Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » Afghanistan » David Hicks may not be able to keep the money from his “Holiday at Club Gitmo” Book, or its about time!!!!

David Hicks may not be able to keep the money from his “Holiday at Club Gitmo” Book, or its about time!!!!

Ah the never ending saga of our favorite Aussie Jihadist; Yep its another story about Hicks, only this time its one which will undoubtedly upset his fan club (Hi PKD 😉  ) because it seem that the Commonwealth is finally going to seize the profits form his self-serving holiday memoir:

click for source

My only question here is why has it taken them so long to act here?

Cheers Comrades


32 Comments

  1. Richard Ryan says:

    When You and I are long gone Iain, this political prisoner David Hicks will stand out as a symbol of Western Democracy’s hypocrisy for decades to come. Guantanamo Bay has been branded the ‘ GULAG OF OUR TIMES” by Amnesty International. Singing from Bolt’s hymn book again, I see. I thought you would be on the big-story, the Vatican and it’s protection of Priests, who are pedophiles, in Ireland and Australia. The Taliban are now in talks with the Americans—-so much for the mantra, we don’t do deals with terrorists. Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    Hicks did the crime, and he should not be able to profit from it, that is my bottom line, and as Luzu pointed out in a previous thread to compare Club Gitmo to a Gulag is an insult to all of those who suffered under soviet communism. Hicks was detained there because he was a captured irregular combatant and as such his indefinite detention was consistent with the notion that while hostilities continue then captured combatants should not be released.

  3. Lin M. Hall says:

    I’m with PKD and RR Iain. There’s something you need to know that people like the Murdock press barons don’t want to tell you: A law is only as good as the next court that agrees that it is constitutional, that the cases brought before the court are a legitimate exercise of the powers under it and that the facts of the individual case are reasonably covered by the law itself and by the body of legal precedent.

    Are you putting money up to bet on the government getting a cent-piece of Hicks’ money?

  4. Ray Dixon says:

    Hicks would receive bugger all proceeds from 30,000 sales, Iain. It’s vindictive and I think they’re doing it just so they’re not seen to be turning a blind eye. It was, after all, a Ruddock ploy to thwart Hicks and that smacks of victimisation. Let him be.

  5. Iain Hall says:

    I don’t know about the “bugger all” claim Ray lets say for argument’s sake that Hicks gets say $5 from the sale of each $35 book that comes to about $150K that is not peanuts by any stretch of the imagination but I don’t think that It should matter even if its only $1.50 he should not be allowed to profit from the book.

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    His lawyer reckons it will be thrown out of court. I tend to agree.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Well the ABC’s law report said that it will not be that easily won by Hicks, they expect that it will eventually go to the high court but of course Hicks’ Lawyer would claim that they will win easily that is probably what he has been telling Davo.

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    The US military commission is not recognised as a court anywhere else in the world and the inclusion of it in our laws by Ruddock was clearly aimed to single out Hicks – after the event. He’s got a good case to say “I am not a criminal under Australian law”. Anyway, that is my opinion and I think any fair-minded Judge would look very hard at the prosecution’s case and say the amended law does not stand up to the scrutiny of the court. It’s never been tested before and the court will be the place where the amended law is accepted or turfed out. I tip: “Turfed out”.

  9. Lord Other Iain says:

    If Hicks had written a book celebrating 9/11 and calling for the destruction of western society then I might agree. But as a person at the center of one of the biggest stories in the last few years, he is entitled to tell his story.

    Ray is right, it will be tossed out of court. Proceeds of crime legislation applies to crimes committed in Australia.

  10. Richard Ryan says:

    Of course it was Howard—-a former lawyer who aquiesced to the US’s decision to keep Hicks in detention without charge or trial, while an American marine lawyer was fighting his own Government for justice for Hicks, as the war-monger Howard danced in tune to the beat of Bush’s war tom-toms, while he plunged this country into the Iraq war–a war based on lies. John Winston Howard is a war criminal—–but he is Australia’s war criminal.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    Actually they addressed that point on the Law report Ray and they note that congress in the USA has passed the appropriate law to endorse the military commissions. In any event Hicks made a binding agreement not to try to profit form his notoriety as part of his plea deal, on that basis alone he should not profit form the book, I’m not saying that he should not be able to tell his story BUT he should not be able to profit form it.

  12. Richard Ryan says:

    AND Andrew Bolt is another media war criminal, as he sprouted his master’s war mantra’s, dressed in his flak-jacket in the safety of the Green-Zone in Iraq.

  13. Richard Ryan says:

    Free speech! Except for David Hicks.

  14. Iain Hall says:

    We are talking about Hicks Richard, not Howard The atrocity of 911 changed the paradigm about just what constitutes a war and all of a sudden the west had to deal with a war prosecuted by non state actors and Hicks was , by his own admission involved with Bin Laden and his cronies, fighting to destroy the very freedoms that you and I enjoy. Or do you want to be forced to Pray in the direction of Mecca five times a day?

  15. Iain Hall says:

    He can say all he wants Richard but he just shouldn’t be able to be paid to do so

  16. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, he can write it, Richard. Hicks is NOT banned from free speech. This about the proceeds of sale, not his right to speak (or write or publish). Not that I agree with the proposed action – I clearly don’t, as my previous comments indicate.

  17. Jilly says:

    The Immigration Dept will deny application based on laws broken in other countries. Should our other laws not follow suit.

  18. Jilly says:

    Richard,
    What crime was Howard charged with?

  19. Ray Dixon says:

    Should our other laws not follow suit.

    No. Why?

  20. Sax says:

    For all you guys, that play on blogs, write, watch television, you all forget one major plan of war, if not the most important one ! That is ?

    The side that wins the media/propaganda battle, generally wins the war

    That is what lost Vietnam. It lost support back home, and all fell away pretty quickly, as a result. What has that got to do with anything ?
    Simply this.
    Even though the ultimate capture, and “show trial” of Hicks, resulted in him being used in this regard, he was the only prize the coalition could hang their hats on ? Been pretty much the only one since as well.

    Every now and again, they strut him out, in his orange jump suit, and shackles, and parade him around. They tried him as an enemy combatant, in a military court so as to subvert the normal rights allowed, to those supposedly charged with a crime, again in an attempt to show the world, not to f*ck with the US of powerful and all mighty A ?

    You guys are getting ahead of yourselves. As a military prisoner, he is subject to military law, not civilian law. Military law does not allow for the publishment of memoirs, (nor basic human rights when it comes down to it ?), especially from prisoners, past or present. It’s a wonder he got it published at all.

    Ray A wonder it doesn’t breach the terms of his release, as well perhaps ? I’ll bet everything I have, that there is a clause in his release, stating that he keep his mouth shut, under the guise of national security ? Love to know how he got around that, to even get it published in the first place ?
    As to keeping the proceeds, surely this comes under proceeds of crime and they will be confiscated forthwith ?

  21. Peter Hayes says:

    Read the list of signatories here in full, Iain, some naughty person’s put your name on it or I’m seriously confused

    http://web.overland.org.au/2011/07/petition-in-support-of-david-hicks/

  22. Sax says:

    Almost forgot about Mis Behavin there ?
    Another propaganda prize of massive worth for the coalition ?

  23. Iain Hall says:

    How dull Peter

  24. Richard Ryan says:

    Jilly! John Howard told us of weapons of mass destruction, which plunged this country into war with Iraq, and led to deaths of thousands of innocents human beings of that country. My dream is to have Howard appear before the ICC to answer for war-crimes, I honestly believe he is a common war criminal, All the way with the USA———bull-shit.

  25. Richard Ryan says:

    OF course our old pal Rupert Murdoch was a great supporter of the Iraq war ——–a trade in, for his American citizenship. Have you ever noticed all these supporters of war, Alexander Downer, who could not contain himself, when Bush spoke in Parliament, what a political wanker, like Murdoch, knew nothing about the “Wheatgate” affair, Murdoch ,Menzies, Bolt, Akerman, Howard, let the working class do the fighting for them, no action for these war-evaders, or their children.

  26. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    At the time the Iraq war started absolutely everyone thought that Saddam had a bigger capability to kill than it subsequently turned out to be, heck even Saddam was keen to suggest that he held a greater capability than he actaully had. Now its all well and good to view those events through the kaleidoscope of 20/20 hindsight but that is both silly and historically wrong.

  27. Iain Hall says:

    The Iraq war has absolutely NOTHING to do with this issue, rather like you last comment when it comes down to it, perhaps you should try to address the topic next time 🙄

  28. Richard Ryan says:

    AH YES as the old mantra goes the first casualty of war is the truth——-Hicks will have a field-day with this court case, probably a little helping hand from his former Marine lawyer—-I hope he gives Howard a serve in the dock—a puppet of the American war machine. This will show Australia up in a bad light——the powers to be, will watch this closely. Hicks was hung out to dry in this country, detained without charge or trial at America’s pleasure, thanks to John Winston Howard. Pay back time is here Iain, as it should be. Bring it on I say!

  29. Iain Hall says:

    Sadly for you Richard all of those matters will be irrelevant for this case which will not be about any of that, Hicks was the subject of military justice and charges to which he plead guilty. You seem to be viewing the result through some sort of Perry Mason inspired vision of the civil courts prism and frankly that is not the way that our courts here will see the matter at all.

  30. Richard Ryan says:

    Iain, this is a political show trial, his book is been out there for nine months or more—– Chopper has made a bit of moola out of his life of crime, movies, TV, books, Club shows. Then we got that cop Rogerson working for the Daily Telegraph.

  31. Iain Hall says:

    Do you think that I endorse other crims making money out of their notoriety?
    I don’t and the fact that others have seemingly done so does not justify an admitted Jihadist supporter like Hicks doing so.

  32. Sax says:

    Unfortunately, you guys are balancing on the edge, of a human rights precipice here.

    Lets face it guys, it has not been proven that Hicks actually did anything, other than support Al Qaeda. He has paid a pretty hefty price, for that poor decision don’t you think, especially considering he didn’t actually do anything ?

    By our standards, his decision was flawed, and he has certainly paid the price for it. As for the book, it will only be the ghouls that will read it. It will probably live a long life in the ‘bargain bin’, and that is the way society should deal with situations such as these, not censorship don’t you think ?

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: