PDA

View Full Version : British inherit Aussie terrorist


DeBurcs
25th Sep 2005, 20:00
Alleged Australian terrorist, David Hicks, made an off-hand remark to his lawyer about the Ashes cricket series - and it has inspired an 11th-hour attempt to prevent him facing a US military trial.

A few days after England's win in the series, his US lawyer, Major Michael Mori casually asked the Australian prisoner at Guantanamo Bay how he felt about the result.

"He told me he'd never felt very partisan about the Ashes and wouldn't mind much if England took the series because his mum had never claimed Aussie nationality and still carried a UK passport," Major Mori told Britain's The Observer.

"My jaw hit the floor. I asked him, 'Do you realise that may mean you're legally a Brit?' We both knew that the implications of that could be stunning."

Unlike Australia, Britain believes the military commission system cannot deliver justice and has successfully sought the return of all nine of its citizens - including two dual nationals - from Guantanamo Bay.

Hicks was born and raised in Australia but now he is seeking to become a British citizen.

Until 2002, only the children of British fathers could register as UK nationals. In that same year, Australia passed a law allowing Australian citizens to hold dual nationality.

Hicks's Australian lawyer, David McLeod, said yesterday, "If the Australian Government won't come to his assistance, the British ought to."



Looks like he'll be stuck in the UK instead of receiving a hero's welcome in Aussie. Bad luck, Tommy. And you'll be stuck with the bill too...

Buster Hyman
25th Sep 2005, 22:17
Hate to disappoint but, he won't get it.

I'm in the same boat as him...(No, I'm not in Guantanamo Bay!)...Scouser Mum & Aussie dad & I've tried on a few occasions for a British passport but, you can only get it paternally, not maternally.

Unless it's the Scouser bit...:ooh: :rolleyes: (Yeah, beat ya to it!):suspect:

Mr Chips
25th Sep 2005, 23:21
Paper today said that due to a recent law change, you can now get it maternally

Captain Sand Dune
25th Sep 2005, 23:56
Paper today said that due to a recent law change, you can now get it maternally

Would that be an automatic granting of UK citizenship? For the UKs' sake, I hope not.

He knew what his bed looked like before he lay in in - **** 'im!!:*

Buster Hyman
26th Sep 2005, 02:31
Sorry...if he was born after 01/01/83, then he can get it through his mother. If not, it's only through the father.

ORAC
26th Sep 2005, 04:32
David Hicks was born in Adelaide in 1975.

Phew!............

RJM
26th Sep 2005, 04:37
A couple of newspapers here in Oz today supported the notion that Hicks could get UK citizenship and therefore may be released to that country as were several UK citizens who sided with the Taliban. Apparently the law was changed in 2002, meaning that having a British mother (rather than a British father) was now sufficient to gain UK citizenship.

Sorry, ORAC, on that basis it seems that Hicks' DOB has nowt to do with it.

Frankly, the UK is welcome to him.

Captain Sand Dune
26th Sep 2005, 05:24
In that case I hope that they (the UK that is) take a looonnnng time to process his paperwork.:E

ORAC
26th Sep 2005, 05:56
British Nationality Act 1981

1. Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 allows certain people born to British mothers to be registered as British citizens if they can meet certain requirements. This leaflet briefly explains this part of the Act.......

2. You will be entitled to registration if:

you were born after 7 February 1961 but before 1 January 1983; and you were born to a mother who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time and you would have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if it had been possible for women to pass on citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies to their children in the same way as men could; and

had you been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, you would have had the right of abode in the United Kingdom and would have become a British citizen on 1 January 1983.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deprivation of Citizenship

The Home Office now has the power to deprive a person of citizenship where it is satisfied that that person has done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK or a British Overseas Territory. The power has been introduced as another mechanism for combating those perceived to be connected with terrorist activities. This facility adds to the previous power to revoke citizenship, which existed where naturalisation or registration was demonstrably achieved pursuant to fraud, false representations or the concealment of material facts.

These powers cannot be exercised, however, if the subject would be rendered stateless as a result, and a right of appeal exists.


Deprivation of citizenship or status (Section 40) and nullity (http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/laws___policy/policy_instructions/nis/chapter_55/deprivation_of_citizenship.html)

55.1 Introduction

55.1.1 Part 1 of this chapter explains the provision made for withdrawal of British nationality by deprivation order.

55.1.2 All potential deprivation cases should be referred to Nationality Policy and Special Cases Unit (NPSCU). Before doing so, however, the referring officer should take account not only of the legal requirements for deprivation, as set out below, but also of the undertaking given by Home Office Minister Lord Filkin when addressing the House of Lords on this issue in 2002:

"I wish to emphasise....that we regard deprivation of citizenship as a very serious step to be contemplated only in the most flagrant cases of deception or disloyalty. It would be reserved, as it has been in the past, for serious cases in which the individual?s actions were totally incompatible with the holding of British nationality" (Lords Hansard, 9.10.02, col. 279).

Lord Filkin went on to give, as examples of circumstances in which deprivation of citizenship might be appropriate, those of British citizens engaged in espionage or terrorism against the United Kingdom and British citizens fighting for an enemy against British or allied forces. Cases that are not of a similar magnitude are unlikely to be pursued............

Blacksheep
26th Sep 2005, 06:20
I had to claim British citizenship by descent. This involved proving that my father was a British Citizen of legitimate birth born in the United Kingdom of a father, also of legitimate birth, who was himself born in the United Kingdom. This Grant of Citizenship was not automatic but subject to the decision of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who may withdraw my citizenship at any time if he takes a dislike to my behaviour. Thank 'ee Sor (tugs forelock), the likes o' I are beholdin t'the likes of 'ee.

I am informed by the British High Commission in Brunei that because neither I nor my wife are British citizens by birth, any child of ours born after 01 January 1983 must be born in the United Kingdom in order to acquire British citizenship. My youngest daughter squeezed in by a whisker, being born in Brunei on the 14th of December 1982. Her current boyfriend is a Chinese Scotsman born in Hong Kong, so the same applies to her. Although I am an Englishman with no allegiance or connection to any other country, who just happened to be born in S Africa while my father was serving in the Royal Navy, there are people who speak not a word of English nor Welsh who are more British than I am. Nationality laws are so logical, aren't they?

Let this Australian chap stay in Guantanamo until he coughs up the information they are looking for, I say. Unless he runs for Britain in the next Olympics that is...

BALIX
26th Sep 2005, 07:21
Why doesn't he claim Irish citizenship? They give it away to anybody. Then, when the powerful Irish/American lobby get to hear of an Irish citizen in Guantanamo Bay, they are bound to get him released.

'Coz there are no terrorists in Ireland, are there :confused:

RJM
26th Sep 2005, 09:29
ORAC, the change to the law in 2002 claimed by the Aust newspapers appears to have been outside of or in addition to the info you have posted.

Again, IMHO, you're welcome to Hicks. It's fairly common ground that he became a sympathiser with radical Islam, went off to Afghanistan, trained with at least the Taliban and probably al-Quaeda, and got himself ready to kill the Taliban's enemies (Americans, Australians etc). He was caught more or less red-handed, I believe. There's even a lovely picture of him with a bazooka on his shoulder.

I wonder why Hicks doesn't want to be extradited to an Islamic fundamentalist camp in Afghanistan. He hasn't recanted, as far as I know, and he'd be a hero to them, I would think.

We have an active industry here aimed at securing not justice for Hicks but freedom, primarily because he took up arms against the US and its allies. Hicks' supporters are the usual crew who also advocate Aust abandoning the ANZAS treaty, and who regularly declare that the US is the world's greatest terrorist.

The rage against the US of this group is a strange, composite thing. It seems tied up with regret at the failure to deliver of Soviet socialism and anger at the success of capitalism. Some of them are Luddites, and most of them are troglodytes of one sort or another.

In short, they are in denial of the realities of 2005.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the UK took the lot of them as well as Hicks. I for one am sick of the whingeing, and the airtime his tedious advocates get on our bolshy national broadcaster.

I'd actually have more time (not much though) for the ****** if he stood by whatever principles made him run with the Taliban, instead of trying to weasel his way off the hook he so rightly dangles from.

There, that's off my chest.

Whatever happens, I'm sure the next whacko who decides to take up arms against his own country will consider the cautionary tale of David Hicks.

Binoculars
26th Sep 2005, 12:20
I am happy to repay England one criminal. Given how many they sent us originally, and given what we've made of those humble beginnings, I think we owe England that much. In fact, I've just had an idea to reduce the population of our prisons considerably.................... :uhoh:

ORAC
26th Sep 2005, 12:49
Twas the British soldiers, warders and settlers wot sorted out those original convicts and made men of them. Obviously the present day antipodeans just aren´t up to the job anymore. I blame the inbreeding....... :hmm:

ORAC
26th Sep 2005, 15:40
Ooooooh, a bite! :E
Binos wouldn't have gone for it..... :p

Gouabafla
26th Sep 2005, 15:46
Not sure I want this bloke - but I would like to see him get a proper trial. Then if proved guilty, lock him up and throw away the key. But even Aussies deserve their turn before the beak before they are locked up.

PPRuNe Radar
26th Sep 2005, 16:43
Given how many they sent us originally, and given what we've made of those humble beginnings

And if none had been sent ... would there be a us and a we in any case ? Unless of course you are actually talking as an indigenous aboriginal :ok:

tony draper
26th Sep 2005, 16:47
Even they are comparatively recent arrivals ,speaking in Geological terms, frinstance humans have been wandering about the UK a lot longer than they been wandering about Oz, give it back to the critters I say.
:rolleyes:

Buster Hyman
26th Sep 2005, 21:58
Have they really Mr. Draper? There's a few Aborigines that might dispute that...I'd ask them to log on, but they're pissed at the moment.:rolleyes:

tony draper
26th Sep 2005, 22:14
Yup think tiz about 30,000 years peeps been in Oz, a mere trifle geologicaly speaking that is, think the earliest human remains in the UK were 200,000 years another mere trifle in the great void of time.
So there.
:rolleyes:

Buster Hyman
26th Sep 2005, 22:46
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/photogalleries/homo_floresiensis_1/images/primary/Homo-Chart.jpg
This chart depicts one view of the evolution and worldwide dispersal of the genus Homo. The new species, Homo floresiensis, is part of the Asian dispersals and is believed to be a long-term, isolated descendant of Javanese H. erectus, though it could be a recent divergence. The evolutionary history of Homo is becoming increasingly complex as new species are discovered.

Chart courtesy Marta Mirazón Lahr & Robert Foley/Nature

I think you may be referring to the Neanderthals Mr. Draper. Unlike Uncle Bang Bang below! ;)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/photogalleries/homo_floresiensis_1/images/primary/hobbit3.jpg

walter kennedy
26th Sep 2005, 23:46
7gcbc
You are spot on - I live in Australia now and am embarassed at how the government has not brought the matter to a head long ago.
It should be noted that, despite the desire of the US to do so, few if any convictions will emerge from the large number of detainees at Guantanamo - even after all this time - and so just because Hicks was swept up into it should not mean he must be guilty of anything.
You should not allow one of your citizens to be held without charge in such conditions for a period of time that has already amounted to a sentence.
Let's face it, the detainees (without charges - and that's nearly all) should be dumped/freed now anyway as they have done their job as the tangible enemy/scapegoat for the average American couch potato in the immediate aftermath of 911.

West Coast
27th Sep 2005, 02:38
Spoken like a true Kennedy.

BenThere
27th Sep 2005, 02:43
Hicks... He was an unlawful combatant wasn't he? What rights are you talking about?

XXTSGR
27th Sep 2005, 02:57
I am happy to repay England one criminal.No, he is not a criminal. He has never been convicted (or even accused) of any crime in any recognised criminal court. It is unfortunate that many PPRuNers are acting as though he has.He was an unlawful combatant wasn't he?Was he? How do you know? Are you sure he wasn't one of the many kidnapped from various locations in Pakistan, many hundreds of miles from the battlezone?

BenThere
27th Sep 2005, 03:10
Even these guys admit he was fighting as a foreign volunteer in Afghanistan and was captured at Kandahar.

http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=470

So what was your point?

XXTSGR
27th Sep 2005, 03:16
My point is that he has been neither accused nor convicted of any criminal offence. As the webste you quote points out,At the time of his capture by Northern Alliance troops, Hicks was under arms as a foreign volunteer for a sovereign government.I'm not quite sure how you work out that he was an "illegal combatant", but since he has been put before no lawful court which practises recognised principles of law and evidence since he was detained and there is no propsal so to do, his status is that of an illegal detainee.

RJM
27th Sep 2005, 04:06
Seems to me that there are plenty of debatable areas in this, as well as some simple and clear points.

Is Hicks a prisoner of war entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions? What is an 'unlawful combatant' and why is Hicks one?
The Nuremberg trials were held promptly after the main event in WWII, why not deal with the Guantanamo prisoners poste haste?
Would the members of the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War all have been 'unlawful combatants'?
Is the Australian Government being fair or consistent in its attitude to Hicks?

All debatable.

But clear (to me anyway) regardless of the above and other legal niceties: Without knowing what the US forces know about Hicks' situation (and it seems far-fetched that he has, say, bin Laden's home address and is still holding out on his captors), I think it's fair that Hicks should be charged and have his day in court as soon as possible.

If he's innocent, fair enough, welcome home mate. If he's guilty, then he can **** off, to anywhere that will have him.

ORAC
27th Sep 2005, 06:52
I think it's fair that Hicks should be charged and have his day in court as soon as possible.

U.S. sets trial of Australian (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/09/26/australia.hicks.guantanamo/index.html)

CNN) -- Australian terror suspect David Hicks will be tried before a special U.S. military commission on November 18, the Pentagon has confirmed. Hicks has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy.......

Hicks, whose mother was born in Britain and holds a British passport, applied for British citizenship earlier this month, his lawyer David McLeod said Monday. British authorities have said it could take from three months to a year for any citizenship to be granted to Hicks.

The military commission process against Hicks began in August 2004 but was halted last December after a U.S. District Court ruling. A federal appeals court overturned that ruling in July and an order was issued on September 20 for Hicks' trial to resume. "The presiding officer has set the date for the first hearing in the Hicks commission for November 18," Pentagon spokesman Major Todd Vician confirmed to CNN.......

XXTSGR
27th Sep 2005, 07:01
This is not what any civilised country would call a fair trial. The circumstances under which evidence can be brought and a defence prepared and offered are totally unsatisfactory to anyone for whom the appearance of justice being done is important.

BenThere
27th Sep 2005, 14:16
The tribunal adjudicating the status and disposition of detainees has adequate oversight to be considered fair and civiliized. It has in fact released hundreds of detainees, some of them captured again pursuing their Jihad. Their treatment and provisions are humane. Hicks is not being charged for the treason he committed merely by his presence in Afghanistan and under the circumstances whereby he was caught.

I have a big problem with claiming Geneva considerations for those who fight under a banner that gloats over beheadings, explosions amid innocent civilians, and, as Hicks had to be aware, summary executions of young women in stadiums and the public square on the word of a wild-eyed mullah. His side does not offer the humanitarian treatment you demand.

We should be as humanitarian as we can be. But citizenship of a civilized nation should not confer special treatment for any of these miscreants. Their Jihadi movement, as it transcends national boundaries, must be dealt with as a supernational entity, and be accorded, as a right, the civilized treatment of it's captives that we receive from ours. Geneva protections generally apply only to signatories. War Crimes are another matter, and we are subject to War Crimes limitations, and have policies in place, and to which we adhere, to prevent them.

dude65
28th Sep 2005, 01:18
Can't say I have much sympathy for him. Hicks is your typical garden variety idiot.

Got fed up with playing Army in the back yard. Couldn't get into Army,Navy,Air Force,Police,Fire Service,Ambulance so decided to go and play with the big boys.

When he finally does get home he'll sell his story to Channel 9 and pocket a small fortune.

Go figure.

tinpis
28th Sep 2005, 01:56
Probably get sent home in a Gulfstream like the other moron.

dude65
28th Sep 2005, 06:20
7gcbc

I agree. This bloke does deserve fair representation and a fair trail. He's not going to get that in the United States. I think he's going to be made an example of.

My point here is that he wouldn't be in this position if hadn't decided to play macho man. Someone should have pointed out to Hicks that a game of paintball and fighting for the Taliban are two completly different things.