What an interesting world. The left seems determined to portray Hicks as some sort of hero, when in fact he is an unlawful combatant, taken in open conflict on the battlefield. The Geneva Convention clearly disqualifies persons in his category from any protection under the convention, as it only applies to regular military forces of a recognised state wearing the standard uniform of thet state. Even so, I am puzzled as to why the US is taking so long to deal with him. I consider the best description of these unlawful combatants, which include suicide bombers (another group disqualified under the Convention) was given by Kim Beazley, who described them as "sub-human filth". What should have happened to Hicks is that after being subjected to enhanced questioning (the current code word for torture) he should have been put up against a wall and shot.

The problem with efforts to establish various state and federal bills of rights in Australia has been that the agenda is rapidly seized by various “trendy”, progressive and elitist groups.

Ancient, essential rights are carefully dropped and various meaningless new-age rights substituted.

Meaningless because all a bill of rights can really do is constrain the inevitable abuse of power that eventually arises in any government. Yes, it is probably helpful to include some motherhood statements, but the important thing is the degree to which it (and the process of government, law and society it is embedded in) is able to constrain government abuse of power.

Ordinary Australians might not understand exactly what is happening but they are not stupid. They pick up enough of what is happening to reject attempts at bills of rights, Republics and the like.

Establishing what it is useful to have in a bill of rights is not easy. I suspect that the American Bill Of Rights covers about everything it is useful to include, at least in principle.

It, of course, drew on previous documents such as The Ten Commandments (a kind of reverse bill of rights with the rights stated as responsibilities), the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. The point is that useful documents are surprisingly few and the useful rights just as few.

About everything that concerned the drafters of the American Bill Of Rights is still vital to us. For example, the twin problems of a government gone rogue and personal self-defense when government provision of law and order fails.

Both of these have become very pertinent to many even developed countries over the last few decades.

The Americans attempted to address those problems by the right to bear arms – something that all “right thinking people” abhor and of course immediately remove from and proposed bill of rights.

The problem is that while a right to bear arms may not be appropriate in the present world, no one then acknowledges, let along tries to find a solution to the great, deadly problems it was supposed to address.

My attitude is that he should be given a trial in Australia and if he's found guilty or innocent, that decision stands. The idea of "unlawful combatants" is pretty hilarious considering the regimes in Australia and the US will commit acts of war wherever they damn well feel like it and without real regard to legal niceties (maybe public relations perhaps). In the broader scheme of things, the recent invaders of Afghanistan and Iraq are "unlawful combatants". And in Iraq in particular they are receiving the consequences.

Hicks is an unlawful combatant. But all the evidence supports the fact that he will be convicted as a matter of course via a process characterised by ad hocracy of the worst kind.
The details of his crimes are unknown probably even to his accusers; no one really knows what if any evidence there exists against him. No one can really test the veracity of claims made against him. The porcess is a sham and a crisis in morals as much as it is one of law.

The endorsement by Plerdsus of torture and perfunctory execution is as outrageous a position as I have read for quite some time. Both acts are pointless deeds of cowardice advocated by cowards.

And will some one - any one PLEASE tell me where the left is and who is "of the left". Endless references to the the left is getting tiresome. Maybe I should ask Andrew Bolt and Anne Coulter the address of "the left"; they seem pretty pre occupied with it as do some of the contributors to the Forum.

I would suggest the former high court judges and former Governor General,Hicks militarily appointed defender together with those other highly ranked legal officers who resigned or were happily re deployed over the farcical court Hicks may face could not tagged as "of the left".

Pardon my ignorance, but I don’t understand what an Australian Bill of Rights has to do with David Hicks who was captured and held by America as an unlawful combatant. We are repeatedly told that he has committed no offence in Australia. How would a B of R alter the plight of an Australian citizen committing actions overseas, particularly when we have no law regarding those actions? How would such a Bill ensure that an Australian citizen received a fair and open trial?

Another things I don’t understand is why some people make a fuss about the ‘rights’ of David Hicks. He is a convert to a religion not big on human rights, and he was captured among people who believe those disagreeing with them and their religion don’t even have the right to exist.

David Hicks will be better treated by the US than he and his friends would treat any of the naïve supporters he has in Australia. And, despite the Niemuller homily, these dupes have more to fear from people like Hicks and his fellows than they do from America and their own Government.

Leigh, i agree with the questions you raise but i also feel citizenship rights should transend national borders.