David Hicks - Guantanamo Bay Detainee - A letter to his Father

[Papewaio]

''Dear Dad,

''If you receive this letter it is due to the goodness of somebody who I now feel I owe my life too. This letter is very important because it's the first and probably only time I will be able to tell you the truth of my situation.

''Before I start I want you to know that the negative things I am going to say about people has nothing to do with the MP's that are watching me. Some of them are marvellous people who have taken risks to help improve my day to day living. It's because of such people that I have kept my sanity and still have some strenght left.

''In the early days before I made it to Cuba I received some harsh treatment in transportation including mild beatings (about 4). One lasted for 10 hours I went to camp x-ray, camp delta and now Im in camp echo. I have allways cooperated with interrogaters. For two years they had control of my life in the camps. If you talk and just agree with what their saying they give you real food, books and other special privileges. If not they can make your life hell. Im [sic] angry these days at myself for being so weak during these last two years. But I've always been so desperate to get out and to try to live the best I can while I am here.''

Hicks describes how, the year before, in 2003, the Americans asked him to sign a form, saying that if he did he would be moved to a better place and then within months he would be sent home.

''The form was a plea guilty form. It had al Qaida written all over it. It was a very bad form. Being so desperate (and weak) I didn't care.

I just signed it,'' Hicks wrote.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-letter-that-never-arrived-20110820-1j3ca.html#ixzz1VcWVpcO8

Does a confession have any legal standing if made under duress? :coffeenews:

Seems like in Guantanamo the MPs were doing the right thing. - So this could have been titled:
"Military Police do the right thing"

[Montmorency]

Yes! Yes! Isn't it beautiful? (http://www.economist.com/node/21525840)

[Centurion1]

Does a confession have any legal standing if made under duress? :coffeenews:

Seems like in Guantanamo the MPs were doing the right thing. - So this could have been titled:
"Military Police do the right thing"

That makes him sound like an unfairly persecuted man who was wrongfully committed of crimes. The man was a terrorist fighter in Afghanistan and someone whom the terrorists paraded as one of their white converts.

[Major Robert Dump]

Sounds like a typical plea bargain to me: take your time and risks by fighting the charges, or plead to something lesser in order to get out.

Not very cool to hold him for so long before bringing him to "justice" but I find it hard to pity him because

HE ROLLED WITH THE TALIBAN

[Papewaio]

I think the guy was an idiot. But I don't buy the idea that we should give up freedoms for a sense of security. I think we as an alliance acted like douche bags on his and we should learn from it. After all we managed to give the Nazi's speedy and fair trials. I'm pretty sure not every member of the SS was put on trial either.


I can understand their might be intel of value from torture that could be useful within a very short window of capture.

However does a confession have legal and/or moral force if it is made under duress?

[Adrian II]

HE ROLLED WITH THE TALIBAN

Who says? Where in this case does the truth stop and the lie start? It's just a mess and heaven knows it isn't the only Guantanamo case that is a mess. That's what happens when you treat prisoners of war as ipso facto war criminals and treat them in ways that are in clear breach of war conventions as well common decency.

Nobody in the whole wide world believes anything that comes out of Guantanamo. Or anything the US authorities say about Guantanamo. People just shrug and point at their foreheads.

AII

[Major Robert Dump]

Well for starters, he kind of admits it to the letter that he was a jihadist. The journalist also alludes that he has spoken with the subject. That's number one.

And number two is that the world was very well aware of who the Taliban was and what they were doing well before 9/11, so for this guy to knowingly hang out with them makes it very hard for me to be sympathetic.

I have always been disapproving of these detainment facilites and their methods, but there are far more heart wrenching stories than the one of the westerner who willingly went and joined hands with the jihadists.

***check the bottom of the page for the politcal dealings that were behind this conviction**

[Sjakihata]

Nobody in the whole wide world believes anything that comes out of Guantanamo. Or anything the US authorities say about Guantanamo. People just shrug and point at their foreheads.

AII

Word!

[Greyblades]

Well for starters, he kind of admits it to the letter that he was a jihadist.
Uh, where? I've read the artical and I cant find anything about him saying he was a jihadist beyond being tortured into signing a confession, and realy being tortured kinda renders the confession moot. Maybe I missed something but I dont see it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks#Religious_and_militant_activities) is some information.


Hicks began studying the Koran during his time in the Northern Territory.[20] In 1999, Hicks travelled to Albania, joining the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a militant organisation of ethnic Albanians fighting against Serbian forces in the Kosovo War, for two months.[22] Hicks states in his autobiography that during this period he did not engage in any actual hostilities nor enter Kosovan territory.[citation needed] Upon return to Australia, Hicks applied to join the Australian Army but was rejected due to his low level of formal education.[19] Hicks then converted to Islam,[2] and began studying Wahhabism at a mosque in Gilles Plains, a suburb north of Adelaide. The president of the Islamic society of South Australia, Wali Hanifi, described Hicks as having "some interest in military things", and that "after personal experience and research, that Islam was the answer".[18] In 2010, Hicks explained his motivation to convert to Islam:


My motivation was not a religious search for spirituality; it was more a search for somewhere to belong and to be with people who shared my interest in world affairs. In my youth I was impulsive. Unfortunately, many of my decisions of that time are a reflection of that trait.[23]

He renounced his faith during the earlier years of his detention at Guantánamo.[24][25] In June 2006, Moazzam Begg, a British man who had also been held at Guantanamo Bay but was released in 2005, claimed in his book Enemy Combatant: A British Muslim's Journey to Guantanamo and Back that Hicks had abandoned his Islamic beliefs, and had been denounced by a fellow inmate, Uthman al-Harbi, for his lack of observance.[9] This has also been confirmed by his military lawyer, Major Michael Mori. However, he declined to say why Hicks was no longer a Muslim, saying it was a personal issue for David Hicks.[26]

[edit] Lashkar-e-Taiba

On 11 November 1999, Hicks travelled to Pakistan to study Islam[21][27] and began training with Lashkar-e-Taiba in early 2000.[28][29] In the U.S. Military Commission charges presented in 2004, the U.S. accused Hicks of training at the Mosqua Aqsa camp in Pakistan, after which he "travelled to a border region between Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir, where he engaged in hostile action against Indian forces."[13]

In a March 2000 letter to his family, Hicks wrote:


don't ask what's happened, I can't be bothered explaining the outcome of these strange events has put me in Pakistan-Kashmir in a training camp. Three months training. After which it is my decision whether to cross the line of control into Indian occupied Kashmir.

In another letter on 10 August 2000, Hicks wrote from Kashmir claiming to have been a guest of Pakistan's army for two weeks at the front in the "controlled war" with India:


I got to fire hundreds of bullets. Most Muslim countries impose hanging for civilians arming themselves for conflict. There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally.[30]

During this period, Hicks kept a notebook to document his training in weapon use, explosives, and military tactics, in which he wrote that guerilla warfare involved "sacrifice for Allah". He took extensive notes on, and made sketches of, various weaponry mechanisms and attack strategies (including Heckler & Koch submachine guns, the M16 assault rifle, RPG-7 grenade launcher, anti-tank rockets, and VIP security infiltration).[31] Letters to his family detailed his training:


I learnt about weapons such as ballistic missiles, surface to surface and shoulder fired missiles, anti aircraft and anti-tank rockets, rapid fire heavy and light machine guns, pistols, AK47s, mines and explosives. After three months everybody leaves capable and war-ready being able to use all of these weapons capably and responsibly. I am now very well trained for jihad in weapons some serious like anti-aircraft missiles.[32]

In January 2001, Hicks was provided with funding and an introductory letter from Lashkar-e-Taiba. He then travelled to Afghanistan to attend training.[13] According to Hicks' autobiography Guantanamo: My Journey, he was unfamiliar with the name Al-Qaeda until after his detainment in Guantanamo Bay.[citation needed]

[edit] Afghanistan

Upon arrival in Afghanistan, Hicks allegedly went to an al-Qaeda guest house where he met Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a high ranking al Qaeda member. He turned over his passport and indicated to them that he would use the alias "Muhammad Dawood."[13]

Hicks allegedly "attended a number of al-Qaeda training courses at various camps around Afghanistan, learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods."[29] He also allegedly participated "in an advanced course on surveillance, in which he conducted surveillance of the U.S. and British embassies in Kabul, Afghanistan."[29] However, Hicks strongly denies that he had any involvement with al-Qaeda, nor that he knew the camp had any al-Qaeda links. According to Hicks, he had not even heard of the organisation until he was taken to Cuba.


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. How would a white boy new to Islam, not understanding local customs or languages, largely uneducated in the ways of the world, get access to such supposedly secret camps planning acts of terror? The camps I attended were not al-Qaeda. I did not hear about such an organisation until my arrival in Guantanamo Bay.[33]

On one occasion when al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden visited an Afghan camp, the US Defence Department alleges[29] Hicks questioned bin Laden about the lack of English in training material and subsequently "began to translate the training camp materials from Arabic to English". Hicks denies this and also denies having had the prerequisite language proficiency.[citation needed] Hicks wrote home that he had met Osama bin Laden 20 times. He later, however, told investigators he had exaggerated, that he had seen bin Laden about eight times and spoken to him only once.


There are a lot of Muslims who want to meet Osama Bin Laden but after being a Muslim for 16 months I get to meet him.[32]

Prosecutors also allege Hicks was interviewed by Muhammad Atef, an al-Qaeda military commander, about his background and "the travel habits of Australians".[34] In a memoir that was later repudiated by its author, Guantanamo detainee Feroz Abbasi claimed Hicks was "Al-Qaedah's 24 [carat] Golden Boy" and "obviously the favourite recruit" of their al-Qaeda trainers during exercises at the al-Farouq camp near Kandahar. The memoir made a number of claims, including that Hicks was teamed in the training camp with Filipino recruits from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and that, during internment in Camp X-Ray, Hicks allegedly described his desire to "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews ... crash a plane into a building" and to "go out with that last big adrenaline rush."[35]

[Papewaio]

The political part in Australia... he was released far later then the British prisoners... and there was a gag order that he couldn't speak until after the election... now considering his background, and it was already well documented... why they need to gag him?

"Hicks wrote home that he had met Osama bin Laden 20 times. He later, however, told investigators he had exaggerated, that he had seen bin Laden about eight times and spoken to him only once."

Eight times is a lot. Looks like the 3:1 ratio for exagerating the number of partners also applies to meeting heads of groups... Something to do with basic male ego drives and the need to over count head.

More seriously. If they had the evidence, why not just put it through a legitmate court. And why pursue the foot troops in this war when there was far more powerful people to pursue including money brockers.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The political part in Australia... he was released far later then the British prisoners... and there was a gag order that he couldn't speak until after the election... now considering his background, and it was already well documented... why they need to gag him?

"Hicks wrote home that he had met Osama bin Laden 20 times. He later, however, told investigators he had exaggerated, that he had seen bin Laden about eight times and spoken to him only once."

Eight times is a lot. Looks like the 3:1 ratio for exagerating the number of partners also applies to meeting heads of groups... Something to do with basic male ego drives and the need to over count head.

More seriously. If they had the evidence, why not just put it through a legitmate court. And why pursue the foot troops in this war when there was far more powerful people to pursue including money brockers.

More seriously, this guy is clearly a twit? Telling his Australian family he's traing to be a Muhajideen fighting against the religious enemies of Islam?

So he was with the Taliban, at a time when the Taliban was effectively at war with Australia... he should have bee sent home and tried for treason, then probably not hanged, though removing this idiot from the gene pool would not be a bad thing.

I'm sorry buy come on, why the sympathy? Because Gitmo is a nasty place? It's probably better than what would have happened if he'd been caught in the SS during WWII, or as a French Officer by the British during the Napoleonic Wars.

[Papewaio]

Taliban were not at war with Australia when he joined them.

I have no problem with a fair trial, for crimes committed and an outcome which could include the death penalty.

But I do believe it is more important to follow our own rules of law. Which include innocent until proven guilty, right to a fair trial, a right to a quickly delivered trial, the right to not be charged with crimes in retrospect, the right to not be tortured.

The only thing he was charged with

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Guantanemo Detention has proven to be a boondoggle.

Perhaps will know better next time. These prisoners haven't been worth it.

[Adrian II]

Because Gitmo is a nasty place? It's probably better than what would have happened if he'd been caught in the SS during WWII [...]

Do you realise what you just wrote? There is no reason for complaint since the US army compares favourably to the SS? Is that the benchmark these days?

AII

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Taliban were not at war with Australia when he joined them.

I have no problem with a fair trial, for crimes committed and an outcome which could include the death penalty.

But I do believe it is more important to follow our own rules of law. Which include innocent until proven guilty, right to a fair trial, a right to a quickly delivered trial, the right to not be charged with crimes in retrospect, the right to not be tortured.

The only thing he was charged with

Did he remain with the Taliban after NATO invaved?

Also, he met Bin Laden who was already a declared enemy of the West and had attacked NATO countries.

Is Australia not a close ally of NATO?

[Centurion1]

Do you realise what you just wrote? There is no reason for complaint since the US army compares favourably to the SS? Is that the benchmark these days?

AII

Or by the taliban or al-Qaeda or Russia or china or n.korea, or america in ww2.....

traiters to ones own country or culture are not treated favorable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you realise what you just wrote? There is no reason for complaint since the US army compares favourably to the SS? Is that the benchmark these days?

AII

Maybe I wasn't clear:

"It's probably better than what would have happened if he'd been caught in the SS during WWII" should perhaps have had, "caught fightin in the SS as an Australian" as a clarification.

[Centurion1]

Taliban were not at war with Australia when he joined them.

I have no problem with a fair trial, for crimes committed and an outcome which could include the death penalty.

But I do believe it is more important to follow our own rules of law. Which include innocent until proven guilty, right to a fair trial, a right to a quickly delivered trial, the right to not be charged with crimes in retrospect, the right to not be tortured.

The only thing he was charged with

Purely semantics as you know. "Taliban were not at war with Austrailia when he joined them."

so if i joined the Japanese before Pearl Harbor and continued to fight for them I wouldn't be a traitor?

[Papewaio]

I'm fine with him being charged as such and sent to prison (death penalty no longer exists in Australia).

As long as we follow the rules of law & the laws existed at the time of his crime.

[Montmorency]

You call it treason, but in your heart of hearts, you ache for vengeance: vengeance for the crime of apostasy. And in this regard are the hearts of men united. :shame:

In this cocoon of false righteousness, it is possible to put aside ideals of human and civil rights. Hypocrisy becomes your truth.

[Adrian II]

Maybe I wasn't clear:

"It's probably better than what would have happened if he'd been caught in the SS during WWII" should perhaps have had, "caught fightin in the SS as an Australian" as a clarification.

Oh, ok. :bow:

AII

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You call it treason, but in your heart of hearts, you ache for vengeance: vengeance for the crime of apostasy. And in this regard are the hearts of men united. :shame:

In this cocoon of false righteousness, it is possible to put aside ideals of human and civil rights. Hypocrisy becomes your truth.

No, I just want him shot.

Seriously though, while I'm not arguing his treatment was entirely right, particulary the torture, the fact remains that he was in effect an enemy combatant, he can therefore remain in gaol until such time as he is either no longer deemed a threat or hostilities come to an end. A belief that his treatment was not entirely legal does not, gowever, necessitate any sympathy on my part.

He, like the others, opposed his native country in a time of war - he should be tried for Treason:

(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and

(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth;...

Source, wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#Australia

I assume "the Commonwealth" is the Commonwealth of Australia, still the fact remains... Treason.

As I am not a cruel man I would not Attain him as well.

[Centurion1]

You call it treason, but in your heart of hearts, you ache for vengeance: vengeance for the crime of apostasy. And in this regard are the hearts of men united. :shame:

In this cocoon of false righteousness, it is possible to put aside ideals of human and civil rights. Hypocrisy becomes your truth.

No I want him dead for being a traitor and criminal against humanity. I would string him up myself with zero qualms.

[Montmorency]

I always smile to see the frailty of morality demonstrated.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I always smile to see the frailty of morality demonstrated.

You should weep.

The point remains, he should be prosecuted for Treason (his offence) and punished to the fullest extent of the law, the conditions of his imprisonment do not mitigate against the severity of his crime.

[PanzerJaeger]

After all we managed to give the Nazi's speedy and fair trials. I'm pretty sure not every member of the SS was put on trial either.


Gitmo has become so toxic that it is almost not even worth engaging in a discussion over. The faithful will always see it as the ultimate evil, and that's that. I did want to make a few points about the WW2 comparison.

First, the fact that the Second World War had a beginning and a conclusion renders any comparison rather moot. The Allied powers actually operated in much the same way they have during the current conflict. Enemy combatants were held in prison camps without trial until the end of hostilities, after which they were processed dependent on rank. Unfortunately, NATO cannot wrap the War on Terror up and put a bow on it as the Allies did in Germany in '45. Each time a prisoner is released in the current conflict, the military has to contend with the very real possibility of recidivism.

Second, during the Second World War, it was generally relatively easy for the Allies to discern the 'big fish' from the small. A general wore the uniform of a general and a private wore the uniform of a private. Again, NATO doesn't have it so easy in its fight against a decentralized and clandestine terrorist network. It takes time, sometimes a lot of time, to figure out who's who - especially when prisoners have been trained to lie, deceive, and confuse their captors at every occasion. Mr. Hicks was not a confused 'white boy' lost in Afghanistan. He wasn't even a Pashtun sympathizer seeking an Islamic paradise in Afghanistan, as some other Westerners who were caught up in the invasion apparently were. He trained with Al Qaeda and professed internationalist Islamist intentions. The man met OBL eight times by his own admission, and possibly many more. Was he a 'big fish'? No. However, considering the manner in which OBL was eliminated (extracting information from and following the 'little fish'), I can see why he was kept around, and six years honestly doesn't seem particularly egregious. Some Germans captured early in the Second World War were kept for about the same period of time.

Finally, and this one always springs to my mind when the screamers scream about how we're sacrificing our values for security, German soldiers thought to be concealing valuable information were mercilessly, relentlessly, and savagely tortured throughout the Second World War by Allied forces in secret prisons. Somehow, society survived.

[Papewaio]

The question is then why hasn't he been tried?

The Australian government of the day imprisoned him without a trial & they gagged him talking to the media for a year (until after the 2007 election). The current government (which was in opposition in 2007) is going to block any proceeds from his book being paid to him as they are proceeds of crime.

But neither government has actually taken him to court. Not for treason or any other lessor crime.

So, that does make us ask why?

And at what point do we expect that we are automatically guilty without trial?

=][=
BTW did every Confederate soldier get executed post the Civil war as traitors?
Did every German solider, officer, SS solider or officer, or general or Nazi leader get executed post WWII?

Sure we could execute every POW after a trial. It would make it cheaper and easier this time around to deal with them. It does however make the next battle a tad more difficult when every enemy fights to the death... basic Sun Tzu 101 you always give your enemy a way out, and you want to minimise fighting and maximise winning... make it as easy and palatable to surrender as possible.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If I wanted to spend time defending someone I'd pick someone else.

[PanzerJaeger]

And at what point do we expect that we are automatically guilty without trial?

If we're operating based on previous conflicts, it's not really an innocent/guilty situation. He was a low level fighter caught on the battlefield and held in a prison camp and later released after it was decided he was no longer a threat. Not sure why the government would try to block the proceeds from his book, though. Once released, he should be free to move on. I guess that's where the definition of what he actually was gets murky - enemy soldier or terrorist?

This conflict is very tricky - in many ways, it is far more difficult to prosecute than past wars between nation states. That's why I'm willing to extend some slack to Allied governments in their efforts to deal with these people. It's imperfect and it's messy, but it is ultimately aimed at keeping us safe.

[Papewaio]

If I wanted to spend time defending someone I'd pick someone else.

It's not defending him. It's defending our way of life which includes our justice system.

They (the terrorists) win when we give up our Western freedoms and liberties and bunker down in fear. That is the object of terrorism... to induce irrational fear.

Every time we go through due process and send one of these guys through a fair trial system (which can result in anything from acquittal to life to death) we win.

Every time we spend our freedoms for security they win.

[rasoforos]

Every time we spend our freedoms for security they win.

Enough said.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Stupid decisions have consequences.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not defending him. It's defending our way of life which includes our justice system.

They (the terrorists) win when we give up our Western freedoms and liberties and bunker down in fear. That is the object of terrorism... to induce irrational fear.

Every time we go through due process and send one of these guys through a fair trial system (which can result in anything from acquittal to life to death) we win.

Every time we spend our freedoms for security they win.

He's not a terrorist, he's an enemy combatant, guilty of Treason under Australian law by his own admission. As a POW he can be kept in prison until the end of hostilities, as a Traitor he can be tried and imprisoned for life.

Gitmo aside, there's clearly no problem with locking him up without trial under the circumstances, the fact that he has not been tried I find odd. Western powers seem extremely relucant to try someone for Treason these days, despite having removed the death penalty for the offence.

This also has nothing to do with "our freedoms", as Traitors lose all rights in the state they have betrayed.

[Slyspy]

This also has nothing to do with "our freedoms", as Traitors lose all rights in the state they have betrayed.

But that just isn't true.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But that just isn't true.

Yes it is, by default when you are convicted of Treason you are "Attained", you lose all rights, citizenship, and your blood is deemed "corrupt" you can neither inherrit nor bequeeth property.

In England you also lose the right to vote, for life - except in the most local of elections.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In any "non-military tribunal," court, Mr. Hicks would be released immediately.

All non-kangaroo civilian courts view torture as unacceptable in any and all circumstances and generally class any information derived thereby to be inadmissable. This includes both the information generated by torture -- which is defined by most world courts as virtually anything aside from Q&A across a table with witnesses to confirm procedural niceties -- as well as any information flowing from that which was obtained by torture under the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine.

Combine that with the lack of availability of any witnesses that can do more than confirm that Mr. Hicks was found under arms opposing NATO forces (for which crime any civilian court is likely to judge time currently served sufficient), and there is little if any evidence of treason. It is possible that needed witnesses for a trial simply cannot be procured and that all charges would need to be dropped.

[Adrian II]

Stupid decisions have consequences.

Some members don't seem to understand the difference between defending Mr Hicks and defending the rule of law.

AII

[rasoforos]

Was he actually convicted of treason? If yes, under what grounds?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's not defending him. It's defending our way of life which includes our justice system.

Our way of life and justice system are not threatened here.


They (the terrorists) win when we give up our Western freedoms and liberties and bunker down in fear. That is the object of terrorism... to induce irrational fear.

Every time we spend our freedoms for security they win.

No they don't, this has always been a bad strain of rhetoric :stare:


Some members don't seem to understand the difference between defending Mr Hicks and defending the rule of law.

AII

Oh, don't dance around, the rule of law isn't being defended in the abstract.

Voltaire once didn't say "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", which is a stupid quote from whoever. Societies like ours are not sustained on silly rhetoric of that sort--it paints a dumb image of what free speech is about. mmm, I don't remember how this was going to link back into hicks, but basically quotes from franklin about freedom and security, and talk about the terrorists winning, and talk about free speech in fake-voltaire style, all that stuff just leads to political fervor being wasted on wedge issues. I can think of dozens of little quotes like that but they just aren't very good.

It's no tragedy if this guy is locked up for years with no trial, and no talk about the terrorists winning is going to change that. In the absence of a slippery slope the only thing that is actually being defended is Hicks himself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Essentially we should be talking about this guy instead:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7377608n

[Adrian II]

Voltaire once didn't say "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", which is a stupid quote from whoever. Societies like ours are not sustained on silly rhetoric of that sort--it paints a dumb image of what free speech is about.

It can't be much dumber than what you just wrote. :mellow:

This isn't about free speech at all. It's about dumb things like habeas corpus, due process, freedom from torture.

AII

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And thus we return to the central point.

Is the war on terror a war or police work writ large? If the latter, should not the full rule of law and due process apply? If the former, can/should extranational actors such as al queda be accorded treatment as though nation-states?

With all the downside to capturing anyone in this conflict, I wonder why US forces still bother to do so?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Some members don't seem to understand the difference between defending Mr Hicks and defending the rule of law.

AII

What law would that be?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In any "non-military tribunal," court, Mr. Hicks would be released immediately.

All non-kangaroo civilian courts view torture as unacceptable in any and all circumstances and generally class any information derived thereby to be inadmissable. This includes both the information generated by torture -- which is defined by most world courts as virtually anything aside from Q&A across a table with witnesses to confirm procedural niceties -- as well as any information flowing from that which was obtained by torture under the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine.

Combine that with the lack of availability of any witnesses that can do more than confirm that Mr. Hicks was found under arms opposing NATO forces (for which crime any civilian court is likely to judge time currently served sufficient), and there is little if any evidence of treason. It is possible that needed witnesses for a trial simply cannot be procured and that all charges would need to be dropped.

He is condemned by the letters he wrote to his family, manner of interogation doesn't even enter into it.

He admitted meeting OBL, that alone defines him as an enemy of the Australian State, torture notwithstanding.

[Tellos Athenaios]

He is condemned by the letters he wrote to his family, manner of interogation doesn't even enter into it.
Oh? I might've missed something, but did the letters continue post 9/11 when USA declared war on the Taliban? Did they contain evidence of attacks against the USA in which Hicks participated prior to 9/11?

Then as Seamus notes: is the guy a civilian for whom therefore civil and criminal law apply, or is he an enemy (of the USA) combatant in which case he has, in fact, done nothing illegal. Or at least nothing that the USA has jurisdiction over. The USA is not authorised to mete out justice on behalf of Australia, yet. ~;)


He admitted meeting OBL, that alone defines him as an enemy of the Australian State, torture notwithstanding.
A bit extreme, surely? As I recall meeting people even in war is not yet illegal, not even if they're Evil Head Honcho of Evil Incarnated.

[Tellos Athenaios]

With all the downside to capturing anyone in this conflict, I wonder why US forces still bother to do so?

Because the alternative is a war crime, in any case (deliberately killing unarmed people/killing people who have surrendered). Now granted this happens in war anyway (witness the “incidents” which have cropped up and sometimes led to a court martial), but for the USA to make war crimes an official policy would have been a bit much even for the early Bush “torture? nah this is not torture...” command chain.

If the desire is to try people for crime, the only way in which the USA is capable of doing this without a kangaroo court is under civilian law. Simply because “being against us” doesn't quite cut it as crime for an enemy combatant.

And make no mistake: the USA will have extreme difficulty to point out a single relevant criminal charge under civilian law, as well. By and large these are people who might well have participated in a whole laundry lists of criminal activity (the ones which spring to mind are creative book keeping & bribe), but certainly didn't do so on US soil nor did they bribe US officials....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

or is he an enemy (of the USA) combatant in which case he has, in fact, done nothing illegal. Or at least nothing that the USA has jurisdiction over. The USA is not authorised to mete out justice on behalf of Australia, yet. ~;)

Australia has been in Afganistan since 2001, so he was fighting Australia as well, that is Treason. Treason is illegal.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Australia has been in Afganistan since 2001, so he was fighting Australia as well, that is Treason. Treason is illegal.

Australia's prerogative to put the man on trial for, not that of the USA...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My point, TA, is that few -- if any -- of the detainees still at Gitmo are "quality" people. Many were supposed to have been remanded to their parent governments but said governments have refused their return and washed their hands regarding them. In short, we can be reasonably sure that most of the detainees are hard core jihadis and troublemakers.

Put most of them into a standard US court system, and I presume in Australia as well, and you will end up with most of them -- despite the fact that pretty much everyone acknowledges them to be "bad 'uns," will simply walk. Classic application of the rules of evidence would make it difficult at best to secure convictions. Is that a reasonable result? Remember, we are not talking about political dissidents in Scotland or London street rioters out for a lark here.

Note for PVC: In civilian courts of any stripe there is no such thing as "torture notwithstanding." Proof that the subject has been tortured invalidates any evidence gathered thereby, most if not all subsequent evidence, and constitutes a "wronging" of the torturee that is usually compensated by a reduction in any sentence they face -- with the reduction often resulting in their immediate release. It functions as a get out of jail free card. Moreover, this chap's letters to his father may or may not be admissable and, even if admissable, have to be documented to have been both written by the detainee and relating factual material. If the subject has been tortured in the past, any and all of it can be thrown out as invalid because the torturee can be presumed to be a) writing what interrogators would like to hear b) bragging to 'get back' at interrogators, c)etc. In short, any competent attorney can get the evidence tossed or put "reasonable doubt" into play quickly.

What these detainees are is a new class of POW. They are soldiers for an extra-national cause in a war that has no forseeable end. We still do not have a reasonable means of dealing with them.

[Tellos Athenaios]

My point, TA, is that few -- if any -- of the detainees still at Gitmo are "quality" people. Many were supposed to have been remanded to their parent governments but said governments have refused their return and washed their hands regarding them. In short, we can be reasonably sure that most of the detainees are hard core jihadis and troublemakers.

Put most of them into a standard US court system, and I presume in Australia as well, and you will end up with most of them -- despite the fact that pretty much everyone acknowledges them to be "bad 'uns," will simply walk. Classic application of the rules of evidence would make it difficult at best to secure convictions. Is that a reasonable result? Remember, we are not talking about political dissidents in Scotland or London street rioters out for a lark here.

That is putting the cart before the horse, all we can be reasonably sure of is that they were tortured. The one thing we know is that the Bush admin messed up royally: pretty much everything they touched is a mess to put it mildly. Given the simple fact that the USA has been entirely unwilling to do the whole justice thing properly, it is entirely reasonable for these people to walk free. That is, as they say, “you get what you pay for”, or “the risk you took”.

[rasoforos]

Australia has been in Afganistan since 2001, so he was fighting Australia as well, that is Treason. Treason is illegal.

But...he wasnt even arrested by western troops. He was sold by Northern Alliance troops for $1000...

...Also, if we team up all people who fought against their country as traitors then what would we make of Germans who fought against the Nazis in WWII? Or any resistance against the Quesling governments the Nazis created?...

(Lets not go into the 'its not the same' rhetoric. Lets keep the substance and see that even if someone fights against their own country (and its highly unlikely this guy ever did) it does not always constitute treason)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tellos:

I am saying that these detainees -- horrible term -- should not be held over for civilian courts. You are asserting that we should treat them as normal criminals, thus begetting their release, in the near certain knowledge that at least 1 in 5 will return immediately to arms against us.

It is my belief that they should be held and treated as POWs, to be repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities or by appropriate prisoner exchanges. Friendly powers should, of course, have the right to petition for the repatriation of their citizens taken in arms against the USA/NATO, and such requests should be granted wherever practical in the spirit of alliance. Where their repatriation is refused, then their status should continue unchanged.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It is my belief that they should be held and treated as POWs, to be repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities or by appropriate prisoner exchanges. Friendly powers should, of course, have the right to petition for the repatriation of their citizens taken in arms against the USA/NATO, and such requests should be granted wherever practical in the spirit of alliance. Where their repatriation is refused, then their status should continue unchanged.

Sure, but why weren't they held as proper POW's in the first place? Moreover, if they are POW's where do plea bargains enter the picture? It is quite clear, that the one thing the USA (both Bush and Obama admins) do not want to accept is POW status for these prisoners, because that would admit them a few rights that they are effectively denied today.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Note for PVC: In civilian courts of any stripe there is no such thing as "torture notwithstanding." Proof that the subject has been tortured invalidates any evidence gathered thereby, most if not all subsequent evidence, and constitutes a "wronging" of the torturee that is usually compensated by a reduction in any sentence they face -- with the reduction often resulting in their immediate release. It functions as a get out of jail free card. Moreover, this chap's letters to his father may or may not be admissable and, even if admissable, have to be documented to have been both written by the detainee and relating factual material. If the subject has been tortured in the past, any and all of it can be thrown out as invalid because the torturee can be presumed to be a) writing what interrogators would like to hear b) bragging to 'get back' at interrogators, c)etc. In short, any competent attorney can get the evidence tossed or put "reasonable doubt" into play quickly.

What these detainees are is a new class of POW. They are soldiers for an extra-national cause in a war that has no forseeable end. We still do not have a reasonable means of dealing with them.

Well, the "fruit of the poisen tree" is not as strong a principle in the UK as the US, illegally obtained evidence has been deemed admissable, Australia follows UK law more than US law.

Further, from what I have read many of these letters, detailing his training for example, were written and sent before capture - the letter he wrote after capture was not sent.

So, the letters are admissable, surely, and they amount to a written confession to his being in Afganistan in the run up to the war, allied to the Taliban. Then he is caught by the Northern Alliance during the war.

Smells like Treason to me.


But...he wasnt even arrested by western troops. He was sold by Northern Alliance troops for $1000...

So he was captured by a Coalition Ally and the Colaition paid a bounty for the Traitor?

OK.


...Also, if we team up all people who fought against their country as traitors then what would we make of Germans who fought against the Nazis in WWII? Or any resistance against the Quesling governments the Nazis created?...

Well, had the Reich survived the war, or won, those Germans would have been shot or hanged according to German law. Fortunately for them the Reich, the German State thy opposed, ceased to exist, and at that time it became impossible for them to be Traitors to it.

The occupied states are slightly more complex, but it depends on whether the government in question passes the "legitimacy" test, the one Gaddafi recently failed, as to whether we call them Traitors or heroes.


(Lets not go into the 'its not the same' rhetoric. Lets keep the substance and see that even if someone fights against their own country (and its highly unlikely this guy ever did) it does not always constitute treason)

It's exactly the same, except that Germany lost and we won (huzzah).

I would argue that in this case it is not only Australia's prerogative, it is her obligation to try this man.

[Papewaio]

I would argue that in this case it is not only Australia's prerogative, it is her obligation to try this man.

I agree, but the government isn't.

Treason is a very high level of crime. It isn't triggered by every act against a nation by a national of that nation. Otherwise someone throwing an egg at an MP would be in for a serious crime.

The governments (One Liberal, the Next Labour and the third a minority government of Labour, Greens and Independents) have not been able to pin a crime on him to the point that they've taken it to court.

If they could they would. The only crime that the US could pin on him, the law didn't exist at the time of the crime... so it was retrospective.

I'd like to see it go through, even if it is just a slap on the wrist or a firing squad... why? Because terrorism relies on well terror. A faceless evil mastermind is much more scary then a schmuck on the stand. Reduce the fear, another win for us. Everytime we strip them down to their basic humanity and treat them as humans we win. Remember what Hussein looked like on the stand... not exactly a figure of terror and power.

Afterall you can always be polite to someone even if it's a last meal and a cigarette.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree, but the government isn't.

Treason is a very high level of crime. It isn't triggered by every act against a nation by a national of that nation. Otherwise someone throwing an egg at an MP would be in for a serious crime.

The governments (One Liberal, the Next Labour and the third a minority government of Labour, Greens and Independents) have not been able to pin a crime on him to the point that they've taken it to court.

If they could they would. The only crime that the US could pin on him, the law didn't exist at the time of the crime... so it was retrospective.

I'd like to see it go through, even if it is just a slap on the wrist or a firing squad... why? Because terrorism relies on well terror. A faceless evil mastermind is much more scary then a schmuck on the stand. Reduce the fear, another win for us. Everytime we strip them down to their basic humanity and treat them as humans we win. Remember what Hussein looked like on the stand... not exactly a figure of terror and power.

Afterall you can always be polite to someone even if it's a last meal and a cigarette.

I did post your Treason Law earlier, it is substantially the same as the UK's (shockingly) and he seems fairly culpable, he aided the Taleban (foriegn state) in a time of war.

I think it's just that we don't like the idea of "Treason" any more, because it implies that loyalty to the state is required of the citizen, and we no longer seem to believe that is so.

[Strike For The South]

So we hold them ideffintly until someone gives an arbatrairy coast is clear signal?

Make the man stand trial or let him go

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I did post your Treason Law earlier, it is substantially the same as the UK's (shockingly) and he seems fairly culpable, he aided the Taleban (foriegn state) in a time of war.

I think it's just that we don't like the idea of "Treason" any more, because it implies that loyalty to the state is required of the citizen, and we no longer seem to believe that is so.

Not a time of war. No war was declared by Australia, nor by the USA. (One of my peeves with the whole thing)

[Vladimir]

Not a time of war. No war was declared by Australia, nor by the USA. (One of my peeves with the whole thing)

How do you declare war on a non-sovereign entity, or an idea?

[Strike For The South]

How do you declare war on a non-sovereign entity, or an idea?

IDK as the gummint

[Vladimir]

IDK as the gummint

:laugh4:

I can imagine, in Bush 43's voice:


We're gonna declare war on, hell I don't know. We're gonna :daisy: them up!

[drone]

How do you declare war on a non-sovereign entity, or an idea?
We have a War on Drugs, Terror, Christmas, etc.

Google search auto-complete is full of win. :yes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not a time of war. No war was declared by Australia, nor by the USA. (One of my peeves with the whole thing)

Check post 23, Australian law provides for "undeclared" war.

We Anglo-Saxons frame our laws to catch all the Traitors.

[Papewaio]

Because you have to go through the proper process to convict someone in Australia

For instance:

had failed to follow proper procedure to convict or imprison the man. ''There had been no formal plea to the charge, no evidence, no findings, no conviction, no sentence imposed,'' she wrote.

''Judges have significant powers which must be exercised judicially. In particular, the deprivation of the liberty of an individual is something not to be … used as a weapon with which to threaten a party as a means of seeking to achieve an end.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/magistrate-suspended-after-rulings-overturned-20110825-1jci3.html#ixzz1W561OOnC

[Hosakawa Tito]

Separate laws regarding the conduct of war were established for a reason. The environment of armed conflict differs significantly from everyday civil society. Soldiers must be able to accomplish the mission and obey the rules of conduct while under stressful, chaotic, and life threatening conditions. The laws of war also give soldiers the legal means to deal with enemy soldiers, civilians, and unlawful combatants who intentionally ignore those rules.

Granting unwarranted legal rights puts soldiers and civilians at risk by rewarding treachery with privilege. Unlawful enemy combatants are not entitled to POW status or the full protections of the Geneva Conventions, let alone unfettered access to US courts. Summarily granting them those privileges would cripple the integrity of the laws of war. Enemies will be less inclined to follow the rules if they suffer no consequences for breaking them. Contrary views rely on guilt-ridden, utopian thinking that says America deserves her enemies and that they will love and foreswear violence against her if only she just meet some indeterminate but much higher standard of justice and fairplay. When only one side plays by the rules on a battlefield, that side is likely to disproportionately suffer from illegal acts of war.

It is highly unrealistic to expect soldiers during active operations to collect evidence and insure the integrity of the chain of custody for that evidence. American soldiers would face a Hobson's choice: on the one hand, win the war, bring fellow soldiers home, and safeguard innocents; or on the other hand, meet novel legal standards that might result in prematurely releasing war criminals who wil go back to the battlefield.

As it pertains to Mr. Hicks, he made his foolish choice, and suffered the consequences of putting himself in that situation. Then he wants to write a book about it to profit from his treachery and had that foiled. Now he wishes to sue his country through the UN. Australia should strip him of his citizenship and ship him off to whatever country would want the piece of :daisy:.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Separate laws regarding the conduct of war were established for a reason. The environment of armed conflict differs significantly from everyday civil society. Soldiers must be able to accomplish the mission and obey the rules of conduct while under stressful, chaotic, and life threatening conditions. The laws of war also give soldiers the legal means to deal with enemy soldiers, civilians, and unlawful combatants who intentionally ignore those rules.

So far so good.


Granting unwarranted legal rights puts soldiers and civilians at risk by rewarding treachery with privilege.

Eh, no. People are either treated as common criminal for breaking the law on thou shalt not murder, or alternatively are treated as enemy (foot) soldier in which case the rules of war do apply.


Unlawful enemy combatants are not entitled to POW status or the full protections of the Geneva Conventions, let alone unfettered access to US courts.

Unlawful enemy combatant is meaningless. Unlawful combatant is one thing (i.e. criminal/murderer once captured), enemy combatant is (i.e. POW once captured) but unlawful enemy combatant means nothing. I understand you don't give a hoot as to the predicament of the people on Gitmo, and I don't expect you to have any sympathy. But I do expect you to at least understand that whatever Mr. Hicks has done the USA still has their hands on either a criminal or a POW and must chose (well should have decided before the moment of his arrest/surrender) between either which brings you back at square one: you may not like it, but the guy should have been admitted certain rights in accordance with that decision right from the start -- not be denied them merely because hey, he's a baddie.


Summarily granting them those privileges would cripple the integrity of the laws of war. Enemies will be less inclined to follow the rules if they suffer no consequences for breaking them.

On the contrary, promoting a sense of dignity and/or mercy (not the same as lenience) is the only way to prevent armed conflict devolving from war to madness and your only bargaining chip if you try to dissuade your enemy from continuing to fight a ruinous war (Afghanistan & Iraq). Such a sense of basic rules and “fair play” if you will is what encourages everyone to play by such rules because everyone knows their is a common understanding, a line which is not crossed. This line of reasoning of yours to defend the treatment of Hicks and others is the same line of reasoning which saw the piracy issue in Somalia go from a small economic nuisance with an absolute minimum of violence to a slave trade.

That's right, because the world decided that it wasn't OK for shipping companies to negotiate the release of vessel, crew and cargo in exchange for ransom, pirates no longer have a good incentive to keeping the crew alive which leads them to take more risk with the lives of crew. Worse, where do you think crew members end up? Do you think they're still being fed and housed properly so as to make the whole exchange as smooth as possible? Nope, if they're particularly unfortunate the crew will be sold on the slave markets.

... That is what this refusal to grant privileges which are really common decency begets you. A far harsher we-take-no-prisoners conflict.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... That is what this refusal to grant privileges which are really common decency begets you. A far harsher we-take-no-prisoners conflict.

With the exception of some few prisoners captured by Iraqi regulars in Gulf II, US prisoners have fared poorly. I would suggest that we were already in a take no prisoners conflict from the outset. We took prisoners anyway.

You know, TA, underneath it all, the whole thing about prisoner treatment boils down to "quid pro quo" and always has. Even so, you haven't seen any taped beheadings from Gitmo now have you? Perhaps our sense of restraint still supercedes our sense of vengeance? Just a thought.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You know, TA, underneath it all, the whole thing about prisoner treatment boils down to "quid pro quo" and always has. Even so, you haven't seen any taped beheadings from Gitmo now have you? Perhaps our sense of restraint still supercedes our sense of vengeance? Just a thought.

I don't deny that. And I don't deny that in general it is likely better to be caught by the USA than by the Taliban. I was merely drawing a parallel to another simmering conflict, this one with pirates in Somalia.

But hey if you want to play this game I've not seen too many pictures of naked Americans standing on a chair with a hood over their face and wired up to a mains socket whilst the Talibani guards stand by laughing and with thumbs up... Just another thought: it's not what you are officially wiling to do, it's what you are seen to be done that matters.

[Vladimir]

I don't deny that. And I don't deny that in general it is likely better to be caught by the USA than by the Taliban. I was merely drawing a parallel to another simmering conflict, this one with pirates in Somalia.

How "likely"?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Depends on what you meant with the quotes. Based on no data but my fuzzy feelings, I'd say well within confidence margin. I.e if I were caught for something or by mistake I could be confident of reasonable treatment. Where it concerns Gitmo, however, the USA has nothing to feel proud of, and the various “incidents” however isolated are another stark reminder that this is not a 100% certain/guaranteed claim.

(Apropos, why are we discussing this point over capital punishment anyway given that the USA still subscribes to that?)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...But hey if you want to play this game I've not seen too many pictures of naked Americans standing on a chair with a hood over their face and wired up to a mains socket....

Then you clearly missed all those pictures chronicling Strike's Freshman Fall.

;-)

[Vladimir]

Then you clearly missed all those pictures chronicling Strike's Freshman Fall.

;-)

It's called team building.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Then you clearly missed all those pictures chronicling Strike's Freshman Fall.

;-)

... Yes, yes I must have done. :shocked: To be honest, I never was much fan of the team building waterboarding exercise thing.

[Hosakawa Tito]

So far so good.



Eh, no. People are either treated as common criminal for breaking the law on thou shalt not murder, or alternatively are treated as enemy (foot) soldier in which case the rules of war do apply.



Unlawful enemy combatant is meaningless. Unlawful combatant is one thing (i.e. criminal/murderer once captured), enemy combatant is (i.e. POW once captured) but unlawful enemy combatant means nothing. I understand you don't give a hoot as to the predicament of the people on Gitmo, and I don't expect you to have any sympathy. But I do expect you to at least understand that whatever Mr. Hicks has done the USA still has their hands on either a criminal or a POW and must chose (well should have decided before the moment of his arrest/surrender) between either which brings you back at square one: you may not like it, but the guy should have been admitted certain rights in accordance with that decision right from the start -- not be denied them merely because hey, he's a baddie.



On the contrary, promoting a sense of dignity and/or mercy (not the same as lenience) is the only way to prevent armed conflict devolving from war to madness and your only bargaining chip if you try to dissuade your enemy from continuing to fight a ruinous war (Afghanistan & Iraq). Such a sense of basic rules and “fair play” if you will is what encourages everyone to play by such rules because everyone knows their is a common understanding, a line which is not crossed. This line of reasoning of yours to defend the treatment of Hicks and others is the same line of reasoning which saw the piracy issue in Somalia go from a small economic nuisance with an absolute minimum of violence to a slave trade.

That's right, because the world decided that it wasn't OK for shipping companies to negotiate the release of vessel, crew and cargo in exchange for ransom, pirates no longer have a good incentive to keeping the crew alive which leads them to take more risk with the lives of crew. Worse, where do you think crew members end up? Do you think they're still being fed and housed properly so as to make the whole exchange as smooth as possible? Nope, if they're particularly unfortunate the crew will be sold on the slave markets.

... That is what this refusal to grant privileges which are really common decency begets you. A far harsher we-take-no-prisoners conflict.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there because your thought process on rewarding treachery with privilege as regards breaking the laws of war is dead wrong. :bow: