David Hicks

[Vairochana]

Well David Hicks, among others are still languishing in the Kuban Koncentration Kamp.
Finally after 6 odd years of leagal fumbling and sleight of hand he has been charged, apparently these charges are shiny and NIB and the 'crimes" didn't exist when he commited them.
It seems that the new charges centre on him being an "unpriveleged belligerant" and attemping to commit murder on U.S. troops.
Now without getting into a debate on whether he is guilty or not and avoiding discussion about the slackness of both of our Govts in getting him a speedy trial:
How do these charges impact on organisations such as Blackwater which provide security guards (regardless of level of training) and I would hope would be classed differently to soldiers (priveledged belligerants)?
Also, is shooting at the soldiers of a country which is invading the country which you have chosen to fight (Taliban led Afganistan) with now murder?
In my view this is akin to justifying the NAZIs actions against the Resistance and Partisans in WW2.
Flame on...

 

[Correia]

Flame on...

Not on THR please. Discuss the topic like grown ups, or take it someplace else.

 

[bouis]

If the army is forced to let foreign terrorist war criminals loose, how many do you think are going to be captured in the future? Then, everybody loses.

And FYI many of the executions the Germans did of partisans and spies were legal. We did the same thing during the war.

 

[Vairochana]

well that is one question partly addressed-killing resistance is legal and not a war crime

 

[LightningJoe]

USA! Woooo!

 

[tegemu]

Who is David Hicks and what/where is the Kuban Koncentration Kamp.

 

[ojibweindian]

Ditto the above; who is David Hicks?

 

[NukemJim]

Executive Summary:

Australian Male captured in Afghanastan (supposedly combat against Northern Alliance, not against US forces) being held in Guantanomo Naval base by US.

NukemJim

 

[Vairochana]

I apologise for introducing a subject with relevence to those outside the USA- I should have known better

 

[peteinct]

Viro, you may have been able to have a discussion about the merits of the case but not now. Yes this board in particular and Americans in general don't have a lot of sympathy for people fighting against us. But this board has people interested in Freedom and Liberty and some have argued against guantanimo bay and the current policies of the nation.

But when you post this, " I apologise for posting a topic with relevence to those outside of the USA- I should of known better." you come across as a self satisfied condescending jerk. The proper remedy for ignorance is education not scorn.

I don't know the facts of the case but if he was captured fighting against the NATO forces in afganistan why shouldn't he be imprisoned? He is in alliance with the people who planted the bombs in Bali,if you want local relevence.
pete

 

[El Tejon]

Ah, yes, Abu Muslim al-Austrail!

I do not understand, why are you upset with him being prosecuted?

Since he falls outside the protections of international law he could have been shot upon capture like any other pirate. It would seem to me that the due process being afforded to him when it need not be is a more enlightened alternative that a pistol bullet in his ear.

 

[peteinct]

Voice of the Badger

Thanks for posting that. I was thinking it but didn't want to be too inflammatory. I am not an expert in the Geneva Conventions but I don't believe that they say if you are not in uniform then you need a civil trial instead of being put up against a wall and shot, or that a mosque that is used as a stronghold is still a mosque not a fortress, or that if you don't surrender and play dead instead that you don't deserve a bullet in the head just to be sure.

I think that guerilla wars are outside the scope of the agreements and I do believe that any guerilla force by its nature can not abide by them. I believe there is a significant misunderstanding about them and how they apply to ourselves and our nations enemies.
pete

 

[El Tejon]

pete, there is always the question if the USA "should" act at international law, or whether it is within the best interests to act greater than international law.

International law allows the USA to shoot Abu and his fellow pirates upon sight. Whether the USA should is another question.

Ultimately it is the Bush Administration's own fault for wanting to play this down the middle. Instead of acting like men, we are stuck with the typical gray, hand-wringing of the East Coast Eloi who wants to stomp around the world with the 10th Mountain Divison and create new legal complications when we should be putting .22s to certain people's heads to limit the surrounding damage. Ahhh, the joys of Empire.

 

[Correia]

I apologise for introducing a subject with relevence to those outside the USA- I should have known better

Wow. You sure are picked on. When you're ready to climb down off of your cross, feel free to post the same topic, only not done in a condescending, jerky, self-righteous manner.

This is closed.