Well, while perusing the Australian this morning I came across the following 2 articles.....
On the torture trail
WAS David Hicks tortured or abused during his six years in American custody? The question has been a central mystery in the Hicks case and one readily exploited by supporters and critics of the jailed Australian.In her comprehensive account of the Hicks case in Detainee 002: The Case of David Hicks, ABC journalist Leigh Sales is careful not to jump to a definitive conclusion on this sensitive subject. But the evidence she provides adds weight to the probability that Hicks either invented or greatly exaggerated his claims of physical abuse at the hands of his American interrogators.At the heart of the mystery is the contradiction that Hicks first alleged severe abuse during interrogations aboard the USS Peleliu following his capture in Afghanistan in 2001, yet in his plea deal last month he stated that he had never been illegally treated by Americans while in custody. Hicks's sympathisers are broadly sceptical of this turnaround, saying Hicks would have been pressured to deny any ill-treatment as part of the deal that will see him returned to Australia and released from prison by the end of the year. They don't see why Hicks would have been spared the harsh treatment often dealt out by CIA interrogators to other frontline terror suspects. But others say Hicks's denial is proof that he was never subjected to torture or physical abuse. Link |
It begs the question though, did he speak as freely with the Leaders in the Taliban Camp he was living at?? We all know Hicks isn't bright (BIG understatement) and couldn't have given a great deal of information anyway (remembering of course he was rejected by the ADF and would only have the knowledge of the average Australian). I have to admit, I still have issue with the INTENT behind his support for Al Qaeda though.
Bumbling Hicks 'not dangerous'
DAVID Hicks was a bumbling wanna-be who would have been a "total liability" for al-Qa'ida in any terrorist attack.In a scathing critique, Hicks's US military prosecutors have privately described the convicted Australian as a man of "no personal courage or intellect" who rolled over as soon as he was questioned. And they have undermined the Australian Government's portrayal of Hicks as a dangerous terrorist by admitting that his crimes were relatively minor compared with those of his fellow inmates at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. "I think he read Soldier of Fortune magazine too many times," said John Altenburg, the top US official in the Office of Military Commissions from 2004 to last year, speaking publicly about Hicks for the first time. "His case was a very ordinary case; there was nothing special about it in that clearly he was but a foot soldier, not a leader or a planner ... for people wanting to see the worst of the worst, this was not going to be it." Link |
I guess we can rule out Hicks running back to his Al Qaeda buddies now that the cat is out of the bag and they know he told all he knew about them. The average, THINKING Aussie doesn't want him here so what's next for David Hicks??
He can live off his infamy for a while here but even his supporters are going to grow tired of this pathetic waste of space eventually. I certainly hope there are a few red faces when the truth does come out. The Pro Hicks crowd supported a good for nothing, lying piece of shit. The truth is coming out now.
Hate to say 'I Told You So' but....
A_C
No comments:
Post a Comment