David Hicks The farce of Gitmo continues.

[Earthborn]

I don't remember saying every violent psychopath should be treated they way they see themselves.

I don't remember saying that you did.

I thought I had made that clear.

You did not make clear that you think whether or not "psychopaths" should be treated the way they see themselves should depend on random variables.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

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

Why?
Do the conventions say that they can be ignored if the enemy refuses to follow them?

 

[WildCat]

Why?
Do the conventions say that they can be ignored if the enemy refuses to follow them?

The GC gives more protections to soldiers who follow the provisions than it does to those who don't. The GC was implemented primarily to protect civilians in wars, thus the rules requiring uniforms, insignias, etc. Combatants who ignore those rules and deliberately attempt to disguise themselves as civilians have consequences to suffer, as Hicks et al have discovered.

 

[Crossbow]

...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

What an incredibly absurd posting!

No one is advocating an unconditional release of Hicks, instead what 'rikzilla' and his fine eye for detail has failed to notice is that there are several people in this thread who simply want some sort of legal due process for Hicks and the other detainees.

Some of these folks have been held for months, in some cases years, without and sort of review that can withstand any sort of public scrutiny. That is just the sort of thing that this nation used to be opposed to for decades, but thanks to Bush, the USA is now an advocate of this sort treatment.

 

[WildCat]

That is just the sort of thing that this nation used to be opposed to for decades, but thanks to Bush, the USA is now an advocate of this sort treatment.

Can you specify which decades in US history enemies captured in a war were released prior to war's end, or given legal review? What would FDR have done, for example?

 

[The Fool]

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

Thats correct rik. Hicks is innocent. Its a presumption that your nations legal system is based on and that you wish to throw in the gutter. And yes, you are a person who expresses violent extremist views on this forum. Its what you do.

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".

please point out where I have forgiven anyone and then tell me if your claim is based on ignorance of my statements here or dishonesty. And yes, I deride violent extremist views such as yours, I don't know of any other rational approach to violent extremist views.

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

-z

If you find it difficult to discuss the topic try not to revert to personal attacks.

 

[Cleon]

Just being Al Qeada in a post 9/11 world should be a crime that comes with an automatic trip to death row.

Even the cleaning ladies?

Look, Rik, if you're going to say stuff like this, don't complain when someone calls your views "violent" or "extremist."

 

[The Fool]

The GC gives more protections to soldiers who follow the provisions than it does to those who don't. The GC was implemented primarily to protect civilians in wars, thus the rules requiring uniforms, insignias, etc. Combatants who ignore those rules and deliberately attempt to disguise themselves as civilians have consequences to suffer, as Hicks et al have discovered.

so the US combatants...CIA, special forces etc....That wore a grab bag of clothing with no insignia don't count? Do they have consequences to suffer?

really wildcat....this crap about the enemy in this war not dressing smartly enough is just a tired old joke. You have also made some vague reference that Hicks current fate is in some way related to his standard of clothing...can you expand on that claim as its new to me....

 

[The Fool]

dupe.

 

[Schneibster]

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.

Ohrilly? Hmmm, let's see what kind of place you think it should be:

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

"Just being Al Qaeda," huh? So, you wanna have a trial first, or not?

 

[athon]

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".

As if I needed any more evidence that people lose their ability to rationalise when it comes to politics...

Nobody is forgiving Hicks of anything. Hicks personally does not really enter into the equation; his situation and the method of dealing with it is under focus here. Hicks could be rubbing himself over in his own faeces singing 'I'm Henry the 8th' after laughingly admitting that he was plotting the downfall of humanity starting with the Queen of England... and it still wouldn't change the conversation. His innocence or lack thereof doesn't make one lick of difference; the process with which we address such issues is being questioned.

Of course, that doesn't allow you to express your rage quite as easily, now does it? Oh well, burn that strawman good!

The process of seeking evidence in relation to a crime described by a legal system and trialling the individual in a reasonable amount of time is based on the fact that using reason to address social threats is more conducive to a safe, just and fair society. You might argue that it doesn't, but hell, modern law is based on it. Argue that you want to return to medieval courts and eye-for-an-eye justice then.

Athon

 

[Mycroft]

I don't remember saying that you did.

You did not make clear that you think whether or not "psychopaths" should be treated the way they see themselves should depend on random variables.

Random variables?

I named one specific factor. That's not random, that's not even a variable.

You're a very smart woman. This semantic play is beneath you.

 

[Mycroft]

so the US combatants...CIA, special forces etc....That wore a grab bag of clothing with no insignia don't count? Do they have consequences to suffer?

Sometimes, yes. Isn't that the way of it? The clandestine operations done by un-uniformed personal carry an extra factor of risk.

really wildcat....this crap about the enemy in this war not dressing smartly enough is just a tired old joke. You have also made some vague reference that Hicks current fate is in some way related to his standard of clothing...can you expand on that claim as its new to me....

Does the Geneva Conventions address the issue, yes or no? If yes, what does the GC say?

You can’t squawk about the GC not being followed when you want it and then call it a “tired old joke” when it allows for something you don’t like. If you want to make a legal argument then we must pay attention to what the law says. If not, then just be honest and tell us your only saying how you want things should be done.

 

[WildCat]

so the US combatants...CIA, special forces etc....That wore a grab bag of clothing with no insignia don't count? Do they have consequences to suffer?

Now you're catching on! Yes, there is great risk being a CIA agent, that's why they make the big bucks. Many have been killed after capture, and the public never even gets to know the details.

really wildcat....this crap about the enemy in this war not dressing smartly enough is just a tired old joke. You have also made some vague reference that Hicks current fate is in some way related to his standard of clothing...can you expand on that claim as its new to me....

Have you ever read the GC? There are those protected by its provisions, and those who are not. Hicks and the rest of the Gitmo guests fall into the "not" category. Sometimes it sucks to be a terrorist, don't it?

 

[The Fool]

Sometimes, yes. Isn't that the way of it? The clandestine operations done by un-uniformed personal carry an extra factor of risk.

its not clandestine....its combatants in open combat....wearing a ragtag of whatever clothing they wish....Us "contractors" in Iraq behaving as combatants.....shooting people....clothing by Levi Strauss....lets get real here. Whining because nobody dresses up properly is laughable.

Does the Geneva Conventions address the issue, yes or no? If yes, what does the GC say?

Not sure how this is relevant...Hicks is not charged with any war crimes or any breach of the Geneva conventions. It just seems to be a popular diversion to pull out on a regular basis...the "they don't dress properly" distraction.

You can’t squawk about the GC not being followed when you want it and then call it a “tired old joke” when it allows for something you don’t like.

The claim that I called the Geneva convention a "tired old joke" is a fabrication...is it deliberate?

If you want to make a legal argument then we must pay attention to what the law says. If not, then just be honest and tell us your only saying how you want things should be done.

If you want to quote the geneva convention then please please please tell me what part of the geneva convention you are charging David hicks with breaching. You have not been able to round up a charge of any war crime...any breach of any international laws of war GC or any other. The charge you have left standing is breaking a law that you wrote when he was already locked up.

 

[gtc]

Thats correct rik. Hicks is innocent.

By the same token Rikzilla also has to be treated as innocent.

Also, people in criminal cases are treated AS innocent until proven guilty, that does not mean that they ARE innocent.

And yes, you are a person who expresses violent extremist views on this forum. Its what you do.

Do you concede that Hicks is a man who expresses violent extremist views and acts on them, by his own admission?

 

[Mycroft]

Thanks.



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.

Who says we lose our process? We follow that process whenever we deal with criminals. Those that declare themselves to be holy warriors are something else and get a different process; one that gives them much fewer rights.

We're trying to create a world where individuals or communities cannot impose their values on others using the threat of violence.

When and where was this goal adopted?

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.

I don’t see anyone abandoning reason; they’re just applying reasoning you disagree with.

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.

And there are some situations where this process doesn’t apply. One of those situations is with enemy combatants.

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?

No, not because they are inspired by “different influences” and not because they are inspired by religious zealotry.

Because they wage war. That’s the reason.

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’m not concerned about religious thinking, I’m concerned about sub-national groups waging war on civilization. If we were talking about neo-Nazis, communist saboteurs, Survivalists or Reverend Fred Phelp’s church members training themselves in secret terrorist camps in Afghanistan to kill civilians by the thousands, the same would apply to them.

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.

You understand I could say the same about you, right? The Bill of Rights and the US criminal justice system applies to US citizens who commit crimes within the United States. This conversation is about a foreign born non-citizen who waged war against us abroad. Common sense should tell you that a different set of rules might apply.

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.

There is nothing unreasonable in saying that those who wage war against us get different treatment from those who merely break our laws.

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

I think your evaluation of our criminal justice system is a bit utopian. In all honesty we punish our criminals and hope they won’t want to be criminals anymore. The civilizing factor is that it takes the revenge factor away from the individual and places it in the hands of the government. Maybe someday we will be more civilized yet and work on rehabilitation.

 

[The Fool]

Have you ever read the GC? There are those protected by its provisions, and those who are not. Hicks and the rest of the Gitmo guests fall into the "not" category. Sometimes it sucks to be a terrorist, don't it?

let me get this clear....are you claiming that breaches of the GC are one of the justifications of Hicks detention? Are you claiming they form any part of any charge against him? In what way are they relevant??

I encourage you to listen to Major Mori's presentation on these very issues. Hicks is not charged with any war crime.He is not charged with killing or attempting to kill anyone. He is not charged with anything other than providing support to an enemy of the US.....which leads me to ask....is it now simply illegal to resist the armed forces of the US who are invading someone? I can understand if you charged a US subject supporting an enemy of the US.........Jeebus, if the US was to invade New Zealand would I be committing a crime if I, an Australian, went there and helped them fight?

 

[gtc]

If the US was to invade New Zealand would I be committing a crime if I, an Australian, went there and helped them fight?

No, I am sure the Americans would be grateful for any help you can give them. Of course the invasion would probably be over by lunch time.

Wait, are you saying you would be fighting FOR New Zealand?

 

[Zep]

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.

If you want to get into the "where he was captured" business, perhaps you should think again.

For the record, Hicks was captured in PAKISTAN, not Afghanistan. He was handed over by the Pakistanis to the Egyptians (his first interrogation was in Cairo), and thence to the Americans.

If this same process was applicable consistently, surely the Pakistanis should have handed over Bin Laden by now. It is on reasonably good grounds that he is hiding out in "friendly" areas of Pakistan most of the time, and they know damn well where he is. And presumably can put their finger on him if needs be.

So your own argument is actually undermining your position here.