Chefelf.com Night Life: David Hicks - Chefelf.com Night Life

I agree that he should have gone to trial in Afghanistan since Australia doesn’t have the death penalty and obviously doesn’t treat traitors as they should be treated.



He betrayed his family, friends and country. He deserves everything the Americans did to him and more so. Perhaps the rural Nevada those who betray their family, friends and country are held in high regard. Not here, bub.



He was caught in Afghanistan with a gun. He took pictures of himself carrying guns and being with the Taliban before he was caught. Although, if you want to believe that he was somehow a prisoner of circumstance then be my guest, just answer me this, who goes to Afghanistan carrying a gun while on vacation?

First of all, no one deserves to be tortured. When President Castro won the Cuban revolution he actually did confront people who had tortured others. Instead of ordering that they be tortured as well, he did the decent thing, granting htem a trial and, in the cases where they were guilty, a swift death.

As for hsi carryign a gun: DUH. He was in a country controlled by people whose number one hobby is shooting other people. Elementary school teachers there carry guns, (substantiated, by the way) Anyone in hte country without a red cross or journalist credential woudl do well to be armed.

So in your world, if someone is accused of treason, it's alright to torture them until they confess to it? The accusations don't matter to me, no matter how heinous. You're working under the assumption that he was guilty, and that his PERCIEVED guilt justifies his being tortured until he admitted to it. But, to paraphrase Cromwell, "For gods sake I beg you to consider that you may be mistaken"

What if this guy was somehow just in the wrong place at the wrong time and he only admitted to the alleged crimes to stop his CIA interrogators from torturing him further. I can surely see that he might be guilty, and I accept the fact that he very well may have fought for the taliban. That doesn't mean the Geneva conventions shouldnt apply to him, or that he doesnt have the right to a trial, or that he should be tortured and indefinately detained.

This isn’t 1959 and this isn’t Cuba. Castro, fought for his country, not against his country like Hicks did.



Accused of treason? He took pictures of himself branding weapons, in uniform and hanging out with Taliban fighters. He sent letters to his parents expressing his stay in the Taliban forces.



Actually, since he was is not a local to Afghanistan, he is defined as a mercenary by the Geneva Convention and thus he is not protected by the Geneva Convention if he is captured.



Except for C which could be arguable, he is classified as a mercenary. Depending on whether or not you see the 76 virgins as material compensation.

Oh come on. Yeah yeah I know, this is an all new war like no other ever before so we should be allowed to disappear, torture, and kill whoever we like because, unlike in previous wars, our enemies aren't nice, don't play by the rules, and want to kill us.



The photographic evidence only establishes that he was there and that he had a weapon in his posession at some point in time. Trying on a uniform for a photo shoot does not make you a combatant.



This reeks of Bush Cheney apologism. "He didnt wear green on St Patrick's day, and Massachusets law CLEARLY states that anyone committing said offense looses all human rights, so crank on more juice to the penis battery boys!" If you're going to torture people it's because theres evil in your heart, not because you think maybe it's legal by some bullshit loop hole.



A: He wasnt specially recruited, he wandered into Afghanistan.
B: All the proof you've displayed is that he held a gun and got a photo taken.
C: If he believed he was doing the right thing, all the more power to him. If a few Americans would have taken such initiative to fight against our invasions of other countries, a lot of good men would still be alive and in power today.

I was comparing Hicks to Castro. Since you brought up Castro. I don’t know why you did that since he has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic Fascism that I know of. I think that was pretty clear. Are you smoking weed?





Yes, you’re right. Let’s ignore all photographic evidence. All pictures can be staged and thus no picture proves anything.



Don’t be stupid. Just because I don’t like traitors, it doesn’t mean I am condoning the way Bush is handling the wars. He invaded a secular state that was keeping the Islamic Fascists at bay for God’s sake! Where the hell is the logic in that?



Yeah. From Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Toiba he just happened to wander into Afghanistan. All this seems like amazing set of circumstance. What was he doing in Afghanistan other then fighting for the Taliban? What other possible reasons could he have to be in such a desolate and violent place prior to the invasion by the coalition? Explain this to me please because it is obvious that you know something that I don’t.



The right thing? Yeah, I am sure those who hijacked the airliners in 2001 thought they were doing the right thing. I am sure those who blew themselves up at Bali thought they were doing the right thing. More likely however, they acted on the promise of massive sex in the afterlife

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 01 January 2008 - 03:40 AM

You don't give enough credit to religious obsession, Snake.

They thought they were defending their religion. Whilst I disagree with them entirely, I don't think they were acting solely on the promise of all those virgins.

It’s not like the promise of virgins deterred them.

No, but I do not think that was what led them to commit their acts. I think they did it because they thought they were defending what was what they thought was the one true religion.

There are many factors as to why they did what they did. A truck load of virgins was one of them.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 01 January 2008 - 02:10 PM

Every tiem I try to reply in this place I lose my post so I'll be quick about it:

I wasnt comparign Hicks to Castro, I was contrasting him to Batista's men. If they, who were guilty of far worse crimes than shooting at American soldiers, didnt deserve to be tortured, why do the... I'm sorry *girlish giggles* "Islamic Fascists" Seriously did you get that word out of the George Bush play book or what? I've actually never heard it used by ANYONE except our backwoods shit eater of a commander in chief. Or people who suck up to him.

The photographs show that he, at one point in time, held a gun and borrowed someones uniform.

As for explaining to you why I doubt his guilt, that would be because he's legally innocent. A confession obtained by torture is not admissible in any court but the kangaroo courts Bush and his croneys set up. By Australian AND US law David Hicks is legally innocent.



I'm sure Bush thought he was doing the right thing when he signed the death warrants of 200000 Iraqies. I'm sure the bastards at Guantanamo thought they were doing the right thing when they tortured and drugged your countrymen.

And finally when it comes to this religion is the cause bullshit, I must say both of you are utterly mistaken.

The cause of all of this is imperialism and neo-colonialism. The US bears responsibility for every act of terror comitted because we goaded them into it through humiliating their nations, through propping up the dictators that oppressed them, through invading their countries, and by hoarding their natural resources. Exploitation and the rape of the Muslim nations is the reason "terrorism" occurs.

What you call "Islamic Fascism" is just good old fashioned nationalism as oppressed people seek to take control of their own destinies and cultural identities. The same thing happened in South America and in Africa when revolutions and guerilla groups swept the lands trying to cleanse their countries of Western domination.

The difference here is that, rather than striking at our proxies in their own countries as all previous liberation and nationalist struggles have i nthe past, the "terrorists" have come to seek out the heart of the problem: The US itself. The wars of the past have been fought in distant lands where dictators murder their people with American bullets. Now our chickens are coming home to roost.

As for the idea of sacrifice in Islam, look at any other struggle of the oppressed peoples. Lumumba, Guevara, Cienfuegos, Allende, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and god only knows how many lesser known names sacrificed themselves in the struggle for social justice and liberation. Sacrifice is required on the part of the oppressed to wrest power from the oppressors. We are simply witnessing a new stage in the struggle between the bourgeois and the proletariat.

The new development is the religious theme, this is true, but not in the fact that it gives cause to sacrifice oneself. The thing I find interesting is that, by adding religion to the age old struggle for freedom from Western hedgemony, the Islamic radicals have the chance to not only throw us out of one nation, but defeat imperialism in many Muslim nations and spread their revolution out.

The only reason I don't wholeheartedly back their movement is because it is simply nationalistic in nature. Without any aim to socialism or true democracy, they have little chance of creating a good government even if they succeed. However, regardless of the aims of their movement, I think it should be recognized as a nationalist struggle against imperialism, and not simply some random uprising against Christianity or Western culture.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 03 January 2008 - 11:18 PM

Batista’s soldiers were locals who fought for Cuba. Hicks betrayed his native land, Australia in order to fight in a foreign army that has nothing to do with Australia. I don’t care what foreign army he fought in, it wasn’t Australian. He is a traitor and deserves the worst.

As for your Islamic Fascist remark.





There is no such thing as photographic proof since all photographs can be staged.



International law? The same law that says that Hicks has no rights as a POW because he is classified as a mercenary? Is that the law you are agreeing with?





So since Bush thought he was doing the right thing, all the more power to him?



Actually it isn’t. It doesn’t matter why the ‘common man’ is fighting in Afghanistan, the Taliban leaders there are exploiting them to achieve an Islamic state. Thus whatever the reason they think they are fighting for, in the end they are fighting for an Islamic state.



Muslims are not a race nor are they a social class. How does any Islamic Fascist leaders compare to the leaders of black American awareness movements or South American socialist movements?

Okay, no matter what, you have to admit that putting on that uniform, holding a gun, and posing for a picture is the STUPIDEST thing anyone in the world could do at this moment in time. Even if he was completely innocent of any true "crimes," what a moron!

And Jm, you are kinda contradicting yourself when you say that one person is alright for doing what he thinks is right, but Bush (or any American or anyone that doesn't believe what you believe, for that matter) does what he thinks is right and he should be tortured and shot or whatever.

I definitely have to side with Spoon here. It was a REALLY dumb move, and JM, you can't say some people are ok fighting for what they think is right and not others. You're being very very biased in that regard.

Snake: You assume he was guilty because he was tortured until he confessed. JM is saying there is no good evidence that he actually did anything but take a dumb photograph, and I also agree that a confession gained through torture is utterly useless, and the practice itself is barbarous. As far as laws on the subject are concerned, the spirit and ethics of a law are important. Not all laws are right, and not all right things are endorsed by laws. Torture is unethical, whether a law allows it, or a loophole in a law allows it. And treason and traitor are rather vague concepts (how do you decide when a person is fighting against a country, really? it all depends on your viewpoint.), and no matter what someone does, he/she does not deserve "the worst." It's 2008 now. Let's try to not be vicious and vindictive as a species, eh? I'm not saying forgive and give everybody flowers, of course, just no tying up and gagging people and taking pictures of other people mocking them as the first group are thrown into a pile together, nude, that sort of thing.

Islamic fascism: I believe that religion is the catalyst for violence in that case. The situations the people in militant groups are such that they are willing to take up arms to attempt to change the situation or seek vindication for wrongdoing or what have you, and they latch on to common grounds such as religion in banding together, and then that becomes a cohering factor. Then you get a wartorn violent culture growing and brooding and it's a big mess. See also: low income areas in inner cities in more developed countries.

Firstly, JM, I agree with Spoon, Slade, and (I hate to say it) Snake on this one. You simply can't justify one action with "They were doing what they thought was right." and condemn another despite that. You can explain why you feel one action is justified and the other not, but if your justification is "they were doing what they thought was right" then you must apply it universally. In general, everyone does what they think is right. Right by themselves, or their family, or their country or their religion.

I was not denying self-sacrifice in Islam. I was saying it was present, and the reason for it isn't seventy-two virgins. (I always thought that a rather arbitrary number, but that's another matter.)


I agree, however, that getting someone to confess via torture is quite far from proof, because, well, I'd say I was a terrorist too if it would get them to stop zapping my genitals.

In situations such as portrayed on the afore mentioned TV show 24, where knowledge needed to stop a plot is only attainable via torture, then it should be implemented. Rarely, however, does life imitate art in that respect, and rarely will torture garner useful information.

If I fail to make sense, forgive me, my mind is not easy at the moment.

No actually. I never said he was guilty of anything save fighting in a foreign army. There is massive proof of that, a confession at this point would be pointless. I am saying that since he betrayed his country he deserves the worst. If you don’t know what a traitor is then it is a person who forgets about his country to fight a war that has nothing to do with his or her country. I was thinking more like the torture in the Saw series.



Wrong. They join because they have nothing to lose. Since the Taliban were the only thing coherent in Afghanistan, thanks to Americans, they decide to join them. There they are probably fed. Living under a decade of Taliban propaganda probably helped the Taliban’s recruiting scheme out a bit.



I agree with what most of what you say. Torture should not be implemented as a way to gain information unless that information can be verified immediately. And so it should only be implemented as a punishment. I don’t know why you had that crappy show 24 as an example, since it is completely unrealistic in all regards.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 04 January 2008 - 05:17 PM