David Hicks

Oh, you will be disappointed (well no you won't but the people that refuse to read it would be if they did manage to read it). There doesn't seem to be any obvious intent to fight the US or any other Allied troops.

I have gotten to the point where he has been captured/handed over to the US (CIA?) soldiers and so far I have missed the bit where he single-handedly started the Afghanistan conflict while sharing a mansion with Bin Laden. (Although there is mention, admitted in clear words, that he shook the hand of Bin Laden!)

Seriously, it is interesting. If it wasn't for the fact we know roughly what happened to him in prison/internment, it would be a good story.

If I put my sarcastic hat on, I would say I do find it hard to believe that the US would attack Afghani people with air strikes on a day or two after September 11, and that they would purposely injure a potentially innocent man. I am sure special forces type people take copious notes and come to a well thought out conclusion, before making the assumption anyone is guilty.

For what its worth, I can understand the US being pissed off at this particular time, and at anyone they thought might be responsible.

It will be interesting to read on to find out why they kept him for so long and what they did learn out of it.

I will stop describing the book now, as I don't want to spoil your own reading of it.

Crime or no crime our stupid rulers are going to spend $100k to get his $10k. Pathetic!!!! What is wrong with our great judges and prosecutors! Don't you have any serious work to do? Make a decision on the Malaysian solution for example………..
For fick sake allow him to keep is $10k and take him out of the dole queue!

So by that logic you also object to the cost to prosecute murderers (we don't get any money out of them)

Maybe we need a rule where we prosecute offenders but not if it costs money?

Or maybe if it costs $700mil to run the Police Dept, if they can't manage to do $700mil in traffic tickets then we sack half of them?

The rule must apply to all. No exemptions because you are famous, or 'didn't make much money' form the book

Mark, I don't think you can trivialise this sort of treatment, without even reading the accounts of people that were there. I don't know where you get the 'non health threatening' bit from. Where did you read that?

Other detainees appeared to have been killed during this torture/persuasion, and that is hard to do with 'stress positions'.



I really don't understand why you are assuming that the treatment was 'a little bit of discomfort'.

Maybe if you read the book, it would give you a different perspective. Even if you decided to only believe half of it, or things that could be substantiated by red cross witnesses, I think you would not think it was 'a little bit of discomfort'.

I still don't understand why you automatically think he was a criminal. The United States' own legal system declared the treatment of these people as illegal and it appears that American citizens who were also caught in the same circumstances as David, were removed from the facility and released.

How does that work?

the team that supposedly knocked off OBL,coincidentally got knocked off in a helicopter accident....mmm.

I think its great that Hicks came through all that stuff and is still standing and can tell the tale of his journey, lots of young folk who go on crazy adventures end up dead.

However....the big issue here is justice which is very important. The idea that you can lock someone up in a dog box for a few years and then offer them freedom but only if they plead guilty is a joke.

Which reminds me that Cleaver Greene once said (cynically) something like "I don't give a sh#t about justice its the law I care about"

^^^

surely it needs to be 'in the public interest' to prosecute.

If prosecuting isn't going to result in either punishment, prevention of further crime or deterent to others what's the point ?

The law has to be upheld, but say you get caught driving 1 kmph over the speed limit, are you saying it is in the public interest that you get taken to court for a $30 fine, as opposed to the copper being able to assess the situation and tell you to slow down and let you continue on your way ?

Would any additional punishment to that already suffered increase the likelihood of a deterent ?

I think I have missed your point. Are you saying these are what you have read and you are happy to lend them to us to read?

Someone earlier in this described Hicks as being quite intelligent.

Hmmm so what does that mean
Is it intelligent to go to these places ?
Is it intelligent to join forces with mercinary groups ?
... to never really say what his overall objective was/is ?(Havent read the book please correct me if i am wrong, obviously he will only tell us in the book what he wants us to believe and not to portray himself as a total fwit, if he is)
... to write a book about it, from his perspective(so the facts/fiction will always be blurred, more than they already are) ?

The whole thing has gone to far, way to much coin wasted on in my opinion a very silly, somewhat mental unstable immature boy. He is very lucky to still be alive and i am very sure somedays he wishes he wasnt.

Should he keep the proceeds, no, nor should have chopper, they both owe alot to institutions trying to stop this sh?t happening.

GBay was a joke and what the yank's(world goverment's in general) is inhumane.

Hicks is obviously super duper intelligent.

He gets to meet/find the bogeyman on several occasions,when intelligence agents, the world over, with their billions or even trillion dollars of resources are unable to find the bogeyman, hmm.

Yes. Sorry, you do have the right to an opinion. You also have the right to make mistakes and be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you get into trouble, you also have the right to expect your country to help you and at least make sure you have some sort of legal representation.

It wouldn't be fair if I ignored your opinion and held you prisoner until you agreed to tell me what I wanted to hear.

I don't know the guy, but the media coverage never actually showed any proof, and the fact he was never convicted of a real crime in a real court, apparently because they had no evidence, makes me wonder about his treatment.

Didn't you see the widely publicised pic holding a rocket launcher?? Proof, signed (after illegal 'interogation') sealed and delivered.. in most people's eyes.




Every aspect of his detainment, ahem.. 'court' case.. and eventual relase was so far outside any rational or fair system of justice that it is a joke to suggest he is guilty of anything.

Poke someone with a sharp stick long enough and they will say their mother was hamster and their father smelled of elderberries.. and sign off on it.

Problem with the Yanks (that lead to Sept 11th in the 1st place IMO) is they believe themselves so righteous that they can justify the lowest of actions (individually and 'tinkering' with territories such as the middle East) to achieve their aims.. and that is exactly what they did (and still are doing) post 911.

Detain without trial or even charges? Torture? Storm into a foreign territory illegally coz its suits your aims? Yeh - why not, we have God on our side.

A very slippery slope.

Yeah, I did see the publicised picture, and in the book David shows the complete picture, not just the cropped bit that was publicised.

He draws attention to the fact that he is standing there with the other (two) guys and that they are wearing slippers. Hardly combat equipment is it? Slippers?

I guess showing a guy with a grenade launcher wearing slippers would throw some doubt on the suggestion that he was doing this in a war. As this seems to be the only picture (sourced from a friend of David's anyway) that suggests he even used a grenade launcher, it would further highlight the lack of real evidence.

The picture does in fact show slippers, so unless you really believe he was fighting the Americans in very comfortable footwear, then you might even believe that the case was a bit of a sham

If you even believe this bit, then it sort of draws questions on the rest of his treatment.

Hey, thanks! I often wondered what sort of personality called others foolish. Thanks for answering that.

It's not you typing this is it Mr Downer?

Choco the voice of reason