open Democracy News Analysis - [b]Guantanamo and Australia's David Hicks[/b], - Comments

kwatt on "[b]Guantanamo and Australia's David Hicks[/b]"

kwatt — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:02:25 +0000

Why should he be released to kill more Americans? You are not thinking rationally.

douglas-jones on "[b]Guantanamo and Australia's David Hicks[/b]"

douglas-jones — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:21:23 +0000

I think you overlook the role of the media and the influence Government has on it. See Senator Alston's response to the ABC voicing news he did not like or see the web site outlining how Governments can exert control (S M H) or see the many think tanks who have propaganidized. Then wonder how rational support, even partial can come from an uninformed electorate, particularly one in which the issue of people we don't want and terrorists who might be among them or the economies management, are highlighted. Basically Australians will vote fora comfortable well paid life and though espousing the tenets of Religion are pepared to offer Iraq lives in exchange for Ausatralian safety. Diversionary issues which captured a vote sufficient to win. Look at the percentages Lib/nat andthesum of the rest, not a great deal init though the seats won praised the percentages. Still at it I don't know if its the ever popular Huntington, countered by factual figures from Prof Pape mostof the suicide bombers are secular and a majority of all types simply want uis out of their land. Not that you would believe this from the propaganda and draconian bills the Gov is passing. Define right as kll the buggers take what is theirs lie about doing it because itgives power and sure that is it. Okay the left is also less than honest so So why left and right can these be reduced to something better than labells to be thrown around?

ILJAY on "[b]Guantanamo and Australia's David Hicks[/b]"

ILJAY — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:33:38 +0000

claudio_3, Firstly, of all I am not right wing. Secondly, you post is deceitful. “Howard by your definition is a dictator, as he is not restricted by: law/constitution: there is nothing in Australian law or constitution that required Howard to seek democratic process in our parliaments to take Australia to an illegal war.” Democracy is different from the mob rule or anarchy. In democracy we choose our leaders and representatives in elections. Once they are chosen they are free to make decisions which are scrutinise by the parliaments. Perhaps you desire a democracy in which every major decision will be made by a referendum. I don’t. I trust elected leaders to make decisions even if they are sometimes wrong such as the war in Iraq. Your claims about detention centres, sinking of SIEV-X, detention of David Hicks and industrial reform are outlandish and seem to come from a green party/ACTU leaflet rather then from any real insight. “There is no opposition to Howard to speak of since the whole mainstream political spectrum has lurched dramatically to the right during the last decade of Australian politics. To assume simplistically that the test for our healthy democracy is having elections is naive in the extreme.” Claudio, it is compulsory to vote in Australia and there was an election, just in case you forgot. Howard won by a landslide even after taking us to an unpopular war. This is exactly what I referred to when I mentioned left’s political inaptitude. Nobody likes a failure but everybody likes a good excuse or a good dose of abuse such as: “our democracy that allows war criminals such as Howard to scorn our parliamentary system and ride rough shod over the populace that he's supposed to represent and safeguard”. Pity most of the electorate seem to prefer “criminals” over noble political impotents. “Your repost would have been more constructive if you'd actually argued on the points Tony raised, rather than the usual right wing bleatings.” You are correct. Perhaps I should’ve addressed this. But would it make any difference? You choose to believe that Australia is lead by criminals and Tony believes that fighting for Taliban is not a crime but a noble cause. And I choose to believe that Australians are capable to elect their own leaders and that David Hicks is no Ernest Hemingway. I also think it would be a waste of my time to critically address such juvenile nonsense as: “As many Australians see it, David Hicks was one of the first Australians to get up and fight against the American Global Empire. They applaud him; not condemn him.”

claudio_3 on "[b]Guantanamo and Australia's David Hicks[/b]"

claudio_3 — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:42:47 +0000

Iljay, perhaps instead of the typical hysterical right wing comeback, let's use your measure of “Dictatorship, in contemporary usage, refers to absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.” Howard by your definition is a dictator, as he is not restricted by: • law/constitution: there is nothing in Australian law or constitution that required Howard to seek democratic process in our parliaments to take Australia to an illegal war. Instead Howard in camera/sub-rosa made his decision and his only concession was to 'explain' to the Parliament. Many other tests of his dictatorial rule include: the removal of freedom of the press to enter the dentention centres; use of external contracters/militias to police the detention centres; the crimes against humanity for the treatment of asylum seekers and complicity in the deaths of innocent people in such disasters as the sinking of the SIEV-X in October 2001 (Senate inquiry 2002); the abrogation of responsibility to the Americans for Australian citizen David Hicks in Guantamo; the dismantling of an industrial awards system designed to have checks and balances to curb abuses of federal v. state power that will pass in a two-house system ruled by one party; the draconian anti-terrorist laws including the sedition components widely condemned by organisations/individuals including former Liberal leader Malcom Fraser at his address last night in Melbourne (29/11/2005), also to be passed by a one-party rule machine; and the list goes on and on… There is no opposition to Howard to speak of since the whole mainstream political spectrum has lurched dramatically to the right during the last decade of Australian politics. To assume simplistically that the test for our healthy democracy is having elections is naive in the extreme. your alert about the many other possible 'good causes' is well meaning and I look forward to reading your arguments for such causes. I hope you avoid the kind of value judgements so apparent eg 'unhealthy interest in Taliban figher David Hicks". Unhealthy for whom? Hicks, the plight of an Australian citizen? the abject state of our democracy that allows war criminals such as Howard to scorn our parliamentary system and ride rough shod over the populace that he's supposed to represent and safeguard? Your repost would have been more constructive if you'd actually argued on the points Tony raised, rather than the usual right wing bleatings

ILJAY on "[b]Guantanamo and Australia's David Hicks[/b]"

ILJAY — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:33:18 +0000

“Hick's return to Australia would most certainly encourage an open resistance movement against John Howard's planned and rapidly unfolding dictatorship.” Perhaps you should check the meaning of “big” words before using them. “Dictatorship, in contemporary usage, refers to absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.” Tony, please let me know when John Howard cancels the elections. Your post is just another left-wing dummy spit that actually hurts the left. Instead of addressing its own inaptitude and actually listening to what electorates are saying the left chooses to compare Bush, Blair and Howard to Hitler, Mussolini and other such monsters. Anyone with a shred of common-sense and a sense of history can see through this rubbish. This is exactly why, while left hysteria seems to intensify the lefts political influence seems to shrink. Tony, there a lot of good causes in the world. What about Akbar Ganji, an Iranian journalist jailed for six years for writing. Or AUNG SAN SUU KYI in Burma? Why so much unhealthy interest in Taliban fighter David Hicks? Why choose to preoccupy yourself by looking for perceived dictatorships of Bush, Blair and Howard when there are so many real ones around?

[b]Guantanamo and Australia's David Hicks[/b],

tony ryan — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:29:29 +0000

Prisoners in Guantanamo who originated in western countries have enjoyed some kind of support from their governments; with the outstanding exception of Australia's David Hicks. Why is Hicks so isolated and abandoned? What was David's crime? He did precisely what thousands of Americans did during the Spanish Civil War; fought in another country for what they believed to be a righteous and noble cause. A right exercised by courageous and decent people since war began. One of America's most admired writers was one of them, Ernest Hemingway. Are we now to understand he was a terrorist? Were Australian soldiers terrorists because they fought for "the Mother Country and our people in England" in two World Wars? Was it wrong to fight the Germans following their invasion of Poland? so distant from Australia. Read the rest of this post...