Current location:	the bunker, surry hills
Current mood:	determined
Entry tags:	david hicks, political rant, us arrogance

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/political-fudge-cant-hide-sham-of-hicks-charges/2007/02/08/117052
Its kinda interesting this one, because I (with my underdeveloped legal mind) actually thought
that when Ruddock brought this up, I thought that maybe this was okay. A bit dodgy, but okay. But I'm thinking in their terms - let's charge him any goddamm way we can, even if its a hodge-podge of civil, military and donald duck laws.

I say no more quack!

chris


(from the article:)

The prior existence of a domestic crime applicable to civilians is quite irrelevant to this case. Hicks is facing trial for alleged war crimes that didn't exist at the date of his supposed transgressions and no amount of dust being thrown in our eyes by people in the US and Australia, eager to shore up this shameless kangaroo process, should disguise that fact.

The important question is: are material support for terrorism and attempted murder in violation of the law of war actually war crimes? In relation to the particulars of the Hicks case, the answer is no.

You only have to think of attempted murder in a theatre of war to see how ludicrous it is. Hicks was fighting for the Taliban which, whatever one may think of it, in 2001 was the government of Afghanistan. To take up arms and fight as a soldier for a government in a war is not illegal.