Hicks running out of friends
As expected, the British Home Secretary Charles Clarke has launched an appeal against a High Court ruling that David Hicks, who has been in US captivity since late 2001 when he was captured fighting for the Taliban, was entitled to British citizenship and that it should be conferred without delay.
The Brits show bipartisan displeasure at the High Court decision and call Hicks for what he is…deeply undesirable and an opportunist Pom.
Labour and the Tory opposition are united in opposing the citizenship move. Opposition homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer labelled Hicks “deeply undesirable”. “He only starts showing an interest in being British when it is to his advantage,” Mr Mercer said.Meanwhile, The Sun newspaper carried an editorial praising Mr Clarke for his decision to appeal the citizenship bid.
“British citizenship should be reserved for those who have a burning desire to serve this country – not take advantage of it,” the paper said.Damn right and there could be a case to reserve Australian citizenship for those who have a burning desire to be Australian. Too many come here because we have the best Social Security and medical services in the region.
Facebook
Twitter
The hate shown towards this man is an insult towards us all. So Hicks is now the arch-villian…. a terrorist capable of 9/11 ??? What a joke. Locked away for 5 years without trial. Is this humane ? Who cares if your from the Right. All that matters is that this man be treated like a dog. Urinated on by the US army. Oh, well…. whatever turns you on I guess.
Just one question Kev. The US acknowledge he never fired on a US soldier. In fact, they also acknowledge he was simply guarding a tank. Is this justification for his treatment ?
I understand there are only two lawyers in Australia who consider the US trail process to be fair. Phillip Ruddock and John Howard. Does that mean that every other lawyer is a scumbag leftie ?
Unbelievable.
Apologists for this sorry sack of shit are now pretending he is some sort of misguided youth who got caught in Afgahanistan just standing around somewhere near a tank.
I call bullshit on the supposed US “acknowledgements”. If they “acknowledged” that he didn’t do anything, then why are they charging him with:
1, Conspiracy to commit war crimes,
2. Attempted murder as an unpriveliged belligerent, and
3. Aiding the enemy.
Why is Hicks’ legal team taking any and all legal measures including some airy fairy English citizenship attempt to prevent his trial in front of a US military commission?
The US authorities were ready to proceed over a year ago.
The longer this drags on, the more people seem to be popping up claiming is really only a poor misunderstood youth at the bottom of the food chain, and ignoring the reality that he is a grown man who made a conscious decision to wage war against his own country (England or Australia, take your pick) and allies in the name of his religion, and spent years training and doing just that.
The US acknowledge he never fired on a US soldier.
So?
About 95% of soldiers in any combat zone don’t fire on the enemy but when captured they are all held until hostilities cease.
Really John, you need to stick to your area of expertise, whatever that is. Your obvious lack of understanding of the circumstances surrounding Hicks and his arrest, or your refusal to see him for what he is, leaves your defence as a very lonely echo from the back of the hall.
Mamdouh Habib is back in Australia and, despite the comments previously from members of the “Hate filled” Right (not implying your part of the “Hate filled” Right Kev, just some of those who post here) that he was guilty etc etc, he has not been charged with anything. Do you think his detention for 4 years at Guantanamo, with the benefit of hindsight was justified ??
PQ. All legit point. If he never fired on a US soldier, how can these donkey charges be laid. I’m as confused as you are…. and I need beer for my party tomorrow.
Kev – Wasnt David Hicks sold to the US by members of the Northern Alliance ? Can you confirm.
I can neither confirm or deny…..just joking. I think, from memory, you are close to the mark but I don’t if sold was the operative word.
And in anticiption of your follow up point – I don’t care who captured him…he was on the other side.
Kev – Had you been captured by the commies in Vietnam, would they have been entitled to imprision you until the end of the cold war ?
The communists only kept some prisoners alive for propoganda purposes, the rest they just murdered in the field. Being Infantry I would have been slaughtered. Ask yourself – how many of the guys at Hanoi Hilton etc were ground troops. The vast majority were pilots.
John. The Taliban haven’t surrendered so your point is meaningless.
I’ll ask again – Had you been captured by the commies in Vietnam, would they have been entitled to imprision you until the end of the cold war ?
Also, any comments on the Law council which I posted in another section. Do they hold weight ?
http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/read/2005/2419251933.html
or try their September 21 media release
http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/read/2005/2417533081.html
Vietnam…No, only until the end of the war in Vietnam and to save you actually having to ask the quetion the answer is; the war against the Taliban is ongoing.
John. Why is is I’m starting to think Lawyer?
What North says is reasonable although the spin is rotating towards rights and away from responsibilities. War is not a courtroom and never should be. There are Rules of Engagement and we generally stick by them. I can’t say we totally stick by them because war is not a perfect world. It has as it’s main players, young men with varying degrees of training, education and abilities to control fear and stress. Mistakes happen on the battle field and a lawyers black or white approach to matters is simply not the answer in a field of grey.
You can throw legal opinions at me all day but until you explain the absence of any legal opinion and clamour for prisoner rights during, say the incarceration of PWs in Hanoi Hilton or a furore over the terrorists and communists blatant disregard for any human rights then I think, no balance…no weight in the opinions.
Like, in poker parlance, I see your Hicks living in mild discomfort and raise you thousands of murdered souls, slit throats, decapitations, limb amputations, multiple rapes in Mohommads name and a stated aim of killing us just because we are.
If he guarded a tank for them, he was on their side.
The US may choose to accord him any, none or some of the protections of the Geneva Convention – but he isn’t entitled to any. he wasn’t a legal combatant.