A win for David Hicks

[Non-Believer]

The DPP has dropped it's attempt to seize the proceeds of David Hick's memoir:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/david...724-22lq2.html

Seems to be the end of a pretty shabby exercise in persecuting him.

[Non-Believer]

...and a tantrum from News Ltd in response:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226434238027

[Non-Believer]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Is Hicks still a muslim, or has he changed?

I'm not sure, but I think he has reverted to a more secular view of life.

[GenericBox]

I don't understand,

He goes to Afghanistan, meets Osama Bin Laden 8 times (in his own words - he originally said 20 but said he was exaggerating http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1111115167069), but claims he also had no idea the Camps he was using had any links to al-Qaeda or that he did not even know who that organisation was until he was sent to Gauntamano Bay? Really?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/at-la...211-18tgr.html

How do you meet Osama Bin Laden while in Afghanistan, even talk to him once, and not know who he is in relation to al-Qaeda, or not even know who that organisation is since 2001. What did he think coalition forces were doing in Afghanistan if not looking for them?

Even his Dad said in an interview: "He said something about going off to Kabul to defend it against the Northern Alliance," Terry Hicks said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3044386.stm

That would be, I assume, the allied Afghan Northern Alliance.

He is then captured by said Northern Alliance in Kunduz, only a few hours north via a highway from Kabul.


I agree that his treatment by the US was probably illegal, and that the prison an error/illegal system.

But as far as I can read - he is anything but innocent, and if what he claims he did not know about or was unaware of or true - he is either stupid or ignorant.

The evidence in my opinion is overwhelming that he was in some way (even if not the way his charges reflect, which I think that Australian article you linked was saying), aiding al-Qaeda. An enemy to the Northern Alliance, the US and Australia in a time of war.

And yet its a victory when he can make money off all this by selling the book?

[Annie]

After reading Detainee 009 by Leigh Sales, I think he was very naive and juvenile.
I also think that anyone who has been detained illegally by a government and subjected to physical and emotional torture has every right to tell their story and if they make money from it all the better. Let's not forget that despite all the bungling efforts of the US to divert the course of justice and charge him in their kangaroo courts they couldnt even though they tried for six years. To this day he is innocent and as you say, probably guilty of being stupid or ignorant. Thankfully neither are crimes.

[Non-Believer]

Originally Posted by GenericBox

The evidence in my opinion is overwhelming that he was in some way...aiding al-Qaeda.

Then why not test this in a properly constituted court of law?

[Aldaron]

GB, which Australian law, exactly, was Hicks guilty of breaking? More to the point, which law that existed at the time of the alleged offence? Because the the Howard government pushed through retrospective laws regarding terrorism to keep in line with their American keepers.

Hicks is a cock - no arguments there - but he is innocent of committing a crime under Australian law.. He pleaded guilty to a makeshift offence, under duress, to get out of an indefinite custodial sentence without being convicted or tried for anything.

That's why the DPP dropped the case- they realised that he can't be stripped of the proceeds of crime when he hasn't committed one, and that his guilty plea was worthless because he was effectively coerced into it.

Moreover, the claim that he aided al-Qaeda in time of war is simply wrong. We were not then, nor ever have we been, in a state of war with al-Qaeda, because it isn't a state, nor was any war declared on Afghanistan. At worst, he should have been arrested by police for aiding a criminal organisation.

But the Howard government, especially Philip Ruddock, and their jack-booted lackeys in the AFP, fucked up yet again.

[Seamus]

To this day he is innocent and as you say, probably guilty of being stupid or ignorant. Thankfully neither are crimes. __________________

Legally to the Americans,he is not innocent as he pleaded guilty. I was not aware he had ever been convicted of breaking any Australian laws.


I have no idea what he did or did not do.My only source of information has been the media,which in turn seems to obtained most of its information from US intelligence,who I trust even less than the media.

I remember around that time, the yanks tried the same thing on a Brit. Tony Blair simply told the Americans to release the British citizen and send him home, which the yanks did with alacrity.


Our morally supine government did nothing when the Americans kidnapped one of our citizens,denied him due process and kept him in prison for years without trial.

In this country,we the have the presumption of innocence. As far as I'm concerned,David Hicks has not received a fair trail and has been convicted of no crimes.


My understanding is that Hicks US military-appointed defence lawyer is of a similar opinion. He was highly critical of the whole situation at the time.That attorney, Michael Mori,has since left the US military and moved to Australia where he will work as a defence lawyer.



http://www.smh.com.au/national/hicks...715-224af.html

[GenericBox]

I would start with Treason, but I am no lawyer - and as was said - I wasn't aware he was charged with any Australian law in the first place.

But from Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code in the Criminal Code Act 1995:

(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or

(f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:
(i) another country; or
(ii) an organisation;

that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force;

[wearestardust]

Originally Posted by GenericBox

I would start with Treason, but I am no lawyer - and as was said - I wasn't aware he was charged with any Australian law in the first place.

But from Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code in the Criminal Code Act 1995:

[/b]

Well, for whatever it is worth, the Australian Government couldn't find a law to charge him with, and the US Government had to find a new one.

To be clear: Hicks is morally reprehensible. He seems to have wanted to join up with anyone who would give him a gun with reasonable prospects of using it to shoot people (not enough attention is given, in my view, to Hicks' membership of the KLA). But that's morals, not law.