convicted for a crime that does not exist

What part of that has been illegally enacted?

 

And that is really the underlying point isn't it. Recently their were calls for the surviving Boston Marathon bomber to be declared an enemy combatant and enjoy the judicial processes that David Hicks did. He is an American citizen, in the USA

 

Slippery, no problems. I`m all for due process, but in this case, there is nothing to be gained by taking Hick`s case any furthrer, is to feed a flock of lawyers. The way I see it, considering the state of our justice system, wasting more time on a grub like Hicks, is a complete waste.

Some of the undisputed facts are. Hicks was caught in a war zone, in company with the enemy. Hicks has a proven track record of associating with extremist, militant, islamic groups. Hicks was caught by a foreign force, an ally. This is a military matter. Hicks was dealt with by that foreign power, at their discression. The Yanks were operating in a war zone, trying to keep their sons alive.

Hicks is now playing ducks & drakes with the legal system. Sniffing around for a legal technicallity. Sniffing for the big bucks.

 

Actually Hicks was captured by the Northern Alliance and then bought by the US.

 

True, I think they paid $1for him. What a bargain! Again, an insignificant detail.

 

Wasn't considered so by the judge when he threw out most of the charges against Hicks as it was a bit hard to charge Hicks with trying to kill Americans when he was against the NA.

 

The Yanks should have just handed him back to the NA.

 

And THAT would have saved a lot of money and angst all the way around. But the "initiative" courtesy of GW of paying for captured terrorists ensured that those rounded up were mostly foreign nationals that would not cause a stink at home if they were shipped off or shot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

 

That initiative, is a sensible military tactic. I`ll explain it if I have to.

 

Oooooooo! Please DO!! and while you are at it please explain how WELL it worked for the Bush administration!!

 

I can easily explain it, but it`s up to you to understand it. Therein lies the problem.

 

Yes, that is the point. Hicks was caught in a foreign theatre of war, as an affiliate of an enemy organisation. He was subsequetly treated accordingly.
Now the imbecile is crying for the benefits of due process of domestic crimial law.

 

How can you say "it was a bit hard to charge Hicks with trying to kill Americans when he was against the NA"?
Hicks was caught in company with the taliban, an enemy of the USA, AND Austraia. He might have killed some of my nephews, if he hadn`t been captured. His mates, the taliban, certainly tried hard enough.

 

What I found really strange about the entire David Hicks affair, was he was being defended by an American military lawyer. Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?

 

All the Taliban lawyers were off sick, had bad pork at the Taliban Gay Madi Gras.

 

Only if the lawyer had another client charged in the same circumstances. Happily the US Constitution and general legal system is very particular about representation although in practice it can be a bit dodgy. Hicks was given a really good military lawyer, really good. Major Mori was a very brave man of impeccable integrity and I have to say although the system did him over, at least in theory it was good. Major Mori represented Hicks against the government. The government did not instruct Major Mori so no conflict of interest.

http://www.shine.com.au/team-profile/dan-mori/

 

If that prostitute poker Thompson is held to the same legal scruitiny as Hick, then we we will get justice. LOL

 

Wellllllllll, union corruption is about as newsworthy for the Aussie media, as a bomb blast is for the Baghdad Bugle.

LMBO, all the union bosses have to do, is to mention the word, "Clive Palmer" to the wobble headed zombies, and they all go into an envy frenzy & forget all about union corruption.

 

Headless chicken syndrome in Australia right now!! I don't have any negative thoughts about anyone who is contemplating leaving this country. Its not looking good!!

 

Sorry for entering this thread so late. My question to the panel would be:
Has anyone watched the news yesterday night?
It is apparent, that some Australians, up to 100, are fighting in Syria against the current regime.
However, under Australian law, they do commit a crime.
So I wonder, if this is true and they commit a crime under Aussie Law, how come our soldiers, who fought in Iraq, are not regarded or treated the same way?
Where is the difference, between Iraq and Syria? Both are/were regimes, both had their weird heads of state, both committed crimes against humanity.
Please, I seek some answers....
regards
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3769795.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-15/spy-agencies-monitoring-australians-fighting-in-syria/4630098

 

Good question - and another would be - why wasn't Hicks charged under these laws?

 

So why wasn't every Iraqi solider captured tried for the same crime?

 

In my opinion, it is just one more reason why we need wartime tax rates before our privileges and immunities can be denied or disparaged due to alleged times of war.

 

Because unlike Great Britain Australia didn't have the balls to stand up to gorgeous George

 

Yeah well, with the right is right group on this board I was just not going to go there. We SHOULD have brought him home and if necessary charged him here but one of the truths are they would not have been able to proceed with charges because America had already breached the laws of natural justice

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah well, with the right is right group on this board I was just not going to go there. We SHOULD have brought him home and if necessary charged him here but one of the truths are they would not have been able to proceed with charges because America had already breached the laws of natural justice