Now that the US military justice system has laid its cards on the table, you can see why it took them five years to charge David Hicks. . .MrLefty gets it wrong in sentence one. Our boy Dawood was charged way back in 2004, and with a raft of goodies that ‘included being a member of an al Qaida criminal conspiracy to commit - amongst other acts - attacks upon civilians and civilian objects and terrorism, attempted murder against Coalition forces whilst not enjoying combatant immunity, and aiding the enemy’.
Funny that lefties seem to have so much trouble remembering that, isn’t it? Well, no – it isn’t. They’ve been hammering on so hard with the ‘stop holding him without charge’ worm for so long that it’d be kind of inconvenient to have to admit that he had, well, been charged – years ago. . .
But let’s keep going:
It's taken five years because that's how long it takes to invent, draft and pass flimsy badly-defined retrospective laws to prosecute a particular person for something which was not a crime when they were alleged to have committed it, in an attempt to justify having held them in prison without charge for five years.Funny, MrLefty (and there we go with the ‘without charge’ mantra again) – I’ve read the charges, too. But as some kind of existing benchmark, let’s consider one small slice of own War Crimes Act, 1945 (Commonwealth):
WAR CRIMES ACT 1945 - SECT 7Considerations of this nature (and how closely they may well fit Dawood’s circumstances) don’t really bother MrLefty, though, as we note when he delivers his own, weighty thoughts concerning Hicks’ offences:
(3) A serious crime is a war crime if it was:
(i) in the course of political, racial or religious persecution; or
(ii) with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such; and
(b) committed in the territory of a country when the country was involved in a war or when territory of the country was subject to an occupation.
. . .here are the crimes David Hicks has demonstrably committed:Vintage MrLefty, really, ignoring all those nasty fiddly details concerning what Hicks was up to, and that account for not much more than nought (in lefty land). Then he goes and gives us this:
Being caught in Afghanistan;
Being locked up in Guantanamo for five years;
Being a muslim who didn't like America (I'm sure he does now*)
Can you imagine how pissed off he must be with us by now because we've kept him locked up for five years now with no end in sight? If I were locked up indefinitely on those sorts of flimsy justifications, I would be absolutely irate. If I were ever released I would campaign vigorously against the amoral bastards who'd kept me locked up for as long as they could on such flimsy justifications.Flimsy justifications? Dear God.
Let’s cut to the chase, though, and MrLefty’s burning question, which is probably best summed with his final update:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."Actually, MrLefty, I don’t have to wonder. . .I know for a fact that you don’t get it (and Henry, who you quote is, no doubt, doing his best impersonation of a glee-filled gyroscope as we speak).
I wonder if the Blairites get it yet.
There’s a war going on, whether your almost unbelievable brand of partisan politics enables you to admit that or not – and David Hicks was very busy fighting it – it’s why he ended up where he has (or did that little detail escape your attention?).
Our differences? We actually acknowledge that it’s happening (as does Hicks, or should that be Abu Muslim Philippine?). You, however, choose not to, preferring the hide of a simple policing matter in the face of an offence that stretches well beyond basic criminal law (the reason our law makers decided to examine the concept of War Crimes in the first place – news to lefties, and lawyerish lefties with an axe to grind in particular).
The real question is, why do you hide?
If the Hicks supporters were so concerned about upholding the letter of the law (and the rule of law) then one might assume they would be equally concerned with upholding the spirit of the law (an equally weighty consideration). Given his facile considerations, however – in the face of a raft of both Australian laws and international conventions that consider precisely what Hicks is and has done, including agreed sanctions (a swift application of the Hague Conventions, for example, would have seen this little prick shot on the spot as an unrecognised combatant) – I don’t believe MrLefty is.
Not for one moment. . .