Free in 2008

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on August 6th, 2017 at 06:42 am

David Hicks will only serve nine months:

Hicks, 31, who has spent five years at Guantanamo Bay, was sentenced by a U.S. military commission on Friday to seven years in jail after pleading guilty to helping al Qaeda fight American troops and their allies during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

However, the commission suspended six years and three month of the sentence, meaning Hicks will serve just nine months in an Australian prison.

Kevin Rudd, previously evasive on the subject, now has an opinion:

A Labor government would honour the sentence imposed on David Hicks and keep him in an Australian jail for his full nine-month term, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said today …

“We are no defenders of Mr Hicks, we are no defenders of what he has done or what he is alleged to have done. We are a defender of his legal rights and human rights,’’ he said.

Speaking of Rudd, the SMH’s Alan Ramsey is unimpressed by his recent Latham-like antics.

Posted by Tim B. on 03/30/2007 at 11:22 PM
    1. “Both the Government and the alternative government……..”

      Mmmm, I know it’s Saturday but is that a reason for News Ltd to copy Krudd’s media release word for word?

      Posted by Hobbes on 2007 03 30 at 11:39 PM • permalink


    1. If you’re stuck in a room with KRudd and a snake, kill KRudd first …

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 03 30 at 11:44 PM • permalink


    1. Okay.  NOW I’m with the idiots in saying that the commission is nothing but a farce and the whole process is illegitimate.

      Posted by saltydog on 2007 03 30 at 11:45 PM • permalink


    1. #3
      That’s why egg_ bet less than 5 to serve …

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 03 30 at 11:47 PM • permalink


    1. Nine months.
      What a bloody joke.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2007 03 30 at 11:49 PM • permalink


    1. an example of Blair’s Law sighted.

      Hicks appeared well dressed and with his hair cut short for his sentencing.

      Peter Mitchell reports from Guantanamo Bay:

      Hicks appearance ‘modelled on Gore’

      Today, for one of the most important days of his life, Hicks looked a different man.

      His shaggy hair was neatly cut, with a parting on the right side giving him more the appearance of a choir boy.

      One media observer suggested the haircut was modelled on that of former US vice president turned environmental crusader Al Gore.

      Hicks’s prison outfit was replaced by the charcoal suit he first wore at a court appearance in 2004, although the extra weight he has stacked on from his three meals a day during five years at Guantanamo had it stretching at the seams.

      Under the suit he wore a white business shirt and a purple tie, finished off with a pair of designer shoes.

      The former al-Qaeda foot soldier could have passed for a business executive.

      Hicks, a Muslim convert who later renounced Islam, looks lightly tanned and contrary to past suggestions by his lawyers, his eyes aren’t sunken.

      It’s likely he has been using his allotted two hours a day recreation in outdoor cages at the prison to catch some Caribbean rays.

      With today’s nine month jail sentence, Hicks will be free to sunbake in Australia at New Year.

      Posted by C.L. on 2007 03 30 at 11:52 PM • permalink


    1. Someone on the judges bench is trying to fix a win on the “catch and release” pool for Hicks.

      If a judge picked a high number of times that Hicks will be caught and released before the GWoT officially ends, then the hold times after catch need to be kept short.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 30 at 11:54 PM • permalink


    1. 9 months is light, but how much has he spilled his guts ?
      The bloke will be a major idiot lure for the rest of his life. Im pretty sure his phone line by itself will keep an ASIO department busy.
      Hes probably an intelligence agencies dream. A “honey trap” too stupid to see hes being used as a permenant lure.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 03 30 at 11:55 PM • permalink


    1. Once he gets out, where’s he going to find friends? Besides in the offices of your newspapers and TV networks.

      Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 03 31 at 12:15 AM • permalink


    1. No doubt the media are already scrambling for exclusives and waving blank cheques under his nose.
      I now ask just one thing of y’all.
      You must vow to not spend a single cent on print media featuring his “story”, nor watch any TV channel that transmits or promotes it.

      Posted by Skeeter on 2007 03 31 at 12:20 AM • permalink


    1. Do any members of the commissioners have friends in the Pakistani bookmakers fraternity?

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2007 03 31 at 12:39 AM • permalink


    1. Do any of the commissioners…

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2007 03 31 at 12:39 AM • permalink


    1. 9 months, just after the next election. How convenient. WTF does this all mean?

      Posted by mad doc on 2007 03 31 at 12:58 AM • permalink


    1. more wtf than hicks is the ramsay story on krudd – what’s piers akerman doing letting him in the house?

      Posted by KK on 2007 03 31 at 01:13 AM • permalink


    1. KK
      Alan Ramsay hates KRudd? Wtf??

      Posted by mad doc on 2007 03 31 at 01:34 AM • permalink


    1. Just for a bit of context concerning how well the scum in Gitmo are fed:

      Thinner troops prompt military to beef up MREs

      “The standard Meal, Ready to Eat [MRE] does not provide adequate nutrition for dismounted operations in this type of terrain,” Moore wrote in his report. “Many Marines and soldiers lost 20 to 40 pounds of bodyweight during their deployment. At least one soldier was evacuated due to malnutrition and a 60-pound weight loss.”

      The article has more and puts this into better context than just that quote.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 31 at 01:45 AM • permalink


    1. mad doc,
      AR hates JWH lots more than he hates KR. Still, having flogged Kevvie’s behaviour, it’s refreshing that he now seems to be embracing an ambidextrous political view.

      Posted by mareeS on 2007 03 31 at 01:48 AM • permalink


    1. When 60 minutes (Australia) paid the last gitmo releasee for an interview, I emailed them saying I am boycotting their channel. I still won’t watch 60 minutes under any circumstances.

      I suggest you all do the same, if there is a whiff of a payment by any media outlet.

      Posted by phil_b on 2007 03 31 at 01:53 AM • permalink


    1. Is it too much to ask for the feds and a representative from the Indian high commission with an extradition order to be waiting for him when he leaves Yatala?

      Posted by lotocoti on 2007 03 31 at 02:04 AM • permalink


    1. Everyone got the memo right?

      When the aircraft carrying Dawood crashes in transit and all are saved, but Dawood and his lawyers, that was an accident.

      Dont let the idjits turn your head with silly alligations of conspiracy and cover up.

      Also, remember to keep track of the alligators names.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2007 03 31 at 02:21 AM • permalink


    1. Listening to Sydney radio this morning I learnt from Macquarie National News that after New Year David Hicks will be able to resume his “passion for fishing.” Would that be with rod and reel or stick of gelignite? Although I think he’d be a catch and release man.

      Posted by Softly on 2007 03 31 at 02:43 AM • permalink


    1. #19
      So that Mahatma can shoot his fatwa lil’ ass …

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 03 31 at 02:53 AM • permalink


    1. Im dissapointed in my fellow RWDB’s. I let it go for a while waiting for someone of greater wit than me to point it out and get zip.
      Hicks gets 9 months banged up and no-one wants to know “whos the daddy”?
      (My bet is bubba in cell 4, by a short nose to make Hicks his meat puppet)

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 03 31 at 03:06 AM • permalink


    1. #10 – Under the plea bargain, any profits he makes go to the government.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2007 03 31 at 03:07 AM • permalink


    1. At first I was annoyed when I thought about the length of his sentence. But he is going to testify against other terrorists and we don’t know what information he has, but I imagine the sentence reflects the value of that information. I doubt he will get back in with terror groups (I doubt they would welcome a rat) and he has already served five years.

      Also, if the goal was simply to prevent him from returning to the battlefield, then they have been successful.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2007 03 31 at 03:17 AM • permalink


    1. Also, Kevin Rudd responds to Ramsey.

      Posted by Ian Deans on 2007 03 31 at 03:20 AM • permalink


    1. #26
      So, Kevvie, what is it?
      You were taken out of context? (Along with your henchmen spokes-people?)
      The newspaper people were lying?

      C’mon, what is it Kevvie?

      Posted by kae on 2007 03 31 at 03:39 AM • permalink


    1. #24 Ian. That will be any profits we know about.
      But you are right. It has been reported that he has agreed to not publish anything before some time (12 months?) has expired, pass all payments over to the Australian government and not sue the US government.
      In any case, none of my money will be going to the media for onward transmission to Dawood or the government.
      A lot has been written and said about the plea bargaining. But I saw and heard prosecuting officer Colonel Moe Davis claim that there had been no plea bargaining leading up to Dawood’s guilty plea.
      My understanding is that the US plea bargaining system is a prolonged process involving offers and counter-offers.
      Dawood initially pleaded not guilty and shortly after that he changed his plea to guilty. It would seem therefore that any plea bargaining must have occurred between his two pleas.
      Does anybody out there know what really happened?

      Posted by Skeeter on 2007 03 31 at 03:45 AM • permalink


    1. I know what happened to Hicks. Alexander Downer rocked up and told Hicks that if he gets off, Downer would personally drive him to the Lakemba mosque, drop him off, and say “Thanks for all your help, Dave” before driving off.

      So Hicks thought pleading guilt and copping some more prison time was the safer option.

      Posted by Young and Free on 2007 03 31 at 04:04 AM • permalink


    1. #17
      AFAIK the national press gallery in Canberra are a close-knit bunch and close to the pollies; maybe the lil’ skunk and his henchmen have overstepped the mark of decorum in the nature of their threats and it has done the rounds?

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 03 31 at 04:23 AM • permalink


    1. #27
      Kruddy and his staff prepared to table their phone records …?

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 03 31 at 04:28 AM • permalink


    1. #23 tfm
      The thought occurred here, too.
      Had some lame jokes about his weight gain due to chowing down on some thick sheikhs …

      Posted by egg_ on 2007 03 31 at 04:35 AM • permalink


    1. This is a good result for the lefties.
      Are they now going to admit their error in claiming that the US military tribunal cannot deliver justice?

      Hicks won’t be testifying against anybody once he’s safely home in Oz.

      His father will negotiate the imminent book deal and the movie soon after.

      All in all a spectacular triumph for the Dave & Terry team.

      Posted by Observer on 2007 03 31 at 05:15 AM • permalink


    1. Flashback to how the last “big” American war was lost.
      Even the head tilts are the same!

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 03 31 at 05:24 AM • permalink


    1. Rudd has longstanding form as a censor. As principal private secretary (aka Dr Death) to QLD Labor Premier Wayne Goss he must have been, at the very least, privy to the shameful and illegal shredding of the Heiner Inquiry records into child sexual abuse at a state-run detention centre. Hollingworth was hounded out of office for far less.

      Posted by Hobbes on 2007 03 31 at 05:28 AM • permalink


    1. RE: Ramsay piece:

      Never knew Dulhunty had it in him but there you go. Great effort to stand up to Rudd and his henchmen. Better still, I think I am detecting a bit of back-draught when it comes to Rudd.

      Got the impression that the left saw Krudd as the great saviour whose coming, as foretold in the dreamtime, would banish the evil Howard, global warming and employers from mother earth and bring boundless joy, gay sex and prosperity to Australia for a millennia. Now Ramsay comes out and says Krudd is a actually as nasty little prick who has surrounded himself with bully-boys.

      Maybe he is getting in early. The left stayed with Latham right up to when he was locked in a rubber room.

      Posted by Contrail on 2007 03 31 at 07:07 AM • permalink


    1. Hicks, 31, who has spent five years at Guantanamo Bay, was sentenced by a U.S. military commission on Friday to seven years in jail after pleading guilty to helping al Qaeda fight American troops and their allies during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

      However, the commission suspended six years and three month of the sentence, meaning Hicks will serve just nine months in an Australian prison.

      Hicks must arrive in Australia before May 29.

      Yes I know. Sure. I agree. I feel your disgust. I share it.

      But let’s not be blinded to the sublime by the fog of the absurd and poor light. For example on the Hickslotto thread comment 16:

      He will not get anything like what Lindh managed to bargain for. Afterall Hicks is not an American and therefore was lucky enough to go to Guantanamo Bay rather than cop the full force of the law the US reserves for its own citizens.

      My guess is he will get three to five at most, will be in Adelaide by June and out by Christmas.

      The fat prick might even walk.

      And while I’m about it. What is this game? Hickslotto? Or Hicksbingo?

      Sheesh …

      Posted by geoff on 2007 03 31 at 07:40 AM • permalink


    1. I think ole Mo Daewoo will be spending a long time looking over his shoulder.

      The aussies don’t trust him, nor will the muslims. After all, he’s admitted his guilt and is going to sing.

      That won’t go down well – it’s islam uber alles, after all.

      I’m predicting he might need to prevent an attack of Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

      Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 03 31 at 08:14 AM • permalink


    1. Maybe the Indian government has some charges for him

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 03 31 at 08:59 AM • permalink


    1. #16.  Ha.  When I was a skinny little grunt, just a simple two week exercise was enough for me to have to pull the belt in a few notches.  I used to eat everything in the rat pack, bar the packaging.  That meant sucking out all the contents of the condensed milk tube (bleah), eating all the sugar saches, scooping out the jam tins with a finger – you name it.  I even ate the plastic cheese which came in a tin, and that took some doing.

      You know you are really hungry when you eat an entire tin of vegemite (albeit a small tin) on its own.  Dip finger into tin, lick finger.  Repeat.

      It wasn’t that the packs lacked energy – they were stuffed with it.  It’s just that I have never worked harder in my life than when I was a chocko footslogger.

      Posted by mr creosote on 2007 03 31 at 09:04 AM • permalink


    1. What I find interesting is that Hicks has more support than Mamdouh, even though the case against the former was more clear cut. Is it becoz he is white?

      Posted by Andjam on 2007 03 31 at 09:27 AM • permalink


    1. Australia may have it’s new mufti.

      Posted by Srekwah on 2007 03 31 at 02:37 PM • permalink


    1. The Democrats are already finding ways to spend the money we will save on food by pawning “Bottomless Dave Hicks, Trencherman to the Jihad” off on you guys.

      Posted by moptop on 2007 03 31 at 10:55 PM • permalink


    1. “even though the case against the former was more clear cut.”

      The case against Hicks was not “clear cut”. Ha ha ha ha ah!

      Good one.

      Posted by moptop on 2007 03 31 at 10:58 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.