It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US charges David Hicks

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   
THE US has charged Australian David Hicks, a detainee at a prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder and aiding the enemy, the Pentagon said today.
news.bbc.co.uk...
news.com.au...

Sanc'.




posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Wow! Are we actually charging people with crimes now, after we arrest them? Maybe we'll be nice and let him see a lawyer.



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Wow! Are we actually charging people with crimes now, after we arrest them? Maybe we'll be nice and let him see a lawyer.


Hi curme,
Hicks has a lawyer, Marine Corps Major Michael Mori.
"The defence team intends to fight these allegations, and that's all they are is allegations, to the fullest extent that we're allowed to and the resources that are provided to us," said Marine Corps Major Michael Mori, the military lawyer named to defend Hicks.

Sanc'.



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
And your point is...?



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Wow! We are nice! Let freedom ring! I'm just so outraged by the lack of due process, heck, any process, afforded to those prisoners at Gitmo. I wonder if he and his fellow Australian, Habib, are actually getting treated according to some kind of rule of law because they have a country that will apply pressure for basic human rights, as opposed to the countless others who do not have or were forgotten by their country.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
So he is being charged by the US military and his lawyer is a Marine Corps lawyer appointed by the court?

Um, go due process!

And YET, even the court-appointed lawyer says he will get totally screwed.


Mr Hicks' US-appointed military lawyer also said his client would not receive a fair trial.

"David Hicks has not violated any law of war and shouldn't have been charged," Maj Michael Mori said after the announcement. "It's unfortunate these charges will never be tested before a fair and established justice system."

The trials will be conducted behind closed doors, and there is no right to appeal.


Youch. Freedom schmeedom.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Update. I found this on another site, an Australian one, a transcript of one of their news shows.

www.abc.net.au...


ALISON CALDWELL: On the charge of attempted murder, the US Defence Department claims that as an enemy combatant, David Hicks fought against Coalition troops, including Australians, in Afghanistan post-September 2001.

It's alleged he attended four terrorist training courses, which included weapons training. It's also claimed that he spied on the US and British embassies in Kabul.

But David Hicks' Australian lawyer Stephen Kenny says that's unlikely.

STEPHEN KENNY: Well my understanding is those embassies had in fact been closed for between 12 to 15 years at the time he's alleged to have carried out the surveillance, so

ALISON CALDWELL: He's watching empty buildings?

STEPHEN KENNY: Yes, if he was surveilling anything, I presume they were empty buildings, because certainly the embassies had been gone for a long time.

ALISON CALDWELL: David Hicks' father Terry knew the charges were imminent but he fears there's worse to come.

TERRY HICKS: It's become an embarrassment over two-and-a-half years of saying that David Hicks is guilty of this and guilty of that and guilty of something else without even facing court... so I think it's got to the embarrassing stage now where they've got to charge him with something, and he's going to have to do time.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Interesting... a charge of conspiracy to committ war crimes. What does that mean? He thought about it? LOL. Yet when our guys actually do it nothing happens. Yeah. Thats fair I guess.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Update. I found this on another site, an Australian one, a transcript of one of their news shows.


Nice find Jakomo

This transcript is a few hours earlier,
www.abc.net.au...

Sanc'.
BTW, To all members on this thread, i have no agenda regarding verdict.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   
From this link:

Hicks joined al Qaeda after 9/11 attacks


After the Sept. 11 attacks, Hicks joined an al-Qaida unit near Kandahar and guarded a Taliban tank near the airport for a week, the charge sheet says. Before his capture, Hicks had traveled north toward Kunduz, site of a major battle with U.S.-backed anti-Taliban forces.


Last February, the Pentagon brought war crimes conspiracy charges against two men alleged to be associates of terror leader Osama bin Laden and said they will face the first U.S. military tribunals convened since World War II. Hicks would be the third defendant.

Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi of Sudan allegedly was a paymaster for al-Qaida and Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul, of Yemen was a propagandist for bin Laden, according to an official list of charges released by the Pentagon.

Doesn't the fact that this man joined al Qaeda mean anything to you folks? What do you think his motives were?

It is one thing to be concerned about rights. It is quite another to support the sworn enemies of the US.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Thanks for the links people, I had some trouble finding this article since my internet went down earlier. Does anyone think theres an awful lot of people being arrested for 9/11 attacks.. like too many?



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
It is one thing to be concerned about rights. It is quite another to support the sworn enemies of the US. Doesn't the fact that this man joined al Qaeda mean anything to you folks? What do you think his motives were?


I never stated my opinon regarding Hicks' charges etc. He is in deep cr*p, i know that much.
Sanc'.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Doesn't the fact that this man joined al Qaeda mean anything to you folks? What do you think his motives were?

It is one thing to be concerned about rights. It is quite another to support the sworn enemies of the US.


I believe everyone, even people like perpertrators of 9/11, deserve a fair trial. Deserves to be charge with a crime, even be treated humanely while in custody. If not, why even fight Al Queda? Don't the people who want to disregard basic American principles and Al Queda have the same goal? Or is it only ok when we don't follow the rule of law? If we don't fight for fair trials and representation for others, who is going to fight for us?



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   
jsobecky:

Doesn't the fact that this man joined al Qaeda mean anything to you folks? What do you think his motives were?

It is one thing to be concerned about rights. It is quite another to support the sworn enemies of the US.


Yeah, based on the Army's case, none of which has to be proven or even shared with the defense attorney. This is a military tribunal, not a civil or criminal court.

And what a STRETCH!

from your link:


Hicks is not specifically accused of hurting or killing anyone. In justifying the charge of attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent, the Pentagon alleges Hicks participated in fighting in Afghanistan as an illegal combatant.


A thought crime? Charged with INTENT to murder? Wtf is that about? It took them since 2001 (when he was originally incarcerated in Gitmo) to come up with THAT?!


Mori declined comment on many of the details in the new charges. He suggested the government had mischaracterized an alleged meeting between Hicks and bin Laden.

"If you're in a room with 75 people, is that a meeting?" Mori asked.


And the kicker:


After the Sept. 11 attacks, Hicks joined an al-Qaida unit near Kandahar and guarded a Taliban tank near the airport for a week, the charge sheet says.


He guarded a tank for a week? Omigod let's fry him.

Pay attention, Yanks, because if you are labelled "terrorist" by anyone who might have a beef with you, this could happen to YOU.

You think that you're strong enough to handle 2.5 years of interrogations and then have a court case based on those 2.5 years of torture-induced "confessions", but you're not.

This is fascism.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Yeah, but it's OUR fascism.[/sarcasm]

He will have members of his family at the tribunal, as well as others from his country.

He joined al Qaeda. The terrorist group, not the rock band. They are all fair game for immediate arrest, IMO. And they are to be classified as enemy combatants, not POW's.

What's with this 'thought crime' you're so hung up on? Keep beating that drum and you'll convince yourself that it is true.

Intent to murder. Shoot at me and miss; that's intent to murder. Not my fault you're a lousy shot.

You guys are a joke - sympathisizing with al Qaeda. If they get off on a technicality, they will walk out of the courtroom and spit at you, and then plot to murder your children. And you will apologize to them for not offering up your children sooner.




posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
jsobecky:

You guys are a joke - sympathisizing with al Qaeda. If they get off on a technicality, they will walk out of the courtroom and spit at you, and then plot to murder your children. And you will apologize to them for not offering up your children sooner.


Um, yyyyyeah. Way to hold up your end of the argument. I'm not sympathizing with Al Qaeda, I'm sympathizing with another human being who has been held in detention for over 2 years for joining a militia.

Was he an Al Qaeda gunman? Accountant? Waterboy? Tank guarder?

He didn't harm or injure or kill anyone, and you're hollering for his head on a platter?

That says more about your bloodthirstiness and lack of respect for your fellow human being than anything else. Good work!

Keep believing the hype if it keeps you warm at night, but it's still hype.



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The absurdity of the charges against Hicks makes me think we've all dropped down the rabbit hole.

First, I don't recall a declaration of war. Second, I cannot think of any war in history in which soldiers on the losing side were charged with crimes because they attended training. And third, the idea that enlisting in an army is a consipiracy to commit war crimes is simply too bizarre for words.

Apparently, David Hicks' only CRIME is that he wasn't born in Afghanistan.

The saddest aspect of this mess is that some officer wearing a United States military uniform could have so little personal honor that he would sign his name to these charges.

America certainly has come a long way in its journey to oblivion.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   

from Jakomo
Was he an Al Qaeda gunman? Accountant? Waterboy? Tank guarder?

Does it matter?


He didn't harm or injure or kill anyone, and you're hollering for his head on a platter?

Poor little al Qaeda...lousy shot that he is. Never got a chance to saw somebody's head off, and the whole big bad USA is against him.


That says more about your bloodthirstiness and lack of respect for your fellow human being than anything else.

Well, you finally got something correct. I have no respect for al Qaeda. You do. They will still cut your throat, you fool.

Strider:

If you knew someone were a member of a terrorist organization that has stated their intentions to wipe out the West, and have already committed murder on our shores by flying planes into buildings, would you allow him to walk freely on our streets?

The fact that I would have to state the obvious to you shows that the USA has certainly has come a long way in its journey to oblivion. Having terrorist sympathizers like you defending them shows your hatred for the USA. I hope you are not a US citizen; you belong with the terrorists, making sure they are well defended and comforted.





posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
"Well, you finally got something correct. I have no respect for al Qaeda. You do. They will still cut your throat, you fool. "

No offense but you make the assumption that al Qaeda was the one that cut the throat. That could just as easily been anyone else. Old Saddam supporters or even us. The CIA has one of the dirtiest track records in the world. Don't assume them innocent. There was certainly a motive for the CIA to commit that crime. And as there is in any criminal case motive is a big factor. The CIA had the means and the motive to execute Berg. And they certainly had access to him. While al Qaeda may have had a motive it certainly wasn't as strong as the CIA's motive and they didn't have the access to Berg that the US had.

I would certainly HOPE we didn't do it but there certainly isn't evidence out there to clear them of it.



posted on Jun, 12 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   
What exactly are the motives for al Queda? Are they against the government or the people? I thought they attacked the people as a consequence to the government? They embrace certain members of the West who share their ideals and want to fight with them. How do they treat such members who are not willing to fight?

I'm just questioning the supposed intentions of al Queda since certain members claim to be very familiar with this organization. Maybe you can enlighten me, jsobecky?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join