Jennifer Atkinson
11 January 2008, 09:51PM

David Hicks who has been denied his basic human rights for over 6 years should be allowed to live a normal life....free from harassment from media and the Australian publics negative opinions of him.

Graham
9 January 2008, 12:20AM

PART 8 - please read in order
Finally, Amnesty has ALWAYS said that if a crime has been committed the relevant person should be charged.  Of over 700 detainees who were described as the worst of the worst, from which about 50 -60 are supposed to ultimately face charges, by implication saying Hicks was one of the REALLY BAD ones - he was charged with providing material support to a terrorist organisation because he guarded a tank for 2 weeks.  When the battle got close he fled, sold his gun to pay his way to Pakistan and was captured by the Alliance and sold to the US.

The US conceded that he plotted no acts of terrorism, and never fired a shot at any of the US, Australian or other forces.  By the way, thats the US version, Hicks version is somewhat different, but he is gagged by a US Military Commission Order that ws tailor made to keep Hicks quiet until after the election.
.  Look at the McCarthy era in the US - it CAN happen again.

Graham
9 January 2008, 12:19AM

PART 7 - Please read in order
If you ended up there, Bush by signing a paper, without a hearing, without producing evidence to you, without you being represented - could sign off that you were an enemy combatant and could be held incommunicado for the duration of the war on terror - which has been forecast by Rumsfled and others to be likely to run for decades and generations.  In other words, life imprisonment and a routine of abuse and torture with no end in sight.  When 3 detainees committed suicide on the one day, the US response was that it was not suicide but an public relations attack as part of asymetric warfare.

Graham
9 January 2008, 12:18AM

PART 6 - pease read in order
Principles matter Greg, otherwise we end up with Police states for our own protection - Bush has argued, based on Whitehouse legal advice that in his role as Commander in Chief he is:
- not bound by US laws;
- not bound by the US Constitution; and
- not bound by any international treaties or conventions the US has ratified (including the Geneva Conventions).

In Guantanamo he tried to set up a prison that could operate free of ANY legal constraints.

Graham
9 January 2008, 12:17AM

PART 5 (Sorry :) Please read in order
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater Greg.  Amnesty members don’t have to agree on everything. With Hicks there were very important principles at stake for a free society.  Without constant vigilence it is too easy to let ‘emergencies’ erode important human rights.  Already in Aust ASIO can pick you off the street and hold you incommunicado for at least 14 days.  If they allow you to notify someone, for example your wife, all you are permitted to say is that you are being held for questioning and you will be out of touch for a while.  If she repeats that to your family, a friend, or your employer - she can face a fine an up to 5 years imprisonment.

Graham
9 January 2008, 12:16AM

PART 4 - Please read in order:
The debate and campaign for David Hicks was not to portray him as a good kid - but to demand that he face a proper judicial process, lawful charges, or be released.

You may recall John Howard would not take Hicks back because he had not broken any Australian laws.  Well guess what? The US realised he had not broken any US or International laws either - so in October 2006 they passed a law containing the offence with which David Hicks was charged, and offence relating to his alleged conduct more than 6 years earlier.

Graham
9 January 2008, 12:14AM

PART 3 - Please read in order

And yes, people were tortured into false confessions.  Look at the 3 Brits who subsequently made the movie “The Road to Guantanamo” - one broke down after numerous interrogations, telling his tormentors that it was not him in a photo they produced, that he was in England at the time.  He finally gave them what they wanted and confessed - yes, he was in the photo.  The only hitch was that the UK Police were able to produce evidence to the US that his confession was false and he was in the UK at the time the photo was taken.

Graham
9 January 2008, 12:13AM

PART 2 - Please read in order. I do not know of any Amnesty statement that said David Hicks was innocent.  The whole focus of the campaign was the total denial of the human rights that people have fought and died for for hundreds of years.  Charging David Hicks with a crime that did not exist until 6 (yes that is SIX) years after he allegedly committed it, denying him POW status or in the alternative treating him under the US Criminal Laws as they did with Lindh (20 year sentence) and also Padilla (I stand to be corrected but I think he got 20 years as well.

But I’ll bet you for every murdering terrorist held at Guantanamo, and there are undoubtedly some, there are also many innocent people who were not captured on any battlefield but were sold to the US by the Northern Alliance for bonds varying from US $1000 to US $5,000.

Graham
9 January 2008, 12:09AM

Part 1: Greg, its unfortunate that you intend resigning.  One of the values of Amnesty is the scope for open debate about values and priorities.  If you look at Amnesty Australia or Amnesty International web sites and campaigns you will see that many of its priorities are ignored by the media - for example the attempts by Amnesty to put China’s abhorrent human rights record at the forefront as the Olympics approach.

I agree with your comments about the horror of what happened to Daniel Pearl and many others like him. Amnesty opposes these murders but its comments on such matters are not newsworthy, s you need to visit its websites and read its literature to know what is happening. 

(continued) >

madallon hansson
30 December 2007, 12:22PM

Greg, Hicks may or may not be a terriost, but how can this be determeined when he is detained with out charge, tortued and refused a trial. AI is fighting for Human Rights not against America. If America chooses to violate human rights they must expect to suffer the international reprocuations. Although I respect your right to hold and share your opinions I do believe you should do this in a respectful manner and not infringe on the rights of others. With this in mind it would be greatly appreciated if you would not use violent language or racist terminology when expressing your views.

Sincerely Madallon Hansson

Greg Angelo
29 December 2007, 04:19PM

Re Kate Wood’s on Sky New. I can no longer support Amnesty I because it is more concerned with its ideological anti-American stance than a real concern for justice.
Hicks is a terrorist associated with Al Qaeda, responsible for thousands of murders and all you are worried about is Hicks’ rights.  He is a very sort of person who should be locked up. 

I watched video of Daniel Pearl’s head being sawn off by Al Qaeda terrorists. This is Al Qaeda in action and this is what David Hicks willingly associated with.

We are fighting a war against these misogynists whilst you idiots play around with civil liberties in Australia, one of the most free and democratic countries in the world. 

Go after Robert Mugabe, or the Saudi Arabians, the Taliban and numerous other examples of breaches of human rights.  I no longer wish to be associated with you and ask that you cancel my subscription forthwith.