Freed Gitmo Terrorist David Hicks

[Zipp0 1]

Anyone else following this story? After simply agreeing to a one year gag order and signing an affidavit that he had not been "illegally treated", Austrailian David Hicks will serve only 9 months for pleading guilty to supporting terrorists.

This raises so many questions:
-If he is the 'worst of the worst' how many people in Gitmo should probably not be there?
-Who WOULDN'T sign that stupid affidavit? It seems it was either sign it or remain in jail forever with no appeal. Seems coercive to me.
-Why a gag order? What is the government afraid he will say?
-If this guy is guilty of supporting terrorists, why is his sentence so short? Burglars get stiffer sentences.

Every day, the tribunals at Gitmo and the facility itself are exposed as more of a sham. Why is nobody listeding to the Defense Secretary who wants it shut down?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Anyone else following this story? After simply agreeing to a one year gag order and signing an affidavit that he had not been "illegally treated", Austrailian David Hicks will serve only 9 months for pleading guilty to supporting terrorists.

This raises so many questions:
-If he is the 'worst of the worst' how many people in Gitmo should probably not be there?
-Who WOULDN'T sign that stupid affidavit? It seems it was either sign it or remain in jail forever with no appeal. Seems coercive to me.
-Why a gag order? What is the government afraid he will say?
-If this guy is guilty of supporting terrorists, why is his sentence so short? Burglars get stiffer sentences.

Every day, the tribunals at Gitmo and the facility itself are exposed as more of a sham. Why is nobody listeding to the Defense Secretary who wants it shut down?

Gitmo keeping you safe don't ya know?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[shropshire 0]

If they (the government this time) have done nothing wrong, then they've got n othing to be a frioghtened of ... or at least, that';s what they keep telling us.

How long had he been in Gitmo? that long plus the 9 months would then his sentence.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Anyone else following this story? After simply agreeing to a one year gag order and signing an affidavit that he had not been "illegally treated", Austrailian David Hicks will serve only 9 months for pleading guilty to supporting terrorists.

This raises so many questions:
-If he is the 'worst of the worst' how many people in Gitmo should probably not be there?
-Who WOULDN'T sign that stupid affidavit? It seems it was either sign it or remain in jail forever with no appeal. Seems coercive to me.
-Why a gag order? What is the government afraid he will say?
-If this guy is guilty of supporting terrorists, why is his sentence so short? Burglars get stiffer sentences.

Every day, the tribunals at Gitmo and the facility itself are exposed as more of a sham. Why is nobody listeding to the Defense Secretary who wants it shut down?

Plea bargains are by definition coercive if this meets your criteria for coercion. John Walker Lindh had to make a similar agreement w.r.t. his accusations of mistreatment in his deal. He wants a do-over now because 9 months is a lot less than 20 years and he only confessed to joining the Taliban and bearing arms, not aiding terrorists.

What do you do with P.O.W.s in a war on terror? There's no good solution. When you capture enemies in a conventional war their status alone makes them detainable until the end of the conflict or some structured repatriation. You don't try them as criminals, it would never be practical anyway. A war on terror including more conventional wars against regimes presents all sorts of problems with mixed status and and a lack of a distinct boundary to conflicts. The threshold for a Gitmo visit was higher than a stay in Abu-Ghraib for example. They already have gitmo releasees who have taken up arms again. There is no neat solution to this, it is a messy dilema.

P.S. and of course we're no longer hanging illegal combatants from the nearest lamp post when caught in the field so you're left having to hold them.

[Guest]

Quote

we're no longer hanging illegal combatants from the nearest lamp post when caught in the field so you're left having to hold them.

That's a shame.
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[dorbie 0]

Quote

If they (the government this time) have done nothing wrong, then they've got n othing to be a frioghtened of ... or at least, that';s what they keep telling us.

How long had he been in Gitmo? that long plus the 9 months would then his sentence.

So the Nazis we captured near the start of WWII were serving a sentence were they? Or were they just held and fed until the end of a conflict in which they were our sworn enemies?

I thing it is possible to draw a distinction between his detention as a combatant and a sentence imposed for terrorist crimes. If you'd confessed to what this guy did in a French court you'd have been sentenced to 25 years in jail automatically.

[shropshire 0]

The distinction is moot... if ones freedom is taken away, it really doesn't matter what you actually call it.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[dorbie 0]

Quote

The distinction is moot... if ones freedom is taken away, it really doesn't matter what you actually call it.

The distinction is not moot for a society facing the jeopardy of releasing captured international illegal combatants while the conflict is ongoing and compelled unwillingly to make the tough choices that objectors carp about from sugar plum fairy land.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

The distinction is moot... if ones freedom is taken away, it really doesn't matter what you actually call it.

The distinction is not moot for a society facing the jeopardy of releasing captured international illegal combatants while the conflict is ongoing and compelled unwillingly to make the tough choices that objectors carp about from sugar plum fairy land.

Then why are we releasing them? If David Hicks is a danger, why is he being released? If others in Gitmo have cases similar to his, can we expect a bunch of releases soon?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

we're no longer hanging illegal combatants from the nearest lamp post when caught in the field so you're left having to hold them.

That's a shame.
.

You do realize don't you that the only thing you have protecting you from being labeled an enemy combatant is your trust that Bush won't put that label on you. And do you know what recourse you would have if he did? Absolutely none.

[billvon 2,467]

>The distinction is not moot for a society facing the jeopardy of releasing
>captured international illegal combatants while the conflict is ongoing and
>compelled unwillingly to make the tough choices that objectors carp about
>from sugar plum fairy land.

Well, I for one am glad Iran feels differently than we do.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>The distinction is not moot for a society facing the jeopardy of releasing
>captured international illegal combatants while the conflict is ongoing and
>compelled unwillingly to make the tough choices that objectors carp about
>from sugar plum fairy land.

Well, I for one am glad Iran feels differently than we do.

The Brits were in uniform and no state of war existed between Iran and the U.K.

You make some completely illogical false analogy in blind pursuit of your political agenda. It leaves me wondering if you can actually discern the difference and staggered that either you might not be able to or think nothing of comparing U.K. soldiers in uniform held by a nation purporting to be non aggressive to terrorists and illegal combatants captured red handed fighting against us in a war zone.

I don't subscribe to the billvon theory of "wildcard1 == wildcard2" whenever the asinine analogy suits me.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The distinction is moot... if ones freedom is taken away, it really doesn't matter what you actually call it.

The distinction is not moot for a society facing the jeopardy of releasing captured international illegal combatants while the conflict is ongoing and compelled unwillingly to make the tough choices that objectors carp about from sugar plum fairy land.

Then why are we releasing them? If David Hicks is a danger, why is he being released? If others in Gitmo have cases similar to his, can we expect a bunch of releases soon?

Hicks is not nearly the first to be released under a variety of circumstances, and as I have already said some have already taken up arms. You might consider those bad calls.

[billvon 2,467]

>illogical false analogy . . .blind pursuit . .political agenda . . staggered . .
>.captured red handed . . asinine analogy . . .

You've hit all the required political rhetoric in just a few short sentences. Good on ya!

[Zipp0 1]

You didn't answer the question.

In my opinion, politics is the reason. Bush is putting politics before security and justice. The only other possible explanation is that it is thought that David Hicks poses little to no threat, which makes one wonder - what was he held in the first place?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Channman 2]

> This raises so many questions:
-If he is the 'worst of the worst' how many people in Gitmo should probably not be there?
-Who WOULDN'T sign that stupid affidavit? It seems it was either sign it or remain in jail forever with no appeal. Seems coercive to me.
-Why a gag order? What is the government afraid he will say?
-If this guy is guilty of supporting terrorists, why is his sentence so short? Burglars get stiffer sentences.

Every day, the tribunals at Gitmo and the facility itself are exposed as more of a sham. Why is nobody listeding to the Defense Secretary who wants it shut down?

The ZippO and Rosie love fest. Looking forward to hearing you rant with your love queen on the View.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>illogical false analogy . . .blind pursuit . .political agenda . . staggered . .
>.captured red handed . . asinine analogy . . .

You've hit all the required political rhetoric in just a few short sentences. Good on ya!

That's a dodge. You don't even try to defend your logical fallacy.

Pretending one thing is equal to another whenever it suits you is simply irrational, no matter how evasive you are when called on it.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

The ZippO and Rosie love fest. Looking forward to hearing you rant with your love queen on the View.

Don't compare me to that fucking cow, OK? Those are fighting words. If you have a valid argument of your own though, I'd love to hear it.

BTW, as I stated before, the Sec Def. agrees with me.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

BTW, as I stated before, the Sec Def. agrees with me.

Even Condi said it should be closed.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

You didn't answer the question.

In my opinion, politics is the reason. Bush is putting politics before security and justice. The only other possible explanation is that it is thought that David Hicks poses little to no threat, which makes one wonder - what was he held in the first place?

Some truth to that, same with when the Brits were released, but this was prompted in part by his pendng trial, and the judge completely stuffed up the hearing IMHO. I see no significant evidence they're not keeping those they have enough evidence on for trial, detaining the high risk guys they're sure about regardless & releasing the small fry. They have mistakenly released at least one high(ish) value prisoner.

Pretending there's no dilema here doesn't solve the problem.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Quote

BTW, as I stated before, the Sec Def. agrees with me.

Even Condi said it should be closed.

So has the British govt. Gitmo is an embarrassment to everything the USA stands (or stood) for.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>illogical false analogy . . .blind pursuit . .political agenda . . staggered . .
>.captured red handed . . asinine analogy . . .

You've hit all the required political rhetoric in just a few short sentences. Good on ya!

And you dodged admitting the clear differences by throwing out a red herring....Good on you!

[billvon 2,467]

> . . . by throwing out a red herring....Good on you!

Dorbie did a good job of getting lots of angry rhetoric into a short post, but I'm afraid your attempt came up a bit short with your overuse of "red herring" (which, of course, is also quite ironic in your case.)

[livendive 8]

Quote

illegal combatants captured red handed fighting against us in a war zone.

You have knowledge of this? What about the people we've released with an "Sorry...we've got nuthin"? Harju would apparently prefer we kill them rather than take the time to investigate. What about the people who were picked up in Europe and moved around, eventually arriving in Gitmo...do they meet your definition above?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Every day, the tribunals at Gitmo and the facility itself are exposed as more of a sham. Why is nobody listeding to the Defense Secretary who wants it shut down?

The only reason why he wanted to shut it down was because of the image the tribunals might have in the wake of the supposed controversy.

He isn't advocating any shut-down due to treatment or utility. With AG Gonzales under fire, the issue may arise again.

edit to add article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/terror/main2599984.shtml

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!