David Hicks - Austrailian Terrorist captured, convicted and taking his case to the UN.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
(MODS - Removed violating material and reworded)

Who -
David Hicks- Austrailian.

Time Line of events -

In November 1999 Hicks travelled to Pakistan, where he joined the paramilitary 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 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 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.


Key parts -

He was captured by the Northern Alliance on Dec 9th 2001 while engaged in combat operations with other terrorists affiliated with Al Queida.

The Northern Alliance turned him over to US forces on dec 17th.

What law did here break?
18 USC 113B > § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists

(a) Offense.— Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842 (m) or (n), 844 (f) or (i), 930 (c), 956, 1091, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, 2340A, or 2442 of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123 (b) of title 49, or any offense listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

(b) Definitions.— As used in this section—
(1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;

(2) the term “training” means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and

(3) the term “expert advice or assistance” means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.


18 USC 113B > § 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

(a) Prohibited Activities.—
(1) Unlawful conduct.— Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).


He provided material supprt to terrorists under BOTH statutes. He was charged with 1 count of material support, as well as murder. The murder charge was dropped, the providing material support charge was kept and he was found guilty of it.

What actions resulted in his violation of the 2 statutes above?

* - 18 USC 113B > § 2339A

(b) Definitions.— As used in this section—
(1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;


* - 18 USC 113B > § 2339B

To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act


Mr. Hicks was present on the battlefield, armed, engaging in combat operations against the Northern Alliance. The group he was with are Al Queida fighters, who were also engaged in combat operations. One of the other people in his unit was John walker Lindt, the American Al Queida operative who was also captured and charged for the same thing.

Where did 18 USC come from?
U.S. Patriot Act

When did it beocme law?
October 2001

When did Mr. Hicks get captured?
Dec 9th 2001

When was he turned over to the US?
Dec 17th 2001

What was Mr. Hicks charged with?
Providing material support to a terrorist organization.

How?
By knowingly affiliating himself with Al Queida.
By knowingly and openly carrying weapons while participating in combat operations against US / allied forces.
By providing personel to Al Queida to be used in combat operations against US and allied forces, namely himself.

When did the violations ocur?
On December 9th, when he was captured by Northern Alliance forces while he was engaged with other members of Al Queida in combat operations.


This has been beat to death a few times now, and since Mr Hicks fired his old lawyer and hired a new one he is taking his case to the U.N. Human Rights commission.

Everything I have researched shows his legal challeneges were base don his treatemtn, and not what he was charged with.

Mr. hicks was charged in 2004 under the first Military tribuanls President Bush established. His court case was placed on hold while the Supreme Court dealt with Hamdan Vs. Rumsfeld, which challeneged the legality of the tribunals themselves.

People have argued that MR. Hicks was charged under an Ex post Facto law. The law he was charged under was put in place in October 2001 - The Patriot Act.

What was challeneged was the tribunals themselves, and Congress remedied the situation by passing the 2006 Military Commission act (and the update in 2008/2009).

Currently Mr. Hicks has written a book and released it, and now he is going all public relations, taking the US to the UN.

Based on the info provided, should he have been charged?
Were his actions in compliance with the laws?

Do you think his actions towards the US are legitimate?
Do you think his actions towards the US are being done to drum up PR for his book?

Thoughts? Opinions?




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
This bloke recently gave his side of the story which contrasts sharply with the claims made by the US Government about him.

To those who believe the American government claims about David Hicks I have one question. On what basis do you believe the US government is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth??

David Hicks has given an account of his reasons for being in that part of the world where he was taken by the US and why he was there what he was doing at the time of his capture...

I'll pose the question, why would he lie about his explanation. He pleaded guilty just to get out of gitmo bay. The Australian Government wanted him back in Australia so his case would not become a negative election issue for the government and he cannot be sent back there, so why would he lie.
Compare any reason Hicks would lie about his side of story with any reason the American government would lie.
To out this question in context, consider GW Bush’s statement that “these (people in gitmo bay) are the worst of the worst.”



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bussoboy
 


If he is innocent then why did he plead guilty?

His challeneges were to the manner in which he was treated. From everything I have seen he nor his lawyer ever raised the argument that he was innocent.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I've met him. He tells a completely different story in person than what the governments do, all while looking me directly in the eye.

I believe his side of the story.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I have never liked David Hicks for his actions nore believed his story.
The north alliance should have put a bullet in him when they had a chance. It would have saved some money and a few arguements.
I beleive he should at least be locked up forever for the terrorist that he is.
And he should never be allowed to speak at the UN.
edit on 28-8-2011 by meathed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I think Guantanamo Bay is a thorn in the side of the American Justice System and no one should be sent there. Every person should be entitled to treated like a human being regardless of what peeps think they have done and none should be above or below the rule of law...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by meathed
 


Well, as I said I've met him and he is not the monster that the media has made him out to be and you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
To the 2 posters who state he is giving a different story -

What is he saying? Any links to anything in depth where he talks about this (aside from buying his book)?

Also, before September 11th, he was a member of Al Queida was he not? Didnt he go through their training camps?
edit on 28-8-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by meathed
 


why should he not be allowed to speak at the UN. Peeps have the right to have different political views to those of the united states. Maybe some of these peeps think the american government are the terrorists, does that mean the US officaldom should not be allowed to talk to the UN? No it does not none should be excluded...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by meathed
 


Well, as I said I've met him and he is not the monster that the media has made him out to be and you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.


I haven't swallowed anything.
I just went with my gut, i haven't ever believed his story.
And just remember, pshycopaths and serial killers, and yes,, even terrorist can sit there and lie to your face without killing you.
So just because you meet him means jack S%^# to me.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by meathed
 


Ahh, you're one of those blokes who has 'gut feelings' and therefore that means you MUST be right.

Gotya.
edit on 28/8/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by meathed
 


Ahh, you're one of those blokes who has 'gut feelings' and therefore that means you MUST be right.

Gotya.
edit on 28/8/2011 by Kryties because: (no reason given)


Before we go off topic.... lol

How does he explain his capture?
What did he say he was doing when he was captured?


Reason I ask is he was apparently in the same cell as the American who was captured, Lindt.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Lets make it very clear.....

the USA accused Al Qaeda of alot of things, 9/11 included; the USA invaded Afghanistan because of them. Now the USA are using Al Qaeda operatives in Libya and my bet is probably on the ground in Syria too.

David Hicks, no matter what we think of him and his actions in the past, the fact is he turned his life around and I believe he deserves a second chance to make right his wrongs. Should we judge him for the rest of his life based upon a bad decision he made years ago? It is still unclear if indeed David Hicks killed anyone in Afghanistan, my bet is he did'nt. Here in Australia I believe we have more dangerous people in our midest than David Hicks by a long shot.

Dick Smith took a chance on him, I think so should the rest of us and I don't say that lightly.
edit on 28-8-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bussoboy
On what basis do you believe the US government is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth??


On what basis do you believe hicks?


David Hicks has given an account of his reasons for being in that part of the world where he was taken by the US and why he was there what he was doing at the time of his capture...


yes, training as a terrorist to attack the west...


I'll pose the question, why would he lie about his explanation.


Why wouldnt he?


He pleaded guilty just to get out of gitmo bay.


Ever thought he pleaded guilty because he was guilty?


The Australian Government wanted him back in Australia so his case would not become a negative election issue for the government


neither the government or the Australian people cared for a wannabe terrorist


Compare any reason Hicks would lie about his side of story with any reason the American government would lie.


Why wouldnt he lie?



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I only spent a few minutes with him, he was talking to another family member about some work he needed done, but suffice it to say I am convinced that we haven't heard the full story of the circumstances of his capture. "Material support for terrorism" could mean something as innocent as delivering their mail to them if you catch my drift.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


When, where, why and how did you meet this fella, if you don't mind me asking?


Cheers,
Strype



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by meathed
 


why should he not be allowed to speak at the UN. Peeps have the right to have different political views to those of the united states. Maybe some of these peeps think the american government are the terrorists, does that mean the US officaldom should not be allowed to talk to the UN? No it does not none should be excluded...


Well if we had every criminal that feels he has been mistreated speaking to the UN, then there would be one huge line up at the door.
The prisions are full of guilty scum just like hicks that said " i didn't do it." , " ive been soooooo mistreated"
Im sick of the criminal whingeing and having more rights than the rest of us.
If he has a problem well then he shouldn't have commited the crime to start with.
And if he does have a problem , well get him to send a letter to his local M.P and wait in line for a reply like the rest of us citizens.

And if you feel that the US has committed war crimes, go take it up with the Hauge.
Or save it for your own thread.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Strype
 


Eeek, I have said to much now. The circumstances of our meeting was meant to be hush hush, suffice it to say he asked a family member of mine to do some work and he came over to discuss that work with that family member.

Sorry, I know that sounds like BS but i've kinda dug a hole for myself now and really I can't say any more about that.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that will do me, Are You F&^%#@& serious.


Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I only spent a few minutes with him, he was talking to another family member about some work he needed done, but suffice it to say I am convinced that we haven't heard the full story of the circumstances of his capture.


You have only meet him for a minute , yet you have already come to the conclusion he is innocent.

Talk about ignorance



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by meathed
 


A lot better than having a 'gut feeling' based on....what? What the media told you?

I was able to look him in the eye, you have not.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join