cresta57

Don't very often disagree with you BP but on this matter I do.
Hicks was/is an Australian citizen the fact he travelled to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban makes him a mercenary and as such he is not covered by the Geneva convention. Mercenaries usually face the death penalty if caught and these foreign fighters whatever their nationality could all have been executed years ago, the U.S has kept them in Guantanamo Bay so that they may be persuaded/ tortured to tell all they know about the Taliban /Al Queda links to the current wave of terrorism.
Had Hicks been caught bombing the London Underground or the Australian Embassy in the Philippines sympathy for him would be far removed from what it is now.
I agree the yanks have handled it badly and yes they have actively funded terrorism for years Noraid the Sandinista, poor old Ollie North took the fall for that one, even the tunnel networks in the Afghan mountains were part financed by the C.I.A. in the 1980's
The US policies stink like a rotten skunk we can agree on that one

jwatsonoz

[QUOTE=fugly]
Nothing wrong with using a legal loophole. Lawyers use them all the time - intelligent play. Also, if he is facing an unfair trial why can't he cry "it is unfair!"

fugly

[QUOTE=jwatsonoz] agreed. said so at beginnin of posts [ie not moral even if legal]

personally think he should take it like a man. then again he probably is

Tableland

I don't think this has anything to do with British /Australian issues. This is about generic political backgrounds. The fact is that the majority in the British Parliament are liberal-left anti-American socialist types who have forced Blair to demand the return of what are optimistically referred to as "Britons". The Australian government is not necessarily weak when it does not do the same. It's more likely that the Australian government takes the view that Mr Hicks can rot and die in Cuba.

I think this guy was part of Lashkar-e-Toiba, one of the biggest terrorist groups in Kashmir - and who are suspected of attacking the Indian parliament in Delhi and want to put all of India under Islamic law> They operate in conjunction with Al-Qaeda and the Taleban militia, which is where our friend Mr Hicks joins the story.

This organisation is reponsible for dozens of suicide attacks, and other atrocities. They have killed hundreds of people including a young girl who they shot dead on 30 June 2005 as a revenge killing. They are notoriously brutal, and their speciality is murdering civilians en masse, usually at weddings.

Mr Hicks was found fighting for these scumbags, and I imagine the Australian government has set pressuring the US for his release somewhere below upgrading Tennant Creek's public toilets on their priority list.

Too right.

fugly

so...ure on the fence wiv this one then

btw.... did this lot bomb our chip shop aswell

OzTennis

[QUOTE=jwatsonoz] "nothing wrong with using a legal loophole" = British Citizenship has more clout?

No, it just means in this case that for whatever reasons (tableland got it right I think) the UK Govt doesn't recognise a Cuba trial as an international court of law (its citizens haven't been charged); Australia does (its citizen has been charged). You may interpret this as weaknesses, holding onto petticoat tails etc, it is possible to interpret it differently, as I do.

You then launch into a tirade in your first post on establishing a republic and the taxation system, all from the Hicks case.

OzTennis

fugly

[QUOTE=OzTennis] Who?what?when? fugly? or jwatsonoz?

jwatsonoz

[QUOTE=OzTennis] My post was critical of the Australian Govnerment - widely - hence I mentioned many things! Calm down mate

jwatsonoz

[QUOTE=fugly] he means me, paranoid eh... don't like to be accused and tried in an unfair way huh huh huh huh get to cuba

fugly

[QUOTE=jwatsonoz] pmsl.....ive already spoken to uk and aus consulate

OzTennis

[QUOTE=jwatsonoz] 'Tis you that should calm down! Your thread title suggests BC has more clout than AC and mentions the Hicks case, that's why I opened it up and then as you say it was an unsubstantiated tirade on a wide number of issues and (I think) a misinterpretation as to why Hicks might get off if he is British compared to Australian. That was the point I was making. It would be a touch trite to pick up on you urging the AG to extract the thumb and your duel between the 2 citizenships!

OzTennis

jwatsonoz

[QUOTE=OzTennis] 'Tis you my lad. I think the thread was clear that I think the government is incompetant.

However I let you off cos I'm impressed with your use of "unsubstantiated tirade"
X

OzTennis

[QUOTE=jwatsonoz] We'll just leave it at that then! I don't think the AG is necessarily incompetEnt or that British citizenship has any more clout just on the basis of the Hicks affair alone.

OzTennis

jwatsonoz

[QUOTE=OzTennis] Agreed.... hence I needed to mention other asPects too. Thanks

OzTennis

[QUOTE=jwatsonoz] Why don't you start a movement to have David Hicks as the tax reforming, first President of the Islamic Republic of Australia? He might have to renounce his British citizenship of convenience to be eligible for the position though and he'll have to come over to Canberra from Guantanamo Bay for his investiture.

OzTennis