David hicks.

So are you a court of law? No? Well then your opinion on his guilt is just that, your opinion. The US should have stopped stuffing around trying to rig dodgy military tribunals and brought him in front of a proper court of law charged with a valid breach of law far sooner than this.

Those saying he is a POW, America is supposed to deal with POW's in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The facilities and conditions at Guantanamo most definitely do not comply with the convention.

I'm not saying that the guy is an angel who should be set free from unjust imprisonment, I'm just saying that it is completely hypocritical for the yanks to be claiming the moral high ground while they ignore their own and international laws.

 

no im not a court of law at the start of this thread it was ask of peoples opinions and that is mine and what do you know about the geneva convention or about the conditions at guantanamo bay hav you personal been there and witness any of this or hav you just watched to many re-runs of hogans heros on paytv

 

Actually that statement is incorrect.

He fought with the Taliban, the Taliban is the Afghanistan government's armed forces.

Al Qaeda is the terrorist network you are referring to. The Taliban army has numerous links to Al Qaeda, none of which I will go into right now.

It is alleged, not proven that he may or may not have trained with Al Qaeda as part of his training for the Taliban, but yet again this is all circumstantial, and even if it was, he has not committed any acts of terrorism.

He has fought for numerous armies around the world as a mercenary. Which is not uncommon, nor illegal, in fact there are quite a few highly decorated soldiers worldwide doing this. Whether or not you agree with this morally or not has no bearing on it.

The issue here is that they must prove his link to Al Qaeda, all of which is pure speculation and circumstantial currently. The only known fact is that he fought for the Taliban which is not a crime, Al Qaeda on the other hand may very well be.

Many people get confused between what the Taliban and Al Qaeda actually are, some research into both of them wouldn't go astray.

I can buy a handgun, why would I buy a handgun if I had no intentions of killing someone? The same rule applies here. Unless links can be proven, and he is proven to be apart of plots for terrorism or murders, then he has been held unjustly for five years. Morally it is another matter entirely, but morals are not part of law.

 

Its been reported that Hicks has seen light only twice since the beginning of december. Not exactly healthy conditions.

 

reported:thumbsup: isnt a fact

 

Nor is him being "reported as a terrorist" fact, yet you seem to believe that one.

 

You are entirely entitled to your opinion, I'm just making the point that while you believe he is guilty, after five years the case hasn't even been put before a court of law to determine if he is actually guilty.

I don't need to have been to Guantanamo to show that the conditions there are in breach of the Geneva Conventions. A tiny but very relevant excerpt states: "No detainee can be without a legal status under the Conventions"

The prisoners are being held in Guantanamo precisely for the purpose of denying them a legal status, hence my OPINION is that it is in breach of the convention, and I am every bit as entitled to this opinion as you are to yours. Have a nice evening, I'm headed down the pub.

 

did you read the part of post that said " what are peoples opinions on david hicks" thoses are mine weather they are fact or not or you like them those are my opinions :thumbsup:

 

i think you will find that the detention center is on a us navy base in cuba which is classed as american soil

 

and ill be tie first person jumping out from the parade to bash him, and i bet i wouldnt be the only one.

scum like him doesnt deserve to be kept. pity he didnt get killed in the field

 

" The Taliban are a Sunni strictly puritanical Islamist and Pashtun-nationalist movement that ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, and are currently engaged in a protracted guerilla war against NATO forces within Afghanistan ".

 

The geneva convention actually doesn't apply to Al Qaeda suspects, only Taliban detainees, which was ruled by the US.

So in effect any Al Qaeda "suspect" does not have any rights, and the US has ruled as such.

 

I'm sorry but when was Afghanistan invaded? 2001 if my memory serves me correctly

The taliban was the ruling government of afghanistan up until september 11, until it was overthrown by the US and NATO forces. It cannot even be proven that he fired upon allied troops when fighting for the Taliban.

 

2001 thats right the us begain its war on terrorism. there mission was to out the taliban regime which had been providing support and safe haven to al qaeda wich is as good as fighting along side them.

 

If he was a terrorist, wouldn't they have laid charges by now? I mean... All the other "terrorists" that they have caught are in jail or dead...

And... What makes him a terrorist? Because he trained at this camp? Where US citizens have also trained?... Has he blown anything up? Killed any innocent people? I wouldn't exactly call him a terrorist... Not yet anyway... Not with no evidence AT ALL... If there was even the smallest amount of evidence that he was a terrorist he would have been charged.

In saying all this, IF it turns out that he is/was guilty, AND ONLY IF, which I doubt, but anyway, he should still be baught back here to have a fair and unbiased trial, just like we all have the right to.

If I saw you at a shop one day, then later on that night heard on the news that that shop was held up, is it right for me to call you a burgler/robber/thief? Is it right for police to take you away and to hold you for days on end without charging you? Just putting it into perspective... I mean... I didnt hear anything about David Hicks being involved in 9/11... or Bali.... or anything for that matter...

 

War Crimes or POW?

War protocol permits the indefinite jailing of POWs until cessation of the war/hostilities. The Geneva Convention has no requirement for charging of POWs or trial. The expectation is that they will probably be held at the "pleasure" of their captor. The Geneva Convention only addresses release of POWs at the end of the war, and then expects either the release of POWs or their charging with war crimes.

Even critics of GWB in the US acknowledge that these prisoners could be held until the "war on terror" is over. It is the US emphasis on "fairness" that has led to the less threatening being considered for trial/punishment and release while hostilities continue.

Also, the reason that David Hicks has not been subject to trial yet is the fact that defence attorneys have attempted to thrawt every attempt to commence these trials through the notoriously slow US legal system.

IMHO, the simple fact is that he elected to join the Taliban in a war against the US. He was caught. He is a POW. He is extremely lucky that they are even considering giving him a possibility of processing through a civil justice system. Do the crime, do the time. Heartless, but true.

 

This is the sort of attitude that leads to the degradation of our rights and allows power hungry leaders to amass more power and subdue the populace. If you can't see what's bad about that, then I'm slightly disturbed.

And thankfully last time I checked that was not a crime, and definitely not one deserving of five years confinement.

As has been asked so many times before, IF THE EVIDENCE IS THERE WHY HAVE THEY NOT CHARGED HIM? (EDIT: They have charged him, just looked at yesterdays paper, still took em five years though) All they've tried to do is make up some new form of millitary tribunal which their own justice system ruled was illegal and unjust. Doesn't matter if the evidence is classified or not, if it exists why not use it?

You appear to have jumped to the conclusion that he must be guilty because he's being held prisoner, and what bigger conspiracy theory is there in this thread than your own: That the US government has been forced to hold this dude prisoner for five years in cuba because he's obviously a total badass who they can't charge in the civilian courts because of confidential evidence that may or may not exist.

Honestly, whatever happend to innocent until proven guilty? Or has he already been proven guilty to the standard of evidence necessary for the court of public opinion to pass a verdict?

 

If thats the case he would be found guilty in trial, they have had no reason to not give him a trial, he remains a threat to no one being in the camp for so long.

If we take away the civil liberties away from one man, where does it stop? Can they take those liberties away from another, does it mean that all our liberties are violated?

He is in all probability guilty, I don't doubt that, but he should be able to stand in front of an impartial jury and put forward his case. That wouldn't make this place any less safer, if he's guilty he'll be found guilty. Guantanamo bay and this whole Hicks saga is a modern day concentration camp.

But fighting in afghanistan, prior to september 11, what attacks had occurred that would make him fathom this scenario? None. So he may also simply be a case of wrong place wrong time.

I wonder if you ever get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time you will have the same views on civil liberties.

Everyone should have the right to stand trial, otherwise we are no better than the enemy.