SA Footy

He was critical of Western intervention. I am, does that make me a terrorist?

His 'confession' came under duress that included beatings, isolation, sleep deprivation and sexual abuse. No evidence was established that he received terrorist training, a claim backed by the Australian Military, and it's been well documented that he never broke any laws.

Western Forces were not in Kunduz while he was there and was actually on his way back to Australia when he was captured. The fact remains, he never fired a shot outside of the basic military training he received in Kosovo and Pakistan.

You patriotic histrionics in your last sentence aren't evidence of anything.

I'm with Q on this one.

Hicks may have been mislead or deluded, but at the time he was not involved in fighting Australians, and where Australia was not already involved in a particular struggle as an ally of the US there was also no reason an Australian could not also choose to fight against US forces. An Australian fighting Australian forces is perhaps a different matter, although I could imagine circumstances where one's conscience may make it seem the right thing to do if Australia were acting illegally or despicably.

As I argued to Alexander Downer at the time, it was inappropriate to allow any foreign power to hold an Australian citizen without trial and proper representation and without his rights being protected, under any circumstances, but particularly when he had broken no Australian law or International law existent at the time, nor committed any offence on US soil where US law may apply.

I agree too that he had to plead guilty as it was his only hope of ever being released - a plea under great duress.

Just imagine for a moment if Hicks was held in custody in the same manner as Guantanamo Bay by another country, say Russia, Egypt, Iran, Syria or North Korea for example.

Would the reaction of the Australian government and public have been the same?

dedja wrote:Just imagine for a moment if Hicks was held in custody in the same manner as Guantanamo Bay by another country, say Russia, Egypt, Iran, Syria or North Korea for example.

Would the reaction of the Australian government and public have been the same?

It would have been if he was an australian soldier... Otherwise I couldn't care less about him ...

woodublieve12 wrote:

dedja wrote:Just imagine for a moment if Hicks was held in custody in the same manner as Guantanamo Bay by another country, say Russia, Egypt, Iran, Syria or North Korea for example.

Would the reaction of the Australian government and public have been the same?

It would have been if he was an australian soldier... Otherwise I couldn't care less about him ...

Or if they were openly guilty drug smugglers

Q. wrote:He was critical of Western intervention. I am, does that make me a terrorist?

His 'confession' came under duress that included beatings, isolation, sleep deprivation and sexual abuse. No evidence was established that he received terrorist training, a claim backed by the Australian Military, and it's been well documented that he never broke any laws.

Western Forces were not in Kunduz while he was there and was actually on his way back to Australia when he was captured. The fact remains, he never fired a shot outside of the basic military training he received in Kosovo and Pakistan.

You patriotic histrionics in your last sentence aren't evidence of anything.

No evidence of receiving terrorist training? He openly admitted to training with Lashkar-e-Taiba a terrorist organisation. Which Has supported the taliban fight against US, Australia and the northern alliance. He didn't receive "terrorist training" (which is classified as bomb making and flying planes into buildings etc) but he did receive combat training by a terrorist organisation, which to this day he has never denied about doing. Only the other day his lawyer said his fight on this case was never about what he was doing, it was only about the legality of the charge.

If you actually think it's ok the train with a terrorist organisation, that has supports terrorist attacks against our country and our allies then go a head jump on a plane and go fight with them. Go and ask anyone that has lost someone from a terrorist attack and ask them how they feel about someone training with a terrorist group.

David Hicks will always be a terrorist.

Dont offen agree with kickinit but I do in this case. Would of been a lot easier if they had just put a bullet in him straight away

'Boo hoo the poor man was just having a holiday in Afghanistan and didn't deserve to be locked up and tortured'

You lay down with dogs, you get fleas. Simple as that.

When people post like this, I think that they only believe in legal fairness when it suits them. Right or wrong, he's from our country (to turn a well-known phrase around) and our country expects people to be treated within the law and receive a fair trial - whether right or wrong.

Dogwatcher wrote:When people post like this, I think that they only believe in legal fairness when it suits them. Right or wrong, he's from our country (to turn a well-known phrase around) and our country expects people to be treated within the law and receive a fair trial - whether right or wrong.

my thoughts are if you want to train with a terrorist group then you don't even deserve a trial. These groups kill innocent people just because they are brainwashed by some idiot that thinks he is the next hitler. Why would we even bother with a person that has the thought of killing innocent australians just because of something that is made up. Hicks so called "brothers" were ready to go to war with the western world and with out doubt he would of shot at Australian soldiers if he had the chance. It would be interesting what everyones thoughts would be if he did shoot at them.

kickinit wrote:Go and ask anyone that has lost someone from a terrorist attack and ask them how they feel about someone training with a terrorist group.

The same emotive argument could be mounted against the US and it's Allies and the many civilian deaths they are responsible for.

There's no moral superiority when one side is as guilty as the other.

kickinit wrote: Hicks so called "brothers" were ready to go to war with the western world and with out doubt he would of shot at Australian soldiers if he had the chance. It would be interesting what everyones thoughts would be if he did shoot at them.

A speculative argument that has no factual grounding.

kickinit wrote:my thoughts are if you want to train with a terrorist group then you don't even deserve a trial. These groups kill innocent people just because they are brainwashed by some idiot that thinks he is the next hitler. Why would we even bother with a person that has the thought of killing innocent australians just because of something that is made up.

George Bush frequently reference religion in his rhetoric before the Iraq invasion that killed many innocent people. Again, there is no moral superiority in this argument.

Q. wrote:

kickinit wrote:Go and ask anyone that has lost someone from a terrorist attack and ask them how they feel about someone training with a terrorist group.

The same emotive argument could be mounted against the US and it's Allies and the many civilian deaths they are responsible for.

There's no moral superiority when one side is as guilty as the other.

Its that the ones were the taliban try to make out they are innocent civilians? Which happens a lot over there. Or when a civilian doesn't obey orders and to protect themselves they shot. The Afghan people want the troops there, they are doing more good then harm. There not going through farms and kicking people out of their homes like the Taliban. They are also not going through peoples homes and killing them unless they come and fight for them either.

Q. wrote:

kickinit wrote: Hicks so called "brothers" were ready to go to war with the western world and with out doubt he would of shot at Australian soldiers if he had the chance. It would be interesting what everyones thoughts would be if he did shoot at them.

A speculative argument that has no factual grounding.

Its actually called the truth and to this day he still hasn't denied it. The reason why he hasn't denied it is because he knows the US has the evidence. If the US had no proof of it then he wouldn't of been fighting his charge on a legality basis.

Q. wrote:

kickinit wrote:my thoughts are if you want to train with a terrorist group then you don't even deserve a trial. These groups kill innocent people just because they are brainwashed by some idiot that thinks he is the next hitler. Why would we even bother with a person that has the thought of killing innocent australians just because of something that is made up.

George Bush frequently reference religion in his rhetoric before the Iraq invasion that killed many innocent people. Again, there is no moral superiority in this argument.

You seriously going to compare bush reference to religion to a terrorist reference to religion. Clutching at straws now Q.

kickinit wrote:

Q. wrote:

kickinit wrote: Hicks so called "brothers" were ready to go to war with the western world and with out doubt he would of shot at Australian soldiers if he had the chance. It would be interesting what everyones thoughts would be if he did shoot at them.

A speculative argument that has no factual grounding.

Its actually called the truth and to this day he still hasn't denied it. The reason why he hasn't denied it is because he knows the US has the evidence. If the US had no proof of it then he wouldn't of been fighting his charge on a legality basis.

The truth is that he never shot at Western forces. You're using speculation based on your opinion that he may have if given the chance. Fact is, he didn't.

kickinit wrote:

Q. wrote:

kickinit wrote:my thoughts are if you want to train with a terrorist group then you don't even deserve a trial. These groups kill innocent people just because they are brainwashed by some idiot that thinks he is the next hitler. Why would we even bother with a person that has the thought of killing innocent australians just because of something that is made up.

George Bush frequently reference religion in his rhetoric before the Iraq invasion that killed many innocent people. Again, there is no moral superiority in this argument.

You seriously going to compare bush reference to religion to a terrorist reference to religion. Clutching at straws now Q.

You're clutching at straws claiming the moral high ground.

You want to believe it's different, but it's not.

I've not read all the comments, but does it matter who he was training to / or was fighting against?

If, say, he was training with a rebel group in the Ukraine to fight Russian troops, does that make him guilt of terrorism, or is it only because he was reportedly training with a group who inflicted pain and suffering upon Australians?

Seemingly, no one is worried about his time in Kosovo.
Admittedly, though, they aren't brown people.