<< HE'S OPENS HIS CASE! ~ MAIN ~ GET UP, MOVE ON, GO AWAY, STOP DIGGING THROUGH OUR TRASH FOR FOOD, ETC >>
COMPELLING IDEA
Brisbane Courier-Mail columnist Nicholas Gruen has an idea which he believes would “advantage [Kim Beazley] in a compelling way”:
Beazley should get a group of eminent and respected Australians together – Malcolm Fraser comes most readily to mind amongst others. They travel as far as they can towards Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay with a simple message to the first US official who stops them.
Here’s his simple message:
We’re from Australia – an ally of America in every major war and a few minor ones of the last century. You’re holding our fellow citizen David Hicks. We don’t want to make a hero of him or obtain his release. But like everyone else, he has the same right to due process and a proper trial before an independent magistrate that you accord your own citizens. We’re very upset about it and we’ll be back each month until we can secure his basic rights, the rights that every other Western country has secured for their own nationals.
Nick imagines such a message “would tap into a powerful part of the Australian psyche”. It sure would—the part that wants Malcolm Fraser put to sea off Cuba every four weeks. Please urge Beazley to adopt the splendid Gruen Plan.
UPDATE. Andjam reminds us that Camp X-Ray closed a few years ago. Malcolm and his crew aboard the SS Tilty would be sailing towards nothing, which is pretty much what they do anyway.
Why do I not care that David al Hicksqawri is sitting around in Gitmo - between eating specially prepared Islamic meals, playing five aside and praying to Mecca on prayer mats courtesy of the U.S. tax payer?
This shame-to-all-Australians, was fighting for a world in which free women would be obliged to revert to wearing sheets, archaic Islamic law would become the order of the day along with beheading, stoning and limb chopping. Jews, Christians and other infidels treated as scum of the earth.
Hicks went to Pakistan to study Islam then voluntarily enlisted with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I think Guantanamo is too good for this a’hole. As for sending a delegation of influential Aussies to ensure he gets “due process” - hey there are many other things to care about more - like golf, surfing and throwing darts at el Hickari’s polaroid pinned to a board.
careful what you create methinks Its true that Shapelle’s issues took off of their own accord. But mainstream politicians also make issues.
This happens constantly, and one of the major tasks of strategy meetings of press secretaries of the various political parties is how to use the scarce resource of their leaders’ time to MAKE issues.
If they get too close to Cuba they’ll be having a word with Castro—or more likely they’ll be blown out of the water by Castro’s patrols before they ever get anywhere near Guantanamo.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 01 at 05:58 PM • permalinkBut like everyone else, he has the same right to due process and a proper trial before an independent magistrate that you accord your own citizens.
Rubbish. If a military commission was good enough to try the Nazis, it’s good enough for the Taliban.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 08 01 at 08:51 PM • permalinkPlease explain how the United States has any legal juristiction over David Hicks.
(or anybody else in Afghanistan)As I understand it, Hicks has never been in the United States, nor in any country where the US is the de jure or de facto government.
So how has he broken US law?
If he has broken US law, why is the trial not being held in the US, under normal US legal procedures?This is a serious legal question.
No ad hominems,
No spray,
No allegations, thank you.
Just legal reasoning, if you don’t mind.Posted by pog-ma-thon on 2005 08 01 at 09:14 PM • permalinkMr. Gruen appears to be of the unilateralist persuasion that the U.S. Constitution affords rights to both citizens and non-citizens.
Right on, tongueboy.
Sounds like Dred Scott all over again, when the Supreme Court decided that Blacks were not citizens, and thus had no right to sue.
tongueboy would no doubt agree with Chief Justice Roger B Taney, that when the Declaration of Independence stated that “all men are created equal” that “it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration.”
Posted by pog-ma-thon on 2005 08 01 at 09:31 PM • permalinkI know this is hard, pog-ma-thon, but you know, the Geneva Conventions really do cover this. Hicks was taken *in combat* in a group of combatants who were not wearing uniforms, nor did they have an established chain-of-command, not was the country to which they claim to be fighting for a signatory of the Geneva Conventions.
Thus, Hicks’ full legal status under the Geneva Conventions, international law (what there is of it), and US law “an illegal combatant” whose disposal it *entirely* up to his military captors. They could legally have identified him as “an illegal combatant” (see: no uniform, no indication of rank, no estalished military chain of command, no signatory, etc) and put him up against a wall and shot him.
His rights consist of exactly, well, zero under *ALL* applicable regimes. If you have actual evidence that he falls under some other rule, link it up, big guy.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 08 01 at 09:32 PM • permalinkA grandiose gesture for the folks who can’t distinguish between politics and theatre.
Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2005 08 01 at 09:48 PM • permalink#16 Sounds like Dred Scott all over again…
You are comparing the enslaved African race of colonial America to the Taliban? That’s like comparing Jews under the Nazis to the Russian Mafia. What point are you trying to make pog? Do you even have a point? (Aside from the one that is obviously protruding above your eyebrows)
Pog - Hicks is in custody under a country’s right to detain enemy combatants waging military action against it.
Jorg is right - Hicks is not covered by the Geneva Conventions. But even if he were, there would be no obligation to put him on trial or release him. (At least, not until hostilities have ceased.)
Remember that many German and Japanese POWs were detained for many years, even though they may not have been war criminals.
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 08 01 at 10:23 PM • permalinkOh now, my fellow Americans, we might as well come clean: we just keep nice people like Mr. Hicks imprisoned because we felt like it. What can I say, we’re just that powerful. And we’ll keep him until we get tired of keeping him. So there.
Oh—and we did all this for the oil. The OIILLLLL!!!!
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 08 01 at 10:28 PM • permalinkYou’re going to confuse poor pog by talking about all the oil, Andrea. He probably thinks there really is oil in Afghanistan, and that’s why we went in there (nothing about Sept. 11, oh no).
In reality, as Mark Steyn pointed out long ago, we conquered Afghanistan for its incredibaly valuable and extensive deposits of rubble, originally developed by the Soviets and further extended by the Taliban.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 08 01 at 11:01 PM • permalinkI’d be more than happy for Mr Hicks to be put up against the wall.
He is a traitor to the civilised society that nurtured him and granted him the freedom to pursue his own crusade against said society.
He has been painted in some articles as a misguided youth looking for his purpose in life. Sorry - he was an adult. He should accept the consequences of his actions as the rest of us grownups do.
While I can empathise with his father, I also wonder how pissed off his dad is with him.
Hell, if I could aim straight I’d be happy to join the firing squad.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 08 01 at 11:37 PM • permalinkThey travel as far as they can towards Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay…
Preferably by backstroke. Be sure to take a large keepsake gift, and a spare pair of trousers with you for your visit.
Posted by Mr Hackenbacker on 2005 08 01 at 11:57 PM • permalinkTo those who are organising the firing squad for Hicks, it *might* be the case that he has committed no crime against the US, Australia, or the West in general.
He was apparently fighting Northern Alliance forces when captured. His supporters claim that he didn’t know about 9/11, or that the US had begun operations in Afghanistan. (Remember that at first very few US personnel were on the ground.)
Maybe he genuinely believed the Taliban were a force for good. That would be evidence of extreme stupidity and lack of judgement, but not treason per se.
If ‘innocent until proven guilty’ applied to Nazi leaders, it also applies here. Let’s just wait and see what comes out at the trial.
Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 2005 08 02 at 12:58 AM • permalinkI really like the idea of them going to Cuba. Just a few degrees off, and they’ll be ducking the shots from the Cuban shore patrols.
Anybody got a boat with a faulty compass they could borrow? :D
Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 08 02 at 01:07 AM • permalinkhey Phat Phil and Marr could fly United.
Who does the abc think it is fooling with its oft repeated mantra
“The PUBLIC of Australia want to make sure Hicks gets a wonderful deal.”
The Australian public would consider him lucky to be put up against a wall and shot.
Nor do I think the Brits would have much sympathy for him.bongoman: For our friends in the Middle East, except if you live in Saudi Arabia, then tough titties, you’ll just have to wait.
Ah yes, the dreaded ‘you must invade and liberate every single oppressed people simultaneously or none at all!’ argument so beloved of the nuanced left. This time brought to us by someone who’s named himself (appropriately enough) after an empty noisemaker.
“Malcolm Fraser comes most readily to mind ....”
For most Australians, Fraser comes readily to mind as Mugabe’s mentor.
As for wanting to ensure that Hicks gets a fair trial - most people I have spoken to concerning this case wish that either, 1. Hicks rots in prison for the rest of his life, or 2. they Americans shoot him.
Achillea:
Who mentioned invasion? It’s just that the high falutin’ rhetoric about democracy seems to fall down if an undemocratic Mid East regime has oil but is ‘friendly’ even if they spawned the 9/11 hijackers. Simply a response to Andrea’s oh-so-easy let’s type OIL! in caps as a denial of the obvious.
Sortelli:
Hey, I’ve never been a supporter of Saddam, unlike some…
Lionel Mandrake:
“To those who are organising the firing squad for Hicks, it *might* be the case that he has committed no crime against the US, Australia, or the West in general.
He was apparently fighting Northern Alliance forces when captured. His supporters claim that he didn’t know about 9/11”
Are you kidding me? How is that remotely possible? What do you suppose, that every single person Hicks had been in contact with over the previous month didn’t have access to a battery operated radio? That he didn’t notice his Jihadi buddies joyfully firing into the air a little more than usual and ask what the good news was?
It’s certain that he knew about the attacks, understood who was responsible and realised what was going to happen next. Everyone I’ve discussed this with, including a regular contributor to Amnesty International, has absolutely no sympathy for his “plight”.
Bugger it, release David Hicks from Guantanamo Bay . . . . and then deport him to Afghanistan. Any crimes he committed were on Afghan soil against Afghan people, so a nice long stretch in an Afghan prison should do him nicely.
Posted by Young and Free on 2005 08 02 at 07:31 AM • permalinkPog-ma-thon addresses my original posting, which stated in part:
“Mr. Gruen appears to be of the unilateralist persuasion that the U.S. Constitution affords rights to both citizens and non-citizens.”
Pog-ma-thon then states:
Sounds like Dred Scott all over again, when the Supreme Court decided that Blacks were not citizens, and thus had no right to sue.
Other than the fact that Dred Scott was born on American soil, which provided a basis for his claim to citizenship which was rejected in this poorly-reasoned decision, and that David Hicks was not born in the U.S., and that Dred Scott was decided 147 years ago and has been subsequently overturned by both judicial decision and constitutional amendment but the precendent set by Quiron remains in place, Pog-ma-thon is correct.
Pog-ma-thon performs a Vulcan mindmeld from a great distance:
tongueboy would no doubt agree with Chief Justice Roger B Taney, that when the Declaration of Independence stated that “all men are created equal” that “it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration.”
Mindmeld successful! I’ve been caught out as a whip-wielding kleagle yearning, longing, pleading for a return to the days of mint julips, parasols, hoop skirts and Plessy v. Ferguson. Thanks for not ad homineming, spraying, and alleging impure motives. Asswipe.
He was apparently fighting Northern Alliance forces when captured. (...) Maybe he genuinely believed the Taliban were a force for good.
Sure, if that’s the case, just extradite him to Afghanistan. I’m sure the government knows exactly what to do with Taliban fighters.
Wait, that’s not quite what lefties mean when they blabber about due process for Hicks, is it.
bongoman: Who mentioned invasion? It’s just that the high falutin’ rhetoric about democracy seems to fall down if an undemocratic Mid East regime has oil but is ‘friendly’ even if they spawned the 9/11 hijackers.
I see I’m going to have to explain nuance to a lefty. Again. Good thing I’ve gotten so much practice.
The strong implication in your original post, now stated outright in this one, is that we’re not doing anything to bring about democracy in Saudi Arabia. In this you’re woefully mistaken (but, in your defense, the left has a lot of practice at being woefully mistaken). Just because what we’re doing isn’t glaringly obvious—like, say, an invasion—doesn’t mean nothing’s being done. What’s being done simply isn’t glaringly obvious. Just as there was more than one reason for OIF, there’s more than one way to democratize.
And, given that there are millions of people spawned in Saudi Arabia who haven’t launched terrorist attacks on the US or our allies, the 9/11 terrorists’ country of origin is largely irrelevant.
habib—Maybe Tim could tow Hicks’ cage around in his Wahoomaloo V8?
And… hey, wait a minute, if you aussies are such big allies, where the hell were you at Gettysburg, huh? Little Big Horn? San Juan Hill? Chicago 68?
And maybe someone should tell Nicky that there have only been TWO wars in this last century? OK, granted, you showed up for both of them, but that’s hardly a significant database.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 08 02 at 08:22 PM • permalinkDid anyone else see the 7.30 Report last night? The Foreign Minister not only destroyed Comrade Kerry’s arguments, he also exposed the commentariat’s lack of knowledge of the Hicks issue. Kerry kept talking over the top of Downer (particularly when Downer started to make a good point).
Australia deserves better than the crap these clowns continue to dish up.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 08 02 at 09:02 PM • permalinkI got a Mod comment on the MW site!
I said:
Your Supervising Producer said to Steyn in a letter (29/7/05) that you “do not have interviews on the program”. I recall Stuart Littlemore did at least one interview. Am I right and your Supervising Producer wrong?The Moderator said
Dear Peter,
Stuart did do interviews. Paul Barry did a few too. But no-one did live interviews and no-one did interviews to get a response to a simple question: What did you do to check the validity of the story?So people please note:
1. when MW says they dont do interviews they actually do do interviews.
2. “a simple question” is actually three questions and an outline.And MediaWatch checks on other peoples work?
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
But like everyone else, he has the same right to due process and a proper trial before an independent magistrate that you accord your own citizens.
That is certainly a novel concept. Mr. Gruen appears to be of the unilateralist persuasion that the U.S. Constitution affords rights to both citizens and non-citizens. Perhaps Mr. Gruen could be so kind as to exercise some of the responsibilities of citizenship (but he’s not a citizen, mind you) and pay U.S. federal income taxes and vote in upcoming federal elections. Of course, he might argue that Australia is not a U.S. state but rather a dependency or territory and that he is entitled to the vote but not to having his pocketbook ransacked. Fair enough; state, dependency, territory, it is but a niggling point up against the most important point: Mr. Gruen has unilaterally subsumed Australia’s sovereignty to that of the U.S. Well, we’re pleased to have you on board Team America. You’ve done us a good turn or two in the last 75 years; extending our defence umbrella over Australia would be fair recompense, I suppose. Somehow, though, I don’t think this is what Mr. Gruen had in mind.