Listen To Your Elders

I read that Hicks is to be charged with opposing the US army in Afghanistan, is it now a crime in war to fight for a cause which opposes US government’s aggressive intentions?
What about all the Germans, Italians, Vietnamese, Koreans, etc that have fought against the US army, could the US now rope them in and confine them in a concentration camp, like Guantanamo Bay and try them for daring to oppose the US army?

It is obvious that the US under the direction of Bush is only interested in finding Hicks guilty of something, just to make it appear that the US is superior to all and needs to pay no heed to international law or justice.

Unfortunately, we have a gutless government which is only interested in dancing to Bush’s tune and not to defend the rights of our citizens. I fail to see how Hicks can possibly maintain any sense of reality or hope for a future when he faces such an apparently all mighty and soul destroying persecution by governments which should be protecting all the worlds citizens from injustice rather than concentrating so much evil force against one individual!

Government lawyer, Solicitor-General David Bennett, QC, told the court a general obligation for the Federal Government to protect citizens abroad “is simply something that the law has never recognised”.

This seems a strange claim to make since we Australians have been paying big bucks to obtain Australian Passports for our security when travelling abroad, why if our Government has no obligation to afford us protection from wrongfull incarceration or other infringements of our safety

It appears to me, that we should not only have stayed with a foreign head of state but have also returned to being part of the British Empire. At least with a British Passport, one has some protection when travelling as is proved by the fact that there are no British detainees in Guantanamo Bay

I note that under questioning, Mr Rudd was asked if he would squash any conviction if Hicks was returned to Australia to serve out his sentence, his response was interesting in that it gave Mr Howard a chance to comment on the credibility of the Atorney General.

Mr Rudd responded “he would take advice from the attorney-general’s department. “That’s the proper thing to do and that is precisely how I would act,” “. A good answer but it has one shortcoming as observed by Mr Howard.

Mr Howard noted that “the response was not good enough.”, and I must agree with him. If Rudd is faced with an Attorney General as ignorant of the Australian law and the application of the presumption of innocence and correct gathering of evidence, as Mr Howard has, then Mr Rudd’s cause is lost.

This farce has gone on long enough, Hicks is doomed to get a Life Sentence, even if the US has to eventually charge him with jay walking, so why can’t the Australian people start to enact the much vaunted ” Australian Mateship ” and act to protect a fellow citizen from a great injustice and have him returned to face a fair trial here where the rule of law applys, we hope.

How can Howard talk about Hicks having a fair process when he still is letting it be known that he considers Hicks guilty even now before he has been officially charged.

For Hicks to have a fair trial it is first necessary for any such trial to be held in a proper court where the laws and rules of law are respected and apply to all persons.

This court that Howard is prepared to accept is a court set up specifically to find Hicks, and the others being held, guilty of something and then being sentenced to life imprisonment. It has nothing to do with justice as recognised in any of the civilized countries.

Hicks may well have trained in terrorism etc but if the civilized world is to protect it’s standards of justice and libery, it is essential to ensure that Hicks is, firstly charged with a proper crime, and then to ensure that he is given a fair trial in a properly constituted court of law.

I feel that there is more at stake here than Hicks innocence or guilt, at stake is the whole credibility of the legal systems of the USA and Australia. To date the outlook is pretty sad for the future of our justice systems.

This news is frightening in that it seems to indicate that Howard and Bush have no interest in maintaining the law and just want to charge these people in Guantanamo Bay with something and have a life sentence brought down as an end to these cases.

There is not even a pretence of there being any presumption of innocence until found guilty nor any relationship to any recognised law covering the particular circumstances. Infact every impedement seems to have been put in the way of the defence to ensure that it can’t obtain a fair trial.

I’m sure that future generations of both Americans and Australians will feel nothing but shame for the way in which our two governments have dealt with these matters.

How is it that Kevin Andrews thinks it so necessary to look after the interests of the Village Theatre complex which has millions of dollars when it is not necessary to reward a loyal employee of 20 years.

An ordinary man devotes 20 years of his life to a company and then that company is under no obligation to see that he has a fair deal and a chance to continue his life in some degree of comfort as a reward for his service.

This is from a politician that at the end of his political career, soon we hope, will want a pension of several thousands of dollars a year for the rest of his miserable life. I still can’t understand how ordinary working people can vote into power these people that have never done a day of labour in their life and are prepared to screw down anyone that does have to work for a living.

This man claims to be a believer in the teachings of Jesus but hasn’t any understanding of the meaning of charity or compassion, the man, like most of his coleagues, is a monster.

Why is it that we now have a prime minister and an attorney general that have abandoned the right to a fair trial before being found guilty of a legal infringement.

I was stunned when I heard these two senior politicians state that we couldn’t do anything for David Hicks because he is technically not guilty of any crime and therefore cannot be tried and found guilty here in Australia, his own country.

We know, because of the US High Court decision that the holding of Hicks is illegal, that he cannot be tried in the US and found guilty of any legal infringement. We also know that he hasn’t committed any international legal crime so he cannot be tried in an international court. However, he can be tried in a Kangaroo court set up by that champion of freedom and civil rights, George Bush. Bush like Ruddock, has already stated that, even if Hicks is not found guilty against all odds, he will still not be released, so the whole exercise is a travesty of justice.

I feel ashamed that we have allowed this to happen to fellow citizen!

Not only have we allowed it to happen, we even have people and talk-back announcers condemning Hick and this is before he has even been charged. What a way to defend our freedom, I’m sure that it isn’t what the Anzacs fought for!