David Hicks The farce of Gitmo continues.
- Thread starter The Fool
- Start date
SimonD
Rouge Element
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,092
Do only good looking people 'deserved' to be raped?
Taken from http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1494795.htm
DEBBIE WHITMONT: When Terry Hicks went to Guantanamo, he says those beatings were the very first thing his son told him about.
TERRY HICKS: David was full on, he was agitated, he was stressed. All he wanted to do is, he just told us, "Listen. Don't say anything, I'll get it out as quick as I can." He had two 10-hour beatings from the Americans. And I said to David, "Sure they were Americans?" - 'cause he said he had a bag over his head - and he said, "Oh look," he said, "I know their accents, they were definitely American." Some pretty horrific things that were done to him.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: Are they... sexually embarrassing things?
TERRY HICKS: Yes.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: These sexually-related incidents... does this involve Americans?
TERRY HICKS: Yes.
DEBBIE WHITMONT: David Hicks told his father the Americans gave him injections and then penetrated him anally with various objects. Why does he believe he was taken off a ship by helicopter?
TERRY HICKS: Well, I mean, if they've taken him off... They're taking him off an American ship. So, I suppose if anything happens, the Americans would say, "Well, it didn't happen on our soil."
DEBBIE WHITMONT: Being taken off a warship, it's like a mini-rendition if you like, do you believe that did happen?
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH, MOAZZAM BEGG'S LAWYER: Being taken off a warship is not a mini-rendition, it's a rendition, period. There were all sorts of renditions. There were American renditions to themselves from Pakistan to Afghanistan to torture people, from American ships to Afghanistan to torture people.
Last edited:
SimonD
Rouge Element
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,092
Sarcasm I can understand, but about rape? I think you are being a little harsh.
Merko
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,899
I think it would be much better to keep you locked up until terrrorism has ended, in that case. People like you are a much, much bigger threat to democracy and freedom than any al Qaeda symphatiser has ever been. Not that I think anyone should be locked up like that, but if you think we should start somewhere, I say start with yourself.
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
numbered for my conveniene:
1 -You are a loony Your response is loony, and completely wrong.
2 - Your response is loony, and completely wrong again.
3 - Your response is again loony, but completely consistent with your previous responses.
1 -
2 - Your response is loony, and completely wrong again.
3 - Your response is again loony, but completely consistent with your previous responses.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
1. Captured enemies in wartime do not, and never have, had a right to a lawyer. If you think that's loony show me they have.
2. Then why are you demanding criminal investigations rather than a military campaign? Military personnell don't have the luxury of finding witnesses, gathering evidence, detailing the chain of custody, etc etc while engaged in battle. You apparently think they do?
3. So you don't think the rule preventing the FBI and intelligence agencies from sharing information prior to 9/11 contributed in any way to the success of that terrorist operation?
Loony indeed.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
You don't have to. You should have some regard for due process. It is one of the cornerstones of modern democracy.
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
1. Captured enemies in wartime do not, and never have, had a right to a lawyer. If you think that's loony show me they have.
2. Then why are you demanding criminal investigations rather than a military campaign? Military personnell don't have the luxury of finding witnesses, gathering evidence, detailing the chain of custody, etc etc while engaged in battle. You apparently think they do?
3. So you don't think the rule preventing the FBI and intelligence agencies from sharing information prior to 9/11 contributed in any way to the success of that terrorist operation?
Loony indeed.
1 - I talked about a police action. I said nothing about lawyers. That is why your response is loony.
2 - I am not demanding criminal investigations, I said I favor a police action.
3 - Yes the rule preventing the FBI and intelligence agencies from sharing information prior to 9/11 probably contributed contributed to Al Q success in New York. However, I said nothing whatsoever about this rule, I suggested a police action. I have also frequently suggested that competence would be useful. I am adding reading comprehension to my list of suggestions.
I listened to a talk by Gen. Barry McCaffrey Details this week in which he discussed world events. His view was that the US fell down badly on treatment of prisoners in the first year or so after Sept 11. His view is that prisoner treatment issues have improved considerably since that time, and that the fallout from the initial screwups will haunt us for a long time. I gather from your posts here that you feel that prisoner treatment has been just hunky-dory.
Hmmm. Which view should I give more credence?
And?
He said himself he was trained in Al Queda camps. How that does not make him a terrorist, I'll never understand.
Oh absolutely I would love a trial. Especially when you have a jury that will look at this poor guy, and what he went through at Gitmo, and let him get off with a light sentence.
We'll just ignore his own testimony.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Obtained under torture? He has already said it got to the point he would say anything just to make them stop.
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,529
Open question to gitmo apologists.
...have a good think about it.
Why cuba? Why are these people imprisoned in cuba?
You can't have the answer "to avoid US justice" because I've already taken it.
What is wrong with US justice? Or can you think of some other reason for using an offshore location?
...have a good think about it.
Why cuba? Why are these people imprisoned in cuba?
You can't have the answer "to avoid US justice" because I've already taken it.
What is wrong with US justice? Or can you think of some other reason for using an offshore location?
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
A short excerpt from Wikipedia on Hicks:
"In the documentary, Terry Hicks reads out excerpts of David Hicks's letters, in which Hicks says that his training in Pakistan and Afghanistan is designed to ensure "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again". He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide Muslims and make them think poorly of Osama bin Laden and warns his father to ignore "the Jews' propaganda war machine," [25]
Hicks allegedly told fellow recruits at his training camp he wanted to, "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews","crash a plane into a building", and "go out with that last big adrenalin rush"."
"He once told me in Afghanistan that if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' ect [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out," writes former Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi.[12]"
It goes on. What a piece of human garbage.
"In the documentary, Terry Hicks reads out excerpts of David Hicks's letters, in which Hicks says that his training in Pakistan and Afghanistan is designed to ensure "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again". He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide Muslims and make them think poorly of Osama bin Laden and warns his father to ignore "the Jews' propaganda war machine," [25]
Hicks allegedly told fellow recruits at his training camp he wanted to, "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews","crash a plane into a building", and "go out with that last big adrenalin rush"."
"He once told me in Afghanistan that if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' ect [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out," writes former Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi.[12]"
It goes on. What a piece of human garbage.
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,529
That may very well be correct although I prefer to wait for the evidence before making a conclusion or parroting a pre prepared conclusion.
As I said...Gitmo apologists and cheerleaders probably will never be ashamed of gitmo because they probably will never comprehend how it urinates on the principles thier nation was founded on.
Interested in offering an answer to my open question Mycroft?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The point has never been that he is innocent of anything, the point is due process of law. If he is guilty of anti-semitism, or anything else, have a trial. The current process is a dangerous one that undermines the cornerstones of democracy. Not subject to civil law, but not a POW either, which leaves him open to unregulated torture and rape.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
So in the meantime David Hicks (or Abu Muslim al-Austraili or Mohammed Dawood or whatever he goes by today) needs a resident apologist, I understand perfectly.
Which principles are those, exactly?
For years I’ve been saying that an international terrorist is not the same as a common criminal and doesn’t deserve to be treated as one. While you personally have never agreed with me on that, fortunately the US government seems to see it more my way. At the moment it seems as though the SCOTUS and the US Congress is going to work out some legal compromise, and I am content to let the process work itself out.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
The point is and always been the question of exactly what he is. An enemy combatant? A criminal? Something else?
The truth is the international terrorist has elements of both. He is a relatively new animal that doesn't easily lend itself to military or civil definitions. It is appropriate, in my opinion, that we recognize this and work out new rules for dealing with new situations.
Schneibster
Unregistered
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 3,966
The treatment of the captive is the responsibility of the captor. This is an abiding moral principle, and whenever it is denied, atrocity ensues, every single time.
Torquemada.
Hitler, and all who rode on him.
Napoleon. (Yes, children, Napoleon did some pretty evil stuff while he was running things- starting with how he got in charge in the first place.)
The Stanford psychological experiment of evil memory. I know someone who was a "guard." He carries the scars on his psyche to this day.
The Khmer Rouge.
That'll do for starters.
I am angry beyond words that these dishonorable acts have been perpetrated in the name of my country. If there were justice, the people who are responsible would pay with their freedom, and perhaps with their lives.
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,529
You are the one holding him....how long do you want to take to make up your mind?
Five years....you are still trying to figure out what you have in this prison?
I think your administration has already tried some new rules and some of these have been thrown out because they are not compatable with the old rules. That you can be charged with breaking a law prior to the law existing is one of the new rules....not I good new rule in my opinion but it appears to be all thats left standing in the case of David Hicks.
Any thoughts yet on the open question? Why hold them in cuba? what is the point of that?