Wednesday, April 18, 2007

David Hicks- or taking responsibility for your actions

It seems that although David Hicks is somewhat old news, people are still harping on about the injustice of it all, ad nauseum, including on a recent unrelated post of mine (see comments.) I had been meaning to write something about Mr. Hicks (aka Abu Muslim al-Austraili and Muhammed Dawoodin) in response to his meagre 9 month sentence, but never got around to it. But, in light of some contentious remarks, here goes:

David Matthew Hicks, poster child for trouble and Australian Muslim convert, embarked on a life of militancy in 1999 (at age 24) when he joined the Kosovo Liberation Army, fighting alongside ethnic Albanians in their battle against the Serbs during the Kosovo War. 2 months later he was back in Australia where he converted to Islam. After being rejected by the Australian Army, for lack of a formal education (he was kicked out of school at 14), he went to Pakistan to study Islam, and shortly thereafter plunged into a life of Islamic extremism. His initial indoctrination into this culture of violence began with Lashkar-e-Toiba, where he learned all the various methods of guerrilla warfare, and ended with training at al-Qaeda's al-Farouq camp near Kandahar. He spoke to his parents in November 2001 telling them he was ".... going off to Kabul to defend it against the Northern Alliance." He was captured, a month later by a Northern Alliance warlord and eventually handed over to US special forces.

In a documentary entitled Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, David's father, Terry Hicks, read from some of David's letters where he explains that his training, in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, was a means to guarantee that "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again". He has even acknowledged that he met with Bin Laden many times.

Though people like to make him out as an innocent, David Matthew Hicks was not a tourist on a vacation that turned into a nightmare, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was in Afghanistan post 9/11, of his own volition, fighting with al-Qaeda and the Taliban against the Northern Alliance and coalition forces. That is called aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, which makes you a terrorist, and therefore an enemy combatant. No ifs ands or buts. There are a whole different set of rules with this kind of war. And as for claims of torture, of course they are going to say whatever they have to, to try and save their proverbial butts, and get themselves out of Guantanamo, which I'm sure has far better conditions than the caves they lived in prior to being captured. They know how soft the world is on claims of torture.

But the bottom line is: David Hicks made choices in life. He chose to convert to Islam, he chose to align himself with terrorist groups and launch into a life of militant extremism and violence. He chose to be in Afghanistan post 9/11. No-one forced him to do any of those things, and yet choose he did. So, where's the accountability? If you choose to do something criminal and you are caught, then you suffer the consequences. People need to take responsibility for their actions. Hicks is unwilling to take any responsibility for all the wrong choices he has made in life. And there are far too many people who feel he has been wronged. The irony of it all, is that Hicks probably loathes all those western, liberal bleeding hearts who support him because they are not Muslim.

I hope he turns his life around, but it's unlikely, particularly if he remains a Muslim. His life has been fraught with wrong turns since childhood, and it will probably continue down that road. I wouldn't be surprised if, once released, he sets off for Iraq to join his Muslim brethren there, to continue the fight to kill the roots of democracy. There have been other Guantanamo detainees who, upon being released, have returned to fight another day: Abdullah Mehsud and these Afghans and these, so why not David Mitchell Hicks aka Abu Muslim al-Austraili aka Muhammed Dawoodin?


Troika said...

I don't think anyone thinks he's innocent - innocent or guilty we all have rights. His were denied him. That is all.

Are you telling me that there are instances when people are not allowed their basic human rights? Are some people more equal than others?

And he's old news is he? Look at your bloody examples below you hypocrite. He's more recent than both. God you don;t half spend your life contradicting yourself.

You're beginning to sound a bit like a Nazi, BTW.

Make your mind up, there's only so far right you can go before you meet Hitler.

Panhandle Poet said...

I'm happy I found your site a few weeks ago. You are a talented and insightful writer.

MUD said...

It never ceases to amaze me how people think that non-Americans have the same rights as we do. There is also the fact that there is still a war going on where he was captured and in most wars the prisoners remain prisoners until it is over. If his friends would stop bombing cars and their own people we could go home and all the prisoners would be released. Just what does anyone think would have been his punishment if he had been captured by Saddam's forces. I doubt he would have been alive to stand trial. Stick by your guns girl. MUD

Papa J said...

Seeing as he was captured as an enemy combatant, yet, we are not at war with a country but with an ideal, I do partialy agree with troika (A name that if I am not mistaken has an overtly sexual connotation.)

If we are going to declare people as enemy combatants, we should at least define how we'll know when the conflict with terrorism is going to be over. As a student of history, my first guess would be that we'll never eliminate terrorism. So, the only conclusion you can draw is that the US intends to hold combatants in prision indefinately, not because of their national allegiance, but because they are radical islamist. A precedent I don't think we can maintain.

It sounds too much like why people were placed in the soviet gulags.

So if that is not the direction we are heading the government really does need to define the long term position and plan.

Incognito said...

What are you on about Troika? My bloody examples below? david Hicks was sentenced to 9 months last month. And with *your* rabid anti-Jewish/anti Israel attitude, I would say you were the Nazi.

And did you bother reading my response to you in my last post. Obviously not, because here you are. Please read it. Thank you.

Incognito said...

Thank you Panhandle, very kind of you to say so.

And I agree, MUD. But, they will never stop killing each other, and wishing us dead, to boot. Sad, but true.

Incognito said...

I don't think we'll ever know when the conflict will be over, Papa J, as long as they are intent on wiping out not only Israel, but the western world, as we know it. This might be a prolonged war, and then what? do we release them all so they can go back to fighting us? This isn't a civilized war, with civilzed people who will go back to their lives once the war is over, because it won't be over. They have shown themselves to be far from civilized in their conduct.
I don't know what the solution is, frankly, because I think we're in it for the long haul, as far as I can tell.
And if you look at Troika aka Lambent, aka Purist's blog, you will know why he chose that moniker and yes, you are right about it's connotation.

Professor Howdy said...

Very good posting.
Thank you - Have a good day!!!

Incognito said...

You have a good day too, Prof. Howdy!