David Hicks. War crimes and the Law.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
tnankie
Likes Dirt
What a total crock of shite!lil'stany said:
everyone except those who would have their way of life oblitereated in a sea of McDonalds and corprate ownership.
Everyone except those who have a culture that streaches back twice as far as our own.
Everyone except those who think diversity is a good thing.
Everyone except those who think the mantra of all growth is good.
I agree with Johnny.
The actions of the 'West' just make it harder for moderate muslims to isolate the fundamentalists.
Their job would be much easier if the foreign policies of the 'West' were more fair:
- regarding Israel/Palestine
- stopped supporting corrupt regimes when it suits us (and in some cases build them up only to have to destroy them later)
- invade & occupy on false pretences
- generally the USA foreign policies are more to do with control/oil/power than fairness.
Think of the extremists as being similar to the KKK, except some of the the greivances of the radical muslims are real.
The actions of the 'West' just make it harder for moderate muslims to isolate the fundamentalists.
Their job would be much easier if the foreign policies of the 'West' were more fair:
- regarding Israel/Palestine
- stopped supporting corrupt regimes when it suits us (and in some cases build them up only to have to destroy them later)
- invade & occupy on false pretences
- generally the USA foreign policies are more to do with control/oil/power than fairness.
Think of the extremists as being similar to the KKK, except some of the the greivances of the radical muslims are real.
lil'stany
Likes Bikes
Our culture and their culture, as you put it, come from the same origin. The diffreences are simply the result of circumstances. Just like the Aboriginals were a stone age society before Europeans crashed the party.
Are you saying that just because they live in the middle east, they don't deserve to benefit from the advancement of other humans? that we should lock them up and force them not to change so we can preserve "diversity"?
This is simply the noble savage argument, and there are no easy answers.
By westernisation I don't mean McDonalds. I mean health services, education, clean water and all the other benefits of advancement.
At least they have the option to learn from OUR mistakes regarding the environment and whatever else as their society currently sits at the same place ours did 2000 years ago. Only now some idiot keeps giving them guns to sort our their quarrels when in our day, we had sticks. And stones. And a few crude metal tools.
Can't cause mass destruction with any of those compared to high explosives and gun powder.
But all this stuff is beside the point.
Why should we interfere at all you say? Well in a perfect world, we shouldn't!
But there is strong eveidence to suggest that leaving groups of people who want to destroy everything we've worked to obtain to their own devices is a bad idea.
Besides. The interfering happened DECADES ago when America tried to use the middle east to get to russia and armed them to the teeth. Its too late to step back and leave them to it. The damage is done.
Back to the thread topic, why does David Hicks have to face a military inquiry if he broke American law? I'm not sure I get it. Is there any legal reason? Or is it just...well crap?
Are you saying that just because they live in the middle east, they don't deserve to benefit from the advancement of other humans? that we should lock them up and force them not to change so we can preserve "diversity"?
This is simply the noble savage argument, and there are no easy answers.
By westernisation I don't mean McDonalds. I mean health services, education, clean water and all the other benefits of advancement.
At least they have the option to learn from OUR mistakes regarding the environment and whatever else as their society currently sits at the same place ours did 2000 years ago. Only now some idiot keeps giving them guns to sort our their quarrels when in our day, we had sticks. And stones. And a few crude metal tools.
Can't cause mass destruction with any of those compared to high explosives and gun powder.
But all this stuff is beside the point.
Why should we interfere at all you say? Well in a perfect world, we shouldn't!
But there is strong eveidence to suggest that leaving groups of people who want to destroy everything we've worked to obtain to their own devices is a bad idea.
Besides. The interfering happened DECADES ago when America tried to use the middle east to get to russia and armed them to the teeth. Its too late to step back and leave them to it. The damage is done.
Back to the thread topic, why does David Hicks have to face a military inquiry if he broke American law? I'm not sure I get it. Is there any legal reason? Or is it just...well crap?
He is considered an illegal combatant. The precedent was set for military tribunals to deal with this situation in the second world war. Although the fundemental issue is that we don't even know what the context of his crimes are and the actual actions he is accused of committing. Therefore it's a beat up IMO.lil'stany said:
I will address the other issues when I have more time as I find this interesting and have some points I'd like to raise/highlight.
toodles
Wheel size expert
I do. Sometimes we need to understand the inherent human side of terrorism. Have you ever seen ANY organisation where the members have singular, unanimous motivation? I doubt it. Terrorist organisations contain individuals, and those individuals use their organisation to further their own motivations. I'm all for taking a walk in their shoes, and understanding that perhaps most of the motivations of the group and many of the individuals could be based in addressable injustices. However, consider that some of the individuals similar to those individuals who profiteer during times of war, are using fanaticism to excuse their own underlying motivations and ambitions. These are not noble savages, rather they are wily miscreants who's personal agendas of racism, religious superiority and control of assets and wealth will continue despite the appraoch taken by Western nations and organisations.johnny said:
toodles
Wheel size expert
Yeah but that's like shooting fish in a barrel. I keep hearing people saying "Bush only cares about the oil" like it's some big secret or something. It is barely a secret, it is to be expected and IMO it is quite a normal motivation, probably the least sinister motivation in this conflict. Greed is fairly par for the course in regards world leadership.scblack said:
I don't agree with either side in this conflict but more needs to be done to understand the motivations of the "dark side" as it were. America's actions are stripped bare by the media and left to be picked apart and analysed ruthlessly. An underground organisation presents only what it wants us to see, and while we may perceive this displayed motivation as despicable it could just be the more acceptable of their motivations that they want us to see.
scblack
Leucocholic
I am not thinking simply of oil, and that is a consideration for the US overall, and has led their foreign policy for many many years.
I have just watched Fahrenheit 911, and seeing the links of the Bush family to the Saudis, and how possibly up to $1.4 Billion dollars has passed from the Saudis to the Bush family. What better way for the Saudis to gain favours - support the President's family.
I must admit I do not have much knowledge of these issues, but it is very suspicious.
I have just watched Fahrenheit 911, and seeing the links of the Bush family to the Saudis, and how possibly up to $1.4 Billion dollars has passed from the Saudis to the Bush family. What better way for the Saudis to gain favours - support the President's family.
I must admit I do not have much knowledge of these issues, but it is very suspicious.
I agree completely. It's impossible not to (although S. would give it a good crack!). The difference I see in recent history is that the actions we (the west) have undertaken have upset a large amount of people. Add a global diaspora of the same ethnicity/culture with the same grievances and you have the recepie for GLOBAL terrorism. Yet if our actions were less aggressive, exclusive, manipulatory (do you like that word? It's one of my owntoodles said:
) etc., the extremists of which you speak Toodles would not have the global/financial/spiritual support that they do now. This would relegate them to local loonies like David Koresh or the Aum Shirynoko instead of a global menace like bin Laden al Zawahiri etc..So yeah, our actions may always get a violent reaction, but how we act determines the level of threat they create in reaction. Not sure if I've explained myself very well here.....
Point taken regarding loonies can still be dangerous.
But,
If we can eliminate the legitimate greivances of the 'dark side' in the war on terrorism, then their support & further recruitment will be limited and it will be easier to isolate the radical loonies.
Blair says he wants to tackle the ideology behind the terrorists - that could be a good start in the 'war', but right now it seems anyone who doesn't agree with the government line is an extremist.
I also think mainstream media has a lot to answer for because they basically accept the government line as the fact, and then scare us by focusing on the most radical clerics.
But,
If we can eliminate the legitimate greivances of the 'dark side' in the war on terrorism, then their support & further recruitment will be limited and it will be easier to isolate the radical loonies.
Blair says he wants to tackle the ideology behind the terrorists - that could be a good start in the 'war', but right now it seems anyone who doesn't agree with the government line is an extremist.
I also think mainstream media has a lot to answer for because they basically accept the government line as the fact, and then scare us by focusing on the most radical clerics.
lil'stany
Likes Bikes
Totally. Commercial media makes me sick. I physically can't watch it because I get too riled up at the blatant bias and at the thought of lots of people taking the tripe they're "reporting" as absolute truth.
Especially the little things. The 'scams' and the miracle weight loss etc etc.
Just how safe are our children? A MUST watch show for ANY parent!
Especially the little things. The 'scams' and the miracle weight loss etc etc.
Just how safe are our children? A MUST watch show for ANY parent!
US forces sexually abused Hicks, father says
October 31, 2005 - 8:44PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us...cks-father-says/2005/10/31/1130720480438.html
Terror suspect David Hicks was sexually abused during two, 10-hour beatings by US attackers, his father Terry has told the ABC's Four Corners program.
Hicks has been in US custody since he was captured alongside Taliban forces in Afghanistan in late 2001, and has spent most of that time at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. His trial begins on November 18 before a military commission.
Hicks' lawyers and family have raised abuse allegations before but the Australian government has said there was no evidence to support the claims. Four Corners tonight reported that soon after being captured by the United States, Hicks was held on the warship USS Peleliu in the Arabian Sea. Hicks told Englishman Martin Mubanga, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, he had been taken from the ship by helicopter to an unidentified place, thought to be Pakistan or Afghanistan.
The United States has been accused of using the practice of rendition with Guantanamo Bay detainees, where it takes prisoners to another country to be tortured rather than doing it on US soil.
Mr Mubanga told Four Corners Hicks had been taken from the Peleliu and then beaten, spat at, abused and assaulted.
"(His attackers yelled) things like 'you Aussie kangaroo' and things like that, yeah, while they were beating and spitting on him and things like that, so he was called a traitor," he said. "And then basically they brought him back, blindfolded, so he never saw his attackers or his abusers basically." Hicks' father, Terry, confirmed that the abuse had involved sexually embarrassing things and that they involved Americans.
"He had two, 10-hour beatings from the Americans and I said to David, 'Sure they were Americans?' (because) he said he had a bag over his head and he said, 'Oh look ... I know their accents, they were definitely American'," Mr Hicks told Four Corners. "Some pretty horrific things ... were done to him."
The program reported the abuse had included Hicks being injected and then penetrated anally with various objects. Hicks' lawyers say they have witnesses relating to the abuse and that the United States has photographic evidence. His American lawyer, Major Michael Mori, would not comment on the specifics of what information he had.
"I'd say it's an area that I'm investigating and that I've already found some evidence and witnesses that support that occurring," he told Four Corners.
Former Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee, Mamdouh Habib, who was released earlier this year, has also claimed that he was abused while on foreign soil. In February, Mr Habib detailed how he was tortured in a military airport in Pakistan. During a particular episode of abuse, Mr Habib said 15 men stripped him, inserted something into his anus, put him in a nappy and tied him up.
AAP
October 31, 2005 - 8:44PM
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us...cks-father-says/2005/10/31/1130720480438.html
Terror suspect David Hicks was sexually abused during two, 10-hour beatings by US attackers, his father Terry has told the ABC's Four Corners program.
Hicks has been in US custody since he was captured alongside Taliban forces in Afghanistan in late 2001, and has spent most of that time at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. His trial begins on November 18 before a military commission.
Hicks' lawyers and family have raised abuse allegations before but the Australian government has said there was no evidence to support the claims. Four Corners tonight reported that soon after being captured by the United States, Hicks was held on the warship USS Peleliu in the Arabian Sea. Hicks told Englishman Martin Mubanga, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, he had been taken from the ship by helicopter to an unidentified place, thought to be Pakistan or Afghanistan.
The United States has been accused of using the practice of rendition with Guantanamo Bay detainees, where it takes prisoners to another country to be tortured rather than doing it on US soil.
Mr Mubanga told Four Corners Hicks had been taken from the Peleliu and then beaten, spat at, abused and assaulted.
"(His attackers yelled) things like 'you Aussie kangaroo' and things like that, yeah, while they were beating and spitting on him and things like that, so he was called a traitor," he said. "And then basically they brought him back, blindfolded, so he never saw his attackers or his abusers basically." Hicks' father, Terry, confirmed that the abuse had involved sexually embarrassing things and that they involved Americans.
"He had two, 10-hour beatings from the Americans and I said to David, 'Sure they were Americans?' (because) he said he had a bag over his head and he said, 'Oh look ... I know their accents, they were definitely American'," Mr Hicks told Four Corners. "Some pretty horrific things ... were done to him."
The program reported the abuse had included Hicks being injected and then penetrated anally with various objects. Hicks' lawyers say they have witnesses relating to the abuse and that the United States has photographic evidence. His American lawyer, Major Michael Mori, would not comment on the specifics of what information he had.
"I'd say it's an area that I'm investigating and that I've already found some evidence and witnesses that support that occurring," he told Four Corners.
Former Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee, Mamdouh Habib, who was released earlier this year, has also claimed that he was abused while on foreign soil. In February, Mr Habib detailed how he was tortured in a military airport in Pakistan. During a particular episode of abuse, Mr Habib said 15 men stripped him, inserted something into his anus, put him in a nappy and tied him up.
AAP
Johnny, Good to hear someone that actually is aware. I did not read all the post but get the general idea.
I am personally offened by the lack of action by our Government. England had no problem pressuring for the release of thier citizens. I have no doubt that the alleged offences committted to David Hicks actualy occured.
As for the change in security laws, well i am gald to see we won't let this terrorism change our way of life.
Perhaps i should stop before homeland security shuts down the site and kicks in my front door. Funny, what was the problem with Sadam, was it the lack of free speach his people had or was the loss of indiviual rights for free thought.
Dangerous time indeed.
I am personally offened by the lack of action by our Government. England had no problem pressuring for the release of thier citizens. I have no doubt that the alleged offences committted to David Hicks actualy occured.
As for the change in security laws, well i am gald to see we won't let this terrorism change our way of life.
Perhaps i should stop before homeland security shuts down the site and kicks in my front door. Funny, what was the problem with Sadam, was it the lack of free speach his people had or was the loss of indiviual rights for free thought.
Dangerous time indeed.