The Hicks doco on the ABC was pretty compelling TV. The degree to which a series of decisions culminated in Davids capture by American forces was riveting. His treatment following his capture was sickening.

The degree that the randomness and the confusion of being in a foreign country can have on events reminded me of a story told to me recently about a bunch of young Aussies who were wandering the streets of Athens when suddenly confronted by a bunch of young Greek guys.

One of the Greek guys produced a gun and shouted something , everyone panicked and ran. The Greek guys turned out to be plain clothes cops who managed not to shoot anyone and put a couple of the Aussies in jail (for drunkenness) after a chase through the streets.

You could probably argue that the decisions by Downer and co were reasonable given the paranoia about terrorism that existed at the time. This paranoia did have some foundation but with the benefit of hindsight maybe they would have done things differently.

It does highlight the biggest current failing of the political right which is the need to appear tough. I am not sure why economic conservatism has become associated with a paternalistic authoritarian style of rule though I guess that the success and longevity of Maggie Thatchers government and the influence of the American religious right may be partly responsibly.

So you all agree, it's not possible to fire a weapon in slippers.
Why is Hick's innocent, if I went to a terrorist training camp
and was captured before killing anyone would i be innocent.
Because a statute of law does not apply to a particular crime
in any jurisdiction does not create innocence.
He got a punishment befitting his actions,law or not
There was no specific law against flying aeroplanes into
buildings, are those idiots also innocent?
It's not about human rights, it's about human morality

What its got to do with Hicks is that people here are arguing
that his treatment was illegal or unreasonable.
He was in a TERRORIST training camp training in terrorism.
Because he did'nt break any particular law or his fellow idiots
had slippers on is not relevant.
If you like, he was intending to hurt and/or destroy people
opposed to the idiots in the training camp.
If someone walks down the street with a rocket launcher
is it reasonable to interfere in their human rights by
removing them from society in general.
According to his supporters here, because he did'nt follow
through he is innocent and badly done by.
I suggest he now does the suicide bomber program.
Also, could some of his supporters here go with him to
observe the training and ensure his human rights
are not violated.

japie said...

I have got about 140 pages into his book and watched the doco.

I try to imagine what he must have been like as a young man. Whilst he comes across as not too bright you have to give him some credit for the things he did. For someone who did not finish school he sure had an inquiring mind. Two trips to Japan to work with race horses and he did not finish year 10. A lot of kids around hear think overseas is Newcastle.

Says a lot for both the guidance he got from his peers and his teachers though. I reckon he had a pretty deeply rooted chip on his shoulder. Does anyone know how tall he is? And did he read stories about the foreign legion? Who knows but he obviously did a lot of the stuff that he did in order to impress judging by his letters home.

You have to give him credit for facing up to his behaviour which he admits was largely due to ignorance.

If there is one good thing that comes out of the whole episode it is the exposure of the pervertion of justice. It makes you appreciate how utterly devoid of conscience people like Howard and Downer are. Being a citizen of this country means not a jot to them if you don't think the same way and it makes you wonder exactly how much "effort" they put into other cases where imprisonment or execution may serve as a lesson to further their aims.

Their treatment of David Hicks should be good enough reason to ammend the law to allow for family to appeal to the supreme court whose power should exceed that of the politicians and whose goal is to see that any citizen in trouble overseas should be given fair treatment.

****, no double fark all politicians

Japie he is 5'2 so he is a little fella with a big chip on his shoulder and a poor role model for a father I was amazed that simple Terry Hicks throughout the whole interview didnt mention once that he tried to talk young simple David out of what he was doing joining the KLA and training in foreign armies etc. I bet he was talking it up to his mates at the time.
David tried to join the AUS army when he returned from training with the KLA and was denied entry based on his educational record WTF here was a guy fit already with some military experience trying to get into the AUS army and they refuse him no wonder he was disillusioned.
In my opinion he was having a go living a life that took some wrong turns due to his naivety I bet his ahole snapped shut when the yanks delivered him to Guantanamo.
Alexander Downer what a wet gutless weak excuse for a diplomat F,kin puppet

Got the book when it first came out and its an intresting read.

This fella reminded me of a true wild aussie out for adventure, not unlike us windsurfers, surfers, sups and kiters ............always exploring the outer limits.

Ok he was into cattle stations guns and the bush as a teenager and got an oppertunity to experience some out there stuff that lead to him being in the wrong place at the wrong time........ extreme well for sure, as for his views i think he had some idea about the hatred to the west but was not actively wanting to fight the west .........although i believe the people training him were slowly brain washing him to commit to fighting the west ...............but he was so dumb he didnt see it like that.

What was a total discrace was John howards and alex downer political agender to forfit the right to be an AUSTRALIAN by leaving him there for so long.
Trust your government whilst overseas..... well only if it suites the political agender of the day.

Just like SHAPEL CORBY fairs fair im over it ,,,,,,crime for time
But enough is enough she dosent deserve 20 plus years, based on the eviedence and what has happend ................Show some Guts Australia...... send our SAS over and set her freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

pweedas said...

What on earth has his height got to do with it?
Should I feel more secure if some nutter comes charging at me with a loaded rifle or bazooka and he's only 5' 2'' ????
No wonder the Japs lost WW2. Most of them were under 5' 2".

The fact is, you will be just as dead, even if he was 2' 5''.

I was surprised that he bought this up in the tv interview and stated it in such a manner as though it was a mitigating factor. He seemed to be stating that the Americans should hardly believe he was capable of being dangerous because he was 5' 2''.

I wonder how tall the 9/11 hijackers were? Or the Bali bombers? Or the Mumbai bombers in 2008? etc etc etc?
If being 5' 2" is any indication of not being capable of inflicting mahem on a community then all our airport security can be greatly simplified. Just borrow one of those height bars from an ammusement parks that stop little kids from getting on dangerous rides. Anyone who can fit under the 5' 2'' bar can just walk straight on through. That should save us a few $million, not to mention the hours in mile long Q's.

I dont think anyone was assuming he was less dangerous because of his height just curious to see how big he was, some short blokes suffer from body dysmorphic disorder where no matter how hard they look at themselves no matter how fit they are they are never satisfied and often do outrageous acts to counter this.
Those creepy little oompa loompas scare the ****e out of me

The guards may have been scared of him, but I'm scared
of most of the posters on this forum.
Drawing conclusions, anti anything resembling logic, and
frankly probably a cut below Hick's in commonsense.
He was not in the wrong place at the wrong time or
unlucky, he admitted spending over a YEAR training
in Afghanistan.Someone praised his achievement in
getting further than Newcastle as some sort of achievment
considering his background, Alla/God anybody help us!

boofta said...

He was not in the wrong place at the wrong time or
unlucky, he admitted spending over a YEAR training
in Afghanistan.

Regardless of whether you like what he did or not, the fact is that he committed NO CRIME under Australian law. In fact, he committed NO CRIME under US law which is why they wouldn't bring him to trial either and struggled to get a farce cobbled together outside of their laws.

So if he committed NO CRIME, why was he punished?

boofta said...

The guards may have been scared of him, but I'm scared
of most of the posters on this forum.
Drawing conclusions, anti anything resembling logic, and
frankly probably a cut below Hick's in commonsense.
He was not in the wrong place at the wrong time or
unlucky, he admitted spending over a YEAR training
in Afghanistan.Someone praised his achievement in
getting further than Newcastle as some sort of achievment
considering his background, Alla/God anybody help us!

I gave the example of some of our local kids not having the mental flexibility to carry their tiny little brains outside the dimensions of their television sets but it was not intended as praise, simply the fact that Hicks seemed to have an enquiring mind.

There was a huge row in this house over differing opinions. The point I cannot seem to get across is the fact that the man was denied justice and was tried by media. I was not here when it happened but does anyone remember Lindy Chamberlain?

Funny that, whenever anything contoversial comes up, how the outcome can be manipulated by the press.

You are a buffoon if you don't question the truth of everything you read in the mainstream media. Like one venerable man said of Pravda, you only read it for the lies. You get the truth from folk you trust.

FormulaNova said...

japie said...
<snipo>


His height may have bugger all to do with it. However he struck me as an attention seeker who possibly had low self esteem which often goes with SMS (small man syndrome). I have a close relative who is vertically challenged and believe me, it shaped his character.

Off topic:

Not being particularly tall myself, I wonder about this 'short man syndrome'. What height do you need to be in order to stick up for yourself?

A guy I worked with was about 5'4" and an outstanding salesman (his job), with the conversation skills to match, yet one of the women in the office would start going on about 'short man syndrome' the minute he pushed to get a deal done for one of his customers... I guess he wasn't seen to be tall enough to be successful in his own right. What a strange argument.

LOL. Is it not always the short blokes that stick up for themselves too often?

Seriously though, if you think about it enough, it is a disadvantage to be anything either side of "tall" because of our conditioning. This in turn results in discrimination and often bullying, and then in turn a reaction in the "abnormal' individual.

There are all sorts of people whose life is hindered by "social norms". Our mental institutions are full of them. It is quite a shame really.

Hang on (and i may be wrong here) but i thought Hicks had been on board with some AQ turkeys earlier but in Afghanistan was fighting alongside the Taliban, who were recognised as the governing body in Afghanistan at the time the co-al troops from US/Oz/Pommyland etc invaded?

That does not make Hicks an active member of AQ but rather a Taliban footsoldier (or Truck minder as may be the case) for a very unpopular polital/military faction, but recognised as the govering body of AG all the same.

Makes my blood boil when facts get smudged and people take a mis-informed crack at him as though he intended to kill Oz troops as a mission.

Plain lies to fit the popularist/simplified view IMO.


Hicks didn't kill anyone.
Didn't detain anyone for years without charge or trial.
Didn't ram sh!t up anyone's clacker
and wasn't breaking any laws (in existance) at the time.
None. Nada. Zip.
Even the US military prosecuter was clear and vocal about that

So who are the good guys again??



Nancy Wake fought alongside the french underground (against the legally recognised Vichy French govt at the time).
I guess she deserves the same treatment?
She actually did assist the bombing of trains, roads, trucks etc. And she thought she was fighting on the right side.

She was. Hicks wasn't. History unravels the truth later, people take action at the time..

But at no time was Hicks ever a terrorist. Got it.

Keep peddling the Howard and cronies lie - if you don't care for the muddier harder to fathom truth.

Paradox said...

<snip>

Whilst I agree he probably did not plan to end up were he was and his initial efforts in fighting with the KLA etc were based on good intentions, he was the one that made the decisions each step of the way to get where he was. He was a self confessed islamic radical and a very important member of Al Quida, whether he knew it by that name or not.

I don't recall hearing that. We both might have to watch it again.

I do remember that he mentioned that he became Muslim at one stage. I don't remember him saying he was a member of Al Queda, or even that he met Bin Laden after September 11.

In the book he mentions having shaken hands with Bin Laden, but I am not sure if he really knew who he was at the time.

Anyway, I guess it shows that you can hear different things from a relatively short documentary.

Mark - if you watched the Oz Story ep the US prosecuter (the guy that actually stood accross the courtroom pinning the false accusations to Hicks), said that the process and all and sundry were bogus and he thought the whole trial a sham.

It just doesn't get more damning than that. Coming from the actual prosecutor is astounding and the prosecuter felt so strongly against what he was directed to do he is happy to speak publically about it (no doubt wipiong out his career prospects - and yes he is still in the military).

If the man who actually prosecuted Hicks can't convince you that the whole sham was bogus - then there is hardly any point in me trying to.


I have never defended the Taliban and don't plan to.

You are incorrect to say the Taliban were hostile foreign forces..

Taliban were the internationally recognised govt of Afghanistan at the time. That is the simple fact of the matter. How did they come to power? Well you can than the good ol' stars and stripes for that in the Russian and post Russian eras.

Bank rolled, trained, supplied weapons and turning a blind eye to the cash $$$ funding Taliban coming from poppies. Can always count on the good ol US to get it right ey?

When shoving a pipe up someone's but in the name of truth justice and the Oz er.. American way seems to make sense.. then you truly have to wonder who the bad guys really are IMO (well it makes me wonder anyway).

Ends (no pun intended) justifies the means? Very dangerous territory right there! Speshly when used on a lackey with no information, and with no purpose it seems to actually achieve any tactical gain for US ahem.. 'intelligence' , just good ol hard justice Yank style.

A single pic posing with te RPG has been about all the flimsy actual evidence he has been hung drawn and quatered with. And is still.

Ask yourself why Hicks was left to rot - whereas Poms held in Gbay were bailed out of there pronto (depsite there being charges and evidence against them).

Hicks was just a nice convenient politcal footy and (to reiterate did not harm a single individual) paid a hefty price for misplaced idealism and a home govt that would rather suck Bush than even attempt a fair and reasonable process for it's citizen

I just don't understand how anyone can actually defend the ridiculous and illegal (GBay 'loophole' in foreign territory and post written laws to suit don't even convince the US prosecuter FFS) treatment.

Seriously how can the US be fkn serious about strutting around in the big white cowboy hat gettin all doo-gooder Clint Eastwood on the world's @sre when they themselves are a kn joke and a threat to the rights and freedoms of anyone 'agin them'.

They used convoluted legal logic to rule that detention may have been illegal. They did not prove that he was not breaking any laws, people in Govt circles, with an axe to grind and voters to win over, used smartarse lawyers to prove that Guantanamo Bay detention may have been unconstitutional in the USA and that was IT. He was not shown to be innocent, all that happened is he was released from the G.Bay and still served time here as he had committed offences

Seriously - that makes me laugh. Maaay have been unconstitutional?? Oh - maybe that would be why it is technicality outside US soil. GBay is a ahem..technicality by holding someone for 5 years in solitary, anally raping them, denying them all forms of representation and rights that even a depraved kiddy rapist/mass murderer in the US would get without question and is not merely an inconveniant situation that 'smart @rse legal eagles' are trying to meddle with.

What an incredibly dismissive underestimation IMO.

It is completely, utterly devoid of any justification, legality and morality. It is also (IMO) exactly the sort of thing that fuels hatred around the globe towards the uS and leads to things like a rise in terrorism recruitment and innocent deaths of those not invoved either way.

End of rant. No more 2c pieces in pocket, time for a beer and some footy.

Bigwavedave said...

Some really unbalanced viewpoints on this thread. As unbalanced as the Taliban's attitude. Based on misinformation and bias.

Be careful of calling the kettle black.

Once upon a time the Taliban were viewed as freedom fighters and were supported and encouraged by most western governments.

Oh how things get twisted depending on what we are made to think.

Hicks was a political football. No more, no less.

If Islam becomes universal then people like him will be hailed as heroes to be venerated.

Spot on BWD!

Ha ha ha - I've got to learn to economise with words n.. stuff.

FormulaNova said...

Paradox said...

<snip>

Whilst I agree he probably did not plan to end up were he was and his initial efforts in fighting with the KLA etc were based on good intentions, he was the one that made the decisions each step of the way to get where he was. He was a self confessed islamic radical and a very important member of Al Quida, whether he knew it by that name or not.

I don't recall hearing that. We both might have to watch it again.

I do remember that he mentioned that he became Muslim at one stage. I don't remember him saying he was a member of Al Queda, or even that he met Bin Laden after September 11.

In the book he mentions having shaken hands with Bin Laden, but I am not sure if he really knew who he was at the time.

Anyway, I guess it shows that you can hear different things from a relatively short documentary.

He has never said he was a member of Al Qaeda, in fact he has clearly insisted he had never heard of Al Qaeda until after he was captured (this was months after 911 and if you recall Al Qaeda claimed responsibility within a week). He was however based at what was shown to be Al Queda backed training camps and wrote home that he had met Bin Laden 20 times.

There are a lot of allegations of his involvement with high ranking Al Qaeda figures, and his activities whilst in Afganistan, including spying on US and Austalian Embassies. But these are as hard to prove as his denial of knowing about 911 and Al Qaeda post 911. I know which is more believable, but hey benefit of doubt I suppose.

As for an islamic radical, he wrote this in a letter home - you tell me?:

As a Muslim young and fit my responsibility is to protect my brothers from aggressive non-believers and not let them destroy it. Islam will rule again but for now we must have patience we are asked to sacrifice our lives for Allahs cause why not? There are many privileges in heaven. It is not just war, it is jihad. One reward I get in being martyred I get to take ten members of my family to heaven who were destined for hell, but first I also must be martyred. We are all going to die one day so why not be martyred?

Again the legal aspects of his charges I have no idea. But if you care to look (elsewhere than in his book of course) the evidence is pretty strong that he was anything but a misunderstood freedom fighter in the wrong place.