<< ADMIRE ONLY THE SLOW ~ MAIN ~ VOTE SECURED >>
LOVELY BROTHER
Only the other day, Traceeee Hutchison was hoping to “hear the real story of David Hicks - in his own unencumbered words.” Well, now we have them:
• Dear family I spent around three months in a muslim military training camp in the mountains. I learnt about weapons such as ballistic missiles, surface to surface and shoulder fired missiles, anti aircraft and anti-tank rockets, rapid fire heavy and light machine guns, pistols, AK47s, mines and explosives. After three months everybody leaves capable and war-ready ...
• The West is full of poison. The western society is controlled by the Jews with music, TV, houses, cars, free sex takes Muslims away from the true Islam keeps Islam week and in the third world.
• The Jews have complete financial and media control many of them are in the Australian government.
• I have met Osama bin Laden about 20 times he is a lovely brother the only reason the West call him the most wanted terrorist is because he got the money to take action.
According to Melbourne lawyer Jeremy Sear, by the way, Hicks was only imprisoned because he “liked Islam” and “went to Afghanistan”.
(Via Dylan Kissane)
UPDATE. Further distressing news for our Trace:
The controversial dredging of Port Phillip Bay’s shipping channels is set to begin in February, after federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett granted approval yesterday.
Poor Traceeee. Peter Garrett is her hero.
OT, but Merry Christmas from Kevin:
Merry Xmas
Please accept with no obligation implied or implicit
my best wishes for an environmentally conscious socially responsible
low stress non-addictive gender neutral celebration of the summer solstice
holiday
practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion
of your choice
or secular practices of our choice with respect for the religious/secular
persuasions and/or
traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular
traditions at all . . .
and a fiscally successful personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated
recognition
of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008
but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures
whose contributions to society have helped make Australia great
(not to imply that Australia is necessarily greater than any other country
or is the only “AUSTRALIA” in the southern hemisphere)
and without regard to the race creed, colour age physical ability
religious faith choice of computer platform or sexual preference of the
wishee.By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:
a.. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal.
b.. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting.
c.. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the
wishes for her/himself or others and is void where prohibited by law and is
revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher.
This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application
of good tidings for a period of one year or:
a.. until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting whichever comes
first
b.. and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish
c.. or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.Hat tip, Dad.
#2 Kevni recognises that there are different computer platforms? He’s not such a tosser after all.
PS aren’t you supposed to wait at least until 10 comments before hijacking a thread?
PPS My bad, just noticed the escape clause: “This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal”. Kevni’s a Micro$oft shill.
PPPS. To return to the topic, Tracee’s training is almost complete. I think it is about time for Margo to return to the MSM, otherwise she might find her role permanently filled by Tracee. Although CD may give Tracee a run for her money.
PPPPS my spell checker actually recognises ‘Tracee’ as a name! Aaaaeeeeeeee!
According to Melbourne lawyer Jeremy Sear, by the way, Hicks was only imprisoned because he “liked Islam”.
Using the same logical approach, one could say that:
Al Capone was only imprisoned because he liked money.
The Green River Killer was only imprisoned because he liked sex.
Sadam Hussein was only imprisoned because he liked owning palaces.
Never could understand why the Victorians wished to spend zillions on deepening the shipping channels into Port Phillip Bay, when global warming is set to cause massively raised sea levels, thus doing the job for free.
Note: having a lovely time with the family visiting my mum for Christmas in Shropshire; it’s the first time my mum has met our four year old lad Harry. It’s bloody freezing but we’ve cranked up mum’s coal fire to the max to help ward off the coming ice-age.
The Jews have complete financial and media control many of them are in the Australian government.
Sounds like something Margo would say.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 12 20 at 05:08 PM • permalinkAny chance Hicks and Traceeee might hook up? It would be great to see how the children turn out.
When Garrett finishes dredging the shipping channels, he should dredge Traceeee’s brain.
Posted by Mystery Meat on 2007 12 20 at 05:09 PM • permalinkI trust that a member of the Antipodean branch of the VRWC will be present with a camera when Traceeeeeeeeeeeeeee‘s head explodes.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 20 at 05:19 PM • permalink...free sex…
Where do I get mine??? Those crazy Jews!
Posted by joeythelemur on 2007 12 20 at 05:30 PM • permalink#10 It’s probably a sad reality that a conga line of lefty moonbat women will be rolling over backwards with their legs in the air for Hicks once he is released in a few days time.
I’ve seen Traceeeeee in the flesh and I’d have to say if I was Dawood you’d be wishing yourself back to Camp X-Ray.Posted by Hank Reardon on 2007 12 20 at 05:32 PM • permalinkOne thought that always strikes me when I hear someone blathering about “The Jeeeews” controlling the *fill in the blank*. Or the Tri-Lateral Committee, or the Masons. Whoever is your personal boogieman.
I look around me and think, “At least they seem to be doing a fairly good job.”
We’ve (US) got a pretty decent economy going at the moment, not that the MSM will ever admit that. We’ve not had a major terror attack on our soil (US) since we woke up and started paying attention. ChimpyMcHaliburtan hasn’t declared himself el-presidentae for life yet. The socialists in control of Congress haven’t been able to accomplish anything too destructive. Chavez got his chops busted on his last power grab.
I, for one, welcome our ever present Jew/trilateral/Mason overlords.
Man, this is the gift that just keeps giving. Also from DH’s letters…
As a post script: If I do get martyred that is what I want. If Dad rings and says that, you know that your son is dead, say congratulations. Allah will help just let him know that you are happy about it.
Yep, lots of dads looking forward to that call.
The only true Muslims are those fighting.
Well, that’s what the religion of peace is all about, isn’t it?
global ignorance stresses me at times
Cmon David, just try a bit harder. global ignorance is within your grasp!
Posted by joeythelemur on 2007 12 20 at 05:50 PM • permalinkNow don’t get me wrong here!
He is undoubtedly a confused, loathesome, racist moron, whose ideas and utterances offend the sensibilities of every decent person.
But the reason that the West is best, and indeed so much better than the medieval, oligarchic, failed states that were manipulating his bad character, is that everyone in the West, is afforded some basic procedural rights.
One of those is “He that asserts must prove” aka the presumption of innocence. And when the accuser has the power to detain the accused anyway then they are obliged by the rule of law to prove their charges, and provide all help the accused needs to defend that accusation, in a reasonable amount of time, so that the detention does not of itself become an arbitrary punishment for unproven charges.
This process is owed to every single person, regardless of their ideas, in spite of their character, no matter what offense they’ve given to some individual Mullah or Shiekh or King, or indeed community of anonymous, risk-free, gratuitously sniping blog commenters!
I am astonished that people here (on this blog) didn’t therefore become even more outraged at the failure of the Australian government to insist that he be treated in this way. Insisting on a fair process regardless of the individual involved is what distinguishes us in all the societies of the world. It’s why everyone, good and bad, wants to live here.
Along the way we must also visit the unpalatable, though in the end fortunate fact that simply being a moron, or hating jews or any number of other things for which we personally are entitled to despise someone (and I’m sure we agree on all of them!) are still not against the law.
Perhaps I am incorrect in my understanding that he was detained for an unreasonable amount of time without trial, or that the charges against him were invented after he was detained and tailored to his case? Happy to stand correction.
But we are meant to treat even arseholes fairly and I we (or our ally the US to whom all of these things apply) failed this time.
So just to repeat, personally I agree with everything you say about him. But my, and your, personal views of other people would form the basis of a system of justice no more advanced than the primitive and despotic Islamic regimes we rail against the rest of the time, with the idolised great men at the top, and the claque of heavies ready to stifle reasonable criticism and debate with their violence.
I really think Tim went the wrong way on David Hicks.Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 20 at 05:52 PM • permalink19.
He was captured as a non priveliged combatant. That gives him exactly no rights under any existing conventions at all.
Its not that his rights as a citizen to fair proceedure were taken away, he forfited those rights himself by joining with Bin liners mob.He had no right to a trial, detention, repatriation or a new life. He had a right to be shot out of hand, forgotten and unmourned.
The US erred greatly by not following customs of combat regaurding non priveliged combatants. You dont extend the geneva protections to those who place themselves outside it. Never.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 12 20 at 06:00 PM • permalinkooh honey dear, there have been many great posts here outlining in simple detail why D Hicks could have been:
1. shot on sight
2. shot after capture(to fill you in, he was a mercenary in a war zone - they don’t have any geneva rights, except for death by firing squad)
Instead, uncle sam decided to treat their lives with a little more respect than the geneva convention dictated, so took them in, housed them in better accomodation than he got in SA (isn’t that a hoot), fed them so much they put on weight, gave them medical care, educated them, and could have waited for the war to end before laying any charges, but instead started that process. Read that last bit again - the media never told you this did they?
Now young david decided to challenge the process, so fair enough, it got bogged down in the Court system.
But do not forget:
1. he wasn’t entitled to any trial process
2. he wasn’t entitled to lifehe got both, and the Court process began before the war ended (actually the war is ongoing).
The delays were unfortunate, but when the system is challenged through to the Supreme Court which takes a year to hear and decide cases, what were the Aust govt supposed to do? Insist on his immidiate release like the UK govt, who turned them lose, only to see them again on 7/7? remember the london underground bombings? 2 of those were at gitmo - how many aussies died because of leftist piss weak attitude and impatience?
sorry, but david deserves the closest watching for the rest of his life.
and the trial process was still going to be fairer than anything japan or germany went thru post ww2, despite all the lefty lawyers getting their nickers in a knot.
I am astonished that people here (on this blog) didn’t therefore become even more outraged at the failure of the Australian government to insist that he be treated in this way. Insisting on a fair process regardless of the individual involved is what distinguishes us in all the societies of the world. It’s why everyone, good and bad, wants to live here.
And I am astonished to see that you ignore the fact that, under the Geneva Convention, Hicks was an illegal combatant. Except for the fact that US troops in fact do believe in that process you seem to think we are mindlessly ignoring, regardless of the Geneva Convention, he might have been shot out of hand simply for not being in uniform.
But Hicks wasn’t. He got off lightly because of that process, and a lot of screeching from Traceeeeeeee and her ilk.
Personally, I think Hicks deserves a long trip on a short rope for being the treasonous slug that he is. But then, I feel the same way for every other bloodied handed murderer and/or traitor….including those born and raised in the USA. I consider it a travesty that many are still alive today.
But that’s my personal opinion. Which I am entitled to speak, regardless of how offended some people may be with it. Should I act on that opinion, and break the law, you would have a point, ooh honey honey. Otherwise, your outrage is little more than a misinformed opinion.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 20 at 06:07 PM • permalink...why Hicks was detained, and not shot out of hand.
Thought I’d fix that, Pogria! ;-D
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 20 at 06:14 PM • permalinkNice substantive response to Hutchison, diminished by the childish taunts over her name.
Posted by Jefferson Skates on 2007 12 20 at 06:16 PM • permalinkOoh, had Hicks been treated ‘correctly’ he would be dead now.
No problems. No controversy. No trial. No waiting.
Thanks frollicking et al. So many people just don’t get the “why” of Gitmo.
Heard on the radio this am, moonbat lawyer for recently released Gitmo residents, crying about Guantanamo Bay “concentration camp”. WTF?
Rudd Watch?, Bolt Watch? How come Jeremy hasn’t given you a guernsey, Tim?
OK Peter M and Mole, as I said I am happy to stand corrected. The “letter of the law” invalidates my argument, and I note that by the same criterion he actually received better treatment than he was entitled to receive. (And hell no I don’t think we should have done what the UK did).
But the law cited here is the Geneva Convention, a piece of “International Law”, an oxymoron, which I treat with the same skepticism as I do Kyoto, in other words I am more interested in standards of fairness reflected (with varying degrees of accuracy) in the actual laws I am happy to have applied to me at home. What exactly did he do wrong and did they prove it in a reasonable amount of time? Personally I don’t find just “being” a mercenary such a moral crime. Rather it seems to have inflamed people on this blog that he was a mercenary for the wrong side, which is a different charge.
And just before Pogria implodes in a cross-eyed froth of Devenesque generalisations, I also think it would surely have been cheaper, easier, and more just if they’d shot him on site, simply for being on the other side.
I guess I need less impressions, more Blair, less MSM, more synonyms for “none”, less fruity lexia and more smacks to the side of the head. Carry on.Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 20 at 07:00 PM • permalink# 20 and 21.
Don’t disagree with what you’re saying. My attitude however is that trials for guys like Hicks was a WOFTAM and even worse provided a cause celebre for the left wingers to get their panties twisted over.
Me I’d much rather have the US just say that we’re treating these guys as if they’re POWs and they’re locked up for the duration and quietly throw away the key. Trials should have been reserved for the big fish, same way as after WWII we didn’t prosecute every single German or Japanese death camp guard, only the commandants and the like
Re channel dredging: Traceee was nearly on to us with her ranting about the warships being made at Williamstown Dockyards. What she doesn’t realise is that the dredging is to make sure that all Australian ports can accommodate US aircraft carriers for when George Bushitlerburton restores John Howard to his rightful place as the head thought monitor of the Australian people - and the irony is that Peter Garrett actually gave the nod to US bases!
Just don’t let anyone know!#30 Heard on the radio this am, moonbat lawyer for recently released Gitmo residents, crying about Guantanamo Bay “concentration camp”.
Five star one at that. Problem was they didn’t concentrate enough of them in it, and let too many [some 75%] go back to the battlefield.
If Gitmo is closed by the next administration it will show that the USA is no longer a serious combatant in this new world war.Of course the moonbats don’t think the enemy is serious either.
#36 says ‘Personally I don’t find just “being” a mercenary such a moral crime. Rather it seems to have inflamed people on this blog that he was a mercenary for the wrong side..’
Curious fact that, honey. Hicks wasn’t trained by al-Qaeda to shoot nice mercenary bullets impartially. Do you think he was?
Ar you twisted, or just terminally naive?
But the law cited here is the Geneva Convention, a piece of “International Law”, an oxymoron, which I treat with the same skepticism as I do Kyoto, in other words I am more interested in standards of fairness reflected (with varying degrees of accuracy) in the actual laws I am happy to have applied to me at home. What exactly did he do wrong and did they prove it in a reasonable amount of time? Personally I don’t find just “being” a mercenary such a moral crime. Rather it seems to have inflamed people on this blog that he was a mercenary for the wrong side, which is a different charge.
First, the GC is not “international law”; it’s a treaty, signed by nations that “pledge” that they will follow it, in varying degrees of honesty. So, your skepticism is valid.
However, we are discussing the US military. From my professional experience in the US Army, the GC is tied to the Unified Code of Military Justice, which means a high degree of honesty, depending on the particular chain of command and media attention (e.g., the Haditha Marines). Given that the GC would have allowed US troops to execute Hicks on the spot, I’d say that my assessment of a high degree of honesty is accurate.
Other countries? Not so much. Terrorists? Ha!
As to what Hicks did….for all that you had plenty of “impressions”, maybe you need to read more closely. While this was outside the scope of the Gitmo trials, it demonstrates that Hicks was willing to kill in the name of Islam. And Tim did mention it here.
Add in Hick’s own words, and he was willing, as a terrorist, to kill Americans. And, by extension (given that the Aussies are our allies), his own countrymen. The former is merely murder; the latter is murder and treason.
And no, I don’t know that he actually killed any Americans or Australians. Or anyone else. But the intent is clear to those with an open mind.
Again, my personal opinion is that hanging him would be the best thing for this tired old planet. However, the evidence doesn’t support that.
Still, it’s obvious he ain’t no angel, and it’s clear that he was a willing and eager participant in a terror campaign against the west, and actively supported terrorism; I believe that there was evidence supporting a harsher sentence than what he actually got.
That he got off so lightly is astonishing and dismaying, and an indictment against the legal system and elected officials for pandering to left wing idiots and terrorist apologists.
Need any more?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 20 at 07:40 PM • permalink36. ooh honey honey
Ok, I think I see where you are arguing from, but cant grasp why you think he deserves Australian proceedural fairness?
If all you needed was a “western” passport in order to fight for a terrorist organisation, and not be subject to the normal proceedure when captured then the whole attempt at “civilising” war (which is what the Geneva conventions are intended for, to try and make less brutal the most brutal of things)fails.
Thats not in the best intrests of any nation, soldier or civillian.According to the links posted by Tim at the “have them” bit in his post he shot with intent to kill, a citizen of another country. To prove that in a court in Australia would be nigh on impossible, but taken in accordance with his stated beliefs, willingness to train, fight (while they were winning anyway) and associate with a terrorist organisation, it is unlikely he should be released into Australia scott free.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 12 20 at 08:05 PM • permalinkWell, I’ll put my oar in on the Rules of Warfare (26 years US military experience). #20,21,22 (and extended Jeffs comments) have it quite correct. I would just add:
That if time and circumstance allow, and examination of the the irregular fighter and the circumstances of his capture should be reviewed by an officer. A lieutenant will do. If the review confirms that the fighter is indeed outside the GC, then he should be taken out and shot. If an officer is not reasonably available, as is often the case in shooting wars, a senior NCO should take the officer’s place and take him/her out and execute them.
Written reports/investigations can be dealt with later.
‘Oh honey’ (what a screen name!) seems to confuse War Rules with Courts Martial, POW GC procedures, and especially peace-time civil criminal courts. It is clear that he’s not familiar with the above Rs of W - and most probably has never been in the military, nor in combat.
He seems to have taken a new look with his eyes open. Credit for that.Pog, I can’t even read the words “fruity lexia” without wanting to chuck!
I was once on tour with a band who decided to go on a “wine cruise” on the Goldcoast. The wine cruise consisted of the band and roadcrew plus about a dozen elderly folks who looked like they should have been on the Womans Weekly World Discovery Cruise instead. We proceeded to drain one cask after another of high quality beverages such as the aforementioned Fruity Lexia. This resulted in a couple of “man overboard” incidents, and a minor mutiny in which we “persuaded” the boats crew that they should let us run the sing-along which then degenerated into a session of dirty ditties and bawdy ballads. The old dears didn’t know what to do & the crew of the boat seemed to be shit scared of us so let us do whatever we wanted, which was drinking lots more Lexia and Gordo.
We eventually mutinied properly and, after dropping off the other passengers, we made the boat crew take us for another lap around the harbour.
I can still remember getting to the point of not worrying about a glass and necking the crap straight out of the box. Class all the way! I’ll bet they were glad to see the back of us.
“The Jews have complete financial and media control many of them are in the Australian government.”
It sounds like he would get along perfectly fine with Antony Loewenstein, who recently said this.null
No surprises really.
Posted by The Best Infidel on 2007 12 20 at 08:52 PM • permalinkHA HA HA HA HA!
Now, who else read this section of Jezza’s blog and didn’t piss themselves laughing at his strong desire for the crushing of dissent?
Please Note
This is not a general political discussion blog. It is a blog about holding the feet of Kevin Rudd, as a Labor Prime Minister, to the fires of democratic accountability and progressive policy, and keeping a record of same.Comments which advocate in favour of right-wing politics will simply be deleted as being off-topic.
Comments which advocate in favour of right-wing politics will simply be deleted as being off-topic.
Your puny cluebats are no match for my stupidity.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 12 20 at 09:30 PM • permalinkI look forward to the David Hicks feature film. And in the great tradition of Australian outlaws, the part of Hicks will be played by either Mick Jagger or Heath Ledger.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 12 20 at 10:25 PM • permalinkRe: the channel dredging, which gets TrAcEeEE so upset, it seems to me the Age has definitely softened its reporting of this issue since Garrett signed off on it. Maybe it’s the ‘only Nixon could go to China’ principle, and Rudd, as a ‘leftist’, will be quietly allowed to do all kinds of ‘non-leftist’ things which would have been howled down by Fairfax/ABC if Howard had done them.
Oh hi. Thought I’d give you all a chance to get your breath back after the exertions of misunderstanding me.
Firstly, let me attempt to make absolutely clear. I agree with you on so many things! So many. I’m the SAME! I’m IN the club!
He is a scum-sucking, Jew-hater from Adelaide with very wrong ideas, like “believe in a god and try to kill the goodies on that basis”. Shame he didn’t just die like a baddie (although he may have been double the martyr then – Islam and the loony left).
Or even better, nail-gunned to a post and made to watch his genitals sawn off and vitamised with phosphoric acid and poured down his Father’s throat so they could both stop stealing my children’s oxygen. See Pogria? JUST LIKE YOU.
But these are the questions:
1.Were there laws in existence when he was detained, that he was alleged to have broken, and that you would consider reasonable in your society?
2.Were the specific allegations that he had broken them made plain to him as he was detained?
3.Was he given the opportunity to defend those allegations in a reasonable period of time, in front of an impartial court? (Say weeks, not years later)
4.Was he found guilty and was his detention since then part of the punishment?
5.Did all this happen and did I just MISS IT?
Australian or otherwise Mole, I think those are principles of procedural fairness. I think what happened here was just fudging for political reasons.
And Gerry no I have never served nor been in combat. Pretty sure you’d forgive me that if you didn’t also want to disagree with what I’m saying. And “Ooh honey honey” was written on my bathroom wall in lipstick during a party once about 20 years ago so OBVIOUSLY that’s why I had to use it as my nom de bloge. Does it change any part of my argument? I suppose I enjoy the towering intellectual stature of it NOT being “honeee honeeeee”…
Anyhup, I also think the “Rules of War” is an oxymoron. Rules assume a degree of voluntary compliance. War is when all hope of voluntary compliance has been exhausted and you resort to killing people. And a very important thing it is to able to kill them first, especially when you are the good guys like us. But, they went and caught and hung onto the idiot didn’t they, so process becomes relevant, especially because it was politicised, romanticised even.
I think the rules you are talking about are to ensure orderly and consistent conduct within an army, and over the past century or so they have also to take into consideration the political ramifications back home. They really aren’t rules that seek approval as “fair” from the person taken outside and shot are they? And I don’t have a problem with that. The principles I’m talking about attempt to provide processes fair to all parties to a dispute. (note: I am alive to the absurd understatement of the word “dispute” in the context of “converting to Islam so’s I can shoot at Indians and Jews”)
It is naïve to ignore the political meaning of these things, and I truly regret Howard giving the left ammunition in the Hicks case, because it’s part of the reason he and WorkChoices are gone, which is a tragedy.
I am ignorant I think of the circumstances of his capture. I thought his status was not that clear. But if the answer is “no” to any of those questions above then I think it is a poor process, and placing good processes above personal or political preference is what sets us apart from the barbarians.
Now I’m sure if I don’t understand or missed something or if answers to all these questions are “yes” or if there are reasons why these principles shouldn’t apply to Hicks, then hell! You will continue to whip my twisted, naïve, arse with evidence based, internally consistent and germane argument, and er, Pogria you can do your thing too I suppose. But one more reference to Fruity Lexia and I will be gently suggesting that we talk about your childhood pony today.Oh wait. Coming from Adelaide’s OK.
Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 20 at 10:37 PM • permalinkJust for the record, I still have nothing to do with any dredging…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 12 20 at 10:50 PM • permalink#63 - To paraphrase: You’d like a swift and impartial trial so that we can shoot the malignant bastard?
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 12 20 at 10:52 PM • permalinkTo paraphrase: You’d like a swift and impartial trial so that we can shoot the malignant bastard?
No. I think he is a malignant bastard. I think he should be shot. But I’d like a swift and impartial trial so that we could have a swift and impartial trial. As individuals we may not get the verdict we want, and that’s too bad. But that’s why the West is the best system going. The others, where some individuals get to override procedure are corrupt shitholes, starving the masses and promoting terrorism.Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 20 at 11:04 PM • permalinkKae, some of the explanations have been helpful. None completely persuasive, perhaps because I haven’t expressed myself clearly and they address things I haven’t argued.
I have referred to no piece of Australian legislation. I have referred to the principles that underpin criminal law in Australia, and the US and many other countries that are civilised. It seems to me that those principles were not applied to Hicks. Consistent and impartial application of those principles is something that we should be very proud of, especially in a clash of “civilisations”.
Is the argument that criminal law is irrelevant; that in fact he should have just been shot because he was un-uniformed enemy? Did the US argue that? If they did then why didn’t they just shoot him? (With which I would have had no problem).
Or did they commence a process that in part resembled one where charges would be laid, a defence mounted, evidence heard, impartial decisions made etc? I’m pretty sure that is what happened. If so, then to adhere to those principles and apply them consistently, it should’ve happened more quickly rather than let him “languish” in prison for however many years. I’m deeply ashamed to admit that’s all I’m saying. I am well aware of the number of stars Gitmo has - this is so just about process, which I know is hard to grasp when we’re all rilly busy hanging shit on the treacherous jew-hater and counting the “e"s in people’s names.Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 20 at 11:54 PM • permalink#51: This is not a general political discussion blog. It is a blog about holding the feet of Kevin Rudd, as a Labor Prime Minister, to the fires of democratic accountability and progressive policy, and keeping a record of same.
Ooooo, good spotting, Ash! The smell of pretentiousness is stifling. One can almost see the fellow standing before a roaring fire at the Turk’s Head Tavern, in bag wig, bottle-green coat, rose-silk waistcoat, white knee breeches, and buckled shoes, declaiming his blogging policy to a decidedly unimpressed - and even disdainful - assembly of goldbricking footmen, drowsy tipstaffs and drunken pamphleteers, and putting a melodramatic period to his remarks with the loud snap! of his golden snuff-box. Perhaps a besotted cowherd, in dung-covered boots, celebrating his annual trip to the city, shouts a boozy “Hurrahr, guv’nuh!”, in the ill-starred hope of cadging a glass of porter from our hero. Another, more sinister character, in weathered greatcoat, and with tricorn hat pulled low over his brow, calculates the value of the snuff-box, and speculates on the likely proceeds from its sale to his fence. A serving wench, allergic to cat dander, sneezes violently as she brushes by this tavern Demosthenes. And all the while, mine host eyes this gaudy specimen suspiciously, quite alert to the possibility that the only silver in his possession rests on his wagging tongue.
#72 - On the other hand, I can picture him sitting alone in his bedroom, furiously masturbating with one hand and trying to shield his cat’s eyes with the other.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 12 21 at 01:06 AM • permalinkOh, Honey, I look at it this way.
When the U.S. started taking prisoners they found themselves in a quandary. They didn’t have traditional prisoners of war who they could treat in the traditional manner and whilst the slightly nebulous rules and customs of warfare provided a robust and immediate solution, there was (and is) a rather pressing need to find out what the fuck was going on.
Particularly in the case of Daewood.
(If you look at Hicks from an AQ point of view, he could be seen as a valuable asset, a Crusader who could go about unchallenged in the Crusader’s world, especially after 9/11.)
So, unlike traditional PWs, these mutts could been seen as living on borrowed time and without any legal protections, however once the issue of citizenship came into play so too did those whose interests don’t necessarily coincide with the wider exigencies of national interest.
Thus began the whole shrieking “By what legal right…” clusterfuck, the noisy sorts trying to force civil jurisprudence and the military trying to find some martial pidgeon hole for scumbags who are neither.
Clearly they couldn’t just wipe his nose and send him on his way. Similarly the time for that one time only flying lesson had passed.
Only the lawyers benefited from the compromise.OHH:
Hicks should’ve taken a leaf from the book of The Youngbloods:
‘come on people now, smile on me brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now ...’
Hicks to be on tight leash
12:27pm | Strict control order placed on confessed al-Qaeda trainee after his release.
| Haneef wins back visa
Outrage over ‘anti-Semite’ rocker
MIKI PERKINS 3:28pm | Croatian accused of racism to have “tolerance counselling” as visa condition.From today’s Age online.
Outrage over one anti-semite, but plaudits for another…
FFS
#49 Gibbo, hi mate.
The reason I think of Fruity Lexia every time ooh honey posts, is because it reminds me of the Valley where I grew up.
Bingo Ladies whom would discuss the relative merits of the “Fine Wines” they were drinking, which always included the aforementioned Fruity Lexia, Pink Starwine and, for VERY SPECIAL occasions, COLD DUCK!!!
These were the ladies who had an opinion on everything, and if you didn’t eventually agree with them, they continue to try to howl you down until they thought you finally saw it their way.
ooh honey doesn’t know when to give up. He’s obviously enjoying the attention, that’s why the over long explanations of “exactly” what he’s trying to say.
Give him a biscuit, maybe that’ll make him shut up.
O/T:
ABC Radio National’s Meeja Report:
Rex Wong is a US-based IT entrepreneur and founder of AdSense. He’s now the head of DAVE Networks which helps companies use video to develop online social communities. He talks with us about the way in which online companies are using people’s web profiles to attract advertisers ...
Rex Wong: Well what we really see is that one of the biggest things that internet TV and IPTV represent is this globalisation of content, and at the same time it’s not just about the web, it’s about devices such as TVs and PCs and mobile phones, and especially outside the US, I think that that’s even more prevalent, because let’s face it, the US has lousy bandwidth, and it’s too wide of a country and usage, since people an average of 3 TVs a household, TV is still traditionally watched on TV. But when you go outside the US to here in Australia, I’m fascinated that you have up to 50 megabyte pipes for broadband to the home, and 7 megabytes to the phone. Broadband in the US, the average connection is 520 kilobytes a second, which wouldn’t be considered broadband in most countries around the world.
Tell that to the laptop(-dancer?) hugging Krudder ...
#79 - I’m partial to a drop of Rene Pogel myself. The ladies love it and it’s a hit with the fellas too.
My father still tells me charming stories involving a lovely number called Brandavino. I’d say the 60’s baby boom had far more to do with these panty droppers than any social revolution.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 12 21 at 01:39 AM • permalink#84 Hi Tiger!!!
Cripes, I remember Brandivino!!
What a dreadful drop. My father used to take us to visit one of his mates. All the horrible old bastard had to drink for the kids was “Brandivino”!!!!He reckoned it was okay because it was like soft drink!!! sheesh!!
God, I’m gagging just thinking about it!!
(and not in a good way Tiger)!Maybe that’s what ooh honey needs. A gooney or two of Brandivino. About time he got onto some grown up stuff. LOL!!!
Comments which advocate in favour of right-wing politics will simply be deleted as being off-topic.
Ash, that is a real gem that you found there. No surprise, though, that’s standard leftie policy.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 21 at 01:47 AM • permalinkComments which advocate in favour of right-wing politics will simply be deleted as being off-topic.
Ash, that is a real gem that you found there. No surprise, though, that’s standard leftie policy.
No,TRJ, standard leftie policy is: “Commenters who advocate in favour of right-wing politics will simply be deleted.”
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 12 21 at 02:08 AM • permalinkOoh honey honey #69
Well yes they did commence a process. This one.“Australia’s obligations under the four Geneva Conventions have been incorporated into Australian law by the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. This Act was amended in 1991 after Australia ratified the Additional Protocols of 1977. Australia has also enacted other legislation to implement obligations pursuant to arms control and disarmament treaties and to provide for the prosecution of war crimes in certain limited circumstances.”
Since 1957.
This is a long PDF of an American lawyers associations view of the status of detainees held from Afghanistan.
It reaches some rather suprising conclusions based, not on the Geneva accords but human rights laws. In addition the US was wise enough not to sign up for a 4th section of the Geneva accords that greatly widened the protections of non state actors, however it is still quoted in the article as a factor.
This smells a bit suspect to me, but I dont have the time to read through a number of these, typing in “unprivileged combatants” in google will lead to a number of artcles.Pages of interest are 13,23,27,47-48,55-60, or you can just skip to the summary on 58-59. (using the numbers that come up on the PDF counter not the article)
This is a much shorter article dealing with Iraq and seems much more sensible in its conclusions.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 12 21 at 02:43 AM • permalink#60 Hey IT,
Geoffrey Rush could play Osama, playing him as a complex, layered and nuanced soul who had conflict issues with his inability to further his father’s financial success and who secretly agonised over the necessity for the 9/11 attacks. In the end his decision to go ahead is tipped by ....insert boilerplate US atrocity .... being reported on a BBC news bulletin.
He’d get very upset if his comments here were removed though.
That, too, is standard leftie policy, Ash, under the section titled “Self-Serving Hypocrisy”.
“Commenters who advocate in favour of right-wing politics will simply be deleted.”
Correction noted, Jorge! ;-D
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 21 at 02:50 AM • permalinkOK, OHH. I’m game.
But these are the questions:
1.Were there laws in existence when he was detained, that he was alleged to have broken, and that you would consider reasonable in your society?Yes. These are precedents and conventions relating to the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which were established on precedents established in the Peninsular Campaign and Franco-Prussian War. These acted to codify what a legal combatant was (he/she is fully entitled to treatment according to COnvention) and was an illegal combatant was. He/she is entitled to immediate MANDATORY execution. NOT to execute this person is to contravene Convention.
OK, what defines this? The legal combatant must meet three and only three criteria.
1. Must carry arms openly.
2. Must bear an identifying uniform, mark, or sigil.
3. Must be under a national (this applies to traditional tribal) command with some form or recognisable officer. So the Zulu Impi was a legal combatant. The Bengali thaag was not.WHY?
Because the French Armies in the Peninsular treated ALL Spanish irregular (formed, uniformed, under proper officers) troops and informal militias as guerrillas (which the latter actually were) and ghastly slaughter followed. The whole mess, esecially in Castille, spiralled down to relentless atrocity.
Nobody liked the idea at all but the Congress of Vienna did not really deal with it.
Then, in 1870, French reserves found themselves semi-formed and behind Prussian lines. They formed up, armed themselves and began irregular operations. Outside those lines, forces like the Army of the Loire formed and also fought. These were often NOT IN UNIFORM (these depots having been captured) but wore brassards. So the Prussians shot them on capture. The French went to Moltke and complained about this. These were NOT francs tireurs as claimed, but regular soldiers denied full uniform by Prussian force majeure. The Prussians and French discussed the matter, and came to the three points above. The Prussians agreed not to treat men captured as
francs tireurs if they met these criteria and the French agreed that men captured who did NOT meet these criteria were indeed francs tireurs and HAD to be shot out of hand. Basically, the same as bandits or pirates. This was later codified in the Hague Convention of 1898 (IIRC) and is, of course, still on the books.
Hicks was a francs tireur.2.Were the specific allegations that he had broken them made plain to him as he was detained?
This does not matter. he had not committed a crime against Australian national law (except high treason!). When he was captured he did not meet the criteria above and can hardly claim to be a Pashtun tribal warrior. Therefore, he and his compatriots were required to be executed immediately. This is not a mere criminal matter, it is far more serious than that, it pertains to the methods civilisation uses to try and minimise the more wantonly brutal facts of war.
3.Was he given the opportunity to defend those allegations in a reasonable period of time, in front of an impartial court? (Say weeks, not years later)
Not relevant: the question is meaningless. This is not a domestic criminal matter. It cannot be dealt with as one.
4.Was he found guilty and was his detention since then part of the punishment?
See above. You have not understood the basic fact that this is not a matter of domestic criminality at all. It is a immeasurably more important matter of the laws and conventions of armed conflict and how we stop armed conflict from returning the the horrors of the Thirty Years War and the Peninsular Campaign.
5.Did all this happen and did I just MISS IT?
Yes and no. You fundamentally do not understand the complete difference between domestic criminal matters and the ‘Laws of Armed Conflict’. At heart, this is not a criminal matter, it is a MORAL MATTER. That is why it is so much more important.
Australian or otherwise Mole, I think those are principles of procedural fairness. I think what happened here was just fudging for political reasons.
This comment is actually meaningless once it is understood that this is not a criminal matter.
Anyhup, I also think the “Rules of War” is an oxymoron. Rules assume a degree of voluntary compliance. War is when all hope of voluntary compliance has been exhausted and you resort to killing people. And a very important thing it is to able to kill them first, especially when you are the good guys like us.
OMG…
NO!! The Rules of War are what stop us returning to the utter depravity of the ‘broken-backed’ phase of the Thirty Years War. We invented the idea of the nation-state at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 to try and make sure our civilisation never, ever again repeated that mistake. Only the disgusting National Socialists EVER went back to that, and that is why we crushed them utterly, then retrospectively re-invented old crimes to hang them under.But even the National Socialists partially complied with the Rules of War. They treated our wounded and gave men they captured full PoW status, generally treating them in a manner as to safeguard their lives.
War is NOT indiscriminate violence as you state. It is very carefully defined and applied formal violence applied in such a manner as to force one nation-state to conform to the wishes of another nation state. War is quite literally the continuation of national political discussion ‘by other means’, as von Clausewitz noted. if it is merely unleashing unlimited violence as you so erroneously thing, then why was the Taliban (and Afghanistan) not simply nuked into oblivion?
...
I think the rules you are talking about are to ensure orderly and consistent conduct within an army, and over the past century or so they have also to take into consideration the political ramifications back home. They really aren’t rules that seek approval as “fair” from the person taken outside and shot are they?Again, you miss the point. War is not about being fair. The LOAC are not about being fair. They are about minimising the violence to be used to obtain the desired end and above all else are about minimising the harm to both of the societies in conflict. To actually do that is incredibly hard. People who REFUSE to do that are quite literally promoting the idea of guerre a outrace, war without any limits, rules or boundaries.
Been there, done that between 1618 and 1648. it maximises damage to all societies.
THAT is why illegal combatants must die when captured. These are the bastards who maximise the atrocity in war.And I don’t have a problem with that. The principles I’m talking about attempt to provide processes fair to all parties to a dispute. (note: I am alive to the absurd understatement of the word “dispute” in the context of “converting to Islam so’s I can shoot at Indians and Jews”)
Yet again, this is not about fair, it is not about crime. THis is not a dispute in a court - it is the employment of violence to resolve political differences between nation states and it is about minimising the harm that violence does to BOTH respective states or civilisations. It is about establishing the line where civilisation starts. Thereofre, this is a MORAL ISSUE.
It is naïve to ignore the political meaning of these things, and I truly regret Howard giving the left ammunition in the Hicks case, because it’s part of the reason he and WorkChoices are gone, which is a tragedy.
I am ignorant I think of the circumstances of his capture. I thought his status was not that clear. But if the answer is “no” to any of those questions above then I think it is a poor process, and placing good processes above personal or political preference is what sets us apart from the barbarians.Your last sentence shows a glimmer of potential understanding. Is the LOAC a poor process? Oh yes. But it is the ONLY PROCESS WHICH WORKS. And it does exactly what you want it to: it sets us apart from the barbarians.
In Hicks’ case, he deliberately chose to leave civilisation and become a barbarian. To then treat him as a criminal within a civilisation when he CHOSE to become a barbarian outside of civilisation is why not shooting him on capture was such a bloody stupid thing to do.
MarkL
CanberraO/T but check out this bunch of Quambies from the WA conservation council.
Of interest is the top bloke who contributed this gem to a story about WA getting another coal fired powerstation
“..The Conservation Council’s Chris Tallentire has criticised the decision saying coal fired energy is a backward step.
“This power station is old technology,” he said.
“We should not be going ahead with a new coal fired power station when we can possibly wait for newer technology to come online in say five to ten years..”
Along with candy clouds, and world peace?
Also worth a look is their “waste officer” , not to hard on the eyes but her bio should give you nightmares.“..Sian is an Activist/Primary School Teacher/Visual Artist with an enthusiastic dedication to environmental conservation. She began working with Greenpeace Australia Pacific in late 2002 and developed a keen interest in climate change and energy issues..”
How did these dicks make themselves sound relavent to anything before gerbil worming came along?
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 12 21 at 03:20 AM • permalinkMarkL, thank you for taking the time, and sorry to occupy it so, in this busiest of seasons. Your comments were fascinating and seemingly well-informed, though I am reading all this on the interweb, so, you know..
Still, at the risk of seeking and enjoying more attention, I would mention a couple of things.“War is NOT indiscriminate violence as you state.”
Didn’t state that. Simply said it employs force because voluntary compliance with rules by the people with whom you disagree cannot be assumed.
“It is very carefully defined and applied formal violence applied in such a manner as to force one nation-state to conform to the wishes of another nation state. War is quite literally the continuation of national political discussion ‘by other means’, as von Clausewitz noted.”
Fine with all that.
“...if it is merely unleashing unlimited violence as you so erroneously thing, then why was the Taliban (and Afghanistan) not simply nuked into oblivion?”
Well I didn’t think or say that, see above. Many reasons it didn’t happen. Overkill? Waste of money? Politically unacceptable back home?
They really aren’t rules that seek approval as “fair” from the person taken outside and shot are they?
Again, you miss the point. War is not about being fair.
I rather think that’s the point I was making, not missing.
The LOAC are not about being fair. They are about minimising the violence to be used to obtain the desired end and above all else are about minimising the harm to both of the societies in conflict.
To actually do that is incredibly hard. People who REFUSE to do that are quite literally promoting the idea of guerre a outrace, war without any limits, rules or boundaries.
Been there, done that between 1618 and 1648.And we’re back there again aren’t we, with global jihad? War is whatever we end up with rather than a program.
Anyway, he should’ve been shot on capture (which I think I already said) but the US hung on to him because he was useful (I note locototi’s comments which are also quite reasonable), and the left pounced on him being denied due process and have sadly used this to some effect. Thanks again for your very generous “glimmer of potential understanding”.
And now for a crisp Blue Nun.
Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 21 at 03:33 AM • permalink#97, Frollicking, the biodiversity officer reminds me of this guy.
I wonder if he considers thetans as a valid part of the biosphere and worthy of inclusion.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 12 21 at 03:34 AM • permalinkForget the coal - sell that to the Chinese to cruel their own pitch. To make greenies explode, suggest minature nuclear reactors for all small towns and apartment blocks.
Toshiba Nuclear Reactors are obviously the answer to greenhouse free power. (From Instapundit)What, no calls for Ben Ean?? Or, for the non-drinkers, how about the Maison?
Sod it, I’m going to reacquaint myself with Mr Walker.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 12 21 at 03:45 AM • permalink99.Nilknarf Arbed
Haha, yup hes got the same “yes I am the messiah” look about him.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 12 21 at 03:46 AM • permalink#98. OHH, with global jihad, yes, we get war.
It doesn’t matter how much we try to constrain ourselves and stick to the Rules of War, the jihadis didn’t sign on for that.
Hicks wanted adventure, he couldn’t cut it in civilised society, and he got caught with his pants down, so to speak.
He’s a traitor. He joined the forces opposing the civilised world, and bought into the dogma.
He even converted, so he was pretty convinced that that was the way to go.
For now, I guess.
I don’t particularly wish to share my country with such a gormless waste of oxygen; particularly one who dumped on his partner and children to go and kill people instead.
He should have gotten a bullet, and none of the niceties reserved for members of a (there’s that word again) civilised society.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 12 21 at 03:50 AM • permalinkOh dear, Vanessa is a barking moonbat.
“The actress Vanessa Redgrave provided surety for half the £50,000 bail for Mr el-Banna and a further £15,000 as surety for the bail of Omar Deghayes, 37, who followed Mr el-Banna into the dock.”
Thats 2 of the 3 semi-poms released from Guantanimo.I never knew she was this deranged.
Its wiki but Christ on a crutch what a glorious example of a useful idiot she is.
“..She and other Healy loyalists founded the short-lived Marxist Party in the 1990s. Since 2004 she has been a member of the Peace and Progress Party..”
and
“..In December 2002 Redgrave paid £50,000 bail for Chechen separatist Deputy Premier and special envoy Akhmed Zakayev, who had sought political asylum in the United Kingdom and was accused by the Russian government of aiding and abetting hostage-takings in the Moscow Hostage Crisis of 2002—in which 128 hostages lost their lives during a Russian special forces (OMON) action—and guerrilla warfare against Russia..”
and
“..Goodman’s interview of Redgrave took place in the actress’s West London home on the evening of 7 March, and covered a range of subjects – though in particular, the cancellation of the Alan Rickman production, My Name is Rachel Corrie, by the New York Theater Workshop..”What a nob.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 12 21 at 05:14 AM • permalinkMarkL, I must dispute your point at #94 re National Socialism and respecting the rules of war re POWs.
They followed the rules only when it suited them. The entire Eastern front situation and treatment of Soviet POWs was in direct contravention of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. This was a deliberate act of policy that was enacted prior to the declaration of war, via the “Kommisar” orders.
There were numerous examples of the SS in particular executing POWs out of hand, particularly famous examples involve the Piper at the Battle of the Bulge and the Canadians. Orders were issues for Commandos not to be taken prisoner.
Although I do agree entirely about your comments about the Treaty of Westphalia and the Thirty Years War. Which is probably the single most important political event since the founding of democracy by the ancient Greeks.
OHH - the forces we are now fighting subvert rules, they do not support rules - unless it suits them in a tactical context. Understand that or you simply take a subpoena to a gunfight.
People can enjoy the rule of law here by simply being citizens and trying to do the right thing. If you stray outside into the big bad world of non-state terrorism, take what comes, but do not start whining about your rights when it turns to custard. Hicks got more consideration than he deserved, and people like you are still complaining.
Remember those many bits of paper floating downwards from the World Trade Centre Towers? That was your rule book.#110
It bears repeating, it’s so very well said:People can enjoy the rule of law here by simply being citizens and trying to do the right thing. If you stray outside into the big bad world of non-state terrorism, take what comes, but do not start whining about your rights when it turns to custard. Hicks got more consideration than he deserved, and people like you are still complaining.
Remember those many bits of paper floating downwards from the World Trade Centre Towers? That was your rule book.“Comments which advocate in favour of right-wing politics will simply be deleted as being off-topic.”
I liked the crappy scorecard at the bottom of each post. “Accountability score”, Democratic Score” and “Progressive Score”.
Lame.
Posted by HisHineness on 2007 12 21 at 05:31 AM • permalinkOHH
MarkL, thank you for taking the time, and sorry to occupy it so, in this busiest of seasons.
No problem, always happy to assist people understand unfamiliar things.
I’d suggest that you read Michael Walzer’s classic ‘Just and Unjust wars’. It is a standard work and remains AFAIK a text for the Defence Force Academy’s module ‘The Legal and moral Implications of international Violence’.
“War is NOT indiscriminate violence as you state.”
Didn’t state that.
COMMENT: Correct, you did not. It was merely implicit in the statement.
”...if it is merely unleashing unlimited violence as you so erroneously thing, then why was the Taliban (and Afghanistan) not simply nuked into oblivion?”Well I didn’t think or say that, see above. Many reasons it didn’t happen. Overkill? Waste of money? Politically unacceptable back home?
COMMENT: I did not intend that to be read as if you did state that. This view is, however, implicit if a civilisation’s view of war in which it is involved is either:
A. Existential, or
B. UncontrolledNow, the last time we saw these views in practice pre-1939 was the Thirty Years War (A war, BTW, which richly repays serious study: for since 1648 we have rather gotten out of teh habit of religious wars. Yet, muslim scholarship focusses on this war as the best way to wage one. This is very bad news for them, in the long run.)
We saw BOTH of these in 1939-45 in Europe, and partially in the Pacific, which was a true clash of civilisations.
Yet, at no time did the West return to its classical roots in the Pacific. There was NEVER a serious policy of “Nippon deleda est” to paraphrase the terrible words of Cato the Elder. We did, however, have a policy - publicly articulated - of ‘National Socialism deleda est’. Which made that war both existential and uncontrolled - yet it was controlled in part, such was the power of the Laws of Armed Conflict with the Heer.
They really aren’t rules that seek approval as “fair” from the person taken outside and shot are they?
Again, you miss the point. War is not about being fair.
I rather think that’s the point I was making, not missing.
COMMENT: No, I do not think so, and I was not clear. The point ‘fair’ cannot even be used here, I believe you are operating inside the wrong frame of reference.
The LOAC are not about being fair. They are about minimising the violence to be used to obtain the desired end and above all else are about minimising the harm to both of the societies in conflict.
To actually do that is incredibly hard. People who REFUSE to do that are quite literally promoting the idea of guerre a outrace, war without any limits, rules or boundaries.
Been there, done that between 1618 and 1648.And we’re back there again aren’t we, with global jihad? War is whatever we end up with rather than a program.
COMMENT: Not entirely. We have controlled war in unprecedented ways inside the West - the children of the Enlightenment truly have learned something. Compare this to the way our classical forebears fought. As Laertes says to Odysseus, he was a sacker of cities (having sacked Nericon). No difference with teh Romans when they fought the Scythians - all wars of the ear were both existential and uncontrolled. Recall the fate of Croesus’s Lydia!
But now, for the first time since the islamic conquest which annihilated Zoroasterian civilisation and came within a whisper of annihilating Chritendom, we may again face an ancient external enemy (otherwise defeated and pathetically weak) able again to perhaps make a war between us existential and uncontrolled, by using the technologies we ourselves invented.
If (the Lord forbid) they are mediaeval enough to actually attempt to destroy us with bio or nuclear weapons, we may have to annihilate them. Far better is the gallant attempt to force them to modernise within their own culture, as the great Hindu civilisation is doing so admirably: this being the crowning glory of the achivements of the British Empire (see Deepak Lal’s magnificent ‘In Praise of Empires’).
That is why Iraq is so important. The left, of course, are far too close-minded to see this.
markL
CanberraOHH:
You are wrong. Your assumptions have been pointed out as wrong in fact and examples that you could easily research have been provided.
You choose to ignore those and play the “I think” “I feel” and other wishitwereisms.
At best, you are a lending yourself to be a useful idiot to those who work to subvert and distort the system to make it impossible for the US and Coalition forces to successfully prosecute this war.
#109
I think I implied that it was partial, and mostly the Heer and KM. Our people did OK - mostly.
The Sovs, of course, had not signed geneva either, but yes, as Omer bartov so brilliantly discusses in his (IIRC - it’s been years) ‘The Barbarisation of Warfare on the eastern Front’, that war was both uncontrolled and without rules.
The military wing of the National Socialist party (the vile SS) of course obeyed no standards of civilised behaviour whatsoever.
Gotta shut down - electrical storm!
MarkL
Canberra#103 - What, no calls for Ben Ean?? Or, for the non-drinkers, how about the Maison?
If you’re my age you’ll remember that it just wasn’t done to attend a party in your 20s and not bring a bottle of Ben Ean. Very popular in Young Liberal clubs (and I’d know). Then Mateus became the ‘in’ tipple.
Those even older than I might remember the billboards for Barossa Pearl and Sparkling Prinze. Even at 10 I knew these were cheap plonk.
Brandivino for those who’ve never heard of it was a brandy subsitute - a cheap mixer tasting vaguely of brandy and limited to 15% alcohol to get into lower excise bracket. Sold in 2 litre flagons.
Posted by walterplinge on 2007 12 21 at 05:53 AM • permalinkThe Nazis and the Geneva Convention
The Russians were considered subhuman and unworthy of treatment as human beings. And the Soviet government never signed the treaty anyway.
Thirty Years War
Units kept under tight discipline performed well and rarely committed atrocities. It was those units under lax discipline who performed the looting and raping and homicide. For example, Spanish troops were famed for their discipline, and almost never committed atrocities unless ordered to. The Swedes under Gustav Adolphus were renown for their discipline, though that discipline basically disintegrated after Adolf’s death.
Men like Wallenstein tried to instill a measure of discipline in the men under their command, and mostly succeeded. Men like Tilly let their men run riot, and ultimately paid the price. Westphalia was enacted in part to address what occurred during the Thirty Years War, and to insure as much as possible it never happened again. For the most part the ideals inculcated by Westphalia were upheld.
By the way, if you think we’re in a war now, wait till the liberation of China begins.
Posted by mythusmage on 2007 12 21 at 05:59 AM • permalinkMarkL, Grimmy (where you been sweetie?), frollicking, blogstrop, The Real Jeffs, PeterM and everyone else who contributed so eloquently and poignantly to ooh honey’s education,
I reckon he’s filled three socks by now, so you can probably stop.
He only “comes” by occasionally, but when he does, he usually leaves satisfied.
May I just say, and I believe I’m not alone in this,
you guys are BRILLIANT!!!!
You’ve given me a lot of material to read and I thank you for that.
too bloody true. all islamic terrorists should also be afforded every protection & procedural fairness available to them under the NSW meatpackers’ hygiene act of 1916 when caught engaging in outlawed & treasonous acts both at home & abroad. In fact, it should be the only applicable law. Unless they are found to be lax in the handling & storage of meat, in which case it is void & the law of the high seas should be invoked.
Posted by stahlblume on 2007 12 21 at 06:08 AM • permalink(wronwright stands with hands on hips)
MarkL! Oh geez, have you been debating again? We’ve got 3 helicopters that need waxing and Karl is starting to drum his fingers. When you’re rebutting and asserting, the minions just stand around watching.
Hop to it! And give Ohh Honey Honey, Oo La La, or whatever his name a wax rag too. We’re running behind.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 12 21 at 06:18 AM • permalinkkae:
A whole CD full of music? My oh my, greedy aint yeh?
Pog:
Been buisy doing boring stuff.
All:
Hihi, hello and heyah all y’all. In case I get buisy being bored again and miss out, Merry Christmas and Happy New Years.
Happy Hanukkah too!
PS. I’ll probably be in and out and around and about here and elsewhere between now and then. Just wanted to make sure cause I tend to forget such things sometimes.
O/T Okay, Cincinnati hasn’t had a lot to cheer about when it comes to winning competition. The Reds (baseball) are the Dredds. The Bengals (football) should be renamed the Bungles. And the University of Cincinnati Bearcats suck at every sport imaginable.
But we finally found something we can win on. Choir singing! In your face you other choirs!
Posted by wronwright on 2007 12 21 at 07:06 AM • permalink#103 #116
Ben Ena had it’s uses. I was in the American club in Taipei in the late 80’s and was asked to choose an Australian wine from the list. There were two whites - Ben Ean and a chardonnay. It made my choice so easy. The chardonnay was nice.
Now I have to not drink (matter of survival) so I tried Maison - much prefer Sparkling Apple Juice.
MarkL - thank you for your explanation.
“...people like you…”
Jesus. Me and my straw posse.
“the forces we are now fighting subvert rules, they do not support rules - unless it suits them in a tactical context.”
Yuh. Up with that, brother.
“Remember those many bits of paper floating downwards from the World Trade Centre Towers? That was your rule book.”
Duh. Fully across that too I reckon, even before your blinding insight.
But think through your use of the phrase “rule of law”. It is extended to more than just those who “do the right thing according to blogstrop” and that’s really the key to its utility!
Boy we’ve all saved some time tonight, skipping things I wrote!
We all, me included! violently agree that Hicks should have been shot straight off according to the most conventional view of warfare. For this I am indebted to MarkL’s erudition, hubristic though it was.
But the US did start a process entailing charges and a trial, implicitly acknowledging the necessity of a trial, they then, for reasons of military intelligence, detained without a trial, which is inconsistent, at least with the treatment we would expect ourselves were we were led to believe that we were entitled to defend ourselves at some point against allegations. And the period of detention, at very least gave the left ammunition, used to some effect in bringing down our government, ie making it harder to prosecute this war. Such a little point I tried to make. Which of the many ancilliary comments or assumptions was “wrong” grimmy? No no don’t answer. I’m joking. There were many, you’d have to read them all. Lord knows I should read more!
Good night, and may all our ideas be better forged in the fires of civilised debate on the morrow.Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 21 at 07:14 AM • permalink#132. Play nice, pogs.
#131 OHH, the way I see it, it wasn’t a case of the US as a whole ‘acknowledging the necessity of a trial’.
It was more a case of too many years of lefty influence. Too much Gramsci in the halls of power and academe.
Too many damned bleeding hearts getting in the way of getting the job done properly.
With the biases in media, with the ratbags (being tres polite here) in the ACLU and the like solidifying into resistance against the true American way of life, it would have been difficult for a white boy like Hicks to have been shot out of hand anyway.
Lots of us would have cheered, but we would still have had to put up with the endless posturing from those who would seize on any excuse to weaken us further.
We are in a war, regardless of what our betters in the control rooms like to bombard us with, and we can win it.
We just need the will.
We’ve got all the means, but we need real leaders, not Dear Leaders like Kev and (heaven forbid! Hillary).
Sometimes being nice doesn’t work, and we are living in such a time.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 12 21 at 07:37 AM • permalinkOHH:
There are some issues that are useful and appropriate to debate, some that are not, and some that have been gone over and over and over in an unending cycle.
If you sense impatience or intolerance, consider this…
This issue is brought up many many times here and else where.
This is not a difficult or complex issue except to those who wish to make issues exist where there are none.
It was in an attempt to forestall that expected issue manufacturing that lead to the mixed bag approach.
Yes, Hicks and every other taken as unlawful combatants could have, and by law and tradition, most certainly should have, been summarily executed. The only exception would be for those considered to potentially possess valuable intel. Then a stay of execution would be appropriate until the intel was gleaned.
But, contrary to popular opinion in much of the world, the US is not and it’s people are not overly fond of going the harsh measure unless no other option is present in such situations.
It is a weakness and it is constantly exploited by those who wish us harm.
You keep bring up the concept of defense against allegations as if the rules of civil criminal court have any bearing in this. They do not. His guilt is manifest in his capture as a member of an illegal combatant. There is no allegation to refute.
Now, consider this, if you would.
There is a real motivation behind much of the drive to bring all illegal combatants before civil criminal courts.
That is to gain access to the information surrounding their capture, any intel they may have given up and who has assisted in providing information against them.
This is to give direct aid and comfort to our enemy. One American lawyer has already been arrested, tried and convicted of willingly acting as a conduit to transfer sensitive information forced into disclosure by court order during the trail process of one captured terrorist.
Such disclosures would give our enemy access to the lists of locals who provided any background info, who assisted in gathering or verifying intel or where, in any way, related to developing intel gathered from these illegal combatants. Such persons and their families would pay with their lives. Their deaths would be made public through youtube and other distributors and assistance in our efforts would dry up over night.
The enemy would also receive information of extreme importance related to what has been given up against them, who has been compromised and what needed to be canceled, changed or modified in their operations.
This is known to have already occurred, at least in part, on at least one occasion. This is not theory.
OHH:
One last thing. I ask you to give some thought to what your assertion of the rules of civil criminal court having jurisdiction in such cases places upon our own soldiers.
Do you believe that our soldiers should be trained and tasked to do a proper forensic evidence collection and crime scene investigation in order to produce evidence sufficient for a civil criminal court while engaged in battle?
This would be required of our soldiers if such cases were to be brought before a judge and jury in a court.
#135. Pog, do I have to find a corner for you to stand in?
Give him back his marbles.
Seriously, though, I don’t see anything bad about what OHH is saying. He’s expressed his thoughts, been shot down with copious amounts of
ammunitioninformation, and handled it with good grace.The biggest problem a lot of people have is that they are ignorant about military matters, since that’s an area that’s been nearly expunged from our collective consciousness.
The military world is not the civilian world, nor should it be, but that doesn’t mean that civvies should just blissfully glide through life unaware or uncaring of what we owe to the military or of what constraints they operate under.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 12 21 at 08:20 AM • permalinkI am probably an aberration in this, but I do hold that any man who is able and fits the requirements but does not stand up to the call of arms when his people are at war is the worst kind of parasite possible.
A leach willing to suck up prosperity, safety and freedom made possible by other men’s efforts and sacrifices.
131, ooh honey honey
On a side note, not a shot at you, what do you think the ramifications would be if it became legaly impossible to hold nonpriveliged combatants, which seems to be what many of the squealing moonbat tribe want?
For my 2 bobs worth (and harking back to the 30 years war arguements) it would result in slaughter of people currently caught operating against the allies in ANY form.
What would be the point of limiting civilian casualties because you couldnt detain a suspected fighter operating amongst them?
Why would you provide medical aid to a wounded combatant?
Why not use collective punishment/shooting 100 civilians for every one of yours/and “dissapearances” of suspects?The attempt to grant rights, which by custom have only been given to those meeting a set of guidelines, WILL backfire completely and result in mass slaughter.
Id be interested to see if anyone can come up with a coherent arguement against this assumption of mine.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 12 21 at 09:02 AM • permalinkI can’t see any argument against it, Frollicking, because in my experience, when you’re dealing with someone who ignores the rules, you have to beat them at their own game.
In this case, their game involves the use of human shields, propaganda and indiscriminate slaughter.
They just forget that Westerners are very, very good at indiscriminate slaughter, and we aren’t soft.
We just seem that way.
It’s the rubber band analogy. Stretch it as far as it will go and it will either break or snap back when you least expect it.
Either way hurts like hell.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 12 21 at 09:06 AM • permalinkrhhardin:
Depends on where you build the mountain, doesn’t it?
Make it a coastal range and you create more rain by forcing the heavy wet coastal surface air to higher colder altitudes as it moves inland.
Make it a central range away from the coasts and you just burn a lot of fuel in moving all those mountain parts and pieces.
So, what you guys should do is this. Load up the dredgings on barges. Set the barges to drifting in a current that will take them toward places filled with people you dont like.
Have the barges set with explosives so you can sink them when you choose.Fill in the sea floor along the coasts of bad people places and make them flood before you do once the waters start rising.
You’ll still drown, but you’ll drown with the happy knowledge that they drownded first.
#110, 111
yes it does bear repeating
People can enjoy the rule of law here by simply being citizens and trying to do the right thing. If you stray outside into the big bad world of non-state terrorism, take what comes, but do not start whining about your rights when it turns to custard. Hicks got more consideration than he deserved, and people like you are still complaining.
Remember those many bits of paper floating downwards from the World Trade Centre Towers? That was your rule book.forgive me, i am ever so slowly working my way down this fascinating thread!
#118 said it so well (edited version to fit the screen and time alotted)
MarkL, Grimmy (where you been sweetie?), frollicking, blogstrop, The Real Jeffs, PeterM and everyone else who contributed so eloquently and poignantly to ooh honey’s education,
May I just say, and I believe I’m not alone in this,
you guys are BRILLIANT!!!!You’ve given me a lot of material to read and I thank you for that.
The biggest mistake that the US made was to treat Hicks better than he deserved.
Do we hear anything about those two “Australian” jihadi losers who were killed by Ethiopian forces in Somalia a year back? No.
The US should have extracted what imformation they could, shot the bastard and dumped his body out the back of a cargo plane over the Pamir. We never would have heard a bloody thing about him, or his dumb prick of a father.
More ominous trends in the UK. Not exactly Ian McKellen’s Richard III, but scary, nonetheless. And do follow Blue Crab’s advice and check out the picture of the Community Secretary at his link; looks like Julia Gillard, having encountered a foul smell.
Well done, people! Especially MarkL; that was an excellent synopsis of the history leading up to the development of the Laws Of War (aka “Laws of Armed Conflict”).
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 21 at 10:40 AM • permalink(wronwright checks in and sees that no one has congratulated the fair Queen City for winning the Clash of the Choirs competition. He wonders if the font of his comment is turning up white again. He decides to adjust his computer accordingly).
Damn it.
** smack **
** smack **
Hey, um, I say there. I do wonder who won that choir competition last night. I heard it was a real slugfest. You know, as far as effete singers that prance and strut around while shaking their arses go. Any word yet?
Posted by wronwright on 2007 12 21 at 10:41 AM • permalinkOT (like anyone cares at this point)
mr. hot rod
*giggling*I’m coming to this rather late, but many thanks for an interesting and informative thread. Especially to MarkL, for his description of the history and reasoning behind the rules of warfare.
If I may be the devil’s advocate for a minute, though ... I think OHH has a serious point.
We all acknowledge that Hicks was an illegal combatant. By rights, and under the acknowledged rules of warfare, he could have been and should have been executed as soon as his status was determined. And I think that we’re all agreed, OHH included, that the world would be a better place if Hicks had been killed immediately after his capture.
However, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the US Army was faced with a problem, and with an opportunity. The battlefield execution of an Australian national would present serious political difficulties. Hicks might have had information that could prove useful. And if he could have been turned, and used as an infiltrator into al Qaeda’s upper circles, he could have been an invaluable asset. So, the Army kept him alive, and chose to treat him as something other than an illegal combatant.
Now, the one thing Hicks cannot be is a legal combatant, a PoW. So, if he’s not a PoW, and Army chooses not to treat him as an illegal combatant, then the only thing left is that he’s a criminal. And if I read him correctly, OHH’s point is that if you choose to regard a man as a criminal, then the rules of criminal procedure should be applied to him, impartially. To do otherwise is to debase ourselves.
To give a man the status of a criminal (which, for vermin like Hicks is a definite step upwards in the world), but then to say that, well, he’s really an illegal combatant, so if we bend the rules of criminal jurisprudence in his case, he has no cause for complaint: I’m afraid that doesn’t cut it. Either he’s one or he’s the other: if he’s an illegal combatant, then he’s judged by rule 303; otherwise, he gets his rights read to him, the lawyers, the judges, and the whole nine yards.
At least, that’s my understanding of OHH’s argument. And the guy (gal?) has a point. Now, have I missed something?
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2007 12 21 at 10:50 AM • permalinkWas it a death match competition? Um, well, no, not exactly. It was more like one of those choirs that sing “UP, UP WITH PEOPLE, YOU’RE THE BEST KIND OF PEOPLE WE KNOW”. While strutting around, shaking their arms up and down. You know, the type of choirs the ex-WWII soldiers that became our principals and teachers made us watch in the 1970’s. Only this time there were 5 of them. Trying to out-strut and out-sing each other. Actually it was kind of revolting.
But, hell, a win’s a win. The Reds suck. The Bengals gave up after their second game of the season. We deserve a win.
As far as the tail gate party goes, um, well, no. It was more tea and butter cookies afterwards.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 12 21 at 11:24 AM • permalinkVanessa Redgrave: still an idiot.
One of my favorite recollections is of a news show some 10 or 15 years ago (maybe 60 Minutes), which showed a clip of Vanessa trying to push Trotskyite pamphlets in an East End neighborhood, and some Onslo-type cockney wagging a finger in her face and calling her a “bloody fascist”.
To give a man the status of a criminal (which, for vermin like Hicks is a definite step upwards in the world), but then to say that, well, he’s really an illegal combatant, so if we bend the rules of criminal jurisprudence in his case, he has no cause for complaint: I’m afraid that doesn’t cut it. Either he’s one or he’s the other: if he’s an illegal combatant, then he’s judged by rule 303; otherwise, he gets his rights read to him, the lawyers, the judges, and the whole nine yards.
Urbs, I guess I haven’t made myself clear: I disagree with how Hicks has been treated. I think he should have been shot.
But that’s my opinion. I’m grousing that we, in our bending over backwards to treat these vermin humanely, we handed the lefties and terrorist apologists a means to manipulate the legal system to their advantage.
Clearly, Hicks was not shot. Clearly, he was treated well, and treated as a criminal, not an illegal combatant.
And clearly (IMHO), that was a mistake.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 21 at 11:51 AM • permalinkRe #169, paco, I still remember a news clip of Vanessa, many years ago, dancing with an AK47 in Palestine. Too bad it didn’t go off accidentally.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 21 at 11:53 AM • permalinkI can’t help myself. I just gotta pluck a few ooh honey honey snippets from this thread, right out of context…
#19
“…or indeed community of anonymous, risk-free, gratuitously sniping blog commenters!#36
“I guess I need less impressions, more Blair, less MSM, more synonyms for “none”, less fruity lexia and more smacks to the side of the head. Carry on.#63
“I’m the SAME! I’m IN the club!“Or even better, nail-gunned to a post and made to watch his genitals sawn off and vitamised with phosphoric acid and poured down his Father’s throat so they could both stop stealing my children’s oxygen. See Pogria? JUST LIKE YOU.
#69
“…which I know is hard to grasp when we’re all rilly busy hanging shit on the treacherous jew-hater and counting the “e"s in people’s names.#98
“Thanks again for your very generous “glimmer of potential understanding”.#131
“Duh. Fully across that too I reckon, even before your blinding insight.Is it lens flare in my VRWC night vision goggles or did I just catch a glimpse of the elusive timblair.net stealth troll?
They represented a cross-section of Greater Cincinnnati and Northern Kentucky: teachers, a chili server, a nurse, an employment trainer, cell phone and software salesmen, choir directors and college students.
A chili server? Which chain—Gold Star or Skyline?
Yes, that’s important.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 12 21 at 01:03 PM • permalinkNow, the one thing Hicks cannot be is a legal combatant, a PoW. So, if he’s not a PoW, and Army chooses not to treat him as an illegal combatant, then the only thing left is that he’s a criminal.
No, because while it’s acceptable to immediately execute an unlawful combatant, it is not required. If there is an intelligence or other use to holding onto a UC, you can. The essence is that a UC has no rights whatsoever, because their acts have placed themselves outside the protection of law and morality.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2007 12 21 at 01:08 PM • permalinkRe #175, yeah, paco, Vanessa was terrified of that weapon, demonstrating her general cluelessness of what the world is really like.
Except that I think that show ran more than 10-15 years ago. More like…...20-25? But it was “60 Minutes”, and I clearly recall one part where her “organization” was referred to as “Vanessa’s Loonies”.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 21 at 01:15 PM • permalinkBTW, wronwright…..when is the CD coming out? I might buy a copy.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 21 at 01:16 PM • permalinkRe #177, nicely put, Rob. As MarkL points out, the Laws of War are in place for moral reasons, to try and place some standard of conduct on an activity that is both loathsome and necessary. When people willingly step outside those boundaries, they are no better than animals.
There may be reasons to spare them, but not because those illegal combatants have “rights”. Except (maybe) to a last cigarette.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 21 at 01:19 PM • permalink“The western society is controlled by the Jews with music, TV, houses, cars, free sex takes ....”
Free sex?
Where? Where?!Posted by ThinAndBritish on 2007 12 21 at 01:28 PM • permalinkMaybe the free sex is only for the Jews. The rest of us have to pay - I get it now.
Posted by ThinAndBritish on 2007 12 21 at 01:30 PM • permalinkOops sorry #12. My originality chip temporarily malfunctioned.
Posted by ThinAndBritish on 2007 12 21 at 01:32 PM • permalinkAfter Redgrave’s pro-terrorist acceptance speech:
“[V]eteran screenwriter and Oscar presenter Paddy Chayefsky announced to the audience, “there’s a little matter I’d like to tidy up…at least if I expect to live with myself tomorrow morning. I would like to say that I’m sick and tired of people exploiting the Academy Awards for the propagation of their own personal propaganda. I would like to suggest to Miss Redgrave that her winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation and a simple ‘Thank you’ would have sufficed.” He received thunderous applause.
Ah yes, the new “rules of the game” — which, you might notice, don’t include winning.
Tis a problem EVERYWHERE, whether it pertains to Israel, Dawood, John Walker Lindh (the American Taliban) and the globalist nature of this war of freedom, versus 7th century thinking, vileness and dhimmitude.
The problem of asking questions first, instead of shooting, then asking or answering them.
O/T salute to Diggers overseas at Christmas:
WW2 Aussie Soldiers at Xmas Dinner In Jerusalem
Scroll down—it’s suitable for printing.
Shorpy.com is a great site full of old photography.Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2007 12 21 at 02:29 PM • permalinkRe #184, Redd, I gave up on the Academy Awards decades ago, but that is a CLASSIC moment anywhere! Thanks for reminding us that some people in Hollywood don’t have their head up their a$$.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 12 21 at 02:56 PM • permalinkMy thanks to all of you who have dealt so well with the major debate on this thread.
This old man went to bed last night and slept soundly, assured by the knowledge that there are young folk out there who are aware of reality.
We are at war.
We have the means to win the war.
But, we will lose the war if we give the enemy too much aid and comfort.
Rolling on to your back and exposing your belly will not solve this war.
At #187, Mojo has summed it all beautifully and all three of his points are very important to remember.
While I was a child in the 1930s and 40s, we went very close to losing WWII before it began. We were not watching our arses in the those years. In particular, we were not protecting our arses from the appeasers, pro-enemy media and politicians.
For a refresher on the history of those times I recommend William Manchester’s The Last Lion, Alone, 1932-1940For what it’s worth, there is a collection of the actual Laws of War as collected by the Yale University School of Law. Reading some of these should precede developing a progressive argument on the treatment of persons such Mr Hicks.
The Canadian Forces are willing to allow ‘others’ to read their documents on the Law of Armed ConflictFor OHH, fill your boots ...
Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2007 12 21 at 06:12 PM • permalinkGoood Mor..wha? You’re not still at it are you? Friends. FRIENDS! You’re digging for things much deeper than anything I buried. “Let’s take him out of context” “What would he think of this?” For Christ’s sake I can’t stand this attention!
Let me see if I can tidy this up:
I’m a “he”, from Melbourne not Adelaide, drinks Coronas and Shiraz not FL..hmm more late-comers who won’t take yes for an answer..some actual contributions: 134 Debra, “yes to all” I think, but still we have to let them vote and breed etc, 136 Grimmy all very good points, fine with them. The “intolerance and impatience” I sense is people who want some debates to be over but not others. And while we’re at it Grimmy, what about this “who’s been in the army? Who’s a parasite?” etc. I’m 47, too young for Vietnam, too old for East Timor though I did make enquiries, but so fucking what? Is this a debate or a pissing contest? Is every view held by someone who served valid, and every civilian an idiot? And the parasite view must surely be put into perspective. Not every war is “total war”. In fact the US has never experienced total war. Are you saying every man should sign up to assist with the activity in Iraq? Did Seattle housewives start collecting aluminium pots to assist the invasion of Granada? In principle I’m right there with you and Kipling, but now let’s work on degree. And the freedoms that the (Western) military fights to defend, and for which I am very grateful, include the freedom to be wrong about stuff.
140 is also a good point. I really think we’ve covered the domestic criminal law vs LOAC issue; I’m happy with the outcome; now we need to pat down feathers; and my point that for all the reasons so eloquently set out by some the US did start a process of which speedy trial could reasonably assumed to be part, then failed to proceed, and that this was politically unfortunate, is so arcane and trivial that none of you have had the poor taste to actually address it.
And WTF is a “timblair.net stealth troll”?
I apologise unreservedly for any rudeness to anyone, because as we all know there is no place for sarcasm at TimBlair.net. [doh]
I’ve started reading the report by the US lawyers - don’t go there if you want black and white.
145 Mole, shit no. Or whatever, I agree with your assumption.
There seems to be residual confusion over whether there are rules in warfare or not. “Assymetric warfare” is a subset of warfare. I’m going with “shit happens”.
Paco’s good at writing.
This is a good comment; “To give a man the status of a criminal (which, for vermin like Hicks is a definite step upwards in the world)” and thank you Urbs that was my point.
Vanessa Redgrave is an idiot..wait, not my fault.
I too wish I was getting as much sex as Mulsims think I get.
190 blah blah 193 thank you etc now for Christ’s sake Tim give them another topic before they start eating their young.Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 21 at 07:39 PM • permalink#194, OHH:
My comment at #143 was not aimed at you or anyone else in this place. It was a random thought in reply to the comment above it regarding a general lack of understanding of military issues in the civilian population.
I, myself, am not currently in uniform due to a chain of idiot decisions that lead to my permanent physical disability. So I share the shame of not taking the fight to the enemy.
I did serve in the USMC but that was long ago and during a time of relative peace so it doesn’t really count, according to my reckoning, in credit toward non-parasitism.
And, as I stated at the beginning of that comment, it is not an opinion or belief I expect others to share.
But seriously, that comment was not aimed at you. I had already assumed that you, much like myself, were of an age that fit between the usual emergencies as were, therefore, at least somewhat limited in options.
It is aimed at all those 20 and 30 somethings out there that wander around with their heads up their asses in believing that they’re just too damned important or indispensable or too much self obsessed to get off their asses and get in the fight where they belong, if they are men.
OHH:
and my point that for all the reasons so eloquently set out by some the US did start a process of which speedy trial could reasonably assumed to be part, then failed to proceed, and that this was politically unfortunate, is so arcane and trivial that none of you have had the poor taste to actually address it.
Here’s where I think we have a sticking point in total disagreement.
There was never a place or part in any of the acts or actions by the US that lead in any way to a point where trails in civil criminal courts could/would/or should have been expected or acceptable at all, to any degree.
Just because illegal combatants are taken alive from the battlefield and housed in a secure facility does not mean they are expected to receive the usual due process of civilian law. Not by any measure what so ever.
There are many many valid and valuable reasons to never allow such a thing to occur and absolutely none, other than some silly attempt at appeasing those who demand that war time necessity conform to peace time levels of familiarity.
Soldiers are not law enforcement officers and battlefields are not crime scenes that can be closed off from contamination and investigated. This is not, never has been and never will be a matter for civil criminal courts.
Tribunals and investigations have been conducted and the majority of those taken have been released. Those remaining are known to be a continued danger. Hicks was released because he’s no longer believed to be a real danger.
There are some who seem to assume that everyone apprehended at any place and/or time on any of our battlefields for whatever variety of reasons are sent to Gitmo. I don’t assume you hold that belief, but many do. That is not true. Only those known to be a real and continued danger are held at Gitmo.
In the earliest phase of Afghanistan, Gitmo was the containment facility for all the prisoners taken that the Afghanis were dead set on executing out of hand, but those have been sorted out and all those deemed to be no threat have been released back to their home lands.
I would suggest adding to your reading some time spent searching out al queda training on manipulating the court system.
In concluding, I’ll say that just because an illegal combatant is physically contained in some geographic proximity to a civil criminal court does not imply in any way that such a person is due the usual process of a civil criminal court. Nor does it assume that such a process if even possible for such persons.
#165
Well put.Hicks has been a political problem from the outset - that’s why the Left use him as political football.
As per others’ remarks: sincere thanks to the military folk for their input; the problem is that your masters are pollies, to whom your rules don’t apply (as a technocrat, I sympathise, as I’ve seen politicisation in mine and related areas: ‘AGW’ for one).
This is yet another rehash of an old issue and yours truly is on record re the political slant to this issue (e.g. the bringing of Hicks home smacked of political expediency).
Maybe I’ve been hit with the stupid stick a few times, but I still can’t get my head around why on earth an enemy combatant deserves the same rights and privileges of another state.
For any reason.
Even if the US Government hasn’t officially acknowledged that the jihadis are waging the war that they declared yonks ago, it is still ongoing.
The GWOT is a moronic label but serves a few diplomatic purposes so far, but that won’t last forever.
So why on earth should those is Gitmo be treated so insanely well that they come out educated and overfed?
Why should they be allowed to use the judicial system of the USA while citizens of that country have difficulty accessing it themselves at times, and why on earth are taxpayers assisting in the funding of this remarkable level of comfort?
Like the Taliban and AQ ever afforded their prisoners the same level? It’s not like they’re short of money to pay for it now, is it?
And if there’s free sex around, why can’t I get some and what is it anyway?
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 12 21 at 09:33 PM • permalinkGrimmy, thanks for 196. Not wanting to prolong, really, the comments at 198, the perception was that he would get something like a trial (they gave him a lawyer), and this was used politically. Except on the basis of consistent application of principles, I agree he didn’t deserve one and that there was no reason for him to have one.
Splice, Skeeter, digging way too deep. I am not nor have I ever been anyone else on a comments thread. And I’m sorry about the blah blah comment. I thought “This old man” refered to me not you, otherwise what you said was agreeable. And a brief survey reveals that people do get insulted from time to time around here, but we need not get all muslim about it.Posted by ooh honey honey on 2007 12 21 at 09:44 PM • permalinkWould we have been better off if he had been captured, hauled before an officer and told thusly:
“You are an illegal combatant and are I am therefore ordering you to be shot. However, that order will be delayed so long as you co-operate and provide us with solid information on the enemy. If you are a good boy, and give us lots of good stuff, at the cessation of hostilities, you will be put before a tribunal that may decide to set this order aside.
“If not, the order will be carried out forthwith. Your status in the meantime is an illegal combatant without a properly formed firing squad”.
Posted by mr creosote on 2007 12 21 at 09:45 PM • permalink#201 ...a brief survey reveals that people do get insulted from time to time around here, but we need not get all muslim about it.
Hahahahaha! Well said!
#202. Works for me.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 12 21 at 09:49 PM • permalink# 128 Hi kae. Actually I’ve been here all along, but a poem my Mother used to recite to me kept me from commenting:
If your lips would keep from slips,
Five things observe with care:
Of whom you speak, to whom you speak,
And how and when and where.While I may have bit my lip and eschewed commentary on OOH’s resistant congnition, this thread has proven, personally, very rewarding.
MarkL’s responsa (and those of others too numerous to, well, enumerate) and OOH’s rebuttals (well, the term is here used loosely), have helped me to better understand the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion.
What did I have to offer that was not already served up (and very politely, I hasten to add) on a platter, suitably garnished with concrete examples and direct references?
Maybe you are all just as sick as I and would appreciate a pedantic scholar of dead languages pointing out to the intelligence that we here are priviliged to know as MarkL that his spelling of the Latin gerundive form (or verbal adjective) used to indicate that a noun needs or deserves to be the object of an action was misspelled—not once, but twice!
I thought not.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 12 21 at 09:53 PM • permalink#201 “...we need not get all muslim about it. “
And thusly a phrase is coined.
Wonder if we used it in the real world - would it be defined as hate speech? i can see ire being raised 9and thus people being razed0 all over the palce with thjis one!
Nice work, OHH, and BTW, I could see you were intending no insult to anyone here, just trying to get some understanding of a tortuous issue.
I too add my thanks to those who have explained the military vs criminal aspects of the laws and regs. relating to the GC and its applicability to the Hicks issue.
They have been explained on other threads, but the volume of explanation and dissection on this thread makes it a very handy reference for the future.Posted by carpefraise on 2007 12 21 at 10:40 PM • permalinkUrbs In Horto:
...
If I may be the devil’s advocate for a minute, though ... I think OHH has a serious point.
Comment: Yes, he does have a serious point, but it is a point within the wrong frame of reference. More on that in a sec.
We all acknowledge that Hicks was an illegal combatant. By rights, and under the acknowledged rules of warfare, he could have been and should have been executed as soon as his status was determined. And I think that we’re all agreed, OHH included, that the world would be a better place if Hicks had been killed immediately after his capture.
Comment: Agreed, after, of course, any useful information was gleaned.
However, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the US Army was faced with a problem, and with an opportunity. The battlefield execution of an Australian national would present serious political difficulties. Hicks might have had information that could prove useful. And if he could have been turned, and used as an infiltrator into al Qaeda’s upper circles, he could have been an invaluable asset. So, the Army kept him alive, and chose to treat him as something other than an illegal combatant.
Comment: OK, now let us run this slowly, and think about it. Firstly, I think you are correct, so we will grant your premise that for political reasons, he had to be kept alive (intel collection) and it might be a political problem to shoot him.
here is where we get back to the point of frame of reference. Where was he, and what had he been doing?
- he was in Afghanistan
- he had been an illegal combatant and part of the Taliban.Critical question, has he committed a criminal offence under Australian law. Well, yes. Second question, was he within Australian jurisdiction? Obviously, no.
This answers the question of who should shoot him - the Afghans could shoot him for being an illegal combatant, OR (if he gave up good intel and a deal was struck to treat him as a criminal/PoW INSTEAD of as an illegal combatant) he could be FIRST tried and punished under their law.
Then, when he finishes whatever punishment the Afghans see fit, he gets to come back to Australia (assuming he survives in an Afghan slammer) to face charges here under Australian domestic law, again as a common criminal.Now, the one thing Hicks cannot be is a legal combatant, a PoW. So, if he’s not a PoW, and Army chooses not to treat him as an illegal combatant, then the only thing left is that he’s a criminal. And if I read him correctly, OHH’s point is that if you choose to regard a man as a criminal, then the rules of criminal procedure should be applied to him, impartially. To do otherwise is to debase ourselves.
Comment: Agreed, he cannot be a PoW. If not treated as an illegal combatant should be (let us assume he has sung like a canary, gave valuable intel, and the Afghans as part of the deal granted him criminal status), then yes, I agree. After serving his Afghan sentence (assuming it was not death and also assuming he survived), then he has been formally elevated to the status of a criminal and should be so treated.
But he can be regarded as equivalent to a PIRATE and to be so treated: that is, in a special category of criminal indeed, that of the common criminal enemy of all men. This has the advantage of being a special class of criminal with a vast amount of legal precedent.end Pt 1
To give a man the status of a criminal (which, for vermin like Hicks is a definite step upwards in the world), but then to say that, well, he’s really an illegal combatant, so if we bend the rules of criminal jurisprudence in his case, he has no cause for complaint: I’m afraid that doesn’t cut it. Either he’s one or he’s the other: if he’s an illegal combatant, then he’s judged by rule 303; otherwise, he gets his rights read to him, the lawyers, the judges, and the whole nine yards.
Comment: And this is the reason I took time and made the effort to try and explain things to OHH. Hicks has to be categorised. It he has no value on capture, he should have been shot out of hand. If assigned a value, then he has something to bargain with and we should keep the bargain is he keeps his part. So if he squeals to save his hide, he might get elevated to criminal status as above, or even to PoW status if actual good results flowed from his info. Rewarding those who betray their own side is a valid tactic, and one of the suite of tools that won The Malayan Emergency for us. For example, the Communist Terrorist leader Fatty Goh was murdered by his own bodyguards. They (wanted CT’s themselves with blood on their hands) fronted to a police station with Goh’s head famously in a sack. They got a pardon, the huge monetary reward, new papers, new names, and a start in a business in another part of Malaya.
Fantasticly effective tactics and very cheap. With Goh’s death, the whole insurgency in that province collapsed.
So yes, there is a point. But notice how BOTH my suggestion above and what was done with Goh’s bodyguards meant actually deciding on the frame of reference, and formally moving between them as a the result of a policy decision?
For example, if, as Hicks was being dragged off to be shot, he offered to betray all his koranimal taliban mates. let us then say that as a result of this, a talib cell and a dozen talibs wind up dead. Cool, I have no problem with rewarding him by shipping him back to Oz, staying all charges against him, and giving him a hundred $K. Why? Because he just changed sides and he can never go back. (Obviously, we ADVERTISE his good fortune in Afstan to try and get more cheap wins like that.)
But again, notice the DECISION made as to how to treat him. That is the problem here, the US is NOT making those decisions as the British and Malays under Bernard Templer did in the Emergency.At least, that’s my understanding of OHH’s argument. And the guy (gal?) has a point. Now, have I missed something?
No, good point.
MarkL
canberra#194
Late back, however I must comment after reading this:etc. I’m 47, too young for Vietnam, too old for East Timor though I did make enquiries, but so fucking what?
If you have no familiarity with the military that might be why you don’t have a clue about military law and other matters pertinent to your, er, “point of view’ which shows a blind inability to “get it” with all the explanations you have been given here.
I think the whys of Hicks and others’ incarceration in Gitmo and hows of their trials have been more than covered by Mark L, frollicking and others here.
And after reading this:
There seems to be residual confusion over whether there are rules in warfare or not.
You are the only one here who seems confused about the rules in warfare or not question.
It’s been explained to you very, very well and you still ‘don’t get it’.
#206 Mentalfloss
Mate, sorry to hear that you are ill. Nothing threatening to you in the long term, I hope.
The one regret I have from my school education was that the neocommie swine in the NSW education system took Latin out of the curriculum the year I got to High School. I was actually looking forward to it very much.
So a pleasure reserved for my retirement is learning that estimable language. There is a LOT I wish to read in original Latin.
So pray explain the error?
MarkL
canberraI think part of our problem is how unprepared everyone was for warfare in this form.
I haven’t done any military stuff since 1991, but up until then, most of our training revolved around refighting the Vietnam war. Things changed in around 1990 and we moved to training to fight what I’d call a “small war” in northern Australia.
All that training involved fighting against an enemy that was clearly modelled on the Viet Cong. Even when training to fight in the Pilbara, the enemy were dressed in black pyjamas and conical hats. “Luke the gook” was our model enemy, regardless of the location of the battlefield.
In all my time running around the scrub, we only spent about an hour on how to treat prisoners. Most of that was spent on how to search them without being shot or blown up. I think we spent about as much time, if not more, on how to clear and search enemy dead.
The thing is, Luke the gook was always a clearly defined enemy. He wore a uniform, carried arms openly, wore webbing and had a clear command structure (the training always concentrated on searching live and dead enemy for stuff of intelligence value that would reveal the structure of the enemy). It was assumed that tucked away somewhere, the enemy had an organisation chart drawn up in Powerpoint, with clearly defined ranks, pay grades, retirement benefits and the like.
Even though Luke the gook was not a westerner, and was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, he fought without straying much outside the conventions of warfare as we knew it.
The idea of fighting someone that was not “part of the war fighting system” was as difficult an idea to conceptualise as explaining how an iPod works to a tribe in PNG that had never been contacted before. It was information that the western mindset was unable to assimalate. Watching a westerner trying to come to terms with the way the goat fuckers fight is like trying to watch a Dalek climb stairs. The idea of capturing someone who was not a clearly defined combatant was also something that would have blown fuses in the brains of our trainers.
I find it quite easy to understand how we ended up in this pickle. I bet when Dawood was caught, the question that went up the chain of command was, “What the fuck do with this clown?”
And nobody had an answer, because the old NCO’s with the requisite experience of these things retired 30 years ago, and no one had a clue what to do. The collective memory of what to do with these turds that suddenly surfaced in the neatly organised military fishbowl had faded to dust.
Posted by mr creosote on 2007 12 22 at 12:00 AM • permalinkApologies to Sir Cliff
We’re all going on a jihad holiday
No more Christians and no more Jews
Bombs and mortars on a jihad holiday
Lots of virgins for me and you
Once we’ve gone kabloohWe’re going where the women are covered
We’re going where they don’t drink wine
We’ve seen it on the newsreels
It all looks mighty fineEvery brother has a jihad holiday
Blowing up things they’ve always wanted to
We’re all going on a jihad holiday
To reach our paradise true#224 okay Grimmy.
I have my eyes shut, and I’m whispering very quietly, but I can’t stop this trembling.
I read irobot’s song and I’m trying not to laugh, I’m trying really hard, bbbut it’s ttt ttoo hard, I’m going to have to *gasp* *wheeze* *snort* *cough*,no, no, no,
BWAHAHAHAH mwahahahaha Oh God help me! hahahaha hehehehe ooooooooohhhhhhhhhh, that felt good.
#208 - Hello Grimmy - Still in Oz - Lots more titanium and bags of screws but surgery successful. However a large wound in my left leg, [where bone was harvested for grafting], became infected with some operating theatre bug. Been 6 months and I’m still having problems.
On the bright side, after being isolated from a computer for many weeks, I have finally caught up on all threads and feel at home here once again.
Thanks for your thoughts mate. Much appreciated.
185600:
Merry Christmas and Happy Happy Joy Joy day to you too yeh barbarian type furrin devil.
Oh, this might interest you. It has been decided by the conquest committee that the proper and approved accent for good guy furrin devils will be the same as that Welsh chick on Torchwood.
Bad guy furrin devils will need to adhere to the standard “Boris and Natasha” accents as demonstrated in Rocky and Bullwinkle.
#231 - Hi Kae - No my dear - In Newcastle - not far from MareeS - my old mum is still here [93 and going strong]so I’ll stay close to her until I’m well and head back up North.
#232 - bloody thing spread all over my body - not much fun - but seems to be under control - back on the front line soon mate.
For a change Im on topic.
Found this over at the blackfive site. Its a trial establishing wether a bloke is an POW or an unlawful combatant. No resolution yet but it gives you an idea of what the US is attempting to do.
Here.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 12 22 at 03:15 AM • permalink[LEVEL 3 PEDANT ALERT]
#213 MarkL, with the greatest respect—and I do mean the greatest respect—a gerundive is a form of a Latin verb (a verbal adjective—to be precise), usually ending in -ndus or -nda or -ndum permitting the verb to function as an adjective meaning `that should or must be done’.
For example, Cato might enter the Senate with a list of things “to be done” —his agenda, (or if only one thing, his agendum)—both gerundive constructs of the verb agere “to act, make, do”; from which English derives the verb “act” and the noun “action”.
An item on his agenda might be “Carthago delenda est”, with delenda being the gerundive form of the transitive verb delete ([LEVEL 5 PEDANT ALERT]from the Latin deletus, past participle of delere “destroy, blot out, efface,” in turn from delevi, originally perfect tense of delinere “to daub, erase by smudging,” from de- “from, away” + linere “to smear, wipe.”)[END LEVEL 5 PEDANT ALERT]
Indeed, before the Senate’s Session is closed, his agendum of “Carthago delenda est” might be subject to the principle or practice of referring measures proposed or passed by a legislative body to the vote of the electorate for approval or rejection—that is to say, a “referendum”.Then, Cato can go home to his wife “Amanda”, if he has one (the provenance of whose name should now require no further explanation from me).
[LEVEL 3 PEDANT ALERT]
MarkL, after all this, the only mistake YOU made was to leave out the “n” in “delenda”—and as for myself, I need a life, eh what?
Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 12 22 at 03:43 AM • permalinkKae, Grimmy, MarkL and others—thank you for your good wishes.
Bone marrow still leaking from thoracic spine(T11), ketamine therapy on hold until mid-January, surgery not an option, still on high doses of Morphine (slow release) and Codeine, with Valium to stop me spasming like a Garrett on a Traceee.
It’s remarkable I can think at all under the circumstances.
I guess I have my misspent youth of pharmacological experimentation circa 1965 - 1980 to thank for my resilience.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 12 22 at 04:00 AM • permalinkAgree with Pogs and Kae, and Mental, you owe me a new keyboard thanks to your imagery.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 12 22 at 04:19 AM • permalinkThank you, Pogria. My closest friends are here, and I am very happy to count another among them.
In the real world I would stand up and take your hand briefly, this being the first time I have addressed you directly.
But my Mum’s not here, so I’ll just say: “Pleased to make your e-cquaintance!”
Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 12 22 at 04:19 AM • permalinkOK, I’m stumped.
It’s not Provençal—definitely not Crimean Gothic. I’ve checked every cognate and radical from Rig-Veda through Proto-Celtic to Slavic inherited Tocharian B!
What the hell does “Pogria” mean?
Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 12 22 at 05:17 AM • permalinkWait, remove the vowels and there are obscure references in Ugaritic that converge to establish the general range of meaning for pgr in an offertory context, a meal or grain offering…
Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 12 22 at 05:25 AM • permalink
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
For someone who blathered on a lot about wanting to be martyred, he sure changed his tune when he started getting proper meals in Gitmo.
And I thought ‘treat em mean, keep em keen’ was applicable only to dating and courtship rituals.
Silly me!