Talk:David Hicks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

under duress

"He once told me in Afghanistan that if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' ect [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out," writes former Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi (probably whilst under duress) [21]

There is no mention of possible coercion of "Camp X-ray inmate Abbasi" in the accompanying link. It is NPOV nonsense and now gone. Abbasi repudiated all of his claims against Hicks, he didn't say he was forced to make them. From the TIME piece it sounded more like Abbasi told his interrogators a crazy story on purpose and to his great astonishment and amusement they believed him.

Soldier of fortune?

That heading sounds way too flowery, what should we change it too? See: David Matthew Hicks#Soldier of fortune —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven X (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I think its entirely appropriate and perfectly descriptive of his character and motivations (having been rejected by the Australian military and looking for adventure and combat). I recently watched a fair (ABC or SBS) documentary on him here and it quite accurately decribes him. I dont see the phrase as inherently negative although our times have changed and few wealthier westerners now engage is such things. Remember the many foriegners who flooded in to fight for the Spanish Civil War (and the many journalists (subsequently famous writers) who followed them). Remember too the many western mercenaries in African wars. Oh how times have changed: the phrase is now no longer associated with an adventurer, a fighter for a cause, or even a lowly mercenary, but instead is descriptive only of a "terrorist" and all terrorists now no longer work now for any nation-states since nation-states no longer commit any acts of terrorism! And if you are nieve enough to believe that (!?) (like the masses) you would find the phrase objectionable. "Viva Zapata! Viva la revolucion!" Mattjs 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the heading should be eliminated. It is not clear that Hicks has ever seen action on the battlefield. He seems to have arrived in Albania too late to see action outside of training and his activities in Pakistan and Afghanistan are the subject of controversy leaving open the possibility that he never saw any action there either. As such Hicks status as a "Soldier of Fortune" is speculation. Journalists have the freedom to engage in speculation, encyclopedias need to deal in facts, not speculation. The right thing to do is to leave speculation out and record only facts. We should not be judging Hick's motivations or character. Hicks is the only one who can definitively state what is inside his head. On top of that Hick's motivation and character are one of the things being looked at by the Military Commissions, so it is hardly Wikipedia's job to preempt the Commission's conclusion.

The "Soldier of Fortune" section should be merged with the "Early life" section. To even have a division in the article "draws a line" in Hick's life. Why is the division in the article after Japan and before Albania? Was that some sort of watershed in Hick's life? How can we know. The answer is we cannot. Only Hicks can. As such the division is arbitrary, cannot be objectively justified and so should not be there.

It is valid to have an "Early Life" section in the article, which deals with life before being detained. Hick's capture cannot be denied and in the context of this article it is a significant event in Hick's life. As such it seems to form a natural division which should not be controversial. John Dalton 04:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If others really want a division, I would suggest a section headed "Lead up to capture" or "Afghanistan". This could document the events immediately before Hick's capture. Perhaps starting from when he was last reported to be outside Afghanistan? John Dalton 04:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

possibility of parole

Hick's prosecutor was reported to have said in early March 2007 that he had no objection to Hicks being released on parole on Hicks's return to Australia, if he was found guilty. The prosecutor's comments suggest that he is only interested in a guilty verdict and not in further punishment or incarceration. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/us-has-no-objection-to-parole/2007/03/03/1172868811846.html and http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21335102-661,00.html

Given the controversy over the extent to which Hick's should be considered a threat, particularly as the Australian government has said that it has relied on advice from the US, without being privy to the evidence against Hicks's, perhaps the prosecutor's view should be included in this article.Mickiewiki 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Commentary Section

Does this section really belong in an encyclopedia article? What does is contribute? Nothing? What is the criteria for a link being included as commentary? As far as I can see it is based on whim.

The aim of the article is to summarise the facts about David Hicks. There should be no place in the article for opinions, which is presumambly what is meant by "commentary". The commentary section should be deleted in its entirity. I don't think "it contains links both pro and con" is a justification for the section existing. Opposing opinions are still opinions.

If any of the links in the commentary article have reliable and relevant facts those facts should be incorporated in the article and the links become sources.

Do others agree with the commentary section being eliminated? If so, could someone else please "second" my motion by deleting the section and its contents? John Dalton 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The commentary section arises because some editors wanted to place prejudicial opinions about external links being "pro" or "anti" Hicks, thus misrepresenting the controvesy about Hicks' detention as a personal campaign, rather than acknowledging the highly controversial nature of its human rights aspects. The key question to ask about the external links is: do they provide a valuable resource to those who are interested in the subject? One "fact" about Hicks is that the case has been highly controversial - disguising this fact by removing links to material about the controvesy reduces the article rather than enhancing it. Wm 22:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it in. It is valuable for people dedicated to finding a range of information about a subject, one of wikipedias strengths. I can't imagine why it would need to go.Prester John 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to argue. What are the criteria for inclusion though? It seems to be quite arbitrary. It would be a shame if the list of links is simply fall out from an edit war. That latest link is a load of crap. At least the rest of the links (pro and con) put forward a reasoned argument. The newest one is simply an attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise a vanity website. A blog that consists of one entry, written five days ago, hardly makes the grade. If it was a blog that had seen lots of posts, enthusiastic discussion and was widely read I could see a case for inclusion, irrespective of whether it is pro or con. What's there isn't even funny, it's just sad. John Dalton 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dalton, I found it funny, and also sad. Funny how stupid Hicks supporters are, sad how you feel the need to delete things you don't agree with.134.7.187.45 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that I deleted the link because I disagreed with it is baseless. I deleted it because it does not meet the criteria for an external link from Wikipedia and I am not going to restate the justification given above. Note that my previous edit was to fix a broken link that by your flawed reasoning I should have deleted. John Dalton 05:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it Vanity? Whose Vanity is it, since it has an anonymous author??? Do you think The Blog of David Hicks is actually written by Hicks?

I think it highlights Hicks' real political views, as shown by the letters he has sent his Father.134.7.187.45 07:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely based on whim... it should be deleted. If people want more information, then they should be able to obtain it from links referenced in the article. --Jrk1998 02:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights workers claim Hicks's charge violates treaties and Australian law

This section should be deleted if the only thing supporting it is an op-ed piece. The fact that Australians think that Australian law should apply to them when they break the law in other countries is really not pertinent (nor is it well grounded in reality). --Jrk1998 02:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If this were any old op-ed then no. But this is from a "Special Rapporteur of the International Commission of Jurists" so it's not just an ordinary op-ed and should stay. Also, from what I can tell, the primary point he's making is that it's unacceptable internationally to punish people based on retrospective laws not that Australians should be bound by Australian law. While Australians do sometimes seem to think they should have to worry about the laws of the countries they're in, this doesn't appear to be the issue being addressed here Nil Einne 04:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was part of report that he did as "Special Rapporteur of the International Commission of Jurists", I would agree with you. But its not part of a report to the UN, its merely him weighing in on his personal views. Its his opinion. Given that the paragraph outlines, repeatedly, that the charges are in violation of both Australian law, and ignores the fact that he's not being tried under Australian law, it is completely meaningless. --Jrk1998 07:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The personal opinion, of someone with such a background is relevant even if it is not part of an official report. As I've already stated, from what I can tell he's not arguing that David Hicks should be tried under Australian law, but that charging someone under retrospectively laws is wrong. He's using Australian law to help highlight his case (remember this is an op-ed in an Australian paper). He also mentioned how it's in violation of international law. P.S. Actually having read the article again I think he might also be saying that given that he's an Australian citizen the government of Australia should be trying to protect him as he would be under Australian law and should be under international law especially as the US is not allowing him the protections they afford their citizens under their laws and given that he was not captured on US territory. Regardless tho, you Australian law argument doesn't hold water IMHO since it's quite clear he's not doing what your saying Nil Einne 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that one of the conditions of accepting an Australian passport is that you acknowledge that you accept the rule of Australian Law whilst in other countries, so that you can be charged in Australia under Australian Law for crimes committed overseas whilst traveling under the Australian passport. This is made extra clear in the axillary literature you get when you get your passport. Johnpf 05:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Australian laws apply to every Australian, no matter where they are in the world. So if it was illegal to smoke in Australia, you could be charged when you return to Sydney if you were smoking in London (provided it was proven). The part you are missing is that Australians must also accept that Australian law does not supercede local laws when travelling. This lack of awareness by most Australians is why Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade prominently displays (and repeatedly issues) the warnings that "When you are overseas, local laws apply to you and penalties, particularly for drug-related offences, can be severe and can include the death penalty". The Op-Ed is filled with comments about the charges against David Hicks are a violation of Australian law. As he is not charged under Australian Law, I fail to see how it is relevant at all. --Jrk1998 07:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish. Australian law does not apply to Australian citizens overseas unless the legislation directly specifies that it does. Smoking laws do not. If you smoke marijauna in Amsterdam, you can't be charged under Australian law. Even if you kill some one in Amsterdam you can't be charged under Aussie law. The only laws to my knowledge that apply OS are the extra juristictional measures to counter child sexual abuse, anti money laundering laws, and possibly laws against 'people smuggling'. aussietiger 05:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense meant but did you actually read the Op-Ed? He only mentions Australian law in 2 instances. One is when he mentions it together with US recognition of 2 international treaties. The other is were he mentions how said treaties are protected in Australian law. He then goes on to explain protection from retrospective law is necessary. He then mentions how the same applies under US law and to US citizens and goes on to explain how David Hicks appears to be in a 'no man's land' legal situation where he is not protected under US law. The greatest part of his article is devoted to this, not to Australian law which only is briefly mentioned (and as I've stated it appears to me to be to provide context for Australian readers, not so much to argue Hicks should be protected under Australian law). Even the title suggests that the Op-Ed is not about Australian law but about what he regards as basic human right Nil Einne 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Offense taken. --Jrk1998 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies then, but your statements on the op-ed suggested to me that you hadn't since they didn't seem to be about what the op-ed actually said. Nil Einne 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section:

In this opinion piece, Vickery makes no attempt to address the fact that Australian law does not apply to David Hicks in this case. He also does not address the US perspective that this is not a retrospective law, as put forth by the US legal adviser to the US Secretary of State.

For several reasons. Firstly its mostly OR. You can't put a 'response' to someone's opinion by putting forward your own criticism of said criticism, regardless of whether or not you have sources for parts of that criticism. The Australian law thing in particular is completely OR. It also seems irrelevant since as I've already explained, I don't see any evidence to suggest Vickery was seriously suggesting Australian law should or does apply to Hicks. As for the US Secretary of State bit, it might be okay (probably not but if someone does find a better source they can try to work it in a way that doesn't sound like OR) if we had a better source for this opinion. However the current source simply states it's not a retrospective law. He then says something about 'international war crimes tribunals using offences that were "obviously put down on paper much later than the conduct actually that was in question".'. However this doesn't actually explain why the law isn't a retrospective law. Therefore there is anything to do address here. I have moved the opinion to the 'charges laid' section where we first mention the law being retrospective. It is more appropriate there. Nil Einne 03:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, if someone does find a better reference they welcome to describe the US position in a separate section. This should be fine. My point above is that if someone wants to mention this position in the Human rights worker section, they need to do it in a way that isn't OR. Unless this is a specific response to the op-ed, I'm doubtful this would be possible, but editors are welcome to try. Nil Einne 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Australian law does apply to David Hicks. He was abducted by the yanks without consent of the Australian government, and by the decision of the US government, US law doesn't apply to him. Everyone is covered by some law - Hicks never consented to be taken by the US on foreign soil --I'm so special 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Prosecution threatens defense counsel

Again, this paragraph should be deleted. Reason 1 - clearly not pertinent given the fact that his trial has started and counsel did not withdraw. Reason 2 - Colonel Davis has stated that not only that he did not threaten charges, but that he doesn't have the power to do so. Cite:http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-military-prosecutor-denies-mori-threat/2007/03/05/1172943318383.html --Jrk1998 12:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the whole case. Things don't disappear just because circumstances change. Currently, we have two views here. One provided by Mori, one by Davis. Neither side has AFAIK withdrawn their claims. Both are therefore still valid. We don't know who is telling the truth. We do know it was a noteable controversy in this matter not just because of the potential delays but because it sounded like a defense lawyer was being threatened for doing his job. Perhaps Davis was never serious but was just trying to intimidate Mori and it backed fired. Perhaps Davis was serious but when Davis or someone realised this didn't look good he or someone above him ordered it to stop. Perhaps Davis version of events is the truth. We don't know. All we do know is there was a controversy Nil Einne 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

N.B. We probably should reduce the length of the section and obviously we need to add Davis's denial however Nil Einne 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Edited to reflect the "He Said, She Said" version, which adds so much value to understanding the history of what happened. --Jrk1998 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

New article needed

This article is way too long and is dealing with mostly with Hick's detention and trial than the person. We need a new article so a lot of the text in this article can be shifted over to that. Perhaps it should be called The trial of David Hicks. Any thoughts on a name or what should be moved? Nomadtales 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea for a new article, the name you created also sounds good. Crested Penguin 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a good idea. The article is getting long. I'm in favour of the name and the move.Prester John 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hicks is a wholly unremarkable person, save for having got himself into a pickle with the Taliban. Hence, Hicks does not need two articles. Everything notable about him is related to his terrorism training and subsequent trial.--ABVS 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about separating it into two articles. One of the questions in the mind of a Wikipedia reader would surely be: "How did David Hicks come to be in this situation?" Having information on David Hicks as a person combined with information on his incarceration might give the reader an insight. With separate articles there is no insight in this regard. I also dispute "The trial of David Hicks" as a title as technically there has been no trial since he never made it to trial? The first set of charges were dropped and a plea bargain was struck before he was tried on the second set of charges. Perhaps the article really needs a careful rewrite to reduce the number of words and improve the flow, without losing any information? John Dalton 12:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to my last comment, perhaps it makes sense to hold off on an any major changes until the article settles down a little? As it is the article refers to a current event and it is changing rapidly. Any rewriting or major changes would be trying to track a moving target. Perhaps a solution is to let the David Hicks story play itself to the end, then make an evaluation as to the best way to present a well written article once we have the entire story? John Dalton 12:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Things are happening rapidly in the development of the Hicks case, so yes, I agree, we should not get too wrapped up in things at the moment and run off to create a new article. I still feel though, as I said over at Australian Wikipedian Notice Board that a lot of the material in this article does not directly revolve around Hicks himself and what he has done, moreso the trial (or lack of) and the legal ramifications ie human rights conventions being broken, and Major Mori possibly being charged with some of his comments. So like people have suggested either the article gets cropped and clarified or we spilt that material off into another article. Nomadtales 11:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hicks still a Muslim?

It says in the news article that he abandoned the Islamic faith. Is this confirmed?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21474241-5001021,00.html

Given that he has been held under duress in Guantanamo Bay for 5 years, it would be impossible IMHO to verify such details. And since he is forbidden from speaking with the media for a year, it's not going to get clearer anytime soon either Nil Einne 03:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the Australian was running some stories a month or so ago which were claiming that he'd memorised the Qur'an and was reciting it. Obviously he might've been doing both things several years ago and not anymore, but it just goes to show there's evidence being thrown around on both sides for this one. Speaking of which, I don't see that being said in the article cited. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Early Life

In this section a reference from Alfred W. McCoy is used to assert that Hicks was "high-school dropout, former drug addict, sometime car thief". The article cited, however, does not provide any sources itself to back up these claims. I don't know too much about this, but does this leave enough of a basis for this part to be included? Or does the lack of citations in the McCoy article make it an invalid source in this context? --FearedInLasVegas 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the citation. I'll give you a hint. It's in the VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH. Prester John 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think FearedInLasVegas is querying whether the citation provides the quote. As you have pointed out, the words are prominent in the source. Rather I think FearedInLasVegas is querying McCoy's sources and McCoy's credentials to make such a statement. Perhaps that shoul dbe further investigated on this talk page. If there is dispute about McCoy's words, perhaps it is better to locate sources that state the facts more directly. Eg. Rather than "high school drop out", perhaps state that Hicks was expelled, which is less opinionated? John Dalton 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are exactly right, John. Obviously I read the source before posting my comment, but I was unsure as to the standard of the statement. McCoy seems to pass this information off as fact (as it may well be), but without providing any information to substantiate this. I didn't feel that this was enough basis for the quote in the article, but I wanted some clarification from someone before taking any action. I see the quote has been removed now anyway :) --FearedInLasVegas 12:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with removing any McCoy prose. I don't see the point of declaring one of his quotes as "unqualified" and then leaving in a massive section copied directly from him. I agree that all his allegations will need further clarification.Prester John 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Media Ban and Election

The following was added to the article, then removed by another party:

"The Prime Minister of Australia has defended the media ban, saying that it is not linked to an Australian federal election being due by January 2008"

The justification given for removal was "who is saying it is related to the election?".

The justification for removal is irrelevant as the article did not say that the Hicks media ban was related to the election. What it said was that the Prime Minister denied that the two were related. These are two very different statements. The first is a conjecture, the second is an in disputable fact. No one can deny the PM's denial. To quote the reference which was provided: "The Howard Government insists it did not speak to the United States about the sentence that gags David Hicks until after the federal election".

It is significant when the PM sees an allegation as being important enough to devote the time to issue a denial and in doing so to acknowledge that links are being made. The denial itself is significant.

I'm going to reinstate the sentence and its reference in the article as its removal was not justified. John Dalton 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's inclusion is not justified. To add a Howard quote at random with no pretext does not make any sense. Prester John 23:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the politics of it and what you think of David Hicks. Looking through the source, it is clear the Australian government denied the allegations and it is a relevant fact to the section. There is no reason not to include the sentence in the article. If someone feels that the reference is not clear enough, there's a squillion more to choose from, so someone will put it back (should you delete it) with another source. Vision Insider 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the denial is significant in its own right in that the PM and the foreign minister have both issued it. It's as bit of a moot point though, as someone else has stepped in to provide the desired context. Thanks!John Dalton 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the following comment from the article log "So typical of leftards. Howard asks to get Hicks tried, like leftists wanted, and they then turn it around to bash him." to mean that some have interpreted the article as attacking the Prime Minister of Australia. As the reference states, denials were issued by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, so the statement is from the Australian Government rather than an individual. I have updated the article to reflect this and to remove any reference to one Minister, which may be misinterpreted an an attack on him. John Dalton 00:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this is blatantly news worthy. It is also disingenuous of Prestor John to say that the quote has no pretext, since he is the one who edited out my addition which gave the context of the Howard quote. I also find it hard to believe that any one following the Hicks case in the Australian media wouldn't realise how much the gag order is talked about. Sad mouse 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- I am fairly removed from the David Hicks trial (do not know all of the specifics) but the Free Speech rights granted under the Constitution do not extend to non-citizens (nor is it unusual at all that there is a no-media rule involved in a plea bargain, though this is not binding legally), thus I am editing out the clause that says: "... it is highly unusual and a condition rendered unconstitutional in the United States by the first amendment on freedom of speech." Windthorst 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi - Free Speech rights under the constitution do indeed extend to non-citizens, if you read the US constitution almost every right guaranteed under the constitution (bar only the right to vote) actually applies to all citizens and non-citizens that are within the jurisdiction of the United States (as a non-citizen living in the United States I looked it up). I think it is one of the greatest clauses of that document. As for how unusual it is - I've never heard of another example of it in the US or Australia (but that would be original research - the actual reason I added it is because those two reasons are exactly the reasons used by US and Australian critics to reach their speculation, as you can read in the sources below). Sad mouse 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

4 Corners

Heads up to everyone here that 4 corners has a program tonight analysing Hick's plea. It airs at 8:30 tonight and is repeated at 11.35 pm this Wednesday and on ABC2 digital at 9.30 pm Wednesday and 8 am Thursday. John Dalton 01:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Transcript here

source documents provided by 4 Corners here John Dalton 11:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gag order

I put in this sentence into the article:

There has been speculation in the Australian media that the one-year media ban is a condition requested by the Australian government, as it is a condition rendered unconstitutional in the United States by the first amendment on freedom of speech.

It was deleted by Prestor John on the grounds "Doesn't mention anything like that in the given reference". I have checked the reference, it is explicitly mentioned. Both critics in the US and in Australia have raised the possibility that the gag order was a political favour from Bush to Howard. A quick google news search shows up dozens of articles, here are three for examples:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/mixed-reactions-to-hickss-sentence/2007/03/31/1174761804155.html http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/liberals-sought-hicks-gag-order-brown/2007/04/01/1175366067833.html http://www.skynews.com.au/story.asp?id=162140

Not to mention that it has been a hot political topic on a number of Australian political shows, for example in the recent Insiders episode where Bob Brown was invited to talk. Furthermore, the extent to which it has been raised as a possibility is confirmed by the number of articles in which Howard has denied it is true, eg:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pm-denies-gagging-hicks-to-stop-election-fallout/2007/04/01/1175366080767.html http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=257977 http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=145&ContentID=25011

Therefore I propose something like:

There has been speculation Australian and US critics that the one-year media ban is a condition requested by the Australian government and granted as a political favour, as it is highly unusual and a condition rendered unconstitutional in the United States by the first amendment on freedom of speech , however this has been denied by John Howard .

Prestor John, I would also suggest that you take a little time out from this article to relax, as a number of your recent numerous edits seem hasty and without due diligence, and include personal insults and political bias in the edit summary.

I looked through all of these references and STILL couldn't find any mention of the United States First Amendment. Show me where it is cited or I will keep deleting it.Prester John 05:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Bob Brown's speech, reported by the Brisbane Times [1]. I would be cautious about using that as a reference though, as "Bob Brown says" does not equate to a legal opinion. It's better to base the article on solid references. There's no need to rely on statements made by Bob Brown. Give it a while, as there's a fair chance some legal heavyweights will soon offer opinions that will carry a lot of weight. The truth is powerful. John Dalton 06:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Prestor John, the link clearly shows Bob Brown's reasoning included the First Amendment. I recommend that you go to US Constitution and read the wording of the actual US Constitution, which clearly states (and has been tested in court a number of times) that all rights of the US Constitution except voting are granted to all that live within jurisdiction of the US government, and not only citizens. As I had already left this message to you on your talk page I know that this was not a simple mistake. If you do not have time to look carefully into the edits then do not revert them. Sad mouse 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples of people who have made such claims (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/02/gitmo-hicks-deal/)

– Terry Hicks, David’s father, said in a statement that “it is clearly a political fix arranged between Mr. Howard and the Bush administration to shut up Hicks until after the election in November.”

– Bob Brown of Australia’s Green party described the deal as a political “fix” meant to benefit Howard, saying that “the message has gone very clearly from Canberra to Washington to Guantanamo Bay: don’t allow Hicks to be released until after the elections and certainly don’t allow him to speak.”

– Lex Lasry, an Australian who observed the trial, remarked, “What an amazing coincidence that, with an election in Australia by the end of the year, he gets nine months and he is gagged for 12 months from talking about it.”

– Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, said: “I’m not naive. I know that they probably worked out - I’m quite sure they worked out - a plea bargain, that would allow the United States to appear to have effected a reasonably fair proceeding, would allow David Hicks to return to Australia, and satisfy Prime Minister Howard’s needs.”

- Andrew Sullivan emphatically states, “If you think this was in any way a legitimate court process, you’re smoking something even George Michael would pay a lot of money for. It was a political deal, revealing the circus that the alleged Gitmo court system really is.” Sad mouse 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Protester

Let's face it, Hicks became a sort of "hero" to the folks who dislike U.S. foreign policy. Whether Hicks was actually a terrorist, or just some sort of wacky young idiot seeking adventure, he makes an awfully poor semblance of a hero even to those who dislike the U.S. on a kneejerk basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.24 (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A minor concern with the picture of the protester, in that he might not be a typical protester. By my reading, most of the protest is calling for a fair trial rather than freedom. If Hicks was locked up for a crime he committed beyond reasonable doubt it wouldn't be a significant human rights issue. The human rights issue is that he has been locked up without a fair trial and that his admission could have been under duress. I'm just a little wary that the picture may be misrepresenting the majority of protesters. I don't feel strongly enough about it to change it, but thought I would mention it in case there is a consensus that the picture is atypical. It would also be nice if the picture was obviously of a significant protest rather than a lone guy outside an unidentified building at an unidentified time and place. John Dalton 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that it is the only picture on Wikimedia Commons of someone protesting Hicks which I came across (it came from WikiNews BTW) I thought it would be good to add to the article. If there was another picture from a rally involving more people, then I that would be preferable. I am not sure of your concerns though, I have seen quite a lot of bumper stickers, etc saying the same thing. Nomadtales 01:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, John Dalton. The lone protestor picture poorly represents the broader Australian public dissatisfaction of the treatment of Hicks. There were a number of protests, at least one hefty poll result, numerous public representations by agencies such as Amnesty and reputed legal advocates, and even a Sydney Mardi Gras float entry concerning justice, freedom and human rights (with Guantanamo, Hicks and the broader political context as its theme). I don't think the current picture should be included. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of U.S proceedings at Guantanamo

This whole section is untrue and not referenced. I'm giving a small amount of time before deleteing the whole bit.Prester John 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Any takers?Prester John 15:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's unreferenced because you removed the reference! How is it untrue, Hicks does have British citizenship, Britain has condemned Guantanamo on many occasions. The high court justice did say that Hicks was entitled to UK protection. Do you actually live in the UK or Australia? Because if you dont, I strongly doubt that you will have followed this story on television (except in the United States where the word "terrorist" and "war" will have been used in every other word!) --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice you are an Australian! Sorry --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I volunteer to cleanup this section. Why don't you post your concerns individually here and/or on my talk page and I'll try and salvage it. --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean I removed the reference? I moved the bit but the only reference it ever had was to a wikipedia page, a check of the history log will show you what happened. Do you honestly, really and truly believe Hicks has British citizenship? You sound so sure. Did you follow your television closely enough? If you have to fix this atrocity then:

• Include the part where the British Home Secretary nix's the citizenship and the reason why.
• Attribute the "condemnation" to someone. "Britain" cannot speak, let alone condemn.
• Use a source other the wikipedia.Prester John 23:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I finally read the detailed section above that deals with the issue. This pointless section is history.Prester John 03:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the government makes repeated statements to the tune of close guantanamo. I'm sure anyone with an ounce of sense could google that quite easily. John Reid isn't anything to do with immigration and breached legislation and procedure in his interference. This I can provide a source for. The section is not history, I'll put it straight back. Please do not remove constructive content. --I'm so special 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No constructive content was removed. Prester John 23:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

The selective quotes which are being dropped into the article are misrepresenting the content of the sources. For example "He eventually lost contact with his two young children" comes from a discussion about Hicks being shattered by the loss of his wife, her not wanting a bar of him and the eventual loss of contact with his children.

The quote about car stealing is hearsay from his ex wife. The article goes on to say that Hicks had no criminal record and attended Euabalong Farm, a facility for at-risk boys.

None of that comes through in the recent additions to the article. Maybe the author should reverse or amend his changes in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which is highlighted at the top of this page?

A source can be made to say anything if it is sliced into small enough pieces and reassembled. Better to summarise a source in your own words to accurately reflect its entire meaning rather than destroy the readability of the article with slabs of dubious quotes. The reader can follow the link to the source to get the original words (which should have the same meaning as the article). John Dalton 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains Hicks "lost contact" with his two children. It is referenced and relevant. If you can find a reference that says otherwise then go right ahead.Prester John 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Does half the truth equal the truth? John Dalton 03:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You should ask that on the Buddhism talk page. Are you saying Dawood didn't lose contact with his two young innocent children? Do you think he has paid a cent in maintenence?Prester John 03:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by this Prester John? Are you trying to say Hicks is in the wrong for losing contact with his own children? --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special

What do I mean by what?Prester John 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've flagged this article on the Biographies of living people noticeboard. Being about a living person this article needs to adhere to higher standards than a regular Wikipedia article. John Dalton 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clear that policies do not have to be followed when dealing with David Hicks! Wikipedia better be careful or we might all be charged with providing material support to a terrorist. aussietiger 05:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of related article

Deletion of Religious conversion and terrorism is proposed.

For discussion see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religious_conversion_and_terrorism

--ISKapoor 22:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

This article is near impossible to keep neutral due to the opposing veiws of Australians in Genaral v Americans in General. I believe the only way for people to think it would be neutral would be to take a completely anti-Hicks view during the entire article. This of course is hypocritical, and thus the article is indeed as neutral as it needs be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Storm 59 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Typical of the anti-American view. "I'm right, you're wrong, and let's not let facts or balance get in the way." For heaven's sake: He worked for the Taliban, a vicious, brutal, occupying army. Maybe his claims need checking? Anybody ever audit this guy? I have personally audited serveral extremists of various types and found them to be habitually free with the truth. That's why they're called extremists. Scott Adler (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing statement

The article says:

"David Hicks was born in Adelaide, South Australia, son of Terry and Susan, (who is a British citizen by birth)"

And that's my question too. Who is a British citizen by birth? —Pengo 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, anyone? See also: British_nationality_law.--220.238.219.253 07:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Article name move

I don't agree with the name move based on the idea that this is a common name and Hicks' notibility will fade quickly. Alan Johnston is a common name and his ordeal will fade quickly but his article is not being renamed. If there are no major conflicts with other articles, just leave it be. WP:NCP states use "the name that is most generally recognisable", adding a Matthew to the article deminishes this. Also please discuss before making major changes, like renaming. Nomadtales 23:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is a conflict, with David Hicks the most influential interior decorator/designer in the XXth Century. He is much more notable than the felon.--70.57.246.220 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the wiki article if he is so notable? Nomadtales 21:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of unwritten Wikipedia articles about notable people. In this case, I am working on an article on David Hicks. Just do the Google search: "David Hicks" 1929 for more information. --Bejnar 21:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Known as Abu Muslim al-Austraili and Muhammed Dawood"

The sources given identify that the aliases were alleged by US Military prosecutors, are described exactly as that in the later body of the article, and no references have been given to conclusively prove that these were actually aliases used by Hicks. These aliases should be verified with additional sources or remain "alleged". --Brendan 07:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you even read the references provided in the article? Let's together look at reference number three located here.

Let me quote from the reference;

*ELLEN FANNING: And he changed his name, we read [to], Mohammed Dahwoud?

• TERRY HICKS: Mohammed DARwoud.
• ELLEN FANNING: DARwoud.
• TERRY HICKS: Yes. We never recognised that name. We never called him by that name. I mean, he was David, a couple of times he didn't like it but he new darned well that I wasn't going to call him Mohammed Darwoud.

So despite the fact that none of the sources for this article seem to be in any doubt about his a.k.a's, and your desire to add your own original research in to attributing this to some evil US military conspiracy, We have a quote from Hicks' own father saying that Hicks literally begged his family to call him "Muhammad Dawood". In fact he got all pissy when the family on several occassions didn't call him Dawood. Now the question is this Brendan. Do we accept Terry Hicks as a reliable source for this article? Or does it make more sense to claim this is just some fabrication directed from the high office of Chimpy McHitlerburton? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your language, tone and inferences are unreasonable. Please assume good faith, remain civil and avoid misrepresenting the contributions of others. I never asserted an "evil US military conspiracy". I said that the sources given and the Hicks article itself state the aliases were alleged by US Military prosecutors (ie. in the briefs of evidence). Read the Hicks article, it did say that (under the Charges and New charges sections). I agree I was mistaken on "Dawood". Thanks for supporting with a concise reference. It makes such a positive difference. I didn't see the Terry Hicks' reference to "Dawood". But also be honest and concise -- you've only cited a second source for one alias, then extrapolated that to a "fact" that none of the sources seem to be in any doubt about any of his aliases. What about "Abu Muslim al-Austraili"?--Brendan 17:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Prester John, the SMH reference cited for the alias "Abu Muslim al Austraili" indicates it was part of allegations by the US military. To whit, "Hicks, also known as Abu Muslim al Austraili or Muhammed Dawood, while in Afghanistan, [did certain things], it is alleged." These allegations are amply explored in later sections of the Hicks article. Please verify that alias with further sources (or cease to include it in a way that purports it to be fact) and please obtain concensus for its significance (as to why it requires prominence in the article lead-in given its more accurate coverage later in the article). --Brendan 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Status of Dawood is of this very moment a convicted terrorist. Your continued assertion of being a "citizen" is redundant as that is a given when we write the word "Australian". Your inference that he was only know as Muhammad Dawood in Afghanistan is wrong. He demanded to be known as this in the Balkans and in Australia. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 18:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What about "Abu Muslim Austraili"? You keep ignoring that question, instead performing repeated reverts without substantive justification. What source, other than the prosecution charge sheet, can you cite for "Abu Muslim Austraili" being a verified alias formerly used by Hicks? As for your other contentions:

• I disagree with the inference that Hicks' conviction is the source of his noteworthiness and deserving of the exclusive prominence you give it in the opening sentence. As said in my Edit Statements, which you have also ignored, this places undue emphasis on a single highly controversial outcome, constituting bias and non-neutral POV (as shown by your political POV statements made on your own talkpage and herein -- a guilty plea bargain to a retrospective charge of "material support for terrorism" does not a "convicted terrorist" make). The main body of the article deals amply with the guilty plea without making it the biased focus of the opening sentence.
• Citzenship and nationality are not always the same thing. In this instance, either form is appropriate ("Australian" or "Australian citizen"). I didn't insert "citizen", it has carried through from prior edits by others. I do remember "father of two" being previously edited out by someone from the lead-in sentence (and I agree with that edit, because his fatherhood status is not the prima facie cause of his noteworthiness; his prolonged detention is).

Meanwhile, please obtain concensus, observe NPOV, avoid reverting without substantiation, and avoid 3RR. --Brendan 19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed the reasons, you don't seem to be able to read or even recognize them. The latest current information is that Hicks is in prison after pleading guilty to his material support for terrorism charge. The facts about Gitmo are addressed in the second paragraph, whereas you seem to erase his conviction altogether. I cannot keep repeating that the Hicks used the Dawood name in regions other than Afghanistan.Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 19:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments above. I agreed with you (over a day ago) that "Dawood" was referenced in an interview with Terry Hicks and thanked you for pointing that out. I'm asking about "Abu Muslim Austraili. Please verify this with a source that doesn't simply quote the US charge sheet allegations, otherwise exclude it from the lead-in or prepose it as an allegation. Secondly, you haven't "addressed the reasons" why you reverted all my changes. You simply added an Edit Tag to the effect that your way is "better" and to tell me to read the Wiki section on Style. These are not reasons, they are flimsy dismissals lacking substantiation by solid argument or consensus. Thirdly, I have not "erased his conviction", his "guilty plea" is clearly stated in the third paragraph (and is a more accurate concise description of the tribunal outcome). Your edits had the fact of his tribunal outcome pointlessly duplicated. --Brendan 19:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page in response to an edit war. Please discuss your differences here on the talk page and try to reach consensus. If edit-warring resumes after the protection expires in 4 days, there will likely be a lower threshold for blocking involved editors. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference

{{editprotected}} Brendan 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC) writes:

Can the following additional reference to the sentence (in the David Hicks article summary) ending in "under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the legality of which was contested." please be inserted:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/11/justice-at-guantanamo-paradox-of-david.php |title=Justice at Guantanamo? The Paradox of David Hicks |last=Hovell |first=Devika |date=[[2005-11-11]]}}</ref>

Seems reasonable.  Done. Neil ム 13:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Religious beliefs" versus "Islam"

I reverted because his lawyer said he wasn't practicing any religion -- I don't see why the heading for this section should say "Islamic beliefs" not "Religious beliefs" I certainly don't understand why the change from religious to islamic should be justified by a claim of NPOV.

Cheers! Geo Swan

Let me enlighten you, it is POV to describe Islam as a religion, it is more accurate to describe it as a "Death cult", but that is also POV. It is probably better to just describe it as Islam. Accuracy is better. I, Prester John am a cunt, a complete and utter one. So really just ignore what i sayPrester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Geo Swan. "Religious" beliefs is appropriate. Personal biased POV about whether Islam constitutes religion is irrelevant. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I always thought Islam was a religion. We don't want to leave people thinking that someone who renamed himself Mohammed Daewoo might have been a Methodist or a Mormon. --Pete 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Daewoo <chuckle!> ;) Although, there is little room for such confusion in the article as it currently stands. It is clearly spelled out, throughout the article, that his interest was with Islam, not another religion. Requiring a subsection of that title is unnecessary. Moreover, I don't think any separate subsection is needed, as the religious views seem better contextualised by their infusion into the larger narrative about militant activites. Doing that would also enable more accurate portrayal of the chronology of events and the significance of his religious views (at the time) to the militant choices that he made. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

copyedits of Religious activities

These are mine. Even though I had logged in, the session was lost somehow, leaving my edits unsigned. --Brendan [ contribs ] 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Convicted

I contend that the use of the word "convicted" is POV here. It implies that there was a fair trial, that evidence was presented and that he was then found guity on the weight of the evidence. None of these things happened - he pled guilty as part of a plea bargain.

Here is a definition from dictionary.com:

" 1. Law: To find or prove (someone) guilty of an offense or crime, especially by the verdict of a court: The jury convicted the defendant of manslaughter."

While we could say that the tribunal found him guity after he pled guilty this is not what most people would think when reading that he was convicted. I'd like to change the wording but I'll wait for comments first. Robert Brockway 00:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, Robert Brockway. "Convicted" creates bias because it does not fully describe the situation. Indeed, not only did the prolonged detention receive widespread criticism, but the (validity of the) trial outcome did too. "Conviction" is simplistic and non-neutral. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Conviction is the correct word for the outcome of a court hearing resulting in a prison sentence, regardless of how the outcome was achieved. --Pete 03:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's significant and more concise that he "pled guilty". Conviction is already sufficently implied without undue weight. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Barring additional evidence of the proper use of these terms, I agree that "pled guilty" appears more appropriate. - Merzbow 04:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of references

I find it disturbing that some editors have been deleting inline references from this article. Presumably the deleting editor doesn't like some of the incidental content in that reference. I ask people to stop deleting references, as they are there for the purpose of identifying and verifying one particular fact, and other content that the reference contains is immaterial.--Lester2 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

I should have noted this yesterday, but I have blocked both Brendan and Prester John for disruption. I will note to everyone on this article that there is a lower then normal tolerance for revertwarring and disruption on this article. Being disruptive is being blockable, please discuss rather then revert. you guys might actually find a few points where you guys agree. Please remember there is mediation available if you need it. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Guilty Plea in Intro

I have several times tried to remove the pov intro, without success unfortunately. The fact that DH got convicted or plead guilty is without mentioning of the special circumstances misleading (or simply wrong). As the tribunal that he faced ignored judicative practises which were essential during the last 800 years (Magna Charta), any reference to court proceedings create the wrong impression. DH has not faced a regular court, the intro should not suggest such a wrong impression. --Lord Chao 09:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're just playing with words here. Court, tribunal, hearing, investigation, inquest - they all use much of the same language and procedures, regardless of what we call them. The fact is that DH admitted guilt to the charge and was then convicted, meaning he was imprisoned. I think it is important that the article show that the court was conducted outside normal US criminal procedures, but we needn't be too elliptic in our language. --Pete 09:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the inclusion of the guilty plea (talkpage consensus has been for "guilty plea" terminology over "conviction") in the opening sentence, because its context cannot be adequately dealt with there in an NPOV way, without bloating the lead paragraph and repeating information (tautology) that already adequately covers the guilty plea the 3rd paragraph. The principle notability for Hicks is his capture and detention for such a lengthy time, which former versions of the lead paragraph adequatley expressed. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We certainly have to mention the guilty plea. It is bizarre to say he was detained for years on suspicion of terrorism and not mention the extremely relevant fact he pleaded guilty to it. One could equally argue we shouldn't say he was detained in the first paragraph because there isn't enough space to deal with the context (he was detained for a very good reason). Both points are notable, and we have to do our best to address them in an NPOV manner in the first paragraph. - Merzbow 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus on that inclusion is disputed. The fact is relevant but is already prominently mentioned two paragraphs below (in sufficient detail with regard to weight, NPOV, etc). The principle notability for Hicks is his lengthy detention under suspicion of involvement with terrorism. If that had not happened, he would probably be non-notable. Repeating the guilty plea in the first paragraph leads to its inevitable bloating as various editors add more qualifiers in an attempt to redress perceived imbalances. It goes round in circles, is unnecessary and doesn't improve article quality. Please obtain consensus before reverting. --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version reads neutral, and the guilty plea is discussed in relation to its proceedings. The intro mentions now why he is noteworthy without making him look like a confessing terrorist. Thanks, Brendan. --Lord Chao 11:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL Brendan, you're the one who posted a note to my talk page after I created that version originally, thanking me for it. I didn't see you acquire consensus before dishonestly removing it afterwards. Care to explain yourself? (For the record, here is my original edit, and here is Brendan thanking me specifically for making that edit). - Merzbow 17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Your earlier edit seemed a good edit - at the time. But I agree more with other editors who say that leaving out the detail, of what sort of legal forum the plea was delivered before, creates undue weight. Taking into account edits since then, and a trend of unnecessary to-ing and fro-ing that adds no value to the article, consensus is disputed for your edit. Please do not revert again without consensus. --Brendan [ contribs ] 01:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Take your own advice, Brendan. Your edit makes no mention at all of the fact that he pled guilty to and was convicted of terrorism charges. I think that's important enough to go into the lead, but if you want to attempt to explain why you see it as irrelevant, go right ahead, funny guy. --Pete 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you cheeky monkey, Skyring/Pete. Please pay attention. It is already in the lead. Read the 3rd paragraph. And please reassure me that you are not wikistalking my edits (from John Howard, to Children Overboard, now to David Hicks). People will start to talk. Please avoid the habit of reverting without consensus, revert baiting, and making antagonistic remarks about other editors. It is unnecessary and unconstructive. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Brendan, you can't undo the consensus you yourself agreed to a couple days ago because you no longer find it convenient. Jerking around other editors like that is really not cool. Anyways, I've added the guilty plea sentence back into the first paragraph, but after the mention of the detainment. That is certainly a compromise on my part. - Merzbow 06:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, please base your arguments for inclusion on Wikipedia policy. Disputed inclusions require consensus. Consensus is not present. --[[User:Brendan|Brendan] [ contribs ] 09:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing the fact that Hicks pled guilty to a terrorism charge and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment? We don't need consensus for such notable facts. --Pete 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If I can make a suggetion here: Can editors here please refrain personalising the contributions of others?! There should be no cause for the use of 'you' in any sentence regarding the content of this article. Can the content of the very important lead be discussed here, not in endless reversions
← over there? Cygnis insignis 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no point trying to explain civility to Pete, he continually uses uncivil tactics to push his points across wikipedia, many of us have tried. WikiTownsvillian 22:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very true that I sometimes aim for humour at the expense of someone, but looking at the WP:NPA aspects of the discussion here, I reckon I'm well above the muck! The bottom line is that the top line should aim for a complete but concise word picture of what the subject is notable for. I direct the attention of my brother editors to the biography guidelines on this point. To my mind, two of the most important facts abiut DH is that he was detained for five years and that he admitted supporting terrorism in the tribunal which ended the affair. To mention one fact without the other is only telling half the story. It's all very well to say that the other fact is in the third paragraph or wherever, but that lead para is our summary of everything else. It's our hook to get people reading further. --Pete 23:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We know that torture occured at Guantánamo Bay, and the probability is that Hicks was likely subjected to torture. A guilty plea is meaningless coming from an institution known for its torture. Such a plea would be inadmissible in normal courts of law. So, nobody argues that Hicks confessed to various things at Guantánamo Bay. But if we follow Wiki's BLP policy, I'm not sure if statements obtained under torture should be considered fact. Remember this is a bio of a living person. --Lester2 03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What do the V RS' say. That's what should be in a BLP. Shot info 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He was tortured into a confession. So we shouldn't mention it. Right. If we had a good source for the confession tortured out of innocent tourist story, then I'd want that in the lead in bold type. Trouble is, we don't. Quite frankly, I find that describing the sort of prisoner harassment that goes on in Gitmo (and any other prison in the Western world) as torture cheapens the meaning of the word. Let's keep it for pulling toenails out with red-hot pokers, belting on your nuts with a couple of bricks and editing Wikipedia articles. --Pete 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There are various official reports detailing the torture at Guantánamo Bay, so we don't have to worry if Guantánamo fits the definition of torture. It does.--Lester2 04:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Errrrr, wha? Regardless of if he was tortured or not, there is V RS' to say he confessed and was found guilty (etc.). If there is a RS to say he was tortured into doing so, feel free to add it. Otherwise it's OR. Shot info 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia handle "guilty confession" during the inquisition or witch trials? Are the victims of these form of judicial violence treated as victims or perpetrators? I encourage everyone to read the source of the Military Commissions Act, even a layman can see that this law leaves the consensus of democratic legislation. The fact that Hicks is not permitted to talk about his time in Gitmo makes it difficult to source details about this time, yet the fact that he is muzzled is unheard of (I know that criminals are not permitted to make money with their story in Australia, but Hicks is no criminal, the presumption of innocence has to apply as he hasn't faced a regular court). If wikipedia describes the victims of witch hunts as perpetrator, put Hicks guilty plea in the first sentence. --Lord Chao 11:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"the presumption of innocence has to apply as he hasn't faced a regular court". That's new, can you present a reliable consensus of legal scholars to support your view? Otherwise this is simply your original research. The tribunal was conducted according to US law, there was nothing illegal about that. Nobody has presented evidence he was coerced, or tortured, or any of those things. That's all speculation. What is fact is this guy is a convicted terrorist. - Merzbow 17:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One source calling the Military Commissions Acts unconstitutional can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEwKSQm8Z6o (I'm not too show whether this is the show with some silks as interviewees), and the para about the MAC has some more sources. A tribunal according to the MAC is no regular court, and is not compatible with legal systems based on the British Law (which modelled the US and Australian legal system). I wouldn't (and will never unless i get tortured) call a tribunal in a torture camp a regular court. Certainly there is no consensus in the legal community about the MAC, and I don't agree with your POV that Hicks is a "convicted terrorist". A confession in front of an illegal body has no value. However, if it is normal for socalled democratic nations to maintain camps which are outside any national legislation, and allow courts to sentence suspects without the presentation of evidence, then we have obviously a different understanding of democracy.--203.214.33.211 03:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can say that something is illegal or unconstitutional, but in the case of the latter it isn't even a matter of consensus - it's 4 against 3 in the High Court. Nothing else matters. We shouldn't, in an international publication like WP, be championing one justice system over another, and in the case of the US, the split between American and English law is centuries old. Certainly we can indicate areas of difference to what is the normal practice in the country. As to whether the military tribunal was illegal or not, that is a matter for the courts in the US, and I hadn't heard that they had found the proceedings anything but legal. Law is not a matter of democracy, or even what the general public might consider reasonable. The law is frequently a contradictory ass, but that's the way it is, and all those expensive years of law school mark the difference between somebody with a reasonable understanding and somebody who doesn't like the outcome of a particular case and blames the system. May I suggest that if the very same military tribunal had found Hicks innocent of everything and freed him with ooodles of compensation and a national apology, the same critics of the system would be singing its praises. Not because they understood how it worked, but because, like a footy match, their side won. --Pete 03:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Pete just said: Law is not a matter of democracy. Obviously, law and democracy exist independently, in democracies, however, law warrants equal treatment for everyone. The tribunal Hicks faced had more similarities to a witch trial than a regular court (even if a suspect is acquitted he/she can indefinetely remain detained), so I would have no reason to praise it. And I have no reason to draw any conclusions from the proceedings - anyone would say anything after 5 years in a torture camp. It doesn't raise my sympathy if somebody undergoes military training and wants to work as mercenary, but if this was a crime Australia has to arrest a lot of people. Hicks might have had evil intentions, but he is, like most people in Guantanamo Bay, a victim of the US's hegemonial foreign policy. --Lord Chao 08:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an easy way to solve this. All we're concerned about is notability. Whether or not editors think he was justly or unjustly held or convicted is irrelevant. If other reliable sources agree that his criminal status is just as notable, then we certainly can't disagree. Go to news.google.com, search on "David Hicks" and "terrorism". Just looking at the first two pages, a clear majority of the articles about him that come up mention his conviction in the first sentence. Examples:

• "Confessed terrorist supporter David Hicks has nothing to fear from being interviewed by Australian Federal Police (AFP), his lawyer says..."

• "Hicks, 32, who was convicted by a US military court of supporting terrorism, was yesterday shown mug shots of persons of interest to Australian police when ..."

• "The commissions have notched only one conviction, that of David Hicks, who will be set free in his native Australia at the end of the year as part of a plea ..."

• "Federal and South Australian Police have spent almost two hours interviewing convicted terrorism supporter David Hicks at Yatala Prison in Adelaide. ..."

• "The lawyer for convicted terrorism supporter David Hicks says his client is being interviewed by Federal Police in Adelaide today as part of arrangements ..."

• "So far, Australian former prisoner David Hicks is the only person convicted in the Guantanamo tribunals, but he avoided a trial by accepting a plea deal ..."

• "In March, David Hicks, an Australian convert, became the first prisoner at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be convicted on terrorism charges. ..."

• "The decision is part of the Rann Government's grand plan to close down Yatala Prison, which houses terrorist David Hicks, Northfield Women's Prison and the ..."

• "DAVID Hicks will be questioned by police in Australia for the first time today, starting the countdown to his release. The "exit" interview will take place at the maximum security jail outside Adelaide where he is doing time for supporting terrorism.."

Given this evidence, I would say that it's undue weight to even mention his detention before we mention his conviction, but we'll compromise by mentioning his conviction second, in the first paragraph. Burying the fact of his conviction in the 3rd paragraph is not an option supported by reliable sources. - Merzbow 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Google search (above) is loaded. If you simply Google for "David Hicks", you get a different result. Then the first news results you get say that there was a "weak case" against Hicks. You've got to strike a balance to present the 2 sides of this case. I you use the word "convicted", then the intro should also outline the alleged torture and the controversial aspects of the case. The US authorities wanted him to strike a plea bargain in 2004, but Hicks refused. Now, with the prospect of many more years in jail, he agreed. It's a fair thing that whenever the article states the US or Australian government position, it should state the opposing position in equal length. That's how Wiki works. --Lester2 02:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well no, WP:NPOV doesn't give equal time to all sides. Nor does it allow original research and speculation. We can't guess at Hicks' motivation and then present it as fact. Nor am I convinced that there are two sides to Hicks. Fringe positions supported by minorities, perhaps, but I've never regarded a few dozen people dressed up in orange jumpsuits and chanting slogans as good evidence of serious percentages. Likewise with those waving the S&S and calling for the death penalty. Most people would be somewhere in the middle. A reasonable point of view might be that he got what he deserved, but that the sentence was pretty much served before it was formally imposed.

We don't want the intro to get too bloated. It's supposed to be a summary of what follows. I wouldn't want it to examine details of the controversial aspects, but I'd certainly want it to mention the controversy. Nobody should be under the impression that this was a regular court of law with juries, habeas corpus etc. Likewise we shouldn't then turn around and complain about the five years detention as if he were a defendant in a regular criminal trial. Prisoners of war often spend years in captivity without facing any charges at all. --Pete 03:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling somebody caught somewhere in Afghanistan "Prisoner of war" suggests already that Hicks was involved in war activities, which not even the Gitmo tribunal claimed. It might have been Hick's intention to fight the US invasion in Afghanistan, but there is no indication that he even had a weapon when he was caught. Basically, from what is known, he was no more than a tourist in a warzone that wanted to earn his money as mercenary. That might be a not very clever lifestyle choice, but it doesn't involve any criminal act.--Lord Chao 203.214.33.211 03:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Google News brings up almost exclusively reliable sources, unlike plain Google. And Google News for plain "David Hicks" brings up the same articles (with a few on some other David Hicks interspersed). The truth is almost all reliable sources lead with the fact of his pleading guilty/conviction. They don't mention the detainment, then mention criticism of the detainment, then mention his pleading guilty. According to WP:LEAD, "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources". I'm not asking to remove criticism of his case from the lead. Add more if you like. I'm not even asking to begin with mention of his pleading guilty. I just want the most notable fact about this individual, according to reliable sources, to be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph. - Merzbow 09:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Guilty plea bargain

It needs acknowledgement in the lead that the concise context of the guilty plea was a plea bargain, between the defense and the convening authority judge, which bypassed the chief prosecutor altogether (as widely reported by numerous Australian and American sources). This is an important factual distinction. I've added this context to the lead and ask for good faith editorial comment. --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing "infantryman"

This is a notice that the claim in the intro that Hicks was an "infantryman" with the Taliban must be removed. Here is the text:
In 2001, Hicks served as an infantryman with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Reason it must be removed: Possibly libelous. Does not conform to WP:BLP. We don't know what the man really did, as there are claims and denials all over the place. We are not attributing the claim to anyone else. Hick's father once thought Hicks was a fighter, then retracted the claim. The reference provided did not support the statement.--Lester2 08:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, "infantryman" is unnecessary and not really accurate language. - Merzbow 09:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, any claims like this (or similar ones about a living person) really should have multiple recent references from generally used news sources to back them up. I say recent, because the picture of David Hicks changed as time went on. David Hicks is currently in prison with a gag order, so he can't answer claims himself. When he comes out, there's nothing to stop him suing Wikipedia if false or unjustified claims are made in here. Really, extreme, extreme care should be taken on this article. Claims should be attributed to whoever made that claim, not just stated here as fact. --Lester2 08:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the DIFF showing where the qualifications were removed. --Lester2 11:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Lester. I support the wording "served with the Taliban". --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Satanic symbols

We only have a few more hours until Brendans ban is expired and the edit warring will continue. Let me predict some of the points he will again try to whitewash and gloss over under his policy of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Brendan has repeatedly erased referenced information about his cannibas use and penchant for scratching satanic symbols into his arm. Despite the quote from the reference being; "His old school mates from Salisbury High say he was a heavy drinker and cannabis smoker who would use a compass to scratch satanic symbols into his arm. ", Brendan seems happy to use the reference for other purposes, yet redescribe his satanic leanings as "body mutilataion" similar to getting a nose ring, or belly button piercing. Brendan originally edited this out using the edit summary of "adding" material, here so it is wise to go through all his edits with a fine tooth comb. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Who was it that complained about "whitewashing" John Howard? I think it's PKB time here. --Pete 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an atrocious discussion: 'Prester John', it is completely inappropriate and incivil to predict what someone might or might not do, or to make personal remarks about them.
Skyring(Pete), to talk about payback time is also atrocious. These actions have no place in civil discussions. --Lester2 04:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Snerk. As for predicting actions, yeah, I agree. Let us judge Brendan on what he does, not what we think he might do. There were all sorts of predictions as to what would happen when I officially came back, and they were all wrong. I'm not entirely happy about mentioning the symbols, but an anti-Christian attitude displayed in Hicks' childhood could help our understanding of his later actions. Then again, he may have just been hoping to shock or impress people. It's certainly colorful. --Pete 04:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Skyring(Pete), I accept you meant "Pot Calling Kettle Black", instead of Payback time. My misunderstanding. However, the discussion topic is still in bad faith, because it is trying to predict what another editor will do, and taunting. --Lester2 04:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Speculation about "anti-Christian attitude" is barely even original research. I did edit the language for NPOV/weight before -- eg. "self mutilation" rather than "scratched satanic symbols" -- but, on further reflection, dispute the inclusion of either forms. Comments attributed to unidentified "former friends" of Hicks, by a single media source, fall short of reliability of sources and verifiablity policies. Note that WP:BLP requires a higher standard of both. On this basis, the material about "satanic scratchings" will be removed. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with Brendan here, this source is not reliable enough for these types of claims. - Merzbow 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder which relevance this is supposed to have. Bingedrinking and cannabis smoking are quite common in Australian High Schools, and self-mutilation is not a rare behaviour either. Unless you try to construct a pseudo-psychological explanation (when Satan wasn't evil enough, Islam filled the gap), it doesn't help to understand why he was held five years in prison. Without sources it is pure slender. --203.214.33.211 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Brendan has just acted exactly as I have predicted, and deleted the referenced information in his third edit after a long block for disruption on this article. This time incorrectly citing problems with verifiability and reliable sources. Once again the exact quote from the reference is; "His old school mates from Salisbury High say he was a heavy drinker and cannabis smoker who would use a compass to scratch satanic symbols into his arm. ". Wikipedia does not misrepresent information to make it sound like he got a belly button ring in his high school sororiety. Brendans claim that this quote comes from a dubious source is totally astonishing an yet another example of his bad faith. The quote is published by the ABC and is from the well respected 4 Corners program. Is Brendan seriously suggesting the ABC fails as a reliable source? Come off it. Brendan is deleting referenced information under his own policy of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I am replacing the referenced material back unless there is a decent reason not to. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 18:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see that quote in the ABC reference?! Neither is it in the BBC story. It is in the magazine style show, one that has disavowed any pretense of a news program. It quotes the recollection of a person who makes a sweeping categorisation of a group of students, these things rate much better, who would complain? Not their advertising clients. The same clients who benefit when someone makes a fallacious claim on wikipedia, sends people off to wade through the advertising and find the misquotation. Cygnis insignis 19:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus appears to be for exclusion of this poorly sourced, unverified, unclearly attributed, POV, overly weighted "satanic scratchings" mention. I have reverted Prester John's latest re-insertion of this accordingly. Prester, please desist from ad hominem rants, use article talkpages to discuss content (not other editors), and notice the general absence of agreement with your position. --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It is truly amazing how malleable Brendan can be in his opinion of certain references. While deleteing the above referenced material he claims the reference fails as a reliable source, yet seconds before he uses the EXACT same source to advance his POV here. It is this blatant hipocrisy which affirms my belief in his bad faith, and the justification for his numerous disruptive blocks. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What an aggressive fellow you can be. The reliability in question is that of the unidentified "old school mates" as a source, not the article as a whole. We don't know who they are, or how many, or if that claim is verifiable, let alone materially relevant or weight-worthy. Please actually read the earlier comments from me and other editors rather than engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Regarding block histories, editors in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with that source as a whole, it's a transcript of some people talking on a show. I'd support not using it in any capacity. - Merzbow 22:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Merzbow's previous remark. Very solid sources are required, otherwise delete it.--Lester2 06:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Acceptability of reference : Devika Hovell article in JURIST

Prester John keeps removing this reference without discussion on the claim that it is a "partisan blog" (here and here). Can other editors please comment on the acceptability of the use of this reference in this article (as attributed to the comment "widespread criticism")? --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet again we have more tedious misrepresentations by Brendan in his ongoing POV push. If you check the current article you see the reference Brendan claims I am deleting is in fact still there. Brendan is now conjuring up this latest scenario in an effort to insert this reference, hoping someone will fall into his trap and revert this partisan blog back in. Check my diff carefully and you can see exactly what is going on. It is these constant and repeated bad faith games which really should indef block this lying and disruptive editor. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake. The diffs here and here (that I linked above) plainly belie your claims. If you can't comment honestly in good faith, step aside and let other editors have a say. Your bullying, ad hominem, handwaving and hostility on talkpages and in edit summaries are intolerable. You've been warned many times about incivility, by many editors, arguably well beyond the limits of reasonable courtesy (for recent example, about your trolling on my talkpage]). What will it take in order for you to become a respectful editor rather than remain an outright belligerent one? --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, just look at the article, you are reading the diffs wrong. Please stop throwing red herrings around and try to explain why the reference you claim is deleted, Is actually this very second sitting as reference number 10 in the article. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, so it is. The reference to Jurist is in the article. I agree that removing the World Socialist link was good call on your part. Thanks for the civil response. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I too will apologise for past behaviour. Let us stop fanning flames and reset again from square one. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice :) We have consensus :) --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)