Ronin
A travesty of justice.
Sat Jun 12, 2004 16:30
64.140.158.17

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Quigs_Fight] A travesty of justice.
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:47:32 +0100
From: Ronin
Reply-To: Quigs_Fight@yahoogroups.com
To:


Another minnow has been charged. David Hicks, who was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time when the US decided the Taliban had to go. He is charged with conspiracy to commit war crimes, attempted murder, and aiding the enemy. He faces trial before a special military tribunal. If the invasion of Afghanistan was a war then those defending the country, if that was what Mr Hicks was doing (does anyone know what he was doing in Afghanistan at the time of the invasion?) then why are the charges levied at him civil charges? And why is he being charged in a military tribunal? A military tribunal is trying a man for civil crimes but what are the usual crimes within the jurisdiction of military tribunals? Surely, David Hicks, himself does not even come within the jurisdiction of a military tribunal.

How established military law is going to be adapted to try David Hicks one might expect will need a bending of that law to an extent that that law will need to be broken before it can be applied.

One might expect them to determine first whether Afghanistan had a sovereign and a legitimate army. Does anyone recall reports in the press at the time telling of the Afghan army? Or was the defenders of the country (about 90% of the country, anyway) always called in the press - The Taliban? No Afghan sovereign, no Afghan army, then no military tribunal. Afghan civilians defending the country (90% of it, at least) then if any crimes were committed by Afghan civilians against the invading US military then, if any jurisdiction is involved in determining those crimes then it should be civil law. David Hicks has been charged with civil crimes.The next question is, was David Hicks committing any crime under Afghan law? He was in Afghanistan was he not. In addition, was he breaking any law under the Geneva Convention? This part of international law that is being selectively applied or not applied at all when it suits certain individual countries?

For these reasons his trial has to be heard by a military tribunal because civil laws, military laws and international laws have to be selectively chosen to find him guilty. This special military tribunal is not going to find him innocent, is it. A court that is convened with the actual purpose of finding him guilty or at least with the prima facie purpose of finding him guilty is remarkably like a travesty of justice.

I don't know all the facts surrounding this case but are they likely ever to be published?


"When the government fears the
people, there is liberty. When the
people fear the government there
is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson -

=============================
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quigs_Fight/

=====================================================

Brian Quig's Work
ANOTHER "REAL" PATRIOT DEAD