Welcome to 2UE. Skip directly to: Search Box, Section Navigation, Content.

2UE - Fairfax Radio Network

Wednesday May 22, 2013

What we're talking about

Hicks to appeal his US conviction

Posted by: 2UE | 18 October, 2012 - 9:39 AM
David Hicks to appeal his US conviction for supporting terrorism

The Australian government won't be extending any support to David Hicks as he tries to appeal his US conviction for supporting terrorism.

Mr Hicks flagged his intent to appeal after another man, also charged with material support for terrorism, had his conviction quashed.

The US appeals court ruled in that case that the charge was unlawfully applied retrospectively.

Stuart Bocking says we have spent more than enough money on David Hicks.


Stay up to date on breaking news with 2UE on Twitter  

Get a better insurance deal

Legal Matters with Tim Shaw Sunday nights on 2UE 954

Jason Morrison discovered how insurance companies are taking some people for granted, raising costs for ridiculous reasons. He speaks with a former insurance broker about the tricks of the trade being used.

Women do more of the housework?

Are men winning the battle over the housework?

Research shows women do many more housework hours a week than men. Despite calls of equal opportunity and women's rights, has much changed in the home? Jason Morrison with Melissa Hoyer.

Blog comments Your Say

  • Yes yusef todays terrorist broke thier bond of truth and double crossed those who sought to help them against the russians invasion. So it goes to show Yusef that we cannot afford to believe anything your people say they are the ones with the problems.

    mick Sunday 21 October, 2012 - 4:18 PM

  • @Cath, let's get some facts right: there are two Talibans. Firstly, the Afghan Taliban is listed as "terrorist" only by Russia; the Pakistani Taliban is listed "terrorist" by the US and Canada only. Australia does not consider either of them as terrorist even today. The previous and present governments have admitted that Hicks could not be charged under Australian law as he had not broken any law here. Howard did his best to keep Hicks in the US because he was well aware of that fact.

    Secondly, war is the business of "kill or be killed"; those who engage in it must be aware of that. What is the difference between some Australians going there to support one side (the Americans) and some going to support the other side (the Afghans)? The other difference is that he went to support the locals, whereas our soldiers were sent to support the invaders.

    It is a tragedy that so many of our servicemen were killed because of the slavish attitude of our leaders - particularly Howard, and now the current govt that lacks the courage to immediately withdraw our troops from a war that has nothing to do with us except that it pleases the Americans.

    Terrence Saturday 20 October, 2012 - 8:25 AM

  • Cath, I gave my opinion and you gave yours, fair enough. The issue is why they did not charge him for so long? War is no fun Cath and people die thatâ??s why I loathe war and violence. Let us not forget the innumerable civilians that have been killed in all those places where we had gone to make life better for them. There are no winners when innocent people die. The lies of WMDâ??s or the lies of ill treatment of prisoners not proven guilty, the lies about civilian casualties and putting under the carpet of murderous incidents like that of the US soldier who killed sleeping children and women, raises a million questions on the integrity and honesty of many involved in this so called war on terror. I have no sympathy of Hicks but one must be courageous to see things in the light of the facts and not by emotion. If our governments were fair dinkum, we would not have people like Julain Assange around.

    yusuf Friday 19 October, 2012 - 7:02 PM

  • Yusuf, contrary to your opinion, I think that Hicks was totally aware that his `material support` for terrorist Taliban could potentially involve him engaging in conflict with Australian or alliance servicemen. Do you think your argument would wash in any way, with the families of the deceased soldiers killed by Hick`s cohorts? Do you think that any amount of money that they are awarded under our `victims of terrorism` provisions would ever make up for their losses? Who even knows for sure whether or not he was instrumental, or even actually involved, in the deaths of soldiers in our league? The fact that he sided with the enemy in this war spells out his willingness to kill our servicemen, irrespective of whatever his motivation may have been, mercenary or any other reason is irrelevant, just as it is with any ostensible motivation of other Taliban. Would you be so sympathetic toward militants trying to kill members of your family? I don`t think so!

    Cath Friday 19 October, 2012 - 9:23 AM

  • Cool down Peter, they could place any charge him for more than 5 years and in the end out of embarasment they asked him to take a guilty plea or rot in prison.
    By the way go and take some lessons on who created the Taliban and search for the pictures where your blue suited politicians are seen socialising with those who they now label terrorist.
    I am sure Hicks will learn next time to think before acting or writing.

    yusuf Thursday 18 October, 2012 - 10:34 AM

  • Arh "The old truth is not a defence" ploy being used again! He was caught in Afghanistan with the Taliban --- and he believes he is innocent? Give me a break, he should have been put up against a wall years ago.

    Peter Thursday 18 October, 2012 - 10:16 AM

Post a comment * Mandatory fields