Talk:David Hicks/Archive 3

under duress

"He once told me in Afghanistan that if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' ect [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out," writes former Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi (probably whilst under duress) [21]

There is no mention of possible coercion of "Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi" in the accompanying link. It is NPOV nonsense and now gone. Abbasi repudiated all of his claims against Hicks, he didn't say he was forced to make them. From the TIME piece it sounded more like Abbasi told his interrogators a crazy story on purpose and to his great astonishment and amusement they believed him.

Soldier of fortune?

That heading sounds way too flowery, what should we change it too? See: David_Hicks#Soldier_of_fortune —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven X (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I think its entirely appropriate and perfectly descriptive of his character and motivations (having been rejected by the Australian military and looking for adventure and combat). I recently watched a fair (ABC or SBS) documentary on him here and it quite accurately decribes him. I dont see the phrase as inherently negative although our times have changed and few wealthier westerners now engage is such things. Remember the many foriegners who flooded in to fight for the Spanish Civil War (and the many journalists (subsequently famous writers) who followed them). Remember too the many western mercenaries in African wars. Oh how times have changed: the phrase is now no longer associated with an adventurer, a fighter for a cause, or even a lowly mercenary, but instead is descriptive only of a "terrorist" and all terrorists now no longer work now for any nation-states since nation-states no longer commit any acts of terrorism! And if you are nieve enough to believe that (!?) (like the masses) you would find the phrase objectionable. "Viva Zapata! Viva la revolucion!" Mattjs 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the heading should be eliminated. It is not clear that Hicks has ever seen action on the battlefield. He seems to have arrived in Albania too late to see action outside of training and his activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan are the subject of controversy leaving open the possibility that he never saw any action there either. As such Hicks status as a "Soldier of Fortune" is speculation. Journalists have the freedom to engage in speculation, encyclopedias need to deal in facts, not speculation. The right thing to do is to leave speculation out and record only facts. We should not be judging Hick's motivations or character. Hicks is the only one who can definitively state what is inside his head. On top of that Hick's motivation and character are one of the things being looked at by the Military Commissions, so it is hardly Wikipedia's job to preempt the Commission's conclusion.

The "Soldier of Fortune" section should be merged with the "Early life" section. To even have a division in the article "draws a line" in Hick's life. Why is the division in the article after Japan and before Albania? Was that some sort of watershed in Hick's life? How can we know. The answer is we cannot. Only Hicks can. As such the division is arbitrary, cannot be objectively justified and so should not be there.

It is valid to have an "Early Life" section in the article, which deals with life before being detained. Hick's capture cannot be denied and in the context of this article it is a significant event in Hick's life. As such it seems to form a natural division which should not be controversial. John Dalton 04:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If others really want a division, I would suggest a section headed "Lead up to capture" or "Afghanistan". This could document the events immediately before Hick's capture. Perhaps starting from when he was last reported to be outside Afghanistan? John Dalton 04:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

possibility of parole

Hick's prosecutor was reported to have said in early March 2007 that he had no objection to Hicks being released on parole on Hicks's return to Australia, if he was found guilty. The prosecutor's comments suggest that he is only interested in a guilty verdict and not in further punishment or incarceration. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/us-has-no-objection-to-parole/2007/03/03/1172868811846.html and http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21335102-661,00.html

Given the controversy over the extent to which Hick's should be considered a threat, particularly as the Australian government has said that it has relied on advice from the US, without being privy to the evidence against Hicks's, perhaps the prosecutor's view should be included in this article.Mickiewiki 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Commentary Section

Does this section really belong in an encyclopedia article? What does is contribute? Nothing? What is the criteria for a link being included as commentary? As far as I can see it is based on whim.

The aim of the article is to summarise the facts about David Hicks. There should be no place in the article for opinions, which is presumambly what is meant by "commentary". The commentary section should be deleted in its entirity. I don't think "it contains links both pro and con" is a justification for the section existing. Opposing opinions are still opinions.

If any of the links in the commentary article have reliable and relevant facts those facts should be incorporated in the article and the links become sources.

Do others agree with the commentary section being eliminated? If so, could someone else please "second" my motion by deleting the section and its contents? John Dalton 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The commentary section arises because some editors wanted to place prejudicial opinions about external links being "pro" or "anti" Hicks, thus misrepresenting the controvesy about Hicks' detention as a personal campaign, rather than acknowledging the highly controversial nature of its human rights aspects. The key question to ask about the external links is: do they provide a valuable resource to those who are interested in the subject? One "fact" about Hicks is that the case has been highly controversial - disguising this fact by removing links to material about the controvesy reduces the article rather than enhancing it. Wm 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it in. It is valuable for people dedicated to finding a range of information about a subject, one of wikipedias strengths. I can't imagine why it would need to go.Prester John 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to argue. What are the criteria for inclusion though? It seems to be quite arbitrary. It would be a shame if the list of links is simply fall out from an edit war. That latest link is a load of crap. At least the rest of the links (pro and con) put forward a reasoned argument. The newest one is simply an attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise a vanity website. A blog that consists of one entry, written five days ago, hardly makes the grade. If it was a blog that had seen lots of posts, enthusiastic discussion and was widely read I could see a case for inclusion, irrespective of whether it is pro or con. What's there isn't even funny, it's just sad. John Dalton 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dalton, I found it funny, and also sad. Funny how stupid Hicks supporters are, sad how you feel the need to delete things you don't agree with.134.7.187.45 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that I deleted the link because I disagreed with it is baseless. I deleted it because it does not meet the criteria for an external link from Wikipedia and I am not going to restate the justification given above. Note that my previous edit was to fix a broken link that by your flawed reasoning I should have deleted. John Dalton 05:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it Vanity? Whose Vanity is it, since it has an anonymous author??? Do you think The Blog of David Hicks is actually written by Hicks?

I think it highlights Hicks' real political views, as shown by the letters he has sent his Father.134.7.187.45 07:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely based on whim... it should be deleted. If people want more information, then they should be able to obtain it from links referenced in the article. --Jrk1998 02:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights workers claim Hicks's charge violates treaties and Australian law

This section should be deleted if the only thing supporting it is an op-ed piece. The fact that Australians think that Australian law should apply to them when they break the law in other countries is really not pertinent (nor is it well grounded in reality). --Jrk1998 02:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If this were any old op-ed then no. But this is from a "Special Rapporteur of the International Commission of Jurists" so it's not just an ordinary op-ed and should stay. Also, from what I can tell, the primary point he's making is that it's unacceptable internationally to punish people based on retrospective laws not that Australians should be bound by Australian law. While Australians do sometimes seem to think they should have to worry about the laws of the countries they're in, this doesn't appear to be the issue being addressed here Nil Einne 04:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was part of report that he did as "Special Rapporteur of the International Commission of Jurists", I would agree with you. But its not part of a report to the UN, its merely him weighing in on his personal views. Its his opinion. Given that the paragraph outlines, repeatedly, that the charges are in violation of both Australian law, and ignores the fact that he's not being tried under Australian law, it is completely meaningless. --Jrk1998 07:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The personal opinion, of someone with such a background is relevant even if it is not part of an official report. As I've already stated, from what I can tell he's not arguing that David Hicks should be tried under Australian law, but that charging someone under retrospectively laws is wrong. He's using Australian law to help highlight his case (remember this is an op-ed in an Australian paper). He also mentioned how it's in violation of international law. P.S. Actually having read the article again I think he might also be saying that given that he's an Australian citizen the government of Australia should be trying to protect him as he would be under Australian law and should be under international law especially as the US is not allowing him the protections they afford their citizens under their laws and given that he was not captured on US territory. Regardless tho, you Australian law argument doesn't hold water IMHO since it's quite clear he's not doing what your saying Nil Einne 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that one of the conditions of accepting an Australian passport is that you acknowledge that you accept the rule of Australian Law whilst in other countries, so that you can be charged in Australia under Australian Law for crimes committed overseas whilst traveling under the Australian passport. This is made extra clear in the axillary literature you get when you get your passport. Johnpf 05:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Australian laws apply to every Australian, no matter where they are in the world. So if it was illegal to smoke in Australia, you could be charged when you return to Sydney if you were smoking in London (provided it was proven). The part you are missing is that Australians must also accept that Australian law does not supercede local laws when travelling. This lack of awareness by most Australians is why Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade prominently displays (and repeatedly issues) the warnings that "When you are overseas, local laws apply to you and penalties, particularly for drug-related offences, can be severe and can include the death penalty". The Op-Ed is filled with comments about the charges against David Hicks are a violation of Australian law. As he is not charged under Australian Law, I fail to see how it is relevant at all. --Jrk1998 07:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. Australian law does not apply to Australian citizens overseas unless the legislation directly specifies that it does. Smoking laws do not. If you smoke marijauna in Amsterdam, you can't be charged under Australian law. Even if you kill some one in Amsterdam you can't be charged under Aussie law. The only laws to my knowledge that apply OS are the extra juristictional measures to counter child sexual abuse, anti money laundering laws, and possibly laws against 'people smuggling'. aussietiger 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense meant but did you actually read the Op-Ed? He only mentions Australian law in 2 instances. One is when he mentions it together with US recognition of 2 international treaties. The other is were he mentions how said treaties are protected in Australian law. He then goes on to explain protection from retrospective law is necessary. He then mentions how the same applies under US law and to US citizens and goes on to explain how David Hicks appears to be in a 'no man's land' legal situation where he is not protected under US law. The greatest part of his article is devoted to this, not to Australian law which only is briefly mentioned (and as I've stated it appears to me to be to provide context for Australian readers, not so much to argue Hicks should be protected under Australian law). Even the title suggests that the Op-Ed is not about Australian law but about what he regards as basic human right Nil Einne 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Offense taken. --Jrk1998 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies then, but your statements on the op-ed suggested to me that you hadn't since they didn't seem to be about what the op-ed actually said. Nil Einne 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section:

In this opinion piece, Vickery makes no attempt to address the fact that Australian law does not apply to David Hicks in this case. He also does not address the US perspective that this is not a retrospective law, as put forth by the US legal adviser to the US Secretary of State.

For several reasons. Firstly its mostly OR. You can't put a 'response' to someone's opinion by putting forward your own criticism of said criticism, regardless of whether or not you have sources for parts of that criticism. The Australian law thing in particular is completely OR. It also seems irrelevant since as I've already explained, I don't see any evidence to suggest Vickery was seriously suggesting Australian law should or does apply to Hicks. As for the US Secretary of State bit, it might be okay (probably not but if someone does find a better source they can try to work it in a way that doesn't sound like OR) if we had a better source for this opinion. However the current source simply states it's not a retrospective law. He then says something about 'international war crimes tribunals using offences that were "obviously put down on paper much later than the conduct actually that was in question".'. However this doesn't actually explain why the law isn't a retrospective law. Therefore there is anything to do address here. I have moved the opinion to the 'charges laid' section where we first mention the law being retrospective. It is more appropriate there. Nil Einne 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, if someone does find a better reference they welcome to describe the US position in a separate section. This should be fine. My point above is that if someone wants to mention this position in the Human rights worker section, they need to do it in a way that isn't OR. Unless this is a specific response to the op-ed, I'm doubtful this would be possible, but editors are welcome to try. Nil Einne 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Australian law does apply to David Hicks. He was abducted by the yanks without consent of the Australian government, and by the decision of the US government, US law doesn't apply to him. Everyone is covered by some law - Hicks never consented to be taken by the US on foreign soil --I'm so special 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Prosecution threatens defense counsel

Again, this paragraph should be deleted. Reason 1 - clearly not pertinent given the fact that his trial has started and counsel did not withdraw. Reason 2 - Colonel Davis has stated that not only that he did not threaten charges, but that he doesn't have the power to do so. Cite:http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-military-prosecutor-denies-mori-threat/2007/03/05/1172943318383.html --Jrk1998 12:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the whole case. Things don't disappear just because circumstances change. Currently, we have two views here. One provided by Mori, one by Davis. Neither side has AFAIK withdrawn their claims. Both are therefore still valid. We don't know who is telling the truth. We do know it was a noteable controversy in this matter not just because of the potential delays but because it sounded like a defense lawyer was being threatened for doing his job. Perhaps Davis was never serious but was just trying to intimidate Mori and it backed fired. Perhaps Davis was serious but when Davis or someone realised this didn't look good he or someone above him ordered it to stop. Perhaps Davis version of events is the truth. We don't know. All we do know is there was a controversy Nil Einne 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

N.B. We probably should reduce the length of the section and obviously we need to add Davis's denial however Nil Einne 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Edited to reflect the "He Said, She Said" version, which adds so much value to understanding the history of what happened. --Jrk1998 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

New article needed

This article is way too long and is dealing with mostly with Hick's detention and trial than the person. We need a new article so a lot of the text in this article can be shifted over to that. Perhaps it should be called The trial of David Hicks. Any thoughts on a name or what should be moved? Nomadtales 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea for a new article, the name you created also sounds good. Crested Penguin 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a good idea. The article is getting long. I'm in favour of the name and the move.Prester John 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hicks is a wholly unremarkable person, save for having got himself into a pickle with the Taliban. Hence, Hicks does not need two articles. Everything notable about him is related to his terrorism training and subsequent trial.--ABVS 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about separating it into two articles. One of the questions in the mind of a Wikipedia reader would surely be: "How did David Hicks come to be in this situation?" Having information on David Hicks as a person combined with information on his incarceration might give the reader an insight. With separate articles there is no insight in this regard. I also dispute "The trial of David Hicks" as a title as technically there has been no trial since he never made it to trial? The first set of charges were dropped and a plea bargain was struck before he was tried on the second set of charges. Perhaps the article really needs a careful rewrite to reduce the number of words and improve the flow, without losing any information? John Dalton 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to my last comment, perhaps it makes sense to hold off on an any major changes until the article settles down a little? As it is the article refers to a current event and it is changing rapidly. Any rewriting or major changes would be trying to track a moving target. Perhaps a solution is to let the David Hicks story play itself to the end, then make an evaluation as to the best way to present a well written article once we have the entire story? John Dalton 12:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Things are happening rapidly in the development of the Hicks case, so yes, I agree, we should not get too wrapped up in things at the moment and run off to create a new article. I still feel though, as I said over at Australian Wikipedian Notice Board that a lot of the material in this article does not directly revolve around Hicks himself and what he has done, moreso the trial (or lack of) and the legal ramifications ie human rights conventions being broken, and Major Mori possibly being charged with some of his comments. So like people have suggested either the article gets cropped and clarified or we spilt that material off into another article. Nomadtales 11:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hicks still a Muslim?

It says in the news article that he abandoned the Islamic faith. Is this confirmed?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21474241-5001021,00.html

Given that he has been held under duress in Guantanamo Bay for 5 years, it would be impossible IMHO to verify such details. And since he is forbidden from speaking with the media for a year, it's not going to get clearer anytime soon either Nil Einne 03:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the Australian was running some stories a month or so ago which were claiming that he'd memorised the Qur'an and was reciting it. Obviously he might've been doing both things several years ago and not anymore, but it just goes to show there's evidence being thrown around on both sides for this one. Speaking of which, I don't see that being said in the article cited. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Early Life

In this section a reference from Alfred W. McCoy is used to assert that Hicks was "high-school dropout, former drug addict, sometime car thief". The article cited, however, does not provide any sources itself to back up these claims. I don't know too much about this, but does this leave enough of a basis for this part to be included? Or does the lack of citations in the McCoy article make it an invalid source in this context? --FearedInLasVegas 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the citation. I'll give you a hint. It's in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH. Prester John 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think FearedInLasVegas is querying whether the citation provides the quote. As you have pointed out, the words are prominent in the source. Rather I think FearedInLasVegas is querying McCoy's sources and McCoy's credentials to make such a statement. Perhaps that shoul dbe further investigated on this talk page. If there is dispute about McCoy's words, perhaps it is better to locate sources that state the facts more directly. Eg. Rather than "high school drop out", perhaps state that Hicks was expelled, which is less opinionated? John Dalton 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are exactly right, John. Obviously I read the source before posting my comment, but I was unsure as to the standard of the statement. McCoy seems to pass this information off as fact (as it may well be), but without providing any information to substantiate this. I didn't feel that this was enough basis for the quote in the article, but I wanted some clarification from someone before taking any action. I see the quote has been removed now anyway :) --FearedInLasVegas 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with removing any McCoy prose. I don't see the point of declaring one of his quotes as "unqualified" and then leaving in a massive section copied directly from him. I agree that all his allegations will need further clarification.Prester John 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Media Ban and Election

The following was added to the article, then removed by another party:

"The Prime Minister of Australia has defended the media ban, saying that it is not linked to an Australian federal election being due by January 2008"

The justification given for removal was "who is saying it is related to the election?".

The justification for removal is irrelevant as the article did not say that the Hicks media ban was related to the election. What it said was that the Prime Minister denied that the two were related. These are two very different statements. The first is a conjecture, the second is an in disputable fact. No one can deny the PM's denial. To quote the reference which was provided: "The Howard Government insists it did not speak to the United States about the sentence that gags David Hicks until after the federal election".

It is significant when the PM sees an allegation as being important enough to devote the time to issue a denial and in doing so to acknowledge that links are being made. The denial itself is significant.

I'm going to reinstate the sentence and its reference in the article as its removal was not justified. John Dalton 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's inclusion is not justified. To add a Howard quote at random with no pretext does not make any sense. Prester John 23:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the politics of it and what you think of David Hicks. Looking through the source, it is clear the Australian government denied the allegations and it is a relevant fact to the section. There is no reason not to include the sentence in the article. If someone feels that the reference is not clear enough, there's a squillion more to choose from, so someone will put it back (should you delete it) with another source. Vision Insider 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the denial is significant in its own right in that the PM and the foreign minister have both issued it. It's as bit of a moot point though, as someone else has stepped in to provide the desired context. Thanks!John Dalton 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the following comment from the article log "So typical of leftards. Howard asks to get Hicks tried, like leftists wanted, and they then turn it around to bash him." to mean that some have interpreted the article as attacking the Prime Minister of Australia. As the reference states, denials were issued by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, so the statement is from the Australian Government rather than an individual. I have updated the article to reflect this and to remove any reference to one Minister, which may be misinterpreted an an attack on him. John Dalton 00:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this is blatantly news worthy. It is also disingenuous of Prestor John to say that the quote has no pretext, since he is the one who edited out my addition which gave the context of the Howard quote. I also find it hard to believe that any one following the Hicks case in the Australian media wouldn't realise how much the gag order is talked about. Sad mouse 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- I am fairly removed from the David Hicks trial (do not know all of the specifics) but the Free Speech rights granted under the Constitution do not extend to non-citizens (nor is it unusual at all that there is a no-media rule involved in a plea bargain, though this is not binding legally), thus I am editing out the clause that says: "... it is highly unusual and a condition rendered unconstitutional in the United States by the first amendment on freedom of speech." Windthorst 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi - Free Speech rights under the constitution do indeed extend to non-citizens, if you read the US constitution almost every right guaranteed under the constitution (bar only the right to vote) actually applies to all citizens and non-citizens that are within the jurisdiction of the United States (as a non-citizen living in the United States I looked it up). I think it is one of the greatest clauses of that document. As for how unusual it is - I've never heard of another example of it in the US or Australia (but that would be original research - the actual reason I added it is because those two reasons are exactly the reasons used by US and Australian critics to reach their speculation, as you can read in the sources below). Sad mouse 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

4 Corners

Heads up to everyone here that 4 corners has a program tonight analysing Hick's plea. It airs at 8:30 tonight and is repeated at 11.35 pm this Wednesday and on ABC2 digital at 9.30 pm Wednesday and 8 am Thursday. John Dalton 01:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Transcript here

source documents provided by 4 Corners here John Dalton 11:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gag order

I put in this sentence into the article:

There has been speculation in the Australian media that the one-year media ban is a condition requested by the Australian government, as it is a condition rendered unconstitutional in the United States by the first amendment on freedom of speech.

It was deleted by Prestor John on the grounds "Doesn't mention anything like that in the given reference". I have checked the reference, it is explicitly mentioned. Both critics in the US and in Australia have raised the possibility that the gag order was a political favour from Bush to Howard. A quick google news search shows up dozens of articles, here are three for examples:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/mixed-reactions-to-hickss-sentence/2007/03/31/1174761804155.html http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/liberals-sought-hicks-gag-order-brown/2007/04/01/1175366067833.html http://www.skynews.com.au/story.asp?id=162140

Not to mention that it has been a hot political topic on a number of Australian political shows, for example in the recent Insiders episode where Bob Brown was invited to talk. Furthermore, the extent to which it has been raised as a possibility is confirmed by the number of articles in which Howard has denied it is true, eg:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pm-denies-gagging-hicks-to-stop-election-fallout/2007/04/01/1175366080767.html http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=257977 http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=25011

Therefore I propose something like:

There has been speculation Australian and US critics that the one-year media ban is a condition requested by the Australian government and granted as a political favour, as it is highly unusual and a condition rendered unconstitutional in the United States by the first amendment on freedom of speech , however this has been denied by John Howard .

Prestor John, I would also suggest that you take a little time out from this article to relax, as a number of your recent numerous edits seem hasty and without due diligence, and include personal insults and political bias in the edit summary.

I looked through all of these references and STILL couldn't find any mention of the United States First Amendment. Show me where it is cited or I will keep deleting it.Prester John 05:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Bob Brown's speech, reported by the Brisbane Times [1]. I would be cautious about using that as a reference though, as "Bob Brown says" does not equate to a legal opinion. It's better to base the article on solid references. There's no need to rely on statements made by Bob Brown. Give it a while, as there's a fair chance some legal heavyweights will soon offer opinions that will carry a lot of weight. The truth is powerful. John Dalton 06:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Prestor John, the link clearly shows Bob Brown's reasoning included the First Amendment. I recommend that you go to US Constitution and read the wording of the actual US Constitution, which clearly states (and has been tested in court a number of times) that all rights of the US Constitution except voting are granted to all that live within jurisdiction of the US government, and not only citizens. As I had already left this message to you on your talk page I know that this was not a simple mistake. If you do not have time to look carefully into the edits then do not revert them. Sad mouse 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples of people who have made such claims (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/02/gitmo-hicks-deal/)

– Terry Hicks, David’s father, said in a statement that “it is clearly a political fix arranged between Mr. Howard and the Bush administration to shut up Hicks until after the election in November.”

– Bob Brown of Australia’s Green party described the deal as a political “fix” meant to benefit Howard, saying that “the message has gone very clearly from Canberra to Washington to Guantanamo Bay: don’t allow Hicks to be released until after the elections and certainly don’t allow him to speak.”

– Lex Lasry, an Australian who observed the trial, remarked, “What an amazing coincidence that, with an election in Australia by the end of the year, he gets nine months and he is gagged for 12 months from talking about it.”

– Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, said: “I’m not naive. I know that they probably worked out - I’m quite sure they worked out - a plea bargain, that would allow the United States to appear to have effected a reasonably fair proceeding, would allow David Hicks to return to Australia, and satisfy Prime Minister Howard’s needs.”

- Andrew Sullivan emphatically states, “If you think this was in any way a legitimate court process, you’re smoking something even George Michael would pay a lot of money for. It was a political deal, revealing the circus that the alleged Gitmo court system really is.” Sad mouse 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Protester

A minor concern with the picture of the protester, in that he might not be a typical protester. By my reading, most of the protest is calling for a fair trial rather than freedom. If Hicks was locked up for a crime he committed beyond reasonable doubt it wouldn't be a significant human rights issue. The human rights issue is that he has been locked up without a fair trial and that his admission could have been under duress. I'm just a little wary that the picture may be misrepresenting the majority of protesters. I don't feel strongly enough about it to change it, but thought I would mention it in case there is a consensus that the picture is atypical. It would also be nice if the picture was obviously of a significant protest rather than a lone guy outside an unidentified building at an unidentified time and place. John Dalton 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that it is the only picture on Wikimedia Commons of someone protesting Hicks which I came across (it came from WikiNews BTW) I thought it would be good to add to the article. If there was another picture from a rally involving more people, then I that would be preferable. I am not sure of your concerns though, I have seen quite a lot of bumper stickers, etc saying the same thing. Nomadtales 01:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of U.S proceedings at Guantanamo

This whole section is untrue and not referenced. I'm giving a small amount of time before deleteing the whole bit.Prester John 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Any takers?Prester John 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's unreferenced because you removed the reference! How is it untrue, Hicks does have British citizenship, Britain has condemned Guantanamo on many occasions. The high court justice did say that Hicks was entitled to UK protection. Do you actually live in the UK or Australia? Because if you dont, I strongly doubt that you will have followed this story on television (except in the United States where the word "terrorist" and "war" will have been used in every other word!) --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice you are an Australian! Sorry --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I volunteer to cleanup this section. Why don't you post your concerns individually here and/or on my talk page and I'll try and salvage it. --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean I removed the reference? I moved the bit but the only reference it ever had was to a wikipedia page, a check of the history log will show you what happened. Do you honestly, really and trooly believe Hicks has British citizenship? You sound so sure. Did you follow your television closely enough? If you have to fix this atrocity then:

• Include the part where the British Home Secretary nix's the citizenship and the reason why.
• Attribute the "condemnation" to someone. "Britain" cannot speak, let alone condemn.
• Use a source other the wikipedia.Prester John 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I finally read the detailed section above that deals with the issue. This pointless section is history.Prester John 03:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the government makes repeated statements to the tune of close guantanamo. I'm sure anyone with an ounce of sense could google that quite easily. John Reid isn't anything to do with immigration and breached legislation and procedure in his interference. This I can provide a source for. The section is not history, I'll put it straight back. Please do not remove constructive content. --I'm so special 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No constructive content was removed. Prester John 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

The selective quotes which are being dropped into the article are misrepresenting the content of the sources. For example "He eventually lost contact with his two young children" comes from a discussion about Hicks being shattered by the loss of his wife, her not wanting a bar of him and the eventual loss of contact with his children.

The quote about car stealing is hearsay from his ex wife. The article goes on to say that Hicks had no criminal record and attended Euabalong Farm, a facility for at-risk boys.

None of that comes through in the recent additions to the article. Maybe the author should reverse or amend his changes in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which is highlighted at the top of this page?

A source can be made to say anything if it is sliced into small enough pieces and reassembled. Better to summarise a source in your own words to accurately reflect its entire meaning rather than destroy the readability of the article with slabs of dubious quotes. The reader can follow the link to the source to get the original words (which should have the same meaning as the article). John Dalton 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains Hicks "lost contact" with his two children. It is referenced and relevant. If you can find a reference that says otherwise then go right ahead.Prester John 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Does half the truth equal the truth? John Dalton 03:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You should ask that on the Buddhism talk page. Are you saying Dawood didn't lose contact with his two young innocent children? Do you think he has paid a cent in maintenence?Prester John 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by this Prester John? Are you trying to say Hicks is in the wrong for losing contact with his own children? --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special

What do I mean by what?Prester John 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've flagged this article on the Biographies of living people noticeboard. Being about a living person this article needs to adhere to higher standards than a regular Wikipedia article. John Dalton 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)