NationStates Jolt Archive


Shame on Australia...

HSH Prince Eric
29-12-2007, 01:12
Letting David Hicks go is just the ultimate reason why the US cannot rely on anyone else to deal with terrorists that we capture. It's disgusting that he was released.

The man should have been executed 6 years ago.
Brutland and Norden
29-12-2007, 01:13
Meh. Thread incomplete without articles!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7163682.stm
Neu Leonstein
29-12-2007, 01:17
Wait a minute, the man wasn't actually involved in any terrorist attack, as far as the court has been able to establish, he never hurt anyone.

Since he was captured, he's been in jail, in pretty atrocious conditions compared to a normal jail.

So basically he's done a prison term for what ended up to be a comically weak conviction. And now you think he shouldn't be allowed to go free? Why?
Laerod
29-12-2007, 01:18
You're putting the blame on the wrong country. Letting him out now is in line with the tribunal's verdict that he received from the US Military.
Dyakovo
29-12-2007, 01:18
Letting David Hicks go is just the ultimate reason why the US cannot rely on anyone else to deal with terrorists that we capture. It's disgusting that he was released.

The man should have been executed 6 years ago.

:confused:

An Australian sentenced by the United States for supporting terrorism has been freed from a prison in Australia, after completing his term.
Eureka Australis
29-12-2007, 01:20
Lol, if HSH Prince Eric seems outraged then I suggest we give him a medal.
Brutland and Norden
29-12-2007, 01:21
Lol, if HSH Prince Eric seems outraged then I suggest we give him a medal.
What medal?
Ultraviolent Radiation
29-12-2007, 01:22
Wait a minute ... he's done a prison term for what ended up to be a comically weak conviction. And now you think he shouldn't be allowed to go free? Why?

Indoctrination is my guess.
Neu Leonstein
29-12-2007, 01:25
What medal?
The John Pilger Award for Outrageous Mental Gymnastics.

Whatever Hicks has done, that's one medal he deserves. ;)
Greater Somalia
29-12-2007, 01:26
Letting David Hicks go is just the ultimate reason why the US cannot rely on anyone else to deal with terrorists that we capture. It's disgusting that he was released.

The man should have been executed 6 years ago.

Yeah, let's lock up anyone deemed as terrorist without any proof. The whole idea of the "war against terrorism" was to preserve our freedom not to erode them.
Lunatic Goofballs
29-12-2007, 01:28
Letting David Hicks go is just the ultimate reason why the US cannot rely on anyone else to deal with terrorists that we capture. It's disgusting that he was released.

The man should have been executed 6 years ago.

Believe it or not, a man has to be convicted of a Capital Offense to be legally put to death. So it seems to me that your beef shold be with the U.S. Justice Dept., CIA and Department of Defense for failing to provide the necessary evidence to convict him.

But look at the bright side: Maybe he'll get his own variety show where little kids will kick him in the groin to win fabulous prizes. :)
Call to power
29-12-2007, 01:29
couldn't you troll about something better?
Eureka Australis
29-12-2007, 01:31
The US will do anything to 'de-legitimize' their enemies, instead they will make up unfair laws and courts to suit them, in order to make being on the loosing side of a war a crime.
Laerod
29-12-2007, 01:32
couldn't you troll about something better?Since when has trolling been about quality?
Call to power
29-12-2007, 01:34
Since when has trolling been about quality?

since competition appeared ;)
Gauthier
29-12-2007, 01:36
since competition appeared ;)

Yeah, but like everything else Trolling is increasingly being outsourced to countries where they can do more for cheaper.
Ultraviolent Radiation
29-12-2007, 01:39
Is Eric going to admit his mistake sometime soon?

You must be joking.
Laerod
29-12-2007, 01:39
Is Eric going to admit his mistake sometime soon?
Call to power
29-12-2007, 01:41
Yeah, but like everything else Trolling is increasingly being outsourced to countries where they can do more for cheaper.

pfft everyone knows you can't be American workmanship these days

Is Eric going to admit his mistake sometime soon?

no because then he couldn't fap to our replies
HSH Prince Eric
29-12-2007, 01:49
I'm not of the beyond reasonable doubt crowd when it comes to terrorists. The man went to Afghanistan to become a terrorist. No one that looks at this can dispute that. Just because there isn't any proof of his involvement in anything directly or just because he got captured early doesn't mean anything.

He's a traitor to Australia and don't give me no legal bullshit either about that. I don't care if he didn't do something spelled out by law word for word. Technically you can not legally be a traitor if you aren't at war and that's nonsense. I don't care about legal definitions of what a traitor is, so no rambling please.

The guy was captured as a terrorist and like all of those others that were released, should have been executed. He had zero rights and it's just weakness that allows people like him and JWL to still be alive. You know that the Afghans did to all those Iranians that came across the border? They beheaded them. I wish the West wasn't so weak.
Dyakovo
29-12-2007, 01:51
I'm not of the beyond reasonable doubt crowd when it comes to terrorists. The man went to Afghanistan to become a terrorist. No one that looks at this can dispute that. Just because there isn't any proof of his involvement in anything directly or just because he got captured early doesn't mean anything.

He's a traitor to Australia and don't give me no legal bullshit either about that. I don't care if he didn't so something spelled out by law word for word.

The guy was captured as a terrorist and like all of those others that were released, should have been executed. He had zero rights and it's just weakness that allows people like him and JWL to still be alive. You know that the Afghans did to all those Iranians that came across the border? They beheaded them. I wish the West wasn't so weak.

Yay!
He returned with more "If you don't agree with me you must die!!" b.s.
Laerod
29-12-2007, 01:53
I'm not of the beyond reasonable doubt crowd when it comes to terrorists. The man went to Afghanistan to become a terrorist. No one that looks at this can dispute that. Just because there isn't any proof of his involvement in anything directly or just because he got captured early doesn't mean anything.

He's a traitor to Australia and don't give me no legal bullshit either about that. I don't care if he didn't so something spelled out by law word for word.

The guy was captured as a terrorist and like all of those others that were released, should have been executed. He had zero rights and it's just weakness that allows people like him and JWL to still be alive. You know that the Afghans did to all those Iranians that came across the border? They beheaded them. I wish the West wasn't so weak.Actually, he was captured as an illegal combatant, not a terrorist, according to the US.
HSH Prince Eric
29-12-2007, 01:54
Either way, they have zero rights under international law and can be killed without anyone being able to object. It's like that other Australian they released with ties to terrorism that goes back his entire life. They have the chance to get rid of them and they should.
Laerod
29-12-2007, 01:58
Either way, they have zero rights under international law and can be killed without anyone being able to object. It's like that other Australian they released with ties to terrorism that goes back his entire life. They have the chance to get rid of them and they should.Really? Prove it.
Dyakovo
29-12-2007, 02:21
:D okay you have proved your worth

As what?
Call to power
29-12-2007, 02:21
The man went to Afghanistan to become a terrorist. No one that looks at this can dispute that. Just because there isn't any proof of his involvement in anything directly

I like this thinking, I've visited the US thus I am an all American patriot out to kill the Queen

He's a traitor to Australia and don't give me no legal bullshit either about that. I don't care if he didn't do something spelled out by law word for word. Technically you can not legally be a traitor if you aren't at war and that's nonsense. I don't care about legal definitions of what a traitor is, so no rambling please.

The guy was captured as a terrorist and like all of those others that were released, should have been executed. He had zero rights and it's just weakness that allows people like him and JWL to still be alive. You know that the Afghans did to all those Iranians that came across the border? They beheaded them. I wish the West wasn't so weak.

:D okay you have proved your worth
Imperio Mexicano
29-12-2007, 02:24
I like this thinking, I've visited the US thus I am an all American patriot out to kill the Queen

ZOMG Off with your head! :eek:
Gauthier
29-12-2007, 02:27
I like this thinking, I've visited the US thus I am an all American patriot out to kill the Queen

Don't forget the Guy Fawkes mask.

:D okay you have proved your worth

Even in the Shrub's lame duck years Bushevism is still alive and strong, as we can see from HSHPE's example.
Fassitude
29-12-2007, 02:28
Why are you feeding it? It's not even a doubtful case or an entertaining one. The only question is whose puppet it is, if you care for such things.
Laerod
29-12-2007, 02:31
Why are you feeding it? It's not even a doubtful case or an entertaining one. The only question is whose puppet it is, if you care for such things.Pot calling kettle black. I can think of at least two threads that would have slowly sunk to the bottom of NSG had it not been for your bumps.
The Vuhifellian States
29-12-2007, 02:40
He's a traitor to Australia and don't give me no legal bullshit either about that. I don't care if he didn't do something spelled out by law word for word. Technically you can not legally be a traitor if you aren't at war

There are means of treason other than fighting the armed forces of your country.

and that's nonsense. I don't care about legal definitions of what a traitor is, so no rambling please.

But rule of law is perfect, if we didn't have it, everyone on this forum would be dead for committing thought crimes.

The guy was captured as a terrorist and like all of those others that were released, should have been executed. He had zero rights and it's just weakness that allows people like him and JWL to still be alive. You know that the Afghans did to all those Iranians that came across the border? They beheaded them. I wish the West wasn't so weak.


Yeah, me too, then we can start building the Fourth Reich. Fair trials are bullshit anyway, who needs them!

Oh, and the execution bit: that's going to be a wee bit hard in Australia (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png)
Call to power
29-12-2007, 02:42
As what?

Internet village drunk

Why are you feeding it? It's not even a doubtful case or an entertaining one. The only question is whose puppet it is, if you care for such things.

we need to have are fun with him first though
Daistallia 2104
29-12-2007, 02:45
Either way, they have zero rights under international law

Incorrect. I know the laws of land warfare pretty well, and under no conditions do so-called "unprivileged belligerents" have no rights. International jurisprudence has made it quite clear that there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. So-called "unprivileged belligerents" certainly aren't entitled to the extensive rights POWs are entitled to, they do have rights recognized by international law.

and can be killed without anyone being able to object.

Summary extrajudicial execution is most certainly NOT permitted the under international laws of land warfare.


If you can provide any evidence whatsoever to support your laughable assertions, please post it.

It's like that other Australian they released with ties to terrorism that goes back his entire life. They have the chance to get rid of them and they should.

Of whom do you speak?
Fassitude
29-12-2007, 02:47
Pot calling kettle black.

I haven't fed trolls since the time of Eutrusca.

I can think of at least two threads that would have slowly sunk to the bottom of NSG had it not been for your bumps.

Oh?
Laerod
29-12-2007, 02:54
I haven't fed trolls since the time of Eutrusca.Feeding a troll is very similar to bumping a trolling or pointless thread.



Oh?The "European" woman in Baltimore and Wilgrove's Story Arc thread.
Fassitude
29-12-2007, 02:59
Feeding a troll is very similar to bumping a trolling or pointless thread.

In the sense that responding to any thread is similar to bumping any thread. There is a difference, though, when the OP reveals itself to be such an obvious troll that doesn't even try to argue against its detractors. It becomes feeding when you know it's a troll.

The "European" woman in Baltimore and Wilgrove's Story Arc thread.

Neither of which were trolls.
Boonytopia
29-12-2007, 03:46
Either way, they have zero rights under international law and can be killed without anyone being able to object. It's like that other Australian they released with ties to terrorism that goes back his entire life. They have the chance to get rid of them and they should.

*snip*

Of whom do you speak?

Mamdouh Habib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamdouh_Habib) or Mohamed Haneef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Haneef) perhaps?
Dryks Legacy
29-12-2007, 04:07
I read the conditions he has to live under now, I don't think he'll be hurting anyone.
Aryavartha
29-12-2007, 04:20
Wait a minute, the man wasn't actually involved in any terrorist attack, as far as the court has been able to establish, he never hurt anyone.

Since he was captured, he's been in jail, in pretty atrocious conditions compared to a normal jail.

So basically he's done a prison term for what ended up to be a comically weak conviction. And now you think he shouldn't be allowed to go free? Why?

Did he not boast that he took part in the Kashmir jihad and shot at Indian soldiers?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21200396-663,00.html
a letter Hicks wrote to his family in Adelaide in which he admits to firing hundreds of bullets in Kashmir at the enemies of Islam.

In a March 2000 letter, Hicks told his family "don't ask what's happened, I can't be bothered explaining the outcome of these strange events has put me in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in a training camp. Three months training. After which it is my decision whether to cross the line of control into Indian-occupied Kashmir."

The training camp was run by Lashkar-e-Toiba, the army of the pure, Islamic fundamentalists fighting to free Muslims under Indian rule and designated a terrorist group by Australia in 2003.

In another letter on August 10, 2000, Hicks wrote from Kashmir, claiming to have been a guest of Pakistan's army for two weeks at the front in the "controlled war" with India.

"I got to fire hundreds of bullets. Most Muslim countries impose hanging for civilians arming themselves for conflict. There are not many countries in the world where a tourist, according to his visa, can go to stay with the army and shoot across the border at its enemy, legally."

Australia has an extradition relationship with India as a fellow member of the Commonwealth that could allow the transfer of a suspect in special circumstances.
HSH Prince Eric
29-12-2007, 05:10
I was referring to Habib. That they didn't kill him when they had the chance is just horrific. Talk about wishful thinking.
Dyakovo
29-12-2007, 05:16
I was referring to Habib. That they didn't kill him when they had the chance is just horrific. Talk about wishful thinking.

So anyone who knows terrorists should be killed?

Despite the relentless campaign of accusations and vilification on the part of the US and Australian governments, the US government decided in January not to charge Mr. Habib, based on a complete lack of evidence that would hold up in their secret military trial.

That would be a rather telling statement
Zayun2
29-12-2007, 05:20
Yeah, let's lock up anyone deemed as terrorist without any proof. The whole idea of the "war against terrorism" was to preserve our freedom not to erode them.

Actually, the purpose was to erode our freedoms. Then they can't hate us anymore!
HSH Prince Eric
29-12-2007, 05:27
Yeah, that's what they said about all the mobsters who were never convicted because there wasn't solid evidence.

"Just because they happened to know, support, associate and live with mobsters doesn't mean they are, not without lots and lots of proof."

If Habib isn't a terrorist, Carlo Gambino was not a mobster. The level of association and connections are that extensive.
Eureka Australis
29-12-2007, 05:53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

HSH, would you support this terrorist being sent to a prison notorious for torture, with no human or legal rights, the same as you would support Hicks going their?

I guess though that 'terrorist' or 'illegal combatant' is subjective to what side you're on, and also subject to partisan politics.
Dyakovo
29-12-2007, 05:58
Yeah, that's what they said about all the mobsters who were never convicted because there wasn't solid evidence.

"Just because they happened to know, support, associate and live with mobsters doesn't mean they are, not without lots and lots of proof."

If Habib isn't a terrorist, Carlo Gambino was not a mobster. The level of association and connections are that extensive.

I don't believe I (or anyone else for that matter) ever said he wasn't a terrorist. I do, however, wholly believe in innocence until proof of guilt; something which was definitely lacking if a military tribunal felt there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
Tmutarakhan
29-12-2007, 06:39
"You know that the Afghans did to all those Iranians that came across the border? They beheaded them. I wish the West wasn't so weak."
So let me get this straight: Prince Eric openly admits that he seeks the overthrow of the Western system of "rule of law" in order to replace it with an Islamic system of summary execution. By his own definition, doesn't this make him a TRAITOR? Eric, should we shoot you on sight, or do you prefer to be beheaded?
HSH Prince Eric
29-12-2007, 07:34
First off, I've read all about David Hicks and anyone that believes that he was not a terrorist is an idiot.

Not at all. A theocratic government would be the worst thing possible.

I'm speaking of the harsh methods in dealing with terrorists. All governments have their strong points. You don't have to have a dictatorship in order to acknowledge that executions are an effective way of dealing with potential threats.

If anything it's the opposite. Realists understand that humans are animals and the idea of being punished after death for executing someone do not apply.
Eureka Australis
29-12-2007, 07:39
First off, I've read all about David Hicks and anyone that believes that he was not a terrorist is an idiot.

Not at all. A theocratic government would be the worst thing possible.

I'm speaking of the harsh methods in dealing with terrorists. All governments have their strong points. You don't have to have a dictatorship in order to acknowledge that executions are an effective way of dealing with potential threats.

If anything it's the opposite. Realists understand that humans are animals and the idea of being punished after death for executing someone do not apply.
Yet you have failed to answer my last question of you, is you're stance on the death penalty and treatment (legal, moral etc) of suspected terrorists objectives? Would you support equal punishment for people like Carrilles?
HSH Prince Eric
29-12-2007, 08:22
Yes, anyone that murders innocent people as Carriles did deserves to die, no matter if they are anti-communist or anything else.

I'm not a supporter of carpet bombing a town to kill terrorists, but the actual terrorists themselves deserve torture and death. And yes, mistakes will be made, but I don't think you can set policy based on the exception, because as I've said before, the argument basically is against any of justice system at all because mistakes will be made.
Jeruselem
29-12-2007, 08:36
Yes, anyone that murders innocent people as Carriles did deserves to die, no matter if they are anti-communist or anything else.

I'm not a supporter of carpet bombing a town to kill terrorists, but the actual terrorists themselves deserve torture and death. And yes, mistakes will be made, but I don't think you can set policy based on the exception, because as I've said before, the argument basically is against any of justice system at all because mistakes will be made.

Hicks got convicted as some Sham deal to make the former Australian government look good and make it look like it was taking action on getting Hicks home (took about 5 years for them to act). In those five years, they couldn't find too much to nail him on.

As for being a real terrorist, you are chasing the wrong people. Maybe you get Pakistan to actually do thing about the Taliban in the tribal areas?
Neo Art
29-12-2007, 08:39
you fail at trolling.
Eureka Australis
29-12-2007, 08:45
In effect all he was convicted of was sitting next to a Taliban tank and then giving himself up to the Northern Alliance, who then promptly handed him over to the Americans for a large sum of money.
Neu Leonstein
29-12-2007, 11:42
Did he not boast that he took part in the Kashmir jihad and shot at Indian soldiers?
But the American tribunal didn't establish any of these things to be worthy of punishment as such. Basically his boast in a letter doesn't constitute evidence or a confession, nor is, strictly speaking, shooting at Indian soldiers a terrorist act.

I was referring to Habib. That they didn't kill him when they had the chance is just horrific. Talk about wishful thinking.
Habib came to my uni once, for a talk organised by the Socialist Alternative. It was interesting to hear him (an arsehole certainly), just a pity that the SA types constantly interrupted questions to go on rants about how evil Israel is.
Kele
29-12-2007, 11:55
I was watching when the newscast flashed onto my TV screen, live, as he was set free.

Personally I don't like him...but he'd certainly served his time, and for the most part, in pretty crappy conditions, all based on a less-than-airtight conviction.

Woe be it to anyone who tries to convince me of the "advantages" of the death penalty.

(if I log in again within the next six months, that is :P)
Heikoku
29-12-2007, 14:18
I'm not a supporter of carpet bombing a town to kill terrorists, but the actual terrorists themselves deserve torture and death. And yes, mistakes will be made, but I don't think you can set policy based on the exception, because as I've said before, the argument basically is against any of justice system at all because mistakes will be made.

No, the argument is against a justice system that makes IRREPARABLE mistakes, such as killing someone. Now you have the following choices: Devise a way to resurrect people, tell me you're betting YOUR life on this and perfectly willing to be wrongfully executed so the rest of the world has a chance to be as well (in which case you'd be a psychopath but a coherent one), or have the people who wrongfully cause or help executions be executed themselves - each and every one of them, judge, jury, attorneys, executors, EVERY SINGLE ONE. If you're willing to bet someone else's life on your blood thirst, you sure as hell better be prepared to bet YOUR sorry excuse for a life as well!
Ardchoille
29-12-2007, 15:09
If you're willing to bet someone else's life on your blood thirst, you sure as hell better be prepared to bet YOUR sorry excuse for a life as well!

Keep it cool, Heikoku, and give a nod to the topic.
Heikoku
29-12-2007, 15:16
Keep it cool, Heikoku, and give a nod to the topic.

Okay, Australian girls are hot! :D

Now seriously: Why exactly do we have people going "oh, he should be executed" when, well, evidence against him is about as loose as a B-cup bra would be on on Lynne Cheney were it not for the paper she puts on to pretend she's not a man?

And on the off-topic part, I do believe that people willing to bet someone else's life on their guilt of a crime should have to bet theirs as well.
[NS]I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS
29-12-2007, 17:25
He was part of the KLA and admitted training with islamists in Pakistan, this was even established by his own dad. So I can't help but think it would have been much more convenient to everyone to just make him quietly disappear as soon as he was captured and his identity established. Though apparantly he's renounced his faith while in Guantanamo, so maybe he won't be a threat. Though there could have been ways they didn't need to make him disappear. I know if a British citizen had assisted the Taliban (No matter how insignificantly, even serving them drinks), it should be life without parole for treason or on terror charges.
Evil Cantadia
29-12-2007, 18:34
Letting David Hicks go is just the ultimate reason why the US cannot rely on anyone else to deal with terrorists that we capture.

You guys should stick to only releasing them to countries that torture people. Like Syria. Even if they haven't done anything.
Imperio Mexicano
29-12-2007, 20:53
I guess though that 'terrorist' or 'illegal combatant' is subjective to what side you're on, and also subject to partisan politics.

Very ironic to be hearing this from you.
Hurdegaryp
29-12-2007, 21:21
Yeah, let's lock up anyone deemed as terrorist without any proof.
To be fair, that's not what HSH Prince Eric says. He said that anyone who is suspected to be a terrorist should be executed. Some may call that typical terror tactics, but those naysayers are just enemies of freedom and therefore potential terrorists. And potential terrorists should of course be executed in name of democracy and freedom. There is no place for criticism in any true democracy, everybody knows that.
Heikoku
29-12-2007, 22:17
To be fair, that's not what HSH Prince Eric says. He said that anyone who is suspected to be a terrorist should be executed. Some may call that typical terror tactics, but those naysayers are just enemies of freedom and therefore potential terrorists. And potential terrorists should of course be executed in name of democracy and freedom. There is no place for criticism in any true democracy, everybody knows that.

:D
Laerod
29-12-2007, 22:21
In the sense that responding to any thread is similar to bumping any thread. There is a difference, though, when the OP reveals itself to be such an obvious troll that doesn't even try to argue against its detractors. It becomes feeding when you know it's a troll.Yes... Feeding a troll isn't much different than bumping a trolly or less than worthwhile thread.
Neither of which were trolls.Bullshit. For one, that wasn't my point to begin with: Neither seemed popular and the forum would have done better without the off topic rants that ensued. Secondly, the one on the Baltimore story was classic trolling, complete with the OP not arguing against its detractors.
Fishutopia
30-12-2007, 15:05
What is the point of defending our way of life from terrorism, if we become terrorists ourselves? Israel has already gone down the path of selling their soul for a patch of land. The US is selling their soul for false ideas of security.

Thankfully my country believes in innocence until proven guilty. Australia has done some bad things, but I am proud of the recent actions towards Hicks. it shows we haven't lost all of our soul yet, it is just damaged a bit.
Hurdegaryp
30-12-2007, 15:46
It's not terrorism if you know you're right. Unfortunately the real terrorists use the same logic to justify their actions. So we could say that there are no terrorists, or that everybody's a terrorist or at least sympathizes with terrorists.

Horrifying, isn't it?
GlasgowAberdeen
30-12-2007, 16:07
Shame on the USA for funding the IRA
Shame on the USA for training Afghani terrorists
Dyakovo
30-12-2007, 18:27
Shame on the USA for funding the IRA
Shame on the USA for training Afghani terrorists

Shh! you're not supposed to bring up those little details.
Rotovia-
30-12-2007, 18:28
Letting David Hicks go is just the ultimate reason why the US cannot rely on anyone else to deal with terrorists that we capture. It's disgusting that he was released.

The man should have been executed 6 years ago.

How can you be outraged at an Australia for an American court's sentence?
Dyakovo
30-12-2007, 18:33
How can you be outraged at an Australia for an American court's sentence?

Well, he can't very well maintain the superiority of teh USA without a scapegoat in this case, now can he?