Will Aussie David Hicks get a fair 'trial'?

[belgarion]

[i]Hicks' family stunned by charges

Reporter: Alison Caldwell

DAVID HARDAKER: The family of alleged al-Qaeda fighter, David Hicks, says they're stunned and somewhat bewildered by the charges which have been laid against their son.

After two-and-a-half years in detention at Guantanamo Bay, David Hicks now knows what he's alleged to have done. The charges include conspiracy to commit war crimes, aiding the enemy and attempted murder.

While his lawyers have expressed deep concerns about the lack of judicial fairness in a military commission, the Prime Minister has expressed confidence in the Pentagon's processes.

The Opposition meanwhile has expressed surprise at the charges, describing them as ancillary rather than direct.

Alison Caldwell reports.

ALISON CALDWELL: Now that charges have been laid against the alleged al-Qaeda fighter David Hicks, the Prime Minister John Howard says he's confident a military commission will soon follow, possibly sometime in August.

But while Hicks' lawyers fear their client will be denied natural justice, John Howard says he has faith in the process that lies ahead.

JOHN HOWARD: We are satisfied with the assurances we've been given by the Americans that the military commission procedure will accord with the principles of criminal justice as we understand it.

ALISON CALDWELL: The Opposition however, isn't quite so assured.

Nicola Roxon is the Shadow Attorney-General.

NICOLA ROXON: Well, Labor would like the Prime Minister and the Government to more actively pursue this. We want to make sure that these charges are treated and handled fairly, and that that like any other Australian citizen, David Hicks should be entitled to a fair trial.

ALISON CALDWELL: Nicola Roxon says while serious, the charges are somewhat surprising given their ancillary nature.

NICOLA ROXON: I'm just surprised, given the comments that have been made by both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister, and the very unusual situation of holding people in Guantanamo Bay for two-and-a-half years without charge, that we might have expected to see even more serious charges than the ones that have been laid.

ALISON CALDWELL: On the charge of attempted murder, the US Defence Department claims that as an enemy combatant, David Hicks fought against Coalition troops, including Australians, in Afghanistan post-September 2001.

It's alleged he attended four terrorist training courses, which included weapons training. It's also claimed that he spied on the US and British embassies in Kabul.

But David Hicks' Australian lawyer Stephen Kenny says that's unlikely.

STEPHEN KENNY: Well my understanding is those embassies had in fact been closed for between 12 to 15 years at the time he's alleged to have carried out the surveillance, so…

ALISON CALDWELL: He's watching empty buildings?

STEPHEN KENNY: Yes, if he was surveilling anything, I presume they were empty buildings, because certainly the embassies had been gone for a long time.

ALISON CALDWELL: David Hicks' father Terry knew the charges were imminent but he fears there's worse to come.

TERRY HICKS: It's become an embarrassment over two-and-a-half years of saying that David Hicks is guilty of this and guilty of that and guilty of something else without even facing court... so I think it's got to the embarrassing stage now where they've got to charge him with something, and he's going to have to do time.

ALISON CALDWELL: His wife Beverley says she was devastated by the charges.

BEVERLEY HICKS: Reading those words on that transcript – they're not good, and they don't look good, and that's a worry.

ALISON CALDWELL: The next step for David Hicks is for the Pentagon to refer his case to trial, meaning the Defence Department will select a presiding judge and jury. If convicted, it's possible that he could serve his sentence in Australia.

The Prime Minister John Howard again, speaking on Melbourne radio 3AW.

JOHN HOWARD: Well, he hasn't been convicted yet, but the understanding is that he can se

[biker]

My view is we don't need a topic like this on this site.

[Gryffyn]

I'm with biker - it is not even remotely related to share trading or macro economics that might impact investment.

[thereslifeafter87]

On the charge of attempted murder, the US Defence Department claims that as an enemy combatant, David Hicks fought against Coalition troops, including Australians, in Afghanistan post-September 2001.

It's alleged he attended four terrorist training courses, which included weapons training. It's also claimed that he spied on the US and British embassies in Kabul.

Since when does the US have jurisdiction over things that happen in other countries? Their courts, military or not, have no jurisdiction to try this case.

Also, I thought the whole idea of being an enemy combatant was that it wasn't a crime to kill people trying to kill you? Isn't that one of the basic rules of war?

He attended 4 terrorist training camps? Were these camps sponsored by the government of Afghanistan at the time? If they were then whats the difference between a training camp there, and one at a US army base anywhere in the world?

Hypocritical as hell if youa sk me.

[Burgerbun]

Feck off Belg...really

[Lawso]

to biker and others: Hear, hear!

[belgarion]

Perhaps I should have titled this thread better.

My point, which seems to have escaped most, is that we rely on the LAW, to grant us, as both citizens and property holders, some protection and enforce some rights.

Our rights to property is my immediate concern.

My point in starting this thread is simply to see how others, who are likely to be both citizens and property holders, feel about the ability of the LAW to protect our rights as both citzens and property holders.

To me, maybe Im getting old, but i feel that there are some brand new set of 'LAWS' that are being accepted by the masses that make any 'rights' that I thought I might have 'null and void' should some higher power decide that it is so. Given this very confused basis, how 'fair' do you think your rights to property would be when faced with 12 of your 'peers'?

From my point of view, the LAW gurantees, yes guarantees, a degree of stability that is crucial to investment. Without it? ... Its the rule of the gun or the most powerful or the most dreprived.

To me, the separation between the LAW and the State has been one of the pillars of western society as it separates the powers of the people, businesses, the state and the courts. A four-way control to stop the descent into comlete chaos.

Sorry, I'll shut up in future. It seems that many don't care or understand.

[Capitalist]

Belgarion, you have marginalised yourself with your ferocious, angry and defensive (sometimes even hateful) anti-American pessimism--a conservatism in the true, ugly sense of the word.

If no-one understands what you are trying to say, look to your own self.

[thereslifeafter87]

Cap,
For someone who is supposed to be a libertarian, you are very supportive of governmental infallibility.

The US is clearly operating outside of any true legal jurisdiction, and depriving people of rights to natural justice. Regardless of whether they are 'guilty' of any 'crime', they still deserve a fair trial by a jury of their peers, the right to counsel, the right to not have their trial delayed unnecessarily (upwards of 2 years?), and a whole host of other rights.

Libertarians are supposed to be more supportive of rights against the state than anyone aren't they Cap?

Why is it that because the bastion of freedom and democracy does something its automatically right? screw the rights of anywone else?

Belg may rant, but thats no reason to compromise your own beliefs Cap.

[Capitalist]

As I have said before, there are many variants of Libertarianism, from the extreme non-interventionist anarcho-capitalists up. First and foremost I am an Objectivist. As a Lib I espouse the values of classical liberalism, including individual rights, limited government, private property, free markets, tolerance, and reason.

I am not terribly aware of the Hicks case and that was not my point.

If you think I dislike Belgarion you are quite wrong. I respect him for taking a stand on the issues he believes in, and not being afraid to put himself out there in print for the trolls to see and punish him for.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion to be sure, but opinions have consequences. That is what I was saying.

[biker]

Belgarion- your point wasnt missed.I just dont think this is the forum for it or your condescending reply.

[Major von Tempsky]

Did the 3,000 plus innocent civilians in the WTC on 9/11 get a "fair trial"?

Would Hitler have got a fair trial?

Did Adolf Eichmann (the Nazi war criminal kidnapped from South America by Israel) get a fair trial in Israel before he was hanged?

I think he did.

Frankly I don't care whether David Hicks or any other nutter captured in Afghanistan red handed, training to do more 9/11's gets a fair trial.

The average Westerner is just fed up with all the lily livered bleeding heart prima donna performances.
Rather like the ABs before the advent of Graham Henry, Steve Hansen/Wayne Smith.

Tell Amnesty to come back when normality has resumed.
We can't afford to indulge them right now. They are an expensive luxury.

[thereslifeafter87]

Cap, there is no such thing as objectivity. Your 'objective' view is coloured by you life experience, the culture you were raised in, the sources you digest your information from, and so on...

MVT, why are the US soldiers who kill innocent people not treated in the same way as the 'terrorist nutters'?

They both killed innocent people in a foreign country.

The 'average westerner' I think you will find from opinion polls is not fed up with rights, is not fed up with the idea of a fair trial, but definitely is fed up with current US foreign policy that is destabilising the world politically and economically.

[Major von Tempsky]

"Thereslifeafter87"....presumably post NZ 1987 share crash and not your actual age old chap?

You fail to recognise several important differences between US soldiers and Al Qaeda nutters.

(a) it is not US policy to kill innocent civilians abroad. Sometimes it happens by accident in bomb drops, friendly fire etc but it's not intentional. Where it does happen due to rogue soldiers incl female ones, its investigated and the guilty are punished.

(b) the US soldiers are subject to democratic checks and balances such as elections and the justice system.

The total reverse of all that applies to Al Qaeda. Think about it.


Re your belief that the polls back meekly giving in to Al Qaeda...
Well, here in NZ the polls since Brash's Orewa speech have certainly showed that the average NZer is fed up with "special rights".
And the analysis of the recent European polls and election results by pundits have been that there was an anti Iraq backlash but that there was a reaction against all governing parties, incl those gutless wonders Chirac and Schroeder.
And the commentators made the point that although the UK's Labour has taken a pasting on local issues he's still expected to win the next election.

How do you manage to misinterpret events so badly...

[thereslifeafter87]

quote:Originally posted by Major von Tempsky

"Thereslifeafter87"....presumably post NZ 1987 share crash and not your actual age old chap?

You fail to recognise several important differences between US soldiers and Al Qaeda nutters.

(a) it is not US policy to kill innocent civilians abroad. Sometimes it happens by accident in bomb drops, friendly fire etc but it's not intentional. Where it does happen due to rogue soldiers incl female ones, its investigated and the guilty are punished.

(b) the US soldiers are subject to democratic checks and balances such as elections and the justice system.

The total reverse of all that applies to Al Qaeda. Think about it.


Re your belief that the polls back meekly giving in to Al Qaeda...
Well, here in NZ the polls since Brash's Orewa speech have certainly showed that the average NZer is fed up with "special rights".
And the analysis of the recent European polls and election results by pundits have been that there was an anti Iraq backlash but that there was a reaction against all governing parties, incl those gutless wonders Chirac and Schroeder.
And the commentators made the point that although the UK's Labour has taken a pasting on local issues he's still expected to win the next election.

How do you manage to misinterpret events so badly...

Well, you got one thing right anyway - it is post 1987. I'm not at the age of senility yet.

I think you will find that it is US policy to kill 'innocent' civilians abroad. All of their military policies make allowances for 'acceptable levels of collateral damage' - ie: killing civilians. Therefore by invading they intend to kill that amount of civilians. Maybe not as indiscriminate as Al Qaeda, but still intent.
Another factor you overlook is that they've killed more Iraqi's that Al Qaeda killed Americans.
I can't see too many soldiers being punished for being scared out of their wits and shooting anything that moves.

The US soldiers are not subject to democractic checks and balances on any relevant level. This is because:

a) the US president is elected based on what the media says. The media only know what the army tells them.
b)The justice system that applies to the military is the military justice system. Military is to justice as... well... you finish the sentence.
c) Do you really think the election of a new president or house of representatives can quickly change the entire ethos of the government/military setup? the suggestion that such an incredibly slow-acting democracy (all the checks and balances ) - can act to change policies of the military, CIA, and the list goes on and on, in any effective way, in any effective amount of time - is ludicrous.

Al qaeda is accountable in a far more direct way. If its cause is not popular, then it gets no members.
Why is Al Qaega's cause popular?
Because of religious fanaticism?
Yes.
Only because of religious fanaticism?
No.
Why else is Al Qaeda popular?
Because of hatred of the US due to its foreign policy, association with Israel, continued intervention in the affairs of other countries?
Hmmmm... probably.
Has this hatred become an epidemic?
Yes
How can Al Qaeda be stopped?
by retaliation?
no. Al Qaeda is like a medusa, cut off one head and another one sprouts. What is needed is to grow world trade, include arab countries in real development, increase living and education standards so that people aren't ignorant enough to follow leaders like Osama bin Laden.
It is a fact that people with less to lose have less to risk. Poverty is the major cause of all conflict. Look at rich countries.... Very few civil conflicts. Funny that eh?

MVT why can't you see that taking a hard line against Al Qaeda will just stir up more hatred for the US?