January 30, 2007

Hick's charges himself

"The Liberal backbencher Judi Moylan says Hicks is but a "fool". Mori says Hicks simply made "some poor life choices". Yet in his book Australian Jihad, the journalist Martin Chulov maintains that Hicks met Osama bin Laden on no fewer than eight occasions. Bin Laden is a serious and successful Islamist revolutionary: he does not willingly mix with idiots who have made unfortunate career decisions."
David Hick's makes a case against himself - The Age, Gerard Henderson

13 comments:

  1. I guess that rules out Gerard's chance of meeting him them!!

    Love the misdirection in the piece; no mention of the legality of charging or imprisonment, the need to admit hearsay evidence in trial because of lack of real evidence, . Because two journalists say that Hicks is bad, he deserves to be locked up.

    It doesn't matter how many times he met Osama Bin Laden, if indeed he has. That's not illegal, yet....

    Every column he writes, Henderson sinks to a new low.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can understand and agree with the view that he should have been bought "home" Patrick, although it's about five years late for that, really.

    But not understanding the implication from your comment that Hicks is not "bad" and does not deserve to be "locked up"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Because nothing can be found to charge him with basically.

    Being 'bad', mercifully, isn't a good enough reason to lock anyone up. The specious examples Henderson uses in the piece are both irrelevant; firing across the border in Kashmir is not really illegal, and neither is meeting Osama Bin Laden, if indeed Hicks has, which remains to be confirmed.

    By locked up, of course, I'm referring to Guantanamo. Maybe - but I doubt it - other, real, charges could be laid against Hicks, but Hendo's implication is that he's already guilty, and thus already serving his sentence.

    In that context, he certainly doesn't deserve to get locked, and badness is beside the point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So if Hicks were released and sent back to Australia, what would happen?

    ReplyDelete
  5. He'd go back to leading his life, which may or may nott include further fun excursions to Afghanistan and shooting expeditions on the Pakistani border. Probably not, as a) the Federal Government would keep an eye on him, and b) he'd probably be too spooked by his five years in jail to do that again. But you never know.

    Him meeting up with Bin Laden is of concern, to say the least. As to whether there's a law against fraternising with terrorist leaders, well, who can say? Terrorism isn't exactly the most traditional of crimes, which suggests there may not be the laws in place regarding this sort of thing; but then again, it does have a history (Guy Fawkes, the 19th/20th century anarchists). So who knows?

    Hicks' current situation isn't satisfactory, but your question is a good one, jgm!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I’m not au fait with intentions of supporters or detractors if Hicks is “bought home”.

    One would have thought a government sponsored lift from the airport to his folk’s place would be a stretch, regardless of five years already imprisoned.

    I don’t know if, or under what laws, he could or would be charged if bought back without the US proceedings going ahead.

    It’s an odd one Drunka.

    The option would be to bring him home, *collective shoulder shrug*; he’s done five years, warranted or not; now he can go on his merry way. I don’t see that happening, as the government has dug itself into a pit over Hicks.

    Unfortunately, we can’t undo the government’s passivity on this, that is, they end up looking dumb bringing him back now – hey, even our government doesn’t take that long to make a simple decision about one man (oh, okay – only if the person is an *illegal* refugee) – and then having to deal with the question of what to *do* with Hicks. What a fumbling, bumbling, stupid mess. By leaving him with the Americans for so long, and by consistently refusing to bring him home (unlike citizens of other countries), our gov’t gave themselves zero wriggle room.

    I don’t think that it’s possible to accidentally fall-in with a bad crowd, who just happen to turn out to be terrorists. I don’t think it’s possible to accidentally fall-in with terrorists period. That would be a bit like me accidentally becoming part of the mafia. I would have to put in many years of effort – just to share a latte with genuine mafia. So, I can’t buy into the *misguided young lad* line of thinking. I do understand that he now has rather different thoughts on his adventures, but so do the Bali nine, six of whom are waiting in Indonesian jails, likely waiting to be shot dead. Yeah, regrets, we’ve all had a few.

    I fully understand and have no objections to Hicks’ family doing what they can, hey, it’s not their fault, and he’s still their son. But I don’t think a man suddenly becomes “father of the year” material because he has a would-be-terrorist son sitting in a foreign jail though. There’s not a lot of logic to that thinking. Being compassionate is one thing, but elevating them to saintly status because their son is a dickhead is a stretch. There are more deserving parents and families, dealing with far harsher day to day realities.

    I’m mostly an indifferent observer in the Hicks saga. I was a bit gob smacked that time already served might be ignored, assuming he does, some day, get charged / go to trial. Certainly the procedures under which he, and I assume a few hundred others, will be dealt are dodgy-dealings. I was particularly surprised when I realized that the procedures where only to be applied to foreigners – no American, military or civilian could be charged or tried under the same rules. (Unless I’ve misunderstood.) Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised, and just hadn’t been paying enough attention.

    One does feel somewhat inclined to burst into song, stolen from “The Sound of Music” – you know, the one about “what to do with a problem like Mar-rrr-iiiaaaa”. “Hiii-ccc-kkkss” would fit the notes, with little difficulty.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's probably the wisest thing I've read on the issue, although is this the song you're thinking of?

    Have you met my girlfriend Maria,
    The craziest girl on the block
    You'll know her the minute you see her -
    She's the one that is in an advanced state of shock.


    That's from West Side Story. Or is there a 'Maria' song in 'Sound of Music' too? Did writers of musicals like picking on people called 'Maria'?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh Tim! Surely you, of all people (being the muscially trained and talented blogger that you are) are familiar with The Sound of Music?

    Julie Andrew's nun character's name is Maria. One of the older nuns sings the "what to do with a problem like Maria" song.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The official expert in musicals on the blogscene is the delightful Jellyfish. My knowledge of the Broadway Musical and, indeed, the popular/stage music scene for the last hundred years palls in comparison to hers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But what you lack in knowledge of broadway musicals and popular / stage music from the last 100 years Timmy, you more than make up for with ... with ... with ... pure extravagant creative weirdness.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're right about that, Caz, they have been self-wedged, well and truly.

    I agree with you about the falling in with a bad crowd, argument, too. And you're right: no the American courts said no way was this going to apply to their citizens.

    It just saddens me, infringing as it does on so many of the basic rights of citizenship, and moreover humanity. The Geneva conventions emerged from the horrible results of the second world war, and I feel bad that they are getting thrown over at all, let alone for such a pointless reason.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Have I got it wrong in my mind, or is it that the US never signed up to the Geneva convention?

    I remember reading something, and being "ASTONISHED". If nothing else, it's counter-intuitive, when one thinks of the US of A.

    We should know soon enough what the charges are, and then goodness knows how long before the case and the outcome.

    I know this much is true: wouldn't be Hicks for quids.

    Ah - the US only signed to some of the conventions? Would that be right Patrick? And the ones they didn't sign up to are the astonishing bit? I think that might be closer to what I read, if memory serves, at all ... barely.

    ReplyDelete