Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Islamist Terror threats » David Hicks » The money or the gun…

The money or the gun…

FORMER Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks will go from broke to millionaire overnight if he accepts the a huge offer from 60 Minutes to tell his story.

The Channel 9 show has put $1million on the table for an exclusive interview with the convicted terrorism supporter.

With the queue of media outlets begging to interview with Hicks first now numbering 40, his lawyer David McLeod said he had “not heard” about the $1 million bid from 60 Minutes which could trump them all.

But Mr McLeod said his client was focusing on getting his life together.

“(Hicks) hasn’t made up his mind whether or not he wants to tell his story, so no decision has been made, as far as I know,” Mr McLeod said.

Courier Mail

As I see it this story is either true, and part of a publicity campaign, for the interview on Sixty Minutes, or it is just bullshit intended to tell Davo that his story is still worth big money, I just love the way the piece ignores the fact that as a convicted terrorist Hicks would have any payment confiscated by the Commonwealth under the proceeds of crime act…. and rightly so.

In any event the public already know the whole story so my guess is that were Hicks to speak to the media what he may say would be nothing new to tell anyone .

Cheers Comrades

🙄


15 Comments

  1. PKD says:

    Iain,
    I suspect (if I were to bet on it) that his side of the story will include that he pleaded guilty purely to escape Gitmo, and that he will keep quiet on any details of the his Afghan stay on the basis of any potential successful appeal of his conviction which may lead to a fairer retrial.

    Oh sorry, you already think he’s had a fair trial don’t you? Strange you kept quite a couple of weeks back when the chief military prosecutor of Hicks denounced the whole process as a US kangaroo court. I still dont think anyone else has actualy been convicted by that process yet, have they Iain???

  2. raydixon says:

    Hicks is a jerk but he was punished many times over and way in excess of his “crime” (of being an idiot). But I hope he does the interview and that they pay the $1 million to his father, Terry, who deserves every cent.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    I just knew that you would pop up on this one, being that you are Davo’s number one fan 🙄
    You are still singing from the same song sheet though I see.
    Re the prosecutor
    his opinion of the process is actually irrelevant,the validity of the process is a matter of the the US government and it’s judiciary, not one military lawyer.(cue one long rant from PKD)

    Ray
    I believe that under the proceeds of crime act no payment to Terry Hicks would actually be possible without that money being forfeited to the crown.

  4. Keri says:

    Wasn’t the military court process declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme court, Iain?

  5. Mondo Rock says:

    the validity of the process is a matter of the the US government and it’s judiciary, not one military lawyer

    You’re totally wrong Iain.

    Quite apart from the fact that the US judiciary was not involved in the trial of Hicks (it was conducted purely by military tribunal), if Hicks sells his story in Australia and the governemnt does attempt to prosecute him under their proceeds of crime legislation then the issue of process validity will be reviewed by the Australian courts. The prosecution will need to prove that he actually committed a crime, as defined under Australian law, before they can prosecute. This will necessarily involve a review of the US military tribunal decision by the Australian courts.

    Since the US tribunal was a farce, we can all be pretty confident that the Aussie courts will throw it out on its ear. Australian human rights groups are BEGGING Hicks to take money for his story so that they get an opportunity to have this matter decided in front of the Australian courts.

    If Rudd is smart he’ll instruct federal prosecutors to pursue the case, thus exposing the rank deception and total absence of justice involved in the original prosecution of this man.

  6. Iain Hall says:

    Yes Keri, but that was before a bill was passed in the US to create the military commissions, and it was under the later regime that Hicks was tried

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Mondo
    I am not talking about the validity of the proceeds of crime act, I am talking about the military commissions, where it is definitely a matter for US Law.
    In any case I don’t think that you are right about having to prove that what he did was a crime, he plead guilty in an uncontested (by him) court process. I would think that his lawyers would have the burden of proof, not a prosecutor who would only have to prove that he has a criminal conviction and that he is seeking to profit be accepting payment from the media to talk about it.

  8. Mondo Rock says:

    In any case I don’t think that you are right about having to prove that what he did was a crime, he plead guilty in an uncontested (by him) court process. I would think that his lawyers would have the burden of proof, not a prosecutor who would only have to prove that he has a criminal conviction and that he is seeking to profit be accepting payment from the media to talk about it.

    Well then you’d be wrong Iain. His conviction was neither in a ‘court’ (it was a military tribunal), nor was it uncontested. He had a military lawyer (I’m sure you remember Major Mori) who fought his defence for five friggin years. Cases don’t get any more ‘contested’ than that!

    In any event it’s irrelevant. Think about it for a second – there are all sorts of people in Australia who have committed ‘crimes’ in another country that are simply not criminal here. Blasphemy, adultery, the crime of being raped in a muslim country, etc etc – even (surprise surprise) people who have ‘confessed’ to these crimes under unjust and illegitimate legal processes. These people are perfectly free to sell their stories here because the Australian courts don’t recognise their convictions.

    The exact same situation is true of Hicks – he does not have a criminal convicion that is recognised under Australian law. His incarceration here was under a prisoner exchange program and not because he had broken Australian law. Even if the burden of proof does rest on him to prove it (and I doubt that it would) he would still be champing at the bit for an opportunity to challenge his conviction in a real Australian court.

    Face it Iain – Hicks is free to sell his story to the highest bidder and Howard’s cronies would be mad to try and challenge him.

  9. Mark L. says:

    I believe that under the proceeds of crime act no payment to Terry Hicks would actually be possible without that money being forfeited to the crown.

    Nothing’s funnier than a bush lawyer, Iain. The Proceeds of Crime Act (C’wealth, 2002) pertains only to crimes committed in Australia AND proven in a state or territory court of law. These provisions are outlined here. Since Hicks has never been convicted in an Australian court, nor is he likely to be, not one cent of any payment could be confiscated.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Strangely I think that you are just mouthing the usual leftist wishful thinking Mondo.

    I tend to think that despite the lure of cold hard cash that Hicks may just decide to give the whole notion of trying to profit a big miss anyway, in an effort to move forward with his life rather than to keep dwelling on his own stupidity the way that that other Cuban holiday maker has been doing.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    Gee Mark then please explain why there have been so many suggestions in the press that Hicks would not be able to profit from selling his story?
    I seem to recall something special being passed in the parliament to prevent him doing just that.

  12. Mondo Rock says:

    Strangely I think that you are just mouthing the usual leftist wishful thinking Mondo.

    I’m merely explaining the application of Australian law to you Iain. I don’t have any vested interest in either outcome, but you should know that you’re making factually incorrect statements when you claim that Hicks will be successfully prosecuted under the proceeds of crime Act if he sells his story. Ask anybody with a legal background and they will set you straight.

    As for the stories in the Australian media – you’re getting confused between the terms of the ‘early release agreement’ Hicks signed with the US which gagged him for 12 months following his release, and the application of ordinary Australian law. The 12 months is up now – which is why people have now started offering him money to tell his story.

    Accept it, or don’t accept it Iain – it won’t change the reality.

  13. Mark L. says:

    Gee Mark then please explain why there have been so many suggestions in the press that Hicks would not be able to profit from selling his story?

    Because the press is full of wannabe lawyers like you, who don’t actually bother to investigate whether there is any legal basis for what they are suggesting?

    I seem to recall something special being passed in the parliament to prevent him doing just that.

    You’ll have no difficulty finding this legislation online then and posting a link here. I’ll wait with bated breath…

  14. Mark L. says:

    Mind you, having said all that, I’m not in favour of Hicks making any money from his story – personally I don’t think he should receive a cent. The same applies for other bogans and scumbags like the Corby family, Roberta Williams, the Mokbels, etc. But proceeds of crime legislation is like the salary cap in football, very easy to get around.

  15. PKD says:

    his opinion of the process is actually irrelevant,the validity of the process is a matter of the the US government and it’s judiciary, not one military lawyer.(cue one long rant from PKD)

    Gosh Iain, guess you got that one wrong – as usual.

    Although if I was to apply your (lack of) thought process elsewhere, the trial processes of places like China and Burma is an internal matter also, and not one that should concern anyone who might think their trial process to be unfair, hey? 😦

    I just knew that you would pop up on this one, being that you are Davo’s number one fan

    And I just knew you’d fall into the small old traps – once again, since when does supporting the basic right to a fair trial mean being a fan of somebody being tried? Jesus, even a 10 year-old could grasp that concept, but yet it still manages to elude you!

    To be hoesnt, you’re beyond having an open debate on this one, as you deliberately mis-represent the facts and ignore the most basic evidence given you – you’re were frothing at the mouth to find Hicks guilty before any conviction, and you’re still doing it now. Most worrying…

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: