Hicks feared interrogators would shoot him

Source: AAP (Australian Associated Press)

Hicks feared interrogators would shoot him
AAP | Tuesday, 3 April 2007

CANBERRA: Former Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks feared he would be shot if he did not co-operate with US interrogators, he says in an affidavit for his English court case.
(snip)

"I realised that if I did not co-operate with US interrogators, I might be shot," the ABC quoted Hicks as saying.

In the affidavit Hicks also claims that he was slapped, kicked, punched and spat on in Afghanistan, the ABC reported.

He could hear other detainees screaming in pain, saw the marks of their beatings and had a shotgun trained on him during interrogation.


Read more: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4014958a12.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I mean, he wouldn't be in that situation if he wasn't there doing what he was doing. Right?

David Hicks had more misguided public support than most defendants ever do.

And because his name was known he did what he was accused of?

were lobbying to have David Hicks moved out of Guantanamo into Australian custody, which is exactly what happened. However, the Australian Government is not letting David Hicks free in Australia. Rather, he is serving his prison sentence in Australia.

Because he agreed to confess?

I don't know the truth of the case (and neither do you) because the course of justice has been so twisted and perverted by Schimpanski and his gang of thugs that the truth has been lost.

Or at least obscured. For now. These things have a way of coming out in the end, and I only hope Bush is around long enough for the truth to snap *him* up.

search can be instructive.

Hicks was a terrorist wannabe and I don't believe a single word he says.

And that would make his confession what? The unvarnished truth?

n/t

:rofl: :rofl: rofl:

n/t

So do you believe him, or do you not believe him? Do you "not believe a single word he says" as you wrote or was that just more inaccurate writing?

These torture allegations, unless corroborated, are mere slander that Hicks can spew from his jail cell because he sees an opportunity to do so.

Do you think the people held there are guilty? Do you think that holding those people, as has happened is legal? Do you think it is right, ok, fine?

I'm not commenting on the systematic problems of Guantanamo, which I believe there are, nor am I saying that all detainees are necessarily guilty.

do a google search on torture gitmo.
Here is 1 to start with:
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/16865

I was watching Numbers and an interesting point was made, the larger the conspiracy the harder it is to keep it a secret. The soldiers here are not just Republican party operatives. They're ordinary 19 to 21 year olds (maybe a little bit older). If there was mass torture, trust me the news would break just like it did with the incident in Abu Ghraib.

Oh. My. God.

You do realize that Gitmo prisoners are rather restricted in any sort of contact with the outside world? You do understand that prisoners at Abu Ghraib had more contact with the outside world but still it took someone stupid enough to take and publish pictures for that "incident" to break? And you do understand that what happened at Abu Ghraib was not just an "incident"? You do understand that, right?

Just like those kids at Abu Graib.

Anyway your assumption that the news would break is ridiculous. I'm sure the security against unauthorized leaks at gitmo is much higher than it was at Abu Graib.

I'm CERTAIN they torture at Gitmo. I'm also CERTAIN that most of the people being held there are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time or of the wrong ethnic/religious group.

As for Hicks, he was briefly doing the SAME THING that over 200,000 american "troops" and mercenaries are doing in Iraq -- killing for a bullshit cause. But none of those 200,000 will do any time in a disgusting obscenity like gitmo.

So tell me Mr. "World Resident" what did he get for what he did?

1.What he did first: please inform me


2. What he got: please inform me.

n/t

That is too simplistic of a reply that really says nothing. Actually, it does say something, but probably not what you intended.

n/t

What do YOU mean?

n/t

What is your definition? You use the term, now define it or I call simplistic jargonism on you.

n/t

simplistic jargonist bs

n/t

It is to tell other readers that there is no text in the message body. By putting "n/t" in the message body, you've put text in the message body, leading "n/t" to be as accurate as the other stuff you have posted here.

It's pretty clear to anyone with a brain that you can't explain what you meant so you're resorting to debate tactics a ten year would be able to see through.

or believing made up shit seems to be easy for you... :shrug:

Where is the evidence against Hicks?

That was the question. You don't have the answer for that.

You're believing it because the bushies said he did. These are the same bushies who have been proven to be serial liars and warmongering pigs.

They've also stacked the deck so that the truth can't even come out in a courtroom let alone in public.

You won't find a lot of sympathy for that point of view here. You might try www.freerepublic.com they'll give you a more sympathetic welcome...



"He was captured by a "Northern Alliance warlord" on or about December 9, 2001, near Kunduz, Afghanistan, and turned over to US Special Forces for $1000 on December 17, 2001. In an interview with SBS TV Dateline, his father, Terry Hicks, stated, "David was captured by the Northern Alliance unarmed in the back of a truck or a van. So it wasn't on the battlefield at all."

you were asked HOW he aided terrorist
and then you don't answer the question but
use Argumentum ad ignorantiam,

n/t

*sarcasm off*

Yeah, he confessed- in order to get out of the terrible situation he was in. It was a fucking travesty that trial. The two civilian lawyers who were dismissed certainly think so. And even if he was a "little thug", he did NOT deserve to be tortured.

I hope when he gets back to Australia he talks, and talks and talks.
And that the whole world hears him.

n/t

Why have you decided to believe his "confession" but not what he says about WHY he confessed, as is in OP? How can you pick and chose what to believe? Is his confession true? Is his explanation of why he confessed false? Why do you believe that?

n/t

Fact.
People who are tortured confess to many things that are not true.
Fact.

Now, put together the fact that he was in Gitmo for 5 yrs, tortured, wants to get out, got offered a get out of hell card IF he would confess. Hmmm. What to do. What to do.

Confess. Get out. Admit you confessed under torture.

How can you say you don't believe a word he says, EXCEPT his confession is the truth?

I'm not talking about whether or not we should keep open or close the prison nor am I talking about actions of soldiers in other prisons in Iraq. Where have there been proven allegations of torture in Guantanamo?

No, it hasn't been proven in a court of law. There hasn't been the opportunity. But FBI agents and others have stated that there was torture. Now released inmates have claimed that they've been tortured. My Senator believes there's been torture. If it's good enough evidence for Senator Leahy, it's good enough for me.

Your defence of the faux show trial and Gitmo is disgusting to see.

I've been clicking away, here and elsewhere because search and other things are my friends. Thanks.

Just to get out of there

By means of what research or facts do you come to your conclusion?

Were you in Afghnaistan when he was captured?

Did you see w/your own eyes the "bad" things he did?

Why were they "bad"?

Were you in GITMO?

Were you at his trial?

Where are you getting your information?

Got links?

But he knew his case would not stand up if tested.

Why do people plead guilty to murder, drug dealing, etc?

He confessed because he knew he would not be convicted if tested?

Where do you get your information from to arrive at your conclusion?

because of our infallible criminal-justice system:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6

:sarcasm: <--- for the fact impaired...

And the on the wrong board.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Something like: "get lost you fucking freeper troll. Go back to your fundie buddies and chortle in their basement you asshole". Now that is worth alerting on. Not that I would EVER think of writing something like that, just using it for illustrative purposes.

And again "N/T" belongs in the subject line, to tell the reader that there is NO TEXT in the message. By putting it in the message, you have put text in the message.

per DU rules. I guess when you can't debate on the facts, you resort to personal attacks.

n/t

Got it. But you still are missing the "n/t" thing. n/t goes in the subject line, to indicate no text in the message. Some people do not open the messages to read if there is no text and appreciate having n/t in the subject line to tell them. Once they get to the message, and read "n/t", well, that defeats the purpose since there is now OBVIOUSLY text in the message. Check out my next 2 posts, right below this one.

n/t

n/t in the text body negates the need for it.

You've spent all your cycles splitting hairs while accusing others of splitting hairs. The US government is not credible by any halfway-fair standard. Guantanamo, as has been pointed out to you, is a torture facility. I will not feed your willful ignorance on the matter; everyone but everyone knows this already. The fact that you don't, or claim not to, has something more to do with your character than with the screamingly obvious facts at hand. We will therefore dispense with that ridiculous talking point you've offered. It's been rejected by the sane.

I'll give you one new chance to answer the simple question: what did Hicks do to deserve a prison sentence? Which terrorists did he consort with? What aid and comfort did he provide.

Bonus question: how do you feel about the 20 sentence that John Walker Lindh is serving?

Sure glad you pointed this out.

Definitely showed up on the wrong board, just as someone mentioned earlier. Added a very tacky tone to the place!

And requested that he get banned for being an annoying Bush-loving fucktard.



Hey Worldresident - if you love Bush so much, why don't you go enlist you hypocritical jackass?

Doesn't Hicks recognize healthy, all-American "harsh interrogation techniques"?

Maybe Alberto can send him an e-mail through the RNC server and explain it to him.

probably agreed to any terms and say whatever he thought would get him out of there.

then we have no choice but to do it, to make sure the rest of the world is aware of our enormous POWER.

That seems cheap, tacky, and stupid, doesn't it? Only the sickest people in the world would dream of living like this.

"There is little question of how history will respond to Guantánamo…it will be looked back on with condescension and bemusement. How could we be so foolish, misguided, cruel? How we will respond is a legal question and a political question. But it is most of all a moral question. Will we respond with courage or cowardice? This is our choice."

- Joseph Margulies, a lawyer challenging the indefinite detention of the prisoners at Guantánamo

http://www.witnesstorture.org/node?from=0

DFAT denies gagging Hicks snr
Scott Casey and AAP | April 3, 2007 - 7:04AM

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has refuted statements by Terry Hicks, the father of confessed terrorist David Hicks, that the Australian government is trying to gag him from talking about his son's five years at Guantanamo Bay.

Terry Hicks says DFAT has written to him outlining a 12-month gag order issued to his son as part of his plea bargain, during which David Hicks cannot be interviewed, write a book or make a film about his time as an enemy combatant.

But the letter also detailed the restrictions on what the Hicks family could reveal about their conversations with David, Terry Hicks told News Limited newspapers.

"This is Big Brother, and because the Americans and the Australian government coalesce on David's charges, at this point in time we're ruled by them," Mr Hicks said from his Adelaide workplace yesterday.

"If David tells us something, we can't pass it on. But I could still talk about the signing of his charges, things like he hasn't been abused."
(snip/...)

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/dfat-denies-gagging-hicks-snr/2007/04/03/1175366194513.html

US values on trial alongside Hicks
Michael Gawenda
April 2, 2007

Two days before David Hicks arrived at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba on January 11, 2002, flown there in a military transport from Afghanistan where he had been captured by Northern Alliance forces and sold to the US military for $US1000, lawyers at the US Justice Department drafted a memo on how the US should fight the war on terrorism.

The memo went to Alberto Gonzales, then the White House legal counsel and the man who now, as the US Attorney-General, is under fierce pressure to resign after he apparently misled Congress about the reasons for the sackings of eight US attorneys last December.

Gonzales used that memo as the basis for his advice to the US President, George Bush, that in the war on terrorism, the Geneva Conventions designed to protect prisoners of war did not apply to Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan.

The Gonzales memo was one of a number of "torture memos" drafted in the Justice Department and the White House in those six months after September 11, 2001, when there was a widespread view about the inevitability of another terrorist attack. Gonzales argued the war on terrorism was a new kind of war that placed "a high premium on factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists" and that this meant the Geneva Conventions, when it came to the questioning of alleged terrorists, were "obsolete".
(snip/...)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/guantanamo-puts-american-values-on-trial-alongside-hicks/2007/04/01/1175366077778.html

Where human rights remain shackled
EDITORIAL BOARD
Tuesday, April 03, 2007

~snip~
While there surely are dangerous terrorists being held at Guantánamo, Hicks, 31, was hardly one of them. He was a much-traveled lost soul searching for a cause. And the process that led him to a guilty plea would be shocking in an American court room.

The administration will point to Hicks as proof that the system of military tribunals works, that it is fair and that it protects the country. But one weak case does not a good policy make, and the military prison in Cuba will remain a symbol of injustice no matter how many detainees are convicted by the tribunals.

There are two issues that the Hicks' plea does not and cannot answer. The first is the right to a habeas corpus hearing in a civilian court. The White House is adamant that these designated enemy combatants do not have or deserve that right.

We disagree vehemently. The administration's position is antithetical to 800 years of Western jurisprudence and to the foundations of our American democracy and the U.S. Constitution. It is a fundamental right to be able to challenge your arrest and imprisonment in open court and those held in Guantánamo should be afforded that protection.
(snip/...)

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/04/03/3gitmo_edit.html

Australia 'didn't ask for Hicks gag'
April 03, 2007 08:00am
Article from: AAP

THE Australian Government did not ask the United States for a gag order to be placed on confessed terrorist David Hicks, Attorney General Philip Ruddock said.

Hicks, who has spent five years in the United State's military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after he was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, last week pleaded guilty to a charge of giving material support to terrorists.
(snip)

"It certainly wasn't asked for by us," Mr Ruddock told ABC radio.

Mr Ruddock said it was not a coincidence that the gag order fitted in with the timing of the next federal election, due in November.
(snip/...)

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21495165-5005521,00.html

Two things.

First - torture is wrong. WorldResident is incorrect, Shrubs admin has pretty much admitted that they use sensory deprivation and waterboarding. I fully believe that Hicks was treated the way he says he was, I'd be actually very surprised if he was lying on this matter. It shouldn't have happened, and it should never happen again.

Second - HE IS GUILTY. He deserves his jail time (without torture).

Those two points don't have to be in conflict people. Why do you think he was captured in the first place? I guess he was just some random Aussie tourist who decided to go on vacation in the middle of an Afghan battlefield shortly after 9/11. And then the Northern Alliance decided to grab him, just because.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks#Militant_activity

to give the Chimperor a black eye........

My question is what my questions always are, what would people say if someone other than Bush was leading this country and this stuff was being said?

I don't believe Iran, I believe Britain.

I don't condone or support Abu Ghraib, it was reprehensible, I am however not so naive as to believe every charge levelled against the US by people captured fighting with factions hostile to America.

I don't believe David Hicks, I don't care if he was caught up with the wrong crowd or not, the fact that he was with the wrong crowd calls anything he says into question. I believe what I read on him from my sources in the Army. My sources so far are unimpeachable to me, so for me David Hicks is a liar and a terrorist.

Again like I say after every post like this, it's my opinion, it's not antidemocratic and if you don't like it that's what the ignore button is for. I can hate the President and still feel that someone like Hicks deserves what he will get. I can still want the war to end so I don't have to go back in november and still feel happy when KSM goes to a tribunal. These beliefs are not exclusive to my Democratic beliefs and I'm tired of people trying to tell me what I believe and what I don't belive.

I am aware our govt. has committed crimes in regards to the GWOT, that however does not mean one should just believe everything said by every person we captured about their treatment in captivity.

perceived Crimes against the Empire must be swiftly and brutally PUNISHED...


:sarcasm:


He never fired a shot at any U.S. personnel. He just backed the wrong side (according to the Empire).

Well, I guess I'm fucked then. I would take Cuba's or Venezuela's side over the Empire any day of the week so I guess I should be doing time in Gitmo for MY thought crime, right?

and our goals would you still do so?? Very interesting question, no?

Time to shut down Gitmo
April 4, 2007
Ben Humeniuk/Lariat Staff

STAFF EDITORIAL
Rumors were confirmed Thursday that Defense Secretary Robert Gates lobbied for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention operations.

It came on the heels of the first guilty plea, made by Australian citizen David Hicks, in the new military tribunals that have been set up to try terror suspects.

It should be noted that Gates is not known to be a "bleeding heart" champion of human rights. But nonetheless he gets it. He knows that Guantanamo has to go.
(snip)

Not only is it the right thing to do, but it sends the right message.

Do we want to be known as the nation that denies the right of habeas corpus to prisoners? It dates back to the establishment of the Magna Carta in 1215 and states that a prisoner has the right to know why he is being held. The suspension of this allows for prisoners to be held indefinitely.
(snip)

http://www.baylor.edu/Lariat/news.php?action=story&story=45014