You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Down Under
PM Howard scorns Hicks
2006-07-02
AUSTRALIA has refused to throw a lifeline to Australian terror suspect David Hicks, despite a US Supreme Court win for him and other Guantanamo Bay inmates. In a blow to US President George W. Bush and the Australian Government, the court ruled the military commissions set up to try "war on terror" prisoners were illegal. Mr Howard yesterday urged the US to find another way to deal with Hicks, but rejected calls for his return to Australia. "I have sympathy for the principle that people should be brought to trial when they're charged with an offence," he said. "But I don't have any sympathy for somebody who trained with an organisation such as al-Qaida."

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the military commissions violated US military rules and four Geneva Conventions signed since 1949. The ruling was made in relation to Yemeni national Salim Hamdan, who is accused of being Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver. It also affects Hicks and nine other Guantanamo inmates charged with terrorist offences.

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer yesterday called for a speedy trial for Hicks. Hicks, 31, of Adelaide, has spent 4 1/2 years in custody in the Cuban prison awaiting trial. "I would have much rather David Hicks' case was brought to court long ago," Mr Downer said. Hicks' father Terry said it was time to bring his son home. "Let's get him back here," he said.
Why? Has he got chores to do? He wanted to be a big-time international terrorist. This is what happens to big-time international terorrists.
Posted by:Fred

#1  We need to put about five supreme court justices in Guantanamo with Hicks. The Congress has the right to create courts below te supreme court level. They've done so. The supremes decided this was a no-no, and needed to be reversed. The five supremos that voted for this have taken jurisdiction belonging to the president for themselves. They need to be right there beside Hicks as members of an enemy force.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-07-02 16:59  

00:00