Free Davo!
 Free indeed. They couldn’t even give him away |
There’s something in the US constitution about your right to a speedy trial. I know this because they keep referring to it on American TV. So one would have thought that five years languishing in a cell block with no-one but a bunch of Muslim terrorists for company would be stretching the reasonable limits of judicial interpretation. .. not to mention that bit about cruel and usual punishments.
Unless you were a Muslim terrorist, of course. Then it might be the ideal company. Exchange a few Allah Akbars with your buddies, compare stories of the glory days mutilating girl’s genitals and blowing up the kaffir, and anticipating the 72 virgins waiting to accommodate your every fetish in the afterlife.
However, in spite of these small compensations, it seems that ratbag South Australian David (Davo) Hicks would like to leave. He’s been sitting around for five years while the US administration works out what to do with him and several hundred of his colleagues, who got caught up in a big broom which went through Afghanistan after some little misunderstanding in which some Muslims flew their aircraft dangerously close to some large buildings.
But no speedy trial for Davo. It seems that he isn’t entitled to the protections of the US constitution, being, like, technically in Cuba and all. Australia dumps her unwanted human garbage on busted-arsed Pacific islands like Nauru. The US dumps her unwanted human garbage on a busted arsed island like Cuba. Not on US soil therefore not protected by the constitution. Obviously.
Of course before taking angrily to the streets with pitchforks and Marxist slogans, The Left might like to consider that this is not actually unlike the Indonesian move which refused the Bali Nine constitutional rights on the basis that they were not Indonesian – even though they were on Indonesian soil. The US is not alone in her judicial interpretations of convenience.
Of course it’s all John Howard’s fault. It always is. And in this case Little Johnny has done something he doesn’t do that often: he has made a serious error in judging the public mood. David Hicks might be a Islamofacist psychotic homicidal terrorist, but he’s our Islamofacist psychotic homicidal terrorist. And don’t you forget it, Johnny.
Then again of course he might just be very stupid. He wouldn’t be the only Islamicist who was a few murders short of a jihad in the brains department. There are enough failed shoe and rucksack bombers to attest to that.
Either way, public opinion has swung relatively quickly from the ‘No hurry, Dubya‘ to ‘charge him or let him go, Yank‘. It’s finally occurred to people that spending five years in a cell without even being charged violates every notion of justice imaginable. The public might be in love with the concept of big government, but they still don’t trust it. Giving that kind of power to the average politician is a bit like leaving your bottom with Bob Brown over the weekend. And Little Johnny didn’t see it coming. Now he’s running around trying to backdate and exaggerate the demands he made of Dubya when they have discussed the issue.
Bad call Johnny. No Cuban cigar.
Part of the problem for the Americans, though, has been working out what to actually charge Davo with.
Going fighting in foreign wars might be a pretty stupid thing to do, but it’s not clear that it’s a crime. Fighting in a foreign army might make it legal to strip someone of their citizenship, but is it actually a crime? And it’s not like Davo was ever actually a US citizen, so that doesn’t really apply. What’s the problem with citizens of a free country going to fight in foreign wars if they consider the cause to be just?
For a while the Americans looked like trying to charge Davo with ‘Being an Enemy Combatant‘. What the .. ? Wouldn’t that make every German or Japanese soldier in WWII a criminal? Get a life, Dubya.
They now have settled on a complex set of charges which have been introduced into the US military code specifically for the Guantanamo detainees, whose description is so convoluted as to be almost unmemorizable.
The public has a right to be suspicious of charges with complex descriptions. Charges like ‘murder‘, ‘rape‘, ‘theft‘ and ‘assault, are easy to understand, and have a close association with a notion of natural justice. A charge like ‘feeding a red and pink lubricated goat with a mobile phone under a full moon on the second Thursday of the month’ is simply a fabrication designed to get a result. Why couldn’t they charge him with something simple? If he is guilty of murder, theft, assault, rape or theft then charge with these things. Please.
Regardless, the whole War on Terror is going pear shaped. The Left have seen the opportunity to embarrass Little Johnny, and boy are they going to. They would have liked a better poster-boy than a Muslim ratbag, but they’ve worshiped the likes of Mao, Stalin, Kim and Castro in the past. Davo is looking pretty clean cut compared to the company they normally keep. Especially now that that the Hicks Groupies are using Davo’s primary school photo to convince us all that he is really a child in detention. Guys, every Islamofacist psychotic homicidal terrorist started life as an adorable milk-drinking guiltless child – what’s your point?
Truth and reason be damned, Bring David Hicks Home is going to be the humanitarian slogan of The Left up to the next federal election.
One piece of advice to The Left though – be careful what you ask for – you might get it. After all, do you really want that lunatic back here? At the risk of stealing one your slogans: Think of the children!
38 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
Jimmy on Should pepper spray remain… 
Nemesis12 on Where is Abbott on Internet… 
Greego on Discussion 
Shem Bennett on Happy Days!! 
'Nuke' Gray on Discussion One nation under (Oh… on Mea culpa 
Danny on Discussion 
P.M.Lawrence on Another look at anarchy 
Leslie Fish on Another look at anarchy 
henrylow on The British Libertarian P… 'Nuke' Gray on Another look at anarchy P.M.Lawrence on Another look at anarchy 'Nuke' Gray on Another look at anarchy 
Alex P on Why You Should Be Happy This… Leslie Fish on Another look at anarchy
LINKS
Featured Book
Stats
ALS elsewhere
To a certain extent, Hicks is simply a POW. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have not signed an armistice, so there is a reasonable threat that any captured soldier for their cause may reasonably be suspected of returning to the battlefield to take up arms. We didn’t let captured Japanese troops walk free around Sydney during WWII just because they hadn’t actually killed anyone. If America had simply recognised the Taliban under the Geneva convention, it would be easy for them to continue to hold the Gitmo prisoners indefinitely without needing to resort to convoluted military tribunals.
But the US didn’t, and still haven’t. Someone’s actions don’t become defensible just because
they could have done something else.
The US have made a mess of this.
I agree with the Left.
Bring David Hicks Home !! …
and charge him with treason.
But the US didn’t, and still haven’t. Someone’s actions don’t become defensible just because they could have done something else.
Of course, but the US is going to cop a lot of flack no matter what they do. What’s the lesser evil for them now (assuming that they really want to keep these guys in custody)? To retrospectively recognise the Taliban under the Geneva Convention, or make up a whole pile of convoluted crimes under a military tribunal.
The state isn’t even competent at conducting warfare and state fare, two of the activities that I can see a justifiable role for them. I’m not sure that John Howard is going to be dramatically adversely affected in the polls though just because the SMH are getting their knickers in a twist.
Jason – bring him home and charge him with anything. That’s the whole point.
Jason
He can’t be tried for treason under Oz laws because he didn’t commit treason under the law, or at least it would be very difficuult to prove.
In any event it took SCOTUS three years to figure out what to do with these bastards. The US caught him, we didn’t. He seems to be getting his day in court now though. It’s like a long remand for the bastard.
Actually I take it back. Here’s a thought. Get him back and plonk him in the Fairfax boardroom. Or demand that before he comes back Fairfax has to offer him a job in a senior capacity.
Yes bring back davo for Fairfax’s sake.
“Bring David Hicks Home is going to be the humanitarian slogan of The Left up to the next federal election.”
What happened to the children overboard for this years slogan. I always thought it had a catchy ring to it.
Strawmans article seems to have done a good job of covering all the angles on this issue. If they can’t get the trial together then I say bring Davo home.
Where can I get myself photographed with one of them guns. The media might want a copy if I ever get detained.
Not bad, except that an enemy combatant as used by the US military is very different from an enemy soldier in uniform, and I quote from Wikipedia (I know it’s not definitive, but it was the first place that gave me the quote I wanted) :
“In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin the court uses the terms with their historical meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:
Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”
Seems like since he wasn’t wearing Al Quaeda dogtags or had an Al Quaeda paybook, and not wearing the uniform, they have decided to treat him and his mates differently – sort of like what happened to Skorzeny’s men in Operation Greif.
“Get him back and plonk him in the Fairfax boardroom.”
Now come on. I’d love to see the guy hang, but making him work for Fairfax is simply inhumane.
If it was as simple as charging him with treason then they would have done it already. But Hicks can’t be charged with treason for going into combat against Afghani or American troops. Only Australian (or possibly other commonwealth) troops.
I think the Septics should give Dawood back to the Afghans. Let them work it out.
BTW, what is it with the BDLS (Brain Dead Leftist Scum) that they continually disrespect Mohammed Dawood by refusing to use his chosen name? Dawood must be SOOOOOO insulted by being called by the name he acquired in the corrupt, Zionist-controlled, West.
Y’know, when you look at the ‘values’ espoused by the BDLS, it’s no wonder the terrorists want them dead.
All erudite stuff team.
As far as I know, Hicks didn’t fight against Americans either. He was helping the Taliban fight against the Northern Alliance.
I have no particular problem with the Taliban & Northern Alliance killing each other — it’s like “freddy v jason” or “alien v preditor”. The Taliban is a shade worse but we’re talking about two backward barbarian groups.
I don’t think it a philosophical arguement that results in him being detained. I think it is the law that is being applied. U.S. Constitution has Article 3 law (normal jurisprudence) and Article 1 law. Generally terrorist are deemed enemy combantants and are held indefinatey thus it’s under Article 1 that they are detained. Becuase they’re simply detained to keep them off the battle field (as were POW’s in previous wars) and it’s non-punative detainment Article 3 law doesn’t apply. That actually matches the traditional way it’s been done in U.S. history. Full disclosure…I’m not a lawyer I just picked up the legal basis argument.
‘Brain-dead-leftist-scum (BDLS)’!! You’ve solved a problem of mine for ages! I coined the term COMMUNAZI, since both heavy left and heavy right are similar beasts, but from b-d-l-s we can coin ‘BADDLE’. Short and not sweet, a perfect discription!
Keep them good ideas coming!
“For a while the Americans looked like trying to charge Davo with ‘Being an Enemy Combatant‘.”
While it should not necessarily be a charge (i.e. implying that his acts were criminal), it isn’t that bad an idea. The right to a writ of habeas corpus could be extended to all prisoners, even prisoners of war. The POW might argue that they were not a combatant at all. For example, what if a civilian were to simply find and pick up a weapon out of curiousity, and suddenly find themselves detained?
This is the due process which Hicks should be provided with. If confirmed as an enemy combatant (and, notably, not a conscript), his imprisonment would be lawful until such time as the Taliban surrdenders (probably never). When he chose to be a soldier, he accepted the risk that this would happen.
I am a legal nuffie, but what normally happens to spies/mercenaries etc (all the unlawful combatants) under the Geneva conventions?
Two in the brain pan SimonC. But how is what he did unlawful? Were the foreigners who fought in the Spanish Civil war unlawful combatants? No I’m really asking.
The Spanish Civil War was not an international war, it was a Civil War. The Geneva Conventions don’t apply.
But if the Conventions did apply, then the foreigners would be unlawful combatants. They were not nationals of a combatant nation.
“This is the due process which [Dawood] should be provided with.”
He has already.
Chris — the Taliban/Nth Alliance was a civil war also and that was the war that David Hicks signed up for. As far as I know, he never fought against Americans.
Spending five years in an off-shore camp without being charged with anything does not amount to due process anywhere outside of Nth Korea.
“Taliban/Nth Alliance was a civil war”
True, however the US invasion was not a civil war. That he may not have fought against Americans became irrelevant after the US invasion, he fought against the allies of the US.
Dawood signed up to fight, and that means he fights where he’s sent.
I don’t see why the distinction you draw is important. I would suspect that a good portion of the prisoners held by Australia during the Second World War never saw a digger until being handed over to Australia.
“Spending five years in an off-shore camp without being charged with anything does not amount to due process.”
It does for someone who of his own free will decided to become a terrorist.
His situation, which was not forced upon him, carries no protection under the law, except the right to question his status before a tribunal of the government that detained him.
Were he press ganged, I might be able to summon some sympathy for him, but the facts show that he signed up for precisely what he is getting.
If he doesn’t like it, he should have stayed at home.
The separation you’re trying to put forward is rather like separating Australia’s fight against the Vichy in Syria with the Free French Forces’ fight against the Vichy in Syria.
[...] Hicks into – Bernard Fanning! Still on the RWDB theme, the Australian Libertarian Society’s Strawman puts the case for bringing Hicks home, and also (as a bonus) shows why conservative RWDBs are slowly losing this particular [...]
Pingback by Club Troppo » Weekend Missing Link | February 24, 2007
Well Davo is coming home (such a pity he failed to become a British citizen). Does that mean that what happens next at Guantanamo is now less topical?
Its that “cruel and unusual punishment” that confuses me. The cruelty of the punishment should match the crime and if punishments is less usual then crimes then punishments should probably acer on a more usual bases.
Criminals always use that line to try to get out of a punishment but they should not be the ones who define what cruel or unusual punishment is. After all they are the ones who have revoked that right by committing a crime.
I think most people with the possible exception of conspiracy theorists would concede that after 9/11 the US had justification to declare a “war on terror”.
This is not a phoney war, like the “war on drugs” etc but a real shooting war with a real enemy, terrorists, particularly islamofascist terrorists, and specifically Al Qaeda.
The fact that governments have used ‘the war’ to increase their power, is not a reason to characterise it as merely another battle in the Semantic Wars, by the state against the people.
Increasing their power is a natural government activity and does not require a ‘war’, but it sure helps.
Hicks was apparently fighting for the Taliban when captured, but was trained by Al Qaeda and should therefore be considered one of them. While some doubt exists as to whether he was in fact ‘playing with a full deck’, little doubt exists that such people are dangerous.
As neither the Taliban, nor Al Qaeda have agreed to end the war against the US and it’s allies, Hicks should remain as a captured enemy operative, and be kept as a detainee,
A war on Al Qaeda makes sence.
A war on terrorism is like a war on murder. It seems like a semantic war to justify an attack on all manner of things. Which is pretty much how they used it.
I tend to read the ‘war on terror’ as a ‘war on Al Qaeda’. As I have said before, Afghanistan was attacked because they hosted this organization, and also that I have reservations about the justification for the war in Iraq, but felt that it was caused by the stupidity of Hussein.
The point I was making was that the war on terror/read Al Qaeda, is a legitimate war, it in itself is not a semantic war, the use of it for involved governments to grab greater powers is.
A far better result could have been achieved in Iraq, had the US encouraged a saner person to pop Hussein and take over, after which in return for constitutional guarantees of human rights, regional autonomy, repudiation of WMDs etc, support would be given for the removal of sanctions.
I am not aware of much democratic tradition in Arab culture, and any insistence on it in Iraq was a silly idea. Democracy is only the tyranny of the majority, unless there are strong constitutional safeguards against this. A ‘benevolent’ despot would probably work out better for them in the long run.
The war on terror is not a war at all, legitimate or otherwise. It is a slogan.
It is true that governments try to increase their power under any scenario… but it is also true that they are much more successful if they can scare people or talk about war. War and big government go together. And given the extraordinarily small risk from terrorism (more risk of pesticide poisoning) and the minute costs from terrorism, the fear encouraged by “War Inc.” it totally out of proportion with reality and is useful only to increase the power of government. Sad.
The idea that “this government program would have been excellent if only the government had done it properly” is the fallacy of youthful idealistic socialism. Cost over-runs, mistakes, unintended consequences, mission creep, political compromises etc are not a possibility. They are inevitable. Ignoring these issues is unforgivable.
The consequence of the war frenzy of recent years is going to be huge costs (& tax), lost liberties, increased hatred, lost credibility and no fewer terrorists. It is perhaps the greatest attack on freedom that we have faced since the New Deal.
The US never declared war against the Taliban. Niether did Australia. There was an ongoing civil war in Afghanistan between two nutty extreme islamic groups (taliban v northern alliance) before the US got involved. The fact that David Hicks was supporting one side in this civil war is not very interesting. Luckily for him, America supported the last nutty islamists Hicks fought for (Kosovo Liberation Army)… but unluckily America picked the other side this time around. Opps.
John; I can understand where you are coming from, but not where you are going to.
The war on terror is probably in its overall concept, sloganary (there I’ve invented a new word), but it has to be called something, and that seemed to catch the imagination at the time.
The point I am making is that the war in Afghanistan was legitimate. I think you are misreading it as entering into a civil war on one side, as you seem to infer. Terrorists attacked the US. This was a crime not an act of war, however when the Taliban, who were the effective government of most of the country refused to hand over the criminals, and instead extended protection to them, war was inevitable.
No country on earth that could respond would not do so.
I agree with your reference to ‘two nutty extreme Islamic groups’, however the Northern Alliance only was seen as an ally in that it was able to provide support and a base for operations against the Taliban who made themselves an enemy of the US by protecting Al Qaeda.
John, the point I was making was strictly in relation to the war in Afghanistan/Hicks combination. The use of the terrorist attack to justify other things, especially assaults on our liberty by the state is something I oppose as much as you do.
huge costs (& tax), lost liberties, increased hatred, lost credibility and no fewer terrorists.
Emotions are an entirely private matter, John! This has nothing to do with government or values.
For all of the Ron Paul fans out there check: -
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/
Sorry, specificly: -
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/05/ron-paul-is-sanjaya-candidate-of.html
Michael, very funny. But the increased hatred is relevant only insomuch as it leads to actions. Unfortunately, history suggests that when more people want to kill you then your chance of being killed increases. Whether this is fair or not doesn’t change the probability of death.
Jim, I know that the goal of action in Afghanistan wasn’t to help one side in a civil war. But that is certainly what they did. The fighting that lead to the fall of the Taliban was done by the Northern Alliance with western air cover. No war was ever declared.
I certainly agree that the reasons to intervene in Afghanistan are far better than the reasons to invade Iraq. However at this point I’m still not sure that we have seen any significant benefits from the Afghani venture (except the greater supply of illegal drugs).
I agree that the US should have pursued AQ, even if that includes not respecting the soveignty of dodgy countries.
If this guy went against his country and fellow man with a grudge against society or whatever, his peers, and government he should be tried for treason in his country of citizenship for the knowledge and cicumstances that he was aware of, that would inflict misdeeds to society globally.One bad apple should be discarded before the rest are contaminated!
I get it, peter! For the good of society, the greater good, community standards!
All good libertarian standards!
Treason is defined in the dictionary as an act of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or country. But that is simply assuming that he first swore allegiance to his countyr, and of his own free will. This is the old ‘Social Contract’ theory. I didn’t sign the contract, and neither did he!
Hicks is an enemy combatant, and that is all he should be thought of as.