warri0r45 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 David Hicks Some of you (mainly Australians and possibly some Yanks) would be aware of this guy's situation and the fact that he has spent roughly the last 5 years of his life in Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba under the reasons that he trained with random terrorist groups, yet he is currently still waiting to face trial. Do you think this kind of treatment is fair? Now personally, I don't care if they sentence the guy to life inprisonment or even hang him at the gallows by own intestines. I just have an opposition to anyone being imprisoned without facing trial for so long. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
____ Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 They've spent the last 5 years either fabricating evidence, or fabricating evidence. He was handed over the US troops and they were given next to no information as to what he was doing. They've got one photograph, and that's about it. The rest of their "proof" that he really was training with terrorist cells comes from "their word". That said: 5 years without trial is shocking. We've got people who have taken the lives of others (intentially or not) who have spent less time in jail AFTER being sentanced. The US Military is a law unto itself (almost). And after the new's today which aired that john howard apparently said to fellow poli's that "he could bring him home right now" (to that degree - don't have the exact quote), yet there he is. Terrorist or not, get him back in Australia where he at least has the chance of being tried by a REAL court system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 They've spent the last 5 years either fabricating evidence, or fabricating evidence. He was handed over the US troops and they were given next to no information as to what he was doing. They've got one photograph, and that's about it. The rest of their "proof" that he really was training with terrorist cells comes from "their word". That said: 5 years without trial is shocking. We've got people who have taken the lives of others (intentially or not) who have spent less time in jail AFTER being sentanced. The US Military is a law unto itself (almost). And after the new's today which aired that john howard apparently said to fellow poli's that "he could bring him home right now" (to that degree - don't have the exact quote), yet there he is. Terrorist or not, get him back in Australia where he at least has the chance of being tried by a REAL court system. Yea, from what I heard on the news, that's more or less exactly what the PM said, which kind of smacks of arrogance in a way. If this is the best America has on thier war on terror, I would laugh if wasn't so worried that real terrorists are still out there spreading thier hate against the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Doesn't matter too much, it only sucks for him on paper. In the real world, he'll almost certainly be sentanced to much longer, and he'll get "time served". Not that he'll be getting out anyways...Does Australia issue the death penalty for treason like we do? :P The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Doesn't matter too much, it only sucks for him on paper. In the real world, he'll almost certainly be sentanced to much longer, and he'll get "time served". Not that he'll be getting out anyways...Does Australia issue the death penalty for treason like we do? :P No death penalty here at all mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Doesn't matter too much, it only sucks for him on paper. In the real world, he'll almost certainly be sentanced to much longer, and he'll get "time served". Not that he'll be getting out anyways...Does Australia issue the death penalty for treason like we do? :P No death penalty here at all mate. Figured so. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 He was handed over the US troops and they were given next to no information as to what he was doing. They've got one photograph, and that's about it. The rest of their "proof" that he really was training with terrorist cells comes from "their word". It's amazing that you somehow have access to top secret military information that no one else does. It really does make sense for the U.S. to hold Hicks in prison for so long with absolutely no evidence, no reason, and getting all the bad publicity they are getting from it. Not to mention the money it costs to keep him there for no reason. But since you seem to have some form of access to classified military info, I'm going to go ahead and trust you on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
____ Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 He was handed over the US troops and they were given next to no information as to what he was doing. They've got one photograph, and that's about it. The rest of their "proof" that he really was training with terrorist cells comes from "their word". It's amazing that you somehow have access to top secret military information that no one else does. It really does make sense for the U.S. to hold Hicks in prison for so long with absolutely no evidence, no reason, and getting all the bad publicity they are getting from it. Not to mention the money it costs to keep him there for no reason. But since you seem to have some form of access to classified military info, I'm going to go ahead and trust you on this one.If they had anything else - it wouldn't take them 5 years to be able to charge him with something, would it? common sense ftw. That and it has already been broadcast numberous times the condition of his capture, guess you missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 From what I saw in documentaries and read, he was just an adventurer who for some reason turned into a muslim. He fought as a rebel in Kosovo. Then he got training from Al-Qaeda, and translated some texts from arabic, which he had learned, into English, or the other way around. He didn't actually even engage in killing anyone. It's very questionable if his "training" makes him a threat. What are you going to charge him with? Currently, the most solid argument used by Pentagon is "providing services for a terrorist organisation" (I.E. Translating a leaflet which contains limited information that is passed out to even the lowest ranked soldiers, and which could've been done by anybody else who knew arabic and english) Doesn't warrant 5 years in prison without a charge. Some serial killers who abduct children get 8 years in prison. This guy didn't even kill anybody and he's already been deprived of his freedom for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 If they had anything else - it wouldn't take them 5 years to be able to charge him with something, would it? common sense ftw. That and it has already been broadcast numberous times the condition of his capture, guess you missed it. He's being detained as a prisoner of war, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Well, he's obviously there for practical reasons. They know he did this, yet probably don't have enough evidence to prove all the crimes he commited so they keep him detained instead of letting a criminal go. It is violation 'human rights' which i don't beleive in so peoplem kick up a fuss. However it's better to be realistic in situations like these rather than idealistic. Idealy he would be trialed ect but in reality to keep him locked up there's no need too relase him until they have everything they need. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agunimon979 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 They've spent the last 5 years either fabricating evidence, or fabricating evidence. He was handed over the US troops and they were given next to no information as to what he was doing. They've got one photograph, and that's about it. The rest of their "proof" that he really was training with terrorist cells comes from "their word". That said: 5 years without trial is shocking. We've got people who have taken the lives of others (intentially or not) who have spent less time in jail AFTER being sentanced. The US Military is a law unto itself (almost). And after the new's today which aired that john howard apparently said to fellow poli's that "he could bring him home right now" (to that degree - don't have the exact quote), yet there he is. Terrorist or not, get him back in Australia where he at least has the chance of being tried by a REAL court system. Gah, I hate these kind of people that think they know it all about U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
____ Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 And? Or are you just going to leave it at that? Nice rebuttal :uhh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agunimon979 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 And? Or are you just going to leave it at that? Nice rebuttal :uhh: Me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
____ Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Who else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agunimon979 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Who else? It's true. I'm just saying, I hate it when people from places like Europe and Asia say "The united states is this and that, because i know it all myself." It's amazing that you somehow have access to top secret military information that no one else does Big foreign noses and spies. It really does make sense for the U.S. to hold Hicks in prison for so long with absolutely no evidence, no reason, and getting all the bad publicity they are getting from it. And where do you get this statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Usually an objective opinion can give a better opinion of the state America is in because theres no indoctrination in schools to make us beleive otherwise. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Usually an objective opinion can give a better opinion of the state America is in because theres no indoctrination in schools to make us beleive otherwise. The problem here is that an "outside" opinion hardly equates to an "objective" opinion, especially in a subject where propaganda is highly noticeable on both sides. I don't know what schools you go to either, my schools in America were and are filled with anti-American propaganda. I just had to exchange words with a biology professor who insisted on lying to his classes about America during every lecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 I have never been to an American school so i took a example of a possible one. I agree we have a lot of anti-american propganda in Europe but i doubt it's too the degree that there is an America for both anti and pro attitudes. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 Well, he's obviously there for practical reasons. They know he did this, yet probably don't have enough evidence to prove all the crimes he commited so they keep him detained instead of letting a criminal go. It is violation 'human rights' which i don't beleive in so peoplem kick up a fuss. However it's better to be realistic in situations like these rather than idealistic. Idealy he would be trialed ect but in reality to keep him locked up there's no need too relase him until they have everything they need. Practicality, ahh, of course. Would you like being locked up with no certainty of the future? I mean really, locked up, in solitary confinement, going practically insane because you have no forseeable knowlege. They give this privalege to rapists, murderers and the like yet nope, Hicks is stuck between a rock and a hard place for practical reasons. You may think I am defending a terrorist, not true, I loathe the scum. I just happen to have a thread of compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Practicality, ahh, of course. Would you like being locked up with no certainty of the future? I mean really, locked up, in solitary confinement, going practically insane because you have no forseeable knowlege. They give this privalege to rapists, murderers and the like yet nope, Hicks is stuck between a rock and a hard place for practical reasons. You may think I am defending a terrorist, not true, I loathe the scum. I just happen to have a thread of compassion. Of course I wouldn't like being locked up with no certainty of future, and I'm sure Satenza would not like much either. It's probably why we choose not to engage in activities that get us thrown in a war prison for terrorists. I support giving Hicks a fair trial just as soon as we're finished killing the terrorists, by the way. Just like we had the Nuremberg Trials from 1945 after WWII, I support giving all terrorists trials once we are finished. Unfortunately for terrorists like Hicks, we're not done yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now