pro’lly.
Sublight, that is the weirdest point I’ve heard made on any given subject for quite some time. To paraphrase* Macbeth, " full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
*“Idiot” part omitted because I think you’re a decent person.
Well, perhaps he can work around that restriction. For example, many Americans argue that flag desecration is not “speech.” So maybe Hicks could adopt the same sort of binary response system that Captain Pike used in Star Trek, and answer media questions by burning one American flag for “yes” and two for “no.”
Wouldn’t an Australian court have to rule on this issue? And couldn’t it (shouldn’t it?) void the sentence on the basis that there was nohing ressembling to due process leading to it?
You’re probably right. I don’t know what the legal mechanisms are for enforcing an agreement of this type across international boundaries.
From what I’ve heard about public opinion in Australia WRT this case, that would be a very unpopular decision.
Hell, I’d be willing to call it an unjust decision. Still think it would happen, though.
“Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.” "
For Hicks, it’s more a case of “Shaka, when the walls fell.”
(Great episode; i saw it again just last week)
Or “G’Kar in the Centauri Dungeon.”
Could this sort of thing be why they don’t want Hicks talking?
Unlikely, that would put the US in ambiguous moral territory, while as we all know, America is always wrong, and the potential terrorists are to be trusted.
My feeling is that this plea says absolutely nothing about the defendant, but speaks volumes about the government that held him.
When even the pretense of due process has been systematically eliminated, the only hope of any defendant is to say ANYTHING they are told to by TPTB. Am I exagerating when I say that, at best, Gitmo detainees face the following: “You are presumed guilty. Neither you, nor your counsel are entitled to review any of the evidence aginst you, nor any of the witnesses. You are not entitled to call any witnesses for your defense, and all evidence you seek will be declared classified and denied you. When you are found guilty, you will never be released. If you plead guilty, you might eventually be released. Do you want to plead guilty or be found guilty in a tribunal where you are not allowed to defend yourself?” Under such circumstance, how can ANY plea not be bullshit?
How do you square your belief that he is guilty with the acknowledged ex post facto issue? How could any legitimate court accept a guilty plea with the full knowledge that, from a time well prior to the enactment of the law, the defendant was incarcerated and incapable of committing any such crime? Recall that Lynndie England’s plea was rejected because she said (paraphrasing) “I didn’t do anything wrong, but I’ve been screwed over, and this is the best deal I’m going to get, so whatever.” The only way to reconcile such rulings is to acknowledge the fact that one court was military, and the other marsupial.
Potential Terrorist != Terrorist.
Potential Terrorist = meaningless term.
You are as much a “potential terrorist” as anyone else, Gitmo detainees included. Don’t take offense, it means only that you can fog a mirror…or maybe not even that. I’m sure that if this administration thought that one additional mouthbreathing moron of a voter could be swayed to vote for a republican, they’d be declaring whole grave yards full of corpses to be “potential terrorists” exhuming them, and shipping them off to Cuba for our safety.
I am so fucking sick and tired of such crap. Holding them without charges, as “suspected terrorists” because
is bullshit, pure and simple. If our leaders have good reason to believe these folks are terrorists, then let them present those reasons and prove it. Put up or shut up in other words.
Well, if it’s any consolation, in one more year we ought to have a decent idea about what Mr. Hicks suffered in terms of his detention.
I am amazed about how with that deal the US has managed to change many people’s perception of Mr. Hicks’ allegations of abuse from “well he would say that, wouldn’t he?” to “there must be something to it, or they wouldn’t have pressured him to recant”.
Because I’m using guilt in the broader sense of working with, aiding and abetting, and `
How could any legitimate court accept a guilty plea with the full knowledge that, from a time well prior to the enactment of the law, the defendant was incarcerated and incapable of committing any such crime? Recall that Lynndie England’s plea was rejected because she said (paraphrasing) “I didn’t do anything wrong, but I’ve been screwed over, and this is the best deal I’m going to get, so whatever.” The only way to reconcile such rulings is to acknowledge the fact that one court was military, and the other marsupial.
[/QUOTE]
The only thing that could make it weirder would be if it were said in all seriousness.
Anyway, I meant to stick around and follow up sooner, but ended up going to bed instead. Sorry if there was any confusion.
I didn’t realise convicts were still sent to Australia*.
*meowwwwww
Big Barney Fitch
God suddenly rich
Got a big fancy house in Melbourne
With buckets of loot
And big black leather boots
Acting so haughty and wellborn
But we of Australia
Are children of convicts
And some of us wear it quite proudly
So when he rides by
In his carriage so fine
I wave and I call to him loudly:
"Was your grandma a whore?
"Was your grandpa a thief?
"Were they forgers and grafters
"Who fell to their grief?
"If you’re born of Australia,
"I know who you be!
"You’re the son of a son of a
“Scoundrel like me!”