It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Gillard under fire from Assange (Wikileaks)

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:23 AM

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

Hmm, so you've never seen this bit ??

Hicks entered an Alford plea to a single newly codified charge of "providing material support for terrorism".

I wonder what "newly codified charge" means ??

Was that same charge possible in 2001 ??

I'm guessing no..

reply to post by backinblack

As I said.. quit being lazy and read it. The answers are there. My only conclusion is either you cant read, the person who reads for you is not there, or the info below doesnt support your argument, and instead oif saying you are wrong, you chose to play games and pretend you dont see the answer going for the circular argument win.


Here is an idea, I took the time to answer your question, you could at least take the time to read the response. Due to the level of laziness you are exhibiting, I went ahead and added additional information for you at the bottom. Seriously though, is it really too much to ask for people to research their own information if they are going to make a claim? Its not as simple as just hearing something from someone, then posting it as fact.

When he was taken into custody, he was not charged, which is what I stated.

The offical term your looking for is called Ex Post Facto - No law can be made to punish an act that occured prior to its inception as a criminal offense. It does NOT prohibit a person from being charged with a different or varied charge.

Asked and answered - A person who is captured during armed conflict is not required to be charged with anything. They can be held, indefinately, until hostilities end, they are repatriated, or exchanged for Amrican prisoners, or they can be charged.

The lawsuits that were brought by various prisoners at gitmo went through the fEderal Court, and the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the current tribunal process that Bush had put together was not lawful, because it bypassed Congress, whoc is responsible for the UCMJ and tribunals. The Military comission act of 2006 was the result of the Supreme Court ruling, where Congress went through and passed legislation addressing the issues raised by the court.

As a comparison, and to put some of this in perspective with regards to domestic / military laws of the US, there are crimes listed where there is no statute of limitations on charging a person. If you killed someone, and 30 years passed, and there is a break in the case you can still be charged.

Also, the military comission act did not replace the system that was in place prior to hicks being turned over. The act corrected flaws in that system. Had it been something different, then the Supreme Court would have stated that in their ruling.

Hicks was captured by the Northern alliance, and turned over to the US in 2001.
In 2004 he was charged under the system we just discussed, and in 2005 that system was ruled invalid by the Supreme Court.
In 2006 Congress addressed the Supreme Court issues, and in 2007 revised charges were filed against Hicks.

If your argument against Hicks is what I think it is, you should be aware he never went to trial on his own decision. Mr. Hicks entered an alford plea -

To those not familiar with US judicial proceedings, an Alford Pleais a guilty plea in criminal court proceedings, and is entered by the defendant (in this case Mr. Hicks).

Under the Alford plea the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

===Initial charges===
Hicks was charged by a U.S. military commission on 26 August 2004. A [[Summary of Evidence (CSRT)|Summary of Evidence memo]] was prepared for Hicks's Combatant Status Review Tribunal on 7 September 2004, alleging:
[[Cite web
| url=
| title=Summary of Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal - Hicks, David Matthew
| date=2004-09-07
| author=[[OARDEC]]
| pages=1–2
| publisher=[[United States Department of Defense]]
| accessdate = 2008-01-19

:a. The detainee is an al-Qaeda fighter:
:#The detainee affiliated himself with the Taliban.
:#The detainee knew his training was conducted by al-Qaeda, which had declared war on the United States.
:#The detainee was trained to use grenades, landmines, rocket-propelled grenades and other small arms weapons.
:#The detainee attended the al-Qaida Information Course in Kabul, where the instructor cited the al-Qaida bombing of the ''USS Cole'' as a positive example of the uses of al-Qaeda training.
:#The detainee met Osama Bin Laden on approximately eight occasions.

:b. The detainee participated in military operations against the coalition.
:#The detainee personally collected intelligence on the American Embassy in Afghanistan for al-Qaida.
:#Following 9-11, the detainee met with a senior al-Qaeda leader to discuss various locations to fight against the United States and Northern Alliance forces.
:#After being stationed near the Khandahar airport, the detainee agreed to fight on the frontlines in Konduz.
:#The detainee was captured by Northern Alliance forces near Bagram.
:#While engaged in combat, the detainee failed to wear a uniform or any type of emblem or distinctive military article designating him as a fighter; nor did he follow any typical military chain of command.

In Guantanamo, Hicks had signed a statement written by American military investigators which read, in part, "I believe that al-Qaeda camps provided a great opportunity for Muslims like myself from all over the world to train for military operations and Jihad. I knew after six months that I was receiving training from al-Qaeda, who had declared war on numerous countries and peoples."[ Amnesty International reports on mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay][ ''The Guardian''], ''FBI files detail Guantanamo torture tactics'' The indictment later prepared by U.S. military prosecutors for his commission trial alleged that, prior to his capture in 2001, Hicks had trained and conspired in various ways and was guilty of "aiding the enemy" while an "[[unprivileged belligerent]]" but did not allege any specific acts of violence:

* In November 1999 Hicks travelled to [[Pakistan]], where he joined the paramilitary [[Islamism|Islamist]] group, [[Lashkar-e-Toiba]] (Army of the Pure).
* Hicks trained for two months at a Lashkar-e-Toiba camp in Pakistan, where he received weapons training, and that during 2000 he served with a Lashkar-e-Toiba group near the Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
* In January 2001 Hicks travelled to [[Afghanistan]], then under the control of the [[Taliban]] regime, where he presented a letter of introduction from Lashkar-e-Toiba to [[Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi]], a senior [[al-Qaeda]] member, and was given the alias "Mohammed Dawood".
* He was sent to al-Qaeda's [[Al Farouq training camp|al-Farouq training camp]] outside [[Kandahar]], where he trained for eight weeks, receiving further weapons training as well as training with land mines and explosives.
* He did a further seven-week course at al-Farouq, during which he studied marksmanship, ambush, camouflage and intelligence techniques.
* At [[Osama bin Laden]]'s request, Hicks translated some al-Qaeda training materials from Arabic into English.
* In June 2001, on the instructions of [[Mohammed Atef]], an al-Qaeda military commander, Hicks went to another training camp at [[Tarnak Farm]], where he studied "urban tactics", including the use of assault and sniper rifles, [[rappelling]], kidnapping and assassination techniques.
* In August Hicks went to [[Kabul]], where he studied information collection and intelligence, as well as Islamic theology including the doctrines of ''[[jihad]]'' and martyrdom as understood through al-Qaeda's fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.
* In September 2001 Hicks travelled to Pakistan and was there at the time of the [[11 September attacks]] on the United States, which he saw on television.
* He returned to Afghanistan in anticipation of the attack by the United States and its allies on the Taliban regime, which was sheltering Osama bin Laden.
* On returning to Kabul, Hicks was assigned by Mohammed Atef to the defence of Kandahar, and that he joined a group of mixed al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters at [[Kandahar Airfield|Kandahar airport]], and that at the end of October, however, Hicks and his party travelled north to join in the fighting against the forces of the US and its allies.
* After arriving in [[Konduz]] on 9 November 2001, he joined a group which included [[John Walker Lindh]] (the "American Taliban"). This group was engaged in combat against Coalition forces, and during this fighting he was captured by Coalition forces.

On 29 June 2006, the United States Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]]'' that the military commissions were illegal under United States law and the Geneva Conventions. The commission trying Hicks was abolished and the charges against him voided.

The US administration has alleged that Hicks:[[Cite news
| url=
| title=The case against David Hicks
| publisher=Fairfax
| work=The Age
| author=Jane Holroyd
| date=2007-01-11
| accessdate = 2008-02-06
| location=Melbourne

*Attended advanced al-Qaeda training camps
*Associated with senior al-Qaeda leaders after 9/11
*Was issued weapons to fight US troops in Afghanistan
*Carried out surveillance on US and other international embassies

edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:25 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

You missed the edit mate

I do wonder how the pro hicks peeps would have reacted if he'd been there when the Aussie's arrived,and had shot at them,

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:28 AM
reply to post by dadfortruth1

I too think Assange was 'implying' this.

Anything else and I am just guessing

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:49 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

We share info with them, and them with us,

And thats a good thing, we are allies. but as long as its used for protecting it's people, not protecting them selfs.
They could be working together to do all they can to squash Assange and Wikileaks, they could be very nervous about it. I see it like a game of chess.

Assange and the people who work on Wikileaks are innocent people who "may have" had personal information passed on to another country by its own gov, I think it's wrong.

i may be old fashioned but i still believe in "the government should be put there by the people, for the people"
I think we need a "Wikileaks" to keep our government's in check.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:56 AM
reply to post by dadfortruth1

I agree to a certain extent.. However, the information Assange released is not just one specific issue. He opened the floodgates, and has placed people in danger because of his arrogance.

If he is going to illegally obtain and disclose infomation that does not belong to him, turn about it fair play is it not? Do we not hvae a right to protect information that does NOT show illegal activity?

Furthermore, why does Assange, who is Austrailian, feel the need to go after a government that is not his own. He has leveled accusations at his own government, why not go after them?

Maybe because he knows he could be charged with treason at that point? Or maybe because he has a beef with the US Government, and this is nothing but an ego thing for him.
edit on 16-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:02 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

But all the govenrments are working in some way together for a common cause.

Why discriminate when they are all as bad?

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 07:14 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

If he is going to illegally obtain and disclose infomration that does not belong tom him, turn about it fair play is it not?

that would be fair, but to my knowledge he hasn't illegally obtained any information, he just recieves it from whistle-blowers, and publishes it, same as a jurnolist does.
He is a smart enough man to have covered himself from illegal consequence's.
And Im still not sold on the sexual assault claims.

and has placed people in danger because of his arrogance.

I have heard this before. Im not sure of the exact leaks and the people he has endangered, so i wont comment.
I just hope the leaks will help more people than harm them in the long run
edit on 16/3/11 by dadfortruth1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:56 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Thanks for posting the vid. JA's point seems bit moot untill we see what kind of information there is about such things. I'm not convinced at this point. That being said Gillard seems like a typical bs politician. I don't get any 'vibe' of honesty when she says she has no knowledge of such things. No facial expressions there thought, are we sure she is even alive?
Also she seems to have mistaken JA for a whistleblower for some reason. She makes the comparison with famous whistleblowers completely ignoring the fact that JA is not one. Silly politicians

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in