David Hicks

There are a lot of conflicting stories and opinions about what he did and didn't do.
That is at the heart of this whole issue.
Who knows what the hell he did or didn't do because it has never been established in a court of LAW.
If it is established that what he is accused of is true, then F*** him, let him rot.
But establish the facts first.
An Aussie in a foreign jail without trial is against our ethos of a fair go.
A proper legal judiciary is what makes our system of government different from those we oppose.If we ignore due process we are no better than them.
I expected more from the bastion of democracy,home of the brave,land of the free etc and their coalition partners.
Jason

Hicks was arrested in 2001, sold to the US for $1000 by the very cause he was 'fighting' for. He was held without charge in guatanamo for 3 years when he was eventually charged in 2004. However those charges were later dropped as the military commission set up was considered unconstitutional in 2006. He was charged again in 2007 and pleaded guilty under the Alford plea.

He was allegedly tortured beaten sedated against his will and forcebly given medications. His legal team cited the torture and his desperation to leave Guantanamo as his reason for pleading guilty.

I guess what is noteworthy is that Hicks never actually fought for Al-Queda he trained with them, translated a couple of documents and drove a few people around.

This is an interestin article from the time www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-29/hicks-should-never-have-been-charged-former-us/2419522

Personally i think David Hicks should have been charged at the time he was captured like anyone else. He should not have been subjected to torture like anyone else and he should have been allowed to serve his sentence (if found guilty) in Australia.
He should be allowed to wirte a book and reap the profits of that book. If Chopper can why not David Hicks?

Hicks was foolish and stupid but Murdoch harmed more people than Hicks ever did. Send Murdoch to Guantanamo I say! Funny how Hicks never killed anyone and is a terrorist but Brevik gets 60 odd in 1 day and he's not. Must be because his is christian I guess?

Reading all the comments make me think that the prob here is all the idiots trying to make it right or good helping the ****ing nut cases doing it wrong and going against the rules of decency! When are you going to put on the same fight for what matters to 90% of the law abiding OZ population???
Poor David Hicks
Poor illegal, economic pseudo refugees
Poor libs
Poor labs
Poor muslims, pastafarian, minority sects
Can you see????? We will not save the world!!! The yanks have tried that and look where they are now on the brink of bankruptcy, is it what you idiots want for that great Country of us???? If it is not for you do it for your kids and grand kids!
Now you can call me racist or red neck I do not care that is how I feel!

You just don't get it do you?

Get what

What ever

Cmon Felix, you don't really expect everybody to stand up and look after themselves do you, i mean who would they blame if things didn't go their way. that's called taking responsibilty and if everybody did that what would happen to all the dogooders, lawyers, welfare workers, social workers and the like. they might have to get real jobs.

No he should give it to me I need to get a new board!
And unlike Chopper he is not loopy funny! Hope Chopper is not reading that forum

And that people, was the answer I was looking for

I'll tell him myself , he usually walks his dog in our local park.

With clipped ears?

Haha, so its true what they say about animals and their owners

So far I have read the first chapter, which describes his early life and his desire to get out of a bad environment and go working in the bush in the NT.

So far, no crime has been committed, although he does admit that he drove a car unlicensed when he was 15!

It appears to be well written, so if he didn't get help writing it, he is obviously intelligent.

How does this 'proceeds of crime' law really work anyway?

I always figured it meant that if they bust someone who is proven to be a drug dealer and they have thousands of dollars in cash lying around, and are not able to show where it came from legitimate sources, it would be confiscated. That makes sense.

But to prevent someone making money telling a story about their life, whether a crime has been committed or not, is just crazy.

So, you would argue, if he describes a crime in the book, he gets no money.

What if he doesn't describe any crime at all in his book? Is he then entitled to the earnings from book sales?

Does this mean that anyone that ever commits a crime and gets imprisoned for it, can not ever tell a story about their life? Whether it includes the mention of a crime or not?

Maybe Alan Bond can write a book and tell us all how he managed to survive prison, and then go on to make a bucket of cash.

In my opinion, someone is embarrassed about the lack of a transparent trial, so they want to discourage him publishing a book.