Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest EZYHD
Posted

I see on the news Hicks gets 9 months in OZ Pen. with many conditions, must leave the prison there with in 60 days, guess he'll be on first plane out. I'm not sure if this sentence is right but he sure has been to hell and back, one thing for sure he wont do that again.

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
He has also been banned from taking legal action against the US.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1886515.htm

well thats the crux of the matter

and they have placed a gag on him:

The pre-trial agreement appears to have been designed with the Australian political calendar in mind.

As well as keeping Hicks in jail until after the election, due by the end of this year, Hicks also had to agree to not talk to the media for one year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1886515.htm

Posted
It's not like he's "only getting nine months" - he's already served five or six without charge.

5 or 6 years, not 5 or 6 months :blink:

Posted

Hes only secured a ticket out of the Guantanamo Gulag..he wont be a free man ..ever!!

Hes already being used a political football with Howard quoting his "confession" .....confessions under duress and torture dont amount to much Im afraid Mr Howard, and you must really think the electorate is as stupid as you are if you think otherwise.

British sailors being held in Iran have "confessed" as well ....

...American POWs in Vietnam "confessed" to a range of atrocities which their counterparts continue to commit today on the streets and suburbs of Baghdad.

I forgave this poor guy ages ago..hes served his time in Hell.....and dont forget..ever forget Ruddock and Howards smug heartless press statements that went on for 5 YEARS !!!!....5 FRIKKING YEARS!!!!....and left him to rot for that amount of time....without a trial.

Posted
and they have placed a gag on him:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1886515.htm

The pre-trial agreement appears to have been designed with the Australian political calendar in mind.

As well as keeping Hicks in jail until after the election, due by the end of this year, Hicks also had to agree to not talk to the media for one year.

Now that really shits me. I thought at least he would be able to come back after 5 years and then flog his story for millions and come out of it better off. Like those 2 miners did. Ah well. I'm assuming they'll at least give him credit for his years already served?

Posted
I forgave this poor guy ages ago..hes served his time in Hell.....and dont forget..ever forget Ruddock and Howards smug heartless press statements that went on for 5 YEARS !!!!....5 FRIKKING YEARS!!!!....and left him to rot for that amount of time....without a trial.

Yeah that's the thing. He wasn't guilty under any real laws, so they made him serve an unofficial term for something they knew they couldn't legally convict him for (even if he was a very naughty boy) whilst waiting for a convenient plea bargain -- quite coincidentally, I'm sure -- in time for the 2007 federal election. :blink:

Posted

I have no doubt the guy was a gullible moron who chose the wrong path, but if we treated all people like that the way we treated him...

When I read about the media gag, I just about gagged myself, biggest piece of BS I have ever heard of in my life, my biggest annoyance is that now all the media are suddenly referring to him as "terrorist David Hicks"... :blink:

Posted
Well at least David Hicks says he's guilty - guess we just have to take his word for that.

Hmm....pity he didnt have the opportunity to say that 5 FRIKKING YEARS AGO!!!! :blink:

Guest EZYHD
Posted
And what get's me is the perfect timing of the 9 month sentence, so he won't be released until after the federal election.

This then means he can't vote for JH.

Posted
Hmm....pity he didnt have the opportunity to say that 5 FRIKKING YEARS AGO!!!! :blink:

Yes, I agree completely - it's also true to say that the delays have not all come from one source.

Posted
Yes, I agree completely - it's also true to say that the delays have not all come from one source.

A source is a source, of course, of sorts - unless of course it's the famous indeterminate multiple indipendent sources that have no knowledge of events or authorisations that may or may not have been given.

I suppose it'll be OK if you ever need emergency surgery - but it's delayed because not all of the delays have come from one source? :D

You'll at least make the medical profession happy with that attitude. Not so sure about friends and relatives... :blink:

Posted

Wether he actually 'did' what he was accused of is sort of irrelivent IMO - he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and on the wrong side.

He was lucky he wasnt shot on the battlefield IMO, or blown up etc.

Edit - you have to question wether he is really 'all there upstairs' - I mean who goes to afghanistan to fight with the Taliban [or even visit them to say howdy for that matter] when you have worlds most advanced and well organised military force throwing their significant weight into thte region. :blink:

This guy could easly have been a Julian Knight or worse.. Im glad he was locked up.

Posted

So since we have no federal jails just state prisons where will he serve his time, who picks up the bill Federal or State ?

cheers laurie

Posted
So since we have no federal jails just state prisons where will he serve his time, who picks up the bill Federal or State ?

cheers laurie

They should have thought of that before they declared war on Afghanistan and Iraq

Id say a Federal bill to come out of Ruddock and Downers expense accounts..Costelo can make it tax deductible of course :blink:

Posted
Treasurer Peter Costello is also taking a hard line.

"For those people who say poor David Hicks, I say the poor dead and their families that died in the World Trade Centre," he said.

:P

Its April Fools Day right?

Could somebody ..anybody....on behalf of Peter Peter Pecker Eater show the connection between David Hicks and his pre 911 journey to Afghanistan and the "events" of September 11 2001?

:D

Please..Id love to hear them :blink:

Posted
:P

Its April Fools Day right?

Could somebody ..anybody....on behalf of Peter Peter Pecker Eater show the connection between David Hicks and his pre 911 journey to Afghanistan and the "events" of September 11 2001?

:D

Please..Id love to hear them :blink:

umm because Hicks was working for Al-Quaeda, the same organisation responsible for the 9/11 attcks, his association with a terrorist organisation, etc.

Posted

Has anyone seen what David Hicks has actually confessed to?

I've been looking but not finding.

All sorts of conjecture, prophesies, commentary etc on the future but precious little "He said" -

Posted
Human rights workers claim Hicks's charge violates treaties and Australian law

In a March 11, 2007 opinion editorial in the Australian newspaper The Age, Peter Vickery a Special Rapporteur of the International Commission of Jurists, asserted that the sole remaining charge against Hicks was in violation of both Australian law and International treaties. Vickery stated that the offense of "providing material support for terrorism" was a "retrospective offense". Australian law proscribes prosecution for offences committed before the laws that made them indictable offenses had come into force, as does the United States Constitution. According to Vickery so do both the Geneva Conventions, and the Civil and Political Covenant — both treaties to which the USA and Australia are signatories.

The offense of "providing material support for terrorism" only became an offence when President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act into law, on October 17th 2006.

Commenting on why individuals are protected from prosecution from retrospective offenses Vickery wrote: "It deprives people of the knowledge of what behaviour will or will not be punished and makes breaches of the criminal law a lottery at the whim of those in power."

Vickery noted that Australian Prime Minister John Howard, while commenting on Hicks's case in 2004, stated, "It's fundamentally wrong to make a criminal law retrospective."

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
To Top