Hick's nice little earner..

[The Hen]

No Jim, it's not personal in any way; I genuinely think that the evidence supports that Hicks received fair and just treatment at Gitmo.

Which evidence are you looking at then?

[loCAtek]

Have you been reading the thread and links?

[The Hen]

Then someone should have provided them to the Australian Government. Because it needed just that evidence to continue with the court case.

[loCAtek]

Um no, that case was legally dropped, regardless such evidence.

[The Hen]

Yes?

Proceedings were dropped on advice that they should not continue with the case. Which thus allowed David Hicks to profit from his book that wouldn't have been written if the Australian Government had acted as it would for any other citizen.

If they were able to support the claim that the charges were valid! and the proceeds would be "proceeds from crime", then they would have continued the case and they wouldn't have the UN proceedings hanging over their head as they do at present.

Which all neatly comes back to the point that the Australian Government fucked up big time on this little squip peak.

[Gob]

There was no evidence against Hicks Hen...

From time to time the Government has been asked what offences Mr Hicks is said to have committed and why he could not be tried in Australia. The Government’s reply has been that he committed no offence under Australian law as it then stood, and the Prime Minister has said a number of times that the Government would not legislate retrospectively to cover the case, the impression given being either that the Government couldn’t pass such retrospective legislation, or that it would be in some way unfair to do so.

[Gob]

Unles you consider this sort of stuff evidence...

In an interview on ABC television’s 7.30 Report on 6 February last, the Attorney-General stated that it is possible that evidence obtained coercively (not from Mr Hicks himself but from others) could be used against him, the means involved being such as sleep deprivation, or questioning for up to 20 hours.

Some of these coercion techniques were graphically illustrated in the photographs published during the trial of members of the US military at the Abu Ghraib facility. A particularly repellent, but permitted, form of coercion is waterboarding, which involves the prisoner being repeatedly lowered, head first, into water until he is about to drown. The US military also does not regard torture as having taken place unless the act is “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.”

One of the problems with the use of torture – apart from the objections of any civilized person to the procedures involved – is the extreme unreliability of the confessions obtained under torture. The press has in recent days heard much from the senior military prosecutor, Colonel Moe Davis. One wonders how long any of Colonel Davis’s military prosecutors would last under waterboarding before confessing to anything at all which they thought might end the torture.

The rules established by the Bush Administration for the conduct of military commissions permit them to accept statements extracted under coercion, and hearsay evidence. Colonel Davis last week said that prosecutors planned to use hearsay evidence against Mr Hicks. The commissions have a discretion to admit summaries of documents, and also to prevent the accused or his lawyers from being present, or even having access to evidence called by the prosecution in certain circumstances. It might also be remembered that in 2006, three members of the US military prosecutor’s office resigned in protest at the procedures proposed.

The statements of Mr Ruddock and Colonel Davis suggest that the first written statement made by Feroz Abbasi may be tendered in evidence by the prosecution without him being called as a witness. In an Australian criminal court, such a statement would be hearsay evidence and rejected. The rare occasions on which hearsay evidence may be admissible are not relevant in this context. The prosecution would be required to call Mr Abbasi to testify and he would be rigorously cross-examined as to the circumstances under which the statement was made and whether it was offered freely, under coercion, or in response to promises, say, of better treatment. Even if he verified the first statement, his later retraction would in any case seriously damage, if not destroy, any probative value in the former. Any “confessions” by David Hicks while in Guantanamo Bay tendered by the prosecution would almost inevitably be rejected for the same reasons as were given recently by the Victorian Court of Appeal in dealing with the confessions made by Jack Thomas under interrogation. Thomas’s later statements made on television stand, of course, in an entirely different category. But any prosecutor who tried in an Australian court to rely on evidence, knowing it had been obtained under coercion, would certainly leave the court with no reputation remaining for either fairness or competence.

[Gob]

The US and Aussie goverment created the (folk) hero David Hicks. But for their bungling, torture and incredible ineptness at managing all of this, Hicks would be the despised nonenity that he deserves to be.

[The Hen]

Ta-dah!

Though I hold the Australian Government more accountable.

[Big RR]

It would have been interesting to see what the US would have done if the Australian government requested he be returned for a trial (oe ven if Australia proposed to try him now). I think the last thing the US wants in any of these cases is a fair and public trial--they've fought tooth and nail to inisist that the detainees should not have access to the US courts preferring secret military tribunals for hearing the charges (what countries have we seen that before in? ). It's better to let Hicks go and have him subjected to ridicule as a fool by his detractors than to have a competent court publicly look into the circumstances of his arrest and detention (and possibly even determine if he is competent to stand trial after his treatment in US custody). But such is what our once proud justice system has been reduced to.

[Lord Jim]

Yes, but it's still the latest piece in the Aussie press,

So if tomorrow morning, Rush Limbaugh has an article published in an Australian newspaper, it would be fair to quote his opinions as "the latest piece in the Aussie press"?

I've always referred to "the press" as working journalists, not the writing of flacks, spokespeople, or other assorted POV axe grinders, but perhaps you have a different definition....

As far as those other articles you quote are concerned, I see a lot of stuff about "allegations" but again, aside from his lawyers, I don't see one single person quoted for attribution, let alone a single shred of actual evidence....(I was particularly impressed with the opinions of the Australian Green Party...)

So I'll not dwell over long on that bit....

(hint there are no "Hicks is a traitor" ones, )

That's a shame; it doesn't speak well for the Australian press corps...

He was given 50x the recommended dose of mefloquine

Source?

And while we're on the subject of sources....

after all those years of solitary and torture,

Once again you have repeated the accusation that he was held in solitary for years, though the best information I have is that he was moved to solitary for a period of time in 2006, Less than a year before his release...(I already posted it.)

Do you have a source for this "years in solitary" accusation?

(Frankly, I'm beginning to get the impression that to the extent the Australian public define this as an issue about The traitor Hicks' detention at Gitmo, rather than about his treasonous activities, it is primarily because of a really poor job being done by the Australian news media in providing accurate information about either one. This may be intentional, and ideology driven, or just poor journalism, or both; I really can't say.)

Now back to the central point; Hick's treason:

And you still haven't shown any examples of Hick acting treacherously

I would say treasonously rather than treacherously; the evidence is really quite straight forward:

The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001,[17] as the armed forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Afghan United Front (Northern Alliance) launched Operation Enduring Freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afg ... present%29

In January 2001, Hicks was provided with funding and an introductory letter from Lashkar-e-Taiba. He then travelled to Afghanistan to attend training

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afg ... present%29

Hicks' writes this in fairytale book:

There were three or four camps under the name of Camp Farouk at that time in Afghanistan. I attended the open mainstream camp, not terrorist camps. I would not have been there if there was any suggestion of terrorist activity or the targeting of civilians.

Now, while he's obviously attempting to whitewash his participation, he still admits that he was a willing. participant in military camp operated by the Taliban. (His claims about terrorism and civilians, even if they are true, would be irrelevant in assessing his status as a traitor.)

Again, from The Traitor Hick's own hand, we see what his actual frame of mind was during the two months between 9/11 and his capture in the field by The Northern Alliance:

In October and November 2001 Hicks wrote multiple letters to his mother, Sue King, back in Australia. He asked that replies were to be directed to Abu Muslim Austraili, a pseudonym he used to circumvent non-Muslim spies he believed intercepted correspondence. In these letters he detailed the validity of Jihad and his own prospect of "martyrdom".

As a Muslim young and fit my responsibility is to protect my brothers from aggressive non-believers and not let them destroy it. Islam will rule again but for now we must have patience we are asked to sacrifice our lives for Allah cause why not? There are many privileges in heaven. It is not just war, it is jihad. One reward I get in being martyred I get to take ten members of my family to heaven who were destined for hell, but first I also must be martyred. We are all going to die one day so why not be martyred?[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

So, during the period after Australia enters combat against the Taliban, Hicks is prepared to be"martyred" in a fight defending his "brothers" , and along with them to " sacrifice our lives for Allah" in an armed struggle, ("not just war, it is jihad") against his countrymen and their allies...

And we know this how? Not because of the claims of some nefarious informant; but because he tells us so himself....

And then of course, he is apprehended:

Three months after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, 26 year old Australian David Hicks was captured amongst Taliban forces in Afghanistan and handed over to the Americans.

http://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/s ... 412143.htm

(Please note; I have left out anything he confessed to at Gitmo, or any allegation made that is a part of the record of The Military Commission.)

Now let's review the relevant timeline again:

Hicks joins up with the Taliban in January of 2001...

On Oct. 7, 2001, Australia enters into military operations against the Taliban with The Coalition....

In December of 2001, Hicks is captured in the field with other Taliban fighters...

Now let's look again at the relevant sections of the Australian code governing treason:

(d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; [Yes] or
(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:[Yes]

(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared;[Yes]

(f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:

(i) another country;[Yes] or
(ii) an organisation;[Yes]

"GUILTY!"

Now, based on what you've posted, I'm guessing that the Australian press coverage of this timeline, and the undisputed facts about it, and the relevance to the Australian law covering treason, has been pretty much nonexistent....

Maybe I should write a letter to one of your papers about it, an then, (if they were to actually publish it) you could refer to that as "one of the latest pieces in the Aussie press"...

[The Hen]

If Hicks had been treated by the Australian Government in exactly the same manner as any Australian citizen held in the same circumstances, then the book would not have been written.

Arguing his guilt is irrelevent. He would not be the shit-stain on my country's history that he is becoming.

Nothing you have posted refutes that because it can't.

The Australian Government fucked up big time and will have to wear it, and worse to come, from now until we don't bother with history anymore.

[Lord Jim]

Well Hen, Strop challenged me to point out evidence of The Traitor Hicks treason, and so I have obliged his request...(rather conclusively, I might add... )

Arguing his guilt is irrelevent.

Well you see it that way, I don't (and certainly wouldn't if I were an Australian)

To me, it's the central issue....

A person who betrays there country should certainly get greater punishment than six years in prison, (even if it included a few months in solitary confinement) and a book deal. He really got off easy, given what he did. He has not received justice, and probably never will.

As I've said, if his confinement at Gitmo compromised the ability of Australian authorities to prosecute him and give him a more suitable punishment than he received, then for that reason, it would certainly have been much better if he had been turned over earlier. The purposes of justice would certainly have been much better served if he were now facing life in prison.

[Gob]

Jim mate, get yourself a job with the Aussie govt!

They couldn't find a way to prosecute Hicks, yet you have!

[Lord Jim]

Well Strop, I suspect that the decision not to prosecute The Traitor Hicks for treason by the time he was finally returned to Australian custody, had more to do with politics than with the strict merits of the case...

My guess is, (I don't know for a fact obviously, since I wasn't there, nor have I researched it thoroughly) that by the time The Traitor Hicks returned to Australia in 2007, the media and the political left had done a pretty good job of shifting the public's focus to his detention, and away from what should have been the central issue, (his treason)

In that atmosphere, it was probably seen as politically unwise to prosecute him....

Which leaves us now with perhaps the one thing we can agree on:

That it would have been better if Hicks had been turned over sooner.

We may feel this way for different reasons, but at least we can agree on that....

[Gob]

Nope, they didn't prosecute him as they had no grounds to prosecute, only with retrospective laws could it have been done.

But yes, we can shake on the fact that he should have been handed over sooner.,

[Lord Jim]

only with retrospective laws could it have been done.

Why? Were the laws governing treason changed after he was already in detention? Are the ones I quoted not the ones that existed at the time?

Because unless that's the case, they had perfect grounds to prosecute.

ETA:

The law as I quoted it refers to "Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995"

Of course laws get amended all the time, so I suppose if all of the sections of the law that clearly apply to Hicks that I quoted weren't added until after he was taken into custody, (and the previous version of the law didn't contain comparable provisions) then they wouldn't have had grounds for prosecution. (I can't seem to find anything on when the last time was that the code was amended.)

[Gob]

From time to time the Government has been asked what offences Mr Hicks is said to have committed and why he could not be tried in Australia. The Government’s reply has been that he committed no offence under Australian law as it then stood, and the Prime Minister has said a number of times that the Government would not legislate retrospectively to cover the case, the impression given being either that the Government couldn’t pass such retrospective legislation, or that it would be in some way unfair to do so.

http://australiansall.com.au/archive/po ... vid-hicks/

The Australian government has dropped its court battle to seize profits from a book written by a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, saying his admissions of terrorist activity before a US military commission could not be relied upon.

n Australia, criminals can be sued for money that a federal court determines is proceeds from their crimes, including indirect profits from book and movie deals. But it was unclear whether Australia's criminal profit law applied to Hicks because he pleaded guilty before a US military commission part of a justice system that has been widely criticised by lawyers and governments as unfair.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ju ... drops-case

In Australian law, evidence of a confession is not admissible unless the court is satisfied the confession was not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhuman or degrading conduct, or by a threat of conduct of that kind.Does anyone believe this is not precisely how confessions were extracted at Guantanamo Bay?

However, what we ''believe'' is not the point. The point is that it was about to be proved in a court of law, as the DPP's actions demonstrate.

All the evidence pointed to the fact Hicks's statements about what he had done in Afghanistan were the result of mistreatment by the Americans. Indeed, Hicks's book goes into painful detail on that very subject, and on his attempts to get help from Australian authorities who were aware of his treatment. He has come dangerously close to proving this in court.

From the start, it must have been blindingly obvious to the prosecutors that the evidence they relied on to establish what Hicks had done was evidence produced by torture and oppressive treatment. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the government was banking on Hicks's poor psychological state and underestimated the support he would receive to obtain a just outcome under Australian law.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... 22n3x.html

[Lord Jim]

The Government’s reply has been that he committed no offence under Australian law as it then stood, and the Prime Minister has said a number of times that the Government would not legislate retrospectively to cover the case,

Given the facts of the case and the nature of the law, that looks like a complete BS political cop-out to me. (I notice it's completely lacking in any specifics) It really looks to me they didn't try him because after the Gitmo detention the public wouldn't have been with them. Hicks' lawyers would have played on the popular mood to try to put the government on trial, (or Dick Cheney on trial or Donald Rumsfeld on trial...anyone but their client) and they didn't want the headache.

In Australian law, evidence of a confession is not admissible unless the court is satisfied the confession was not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhuman or degrading conduct, or by a threat of conduct of that kind.Does anyone believe this is not precisely how confessions were extracted at Guantanamo Bay?

So what? You wouldn't have needed his confession, or any other Gitmo evidence. As I pointed out in some detail, given what is known about his words and his actions independent of anything brought forward at Gitmo, there was extremely strong evidence to base a successful prosecution on, given the wording of the law.

If they were trying to use something they clearly didn't need as an excuse for not prosecuting, that further buttresses my belief that the real motive was political.

[Gob]

Well again Jim, you seem better clued in than the two Aussie governments who have handled Hick's case, I'm sure your skills woudl be appreciated here!