Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:34, 4 February 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about David Hicks/Archive 3. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about David Hicks/Archive 3 at the Reference desk.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Tony Kevin (18 August 2005). "The facts regarding David Hicks". Crikey.com.au. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Colin Pearce (24 February 2007). "Timid relative accepts shabby treatment from Uncle Sam". Townsville Bulletin. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This non-existent page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This page is supported by the military biography work group. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. Australia: Crime / Military history David Hicks/Archive 3 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia This page is supported by WikiProject Australian crime. This page is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force. More information: /  This page has been marked as needing immediate attention. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This page is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related This page is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Archives

Archive 1Archive 2

Article still a defamation risk

While some parts of the article have improved in recent days, I feel that other parts are still a defamation risk. I think this is an article where writers should take extreme care, and probably attribute the facts to where they came from. Eg, "The US government claimed..." or "David Hicks' lawyers claimed..."

Many of the references used have been very weak. For example, the use of a quote from his father to verify some other fact about Hicks. Does his father really know? Ask yourselves, did the news organisation actually say the fact about Hicks, or did the news report use quotes from other people saying it?

We really need to be very careful what we say. I notice a new statement in the article that says Hicks undertook al Qaeda-sponsored military training. The word "sponsored" makes it sound like there was money or financial funding involved, but I can't find any suggestion from the reference used.

Controversial facts probably should have more than one recent reference to back them up.--Lester2 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've refined the wording in the lead about "al Qaeda-sponsored" to "undertook military training in al Qaeda-linked camps", on the basis that the sources do support that wording (from the US allegations to David Hicks' comments about meeting Osama bin Laden at the camps). --Brendan 13:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Case That Never Dies

Here is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about some of the details of the legal process which are beginning to surface: Richard Ackland, If it looks and smells like a corrupted legal process …, Sydney Morning Herald, 2007-10-26. I'm not suggesting that it is time to add this material to the article, as I think the official postmortem is only just beginning, one reference is not sufficient and the article is written during an election campaign. I'm putting this on the talk page so others can start building a body of evidence over the coming months, as more emerges. John Dalton 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard Ackland is not the first one to write that the Hicks case was a miscarriage of justice fraught with political interference. There is already a considerable body of opinion along these lines. That's why it's always good to state both sides of the issue, including what the US and Australian governments claimed (attributed to them) as well as what the opponents claim (attributed to them). --Lester 22:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are lots of opinions floating around, which is why I am suggesting that editors should wait for the opinions to dissipate, and facts to come to the fore, before going too mad with including things in the article. I don't think it is sufficient to add two conflicting opinions to an article and call it balanced. Better to remove the layer of opinion and lay the facts bare. Here I am guessing that the facts will take some time to appear in the face of obstruction from those who would rather they not be known. John Dalton 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call, John. The facts need to be reliably established, re: political interference, and that may not quite have happened yet as far as exactly who did/said what. The source piece reporting political interference in the Hicks case, on which most other recent reportage appears to be based, was an October 2007 article At Gitmo, No Room for Justice in Harper's Magazine by Scott Horton, who wrote also an article The Plea Bargain of David Hicks in April 2007 when the plea bargain was made public. Both articles link Judge Susan Crawford to Cheney (verifiable fact) and assert that John Howard sought Cheney's assistance in expediting the Hicks case (not verifiable so far as I can tell). This most recent article quotes an unnamed US Military officer as confirming political interference, which Chief Prosecutor Moe Davis also cited as reasons for his own recent resignation. --Brendan 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Prester John deleted the abovementioned information from the article lead in November 2007 citing style grounds. I have reinstated a minimal version of it in the lead and shifted the bulk of the original referenced content into the article body, positioned appropriately with the resignation of Moe Davis under an appropriately renamed subsection title "Allegations of political manipulation". --Brendan 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of View

This is an interesting issue to deal with, as far as POV goes. I've made a few changes that point out mass media reproduced articles that cite his legal team stating that he accepted a plea bargain to get out of 'this hell' of Guantanamo bay which have been reverted, even though they haven't been POV in any way. However, I've come to a bit of a moral dilemma as to how to proceed with what POV is with this issue.

I do not believe that any educated person can, prima facie, induce any evidence that Hicks is guilty of any crime. Not one member of the judiciary anywhere, apart from his prosecutors, have ever even joked that a conviction could be attained given the circumstances, and the invention of the crime post facto would have been a major point of contention and further the ability of the court to even have jurisdiction was farcically driven and would come undone under minor scrutiny.

There is significant reasonable doubt on all facts involved, so we can deduce from this that of the crimes he is innocent. Whether he is innocent or not is irrelivant, but as far as the law goes he would have been found innocent had he not pled guilty.

I've had much experience with prosecutors in the past and plea bargaining is a way of life. Prosecutors, as well as all law enforcement, work on conviction basis. To attain a budget, one must show X amount of convictions to prove the 'system is working', which is unfortunate because it's not about justice but about production line convictions. Plea bargains are a way of life, and getting someone who has been wrongfully imprisoned for a crime that didn't exist until you invented it well afterwards to explain away their imprisonment without trial or charge, only to then get them to plead to 'time served' in an attempt to justify what has gone on is a massive success for the prosecution. It brings legitimacy to their actions for many of the uneducated public, whilst simultaniously preventing potential reparations and damages suits.

However, this article reads as though matter-of-factly David Hicks is a terrorist and was convicted fairly of such a crime, which is not supported by the evidence presented in any way, shape or form.

So we have the fact that he could not be convicted by any reasonable court and the fact under duress, as stated by him and his defence, he accepted a plea to get back to Australia and out of a cage to deal with. That being said, I do not believe that this article currently reflects the truth of the matter but represents what the prosecution were intending the world to percieve which is not in any way substantiated by evidence or fact.

I don't wish to flag this article NPOV or start such drama, as I'm sure we have people very passionate from both sides of the fence here who believe that presenting him in X or Y fashion is important to their political existance, however to us people who don't really give a toss about agenda and just kind of have more interest in the facts and neutrality it poses quite a paradox.

Any suggestions on how to proceed with this? Jachin (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

My thoughts on this are mixed. He was captured unarmed so no evidence there and also all they had were some blurred pictures of him. He either pleaded guilty or they falsely accused him. Those pictures were extremely blurred so I dont know. I would like to hear your opinions.Smallkid620 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Info box

A 'criminal' infobox has been placed in this article and removed as "POV" by another editor. Does a criminal info box improve this article? Is Hicks' criminality in need of more weight in this article? Convictiion of a criminal offense doesnt automatically mean that a criminal info box is or should be used. Rudolph Hess, Nelson Mandela, Ned Kelly, Jesus Christ and Mahatma Ghandi were all convicted criminals whose articles do not have criminal info boxes - presumably because their articles are better without them. I lean towards no info box as the amount and quality of sources casting doubt on the method of Hicks conviction is substantial and not reflected in the summary provided by an info box.

Others thoughts? SmithBlue (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My thought is a "Criminal Infobox" has no place on Misplaced Pages and should be removed from every article. "Criminal" is a subjective judgement. Misplaced Pages articles should state the facts and let the reader make their own judgement about criminality. John Dalton (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As the removing editor, I agree SmithBlue & John Dalton. No Criminal infobox. It's little more than a POV sticker. Let the article tell the full story. --Brendan 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

SMH Afganistan allegations

The article http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/11/1086749867034.html "The US charges David Hicks" SMH. repeatedly makes clear that these are "allegations". To state these allegations as fact solely from this source does not seem comply with WP:BLP. Please discuss here why you might think WP:BLP does not apply to this material. SmithBlue (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple references that cite Hick's as training at these camps, the SMH is not the be all and end all of wikipedia writing style, common sense at some point has to prevail. Hicks wrote many letters to family members detailing his training in these camps, multiple witnesses place Hicks at the camps, Hick's father claims he was at the camps. The only absence here is the claim from anyone that Hicks did not attend these camps. SmithBlue indicated that we needed a reference that placed him in the camps, I provided it with reference number 6 (among many) that states

DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda and saw Osama bin Laden about eight times.

He reverted back under his policy of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prester John 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Poorly evidenced "theory of mind" there. I reverted back because the source does not support the "facts" you use it to support (ie - "learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods.") It is very important that your edits are based on what is actually in the source. SmithBlue (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(Clarifying that discusion above is about ABC Four Corners http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1494795.htm "The Case of David Hicks) SmithBlue (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I included the ABC source as it better reflects reality. Let's call a spade a spade. I challenge you to find ONE single person who denies that Hick's trained at these camps. And go. Prester John 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The challenge here is to provide accurate sources for material we present in Misplaced Pages. I would be surprised if you can't find a reputable source. And you can legitimately include what you find with a reputable source.SmithBlue (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So in essence you deny that the ABC is a reliable source. Here it is again

DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda and saw Osama bin Laden about eight times.

Prester John 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This discusion is about accurately reflecting the content of sources. I have replied further on your talk page. SmithBlue (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, SmithBlue. Prester, handwaving won't change the fact that your ABC quote above says nothing of "learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods." These were allegations by U.S. military prosecutors. The sources that mention those activities all attribute them thusly. Please refrain from rewriting history. --Brendan 12:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

PresterJohn has again edited to misrepresent the SMH source US charges David Hicks. ANI report. SmithBlue (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There are other sources listed, and easily findable through a search. Just because the SMH uses the word "allegedly" etc. doesn't mean that we (meaning you) must shadow their exact wording. We need to be as honest as possible on this sensitive subject. What primary sources do we have on the nature of his activities with Al Qaeda? I've got one source stating that Hicks undertook weapons training, but that source is Peter Costello being intervied by Alan Jones. Let's try to get as close as wecan to what is true, rather than what is reported or alleged. --Pete (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that a court in Adelaide has reviewed evidence and found that "He received training in weapons, commando tactics, explosives, guerrilla warfare strategies, advanced marksmanship, topography, ambush attacks, reconnaissance, surveillance, sniper training and house entries." This was using material supplied by the Commonwealth and used as a basis for seeking a control order, which was granted. The word "alleged" is not found in this report. --Pete (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited not misrepresent the SMH source but to reflect the ABC source for the third time here:

DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda

. To try and cast doubt that Hicks trained with Al-Qaeda is a violation of WP:WEIGHT, as there is not a single person anywhere who disputes that he did in fact train with al-Qadea. Hicks admits he trains with al-Qaeda in his numerous letters home. His father admits he trained with al-Qadea. No one anywhere even casts doubt on the fact. Prester John When you asked for a reference asking me to support my position I responded with this edit. You disregarded this and continued to hold onto your solitary SMH source. Prester John 03:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, the issue here is accurately representing the content of the source cited. You have continued to misrepresent the source. And seem continue to think that a general arguement about AlQ training has some bearing on you continuing misrepresenting this source. I am surprised and disturbed that Pete appears to be supporting your apparent view that accurately representing sources is unnecessary. I also point out that you knew that these edits were disputed and yet continued to edit for its inclusion without entering into discusion. And that you did offer another source for your edits but misrepresented the content of it too. SmithBlue (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Logic seems to be in suspended animation here, I faithfully represented the vast majority of sources that discuss the subject per WP:WEIGHT, and even included an ABC source which you deleted. Your clinging on to a single word in this solitary SMH source defies reality and as it seems reason. You must know that given the date of publication of the SMH piece using the qualifier "allegation" is standard journalistic practice. In the meantime numerous publications have come out describing Hicks's training with al-Qaeda, inluding admissions from Hicks himself and his father. You have yet to produce a single person in the entire media or otherwise who casts any sort of doubt on the fact that Hicks trained with al-Qaeda, and to continue to try and insert language into this encyclopedia that would cast doubt on this fact is a violation of WP:DISRUPT. I might add the I.P. that a made the similar edit was not I, and seems to indicate that consensus leans towards my side. Prester John 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

SmithBlue's tenacious reliance on a single word in one source, when that word cannot be found in other sources of equal weight, is pushing things a bit too far, especially when that precious word is used as a basis of an ANI report. PresterJohn has noted that other sources are available, as have I. SmithBlue, can we get a response from you on this point, please? --Pete (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If my experienced, fellow editors Pete and PrestorJohn cannot see the importance of accurately representing a source listing serious allegations in a BLP I feel at loss. How to communicate to them that accuracy is primary? How can Pete's and PrestorJohn's fellow editors have any confidence in their edits if continually misrepresenting a source is seen by them to be adequatley defended agianst by saying that the material is contained in other sources? SmithBlue (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You act like this SMH article is only reference that describes Hicks training with al-Qaeda. It is not, there is 114 references cited for this article and 99% do not cast any doubt over the fact that Hicks trained with al-Qaeda. We are not misrepresenting the SMH, we are representing the 114 other sources, and applying our judgement with regards to weight. Why do insist that this single SMH article is the be all and end all of finding a source for Hicks's training? Why do you not acknowledge the other sources we have provided that conclude most definitively that Hicks trained with al-Qaeda? Do you understand what we mean when we talk about WP:WEIGHT? Have you read this policy? Prester John 05:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ummm.... I have not disputed that many reliable sources show Hicks training with AlQ.

The convention, that the source cited includes the content represented, is not a optional whim. I am amazed that you apparently do not understand this. WP:VER depends on editors accurately reflecting content of the sources cited. SmithBlue (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No I understand it as this edit proves. I changed the source to greater reflect the undisputed reality, and I might add per your previous request in the edit summary. It is not my fault you decided to disrupt the project with some serious ownership issues on a particular word of your precious SMH article, which you reinserted and then had the gall to accuse me of misrepresenting it. It should seem obvious to anyone following this that User:SmithBlue has tried desperately to inject an element of doubt into the article, where none exists, and to push a severely minority view, (i.e. his alone), that Hicks did not train with al-Qaeda. His ANI report, complete with accusations of sockpuppetry, and of illegal editing are nothing more than cheap strawman/ad-hominem attacks, that do not even deserve a response. Prester John 06:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You say you understand it but then show a diff in which you again misrepresented the content of a source. I suggest you seek advice from an editor who you trust. My communication to you here seems to have been ineffective. SmithBlue (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

SmithBlue's problem is not with the sources, per se. It is with the source cited. But, as PJ notes, SB has deleted other sources. He keeps the source that says "allegedly" and then insist that we follow this one source, ignoring all others. Is this a roundabout way of saying that if we load the article up with good sources stating that DH trained in various skills with al-Qaeda, he'll remove all those sources, and keep the one that he can whine about? --Pete (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy and relevance Pete? - please show diffs, relevant to this matter, in which I delete sources. Also please show diffs in which I "keep" SMH source and then "insist that we follow this one source, ignoring all others". This diff shows something different happening. SmithBlue (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you address the point I raise, please? You seem to have constructed a controversy where none should exist, based on the fact that one source uses the word "allegedly" where others of equal value do not. You use this as an excuse to edit war:

• 12:20, 3 February 2008 insert "allegedly"
• 18:48, 1 February 2008 insert "allegedly"
• 13:08, 13 January 2008 insert "allegedly"
• 12:16, 13 January 2008 insert "allegedly"

There may be others before this, but I think we can see a pattern here. --Pete (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Like Pete points out see this edit as evidence of User:SmithBlue's continual disruptive behaviour. Note the removal of a reference, that he himself asks for, and that reflects the overwhelmingly weighted opinion and observe the reinsertion of the "precious" SMH reference. Note the outright false edit summary of "the reference you supply does not contain the "facts" you claim.", and then draw your attention yet again (fourth time now....) to the passage of the reference;

DEBBIE WHITMONT: From the start, David Hicks has co-operated with all his interrogators. He's openly admitted he trained with al-Qaeda and saw Osama bin Laden about eight times.

And that's just this particular ABC reference, remember, just hit any reference in this article at random and see if anyone is in doubt about Hicks and his training admission. Prester John 08:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel comfortable relying on the intelligence of an administrator to address all the relevant issues raised in this discussion. Apologies to non-involved editors for taking up so much space. I'm new at challenging editing in this manner and initially thought discusion could be fruitful. SmithBlue (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for intervention by an admin, who are presumably as intelligent as anybody else here. This looks like a content dispute and I feel comfortable removing any "allegedly" words you might put in about Hicks training with al-Qaeda. We have enough references for him training to gain various combat skills. Your behaviour has been disruptive, engaging in needless edit-warring. When asked to explain yourself, you fall back on nitpicking and evasion. Please try to work as part of an editing team. We have editors of all political views here but with a bit of honest discussion we can usually work something out if there is a genuine problem with the article. --Pete (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Terry Hicks reads poetry in video

I watched the video to see this, and I can't find it anywhere in the video. Any thoughts?--Lopakhin (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The plots of the Jews

"He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide Muslims ..." - can someone who has watched the video re-word this so that we're describing, rather than promoting, Hicks' POV? Andjam (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've watched the video again and it's not there, so I've commented it out. If someone's got the right citation, please provide it.--Lopakhin (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

detention: "without valid charge by the US gov under suspicion of involvement" or "by the US gov for involvement"

Pls discuss here what is better included in the article lead about circumstances of detention. SmithBlue (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless we can show a competent court dismissing the charges, then we cannot say that they were invalid. Legal opinion, untested in court, is not fact, and we should not mislead our readers. --Pete (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that quoting legal opinion is valid. Yes, the United States convicted him for terrorism. However, I think it is reasonable to quote the myriad of legal heavyweights that say the Military Commission system is flawed, unjust and invalid. It's such a controversial case that both sides must be given space in the article, especially in the intro. Sentence #3 should briefly outline the gist of that criticism, relating to the considerable legal opinion that the charges and conviction were unjust.Lester 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion must be clearly labelled as such. It's just like a legal opinion that someone is innocent - it carries no legal weight, and the fact of innocence or guilt lies on judge and jury. Or the defendant, if he pleads guilty to the charges. You do understand this, don't you? --Pete (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Great to see that this issue is so easily resolved. 2006 "the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." cite SmithBlue (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC) That makes no sense. If the charges were invalid then they would not have proceeded to the stage where Hicks entered a guilty plea. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As it explains in the article, after the first charges were found unlawful (see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) a new law was passed and new charges were brought in Feb 2007 under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Hicks pleaded guilty and was convicted under this new law. So from his time of imprisonment in 17 December 2001 till February 3, 2007 makes 5 years without valid charge. I suggest that continuing to edit the article is disruptive if you have not yet read the it. The lead especially summarises the content of the article. Please read then article discuss your concerns here and then edit if you see fit from a place of knowledge. SmithBlue (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I see from your latest edit summ that you consider something to be "opinion". Please detail here exactly what that is. The Hamdan source you removed shows that no valid charges were made against Hicks before July 2006 because the set-up was unlawful. Hicks as the article shows was not charged again until Feb 2007. Where is the opinion in this? SmithBlue (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The line which was added by user:SmithBlue (and quickly deleted) about Hicks being held for years without a valid charge was useful information. Maybe the sentence structure could have been reworded, but the information was factual, referenced and important, and should be included somewhere in the intro. Lester 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with that. But giving our readers the impression that he was just an innocent swept up by the military and tortured into confessing is giving an incorrect impression, and SmithBlue's wording leans towards that. A reader might think that he was held for five years without any charge at all. It's important to note that the original system was thrown out by the court, but how to summarise this in the lead? --Pete (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How about "after five years detention without valid charge by the United States government as an illegal enemy combatant," —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithBlue (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I don't think you quite see the problem. Having a confusing lead isn't a good thing. I'll restore it to the last consensual version and we can discuss the wording here and find a good way of saying it. I think that the length of detention and the fact that the process was thrown out by the court are both very important here, but misleading or confusing our readers is not what we should be doing. --Pete (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please spell out exactly what you see as confusing. As in: show me the possible mistaken readings you see in the text. Without this info you leave all other editors in the dark waiting on you - which aint gonna work. SmithBlue (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I dont see how a reader could get "the impression that he was just an innocent swept up by the military and tortured into confessing" or "might think that he was held for five years without any charge at all" from the current wording of the lead. "Under the alias Muhammed Dawood (the latter being the Arabic form of "David"), Hicks undertook military training in al Qaeda-linked camps and served with the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001.", is part of the lead and is unmistakable in terms of "innocent". The newly added "The intial charges of 2004 were dropped when the military commissions were rulled unlawful by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006.", addresses the timing of the initial charge.

Strawman. I said that your changes "lean toward" a certain view. I didn't say that you went all the way there, now did I? --Pete (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources we have show that the length of Hicks' detention without trail were as great an issue as his conviction. If you can find a better way to include it I am happy to work with you. SmithBlue (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) I've restored the lead to the last version where we had consensus. Please do not edit war over this - gain consensus before changing it back to a contentious wording. I make the point that this is not new information you are trying to insert, and the current wording is the result of much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history. If you are in the dark, may I earnestly suggest that you review the past months of discussion, and you will be illuminated with the various points made by your fellow editors. It is a waste of everyone's time to have someone new come in, ignore a careful consensus, and have to go through the same arguments over and over again. --Pete (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The points you make re: "much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history." is best applied to the version you and PresterJohn seek to remove. Suggest we go RfC on this. Unless you have a better wording? SmithBlue (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Further you claim this material on "without valid charge" is not new and imply it has been discussed before. And yet your original objection to it was that it was opinion and you asked rhetorically if the US Supreme Court had ruled against the validity. Now you are claiming all this was previously weighted. You keep changing your story. SmithBlue (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Please go back and review the points made over many months of often heated discussion before diving back in with a match. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just been through the archives. I can find nothing that bears directly on this matter. Please show your fellow editors the diffs to support your statement above; "I make the point that this is not new information you are trying to insert, and the current wording is the result of much discussion, compromise and consensus, with due recognition of Hicks' history." By producing these diffs now we can save other editors time. SmithBlue (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, SmithBlue. I too would like to see Skyring/Pete justify his assertions about consensus and past discussions also. Those claims are, to my recollection and knowledge, incorrect. Some weeks ago, I styled the wording "without valid charge" because Skyring objected to "without charge". I considered the former an accurate description because the Supreme Court decision did render the original charges invalid (in fact, unconstitutional), as SmithBlue here observes. That is not opinion. It is fact. Whereas, regardless of personal opinions editors may have of Hicks, that pertinent fact about the consierable length of time he was detained without valid/constitutional charge warrants inclusion in the lead. As I recall, various tweaks of that version long held consensus prior to Skyring & PresterJohn's relatively recent tag team to remove it. --Brendan 14:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

lead: explicitly state the charge on which he was convicted?

I think it would improve the lead if it explicitly stated the charge that he was convicted of. Other ideas? SmithBlue (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Also "suspicion of terrorism" does not describe the US govs mind/stated purpose/beliefs. (As in the US government did not? hold him on "suspision of terrorism") Memory says that he was being held as an "illegal enemy combatant". What would be better from the sources available? SmithBlue (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually think "suspicion" is appropriate. In legal terms, was he not a suspect of a terrorism-related offence until such time as he was charged (or even right up until a conviction and sentence were handed down)? Also, the article already mentions elsewhere in the lead that Hicks was "designated an illegal enemy combatant". --Brendan 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on lead

Can I ask everyone to cool it with the edit warring, please? We seem to be flipping between two versions of the lead - one which has remained stable for a while, and a fresh one which includes the "without valid charge" wording. My feeling is that we need, in the lead, to make some mention of the long time Hicks spent in GB, because that's what brought him to such prominence, and we should also note that the military process was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court (which naturally added to the delay). However, I feel that the fresh version leans too far towards the "innocent victim of U.S. torture" view.

It is true that he was detained for five years, and that the original charges were found to be part of a flawed process, but that isn't telling the whole story, and it can give a false impression to our readers, namely that he was detained for five years without any charges.

I'm keen to find some wording which will satisfy all parties as to accuracy and fairness. --Pete (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that DEM would rather edit war without discussion (whilst asking others to talk it over!), so I'd like to invite my fellow editors to participate in finding an acceptable wording.

1. (Existing) ...after five years detention by the United States government for involvement with terrorism, entered into a plea bargain...
2. (SmithBlue's version) ...after five years detention without valid charge by the United States government as an illegal enemy combatant, entered into a plea bargain...

Sources and wikilinks aside (and thanks for that, SmithBlue), the only difference is the inclusion of the phrase "without valid charge" and the deletion of "for involvement with terrorism". I think that the five years needs to be explained, but realistically, he was detained for involvement with terrorism, not because the U.S. decided to just hold him without valid reason or charge.

Comments? Proposals? --Pete (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See 2 sections above for request for diffs showing the consensus you claim exists for this material. Further you are repeatedly inserting "for involvement with terrorism". Please show a official US source that says this was why the US was holding Hicks. (They were doing the holding so its their reason/languaging that counts).

If you can present accurate and well reasoned arguements on this topic your fellow editors will take notice. But to date you edit with much ignorance of basic facts "Only if the charges are or were dismissed by a competent court can we call them invalid. You've got the US Supreme Court saying the charges were not valid? No? Well, don't presume to force your opinion on our readers,...." (Pete/Skyring), claim "Strawman" when I address the exact 2 scenarios you raised. Without you showing the diffs requested above I will take your claims of consensus to be an instance of WP:Disruptive editing. SmithBlue (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that we can reasonably accept that the charges laid, both the first set that did not proceed and the second, to which he admitted guilt, are as valid a source as any. Both specified involvement with terrorism. I wouldn't have thought this overly contentious. The charges don't have to be successful for them to be a reason for holding Hicks - an example of such a situation would be a person arrested on charges of murder, held until trial, and then found to be innocent. Innocent or guilty, the reason for holding the accused remains the same. Are you saying that Hicks wasn't held for involvement with terrorism? He was detained for five years for some other reason, maybe? --Pete (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also note that you have returned to edit warring. The version to which you object has the advantage of concensus, even if it is concensus by default because no editors objected enough to change it. I'm happy to find a different wording that we can all live with, and I ask what is so urgent that you must change it immediately? Your preferred version is misleading, as I've noted above, but I think we can find another form of words that addresses your concerns, and I'd like to explore possibilities through discussion and compromise rather than conflict. --Pete (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pete, am hoping that you come up with the diffs shortly. Working together is based on editors providing accurate information to each other. I hope you see the necessity of this. Your suggestions above on what we can reasonably accept are very far out of line with WP:POLICY, including ], WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Still you may be able to appeal to WP:Ignore all rules and WP:What "Ignore all rules" means. Good luck. SmithBlue (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Either you don't understand the points made or you are just being difficult. What, precisely, is your objection to "involvement with terrorism"? You want to ditch these words, please explain why. --Pete (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There seem 2 main aspects to this case 1. Hicks was in Afganistan got captured and convicted of "material support of terrorism", the other aspect 2. the way the US has acted in this case in terms of international law and US law. "Illegal enemy combatant" was the official US category in which Hicks was placed thereby making detention lawful in the eyes of the US government. "for involvement with terrorism" accepts the US definition of terrorism/terrorist and is therefore POV. (one persons terrrorist is someones elses bad egg is someone elses defender of whatever) Unless we source/cite "for involvement with terrorism" as the POV of the US government. SmithBlue (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So "by the US government for involvement with terrorism" is open to a misinterpretation that WP agrees that Hicks was involved in terrrorism. The hoped for outcome is that WP is saying that the US thought he was involved in terrorism and so detained him. SmithBlue (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's drawing a very long bow indeed to say that Hicks wasn't involved with terrorism. Your argument seems very precious to me. --Pete (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The US government and others obviously thought Hicks was "involved in terrorism", the issue here is whether WP is better speaking for the US government etc or just reporting the facts. Using "illegal enemy combatant" is more accurate and avoids the possible misunderstanding of "for involvement in terrorism." SmithBlue (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about a guy who trained with AlQ, and met ObL face to face several times, offering to perform terrorism-related tasks. There's your involvement with terrorism right there. We don't need the U.S. perspective to justify our stance, and I suggest that any viewpoint that considers ObL not to be a terrorist is a minor one and we need not give it too much space. --Pete (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph, in this thread expresses a concern that the article:

"...give a false impression to our readers, namely that he was detained for five years without any charges."

For the record Hicks was held, for years, without any charges. He was captured in 2001, and he wasn't charged until 2004. That is years, by any counting.

I've added the allegations in the Summary of Evidence prepared for his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, in September 2004. Geo Swan (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, though there may be a certain amount of editorialising in it. Nobody is disputing that Hicks was held for a long time without any charge, though I point out that Prisoners of War typically are not charged with anything at all and, lacking any exchange mechanism, are held for the duration of hostilities. And yes, the initial charges were later found to be part of a flawed process. But to say that he was held for five years without valid charge is to mislead our readers, who might infer from the opening words of the article that he was not charged at all. The third paragraph of the lead gives a more complete picture, and of course, the body of the article goes into considerable detail. --Pete (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a captor that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention is entitled to keep POWs until hostilities end. There is (1) no obligation to lay charges against them; (2) laying charges against POWs, for actions taken in combat, is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Please don't forget that it is official US policy that none of the captives apprehended in Afghanistan is entitled to POW status. Geo Swan (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a normal POW, but not a normal criminal neither. So what? New conflicts make new rules. WW2 wasn't WW1, Korea wasn't WW2, Vietnam wasn't Korea, Gulf War 1 wasn't Vietnam and GW2 wasn't GW1. The fact that Hicks was held for so long was a result of different modes and means of combat, and as we saw, the U.S. was also exploring new legal territory. --Pete (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What has that opinion to do with the matter of writing a factually-verifiable article? Now that we have come full circle, and can see that your commentary about PoWs does not apply to the Hicks case, will you finally acknowledge the plain and simple relevant fact that "Hicks was held, for years, without any charges. He was captured in 2001, and he wasn't charged until 2004"? --Brendan 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be pretty much what I wrote. I didn't think anyone would have a problem with that, but if you like we can tweak the wording. What I have a problem with is attempts to move the relatively long third paragraph into the first. How many times do we need to say the same thing in what is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyring (talk • contribs) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the lead, the third paragraph goes into some detail on the first set of charges and the process. Perhaps we can insert the references supplied by SmithBlue in here and leave the first paragraph as it stands? --Pete (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For a start, editors have claimed in the edit summaries (during an edit) that they have consensus. No consensus can be claimed as a result of edit warring. As I write this, the intro is still very one-sided. It gives the US government position. It doesn't provide any details of the criticism from legal authorities around the world which said the process is unfair, the intro doesn't yet state that he was held without charge, and it doesn't mention the public protest movement. Neither side of the debate can't just take over the article for themselves. Both sides must be included, and summed up on the intro. Yes, leave the US government position in place, but also include the opposing viewpoint. That opposing viewpoint is currently not in the intro. Lester 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The intro is muddy and seems to be running away from describing key points about the case; particularly is not clear that the subject was held without charge for several years. There are other deficiencies as noted by Lester. Wm (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, at the end of the first paragraph, the word "criticisms" should be "criticism" (singular) for grammatical reasons. I don't want to edit the article myself while it is in the midst of a war.Lester 09:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pete, this article is about DH not ObL. DH was not classified by US as POW. His captors classified him as "illegal enemy combatant". The US definition of "illegal enemy combatant", terrorist and terrorism is NOT widely accepted. Hicks was found guilty of providing material support for terrorism. Yes? What actions of Hicks were found to be "material support for terrorism"? This should be in the article and the lead. When Hicks trained with AlQ was it know to be a terrorist organisation? When did the US name it as a terrorist organisation? SmithBlue (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think you and Lester are soapboxing, not writing an encyclopaedia. Do you have anything that is actually useful and productive? --Pete (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the only Guantanamo who has been determined to be an "illegal enemy combatant" is Salim Ahmed Hamdan. 772 captives were determined to be "enemy combatants". That is why Peter Brownback and Keith Allred threw out the cases against Hamdan and Omar Khadr last June. Brownback and Allred threw out the cases because Hamdan and Khadr and the other captivese were merely "enemy combatants" and the Military Commissions Act only authorized them to try captives who had been determined to be "illegal enemy combatants"

The DoD rushed to cobble together an appeal procedure. And appealed their rulings. The Appeal Court, surprise, ruled Brownback and Allred had the authority to make the determination themselves as to whether the captives were illegal combatants. Allred determined that Hamdan was an illegal enemy combatant. I repeat none of the other captives have been determined to have been enemy combatants.

Please, everybody, this is a very important distinction. Please don't conflate these two terms. Geo Swan (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hicks' notability

Hicks is notable primarily because of the controversy of his detention and the unorthodoxy of the subsequent legal process. He is not actually noted for any particular act of terrorism.

Some of the main controversies of his detention include:

• He was held for a significant period without any charges at all
• It is alleged that he was tortured in detention
• He was charged under a legal system that was ruled unlawful

For this article to be at all reasonable in reflecting all significant points of view the lead paragraph must give adequate weight to the very widely held and supported view that Hicks detention was first and foremost controversial. Recent edits by User:Skyring tend to de-emphasise the controvesy of Hicks detention and give weight to the view that his detention was justified which is by no means a universally held view.

Wm (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have had similar concerns which I have expressed in earlier discussions. I think there are 2 points of view with David Hicks: 1. The government line that Hicks provided "material support for terrorism", quoting from the charge. 2. The other point of view is that such charges were derived from a flawed legal system. It concerns me if any editor who adheres to one point of view tries to minimise or delete information from the other position. Both can live in this article. Both should live in the intro. We can run the government line verbatim, but the intro must also include the dissenting opinion, and state why there was dissent. Our aim should be to present both the government and the dissenting views. Our aim should not be to make David Hicks look as bad as possible.Lester 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nor should our aim be to make him look as good as possible. We should present the facts, and give due weight to opposing minority or extreme opinions, like not much at all, really. Realistically, Hicks himself isn't the story in our article as it stands, and perhaps we should split it into two, one showing biographical details, and the other exploring the controversy of his capture, detention and trial (a more interesting and disturbing article, given the ramifications on justice, freedom, terrorism and the GWBush Government.)

As for specific criticism above, the lead para has only two sentences, one of which is devoted to the controversy of his detention. That seems like "adequate weight" to me. Feel free to suggest refinements to the wording. I'd like to see a version that everyone is happy with, but through discussion rather than edit-warring. --Pete (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to note that there may been "critcism", but this is much less meaningful than actually specifying in simple English the main points of those critcisms. An adequate wording would explicitly mention at least the points that I have noted above.Wm (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This assessment made by WM is not correct. Hicks is notable primarily because he is white and he is a Westerner. There are still many terrorists still in detention today who were captured at the exact same time as Hicks, and are yet still in Gitmo where Hicks used to be. Nobody cares about them, There are no petitions for them, No one demands their release, No one is concerned about their "justice", No one even knows the name of a single one them, (Geo Swan excepted of course), yet they have the exact same circumstances and have been held even longer without trial. To clarify another falsehood stated above by WM the charges that were initially placed upon Hicks in 2004 were ruled unlawful by the U.S. Supreme court, this decision was however overturned by the appeals court. In the meantime, the Bush administration cottoned on to the fact that war had moved into the courts. They had already changed tact by this time and codified laws (Military Commissions Act of 2006) which ultimately nailed Hicks. He was lucky to squirm out when the judge preformed a back room deal with Hicks' defense without telling the prosecutor.

To bleat excessively about how "highly controversial" this all was is adding to much weight, because in essence the only thing that is controversial is that Hicks received a trial when many others did not, simply because he is white.Prester John 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Our personal views are not relevant. What is relevant is that that fact of his detention has been viewed as controversial by many parties and thus was a major news story for several years. Therefore this view must be adequately represented. Your other claims that there is no concern about other inmates are clearly false. e.g. http://www.witnesstorture.org/ Wm (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, this article gives far too much weight to the controversy. That really demands a specific article. May I ask that editors refrain from making inflammatory statements, such as the "clearly false" one above, which goes well beyond what was actually said? --Pete (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out the falsehood of a statement should not be regarded as "highly emotive. I have simply demonstrated that certain unqualified rhetorical claims of PresterJohn are easily shown to be untrue. Wm (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From where I stand, you aren't helping much. The only positive thing you've done is point out that "alias" is an inappropriate word to use. Think like an encyclopaedia editor, please, rather than someone rooting for their team. --Pete (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Hicks "material support of terrorism" can be gauged by the absence of information on what acts he was found to have commited constituting "material support of terrorism". Nada-zero. Notability of details of detention/trails is clear from content and volume of sources on such. Pete seems to be promoting an uncommon view of DH. SmithBlue (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I don't think I've commented on that phrase at all, actually. Perhaps you are confused. If you have specific wording on anything controversial, please raise it here for general discussion and agreement. --Pete (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

SmithBlue, you have read the article we are editing haven't you? This part in particular contains a hellava lot of Nada" as you say. Prester John 03:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its just that sometimes there is a diffence between what is on the charge sheet and what the court decides the person has actually done. What did the court decide DH had actually done? Not the offense but what actions constituted the crime. I dont see this in the article. SmithBlue (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole glut of references for the plea bargain entered into by Dawood in this section of the article here Let's start with reference number 98 here and I quote from the reference;

"Hicks...pleaded guilty for attending Al-Qaeda training camps and volunteering to fight in support of the Taliban regime."

"Hicks agreed to withdraw allegations he had been abused at the hands US personnel"

I think it is time to implore people to thoroughly read the David Hicks article before making any more comments, claims of "I don't see this in the article" are ridiculous and a waste of everybody's time! Prester John 04:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Material contained only in references is not usually considered to be "in an article". Your criticisms are misplaced. See above for time being wasted. SmithBlue (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's very sad that some have reverted to edit warring and incivility. This article really needs external assistance to put it back on track.Lester 03:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"enemy combatant", "unlawful enemy combatant" or "illegal enemy combatant"

In his pre-trial agreement DH acknowledges and agrees "that I am an alien unlawful enemy combatant, as defined by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Title 10, United States Code, Section 948 (c).". However Unlawful combatant reads "Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism" which allowed "individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals", where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely. The length of time for which a detention of such individuals can continue before being tried by a military tribunal is not specified in the military order. The military order uses the term "detainees" to describe the individuals detained under the military order. The U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as "Illegal enemy combatants"."

and confusingly

"In the first military commissions to be held since that faced by Hicks, the judges dismissed the charges against Omar Khadr and Salim Ahmed Hamdan because of a technicality. They had been classified as "enemy combatants" instead of "illegal enemy combatants". Under the Military Commissions Act, passed by the US Congress last year, only prisoners deemed as "unlawful enemy combatants" can be tried by the commissions."

Anyone got US gov sources describing Hicks' classification? SmithBlue (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Only three people had been classified by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal at the time Hicks was, David Hicks, Omar Kadir, and Salim Hamdan. All were classified thusly: "The Tribunal’s decision that detainee # is properly classified as an enemy combatant was unanimous....This case is now considered final". This decision was never changed for Hicks. Even this is cloudy because to be an enemy combatant of any type he needs to have legally been a civilian which he was not as he was "a lawful combatant with the consent of the Government of the Day (Taliban)".
While looking for this I found a few notable facts that are not in the artical. 1: During his last trial Hick's chief defense counsel was dismissed by the Judge "because while he agreed to abide by all existent rules, he refused to agree to "all" rules for the tribunal without first knowing what those rules were" (HRW). 2: The FBI certified that redacted evidence not presented "would not support a determination that the detainee is not an enemy combatant". 3: The Australian Constitution prohibits retrospective legislation (1898 Constitution Convention debate Hansard page 1753) so hicks can sue the government for illegal detention for his time in Yatala regardless of his guilty plea in another country. I doubt he will want to rock the boat and complain about any of these points but it just shows how complicated the whole shebang is. Wayne (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening par proposed wording

Could any editor who objects to the proposed wording please indicate the precise reason for the objection below? It is my belief that this wording states all the key essential facts about Hicks' notability. Could those who support the wording please indicate their support. Thanks.

David Matthew Hicks (born 7 August 1975) is an Australian who was detained for five years in highly controversial circumstances by the United States government at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. After initially being held without charge, he was ultimately prosecuted for "providing material support for terrorism" under a specially constituted U.S. Military Commissions Act of 2006 to which he entered a plea bargain and became the first and only Guantanamo Bay detainee to be convicted by the commission or by any other legal process.

Wm (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As a first paragraph in a lead I find it acceptable. If the total lead I find its lack of reference to the controversy over the legality of the charges against DH and the controversy over the circumstances of the plea bargain leave it severely lacking. SmithBlue (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only should the intro mention there was controversy and dissent, it should briefly outline the main points of the opposing argument.Lester 09:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

user:WM's version (above) is an improvement over what was there before. I agree with SmithBlue's comments above. In addition, I think the first paragraph should give an indication of just how long Hicks was detained without a valid charge. Cheers, Lester 09:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted, the material on the charges is contained in the third para of the lead and there is no need to repeat it in the first. Lead sections should be concise, because they function as a summary of the whole article. As this is a biographical article, the lead paragraph should contain key points about the life of the subject, rather than launching a criticism of the U.S. detention process.

While the process richly deserves criticism, that really belongs in an article that is not biographical in nature. This article should only contain facts that are directly relevant to David Hicks. --Pete (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that the detention of David Hicks was highly controversial and this is directly relevant to his notability as a biography. Without this controversy he is a person of little note. The reason Hicks was in the news day after day, year after year, was precisely because of the circumstance and process of his detention. As there are several editors here who want to make this change, will you to continue to block it, offer an alternative wording, or offer some other way that we can resolve this? Wm (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to continue discussion

I approached Skyring on his talk page to continue this negotiation but he has refused. I would like to invite Skyring again to continue this negotiation and propose a way forward so that the several editors here can have their concerns about this article recognized. If desired, we could seek mediation from a third party. Editors will be aware that I have also raised a Request for Comment. Thanks. Wm (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

There is a broad agreement from three editors in this discussion that the proposed wording will be an improvement. One editor has noted an opinion against this majority view, but he has not offered any alternative way forward. As there is no compromise proposal put forward, I will apply the proposed wording to the article.

Please note the Reverting page of the Editor Handbook. It includes the following guidelines :

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute
• Do not revert good faith edits

WP:EW states: Edit warring is an unproductive behavior characterized by repeated, combative reversion of others' edits.

I would request that any user who is not happy with this edit does not revert it, but instead adopts the constructive path of editing the page further or discussing any problems here. Wm (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

David Hicks’ alleged activities in Afghanistan in 2001 were not illegal at that time

"In essence, US authorities have now conceded that David Hicks’ alleged activities in Afghanistan in 2001 were not illegal at that time." concludes the President of the Australian Law Council in an open letter to Australian Senators. The present DH lead accepts the US govs definition of terrorism which includes training with Al Qaeda even when such activities were legal at the time or anyone fighting with the Taliban. This definition of terrrorism is not widely accepted and is POV and should be noted as such in this article. SmithBlue (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Smithblue. Good work finding that reference.Lester 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Heres another Law Council source that has many cases showing precedence regarding Hicks etc. Wayne (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead talks of involvement with terrorism, and if anyone thinks that Hick's close involvement with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden was not involvement with terrorism, then they are kidding themselves, and worse, trying to mislead our readers for reasons which I cannot understand. I quote from the al-Qaeda article: "Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council." --Pete (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't write what we think is terrorism but what is legally so. AFAIK al-Qaeda was not a designated terrorist organisation when Hicks joined and since the Constitution prohibits retrospective legislation....2+2 does not equal 5. I point out that under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 members of the French Resistance in WW2 are now legally defined as terrorists and illegal enemy combatants even though they were on our side but no one is asking to change their page so you need to use common sense instead of emotion. Wayne (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above, please. --Pete (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex post facto law#Australia says that the Australian constitution does not prohibit retrospective legislation, and that Malcolm Fraser's government enacted retrospective legislation. Also, do you have a citation from a reliable source that the French resistance would be considered terrorists (not merely illegal enemy combatants), or is that your own original research? Andjam (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The statements were made by Gerrit Hlavka who is, I believe, an expert on constitutional and legal rights. He is known mostly for writing books on legal arguments that can be used in courts and legal critiques of High Court decisions. He won a case in 2006 after being arrested for campaigning for people not to vote in the previous federal election after he proved in court it was not a legal election so I'm assuming he knows what he is talking about. Wayne (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Gerrit Hlavka another Daniel Brandt? I couldn't find any mention of him in third-party reliable secondary sources (I came across a primary source at the AEC mentioning him along with Ned Kelly). Checking out google news archive drew a blank. A google search came across blog posts, an AEC primary source, and his own web site. His web site also mentions the blackshirts (the Australian version, not the Italian one). If retrospective legislation is prohibited, I'm sure a slightly more reliable source can be found saying that. Andjam (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if applied retrospectively, at the time the activities were not illegal. Retrospective legislation will always be more controversial than legislation that is passed and enacted in the normal manner. As I recall Howard and Downer et al said many times that Hicks could not be prosecuted for any crime in Australia. Howard said: "If he returns to Australia, because that wasn't a criminal offence at the time it happened, he can't be prosecuted.". Wm (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex post facto law#Australia also says courts have a "strong presumption that they do not apply retrospectively". The High Court decision in Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501 ruled that a Bill of attainder was an exception to ex post facto laws and Bill of attainder legislation would be in breach of the Australian Constitution.
High Court ruling:"The distinctive characteristic of a bill of attainder, marking it out from other ex post facto laws, is that it is a legislative enactment adjudging a specific person or specific persons guilty of an offence constituted by past conduct and imposing punishment in respect of that offence. Other ex post facto laws speak generally, leaving it to the courts to try and punish specific individuals....the separation of powers effected by our Constitution would invalidate a bill of attainder on the grounds that it involves a usurpation of judicial power". Wayne (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the lead give sufficient weight to controversy of case?

Template:RFCbio

Does the lead give sufficient weight to controversy of the Hicks detention?

There is a disagreement between some editors regarding the article lead paragraphs. Some editors believe that the current wording of the article lead does not give adequate weight to the controversy and legal details of the Hicks case. It is desired by this group to add some details of the extent and reason for the controversy; considered by some to be a major part of Hicks notability. Others oppose adding any detail about the extent and nature of the controversy, saying it is irrelevant to the biography of Hicks.

Please refer to discussions above Hicks' notability and Opening par proposed wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wm (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a major misrepresentation of the situation. More than half of the lead section, including one of the two sentences of the first paragraph, are given over to "the controversy and legal details" of the case. As anybody may see for themselves. In a biographical article, that is more than enough space given over to material not directly related to the subject, especially when there is a more useful article at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. --Pete (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy of Hicks detention is the only thing that justifies a page for him. Not only the lead but the article should devote a majority of space to it and in much more detail than is currently there. Wayne (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't you seek to rename the article to something more appropriate? Seems to me you want to use the man to carry an ideological message. --Pete (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not sufficient for the intro to just say "there was controversy" or "it was controversial". The intro must briefly outline the points as to why there was dissent and controversy. The intro should put forward the government case, followed by the reasons that others thought the legal process was flawed. At present, the reasons for dissent are not properly covered.Lester 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead, which you apparently have never read, goes into sufficient detail, though perhaps we should make more effort to join the dots for those who know little about the case. --Pete (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the lead give sufficient weight to controversy of the Hicks detention? The fact that the very first sentence makes a clumsy point to tell us how "highly controversial" the circumstances were, then a reader's initial response to that question would be "no". We should show, not tell, the reader. But, moving on from that that plunker of prose in the first sentence, the current rough order and layout is actually OK in my mind. (indeed, if a reader can't make it to the 3rd paragraph, then they probably won't be able to grasp the controversial nature anyway).

The only other question I have is whether there us reason the controversy over the Howard Govt's handling of the case is not in the lead - ie, the accusations of apparent disinterest/abandonment (for want of better words)? Indeed, is there mention in the article body? --Merbabu (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda is a terrorist group. A reliable source says so.

It's not a matter of POV as to whether Al Qaeda is a terrorist group as of 2001. The Washington Post describes AQ as a terrorist group in this article, and this article was presumably written before the legislation referred to above. If I do more research, I would almost certainly find an article predating 2001.

Maybe it was legal for David Hicks to train with AQ, but that doesn't mean that AQ isn't a terrorist organisation. Andjam (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper calling it that doesn't make it so. You can go back as far as you like but legally they were not until 2003 in Australia and not much earlier in the US. There is no argument that it is a terrorist organisation, the dispute is whether it was when Hicks joined. I'd say it was and several newspapers did say it but that is OR because we are writing about legal consequences so we have to use the legal view. Wayne (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a newspaper a reliable source? Andjam (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is POV to use it for a legal determination based on it's own opinion. A newspaper can say what it likes and particularly in America the law protects their right to lie when reporting. Wayne (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

1. retrieved 23 January 2008

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• NA-Class biography pages
• NA-Class biography (military) pages
• NA-importance biography (military) pages
• Military biography work group articles
• Military biography work group articles needing infoboxes
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• NA-Class Australia pages
• NA-importance Australia pages
• NA-Class Australian crime pages
• NA-importance Australian crime pages
• WikiProject Australian crime articles
• NA-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history pages
• NA-importance Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history pages
• Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
• Australia articles needing attention
• WikiProject Australia articles
• NA-Class Crime-related pages
• NA-importance Crime-related pages
• NA-Class Terrorism pages
• NA-importance Terrorism pages
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles