• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

David Hicks The farce of Gitmo continues.

The Fool

Penultimate Amazing
The Fool
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
16,508
well....All the charges against David Dicks have now collapsed for lack of evidence.

Conspiracy to commit warcrimes...oops, dropped for lack of evidence.

Attempted murder (of the coalition armies apparently)...oops, dropped for lack of evidence.

After five years America has decided it doesn't have the evidence after all...


But hang on there......a new charge was levelled (aiding the enemy or something like that). He has broken a law that was put in place after his imprisonment in gitmo. America is not giving up and will charge him with breaking a law written after he did what they say he did......and what did he do? Well lets wait for the story. It should be interesting because hearsay is quite acceptable, as is evidence obtained under torture (or whatever nice word you prefer to use for it).

Hey, I heard that someone heard him say he wanted to do something really really evil....that should be enough....shouldn't it. Lets write a law and then imprison him for breaking it.

What a laughable situation.

All that remains to be seen is how the people responsible for this ongoing farce save face.
Politics will determine what happens to this prisoner....but lets not call him a political prisoner because it makes us sound nasty.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
Last time I checked, holding prisoners without charges for years at a time was a bad thing no matter how despicable the prisoner is.
Click to expand...

In Hamdan v Rumsfeld SCOTUS agreed with you ID. But this decision prompted further Congressional review. Here is the result of Hamdan v Rumsfeld in a neat nutshell provided to us by Justice Breyer:
The dissenters say that today’s decision would “sorely hamper the President’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.” Post, at 29 (opinion of Thomas, J.). They suggest that it undermines our Nation’s ability to “preven[t] future attacks” of the grievous sort that we have already suffered. Post, at 48. That claim leads me to state briefly what I believe the majority sets forth both explicitly and implicitly at greater length. The Court’s conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a “blank check.” Cf. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legisla-tive authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.

Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine—through democratic means—how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.
Click to expand...

...and so here we are. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is simply the child of Hamdan v Rumsfeld. "The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same."

Looks to me like the system works. IMHO as always...

-z
 
The Fool said:
But hang on there......a new charge was levelled (aiding the enemy or something like that). He has broken a law that was put in place after his imprisonment in gitmo. America is not giving up and will charge him with breaking a law written after he did what they say he did..
Click to expand...

Creating factories of death in Nazi Germany similarly broke no extant German law. This did not stop the Nuremburg convictions and executions. When you live by the sword it is rather unseemly to cry when facing the sword yourself. I have no sympathy for this terrorist. None.

-z
 
rikzilla said:
Creating factories of death in Nazi Germany similarly broke no extant German law. This did not stop the Nuremburg convictions and executions. When you live by the sword it is rather unseemly to cry when facing the sword yourself. I have no sympathy for this terrorist. None.

-z
Click to expand...

Did you read the articule as I suggested? There are aways two sides to a story.
 
Last edited:
simon dalton said:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1494795.htm

You should read this. It may change your mind. Holding someone for 5 years without a trail is a crime in Australia and the U.S.A.

What ever crimes he has comminted, he desevres to be treated as a human being
Click to expand...
OK, I read it. Hicks admits training w/ al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, Hicks was captured and can be held for the duration of the war - and doesn't ever have to be charged w/ anything. And this is the way it's always been done in warfare, and is not illegal in the US. Does Australia typically appoint enemies captured in a war lawyers and trry them? I doubt it. If so, could you provide examples?
 
WildCat said:
OK, I read it. Hicks admits training w/ al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The US is at war w/ al Qaeda, Hicks was captured and can be held for the duration of the war - and doesn't ever have to be charged w/ anything. And this is the way it's always been done in warfare, and is not illegal in the US.
Click to expand...

Has the USA declared war on Al Qaeda? I have not heard of offical declaration. I have heard of a war on Terror, but you can't declare a war on a word.

The way in which he is being held goes against the Genova convention. IMHO, I believe he is being held as a scapegoat. The English got their citzens out on camp X-ray because they believed that their people would not be given a fair trail.

WildCat said:
Does Australia typically appoint enemies captured in a war lawyers and trry them? I doubt it. If so, could you provide examples?
Click to expand...

Lawyers were assigned to the trails for both the German and Japanese high command.

No offense wildcat, but what's up with 'w/' instead of 'with'? I had to read that a couple of times before it made sense
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Was that even illegal when he was originally arrested?
Click to expand...

Apparently in the case of this act it simply doesn't matter. It's retroactive...ex-post facto. It's pretty rare and controversial...but it is legal.

Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.
Click to expand...


Before, on, or after... otherwise known as "forever and ever, amen."
 
Last edited:
simon dalton said:
Has the USA declared war on Al Qaeda?
Click to expand...
Not required for the consideration in question. If a state of war exists, non declaration on the part of one party is irrelevant. The leader of Al Qaeda declared war on the US, in 1996. Since then, a state of war has existed, if you want to pick the fly turds out of the pepper.

The Taliban are quite another matter.

Lead in from PBS: The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Cylinder had a link to the Supreme Court decision and commentary on that a few months ago. If I can find it again, I'll link it. My first look didn't dig it up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2289369&postcount=30
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2290626&postcount=44

The Thread was called Alberto Gonzalez Hero or Goat and was an interesting discussion.

DR
 
Last edited:
Doubt it...this law is the progeny of a SCOTUS decision in Hamdi v Rumsfeld. In it they pretty much deferred to Congressional review. Hence we have this act voted into law by Congress.

Sure we now have a new Congress...but do you really think any of that group is going to go to bat for Gitmo terrorist detainees in a presidential election season?

Fat chance.
-z
 
rikzilla said:
Doubt it...this law is the progeny of a SCOTUS decision in Hamdi v Rumsfeld. It it they pretty much deferred to Congressional review. Hence we have this act voted into law by Congress.

Sure we now have a new Congress...but do you really think any of that group is going to go to bat for Gitmo terrorist detainees in a presidential election season?

Fat chance.
-z
Click to expand...

Well, McCain is supposed to be a man of integrity (excuse me while I stifle a guffaw), and Obama still hasn't cut his milk teeth on anything remotely controversial. I have socks older than his senatorial career. Who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom