No Justice for Hicks but who cares?
Ian Barker, QC attacks an Australian editorial from two days ago
CONTRARY to your editorial (15/6), David Hicks will not get his day in court. That has been denied him. He will get his day before a military tribunal, whose members are answerable to the US President who has already branded him as evil. He will have no appeal, and not even a right of release if acquitted. The evidence will probably consist of admissions extracted by a process of interrogation one can only imagine, after two and a half years in custody. Hicks, Habib and others at Guantanamo Bay have been kept in a legal vacuum, at the mercy of whatever directions the US President chooses to give, unburdened by judicial or parliamentary scrutiny. If all this is a fair process, I wonder what The Australian would regard as unfair? You cannot dispose of the problem by assuming Hicks’s guilt, as you have done. That is why we have trials in courts of law, whatever their defects. Rules of decency and due process on the part of governments matter a great deal. It is humiliating for Australia that the Prime Minister did not intervene on behalf of two citizens illegally held on foreign soil by a foreign power. But no. The convoluted reasoning is that they should not be repatriated because they have not offended against Australian law. That should make Australians travelling abroad a touch uneasy.You might feel humiliated Ian but I don’t. I feel indifference and I think you will find that the vast majority of Australian’s feel the same way. I understand what you are saying Ian, but frankly I don’t give a damn. Your letter is full of legal rights and not one solitary mention of his responsibilities as a humane human. I also understand that even seriel killers who cut up and eat their victims are entitled to legal defence but whatever you say, whatever spin you put on the Military Tribunals, Hicks will get legal reresentation. So whats your point. If an Australian travels overseas and committs a crime in Malaysia or Thailand They are charged under the laws of Malaysia and Thailand so why is Hicks different? Australian Drug Runners have been executed in these countries – did you feel impelled to write to the press then? Maybe your right, it isn’t fair, but we all know it will be a damn site fairer than the WTC obscenity and on balance the US will be be fairer than the Taliban have ever been to their own people. Meanwhile Alan Logan from Victoria sums up the general feelings in the community on Hicks
HAS The Australian conducted a survey to find if any significant number of Australians give a damn about David Hicks? No one I have met cares at allNo one I’ve met care about him either, Alan. Update: Hicks in Training
Facebook
Twitter
My take on Barker’s bilge:
“He will get his day before a military tribunal,..”
That’s the result when you elect to take part in a WAR, fella. Civilians get Courts; war criminals get military tribunals. Live with it.
“..US President who has already branded him as evil.”
“The evidence will probably consist of admissions extracted by a process of interrogation one can only imagine,..”
Hang on: First you complain about the President “already branding him”, but then you “brand” the interrogation process yourself. You can’t have it both ways, old son; don’t be a hypocrite.
“Hicks, Habib and others at Guantanamo Bay have been kept in a legal vacuum,..”
Oh, I guess that slightly cross-eyed but pretty intelligent-sounding lawyer in US Military Uniform I keep seeing on TV as being assigned to Hicks must be a figment of my imagination.
” Rules of decency and due process on the part of governments matter a great deal.”
Spot-on. And that’s why the US Government is giving Hicks etc. FREE legal representation. Guess you missed that one.
“It is humiliating for Australia that the Prime Minister did not intervene on behalf of two citizens illegally held on foreign soil by a foreign power. But no. The convoluted reasoning is that they should not be repatriated because they have not offended against Australian law. That should make Australians travelling abroad a touch uneasy.”
As Kevin said, if Aussies travelling O/S commit a crime they’re charged under local law, as they should be. Why should Hicks etc. be treated any differently? The answer to that of course is that these men were acting AGAINST the West, and as any Lefty will testify, that’s a “good thing”.
Australians travelling O/S uneasy? Why? Just because if they break the law they may get arrested and charged? Well Mr. Barker, I’m as Aussie as they come (unlike you, I suspect) and if one of my fellow Australians disgraces my country by committing crimes – civil or war – anywhere in the world, as far as I’m concerned the country concerned can deal with him/her on their terms.
You see, it’s called “being responsible for your own actions”.
But being responsible for their own actions is not something for which the Left is well known at the best of times. In Barker’s case, I doubt he’s ever heard the term.
Right on the money James. I can’t recall anyone I’ve spoken too about Hicks that isn’t embaressed but not because the government haven’t lobbied to bring him home, quite the opposite. Most people I know are ashamed of the fact that Hicks is an Australian that signed up for such a vile cause.
Lets be clear about this. David Hicks was fully aware of what the organisation was he was joining, he was also aware that Al-Qeada had hit the US, WTC, Pentagon and Philly but still joined up.
David Hicks was also involved in confrontations in Kashmir firing live rounds at Indian soldiers. He is no saint and he sure as fuck is not a poor innocent being denied his legal rights…
I cannot believe that supposedly intelligent people can spew such incomprehensible drivel and claim that murderous scum like Hicks actually deserve more rights than the people they killed and oppressed..
If the US don’t want to convict him, send him to India. I’m sure the Indians will make him pay dearly for his war crimes in Kashmir. These bleeding hearts would be better served showing some sympathy for the victims of the ilk of Hicks and co.
Keep up the good work Kev..
People keep viewing this whole thing in legal terms. When did lawyers become important in battle? This guy is a combatant, not a criminal…well, he may be both. Let’s deal with the combatant issue first, then the criminal issue.
Good call Mike
When did lawyers become important in battle?
When the left realized they had a voice with the media. Happy to print anything that 20 years ago would have elicited the comment ‘so what’ from any editor.
Now it’s print it. Beat it up. It may make the government look bad and enough fools might believe it’s relevant and change their vote.
Barker, for a Q.C. ignores, Hick’s lawyer doesn’t dispute Hick’s will have his day incourt and receive a fair trial.
Barker: why don’t you experiment, why don’t you try being an injun in some other territory and discover whether Oz rule holds: as Kev points out it doesn’t and, it never has. Murder someone in another country, can’t cry for mummy to protect you.
Apart from that, I don’t give a fig about Hicks either. If only they’d dropped him from 20,000 ft. high, would have saved a lot of bother but no, the U.S., being decent, bothered to take him all the way to Gitmo, house feed him, give him a lawyer and, damn it, have promised that if Hicks is convicted he won’t be hanged – he’s one lucky murdering scumbag Barker, the bastard gets to live, unlike all those murdered by Taliban of which he is one.
Oh, Barker, another detail, quite odd for a QC, the evidence isn’t just transcripts of interrogations, he was caught blood red handed.
Sounds like Ian Barker Q.C. and Brian Deegan should engage in some anal love play..lets face it, neither are good for anything else!!!
It’s a bit like that Scott.
Throw Mike Berg into that and make a threesome