far, it seems to range from the sublime to the ridiculous, as my mother, a mare of impeccable breeding, used to say.
Katz, ‘No sympathy’ means let this contemptible twerp out of jail and maintain the rigid control order on him in lieu of further jail. Don’t treat him as a national hero, don’t offer him the possibility of a seat in parliament and don’t suggest his dad is father of the year. A hero he ‘aint.
The US had a perfect right to hold Hicks as an enemy combatant. That is what he was. He is a convicted terrorist. You know those people who kill innocents because they are infidels, who support Jihad.
And what on earth does ‘treat him like a dill’ mean? Forgive him because he made stupid choices? If you believe this do you excuse all terrorist supporters on the same grounds? Are the Taliban themselves ‘dills’ who should be forgiven on these same grounds?
Katz see what is front of your eyes instead of taking any opportunity to bag things American or things associated with John Howard. It gives you a distorted view of the world. Even the Labor Government supports the rigid control order on Hicks.
Mr hc, I saw on tellie that, according to very large surveys, America is the most hated and feared country in the world. Yet you seems to applaud it (and John Howard who was thrown out of office recently by Australian voters).
Why are you so out of step?
T’anks EC, don’t yet have my head round the tags, correct use of. The Pyzo-specific bit is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver%27s_Travels#Part_IV:_A_Voyage_to_the_Country_of_the_Houyhnhnms
and well worth a read for those who don’t know or have forgotten it, not least because it has some general pertinence to this thread.
Harry, nobody thinks Hicks is a hero, or if they do then they are in a very small and, if I may say so, barking minority. The issues are international relations and the law: it’s about properly convened courts, legal legal processes (so to speak), the administration of justice, and the acceptance, or not, of whatever the US chooses to do to an Australian citizen.
Calling someone “evil” because they have embraced a regime that you (and I) find repellent is a major category confusion between the two realms of politics and spirituality — unless you embrace the conflation of the two, and that conflation is precisely what drives the extremists you so (and again, rightly) abhor. In which case logically you have no choice but to call the US “evil” as well (waterboarding, “extraordinary rendition”, Abu Ghraib etc etc etc).
And slurring Terry Hicks because you find David Hicks repellent is equally illogical. David Hicks may be all you say, but Terry Hicks has for a number of years been a loyal, supportive, loving father, which is a completely different issue and a bloody hard thing to keep up even when your kids are no trouble.
Justice for David Hicks entails financial compensation for the harm he has endured at the hands of the corrupt US judicial and political systems. I think something like $5 million would be in order. The same for Mamdouh Habib.
Thanks for finding ‘the missing link’ Miss Cat. Obviously there’s more to Gulliver than I realized. Because English is a second language for me I hope that you’ll excuse me for asking but do you find a ‘barking minority’ at the dogpound? Is that an intended or unintended slur on canines or, as an animal, am I being paranoid?
I loved your defense of Terry Hicks. I never knew my father. My mother was artificially inseminated with sperm from America. Hardly an immaculate conception or an earth-shattering beginning, eh!
Hang on, does that mean I’m half-American?
Unintended and unconditionally withdrawn. My bad.
No it doesn’t.
There are at least two aspects to this story.
1. The public policy aspect. The Hicks case is a tangled mess because of the weak and pathetic decision of the Howard government to grant judicial status to Bush’s Military Commission process. I note that more than 6 years after its establishment still the rules of this hypotheitc body have not been established. What sort of government gives legitimacy to a hypothetical body of another country? (I’ve already answered that question: a craven one.) The Rudd government has been bequeathed this mess. Rudd cannot undo what has already been done. But Rudd can withdraw recognition of the legitimacy of Bush’s Military Commission.
(I note that HC did not explain his attitude to an Australian government giving judicial recognition to an Indonesian military commission.)
2. What to do about David Hicks? As a matter of fact, I don’t regard the control order as being particularly onerous in Hicks’ case. Hicks needs to be monitored, and being seen to be monitored. He should be allowed to slip quietly into oblivion. His greatest threat is not what he may do himself but what he may come to represent as a martyr. Does that sound like forgiveness to you HC?
Most of all I want the rule of law to be applied with wisdom.
Mr Katz (are you related to Miss Cat?), why do humans make up lots of laws and then ignore them when it suits? Why are lawyers paid vast sums of money to misinterpret and nullify the law?
It all seems a bit silly but what would a horse know!
The US had a perfect right to hold Hicks as an enemy combatant. That is what he was. He is a convicted terrorist.
I missed these doozies.
1. Yes. The US did have a right to hold Hicks as an enemy combattant. An enemy combattant is called a Prisoner of War. The Bush regime invented another category called “illegal enemy combattant”. Much has been written about Bush’s legal falsehoods on this topic. I merely observe that by leaving the crucial word “illegal” out HC is himself contradicting Bush’s own rationale.
2. Hicks has never been convicted of anything in a properly constituted court of law. In 2004 Howard gave retrospective recognition to US, and only US, Military Commissions.
“How do you like the pettiness and childish spitefulness that kept David Hicks in prison until both Eid and Christmas were safely out of the way? Does it make you proud to be an Australian?”
Bloody oath it does,I’m only sorry he is getting out period. The fawning over this piece of shite makes my head spin.It is no wonder some in the Arab world think we are a soft touch.
“Justice for David Hicks entails financial compensation for the harm he has endured at the hands of the corrupt US judicial and political systems. I think something like $5 million would be in order. The same for Mamdouh Habib.”
Did some one mention “barking mad”?
Pyzo, you’re winning this at a canter, mate!
Where to next year – Melbourne Cup? Kentucky Derby (you could catch up with your American rellies)? Or maybe you’re more of the Greta Garbo type of horse who prefers long periods of perambulating in the paddocks, interspersed with short bursts of keyboard kicking?
{Hang on, does that mean I’m half-American?}
If your manifest destiny as a throughbred is the track/racecourse, Pyzo, then ‘fraid so. Human stud-mongers are always brooding about hoosier poppa, I’m afraid.
But if you float Stateside and wanna party like a golden palomino or a piebald pinto, then maybe you could hook-up with a Beltway filly who’s the hostess with the mostest and could steer you to all the best stable action.
http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/
“The US did have a right to hold Hicks as an enemy combattant. An enemy combattant is called a Prisoner of War.”
I’m surprised you say this, Katz. As you well know from the interminable debates on other threads, no one in their right mind ever argued that Hicks had the right to formal PoW status under the Geneva Conventions.
Most people however — apart from the ‘make him dig his own grave then shoot him’ mob like Gaz — accepted that he had the right to the residual protections under Article 3, GC III.
The Convention (and indeed international law as a whole) provides no legal term for captives who were caught in combat, or belonged to a combatant force, and yet don’t qualify as a proper PoW under Art 4.
So, the US had to create a legal term to classify such individuals. “Illegal enemy combatant” is a perfectly good and accurate description of people like Hicks and others caught during the Afghanistan campaign.
That’s nonsense Paulus.
1. I’ll pass over in silence any consideration of what you may deem to constitute having a “right mind”. (I may well say that no one who argues your line can possibly have an honest intent, but I won’t, so let’s leave pejorative labelling to one side.)
2. As has been established countless times, after capture David Hicks was either a POW or an accused war criminal. There is no other legal option. Further, it has been established just as frequently that the default classification for David Hicks (and anyone else in the same circumstances) is “POW” until a “competent tribunal” convenes and decides otherwise. If such a tribunal decides otherwise, then the accused can be tried for her crimes.
3. None of the above happened to David Hicks.
4. Ergo, David Hicks must be deemed to be a POW until his release.
This is old, old ground Paulus.
“Most people however — apart from the ‘make him dig his own grave then shoot him’ mob like Gaz — accepted that he had the right to the residual protections under Article 3, GC III.”
Please don’t add your own interpretation to what I have said.I have already stated Hicks was treated like shit, and now he has admitted his activities with the terrorist groups, he should be dealt with accordingly.
Contrary to what you and other people here believe MOST people feel like I do and not you. So please desist making it up as you go. Most people out in dullsville do not read or indeed comment on L.P. so spare me the we must be all right, and “Gaz is the make them dig their own grave crew wrong..
In another time of our history,and not that long ago,Hicks would be a non issue and would have already have been dealt with.The patronizing clap trap paraded out on this blog when another person has a different slant on justice, is palpable.
Please share me with your take on the Bali nine as an aside,I guess they should be let off to.But of course me wanting them executed is probably a minority view as well.Yea right.
“This is old, old ground Paulus.”
Yes, granted, but I just want to clarify one thing.
Let’s say Hicks had been before that “competent tribunal” established to your standards (and I agree that it should have been done).
Let’s say, then, the tribunal found that he wasn’t an Article 4 PoW.
OK, so he’s now an “accused war criminal”? But what if Hicks hadn’t committed a war crime, per se, that could be proven in court — but was perfectly eager and ready to return to Afghanistan to rejoin the Taliban and fight Western forces.
It’s unlikely, I know, that Hicks would have felt this way, but many other Taliban undoubtedly would have.
Does the US then have to release them if it can’t prove a war crime? Or can they still be detained? If so, under what status?
But in that circumstance Hicks would still be a POW and would therefore remain under conditions of humane incarceration as mandated by the GCs.
Hicks wouldn’t be going anywhere (at least until he was paroled at the discretion of US authorities).
Bush’s problems started when he tried to make up a third category — illegal enemy combatant.
I didn’t want Hicks set free. I wanted the rule of law to be applied.
“Please share me with your take on the Bali nine as an aside,I guess they should be let off to.But of course me wanting them executed is probably a minority view as well.Yea right.”
Regarding both the Bali 9 and Hicks, I don’t want to make them the hometown hero, unlike some people here on LP. But nor do I want to hang ‘em high. I take the middle ground.
I think Hicks got roughly what he deserved (even if the legal processes involved were somewhat fudged or controversial). By his own admission, he was involved in training and missions for a terrorist group, albeit at a relatively low level. That deserved a few years in a high-security lockup, which is essentially what he got.
The Bali 9 also deserve some jail time (which, in Indonesia, is probably far worse than Gitmo). I don’t think they should be set free tomorrow, but I also don’t think they should be shot.
Trample him to death! Give him five million! Make him dig his own grave then shoot him! He may become a martyr!
Fondle my Fetlock but my poor head is spinning. You humans are so…er…dramatic! Perhaps the answer is to give him five million then shoot him. Would that make everyone happy (but not David of course).
Mr Conehead, I prefer long spells at stud if you don’t mind but I hate it when they use the artificial vaginas. Who do they think they’re kidding. It’s like having a shower with your raincoat on!
Mr Combatant, I’m not happy that I might be half-American. I might need to see my lawyer. Does an egg have the right to choose which seed gives it curry? Have my equine rights been trashed?
I feel like David who someone called a bastard. Is there any proof of his mother’s infidelity? In my case, my mother had intercourse with a stiff tube so what does that make me?
It’s all getting a bit much!
“The Bali 9 also deserve some jail time (which, in Indonesia, is probably far worse than Gitmo). I don’t think they should be set free tomorrow, but I also don’t think they should be shot.”
Well we have a reasonable response.We will have to agree to disagree on the punishment.I am glad I am not on my todd interpreting comments on this blog that would give Hicks and the Bali 9 the “Nobel Peace Prize”
But, Katz, these people, having being examined by the “competent tribunal” and found to be not covered by Art 4, and yet not war criminals, would constitute a third category.
Such individuals would be treated differently. They would not, for example, have the benefit of Art 60: “The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay.” Nor Art 63: “Prisoners of war shall be permitted to receive remittances of money addressed to them individually or collectively.”
Nor indeed ANY of the rights under the GC, except insofar as they constitute part of the basic requirement to be “treated humanely” under Art 3.
If the US hadn’t coined the term “illegal enemy combatants”, maybe it could have called them “non-Article 4 Prisoners of War”, or some similar phrase.
But inescapably a third category would have had to be created, which was my point all along.
“the answer is to give him five million then shoot him.”
No, the correct answer is to give ME five million, then shoot him.
BTW, Pyzo, you really need to get an equine gravatar!
Mr Paulus, I got one yesterday afternoon but, despite several comments, it still doesn’t show. I just checked with Gravatar again and everything checks out all right there. Perhaps it’s a problem with L.P.
I had a relative once called Prisoner of War. He broke a leg and…well, as Shakespeare said so eloquently: “Get thee to a Knackery!”
CK [way back at 16]:
Hicks himself may soon be forgotten but his case won’t …. because it displayed to the whole world – and no doubt in doing so gave joy and delight to real terrorists – the several very dangerous, possibly fatal and irreparable, flaws in Australia’s defences.
It also tore to shreds the reputation of Australia’s security and intelligence organizations being, in some way, superior to others. When push came to shove, all they could do was what any third-world government does: rely on brutality [even if that was done by third parties], fairy-tales and dodgy rumours instead of hard evidence, hand-me-downs from a foreign regime [or rather, from a faction in a foreign political party!], changing the laws after the horse had bolted [sorry, Pyzo] and heaven only knows what other silliness. When what was needed was toughness, rock-solid reliable evidence, speed, steely determination, flexibility and a thorough understanding of the complex situation …. all we got was theatre: tragic, farcial theatre.
In failing to defend their own integrity from the whims and wishes of politicians pretending to be great warriors, these same security and intelligence organizations have unwittingly have placed us all in greater peril. Why didn’t someone have the guts to stand up to the [now-defunct] Prime Minister and tell him “NO!” “No! You bloody d*ckhead! No!”
Mr Bell, even the members of Howard’s own Party didn’t have the guts to stand up to him, not even one!
I have often wondered during a quiet moment by the dam just what power it was that the little man wielded so effectively. It was black power, I’m sure. It had to do with owl’s blood and frog’s breath and chicken feathers and boiling cauldrons and spells and potions.
Anyway, he’s being spelled now in the Long Paddock. None too soon either!
Not true Paulus.
David Hicks was caught guarding a tank.
If that doesn’t constitute appearing under arms as defined by the GC, I don’t know what does.
Hicks was a POW pure and simple. In short, Hicks was classifiable under Art 4 as a POW. hicks was covered by Art 4.
And Hicks would remain incarcerated as a POW after the termination of his investigation as a war criminal.
Pyzo,
I would dispute your claim that ‘even the members of Howard’s own party didn’t have the guts to stand up to him, not even one!’
Surely, the members for the following electorates would have had the intestinal fortitude to wander outside the confines of the herd/flock/school/whatever:
Cowper (NSW)
Donkey (VIC)
Fisher (QLD)
Petrel (QLD)
I don’t want to sound elitist, Mr Conehead, but though there is a hierarchy in the animal world it is a more inclusive one than that in the human world. My mother used to say that, based upon their actions, humans were the real King of Beasts.
She’d whisper to me that whereas other animals live with and/or eat other living things but only in order to survive, humans kill most other living things for fun as well as to enable survival AND, via war, enjoy killing large numbers of their own kind as well.
Mr Howard, knowing this fact, sought the company of other killers. Perhaps his power over others came from their awareness of this reality!
David Hicks’ great thorn in his side for the rest of his life will be The Luvvies. They will continue to exploit him for whatever naive, ignorant, and morally-narcissistic campaign they next stumble on as a fashion label.
The Luvvies need to leave both the aborigines and Hicks alone.
ck
Noice one Gaz. Get a mullet and thongs for christmas, eh? You fucking nong.
Oh Luvvie! What a pity you and Luvvie glen could not have been with my family yesterday, you would have loved it! Perhaps next year? Don’t worry about appropriate attire, there will be enough said “fucking nongs” to dress you suitably. But if you are still keen, I could ask them to take you on their pig-shooting safari just after New Year.
Gaz
George Bush senior for not having his son shot.
I have long maintained that the world would have been a much better place had Mrs. Barbara Bush been retroactively aborted.
Katz
The US did have a right to hold Hicks as an enemy combattant. An enemy combattant is called a Prisoner of War.
Dude, you seriously should be worried about the drug squad finding your Santa sack. FFS. The only people who prattle on about Geneva Conventions insisting Hicks was covered by them are English teachers and Cultistudi students.
I expected more from you. Perhaps, when your Santa-stash is empty, your sanity will return.
“But if you are still keen, I could ask them to take you on their pig-shooting safari just after New Year.”
The only “Pigs” in fear of getting shot from some of the bloggers on this site are the pigs arresting some Aboriginals for rooting a ten yr old.Or possibly the trigger happy fuckers that arrested David Hicks.
Oooo so cutting Gaz.
“I have long maintained that the world would have been a much better place had Mrs. Barbara Bush been retroactively aborted.
”
Or better still,any of the passengers on the Mayflower resembling the Bush family,should have been put off about a thousand klicks out to sea from Plymouth Rock.
John Greenfield [92]:
The concerns of people, other than the Luvvies, have never been about whether David Hicks was naughty, nasty or nice. Concerns have always been about: [1]. Whether Australian sovereignty had been surrendered to a foreign ruler [and a vicious blundering one at that] and whether Australian citizenship, already weakened by being sold on the world-wide migration market, had been seriously devalued by the Hicks and Habib cases. [2] The feeble excuses churned out for unnecessarily destroying several centuries of our hard-won liberties and obligations in the name of “counter-terrorism”. Recent terrorist attacks and changes in terrorists’ methods made legislative reform vital for our survival – but it was reform we needed, not ratbaggery and wankery!! [3]. The blatant abuse of political power.
Nobody knows whether David Hicks is guilty of anything until he is charged and brought before a court – under Australian law. Given recent reports of his condition, no decent judges in the land would deem him competent to be brought before their bench. The Luvvies and the Hystericals alike are both convinced of his guilt or innocence – their certainty is based entirely on the reading of chook entrails, the fall of certain playing-cards and the signs of the zodiac. In the end, their guesses don’t matter; David Hicks and his family have been punished enough.
Pyzo [88]:
Howard bluffed his way into getting and retaining power. Is it called the alpha-male syndrome or something like that? Mussolini used it. No black magic involved: just old-fashioned intimidation. “The Leader is always right” even if he is an obvious dunderhead. Remember the fable about “The Emperor’s New Clothes”?
IMHO, Howard got rid of Hollingsworth as Governor-General because Hollingsworth was a wake-up to Howard and wouldn’t kowtow to him [you're not so naive as to think he was tipped out for protecting his church against litigation, are you?]. What is really worrying is that the present Governor-General, a man with professional training and experience in counter-terrorism, allowed so much of the Howard regime’s dodgy agenda on counter-terrorism to cross his desk unchallenged. He would be a fascinating witness at a Royal Commission into these matters and a plausible story alone may not be enough to salvage his reputation.
“[1]. Whether Australian sovereignty had been surrendered to a foreign ruler [and a vicious blundering one at that] and whether Australian citizenship, already weakened by being sold on the world-wide migration market, had been seriously devalued by the Hicks and Habib cases.”
A couple of cases of bastardry by an Australian government(in Howards case I use that term loosely)does not make for a break down of the structures of liberty that is bellowed about on this blog.Rudd has been elected our safe guards presumably have,(yet to be tested) restored. Hicks’s guilt is not in doubt.The feeble excuses churned out for unnecessarily destroying several centuries of our hard-won liberties and obligations in the name of âcounter-terrorismâ?.
“Recent terrorist attacks and changes in terroristsâ methods made legislative reform vital for our survival – but it was reform we needed, not ratbaggery and wankery!!”
What utter bollicks!It has been far from hundreds of years that we have had anything that resembles true freedom.It is not so many years ago that we were restricted on what we could read and what music we could listen to.In South Australia they in the scheme of things have only just been allowed to drink after 6 p.m. in public houses,and I may be wrong wrest point was the first legal casino.We sent thousands of kids to do national service, FREEDOM WTF.
Hicks and Habeb had nothing to do with Howard getting the arse,you must have a keen sense of the people if you think out in the burbs this was on the radar.Work choices was his Achilles Heel end of story.The cream for the Labor Party of which I am a member, is Rudd looks more like and has the same mannerisms as Howard.They thought he would be a steady hand on the tiller and he got the gig.
“But if you are still keen, I could ask them to take you on their pig-shooting safari just after New Year.”
What? Making time between outback serial killings, are they?
Hicks is damned by his own words, in letters to, among others, his parents which formed part of the submission upon which his control order was founded.
Obviously the magistrate who granted the control order thought he was competent to be brought before the bench. There is nothing that has been suggested by his own lawyers to suggest he is not legally competent. Mentally fragile, yes, after what has obviously been a prolonged traumatic experience for him but that is a different issue of being legally competent.
A further point. It is the height of arrogance to say, as you do, that Hicks, and by necessary inference any other Australian who commits a crime while abroad, can only be tried by an Australian court for that crime. Had Hicks not been turned over to the Americans the Afghan government would have been quite within its rights to try him under its own laws as a foreign mercenary and bang him away in one of its prisons, which would no doubt make Guantanamo look like the Hilton, for a very long time.
You seem to have a fantasyland view of how far national sovereignty extends. Generally it does not extend beyond a country’s borders.
“Hicks is damned by his own words, in letters to, among others, his parents which formed part of the submission upon which his control order was founded.”
Hey don’t let a voluntary confession to your own parent, and with out duress, get in the way of the facts.
The attitude to this bastard by some on this blog is a good belly laugh.If Al Qaeda opened a recruiting office in the main st of Sydney,some on this blog would be screaming it would infringe free speech,or be against the fair trade act if the federal police had it closed down.
Of course Al Qaeda could always staff it with our home grown drug dealers,rapists,and murderers,that way at least, they couldn’t be accused of discrimination.The Hicks saga,what a hoot.
GregM re
Hicks was charged with attempted murder and providing material support for terrorism, none of which are war crimes–[originally for "aiding the enemy", conspiracy to murder civilians BTW]
(The material support charge was retrospective as it was only passed into American law in 2006.)
So, we have a foreign national in Afghanistan charged by a foreign country under its domestic legislation, retrospectively, for being a soldier of the Taliban (and guarding a tank) whilst outside that nation’s (the US’s) domestic jurisdiction.
I’d say the fantasyland was all the US’s in its conflation of retrospective anti-terrorist legislation and international law (war crimes.)
The denial of the Geneva protections for POWs (or innocent civilians as the case may be) at GITMO, torture etc was a prima facie war crime/crime against humanity in itself.
The understanding of the legal issues will unfortunately be lost on our Joe Sixpacks, who would rush in to collect given a notice outside gas stations:
“Free David Hicks with every 10 litres of BP Zoom.”
What a load of patronizing schlock.
Mr Bell, what you said about Howard rings true. On another topic, Mr Gaz has mentioned that David is a bastard. This seems to be a terrible thing in the human world.
In the equine world we have no equivalent word because we have no such concepts as marriage or God. But I understand that David’s parents were married so why then is he a bastard?
Katz, you’ll recall from my much earlier posts that we generally agree in our analysis of Hicks’ position vis-a-vis US law and the Geneva Conventions. Once in US custody he should have been held as a prisoner of war until a competent authority decided otherwise. If there were criminal charges to be brought against him they should have been brought before a properly constituted tribunal (though that would not be a US domestic court) applying appropriate and internationally recognised law.
However had he remained in Afghan custody, or been returned to it, they’d have been in their rights to apply whatever their laws were for foreign mercenaries fighting against them in their civil war. I would not have been concerned at all if that course had been followed. I have no more sympathy for Hicks in going off to interfere in the internal affairs of another country and participating in violence against its citizens, for whatever fantasy of his he was pursuing, than I would have for an Australian drug trafficker or child molester abroad.
However on one note, while I haven’t researched it, providing material support for terrorism seems like the sort of offence for which a country could claim universal jurisdiction to legislate against (as with piracy, genocide and slavery) and so it would be irrelevant whether the person charged was a POW or whether it constituted a war crime or whether or not he was a citizen of the country before whose court he was brought.
Sorry Peter Kemp. For some reason I mistook you for Katz.
PK:
This is an accurate summation of the nature of the putative offences for which the Howard government undertook to incarcerate Hicks after having been released from US custody.
1. The offence “providing material support for terrorism” did not exist until Hicks had been in Gitmo for three years.
2. Even though the laws under which Hicks was charged are domestic US laws (whether retrospective or not) Hicks was not tried in a domestic US court. Instead, a non-judicial commission declared Hicks’ guilt.
3. In 2004 an amendment to the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act granted the colour of legality of these proceedings if they occurred in the US, and only in the US. I note that apologists for these proceedings have not attempted to justify this unique privilege of legality accorded to the executive of one country among many in the world. For example, the Queen of the UK, were she to set up a Star Chamber, would not have her executive power recognised under current Australian legislation.
In short, Hicks has been incarcerated in Yatala:
*not for being a POW.
*not for breaking Afghani law.
*not for breaking US law that existed at the time of his arrest.
*not for offences proven in a US court of law.
*but for offences that the US president, and only the US president, has the legal right under Australian law to be recognised as a proper judicial proceeding.
This is an insult to the rule of law. The Howard government is responsible for this insult. And if the Rudd government does nothing to end the insult Rudd will be responsible for its continuation.
Sorry, I’m going to have to shut this thread down. I’m going away for a few days and it’s already getting a bit heated.
Have a good silly season.