Anyone had a chance to leaf through it, as it was released today? I've ordered it online from Readings. Also bought the Stephen Fry book for DP's birthday, cos he loves Fry (and so do I, so I'll get to read it, too!).
I am looking forward to reading a book that is straight from his perspective. Apparently he doesn't use other references, like the media here, legal notes etc - sounds like it is an introspective account. Which I exactly what I want to know from him. No supporting evidence, no timelines of events etc, I just want what went through his head and where he was at with what he saw and did.
I didn't even know until this morning when I saw it in Target. Mght have to see how long the library waiting list is for it!
I can't help but wonder that he maybe won't be able to give a true account KWIM.... I'm a bit cynical though
MiL still reading it - I'll read it when she's done. I offered it to her so that the book wouldn't be in the house to a)tempt me away from study and b)alert DP to my purchase, which also included his birthday present!
I'm cynical about it and wonder how truthful it would be TBH. All the time he was locked up, his father protested his innocence long and loudly so he either was truly innocent and has a damn good explanation in his book as to why he was where he was when he was arrested OR he truly was part of it all and in which case he can hardly admit it in his book kwim? And I can't see him being allowed to talk about what happened inside because I imagine there would be security issues and stuff like that? The book might shed more light on that though and it would probably still be an interesting read and enough to make up your mind either way.
From what I could glean, it does have a pretty good explanation of why, and he was caught by bounty hunters who offered him up to the 'coalition of the willing' when he found himself on the wrong side of the border. Anyway, this is all why I want to read it. The US wouldn't have let him go if they had something on him. They wouldn't have kept him there that long without charge. He's talking about what happened inside against the will of the US and there is now some hooplah over who gets proceeds. I don't care. It's time we heard his side. The ends does not justify the means and in this case there was no satisfactory end for anyone - a life was degraded and there were no REAL charges, just some charges concocted to get him OUT OF Guantanamo; charges that never were laid while he was there waiting for the US to decide what to do with him.
We need to hear his story. It's relevant because it could have been anyone's relative or child. Not just for terrorism, but for any activity that one country considers illegal and another doesn't.
Anyway, I'll let you know when I do get my hands on it!
ETA: late post, Kaz! I just read the link. I get my back up when I read about people banging on about 'consequences for actions', just as an automatic response. It is a punitive, compassion-free way to look at humans and their actions. We don't do things all the time because of their consequences in the future. Heaven help those of us who just don't act with such forethought! I know I don't always. That article sure does smack of moral high horse. The other thing I question is the unquestioned use of the term 'terrorism'. We all seem to think we know what it is, and give it a label because politicians do. Terrorism itself, as a term, does its own version of 'glossing over' - it glosses over a whole history of an area, the subordination to colonial forces and, more recently, capitalist and Western Values subordination. Sure, I don't agree with a lot of things that happen in a lot of countries, the way women and children are treated, for example. But the war was and is not about the way women and children are treated. Let's be real - it's about access to a significant natural resource; oil.
So, the whole 'terrorism' thing, to me, can't even be covered in one book, let alone Hicks' book about his inhumane treatment whilst in unjust custody. That's just me
Last edited by Smoke Jaguar; November 3rd, 2010 at 11:54 AM.
If it is a truly genuine book it probably would be an interesting read - regardless of what anyone thinks about the 'was he or wasn't he' part but I'm just not interested in reading spin kwim?
From what I understand, there is no 'spin'. If Hicks could spin, he woudn't be telling this particular story at all It's just him, no historical data, no referencing news articles or checking data with official bodies, just his words about what he saw and thought. There's already books that do the timeline and fact checking stuff (Leigh Sales' book for eg).
But I honestly dont know if I will ever get though it, mainly because I have never believed that the government, and media were telling the whole truth. And I also believe that Hicks hasn't told the whole truth either. I suppoes its a case of every story has 3 sides, the government and media side, Hick's side, and the truth.
I will be interested to see what others think of his book though!
I think if Hicks could spin that would mean he had his wits about him and he wouldn't have ended up in the situation he was in. I'll be interested to read this, mostly because I've always thought it was a case of someone tripping off looking for something idealistically without actually arming themselves with information from a number of perspectives. People who are happy to be told stuff and believe it without checking it out critically for themselves tend to land themselves in all sorts of hot water. This is just one very extreme case of that.
Reply With Quote
Registered User
Just ordered David Hicks' book
It's just him, no historical data, no referencing news articles or checking data with official bodies, just his words about what he saw and thought. There's already books that do the timeline and fact checking stuff (Leigh Sales' book for eg).
Bookmarks