Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Gun-toting jihadi was not an angel(David Hicks)

Old 03-27-07, 02:08 PM
  #1  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Gun-toting jihadi was not an angel(David Hicks)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-32522,00.html
[b]Gun-toting jihadi was not an angel

Hicks has admitted his guilt, but that won't stop spin doctors proclaiming the terrorist's innocence, writes Janet Albrechtsen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 28, 2007

FINALLY David Hicks, also known as Abu Muslim al Australia, aka Abu Muslim Philippine, aka Muhammad Dawood, has pleaded guilty to the charge of providing material support for terrorism. And now watch as the real PR campaign goes into angelic overdrive. His vociferous cheer squad will proclaim his innocence, declaring the plea was the only way for Hicks to get out of Guantanamo Bay.
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown was out in front. "His guilty plea is simply a plea for release, for exit from the inhumane Guantanamo Bay gulag," he said. "And that's a human response." Spin doctors will bring up the rear, completing the sanitisation of a gun-toting Islamist revolutionary into an accidental, adventurous Australian tourist.

Before the book deals, chat shows, newspaper and television profiles get under way, it's worth putting emotion to one side. Forget about the photos of an angelic nine-year-old with freckles and a crooked fringe. Forget about the ads where his father, Terry Hicks, declared his love for his son. Let's come back to the inconvenient aspects of the Hicks saga, those that never make it on to a "Free Hicks" billboard: the law and the facts.

First to the law. His supporters have long claimed that what Hicks has or has not done is not the issue. It's about justice, they say. And now they will say pleading guilty was Hicks's only way to avoid a kangaroo court, the US Military Commission. Enter Australian Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja, who said yesterday it was a "shambolic and incredibly unfair" process. Indeed, his most ardent supporters, such as former Family Court chief justice Alastair Nicholson, have suggested that the Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Foreign Minister could be charged with war crimes for allowing Hicks to be tried by an improperly constituted court. It scored the media-savvy Nicholson a nice headline. But his knowledge of the law in this area may need updating.

Military commissions have long been sanctioned by US courts as a proper means for trying those alleged to have committed offences against the laws of war. The US is not making this up as it goes, as one earnest chap suggested on Sky News yesterday as news broke of Hicks's plea. The precedents are long established.

In June 1942, German saboteurs landed on a deserted beach on Long Island, New York, intent on terrorising the US's home front. They were arrested and tried by a military commission. The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that military commission and the penalties (in that case, executions) it ordered. Last year the US Supreme Court once again upheld military commissions as an appropriate means for trying those captured and charged with breaking the laws of war, specifically in relation to the war on terror. The court demanded congressional approval. That has been given. So that's the law.

Now to the facts. Hicks has pleaded guilty to his extensive links to terrorist organisations and his activities in Afghanistan, where he met Osama bin Laden and completed al-Qa'ida training courses. The specification Hicks admits to sets out the extraordinary detail: he travelled to Afghanistan with the help of Lashkar-e-Toiba to attend al-Qa'ida terrorist training camps. He was schooled by al-Qa'ida in weapons familiarisation, landmines, tactics, basic explosives, guerilla warfare, ambush, camouflage and surveillance.

He then moved up the ladder to urban tactics training and surveillance of the US and British embassies in Kabul. The specification Hicks admits to traces how he went to Pakistan, only to return to Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks, joining al-Qa'ida forces at Kandahar airport, later travelling to the front lines in Kunduz to fight coalition forces. He was captured by the Northern Alliance in December 2001 while trying to flee to Pakistan.
Long before his admission yesterday, Hicks has made plenty of other, earlier admissions: training with the Kosovo Liberation Army in Albania and fighting with Lashkar-e-Toiba, where he "got to fire hundreds of rounds" into Indian-controlled Kashmir. In letters home to dad, he called himself a "well-trained and practical soldier". He admitted to preparing for martyrdom because "the highest position in heaven" goes to those who "go fighting in the way of God against the friends of Satan".

Hicks has called the Taliban regime "the best in the world" and congratulated the regime for running "the country by strict Islamic law", making particular mention of the death sentence and "all Islamic punishments". He urged "an Islamic revolution", hoping that the Afghanistan model would "spread throughout the Muslim world" so that "Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim rule again".

That side of the Hicks story has been whitewashed by his sympathisers. US military prosecutor Morris Davis admits that "they have done a very effective job of telling their version of the story and we have done a very poor job of telling ours. For too long we didn't say anything ... and that's just not a very effective policy. We have nothing to be ashamed of and we ought to tell our story."

Hicks's admission is a vindication of the Howard Government's steadfast position that he ought to be tried, not freed as his supporters have long demanded. Hicks has admitted to siding with the enemy. He was never an unfortunate victim of circumstance. Bringing him home, where he would escape trial, was always ridiculous.

But then the law and facts have never been part of the Hicks campaign. His team of grandstanding Gitmo lawyers and extended human rights supporters always understood they needed a strategy of obfuscation, mystique and delay. Indeed, they have taken a leaf straight from the strategy book used by Tom Wilner, from respected US law firm, Shearman & Sterling, who represented a group of well-financed Kuwaitis in Gitmo.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal this month, Debra Burlingame tracks the Kuwaiti case as "a primer on the anatomy of a guerilla PR campaign". Media guru Richard Levick, a former lawyer, was hired and "in numerous published articles and interviews, Levick has laid out the essence of the entire Kuwaiti PR campaign ... (to) put a sympathetic 'human face' on the detainees and convince the public that it had a stake in their plight".

In other words, the militant Islamists who travelled to Afghanistan to become a part of al-Qa'ida's jihad on the US had to be reinvented as innocent charity workers swept up in the war after 9/11.

Sound familiar? OK, substitute charity worker for adventurous traveller. Because, you know, that's what young Australians do. As Brett Solomon, executive director of left-wing online activists GetUp and the man behind the "Bring David Hicks Home" travelling road show, said: "There but for the grace of God."

Let's come back to the law. The maximum penalty for providing material support to terrorism is life in prison, but Davis has said the prosecution will not seek a life sentence. "It will certainly be something much less than that," Davis said yesterday.

Hicks will be brought home to serve out his sentence. When that happens, and following his release, let's hope the facts are not forgotten.
Another one of those innocents like Mike Hawash who was mistakenly picked up and had to plead guilty.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 02:13 PM
  #2  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
Well if one confessed then it must mean every person who was ever in that camp is a terrorist. That's pretty much what your trying to imply isn't it?
cinten is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 02:18 PM
  #3  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Mike Hawash wasn't at Guantanamo.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 02:32 PM
  #4  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
Originally Posted by bhk
Mike Hawash wasn't at Guantanamo.
You sure about that?


http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=236976

An Australian detainee held by U.S. authorities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is to be the first so-called enemy combatant tried under a new military commission procedure that was approved by the U.S. Congress last year.

David Hicks, who was picked up by U.S. authorities in Afghanistan in 2001, is scheduled to be formally charged in a preliminary hearing Monday.

David Hicks has been held at Guantanamo for more than five years. U.S. authorities have accused him of fighting against U.S. troops alongside the Taleban in Afghanistan.

http://www.torontodailynews.com/inde...701david-hicks

Hicks has been held at Guantanamo for more than five years. He could be sentenced this week and will likely be returned to his native country to serve his sentence by the end of the year, the U.S. military said.

http://www.alaskareport.com/z45589.htm

Guantanamo, Cuba - Guantanamo prisoner David Hicks pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorism today before a US military tribunal after three hours of tense proceedings in which two defense lawyers were disqualified.

Last edited by cinten; 03-27-07 at 02:44 PM.
cinten is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 02:37 PM
  #5  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
You sure about that?


You just posted 3 links about David Hicks not Mike Hawash.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 02:40 PM
  #6  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,740
I'm glad I wasn't the only one
X is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 02:47 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
Originally Posted by cinten
Well if one confessed then it must mean every person who was ever in that camp is a terrorist. That's pretty much what your trying to imply isn't it?
I agree with you, all of the people at Gitmo are innocent and were just students, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Nazgul is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 02:49 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lyon Estates
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by Nazgul
I agree with you, all of the people at Gitmo are innocent and were just students, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

see bhk? all or nothing.
dick_grayson is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 02:50 PM
  #9  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
Crap read it wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that your implying all prisoners are guilty and need to prove their innocence (unlike high level republicans).
cinten is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 02:54 PM
  #10  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
What I'm saying is rather than make these people some sort of cause celebre, people should wait until the facts come out. But this is significant that Hicks pleads guilty and admits his guilt to a military tribunal.

see bhk? all or nothing.
You mistakenly quoted the wrong post.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 02:59 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
Originally Posted by dick_grayson
see bhk? all or nothing.
As if, you know nothing about that.
Nazgul is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 08:19 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,513
I was waiting for this to be posted.

This guy is basically pleading guilty so he can go back to Australia. By being at Gitmo for more than 5 years, it's a no-brainer this guy and probably many others, to take this route just to get out of that joke of a place we call Gitmo.

Now, since it's been so long (notice bhk et al haven't figured this out or mentioned it as a possible reasing for pleading guilty), I would imagine everyone will plead guilty to something just to get out of there. The Bush Administration knows it, and will trump this as a victory and Fox News will run with it, citing that Gitmo was in fact, a place of evildoers who were being defended by them liberal media wackos and stupid anti-war folk.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 08:22 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,513
Originally Posted by cinten
Well if one confessed then it must mean every person who was ever in that camp is a terrorist. That's pretty much what your trying to imply isn't it?
Yeppers. Of course if a US Trooper is convicted of killing innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan--with evidence mind you and not just a plea of guilty but actual evidence and witnesses--bhk et al will come to the US Military's defense and say....that....it was only one US serviceman....and not representative....
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 08:50 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by bhk
What I'm saying is rather than make these people some sort of cause celebre, people should wait until the facts come out. But this is significant that Hicks pleads guilty and admits his guilt to a military tribunal.
Because the US so routinely used torture in Guantanamo -- and indeed, it would be shocking if David Hicks was not subjected to torture at the hands of US interrogators -- it is impossible to say what the "facts" were. Every plea, every admission, every statement he uttered has to be judged suspiciously because of his treatment.

In other words, because we almost certainly tortured him... if David Hicks ever does get a fair trial, he will almost certainly go free. Throwing out the "confession" is the only appropriate response to tainted and manipulated testimony in a civilized system of justice.

And what's sad is -- in all likelihood -- David Hicks may very well be guilty. He may very well have been a threat. But we'll never know the truth, never know the "facts" in this case, because of the torture you so fervently applaud.
NCMojo is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 09:09 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,513
And this is why we wanted these people tried in a US court, bhk. The American Public needed this so much, but the Bush Administration acted like the former Soviet Union, preventing as much information to be let out as possible.

And what's even more sad, is what NCMojo said. Hicks may very well be guilty of many serious crimes, but we will never know all the details because of the issues with Gitmo.

We needed transparent trials for these prisoners. We needed our government to unconditionally show us how bad these people were.

I do know Hicks did state to his family he was going to fight the Northern Alliance back in late 2001, but there were so many fighters who were not terrorists per se, but just wanted to fight against the Northern Alliance (the Northern Alliance had natural enemies at that time, and some of you are forgetting this--they didn't hate the US as some might argue, they just didn't like the Northern Alliance and their pre-9/11 fights with them).
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 03-27-07, 11:27 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 29,931
Military commissions have long been sanctioned by US courts as a proper means for trying those alleged to have committed offences against the laws of war. The US is not making this up as it goes, as one earnest chap suggested on Sky News yesterday as news broke of Hicks's plea. The precedents are long established.

In June 1942, German saboteurs landed on a deserted beach on Long Island, New York, intent on terrorising the US's home front. They were arrested and tried by a military commission. The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that military commission and the penalties (in that case, executions) it ordered. Last year the US Supreme Court once again upheld military commissions as an appropriate means for trying those captured and charged with breaking the laws of war, specifically in relation to the war on terror. The court demanded congressional approval. That has been given. So that's the law.
Well... not quite...

Hicks was charged by a U.S. military commission, on August 26, 2004; however, that commission was subsequently abolished and the charges thus voided when on June 29, 2006, in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions were illegal under United States law and the Geneva Conventions.
On 3 February 2007, the US military commission announced that it has prepared, but not yet laid, new charges against David Hicks. The drafted charges are attempted murder and providing material support for terrorism under the Military Commissions Act of 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006), enacting Chapter 47A of title 10 of the United States Code, is an Act of Congress (Senate Bill 3930[1]) signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[2], the Act's stated purpose is to "facilitate bringing to justice terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants through full and fair trials by military commissions, and for other purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...ns_Act_of_2006

Sounds like "making this up as it goes" to me.
eXcentris is offline  
Old 03-28-07, 11:00 AM
  #17  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
It's funny to hear all the excuses given for a confessed terrorist.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/g...761563330.html


'Guilty' puts end to the Hicks myth
Email Print Normal font Large font Miranda Devine
March 29, 2007

By pleading guilty to terrorism this week, David Hicks has plastered egg all over the faces of his supporters - the naive hysterics who believe he is a tortured innocent as well as those glory-seeking civil rights lawyers who have attached themselves to his case.

The egg was coming, anyway, as the prosecution finally had an opportunity to lay out its allegations before the United States military commission in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But even as they wiped the yolk from their surprised brows yesterday, apologists for the 31-year-old Muslim convert, aka Mohammed Dawood, had found another way to spin this piece of bad news to their advantage.

"There's no way that this can be seen as a genuine guilty plea,"
(edit:who knew this guy posted on DVDtalk?) the Greens senator Bob Brown told reporters, ignoring the fact that an innocent man would do anything to have his day in court.

"[It is] simply a plea for release for exit from the inhumane Guantanamo Bay gulag."

Singing from the same songsheet were newspaper letter pages bulging with outrage: "By accepting a plea deal to escape the Guantanamo Bay hellhole, a bit player who hurt nobody becomes a self-confessed war criminal," wrote Lesley Pople of Cremorne.

Thus you see the spin: Hicks only pleaded guilty to get out of the gulag, not because he is guilty. And even if he is a teensy bit guilty he's not a big scary terrorist, like Osama bin Laden. He's just a bit player. A small fish. Which is what most terrorists are. You don't find big fish like bin Laden or Khalid Sheik Mohammed strapping on backpacks full of hydrogen peroxide.

But with Hicks pleading guilty to the charge of providing material support to a terrorist organisation, we can only hope for some respite from the mythology that has grown around him.

No more "Free David Hicks" posters in cafes across the "intellectual" suburbs. Getup! might stop running ads portraying the self-confessed terrorist with the receding hairline as a cherubic nine-year-old. It might even think about returning the $500,000 it received last year in public donations, much of which it spent on salaries and expenses, as Australian Securities and Investments Commission documents reportedly revealed last month.

Maybe now Hicks's supporters might stop referring to him as "gaunt" since courtroom artists in the prison camp have revealed how porky he has grown on meals consumed on the US taxpayer.

Maybe now his lawyers might even drop the pretence that Hicks's hair is long because he needs to wrap it around his eyes to block out an "inhumane" light in his cell 24 hours a day, even though US authorities keep saying the "security light" is so dimmed at night you can't read a book by it.

Maybe now, we can put the American system for dealing with terrorist detainees in perspective, instead of falling for the line that it is the moral equivalent of al-Qaeda.

One such line came from Steven Miles, an America bioethicist who appeared on ABC's Lateline this week complaining about conditions at Guantanamo Bay. One of the techniques was to put "nude pin-ups on the chests of prisoners, having them take them off and then match them up with pin-ups on the floor". Another interrogation tactic was to make the detainees watch movies such as Die Terrorists, Die.

Responding on the program to the allegation that interrogation is designed to manipulate detainees' emotions and weakness, the US chief prosecutor, Moe Davis, said: "I would certainly hope so. I mean, that's the purpose of an interrogation is to obtain intelligence information to prevent the next 9/11 or the next Bali bombing."

Maybe now that he has confessed to being a terrorist people might start remembering the real David Hicks.

Here are the inconvenient facts:

On October 5, 2001, the Australian Government announced it was committing troops to the war against terrorism. By this stage, according to the charge sheet prepared by US prosecutors, Hicks had been at Kandahar airport for about two weeks with other al-Qaeda fighters. He had been issued with an AK-47 rifle and then "on his own armed himself with six ammunition magazines, 300 rounds of ammunition, and three grenades to use in fighting against the US Northern Alliance or other coalition forces".


It was a full two months before Hicks would be captured in Afghanistan.

On October 22, 2001, the first deployment of our Special Forces Task Group left Australia for Afghanistan.

This was about the time Hicks "decided to look for another opportunity to fight in Kabul", where he had heard fighting would be heavy.

On or about November 9, 2001, Hicks met a terrorist friend "who requested Hicks go to the front lines in Konduz [in the north] with him". Hicks joined a group of fighters including the "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, who were "engaged in combat against coalition forces".

After the front line collapsed, Hicks spent the rest of November in Arab safe houses in Konduz, still with his AK-47. By late November, there were reports that an advance party of Special Air Service soldiers was in Afghanistan. On December 3, 2001, Australian SAS troops were confirmed to be in Kandahar. That was about the time Hicks was arrested, in a taxi heading from Konduz to the Pakistan border.

It's worth remembering that on February 17, 2002, an Australian SAS soldier, Sergeant Andrew Russell, was killed in Afghanistan after an anti-tank mine exploded. While his death occurred two months after Hicks's capture, it nevertheless highlights Australia's very real exposure on the front line.

Hicks was not a misguided child who only went back to Afghanistan to retrieve his clothes, as some of his supporters maintain.

He was a well-trained terrorist, an al-Qaeda "golden boy" who had watched footage of the September 11, 2001, attacks which killed 3000 innocent people, including Australians, on a friend's TV in Pakistan, who "approved of the attacks" and went back to Afghanistan to fight the US and its allies with his terrorist mates. He was the enemy traitor when Australian troops were on the ground.
Some inconvenient facts for the blame-america-first crowd.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-28-07, 11:28 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
The Bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 54,866
I like how it's impossible to believe that this guy may be a terrorist and that Gitmo leads people to give confessions that they wouldn't give normally.
The Bus is offline  
Old 03-28-07, 11:44 AM
  #19  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
No it isn't impossible to believe both. In Australia, (less in the US) this guy had become the equivalent of Mumia. That house of cards has come crashing down.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-28-07, 12:42 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by bhk
Some inconvenient facts for the blame-america-first crowd.
bhk, you keep using the word "facts". There are no "facts" in this case. There is what has been alleged, and there's what has been plead out, but there are no "facts". The torture methods used by US interrogators -- methods you gleefully approve of -- mean that we cannot ever truly know what is "fact" and what is not.

Look at the "confession" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that you trumpeted -- how many of those charges were true? Some? Most? Certainly not all. And we'll never know what the real truth is, since a great part of that confession was coerced.

In this case, it is certainly a viable theory that David Hicks is simply pleasing guilty to a lesser charge in order to escape Guantanamo. The savagery and the inhumanity of his treatment there certainly validates those who hold that opinion. Had we simply detained him, investigated the accusations, and then held a legal trial, then you could have totally repudiated the so-called "blame-America-first" crowd who clamors to "Free David Hicks".

But because the Administration you support has chosen instead to ignore the Geneva Convention and international law when it suits them, then any claim of "proof" or "facts" or "guilt" is just so much hot air.
NCMojo is offline  
Old 03-28-07, 01:07 PM
  #21  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by NCMojo
bhk, you keep using the word "facts". There are no "facts" in this case. There is what has been alleged, and there's what has been plead out, but there are no "facts". The torture methods used by US interrogators -- methods you gleefully approve of -- mean that we cannot ever truly know what is "fact" and what is not.

Look at the "confession" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that you trumpeted -- how many of those charges were true? Some? Most? Certainly not all. And we'll never know what the real truth is, since a great part of that confession was coerced.

In this case, it is certainly a viable theory that David Hicks is simply pleasing guilty to a lesser charge in order to escape Guantanamo. The savagery and the inhumanity of his treatment there certainly validates those who hold that opinion. Had we simply detained him, investigated the accusations, and then held a legal trial, then you could have totally repudiated the so-called "blame-America-first" crowd who clamors to "Free David Hicks".

But because the Administration you support has chosen instead to ignore the Geneva Convention and international law when it suits them, then any claim of "proof" or "facts" or "guilt" is just so much hot air.


It's a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Fact: he plead guilty
Fact: He'd urged others to join the jihad
Fact: He was captured in Afghanistan trying to bravely run away from said jihad.
Fact: he wasn't in Afghanistan to retrieve his clothes.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-28-07, 01:20 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,539
Central Park jogger
In the Central Park jogger case, on April 19, 1989, five teens aged from 14 to 16 were arrested and each confessed on videotape to the crime of attacking and raping a jogger and implicated each other. They later repudiated these confessions and maintained their innocence. The five were: Yusef Salaam, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Raymond Santana and Kharey Wise. In 1989, the police were aware that an unidentified sixth person had left semen on the victim's body. In 2002, Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and rapist, admitted that he was responsible for the rape and attack of the jogger. The DNA obtained from the crime scene matched Reyes. New York state justice Charles J. Tejada vacated the convictions of five defendants on December 19, 2002. Yusef Salaam served six and a half years in prison.


Pizza Hut murder
In 1988 Nancy DePriest was raped and murdered at the Pizza Hut she worked at in Austin, Texas. A coworker, Chris Ochoa, pled guilty to the murder. His friend, Richard Danziger, was convicted of the rape. Ochoa confessed to the murder and implicated his friend, Danziger, in the rape. It was later discovered that the confession was coerced and the guilty party was arrested. The forensic evidence that linked Danziger to the crime scene was a single pubic hair found in the restaurant that was consistent with his type of pubic hair. There was semen evidence collected, but DNA analysis was not performed. Both men received life sentences. Years later Achim Marino wrote letters while in prison claiming he was the murderer. The DNA was finally tested and matched Marino. Chris Ochoa and Richard Danziger were exonerated and released from prison in 2001 after 12 years of incarceration.


Corethian Bell
Cook County, Illinois prosecutors were required to videotape murder confessions, but not interrogations, starting in August of 1999. Corethian Bell, who is illegally retarded, said he confessed to the murder of his mother, Netta Bell, because police hit him so hard he was knocked off his chair and because he grew tired and hopeless after being in police custody for more than 50 hours. He said he thought that if he confessed, the interrogations would stop, then he could explain himself to a judge and be set free. With a confession on tape, he was then prosecuted and sent to jail. When the DNA at the crime scene was tested it matched a serial rapist, who already was in prison for three other violent sexual assaults, all in the same neighborhood as the Netta Bell murder.


Simon Marshall
Simon Marshall, was a Canadian rape suspect, he was imprisoned for 5 years before genetic evidence found him innocent. Mental retardation was a factor in his confession. This case lead to the creation of the Marshall Commission.


Stephen Downing
Stephen Downing spent 27 years in prison. The main piece of evidence used against him was a confession he signed, but only after an 8-hour interrogation which left him confused, and his poor literacy skills meant he didn't fully understand what he was signing.


Jeffrey Mark Deskovic
Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, was convicted in 1990 at age 16, of raping, beating and strangling a high school classmate, even though jurors were told the DNA evidence in the case did not point to him. He was incarcerated for 15 years. He confessed to the crime after hours of an interrogation without being given an opportunity to seek legal counsel.


Michael Crowe
Michael Crowe confessed to the murder of his younger sister Stephanie Crowe in 1998. Michael, 14 at the time, was targeted by police when he seemed "distant and preoccupied" after Stephanie's body was discovered and the rest of the family grieved. After two days of intense questioning, Michael admitted to killing Stephanie. The confession was videotaped by police, and appeared to be coerced, at times Michael saying things to the effect of, "I'm only saying this because it's what you want to hear." Two of Michael's friends, Josh Treadway and Aaron Hauser, were questioned and confessed after many hours of interrogation. The charges were dropped after DNA testing linked a neighborhood transient to her blood. A TV movie was made out of the story called The Interrogation of Michael Crowe in 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_c...on_%28legal%29
JasonF is offline  
Old 03-28-07, 01:22 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by bhk


It's a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Fact: he plead guilty
Fact: He'd urged others to join the jihad
Fact: He was captured in Afghanistan trying to bravely run away from said jihad.
Fact: he wasn't in Afghanistan to retrieve his clothes.
But the best the Administration could charge him with was providing material support to a terrorist organisation -- and a large part of that plea deal was the inadmissability of the coerced confession.

The same thing happened with John Walker Lindh. He was originally indicted by a grand jury on ten charges:
  • Conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals
  • Two counts of conspiracy to provide material support and resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
  • Two counts of providing material support and resources to terrorist organizations
  • One count of supplying services to the Taliban.
  • Conspiracy to contribute services to Al Qaeda
  • Contributing services to Al Qaeda
  • Conspiracy to supply services to the Taliban
  • Using and carrying firearms and destructive devices during crimes of violence
Maximum sentence: three life terms plus 90 years.

Because the government could not make Lindh's coerced confession stand up in a court of law, however, they had to settle -- Lindh copped to serving in the Taliban army and carrying weapons, and was sentenced to only 20 years.

David Hicks faced similar charges to John Walker Lindh. Why aren't you outraged that a man you believe to be a terrorist, an al Qaeda supporter, a threat to the United States, could be walking free in just seven years? Why aren't you furious that the Bush Administration would allow him to cop to such a light sentence?

Answer: because you know that his "confession" would never survive an open court of law. You know that the so-called "hard interrogation techniques" provide more useless, inaccurate information than real facts. You know that a guilty plea to anything is better than him walking free if they tried him fairly on all charges -- and that's only because the Administration has so royally screwed up the treatment and handling of all of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

But you can't admit that "fact", can you? The only real "vast right-wing conspiracy" is a willingness of people like yourself to blind yourself to the illegal and immoral actions of the Administration, to listen to the talking points and the agenda items instead of making up your own mind. The only real conspiracy is a conspiracy of silence, of mute acquiescence.

Last edited by NCMojo; 03-28-07 at 01:24 PM.
NCMojo is offline  
Old 03-28-07, 01:32 PM
  #24  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
David Hicks faced similar charges to John Walker Lindh. Why aren't you outraged that a man you believe to be a terrorist, an al Qaeda supporter, a threat to the United States, could be walking free in just seven years? Why aren't you furious that the Bush Administration would allow him to cop to such a light sentence?
I am upset but not because of your answer trying to channel me.
(btw, John Edwards might be able to use your channeling services. Lindh and this guy should have been shot in the field.
bhk is offline  
Old 03-28-07, 02:08 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
We should let him go. It's a travesty. He's probably a good guy and we just need to understand him.
kvrdave is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.