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