Traitor Hicks gets lucky
The only woman who could love a terrorist and traitor, a human rights advocate, stands by her man.
“David Hicks is someone’s brother, son and father,” Aloysia wrote. “He gets scared, bleeds and feels pain just like you or I … He is someone who deserves to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion no matter what he has done.”Aloysia, you treat him with dignity, respect and compassion, the majority of us will treat him with contempt. The romance blossomed after Hicks moved from his home town of Adelaide to Sydney six months ago, where he found it easier to access rehabilitation services and settle back into the community. He most probably found it easier to ‘get some’ as well. I trust Australian women otherwise wouldn’t go near him.
Facebook
Twitter
Kev
The piece below was originally posted on my blog when Hicks was still in Guantanamo. I’m posting here in the hope of getting some discussion going, not on Hicks the man (I don’t know him and have no desire to do so) but on the issue of repatriation of Australian citizens in foreign custody, irrespective of their conduct.
This is a much more important issue than his love life. The last sentence is still relevant in my book, and justice has not been served. This situation should never have become a matter of politics – it should always have been about law.
“There are two completely separate issues relating to David Hicks.
The first is how he should be treated.
He offered his services to a group of militants who were/are a risk to our national security. From this point of view, he has a strong case to answer, even if there is no law on our books that makes it possible. In an ideal world, such a law should have been created, and he should have had his day in court being tried against it – here in Australia. He continues to have a case to answer.
The second issue is about the treatment of an Australian who is in the custody of a foreign power. He was held without trial for five years. Irrespective of what he did, this was simply wrong.
The two issues are muddied. It is possible to condemn his actions, as I do, but also to condemn the way his case was handled. Condemning the way he was treated doesn’t mean that I support his actions.
What we are left with is a complete mess – no trial, no recognition of habeus corpus, and no real closure”.
On the surface, your points seem valid, RJW.
But the problem lies with American law.
Too much ‘due process’
The rules of warfare should include a clause …’if you do it to our guys, we do it to your guys.’
That way there would be no Dvaid Hicks problem; or where to house the other guests for that matter.
I’d call that closure.
Cav
Regardless of whether Hicks is/was an Australian, he is an adventurer who sought a life of violence. Because he isn’t just another pile of bleached bones on an Afghan hillside demonstrates that he was accorded far more ‘justice’ than he and his kind allow their victims.
That he was incarcerated by the US, fed, educated and finally released before the ‘war’ is over contrasts with the summary executions handed out by the Muslim terrorists who murdered hotel guests and employees in the corridors of Mumbai hotels.
The laws of war are clear regarding the Taliban and Al Qaeda -as a traveller in both camps Hicks lost all protection offered to lawful combatants by the Geneva conventions so the Northern Alliance had every right to shoot him on the spot when he was captured.
If he had not been a ‘westerner’ he would have been dealt with summarily, instead the Northern Alliance commander decided to ‘sell’ him to US forces operating in the area. The US Army has a policy of treating all PWs with restraint regardless of their status and lucky little Hicks lives to write his book and enjoy the favours of his dim and delusional camp follower.
A very different fate awaits any coalition soldier or civilian captured by Hicks’ ‘alma mater’ – the best they could hope for would be a quick death the worst is unimaginable.
So we should use the same methods as Al Qaeda? My point is simply that this issue became mired in politics, and the result was a dog’s breakfast. The separation of powers is a cornerstone of democracy. When it is compromised (as it was in this case) everyone loses.