U.S. wants Australian to face tribunal

whose law?
international law?
or america's law?

Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war do not apply to detainees captured in the U.S. war on terror
lets just make the rules to suit what we want, eh?
Kina said:
funny how that works eh? changing the laws whenever it suits em.

I don't know what "rules" you're talking about being changed. This pretty much sums it up for me:

David Hicks is accused of having fought alongside the Taliban against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. He is charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy.
that may be so but he is still a human and entitled to certain rights, regardless of what he has done
Yeah and he waved those rights when he became a terrorist. They aren't wearing uniforms, they aren't under the command of a national army, and last time I checked, they don't fall under any classifaction of a POW. They aren't soldiers, they're partsian. And because of that, they fall under civilian armed combatives which means they are spies. And under the rules of war. Spies can be killed on the spot. So They are luckly. We treat them better than anyother military power in the world. The Soviet Union would kill them, the People's Republic of China would kill them, and the rest of the middle east, most of Aisa, and all of Africa would kill them too.
I am really sick of the idiot Aussie Jorno's trying to make him out to be a victim. "Poor David Hicks, the US are picking on him bla bla bla"

The "man" was caught fighting as an insurgent, against soldiers allied to his homeland, which he is still a citizen of. David Hicks is a Traitor and should be trialed as one.
I reckon bring him to Australia and trial him in front of an Australian Tribunal. SiperMax at Golburn should be good enough for him, he can share it with the other terrorist scum we're putting in there.
While President Bush was still Governor of Texas, there was a Canadian citizen on death row and Canada was trying to have his punishment commuted to life. When asked by the press what message this would send to the rest of the World, his answer was classic Bush. "I think it will say don't come to Texas and kill people."

Sometimes we sound like hard people to the rest of the US and Countries of the World but justice has always been meted out to suit the crime. It's not a matter of an eye for an eye but more of what is expected of citizens and how they treat others.
no, you CANNOT waive your basic human rights, no matter what you do.

amnesty international would have a heart attack if they ever read these forums!
i didn't say that, i was thinking more along the lines of it would be funny to time how long they went from reading to flatlining :lol:

I agree with you, but for different reasons.

Your're right. The Geneva Conventions were written for uniformed soldiers fighting for a country. There is a clause covering Partisan fighters/Guerrillas but in the case of al-Qaeda a suspect I dont think it applies. her's why

The Geneva Conventions (Section 2 Sub-Paragraph 2, 1st paragraph) refer to Partisans as "National Groups fighting within occupied territory or in foreign territory" as we know Islamic terrorists are not national but religous and the whole world is their base of operations. For that reason, I doubt you could classify them as spies.

However, here's the part that sold me, the Geneva Convention do not apply to those who do not respect the laws and customs of war. Clearly terrorist who attack civilians, kill prisoners, and commit other acts of criminalty qualifies as a failure to respect. Hence the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

I do think the Geneva Conventions should be amended to clearly define terrorism and what actions are permitted...
The Geneva Convention is quite clear enough for me as is. People who want "clearer definitions" are usually those who are hoping that something that is not now allowed will suddenly become so.
I agree. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 were signed by nearly all of the 200 countries of the world. They are what they are, now's not the time to seek changes. As they stand right now, they cover uniformed soldiers, civilians, the sick and wounded, and the protocols of 1977 cover the protection of victims of international and non-international armed conflicts. It sounds complete the way it is.
Yeah, I can just see al-Qaeda getting out their Geneva Convention handbooks if they captured a soldier.

As far as Hicks goes, get it over and done with! Hang him, put him on trial and then interview him. Or something like that. As far as I'm concerned he gave up his right to Australian protection when he decided to betray his country.

Let him be an example to anyone else that thinks we are soft on terroists or traitors.
im not saying stuff becuase i am australian, i am talking basic human rights.
those are not being given to the prisoners at guantanamo.

yes they are bad people, yes some of them are terrorists. but if you treat them like dirt, then dont cry wolf when the terrorists, or member of rogue states dont treat your soldiers in an inhumane way