Natasha’s upset
Hicks is free but Natasha’s upset. The guy who supported the people who flew aeroplanes into New York City and murdered thousands of innocents; who trained with them and considers Osama a good guy; who took up military duties for the Taliban and was prepared to kill Australians and who has been released from prison because he didn’t “break an Australian law”
Yep, that guy.
Give me a break. The human rights lawyers and the judiciary have turned war into a court room fiasco that argues fine points of law loudly, above the screams of dying innocents.
The loving father who deserted them all, his parents, his defacto, his children, his mates (if he had any) and his country to fight with the terrorists.
But wait, maybe I’m being mean. He did speak of plans for a family reunion…….but the mother of Hicks’ children said she had been “left in the dark”.
.. Teenagers Terry and Bonnie are desperate to see their father but have no idea when they will finally be reunited outside prison walls, she says. Speaking through her agent Howard Whelan, Hicks’s former defacto Jodie Sparrow said they were still waiting to be contacted.SO he’s about to be released after 6 years of incarceration and doesn’t bother to tell his defacto and kids when he will see them. Ah, the troubled course of true love and why, as an aside, does Jodie have an ‘Agent’? The Hicks mob are looking for money
DAVID Hicks’s family is looking at opportunities to skirt federal and state proceeds-of-crime laws, with publishers advising them of loopholes that would allow the confessed terrorism supporter to sell his story.Here’s another money making idea. Hick’s face on a t-shirt. If murdering scum Che Gueverre can get his dial on a shirt then so can this idiot. Undergrads will buy them- they’ll become de rigeur at Taliban love-ins. Hicks said he recognised “the huge debt of gratitude that I owe the Australian public for getting me home”. He doesn’t owe it to the Australian people; he owes it to the left wing luvvies, human rights lawyers and to his lawyer Mori who run a good public campaign that turned a thug and terrorist into a hero.(remember the pics of the nine year old innocent) He owes it to the media, particularly the ABC/SBS/Age/SMH quartet who took his side against those who fight terrorism. He wants to go to uni and I guess he will. With a lot of the tertiary education power brokers believing he has been hard done by and considering he stuck it up the Bush and the Howard Governments he is considered a hero. I bet he gets a Luvvie Scholarship – didn’t finish high school! no worries…iffy IQ – too easy….let me write your paper for you. It aint over yet Hicks. There are a lot of Aussies who don’t like traitors.
Facebook
Twitter
The luvvies have been confounded at every turn with Hicks.
His “guilty” plea should have taken the wind out of their sails, but after a period of regrouping time, they declared the the plea was either a. coerced, or b. opportunistic or c. pragmatic.
Naturally enough, all these pleas have been engineered by the evil Americans in order to keep Hicks in confinement forever.
Hicks then declared that he was now an apostate, which further confounded the luvvies, (and, as a side issue, his declaration of apostasy has condemned him to death by his former good mates in Al Quaida).
My fervent wish is that Hicks, his “family”, and his gang of toxic supporters sink forever into the obscurity they all so richly deserve.
As is customary with many military ops and training exercises, there are lessons to be learned.
Hicks’ capture was an error that cost taxpayers a fortune, much political capital was squandered in both the US and Australia, a lefty “poster boy” was created from a halfwitted bogan caught armed and out of uniform in a war zone.
The lesson to be learned? Next time put a bullet in the mongrel and either leave him for the vultures or put him in an unmarked grave.
My fervent wish is that Hicks, his “family”, and his gang of toxic supporters sink forever into the obscurity they all so richly deserve.
I agree with you there but I must retain the right to be highly offended at Australians supporting him and the media feeding off him.
And yes, I am disappointed that he survived his little sojourn to the dark side. He is a terrorist and as such deserves to die. I note the media are calling him an ex terrorist supporter. In my mind that’s the same as calling me an Australian supporter when I served in Vietnam – I wasn’t – I was an Australian solder and Hicks was a terrorist.
It only took watching (which I was barely able to do) this things release march from Yatala Prison to realise that the only thing he regrets is being caught. It makes me absolutely sick that anyone can support this thing. I am really afraid that the other side has won already.
I have had close dealings with people from ethnic and religious group which this thing supported and after an incident way back in the early 80’s I have been firmly of the opinion that these people would always cause great trouble.
There is of course a very simple and real solution for this thing and his father but then it puts us in the same or similar position as they. However if I can ever find him, I still offer the old man a one on one, winner takes all. I would even jump on the bandwagon and proclaim his inocence as loud as the rest, trouble is even the old man has as much spine as a jelly fish.
“There are a lot of Aussies who don’t like traitors.”
Don’t forget the blokes from AWB who allowed $300 million to flow into the coffers of the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. Money which potentially could have been used to purchase arms to use against Australian troops. Surely that fits the definition of “traitor” or “terrorism supporter.”
It doesn’t actually. It falls in the category of commercial expediency. AWB were tasked to sell wheat to a country that deals in Bakshees. Commercial sales to most Asian countries operate under the same guidelines.
But of course, none of that matters. You have thrown in a red herring but nothing anyone does anywhere excuses traitors.
Sorry Kev but that just does not wash.
Firstly, you yourself have previously stated that Saddam Hussein supported terrorists.
Secondly, commercial expediency should never be an excuse to allow money to flow to terrorism supporting regimes.
Thirdly, that may well be the way business is done in Asia but none of our Asian neighbours are as murderous as Iraq under Saddam.
These guys provided financial support to a terror regime. Their day in court is coming.
Hmmm, why are we arguing about AWB in a Hick’s thread?
Obviously Felix has nothing to offer the debate on Hicks?
Hicks you say? Bugger! I thought it was about traitors.
Felix, it is all about Hicks and his treachery. If you don’t think enlisting with the enemy and fighting western forces isn’t treachery then you are simply ignorant of the world at large. The same people Hicks served with have so far killed three Aussies and hundreds of soldiers from other allies. The man he thought was a good guy has murdered thousands of innocents in the US, Europe, Britain, Indonesia and a host of other places.
In WW2 he would have been condemned to death by hanging; in WW3 the lawyers and the left make him a hero.
Where does all that leave you in respect of who you would stand by when Australia is attacked again – the Taliban? El Quaeda? or your own heritage. Will you mouth a silent ‘Yes!’ when Aussie women and kids are murdered? Do you smile smugly when Aussie soldiers are killed fighting these animals.
I hope not but I’m not sure.
There are two completely separate issues relating to David Hicks.
The first is how he should be treated.
He offered his services to a group of militants who were/are a risk to our national security. From this point of view, he has a strong case to answer, even if there is no law on our books that makes it possible. In an ideal world, such a law should have been created, and he should have had his day in court being tried against it – here in Australia. He continues to have a case to answer.
The second issue is about the treatment of an Australian who is in the custody of a foreign power. He was held without trial for five years. Irrespective of what he did, this was simply wrong.
The two issues are muddied. It is possible to condemn his actions, as I do, but also to condemn the way his case was handled. Condemning the way he was treated doesn’t mean that I support his actions.
What we are left with is a complete mess – no trial, no recognition of habeus corpus, and no real closure.
Hicks is not a common criminal, he is an captured armed combatant or as we used to say, a POW. The question of Habeas Corpus and Alien or foreign soldiers/enemies of the country/Alliance have been with us for a long time. We were happy to incarcerate them for the period of hostilities in previous wars. The Germans, The Brits, Us, The US, the Japs and every other nation involved held POWs for the duration. A couple of those didn’t recognize Geneva but the principle of detention was established.
What changed? The reasonable requirement to detain enemy soldiers so that they don’t attack you again still holds. The Geneva Convention setting standards for such detention is still in sway and the Red Cross still visit the POW camps/ Detention Centres to ensure the POW’s rights as stated in the Geneva Convention are afforded.
What changed was maybe Lawyers and the Left wing got louder. They are strong on rights and ignorant of responsibilities. Will they do the same if one day we are attacked and we capture prisoners. Is some deluded prick going to demand we apply Habeas Corpus and charge them with something – just ridiculous
Lesson One from Guantanamo has to be: establish the Detention Centre somewhere outside of the homeland and don’t tell the lawyers where it is and who or how many are there.
There has been a lot of discussion and court appearances on this matter and one thing stands out. The left want him to be free at home in the midst their adoring presence and believe Habeas Corpus should be applied to non nationals while others, like myself, believe he should be held at the Governments pleasure until terrorism is controlled or it is obvious he is no longer a threat.
I don’t give a damn about his rights – he abrogated them when he went and enlisted with the enemy. He rejected his nationality for God’s sake and chose to fight with those killing our young men
Fuck him. There is no legal argument that would have me supporting traitors in any way, shape or form
Kev
I’m not in the least interested in Hicks or his “rights”- but I care strongly about a simple principle. We are a sovereign state and our government has responsibilities to and for Australians. These responsibilities cannot be outsourced to third parties.
This means he should have been dealt with by our courts, or if a POW, incarcerated in this country. We didn’t expatiate our POWs overseas in past conflicts – why allow this responsibility to be passed to another dispensation in this case?
Our government has demonstrated a conspicuous lack of backbone through the whole episode – initially by not insisting that he be repatriated, and five years later by yielding to political pressure and letting him off with a token sentence, when public opinion began to change.
It reminds me of the politics of our involvement in Vietnam.
I don’t think he was captured by Australians, 1735099.
“It reminds me of the politics of our involvement in Vietnam.”
Considering what you’ve said so far It’s also ironic.