Author: Kev

I have said from day one of Hick’s incarceration at Guantanamo that he should be treated as a Prisoner of War and released when the conflict is over. I have been bemused by legal opinion that demands he be charged and tried or released. To me this would be the same as if an Australian had left Australia in 1942 to train with and fight for the Japanese and was later captured on the battlefield. He would’ve been incarcerated until wars end and nobody would’ve demanded he be charged or released. The Left wing legal activists are suggesting Hicks be charged as a common criminal when clearly he isn’t. He was fighting for the enemy and if he hadn’t been captured when he was, he could well have ended up being in a position to shoot at and kill Australians or allies. In my reading on the subject I came across this study by the Australian Defence Association that delves into the fact that his detention as a captured combatant and his possible trial on criminal charges are two entirely separate issues.

The complexity of the legal issues surrounding David Hicks confuses even lawyers, particularly ones with little or no background in the relevant international law. Even some academic lawyers with general backgrounds in international law have demonstrated insufficient knowledge of the Laws of Armed Conflict (one of the oldest and most detailed bodies of international law). Recently, for example, the Law Council of Australia lapsed into purely domestic legal thinking and terminology in describing David Hicks as having “languished powerless in custody, principally at Guantanamo Bay, for a period of 30 months before he was even charged with any offence”. Similarly, a recent letter to the Prime-Minister from the Australian Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) implied (wrongly) that “indefinite” detention was illegal in all circumstances, mentioned “the Geneva Convention” (rather than show any understanding that there are in fact four Conventions and three Additional Protocols), and did not mention the Laws of Armed Conflict at all. Such statements, apparently premised on the narrow and incorrect supposition that this is only a form of civil criminal matter, are just further variations of the common but simplistic claim that it is merely a matter of someone trying David Hicks or releasing him.

Being tried on terrorism or other war crime charges will not necessarily mean he would be released if found innocent.

Although too often ignored in popular clamour, the correct position in international law is that even if criminal charges against David Hicks were dropped tomorrow this would not necessarily mean his unconditional release from detention as a captured combatant under the Laws of Armed Conflict. The dropping of criminal charges would, however, probably assist the relevant tribunal in determining the likelihood of him resuming belligerent activities and therefore deciding whether his release on captured combatant parole, for example, could be justified under international humanitarian law.

The article from the Australian Defence Association spells it out and is a bit lengthy but if you want to voice an opinion about Hicks then I recommend you read it first. In the meantime I will just accept that most of those clamouring for Hick’s trial and/or release do so based on ideology and in the absence of any impartial knowledge of the laws that govern detention of armed combatants. I’ve been to war and when we captured an enemy soldier we detained him for as long as was deemed necessary to avoid him getting back into the fray. It’s what armies do for God’s sake.

That’s the spirit. Never stop looking for them and when you find them – kill them. The US have attacked an al-Qa’ida hideout in Somalia targeting at least three suspected operatives.

Military sources said the targets in southern Somalia included a senior al-Qa’ida leader in East Africa and an al-Qa’ida operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 250 people. There was no confirmation last night that the airstrike had killed the al-Qa’ida targets but sources told The Washington Post that initial reports indicated the attack on the suspected terror training base had been successful.

Some may think an AC-130 Spectre gunship is an overkill but not me. Whatever it takes to eliminate terrorists is fine by me.

The US has also moved the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower to join two guided missile cruisers USS Bunker Hill and USS Anzio and the amphibious landing ship USS Ashland off the coast of Somalia.

While the US does something about Somalia, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Tanzania’s Foreign Minister Asha-Rose Migiro to the number two job at the United Nations on Friday, calling her a highly respected leader and outstanding manager who has championed the developing world. The Australian notes she supports Iran’s pursuit of the nuclear weapons and the internet is ablaze with stories of her name not being in the original short list. I have no problems with appointment of woman to any position but this one smacks of a token woman as Ban Ki-moon had previously pledged to appoint a woman as Deputy Secretary-General.

I would rather he had pledged to appoint the best person available.

The UN, of course, is worried that the US have actually done something as it goes against their policies of waiting until hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered before taking over and deploying troops.

Seems like standard business at the UN to me but I guess only time will tell.

According to Al Jazeera Saddam Hussein is due to be executed sometime today. I have stated before I’m against the death sentence mainly due to the possibility of errors in law or questionable guilt however I don’t think any of those factors are relevant in this case. Some will say his execution will make him a martyr but so what? By definition a martyr is no longer able to terrorise his own people and that has to be seen as a plus. I wouldn’t advocate the death sentence as some sort of revenge for his past deeds; rather I see it as a means to ensure he will never again be able to wreak havoc and terror at home and abroad. One down but there is still a lot to go UPDATE:   Saddam was executed at dawn this morning Iraq time (1.00pm EST) How’s this for predictable and meaningless?

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International both complained that Maliki’s government had pressured the judge to return guilty verdicts, and called for the accused to be brought before an international tribunal. “Imposing the death penalty, indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after such unfair proceedings,” said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch’s international justice programme, after the appeal failed. 

Yeah…right.