David Hicks The farce of Gitmo continues.

[Earthborn]

They are, by their own definitions, holy warriors that don't recognize the GCs, and that's how they should be treated.

So they should be treated the way they see themselves? That makes no sense at all. Suppose they saw themselves as the nicest people in the world and that they deserve biscuits and lemonade? Would you then advocate treating them as the nicest people in the world and serve them biscuits and lemonade? I don't think you would. Suppose they saw themselves as acting out the Will of God... Would you then treat them as if they are acting out the Will of God, by not hindering them? One should not go against the Will of God, after all...

I don't think a criminal's self identification should matter at all in the way they are tried for anything or not. What should matter is what is considered an appropriate treatment.

 

[rikzilla]

Anyway...its nice to see we have contributers here who are even more extremist that George bush. Georgie just wants to avoid having to give this
guy US justice....Rick wants to put a bullet in him. Luckily, people with less violent viewpoints are not going to let you put a bullet in him.

I won't be putting a bullet in him Fool. I only hope the person who does is a very good shot. BTW, I wouldn't count so much on those "people with less violent viewpoints". We're in an election cycle you know, and they're not likely to do very well as the "FREE THE GITMO DETAINEES" candidate. Even if the Dems somehow capture the WH, do you really think they'd have the cajones to author and sign the releases of these violent jihadi nuts?

[DR]Furloughed recidivistic Massachusetts murderers for 1,000 alex!!![/DR]

Hell, the weenies you support so blindly aren't even capable of getting Leonard Peltier released! But hey, if you are a billionaire criminal living overseas with campaign cash to sling.... But alas, I don't think your jihadi friends currently domiciled in Cuba have that kind of coin.

-z

 

[Mycroft]

So they should be treated the way they see themselves? That makes no sense at all. Suppose they saw themselves as the nicest people in the world and that they deserve biscuits and lemonade? Would you then advocate treating them as the nicest people in the world and serve them biscuits and lemonade?

I don't remember saying every violent psychopath should be treated they way they see themselves. I only remember saying that those who see themselves as holy soldiers who don’t obey the Geneva Conventions should be treated as soldiers who don’t obey the Geneva Conventions.

I thought I had made that clear.

 

[athon]

Very well said.

Thanks.

But imagine for a moment that these baby-killers and rapists were religiously motivated by a perverted version of one of the worlds great religions, politically active in that they wanted their practices to be protected by law, even had success in making this happen in many countries around the world, and were funded in secret by people willing to put forth millions to advance their cause?

I don't see how that suddenly means we lose our process; one where we look at the individual's actions, demonstrate through evidence that they were personally responsible for them and then decide without passion or emotion how to prevent such actions from taking place again in the future.

We're trying to create a world where individuals or communities cannot impose their values on others using the threat of violence. The 'tu quoque' response from apologists who feel that this situation deserves us to abandon reason and process is insane. Because extremists use violence to impose their views, suddenly we're allowed to as well? Sorry, this ain't the playground.

We don't have this process because it's simply being nice to each other. We have it because it delcares reason as the most positive and useful response to the threats of danger we face in our modern world.

I don't advocate treating them different from common criminals because their crimes are any worse or because they're scarier. I say they're different because they see themselves differently. They see themselves as an army fighting a holy war, an army that draws strength from breaking the rules of civilized behavior.

You say we should treat them differently because they are inspired by different influences? The fact that they are inspired by religious zealotry means they don't 'deserve' the same process as a child rapist? Religious thinking might be powerful, and I agree it's of concern, but that just means we need to keep a reasonable view and need a calculated system more now than ever in our history. Emotional responses which see us dismantling regimes and creating hotspots of chaos, and eye-for-an-eye thinking is not going to rationally address this threat.

I wish I could say this view of yours revolts me, but again, politics seems to have a sign above the door which says 'leave your ability to rationalise without passion here' as you enter.

Again, due process where somebody should be systematically demonstrated to be guilty and dealt with in a manner which reflects our wish that such actions will be prevented from occuring again in the future is not out of personal love of an individual or a respect for their past. It is because it delcares reason as the most positive and useful response to the threats of danger we face in our modern world.

They are, by their own definitions, holy warriors that don't recognize the GCs, and that's how they should be treated.

Laws are not flexible in response to the attitude of the criminal. 'Eye for an Eye' thinking was abandoned a long time ago because it was a response born of desire for retribution and not something that was reasonable.

Athon

 

[The Fool]

That's an amazing theory.

Any evidence?

Its pretty well outlined by David Hicks Lawyer in the link I posted, you should listen to it. It underlines the incompetent farce that this process has been.

 

[The Fool]

I won't be putting a bullet in him Fool. I only hope the person who does is a very good shot.

People with violent extremist views such as yours are not even allowed to get other people to do the killing that they would like to see happen. Not this time....sorry.

Did you get time to listen to Major Mori's summation?

 

[Giz]

I'm not going to say much here, because politics is often a place where people speak with emotion rather than reason, and reasonable argument goes out of the window. But, for some reason I feel obliged to post.

When I was 13, a close friend of mine was raped and beaten to death with a hammer and her body was left on a dirt track a few kilometres from my house. They found the guy and sentenced him to life, which was 25 years. He'll be out in about a decade.

That was human garbage. People decided once that the sort of things he did were unacceptable, evidence for his actions were presented and the claim that he was responsible was upheld in a court of law.

In my home city in Queensland, was a case of an 18 month old baby stolen from its crib, sexually assaulted, murdered, and its body was flung onto the roof of a toilet block. It's killer was matched from teeth marks on the child's leg, demonstrated in a rational process in a court of law according to laws previously written to say that such a thing is not acceptable.

That was human garbage.

Is David Hicks human garbage? He wished for Muslim law to be upheld across all nations, and that for this to happen, Americans should die. Murder was justified in his mind in order for this to happen. Yes, he is garbage, just as anybody who believes torture and death are par for course in any universal implementation of values they beleive in; democracy, freedom...any value.

Garbage or not, even those baby killers and rapists were trialled. Not for respect of them or their actions, but for respect of the process we have which says there is a due process every person deserves to demonstrate they have done wrong, and that we will endeavour to stop that from happening again.

Think with rage if you wish. I'll continue to campaign that we use reason and rational process to address issues such as these.

Athon

Yes, and when the Allies captured Waffen SS in the second world war they should have held them for no more than 48 hours before charging them with war crimes or letting them go - if no evidence (other than hearsay/captured in firefight etc) could be provided.

There is a rather obvious difference between arresting individual "garbage" and going after a large international organisation of heavily armed garbage, Athon. Sorry you decided to speak with "speak with emotion rather than reason".

 

[Azure]

Yes, and when the Allies captured Waffen SS in the second world war they should have held them for no more than 48 hours before charging them with war crimes or letting them go - if no evidence (other than hearsay/captured in firefight etc) could be provided.

There is a rather obvious difference between arresting individual "garbage" and going after a large international organisation of heavily armed garbage, Athon. Sorry you decided to speak with "speak with emotion rather than reason".

Thank you.

Well said.

 

[The Fool]

Yes, and when the Allies captured Waffen SS in the second world war they should have held them for no more than 48 hours before charging them with war crimes or letting them go - if no evidence (other than hearsay/captured in firefight etc) could be provided.

Do you know the difference between 48 hours and 5 years? Can you tell me if we still had waffen SS in prison in 1950 still figuring out how we were going to try them? Can you tell me how many there were that we could not offer any evidence of warcrimes committed so we charged them with "Aiding Germany" a crime we wrote into the statutes after the war was over?

I understand that Nazi comparisons are nice for emotional impact but they should at least be vaguely comparable

 

[Schneibster]

Well said, Athon.

Seconded.

 

[athon]

Yes, and when the Allies captured Waffen SS in the second world war they should have held them for no more than 48 hours before charging them with war crimes or letting them go - if no evidence (other than hearsay/captured in firefight etc) could be provided.

Your point being? So the Allies required a process which provided evidence, then addressed the crime alleged to have taken place according to a set of previously established regulations. And this needed to be effectively done inside a 48 hour period. Hicks is in a cell for five years without so much as a trial while laws are established to sentence him retrospectively.

I really don't see where your comment is relevant at all.

There is a rather obvious difference between arresting individual "garbage" and going after a large international organisation of heavily armed garbage, Athon. Sorry you decided to speak with "speak with emotion rather than reason".

How did I speak emotively? Hell, I can't stand the idea of religious zealotry influencing people into spreading their idea of values using the threat of violence. I can't stand political zealotry spreading their values through threat of violence either. It makes me angry. But I know that emotional reasoning varies according to the subjective views of the individual, and varies also with time. Therefore it's a poor way to deal with issues which threaten our wellbeing and our social order.

Now, there are indeed differences between the crimes of a mentally unstable individual and those committed as the result of a socially embraced belief. Yet in each situation, the question that arises in addressing it is the same; how do we prevent these things from occuring?

Supporting the emotive 'I hate Hicks therefore he does not deserve the just proceedings we afford baby-rapists' makes no sense in a society that values rational thought and a reasonable approach to preventing such atrocities from occuring again. And you have said nothing which lends any sort of reason to this mentality.

Athon

 

[Giz]

Do you know the difference between 48 hours and 5 years? Can you tell me if we still had waffen SS in prison in 1950 still figuring out how we were going to try them? Can you tell me how many there were that we could not offer any evidence of warcrimes committed so we charged them with "Aiding Germany" a crime we wrote into the statutes after the war was over?

I understand that Nazi comparisons are nice for emotional impact but they should at least be vaguely comparable

We didn't hold them for more than 5 years after the fighting stopped. Has the fighting stopped?

 

[Zep]

We didn't hold them for more than 5 years after the fighting stopped. Has the fighting stopped?

Hasn't it? Thought Bush said "Mission Accomplished" AFTER David Hicks was captured, and that was 5 years ago or so. Now it's still the "mopping up"... And only last week was Hicks even CHARGED, and that with a ludicrous offence that was no offence when he was captured.

If you really want the comparison, German prisoners in WW2 were immediately and automatically treated as POWs from the moment of capture. They had certain rights and priviledges, including receiving adequate food and lodgings, freedom to move around and associate and to wear their uniforms, and NOT being subject to torture or put in solitary confinement for extended periods. Their captors also had certain obligations to uphold, which, in the main, they did. In short, any Waffen SS prisoners had a clearly defined status under the Geneva Convention.

It was at the end of the war that some enemy soldiers (and civilians) were charged with criminal offences such as "crimes against humanity", then were tried, and sentenced. Some of them were, indeed, already POWs at the armistice. So they transitioned from being POWs to formally charged suspects thence to sentenced criminals, and throughout, certain rights were always accorded them.

None of which David Hicks has been accorded...

 

[Crossbow]

We didn't hold them for more than 5 years after the fighting stopped. Has the fighting stopped?

The fighting has not stopped, but the danger posed by the person has may well have stopped.

And since at least a couple of hundred of other detainees have been released is essentially an official concession that it is quite possible that some of the other detainees may no longer pose a danger either and should be released as well.

In any event, these other releases and current long-term detentions clearly show that at least some sort of legal review is needed to determine just what the detainees have done in the past, and what there current status is.

 

[WildCat]

Hasn't it? Thought Bush said "Mission Accomplished" AFTER David Hicks was captured, and that was 5 years ago or so.

Even if you assume that was an official "the war is over" statement, which it wasn't, it was an entirely different war. Hicks is being held for the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq. No one captured in the Iraq war is being held in Gitmo.

 

[WildCat]

If you really want the comparison, German prisoners in WW2 were immediately and automatically treated as POWs from the moment of capture.

Only the ones who wore a uniform, wore insignia clearly identifying them as combatants, openly carried arms, etc etc per the rules of warfare.

Those who wore no uniform, displayed no insignia could and often were summarily executed, with or without a court martial.

Tell us Zep, was Hicks wearing a uniform? It's a simple question.

 

[rikzilla]

People with violent extremist views such as yours are not even allowed to get other people to do the killing that they would like to see happen. Not this time....sorry.

Did you get time to listen to Major Mori's summation?

Well Hicks is just an innocent Aussie right? But I am a person with "violent extremist views"???

Just thought I'd reiterate that part Fool. It illustrates the fact that you can forgive a militant muslim mercenary/adventurer who trained in Afghanistan with Al Qaeda pre-9/11....but I am the one you deride as a "violent extremist".

I wonder when your case of SJS is going to kick in Fool? Can't be too far off eh mate?

-z

 

[rikzilla]

The fighting has not stopped, but the danger posed by the person has may well have stopped.

And since at least a couple of hundred of other detainees have been released is essentially an official concession that it is quite possible that some of the other detainees may no longer pose a danger either and should be released as well.

In any event, these other releases and current long-term detentions clearly show that at least some sort of legal review is needed to determine just what the detainees have done in the past, and what there current status is.

...and who will be the great emancipator? Which politician of which political ilk is willing to risk the Dukakis syndrome??? If/when David Hicks is released, would you volunteer to live next door to him with your loved ones?

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Hasn't it? Thought Bush said "Mission Accomplished" AFTER David Hicks was captured, and that was 5 years ago or so. Now it's still the "mopping up"... And only last week was Hicks even CHARGED, and that with a ludicrous offence that was no offence when he was captured.

If you really want the comparison, German prisoners in WW2 were immediately and automatically treated as POWs from the moment of capture. They had certain rights and priviledges, including receiving adequate food and lodgings, freedom to move around and associate and to wear their uniforms, and NOT being subject to torture or put in solitary confinement for extended periods. Their captors also had certain obligations to uphold, which, in the main, they did. In short, any Waffen SS prisoners had a clearly defined status under the Geneva Convention.

It was at the end of the war that some enemy soldiers (and civilians) were charged with criminal offences such as "crimes against humanity", then were tried, and sentenced. Some of them were, indeed, already POWs at the armistice. So they transitioned from being POWs to formally charged suspects thence to sentenced criminals, and throughout, certain rights were always accorded them.

None of which David Hicks has been accorded...

All of which and more he would have been accorded pre-9/11. 9/11 constituted a sea-change. The post-9/11 world is a far different place. David Hick is Al Qaeda. Just being Al Qeada in a post 9/11 world should be a crime that comes with an automatic trip to death row. As always, just MHO.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Only the ones who wore a uniform, wore insignia clearly identifying them as combatants, openly carried arms, etc etc per the rules of warfare.

Those who wore no uniform, displayed no insignia could and often were summarily executed, with or without a court martial.

Tell us Zep, was Hicks wearing a uniform? It's a simple question.

Cue the crickets.