Talk:David Hicks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

earlier comments

This sentence does not make sense: "To further his studies in Arabic, he joined the Pakistani Army on border patrols in Kashmir." Pakistan is not an Arab country and so the Pakistan Armed Forces do not speak Arabic. --Abdel Qadir 01:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article states that his trail was meant to begin on Jan 10. Any update? Jooler 15:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article now says 'March 15 2005'. I also found this news report from June 1 2005 saying it could be another year or more away. -- Longhair | Talk 09:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

This article is a load of rubbish. I will rewrite it when I get time. Adam 00:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Crikey just mentioned it as a source[1]. Obviously they did not rate it as rubbish. (added by User:220.238.4.138 19 August 2005)

Crikey wouldn't know fact from fiction on this subject. Adam 11:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Kevin isn't one of their regular contributors, and with any luck he'll stay that way. If and when you get the new article here done, I'll switch the link on the Wikipedia as a press source page to the older version, with an explanation, so people don't get confused by the differences I'm sure will be there. J.K. 11:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone has messed around with the article and rendered some of the quotes indecipherable.

How can you say Adam that "this article is a load of rubbish" when it only states fact? i am only asking you to back up your claim tell us a reason why it "is a load of rubbish".

                         ----------------------------------

Did you try looking at the information provided on the web site, http://www.fairgofordavid.org which Terry Hicks says is constantly updating the latest news on his son David

This article isn't neutral in its current form Georgeslegloupier 01:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Note to those complaining about bias

Saying the article is biased, isn't neutral, is completely unhelpful, if you don't make the effort to state why you think it is biased. There is no way you, and those who wrote a view you differ with can reach a compromise, if you don't make the effort to be specific about what you think is wrong. -- Geo Swan 01:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The "account of Hicks' activities" is simply a list of accusations, none of which have been proven in court. It is not really helpful to supply such a detailed list of things that Hicks is alleged to have done, none of which have been proven in court. Furthermore, upon reading the "activities" section, the reader is given an unambiguous impression of Hicks' guilt. The section gives the impression of trying to undertake a "trial by Wikipedia". Georgeslegloupier 02:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The text makes it clear that this account is drawn from the indictment and that some or all of it is denied by Hicks. In fact Hicks does not deny that he trained with LeT or with al-Qaeda, as his letters to his father make clear. If other editors have a better account of what Hicks did between 1999 and 2001 they are free to add it. Adam 02:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't deny that the article indicated where the "account" came from, I just don't think it is particularly helpful repeating allegations that come straight from the US indictment of Hicks, parts of which may or may may not be true. Of course, how much of the indictment is true is a matter yet to be decided. (or perhaps the verdict has already been reached?) 129.94.6.28 03:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I am happy to have the text say "The U.S. alleges" all the way through. So far as I know Hicks's lawyers have made no statements specifically denying any of the points in the indictment, but since he is pleading "not guilty" they are presumably going to deny some of it. Hicks's letters make it clear that he is NOT denying being in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and has NOT denied training there.

I have reinstated the "Hicks's beliefs" section. Deleting this was pure POV censorship on your part. I'm sorry if you don't like the full quotes showing that Hicks is an anti-Semite, but that's your problem. Adam 03:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think if you look carefully you'll notice I didn't delete the section on Hicks's(ok, point taken-I was under the mistaken impression one deleted the last s in the possessive), I abridged it. I just didn't feel that a Wikipedia article required such copious rambling about Hicks's obviously bizarre attitudes. Georgeslegloupier 04:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Upon reflection, possibly I could have elucidated a little further upon the disturbing nature of Hicks's beliefs, eg I had been considering mentioning something like "virulent anti-Semitic and anti-Western rhetoric", etc. I still don't think that so much detail is that informative or necessary when it could have been summed up succinctly.

Probably the most concerning thing about your original version of "activities" was that it simply provided one point of view, mentioning briefly it was from the US indictment, and provided no qualification of it whatsoever. You left it in an indicative mood(eg "Hicks translated...", as opposed to "it is claimed that..."), which a casual reader could take as absolute fact (when of course not all the statements have conclusively been established). I contend that you have provided one side of the story in that section, while failing to provide any other information that could potentially contradict or be opposed to it. I will leave it to someone who has the time and the inclination to remedy this further. Georgeslegloupier 04:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• The fullest possible statement of Hicks's political views is both relevant and necessary. They are after all what led to him to do whatever it is that he did, and readers who are interested in understanding his actions need to read his opinions in all their charming reasonableness.
• Personally I think the account given in the indictment is entirely accurate, and no-one (certainly not Hicks) has given any alternative account of what he did between 1999 and 2001.
• It is not for me to provide "qualifications," it is for those who think the account is not accurate to provide an alternative. Do you have an alternative account? Was he at Club Med Kandahar? Was he studying his Arabic indicative moods? I don't think so, and nor it seems does anyone else, or we would have seen an alternative explanation by now. But I'm happy to have the account presented as a series of accusations rather than as a series of facts. Adam 05:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This sentance is POV

• As far as known, Hicks has maintained these beliefs while in custody: certainly he has not authorised any statement that he has renounced them, or of regret for any of his actions.

All this sentance says is:

• nothing that we know of has has changed since we wrote the previous paragraph.

It doesn't add anything for a number of reasons:

1. the words "As far as known". Wikipedia is about facts, not speculation
2. it talks about what hasn't happened. Unless it didn't happen at a particular point, or in a interesting way, it's not news.
3. assuming that nothing has changed and nothing is known is pretty much the default position. So we don't need to say "this is still true" because the reader is unlikely to assume otherwise.

For example "Hicks has not denied that he trained in Pakistan" doesn't say anything meaningful, as you know.

Consider instead "When asked in court if he had trained in Pakistan, Hicks exercised his constitutional right to silence."

OK, I realise he doesn't have a constitutional right to silence, but do you see what I mean?

One of those sentances belongs in an encylopdia, the other only belongs in a debate. This is the page for debates.  :-) The main pages should be just that facts, and not necessarily all of them.

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

These are not hypothetical accusations. Hicks has been accused in an indictment of training with LeT and al-Qaeda. His supporters continue to portray him as an innocent victim. It is therefore relevant to know whether he or his lawyers have in fact denied the generality of the accusations in the indictment. So far as I know they have not. As the text notes, he intends pleading not guilty, but we don't know what that will actually mean in terms of a courtroom defence. The Bali bombers also pleaded not guilty, while loudly declaring that they did plant the bombs and were proud of it. So the sentence "Hicks has not denied that he trained in Pakistan" is indeed meaningful in the context of the article. It is not the same as "Ben Aveling has not denied shooting President Kennedy," because you have not been indicted for doing so. Adam 00:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If we don't know something, we should limit ourselves to what we do know. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

But if we know we don't know, or know that we can't know, then this is relevent. For example, we know that Hicks has not had a full opportunity to reply to the accusations. We know that we don't know what Hicks's position is, further we know that we can't say that Hicks denys or doesn't deny (in the active sense). The statement "Hicks doesn't deny being guilty" does carry the connotation that he affirms this, or at the least he has been given an opportunity to deny and has chosen not to. It would be fairer to say that Hicks wrote in letters to his father that he trained and fought in such a place with such people, and also to say that Hicks has made no comment on other matters, and that he has not been given an opportunity to respond to such allegations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.87.183 (talk • contribs) .

Information to incorporate

"Mr Downer said Australian officials had met Hicks on several occasions and at no time did he raise allegations he had been sexually abused."[2] "his officials have known about them for some time and they were raised last year in August." [3]. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben can now avail himself of the Four Corners transcript here. Although it is in general another piece of ABC pro-Hicks propaganda, it places Hicks on the record as confirming several points in the indictment: he trained in Afghanistan, he knew he was training with al-Qaeda, he met Osama, he was captured while bearing arms. Adam 09:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Why just me?  ;-) Seriously, has he admitted to doing anything that breaks any laws? One of my worries is that we say "we are are war with these people", but we don't recognise them as prisioners of war. But we don't treat them as criminals either. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not whether he "broke any laws". He is not a civil criminal defendent either in the US or in Australia. Indeed the US has gone to great lengths to keep the Guantanamo detainees out of the US civil courts. Nor he is a prisoner of war under international law, since he was not serving in the armed forces of a state. That is why the US has created a new legal catgeory of "illegal combatant", in recognition of the fact that international law has not caught up with the new reality of non-state paramilitary (or terrorist if you prefer) organisations. I agree this is not very satisfactory: "illegal" means "contrary to law" and it not clear what or whose law Hicks is alleged to be contrary to. Possibly the US is reviving an old concept of "natural law" under which anyone who trains to commit mass murder of civilians (deleted) must be held to be in violation of the basic laws of human conduct. The solution to that is to upgrade the Geneva Conventions to cover non-state combatants, but in the current political situation I can't see any agreement on that being possible. Adam 11:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

On the criminality of his actions: He's broken the laws of war.

Article 4 of the third Geneva conventions already extends coverage to militia, irrespective of nation of origin; you don't have to be a formal member of your countries armed forces to gain the protection of the GC's. By not being an inhabitant spontaneously taking up arms, or wearing a fixed readily identifiable symbol as a member of a 'formal' militia, the subject is not entitled to these protections. The concept of an 'illegal combatant' is not a new concept, though the language used to describe them is novel; they used to be called 'civilian snipers'. 203.129.60.69 09:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please post cite for material that shows, above claim, "He's broken the laws of war." WP:BLP says only well evidenced negative statements can be included on biography article or discusion page. Will remove claim shortly if no cite provided. SmithBlue 02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Until a "competent tribunal" determines his status isn't he entitled to POW treatment ?

Article 5 of the third geneva convention says prisoners are entitled to a competent tribunal to determine their status. The Bush administration tried to say that it lay within the President's powers to rule that anyone captured in "the war on terror" was not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But the USA has three branches of government, with checks and balances, and that ruling was over-ruled.

The Bush administration resisted providing the detainees with a "competent tribunal". When they could no longer do so they implemented the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. However, the mandates of the CSRT fell short of what the Geneva Conventions requires for a "competent tribunal". So, so far as I can determine, Hicks, and all the other detainees, currently remain entitled to the full protections of POW status.

The July 17 ruling by the three judge panel said that Hamdan's "military commission" could serve double duty, and also serve as his "competent tribunal". But he and Hicks haven't had their military commissions yet. So they are still entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

If Hicks had carried a gun, and shot at Northern Alliance forces, but while doing so, qualified as a lawful combatant, who would argue those activities were crimes? That is what much of the GCs are about. Activities that, if conducted by random citizens, would be crimes, are not crimes if a soldier does them.

I knew a guy who was a veteran of the Spanish Civil War. He fought in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Franco, with the support of Hitler, and Mussolini, was trying to take over the democratically elected government of Spain. Thousands of volunteers, from around the world, made their way to Spain to fight fascism. George Orwell was one of them. Although he didn't enlist in the International Brigades. He enlisted in a militia.

Was fighting fascism a good thing? Well, it was a good thing a few years later, during World War 2. I think it was a good thing in 1938 too. The good guys lost that one. Franco won. And Spain was a fascist dictatorship for the next 30 years.

I don't believe in extreme fundamentalist Islam. Or any kind of Islam. But, it seems to me that the foreigners who went to Afghanistan, Bosnia or Chechnya, to help free fellow muslims, from foreign oppression, were doing something similar to what the volunteers who went to Spain were doing.

Do foreigners enlist in the US Army? Yes. And President Bush moved to reward them, by offering them a fast track to citizenship. But foreigners have always served in the US forces. Several tens of thousands of individual Canadians crossed the border to enlist and fight in Vietnam. If the Viet Cong captured one of them, should they have been treated as an "illegal combatant" because they were not American soldiers? What about the French Foreign Legion?

I think the precedent is clear. Hicks not being an Afghan did not preclude him from enlisting in the Afghan Army. Was the Taliban Army a real, national Army? The Bush administration says it wasn't. But is President Bush's mere say-so enough?

What about those uniforms ?

The uniforms in the US forces, and those of all modern industrialized states are quite, well, "uniform". The US soldier doesn't just have a regulation helmet, and regulation bullet proof vest and combat blouse, but he has regulation pants, boots, belt, backpack. And probably regulation socks, undershirts and underpants too. But that is not what the Geneva Convention requires. The Geneva Convention merely requires that they wear something that clearly identifies them as combatants, not civilians.

Over on a blog site, about two years ago, I asked the other readers how much of a uniform ordinary Americans would have to don if the USA were invaded by, let's say, Cuba, and all the official uniforms were tied up in Iraq. Some people thought a special armband would be sufficient. One guy said T-shirts with the American flag on them would not be sufficient, because civilians wear those too.

Silly, no uniform is required at all when fighting against invaders. A civilian may shoot an invading soldier. Of course that makes him a combatant of sorts. But it doesn't matter, because Cuba isn't the sort of country which is likely to observe the Geneva Convention, any more than Vietnam was. Treaties between civilized nations don't apply to outlaw nations, whether they sign them or not. Cuba helped Vietnam torture US POWs.

• ...the involvement of the Castro regime in the torturing of American prisoners of war in North Vietnam in 1967 and 1968. The atrocities committed by Castro's men in a prison camp known as `the Zoo' resulted in the death of Air Force Captain Earl Cobeil, one of the 19 POWs held captive there. [4]

Anyway, what does this have to do with improving the article? --Uncle Ed 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

During the afghan war, when we caught glimpses of Northern Alliance forces, they certainly weren't wearing modern, head to toe, style uniforms. If the identification they were wearing was merely a special vest, or scarf, or hat, then that is all that should be required of Hicks or Hamdan.

It's not just about uniforms guys. It also comes down to laws of combat, rules of engagement. If a coalition soldier breaks these laws it could be resonably expected that they would face prosecution (civil and military). Even tho this may not always occur. In these groups such as AQ and Taliban even Hamas/Hezbollah... every kill is a kill. Man, women and child. Combatant, non- combatant they dont care. And if an innocent person is killed they play them off as martyrs dying for a better cause.

It also comes down to conduct on the battle field. Coalition soldiers would not feign surrender of injury then ambush or use a vehicle such as an ambulance (or other civilian vehicles) to conduct operations. buildings designated as protected would be respected etc. Groups who are not classified as soldiers simply do not follow these conventions, thus are not treated as tho they do.--Theinnerexits 16:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) If you've got sources saying that the Northern Alliance were a "law of war" abiding group please share them. Maybe that happened after they shelled the **** out of Kabul 10? years before. SmithBlue 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry man, i didnt mean to imply that one 'freedom ha ha fighter' was better than another here. I was trying to point out the difference between soldiers of armies and those who just rock up on a battle field and fight. However, whilst the majority of the NA was afghan and were considered the legitment goverment (approx 30% control). I really believe most afghans would have supported them dont you? i mean who the hell would live under the taliban rule? honestly WOULD YOU? david hicks is living exactly under the conditions he fought to enslave the afghans and now its alll to hard for him he wants to come home.... f**k david hicks!--Theinnerexits 00:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

---

In reply:

• Please sign your contributions.
• Hicks did not join the Afghan Army, he joined al-Qaeda, a non-state organisation, (deleted), not a soldier. Therefore he is not a soldier, not a lawful combatant, and does not come under the Third Geneva Convention.
• The International Brigades were auxilliary units in the army of a recognised state, the Spanish Republic. Furthermore they were soldiers not terrorists.

Adam 01:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Just read above comment - has anyone got sources for (deleted) cause if not it appears a serious personal attack on a living persons biography discusion page. Which I think means it should be removed. SmithBlue 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Who gets to decide who is a terrorist and who is a soldier?

What about the private security forces serving in Iraq? Who decides their status?

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Terrorists and soldiers both use violence for political ends. Terrorists can be highly organised, or not. Same goes for soldiers (particularly in an historical sense). The difference is basically that terrorists are non-government fighters (just like the American Revolutionaries, or resistance movements in countries under occupation) and whether you believe in their legitamacy. It is hard to make a distinction based on actions, although terrorists are typically engaged in asymetrical warfare (on the small side) and thus more often use techniques consistent with this (bombing, ambush, targetted assassinations, suicide attacks etc), but these techniques are often used by traditional armies (special forces, kamikaze, covert ops, atomic weapons). A cursory evaluation suggests that the decision of Hicks's status rests on whether you believe he was fighting with the Taliban and on whether the Taliban is a legitimate army. The US did not recognise the Taliban as legitimate government of Afghanistan (nor did many other nations, I think only two did). I think that he admits to recieving training from al-Qaeda (this wasn't illegal at the time), but that does not mean that he was al-Qaeda, or even that he supported them. But these are all questions best settled by a (fair and impartial) court. Adams Beneling 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All of this is good argument about the POW status, but is the bottom line that he is not a POW? (because the US says he isnt)So can we change this sentence... "is an Australian citizen being held as a prisoner of war by the United States Government" as non POW status is a big part of the contraversy of his detainment Fyntan 07:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere above someone argued that Al-Qaida (which hicks is alledged to be associated with, however he was captured with taliban forces, not AQ as far as I recall) or Taliban were non-state groups and thus he was not a soldier, I don't believe the interpretation should be taken that way given that there are many standing armies under warlords that have been charged under the Geneva Convention, thus, any army, be it a band of men standing together impromptu that declare themselves to be a standing army, would be enough to cover the requirement under the convention as far as I'm concerned. 211.30.71.59 10:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Possessive form

The "s" is not necessary in possesive form of Hicks's name.

See these examples from Australian media:

• Hicks' father 'betrayed' by Australian politicians
• Hicks' trial delayed

Also see these guides:

• The Apostrophe: "some writers and editors argue that the two s’ are redundant and that therefore you can eliminate the second s, ending up with the s’"
• Using An Apostrophe To Show Possession: "An apostrophe alone is used to form the possessive case of these nouns...Singular nouns that would sound awkward with another "s" added: Ulysses' adventures, Borges' novels."

I'm fully aware that with names ending in "s" often the possessive "s" is omitted[In fact I originally used this form when editing]. However it is not a hard and fast rule, as one of your references points out[5]: "Since there is no agreement on this difficult problem, you must make your own choice." Also I've found the majority of sources tend to use "Hicks's", and the article should presumably reflect this as it does seem (at least in the case of the surname "Hicks")to be the more common usage. Widely respected news sources in Australia and elsewhere all seem to lean towards "Hicks's", eg the ABC, the Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian and the Washington Post:

• 'New evidence' backs Hicks's torture claim

• Hicks's jail time should count: Downer

• Hicks's training mate gave vital leads

• Hicks's lawyers win trial delay

• Guantanamo Trial to Resume

• Britain denies Hicks's citizenship bid

• How Ashes triumph could save the 'last Brit' in Guantanamo

• Australian Pleads Not Guilty to War Crimes Georgeslegloupier 15:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hicks's is the usage recommended by Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" -- which is probably the most reprinted University level writing guide in English. -- Geo Swan 11:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strunk: Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's

Agreed. There are two valid ways to go. One is to always use "'s". The other is to use it in certain cases and not in others. However, if you do that, the list of cases when you do and don't is long and complicated. Therefore, most authorities just recommend always using the "'s". Regards, Ben Aveling 01:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Enlisted?

It's been pointed out to me that Hicks probably didn't enlist with al Qaeda. I didn't really think about there being a difference between enlisting in them and the Taliban when I made the change from fought to enlisted. I just changed fought to enlisted, because I'm pretty sure he didn't fight. He seems to have carried arms, but he never to have done more than guard some stuff.

Al Q and the T were sort of overlapping organisations at the time, but not exactly. And even the word enlisted is dodgy, because they weren't/aren't formal organisations so much as movements. Maybe served? I'll change it to served, but suggestions are welcome. Thanks, Ben Aveling 10:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bush administration may represent Al Qaeda and the Taliban as overlapping. But, I've been going through the transcripts of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, and the Administrative Review Board hearings.

• Most of Arab foreign fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda didn't speak any of the local languages. Afghans described them as haughty and arrogant. To paraphrase, I'd say the Afghans described the Al Qaeda as if they treated the Afghans as second-class citizens in their own country.
• American intelligence claimed to have found Al Qaeda enlistment contracts a few months ago. I remember it stating things like pay, vacation and sick leave. Married men were offered much more generous terms.
• Let me offer something I came across recently, in one of the CSRTs. There have been a lot of discussion here as to whether Taliban fighters were entitled to POW status. One of the key questions was "Did the Taliban wear a uniform?" From page 111 of this .pdf:

  “In Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan gave the detainee new clothing which consisted of two long shirts with pants. They also gave him a black turban. The detainee denied knowing that the Taliban wore these clothing items.”

• The DoD can't have it both ways. They can't detain some Guantanamo suspects for wearing a Taliban uniform, and accuse other Guantanamo suspects of War Crimes, because they fought in an Army that didn't wear uniforms. -- Geo Swan 08:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sneer quotes

Would anyone mind if I got rid of so-called "sneer quotes" from the article? Andjam 02:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation

• [Category:Terrorists] - "Individuals listed in this category have verifiably used or attempted to use terrorist tactics, by the above criteria."
• [Category:Al-Qaeda members] - "Category intended to include all known members (not suspected) members of the Al-Qaeda organization"

Although it is undisputed that Hicks trained with Al-Qaeda, his membership and role in any actual terrorist events is not known at this time, and is still the subject of legal action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dleigh (talk • contribs) .

(Here's a quote by Terry Hicks acknowledging that he received training) Sorry about the mix-up. Would it be ok to create a category for those who have received training from Al-Qaeda but aren't actually a member? Andjam 10:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Detainee number

Hick's detainee number is 002

What is the significance? Andjam 14:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

where does all this information come from

Adam, and others, continually make such statement as, (deleted) and (deleted). If you have information on this, so as to state it here, perhaps you should be going to the US defence department to help them with the trial, as they are having some trouble finding evidence themselves. The only evidence that has surfaced seems to point to combatant training, and low level involvement in paramilitary groups. It is wrong to use "terrorist groups" as a blanket term for these groups. Please do not do this Adam; the continental forces that gave America its independence were paramilitary groups, plural. The distinction is entirely value based. There is no evidence or even plausible reason to believe that Hicks was training as a terrorist, only that use of the word seems to justify his illegal imprisonment. So if you have evidence please show me that I am mistaken and then go and tell the US gov so that the trial can finally go ahead. Otherwise, I don't think the use of the word in this wikipedia article would be NPOV. I don't agree with his cause, but he is not the first crusader and one of the least significant.Danieljames626 13:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The article does not describe Hicks as a terrorist. He has not been charged with being a terrorist. He has been charged with being an "illegal combatant." The article doesn't accuse him of anything, it simply reports what is in the indictment under which he is to be tried. So I'm not clear what Daniel is complaining about. Adam 13:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect he is complaining, in part, about "Talk:David Hicks - What about those uniforms - ..* Hicks did not join the Afghan Army, he joined al-Qaeda, ... (deleted), not a soldier. ...Adam 01:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)" SmithBlue Friday 09:12, 17 November 2006 UTC

I agree. "Joining Al-Qaeda" is a good example of what I find to complain about, also. There is no generally-accepted definition of "joining". Do they keep an official register of members? Is "meeting Bin Laden" or "training in their camps" the means of joining?Retarius 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

May 26 Protest

Is a protest featuring around 200 people, many of which were protesting about a variety of issues including mandatory detention, a useful addition to this page? Andjam 09:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not particularly, and certainly not in a section of its own. There have been more significant protests in relation to Hicks than that which occurred on Friday last.--cj | talk 16:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Protests

There have been too many protests with Hicks as a focus to list them all. The photograph is too "busy" - see that used in Natasha Stott Despoja as a better example. Hicks' father sometimes appears as the "prisoner in the cage", if we could get a photograph of such an event, that would be an excellent illustration. --Surgeonsmate 03:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Commentary section

An anon IP added in commentary a link to a page from the World Socialist Web Site, I removed it, and a registered user restored it. I'm not a big fan of long lists of external links, but maybe that's me. Any thoughts? Andjam 12:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andjam. I think that your concern is valid, after all there has been screeds of stuff written about the Hicks case (every day in the news at this point) and why should these random links in particular be included? On the other hand I think the article must very much be considered a work-in-progress and there are some references to events within that commentary that have not yet been incorporated into the article. I'm not sure, but I feel that at this stage, removing the link actually amounts to removal of information. --Wm 10:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there was much "information" at the World Socialist Web Site, as opposed to pro-Hicks opinion, of which we have plenty already. Adam 11:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has a dated quote from John Howard on Macquarie Radio, refers to a ministerial statement by Ruddock in November 2003, and several other references that report statements of various Australian institutions and personalities. These references may be of interest to those wishing to resarch the subject further and develop the article. --Wm 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If they're useful for building the article, I'd suggest moving them to the talk page. I omce placed a useful site on a talk page because I knew it wasn't neccessarily a reliable source. Andjam 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

removal of MPs Conscience Vote link

Hi Andjam, Im new at this and would appreciate you sharing your thinking about removing the link to the site with the "Australian Parliament Conscience Vote: David Hicks Tally Board - current voting by members of the Australian Parliament)". I can see that a site detailing how MPs respond to a question on, say, stem cell research, would provide information on, and an insight into, current views on stem cell research. This would generally seem the case for controversial subjects. Major areas of the Hicks topic are the way Hicks has been portraited by the USA and Australian government, the legality of Hicks' actions, the legality of the USA government's actions towards him and the nature of the Australian government's position on Hicks. The deleted link related to Hicks' portrayal by the Australian governement and to the nature of the Australian government's postion on Hicks. Please share another view on the suitability of the deleted link. SmithBlue Tuesday 02:53 21 November 2006 UTC

I would also question the removal of this link. On what basis is it defined as "spam"? --Wm 00:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I called it linkspam, not spam. The anon IP promoting the geocities link has promoted the web site 4 times, and has not (apparently) made any other contributions to wikipedia. Andjam 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits are not normally reverted merely on the basis that they are anonymous, otherwise there would be no point in having an open edit policy. The definition as "linkspam" is not compelling as the external site clearly relates to the subject and anyone interested in the article might also be interested to view the external site. To remove the link, we should demonstrate that the content would not be of interest to readers of the article. --Wm 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And I wasn't reverting merely on the basis that the person was anonymous. Please do not make straw persons. The person's only interactions with wikipedia has been to promote a certain web site. With regards to what consitutes linkspam, you might be interested in this essay on the Spam Event Horizon. Andjam 01:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The anon edit seems to have been part of your argument. The essay is not a policy or guideline and in any case, the link in question doesn't come up to level 6, it is closer to level 3. Are you arguing that no external links should be included, even when such links are likely to be of interest to readers of the article? You did not address this point at all in your response. I believe that the linked page is likely to be of interest to readers of the article, because I am one such person and I do find it of interest. In my view, if a reasonable percentage of readers may find it relevant to the article then we should restore the link. --Wm 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please share more fully your reasons for deleting this link. I'd like reassurance that the content and reliability of the site were of far greater weight, in your decision to delete it, than the source promoting the site. SmithBlue Wednesday 03:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Andjam, I suspect you may have a very valid point to make about the effects of adding too many links to an Wikipedia entry. As the examples in Wikipedia:Spam Event Horizon show, too many links detract from the clarity of the entry, changing it from an encyclopedia to just another list of links. I think the content and relibility of the external sites must be taken into account but also that the list of links is best kept fairly short and sites should "compete" for inclusion based on the salience of each site to the topic at hand. To me the list of external links in the Hicks article is still short and the addition of the Conscience Vote link is of overall benefit to the article. I dont think the source of a link has any relevance to a link's suitability for inclusion. SmithBlueThursday, 02:29, 23 November 2006 UTC

But Wikipedia:Verifiability says "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Are External Links seen as sources? SmithBlue 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do any editors see the latest "campaign link" as being of overall benefit to the article? How so? (Beside being an animated cartoon which is of course inherently cooler than text.) SmithBlue 05:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I remove the link to the 'fair go for david hicks' link? Until they tell the truth about the Taliban (I quote, 'Taliban soldiers who were defending their territory from the Northern Alliance.') this utter rubbish. The Taliban were fighting for oppression of the afghans and was/is mostly foreign 'freedom ha ha fighters'. Very few afghans wanted to live under the Taliban rule... (would you?) The site is pro-hicks propaganda to down play his role in oppressing the afghan people. I dont deny they should have a voice, but whilst they lie about hick's involvement and deny the truth about the taliban, wikipedia should not support it.... i believe.--Theinnerexits 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the link add to the article? I think so - the responses of MPs to the "vote" is an insight into Hicks' position in society. SmithBlue 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

would any of these MPs vote to bring home a nazi or someone involved in the slave trade? no so why do we give a shit about someone who fought to enslave an entire nation? f**k david hicks, and f**k those that support him (his father and family excluded). david hicks has not broken any laws in austrlia, so why should he be brought home? at best he should be sent back to afghanistan, maybe live a few years as a women under the taliban rule, would make g'bay look like paradise i think.--Theinnerexits 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

LGBT people from Australia

A somewhat surprising claim (or maybe not?). Anyone else heard about this? Andjam 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pending something verifiable, I've removed it as per WP:BLP. Well spotted. Times like this, I wish it was easier to work out who added a particular line of text... Regards, Ben Aveling 11:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. If you had not removed it I was going to do so. Robert Brockway 20:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It was done by User:Aussie Jim . A user with a similar name and associated with similar claims, User:AussieBoy , is mentioned in on the Australian noticeboard . Andjam 11:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal status?

David Hicks [is] being held as a prisoner of war ... He has been detained for more than four years as an "unlawful combatant" ...

So is he a prisoner of war or an unlawful combatant? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ben, we seem to think alike :) I also wanted to look at this claim. prisoner of war and unlawful combatant are entirely different statuses and I think the first sentence is being too loose. I'm going to request a citation on that Robert Brockway 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It used to read "..an Australian citizen being held prisoner by..." and it was changed by Prester John here. Prester John only commented, "clarify" although I believe he/she confused thing by doing so. I certainly think the previous version was better since it is undisputed that he is being held prisoner and calling Hicks a "prisoner of war" complicates matters since that term has a much narrower definition. I will "be bold" and change it back and ask Prester John for citation and clarification on why the change was made. - Ektar 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Material removed a per BLP

"Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages." Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Above were two unsourced comments and repititions of them that appear to fit this definition. As instructed above I remove them. Please supply references if you replace them. "In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages" SmithBlue 00:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Early life section

This section is missing information. Any sourced material available? SmithBlue 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture with rocket launcher is cropped; NPOV?

"The whole picture shows him and two other mates, and they're posing with their weapons, back in Albania when he was with the KLA, training. Unfortunately it looks like he is firing a rocket launcher. If they showed the whole picture, you'd see there is nothing in it, it's just the tube. I have my pictures in my military books, I'm holding my machine gun on my waist, and everybody has got their buddy pictures." [6] What is the function of the present (cropped ) photo? Is removing the context of this photo, by cropping, NPOV? Is displaying such a cropped photo, without acknowledging cropping, NPOV? Does non-cropped photo function better than cropped photo? SmithBlue 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

BBC version http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1763277.stm showing 3 people doesnt look like common photo width/height ratio. Any ideas where I might find an original version? SmithBlue 08:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Is removing the context of this photo, by cropping, NPOV?". Absolutely. The photo has been cropped by someone (it would be interesting to know who - the US, the Australian media?), and specifically cropped to remove the other members of the group and the end of the rocket launcher. Such a deliberate crop is making a non-neutral statement of opinion. Without expressing any opinion of my own as to whether that view of Hicks is correct, in order for the article to remain neutral the photo here should be replaced by the uncropped one, if one can be found (why not use the one on the BBC web site, doubt if anyone will sue for breach of copyright?). Interesting that the alternate text tag of the BBC photo reads "Picture reportedly showing David Hicks (left) posing with colleagues of the Kosovo Liberation Army". The photo here should show the same caption, I think, if we are to be neutral.--Drgrigg 02:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The newspapers in australia originally posted the entire photo but recently they have all been cropped for some reason. From what I remember David had only recently arrived and had asked to hold the launcher for the pic as he had never handled one before. I don't think we need to mention it's a cropped photo unless we can't find an uncropped one can replace it. Wayne 07:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

link describing session of Hicks' U.S. military tribunal 2004

"11/8/2004 11:06 AM" [7]link describing session of U.S. military tribunal which reviewed Hicks' case 2004. SmithBlue 03:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

David Hicks' Current Name?

Could somebody please post up David's current (And legal) name. From memory, it's Mohammed El-Hadara, or something very similar.

I think his current name had reverted back to David Hicks after he renounced Islam. Regardless, David hicks is what he is called in the media and that preempts whatever he chooses to call himself. Wayne 07:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Early life

"By December 2001 Hicks had joined up with the Taliban to fight US and Northern Alliance forces and was captured by a "Northern Alliance warlord" in Afghanistan and sold to US Special Forces for $1000. He was 26 years old at the time. [2]"

This is a statement of opinion, not fact, in fact David Claims to have been in Afghanistan at the time the war broke out, not as a combatant EVER. he was there only to receive training, he had not joined any groups as an active combatant, and was in fact a non combatant when the US arrived, and at no time fired his weapon. He claims when the war broke out, he was simply trying to leave the area, and was "captured" by the enemies of the Taliban and sold him to the USA. posted: 03:50, 5 February 2007 by 58.165.179.92

Extract you quote is presented as fact in cited source. If you have cited source for Hicks "not as a combatant EVER" please add. If Hicks' source unavailable pls add any source that questions McCoy on "fighting along side Taliban". SmithBlue 04:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. If a source quotes their own opinion, as a fact, then that is sufficient for it to be considered a REAL fact for wikipedia?

The source where David claims to have not ever been a combatant, is the television documentary "The President Versus David Hicks (2004". posted unsigned by 58.165.179.92 (02:31, 7 February 2007)

The source would be "The President Versus David Hicks (2004)" and in the article we could write "Hicks denies being a combatant" and then cite the source. SmithBlue 03:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please research the grounds the USA has for holding David at all. He was a foreign national, in a foreign country, taking part in activities allowed by the government of the time. How can the USA bring charges? Under laws passed 5 years after he was arrested?

Perhaps someone would also like to report on the 50foot wide skyscraper billboards going up in Sydney, demanding that Davick Hicks be freed?

Australia, is possibly the strongest supporter of the USA, that support, can no longer realistically be said to be held by the man in the street.

The man in the Australian street, sees the real terrorist as George Bush.

....

As well as that documentary Australias' national newspaper has several times given Hicks' version of his actions. Hicks claims that when told the coalition was fighting al Qaida he said he wouldn't fight them and so was assigned to guard a tank against the Northern Alliance but never fired a shot or saw action. He then gave up and tried to leave the country and was doing so when captured. Wayne 11:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos

I'm concerned that the number of photos going into the "Early Life" section is getting a little gratuitous. I'd think the photos should be restricted to those that give an insight into the thing Hicks is noted for: being locked up in Guantánamo Bay. Hicks with partner and child? Maybe, in that those pictures illustrate what was left behind when he left Australia. One of a younger Hicks? It could be argued that it provides some background or sets a scene (I'm grappling here). Three pictures of Hicks at various ages seems excessive. What do others think? John Dalton 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Balance is required. Otherwise I run the risk of seeing a whole photo album of my favourite politician's childhood etc. shudder. I'd think as notability is as an adult then no kid photos, 1 with family, 1 KLA and 1 portrait would be a maximium. SmithBlue 11:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no way you can justify images of Hicks as a boy as fair use; the image currently in the article should be removed. --Peta 03:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing Comments by Downer and Defence

I'm planning on removing the comments by Downer and Hick's lawyers in regard to the new charges. It's the job of each of these sources to stand up for their side so neither can be taken to be neutral. As expected each source merely reinforces their previous position. It is better to just state the facts "US Dept of defence released document 'blah' " and leave it up to the reader to make judgments. A slanging match doesn't really belong in or add to the article.

I'm leaving the bit about Fraser in as he is independent of the above. Given that Fraser's speech was delivered at 9am Eastern Summer Time (UTC+11) [8], there's a fair chance that his speech was over by the time the charge sheet was reported in the media. Frasers comments seem to be a general comment about Hicks and the Military Commissions, not a reaction to the release of the charge sheet. John Dalton 23:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments by Downer and Fraser were a major part of the newspaper artical and TV news reporting the new charges. They used the word "meanwhile" to connect the comments giving the impression both were in response to the charges. The comments are relevant as it allows readers to compare the Australian government stand on the charges with the actual charges themselves and of course Fraser was leader of the same political party that Howard is now leader of. Wayne 05:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They might have been joined in a newspaper article, but apart from being in the reporter's mind I doubt any connection between Fraser's response and the release of the charge sheet due to the chronology. Anyone got exact times (to the minute or hour) for the release of the new charge sheet? Media needs to pad out facts to make their story more than 15 seconds long, hence the reliance on "reaction" from people such as Downer in reports. Everyone has an opinion on Hicks. If we are going to give Downer's opinion where do we stop? Rudd, Howard, Terry Hicks, every politician, every taxi driver :-), ...? John Dalton 12:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I would argue an official response from the Australian government (probably Howard or Downer) as well an opposition response (assuming it's significantly different) has some merit. No great detail is needed Nil Einne 15:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"On the Battlefield"

I'm going to remove the above phrase from the introduction. According to Four Corners [9]:

"... About two weeks later, Hicks was picked up at a taxi station, trying to leave the country. The Northern Alliance sold him to the Americans for $1,000. ..."

Another source (can't remember which one, but it's one quoted in the article) claims he was sitting in a van or car when captured. "In Afganistan" seems to be supported by every source. Much more than that is speculation and best left to a court to decide. John Dalton 00:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)