The end of Australia's independance?

[bobgote]

Below is a link to an article written by former liberal (right-wing, same party as our current PM) Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. It talks of our relationship with the US, particularly as pertains to David Hicks ("enemy combatant" held in Guantanamo Bay) and the War on Terror. Have a read of it if and post any comments.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/13/1058034872660.html

 

[newfangle]

Its deja vu all over again. Canada is facing a similar situation, except on a much larger scale.

The Brits better get their acts together and reclaim their former colonies.

 

[Bose]

As per usual Malcolm Fraser has shown himself to be a complete alarmist, shooting off his mouth to sell papers.

Sure, I'm not happy about the trials either, but David Hicks made his decision and now has to deal with the consequences.

So we're somewhat a 'subserviant ally', tell me something i didn't know. We have to act in the best interest of our nation, and that is obviously to follow the US in whichever direction they go. I don't particularily like the thought of being told what to do and how to act either, but you have to remember we have the biggest Muslim state in the world a couple of hundred kilometers off our coast, and they have already shown that they are more than happy to kill Australians.

He made his decision, now let let him pay. I don't want him to die, or face a second rate hearing, but it's out of our hands. I'm hoping the way this is all going down changes as soon as the US get GWB of his throne, but it's out of our hands.

As it stands, this David Hicks trial has absolutely nothing to do with our national identity or our international standing. Mabey if Fraser was more content with his own political career he mightn't be so outspoken...

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by Bose
As per usual Malcolm Fraser has shown himself to be a complete alarmist, shooting off his mouth to sell papers.

Lets just hope his trousers are properly secured.

Originally posted by Bose

Sure, I'm not happy about the trials either, but David Hicks made his decision and now has to deal with the consequences.

Exactly what decisions did he make and what exactly did he do? Will the intended process answer these questions accuarately?

Originally posted by Bose


So we're somewhat a 'subserviant ally', tell me something i didn't know. We have to act in the best interest of our nation, and that is obviously to follow the US in whichever direction they go. I don't particularily like the thought of being told what to do and how to act either, but you have to remember we have the biggest Muslim state in the world a couple of hundred kilometers off our coast, and they have already shown that they are more than happy to kill Australians.

Do you mean that literally "whichever direction they go"? That`s not "somewhat subservient", that`s blind obedience.

Re- Indonesia- are you suggesting that the state of Indonesia is happy to kill Australians? Ok- so you mean the various groups within Indoneseia; even so I don`t really see a connection between them and what happens to David Hicks.

Originally posted by Bose

He made his decision, now let let him pay. I don't want him to die, or face a second rate hearing, but it's out of our hands. I'm hoping the way this is all going down changes as soon as the US get GWB of his throne, but it's out of our hands.

Again- we don`t know what he should pay until we know what he has done.

Originally posted by Bose

As it stands, this David Hicks trial has absolutely nothing to do with our national identity or our international standing. Mabey if Fraser was more content with his own political career he mightn't be so outspoken...

A matter of opinion I guess, I tend to agree on these points.

 

[Greadius]

He was in Afghanistan handing flowers out to children


We control Australia now?

Cool. Its amazing what flies below the radar here.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Bose
As per usual Malcolm Fraser has shown himself to be a complete alarmist, shooting off his mouth to sell papers.

Alarmist? I don't think so. What he says may have been dramatised somewhat, but it's not inaccurate. John Howard has some very concerning policies as relating to the US.

Sure, I'm not happy about the trials either, but David Hicks made his decision and now has to deal with the consequences.

he, like everyone else, still deserves justice and he's not getting it

So we're somewhat a 'subserviant ally', tell me something i didn't know. We have to act in the best interest of our nation, and that is obviously to follow the US in whichever direction they go.

I think it is far from obvious, in fact, i think it's downright wrong. What we've done is associate ourselves as the unthinking henchman to the US and we will be the one copping the brunt of it. It is much more in our interest to distance ourself from the US (not seperate, but at least arm's length) and involve ourselves in our region, and our region's politics. Howard is acting like Bush's barking dog in the pacific and it's obvious from the hostility that we are getting from other nations that it's not in our best interests.

I don't particularily like the thought of being told what to do and how to act either, but you have to remember we have the biggest Muslim state in the world a couple of hundred kilometers off our coast, and they have already shown that they are more than happy to kill Australians.

It's not the country themselves, and i would prefer to keep it that way - and we are not going to keep it that way by following the US with their clumsy attempts at diplomacy. The way it is, when the people of these nations resent the US, they see us, much closer as a target too. It is not good for our national security, and is certainly not in our nation's interests.

As it stands, this David Hicks trial has absolutely nothing to do with our national identity or our international standing. Mabey if Fraser was more content with his own political career he mightn't be so outspoken...

he has everything to do with our international standing. He is an Australian citizen and our government has shown that they do not care about how the US treats us. It's supposed to be a show of our trust in the US, but I think that this is definitely an issue where we cannot afford to trust them.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns

Exactly what decisions did he make and what exactly did he do? Will the intended process answer these questions accuarately?

don't think he DID anything, but he claims to be a member of al Quaeda (however it's spelled) - likely he was a low ranking soldier who was completely untrusted by superiors if he was a member at all (which there is doubts about). I think he's more than a little funny in the head. I think there was something about him trying to kill US soldiers as well. Will the process answer questions accurately? Not at all. The proposed process is frankly scary and will in no way be accurate.

Do you mean that literally "whichever direction they go"? That`s not "somewhat subservient", that`s blind obedience.

Yes it is. And our Bose here isn't the only one who thinks this is the way to go. Many people have resignedly accepted it.

Re- Indonesia- are you suggesting that the state of Indonesia is happy to kill Australians? Ok- so you mean the various groups within Indoneseia; even so I don`t really see a connection between them and what happens to David Hicks.

indonesia has no great love for us. but they aren't happy to kill australians. There is a bunch of terrorists there and around the region, which is what we are concerned about (Indonesia is busy with the aceh province at the moment). There is no connection between that and david hicks, but it is a big factor in us deciding to blindly follow the US.

Again- we don`t know what he should pay until we know what he has done.

Which we are unlikely to find out anytime soon.

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by Greadius
He was in Afghanistan handing flowers out to children

Handing out flowers to children- well that sounds OK. Seems like a nice bloke- unless they were opium poppies..

If he was a member of AQ and chose to be so while of sound mind- then you can do what you want to him and then do it again for good measure.

The problem is (or may be) in the process of determining those facts.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns

The problem is (or may be) in the process of determining those facts.

Yup. That's the whole point. No matter what he's done or is accused of doing, he has the right to a fair trial. Which he will not be getting. I'm happy with him being imprisoned if found guilty in America (altho not for the death penalty, hopefully they listen to us at least that much) if he is found guilty following a fair trial.

 

[Greadius]

Lets hand him back to Afghanistan for a fair trail

 

[YNCS]

A quote from Fraser's article:

Australians have always believed that the application of due process, the rule of law, is fundamental to our democracy. Enough has been written for us to know Hicks will have a second-class trial.

Americans have always believed that also. However, Messrs Bush and Rumsfeld appear to have other beliefs. That's why Hicks and all of the other "illegal combatants" are being denied the due process that an American or an Australian contesting a speeding ticket would get.

 

[ainwood]

I have a living memory of what is, for many, history. Britain was left alone with Commonwealth support for two years and five months in the war against Nazism. Britain was bankrupt and desperate, but fighting with a tenacity that led to democracy's greatest victory. I do not believe America would have joined that war if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour and forced her into it. There were many who believed the US could deal with a triumphant Hitler. The US was concerned that Britain could not again be a financial power. Were it not for Pearl Harbour, America would probably have stood aloof.

Hitler maybe, but the American's were worried that Russia wouldn't stop at Berlin, and would instead march their way right across Europe.

Japan was choked to the point that attacking Pearl Harbour was there only real tactical option. I don't think Japan attacking the US was completely unexpected; the manner of it and the losses suffered by the US might have been, but not the attack.

 

[Ohwell]

LOL, I first read the title as "The end of Austria's independence. Then the thought of the secend Anschluss came to mind.

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by Greadius
Lets hand him back to Afghanistan for a fair trail

Or perhaps to Australia.

 

[Bose]

Whoa, I didn't quite say that we should blindly follow America...

Have you guys ever heard of the 'Port Augusta-Newcastle Line'? It's an imaginary line between those two cities in which everything below it is what we can realisticly defend, and everything above it we cannot. Whether we like it or not, we have too much land mass to defend with our resources, and it is absolutely essential that we back our two major allies in anything they do.

Do not read my first post as saying i'm un-patriotic, I'm just saying that we need to be allies with America, and as with most things it's give and take.

For the record, I believe David Hicks should be brang back to Australia for a proper trial in front of his peers. But then again, i believe Barlow & Chambers deserved the same thing, but that's they way the world is...

 

[Mrogreturns]

Maybe I give the U.S too much credit, but I don`t think this is an issue over which the U.S line is "complain about this and we are no longer allies".

 

[Ado]

Barlow & Chambers were idiots dealing drugs through a country not shy about telling everyone that it's a death penalty upon conviction. I lived 2 years in Malaysia and you have to be pretty stupid to not understand what you're risking. I think anyone breaking laws overseas should be dealt with according to local justice.

As for Hicks, I don't think we've heard anywhere near enough "truth" to be able to make an informed comment, however on the surface he looks to have pretty much dug his own grave, and I'm happy for the US to handle it, but I'm not so pleased about the time it's taken them to do anything. I don't give a crap about details and labeling of prisoners - anyone deserves to be dealt with sooner rather than later, and stinking, evil terrorist or otherwise they should be given a fair chance to defend themselves.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns
Or perhaps to Australia.

Why? He committed the crime in Afghanistan.

You're not suggesting Australia's laws should supercede Afghanistan's, are you?

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by Greadius
Why? He committed the crime in Afghanistan.

You're not suggesting Australia's laws should supercede Afghanistan's, are you?

Are you sure you`re not already a polititian?

As I read it, your suggestion was that the treatment Hicks is getting in the U.S is better than he could expect in Afganistan. That may well be true, but it is not necessarily the treatment he should be getting.

 

[Greadius]

Should be getting? What gives you the right to determine what a man who committed a crime in Afghanistan ought to be treated simply because he shares the same country as birth as you do.