david hicks - 002.
March 28th 2007 18:06
mixed emotions?
yesterday, this article from cnn.com stirred a mixture of emotion in me, and is something that i am curious as to how others feel about it.
over the past 3 and a half years, this has been a case of two tenacious viewpoints clashing with a small group being caught in the middle. in particular david hicks has been detained because of a backlash of anti-terrorism efforts of the united states of america in their post 911 era. this was clearly an inhumane form of imprisonment, that was doctored by the american officials in an attempt to make this type of case feasable, and was met with much protest and heat from a magnitude of partisan groups all around the world.
the american government had taken a severe blow to their economy, people, and pride after 911 and were certainly looking to take action in many forms. these were interventions that had major consequences all over the world, that we still feel today, and have affected people all over to varying degrees. the idea of seeking out those responsible for a crime like this is usual and could be expected. however, the way in which the proceedings to follow were/are handled are something that i don't think anybody anticipated.
when the news of the detention reached the media, it was certainly something that could be used as 'newsworthy' and was the ultimate in controversy. so much so that it sparked on protest from all over the world and formed a type of 'us' or 'them' barrier. were you a hicks supporter or do you support those americans?
we were bombarded with pressure from both sides of the argument. one side continually reminding us of what had happened, the other appealing to our humanitary side. both were lobbying thick and hard, and from where i stood the protest and activism was winning by a mile. this type of activism was all engulfing and there have been countless conversations had by all about how 'unfair it is' and 'how america can't do it'. it would be considered a hot topic for conversation, and i can safely say that i have lost count of the amount of petitions that i have signed to 'bring hicks home', or 'give hicks a trial'. the entire time this was happening, i never battered an eyelid at my disposition on the subject as it was completely clear what i was arguing for. and then i read the paper yesterday and hicks has entered a guilty plea.
it was at that moment that i had to remind myself that david hicks was involved with a terrorist organisation. and it was with that realisation that i had moral clash of beliefs. was i supporting a terrorist? he didn't bring down the twin towers, but is there guilt in association? is this simply a way for hicks to gain a fair trial with the possibility of returning to his own country to serve out a sentence? or is this a result of an evil legal trade off between lawyer and lawyer?
without a doubt i am pleased that the case has been moved forward, and after the plea it is looking as though hicks will return home to serve a sentence in australia. this is the first case that i have ever had an emotional attachment to, and in a sense have an empathy with hicks on his journey through this. i am curious to find out what other people think of this case, and if the idea of 'guilty' and 'hicks' really has a sense of credibility?
| 39 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by megz
But seriously, and i mean serious because i have been following the Hicks case pretty closely, for at least over the last 12 months and there are many angles to consider, all of which will cause at least one side of the fence to jump to their feet in protest.
firstly, to get my opinion out there: whether Hicks is guilty or innocent is not the concern. The real concern is that over the ages, western democratic society has developed and refined a judicial system that is supposed to be fair and rightous, and at the end of the day bring justice to thsoe who are wronged.
the americans' handling of the Hicks case has made an absolute mockery of this judicial system and instead they have created their own military trial to suit their own needs, which even the Supreme Court of America found to be unjust. Imagine if an American who was alleged to have committed a crime in, say, North Korea, was held in a Korean cell for 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, for several years without being put on trial before a jury? It wouldn't happen. The Australian Government has a lot to answer for in this regard. For years they did nothing, and now as an election campaign approaches, they start making noises like a parent telling off a naughty child as it continues to pull a cat's tail: "Stop that darling... it's not right... you shouldn't do that..." The child doesn't stop, so the parent carries on with their own business, telling those around them that they tried but to no avail.
secondly, i would (very carefully) suggest that you don't jump to conclusions, << "i had to remind myself that david hicks was involved with a terrorist organisation">>. For a start, some of the information i have read on Hicks suggests that at the time of his arrest, the Americans were paying large sums of money to Afghan "bounty hunters" to capture "terrorists", and it was found that these hunters were capturing anyone who resisted the local government and handing them over to the U.S. just to receive the large bounty. Which brings me to my next point...
the word "terrorism" is bandied about so much these days, one must reconsider its meaning. Some consider the Taliban to be a resistance movement. Whether their policies or tactics are just and right is not my point. In any war, be it civil or across borders, religious or over land, there are at least two sides who no doubt, using today's terminology, would consider the other a "terrorist". The Japanese invading Australia in World War 2 were terrorists to the Australians, just like the Australians invading Gallipoli in World War 1 would have been terrorists to the Turks.
Some say that David Hicks, rightly or wrongly, was fighting for a resistance movement, who were fighting their own government on their own soil, and therefore the term "terrorist" does not apply. Food for thought.
And just on that... How the hell can there be a "War on Terror?" How do you have war against a feeling? Why don't we have a War on Anger while we're at it? How about a War on Love? Yeah, let's destroy Love - it keeps getting in the way of our War on Terror anyway.
Comment by Jonathon
Anthroblogogy
anyway, down to business. perhaps i was a bit hasty in my choice of words. by using the term 'terrorist organisation', i was attempting to speak in a language that would be easily understood by a wide audience in relation to the actions taken by hicks in his last ten years or so, whilst attempting to be subjective about the whole issue. i think even the media has done a trick on me as that was the automatic turn of phrase to place on the situation. let me amend this statement now in saying that david hicks was involved in group that has been labelled 'terrorists', and that is where my state of confusion stems from.
i neglected to address the bounty hunter issue, in which case the facts just seem to get worse. it is funny how time can cloud the facts and allow the story to evolve into something else - kind of like chinese whispers. i am not an expert on this case, but i have been on the roller coaster ride with the rest of the world as we sat helplessly and watched. some of us signed petitions, and marched in protest, and i wonder of those people how many people really new all of the facts? it is a case that i know in my heart what has gone down, but it is hard to comment on it without stimulating
i have taken note of your comments, and it is interesting food for thought. may i commend you on truly well thought out and well written response. it certainly made me think about this situation again, along with my own point of view. although i feel empathy for hicks and feel that he is the 'wrong man at the wrong time', i still have this negative feeling toward the entire case. i still can't work out exactly what it is but thank you for stimulating my thought process further.