Mr Howard said five years was far too long for Hicks to have been kept without facing trial. "I am not happy, not happy at all, and that unhappiness has been communicated to the (Bush) Administration," he said.
...
Mr Howard said. "I don't believe in indefinite detention without trial; it is a fundamental of our system."
...
With George Bush describing the suspects held at Guantanamo Bay as prisoners of the war on terrorism, Mr Howard said a distinction had to be drawn. "It is true that a prisoner of war in a traditional sense is held during the length of time of the hostilities. That's true, but we're not dealing here with the same sort of circumstances because, theoretically, the war against terrorism could go on for another 20 or 30 years … it's more akin to the Cold War rather than World War II."
The Man from Bomberland wrote:Now all we need is Mr Ruddock to say something similar and it will indeed be the silly season.
well, you've got your wish.
Mr Ruddock said comments by the director of military prosecutions at the new Australian Military Court criticising the delay surrounding Hicks's trial echoed the Government's view.
Director of military prosecutions Brigadier Lyn McDade described the treatment of Hicks as "abominable", The Sydney Morning Herald reported today.
"It reflects the Government's position," Mr Ruddock said.
"The fact that a trial has not yet occurred frustrates us and we have been arguing very strongly with the United States that these issues need to be resolved quickly.
"We believe the delay is very unreasonable and inappropriate and that's why we've been arguing that it needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible."
how can the government spout this shit with a straight face? i have no problem with them saying that "the delay is very unreasonable and inappropriate" but to insinuate that the government has always been opposed to Hicks' lack of access to due process is outrageous. they should be ashamed of themselves, as should anybody who buys this fairy tale.
agree
Note that the British and French equivalent of Hicks in Guantanamo Bay got sent back to their country quite a while ago. Which says that while Tony Blair is a Bush yes-man he still knows how to negotiate when needed.
The Rodent is a Bush yes-man that does not know how to negotiate.... or he is lying.
A very biased commentator but makes some good points.
Rattled America will find it can't spin itself out of this one
Bob Ellis
January 5, 2007
GEORGE Bush will be hard put persuading three, four or five thousand American soldiers, marines and reservists who have already been there to go back to Iraq this year, to face 4 million Sunnis displeased by the Saddam hanging. Hard put too to persuade Nuri al-Maliki to stay in office, and stay alive, till they get there.
In the meantime the spinning of the killing of Saddam continues. The US had nothing to do with it; we merely guarded him for three years, then took him to the house of death and flew his coffined body to Tikrit. We tried to stop it happening so soon. We would have "handled it differently". What's all this fuss? The last 60 seconds of a tyrant's life matter less than the first 60 years. We've killed his two sons and his 14-year-old grandson and we'll kill his half-brother tomorrow, so the "process of national healing" can begin. Has any "process of national healing" been so mismanaged in world history? Has any filmed event won fewer hearts and minds? JFK's killing perhaps, though it pleased a good few Southern schoolboys, who cheered at the news.
If we only look at the politics of lynching a warrior-hero, abusing him on the gallows, keeping him awake the night before by banging on his cell door and flaunting before his bleary eyes the hangman's rope, we can see just how dim the whole plan was. What Sunni will pose beside Maliki now? What Arab leader, Sunni or Shiite, will praise his political skill?
And who will trust the Americans now, after this and Abu Ghraib and hurricane Katrina, to get any process right in any country including their own? Not the British soldiers on the ground in Helmland Province, Afghanistan. Not the Australian "security guards" in downtown Baghdad. Not the Iraqi dentists, doctors, nurses, restaurateurs and university lecturers daily fleeing the country. Not the children with toothache. Not the pregnant women with nowhere to go to give birth. Not the grandmothers of dead babies in humidicribs whose electricity gave out. Not the middle-class parents afraid to put their children on school buses lest they never see them again.
And who in the US will trust the American Army, the State Department and the current American rulers of Baghdad either? Not the 30,000 boys and girls wounded, nor their families. Not the 13,000 or 15,000 parents and siblings bereaved. Not the mayors of the towns the 3000 dead kids came from. Not the Democrat local members Bush is now asking for more soldiers, more weapons, more money, more patience, more time in a Long War as long, perhaps, as the Cold War.
The US is facing outright defeat — and worldwide contempt as never before — because of the Saddam gallows Grand Guignol and the secular Golgotha his jeering, black-hooded captors turned it into. And none of this need have happened. All the cluey US spin-men had to do, after consulting a few legal experts, was yield him up to lengthy trial by the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague; let him give big speeches the media would soon tire of; and let him grow very old and sad in jail.
But they didn't, and the consequences are dire and daily mounting. Soon they'll have Tariq Aziz to deal with. He's a Christian, a friend of Pope John Paul, and literate, well-spoken, Anglicised evidence of how broad-based a secular government Saddam ran, and how much 4 million university graduates, civil servants, medical professionals, lawyers, judges, soldiers, police and schoolteachers miss him now, in a world of veils and checkpoints and daylight kidnappings and suicide bombings and 10,000 policemen killed in two years.
Will Tariq Aziz hang? Will his breaking neck and open eyes and slowly swinging corpse be telerecorded too? Will he be allowed his beloved P. G. Wodehouse and Agatha Christie paperbacks in his cell on death row? Will he get a final press conference? Will he be allowed to wear a suit and tie? What questions will he be allowed to answer?
In freedom's name we have helped the US start this barbarous process. In freedom's name we too are called barbarians now, by fairly civilised peoples who may have a point.
And we Australians are in the thick of it. Staying on, to "finish the job". The job may not be all that's finished by the time we're done.
ain't Hicks glad that he's got Ruddock looking out for him. he might even get his time served in Gitmo subtracted from any additional time he must serve as a result of being convicted of any charges that may be laid against him!
and as an aside, why does Rudd feel the need to pander to rednecks by prefacing his defence of Hicks' right to due process with: "I'm no defender of Mr Hicks in terms of what he has done or what he may not have done in Afghanistan". polls have shown that the vast majority of Australians support Hicks receiving a fair trial without delay, so Rudd probably risks more alienation by adding qualifications to his support of Hicks - it could make it seem as if he really doesn't want to be supporting Hicks.
The Man from Bomberland wrote:Now all we need is Mr Ruddock to say something similar and it will indeed be the silly season.
well, you've got your wish.
Mr Ruddock said comments by the director of military prosecutions at the new Australian Military Court criticising the delay surrounding Hicks's trial echoed the Government's view.
Director of military prosecutions Brigadier Lyn McDade described the treatment of Hicks as "abominable", The Sydney Morning Herald reported today.
"It reflects the Government's position," Mr Ruddock said.
"The fact that a trial has not yet occurred frustrates us and we have been arguing very strongly with the United States that these issues need to be resolved quickly.
"We believe the delay is very unreasonable and inappropriate and that's why we've been arguing that it needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible."
how can the government spout this shit with a straight face? i have no problem with them saying that "the delay is very unreasonable and inappropriate" but to insinuate that the government has always been opposed to Hicks' lack of access to due process is outrageous. they should be ashamed of themselves, as should anybody who buys this fairy tale.
Atrocious bullshitting particularly after 5 years of comments like this......
Interviewer: Just very quickly, David Hicks, the suspected terrorist being held indefinitely without bail – is that fair?
Well, given the circumstances of Afghanistan, I think it is, yes.
John Howard – 2 August 2002
so apparently it is "fair" to hold Hicks indefinitely, without charge, without bail. if it is fair to hold him indefinitely, without charge, how could any delay in proceedings be unreasonable, as Ruddock is now claiming?
Interviewer: Just very quickly, David Hicks, the suspected terrorist being held indefinitely without bail – is that fair?
Well, given the circumstances of Afghanistan, I think it is, yes.
John Howard – 2 August 2002
so apparently it is "fair" to hold Hicks indefinitely, without charge, without bail. if it is fair to hold him indefinitely, without charge, how could any delay in proceedings be unreasonable, as Ruddock is now claiming?
Sickening isn't it!
This government loses me when it says.....
"We have received information from our intelligence agency....." or
"To the best of my knowledge....." or
"The Americans have told us......" or
"The Americans have assured us...."
This has proven to be nothing but utter bullshit, time and again.
We just believe everything America says, without question. It just makes me so mad. I reckon if they turned around and told us that the world WAS flat after all, we'd believe them.
