Sorry about nitpicking but...

As Hicks has not gone to trial and therefore no evidence has been presented and TESTED in a court of law, how do we know he was an enemy combatant? Should we believe the US account unquestioningly?

Perhaps he was waiting at a bus stop and was apprehended by US forces. I have a photo of myself some years past posing in a dreadfull amusement arcade type photo montage wearing cowboy gear - my wife threatens to show it to friends! That does not make me a gun toting good ol'e boy!

You can not pretend to be defenders of the free world and then treat any body as appallingly as the US and Australian governments have in the case of the GB detainees.

If we pretend to be a civilised society then we ALL need to behave accordingly.

Peter: The photo I and thousands of others, saw was hicks with - no! not a toy gun at an amusement arcade. No not wearing a cowboy costume. He was cradling or aiming a grenade launcher a weapon made for killing other humans, many of them. We Know, Peter, we have seen proof, Peter, that these terrorists, a group that hicks trained with, continue to be cold hearted, merciless, barbarous killers. Killers of unwary, unarmed civilian men, women and children.Hicks fought for moslems in what was Yugo-Slavia, so he possibly had already killed. Hicks and his ilk will milk mercy for all it's worth but show none of this mercy to their intended victims. These terrorist's victims are anyone who is not pagan moslem. Peter we can not deal with these murderers with soppy "Oh! be nice to him" sentimentality. They need to be seen as what they are. numbat

Numbat,

It could have been a photo taken 5, 10 years ago - who knows!

He may have had a "road to Damascus conversion" for all we know and might have become a Christian in the meantime. All I am suggesting is that a court is the right place to determine if someone has committed a crime against you, me, all of humanity. I don't believe he will get a fair trial in a military hearing. If he was found guilty by the US Supreme Court or similar and sentenced to death; great at least we have upheld OUR end of western ideals and morality. If not we sink to the same level as the terrorists where hatred determines the outcome of our actions.

Relevant to this Online Opinion thread, Crikey.com carried a piece by me about Hicks on 18 August:

http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/08/18-1510-2512.html

also carried on the Crikey members’ email letter today 19 August. I urge people to read the two cited Wikipedia references. Wikipedia is reputable and objective.

“DAVID HICKS – IS GERARD HENDERSON RIGHT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David Hicks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan

The facts regarding David Hicks can be summarised simply. Gerard Henderson in the SMH [Opinion, 16 August] misrepresents and draws red herrings over them.

As an Australian citizen abroad, Hicks is entitled to effective Australian Government consular protection when arrested and charged with serious crimes by a foreign government. For the past four years he has not had this protection. To surrender his final fate to a military "court" where the US military is at once plaintiff, jailer, evidence-gatherer, prosecutor, judge and jury cannot give him a fair trial. At the very least, he should be tried by a US civil court (as was US citizen John Walker Lindh). Or he should be returned for trial in Australia as other non-US Guantanamo inmates ( e.g., British, French prisoners) are being repatriated to face judicial process in their own countries.

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, based on reputable mainstream media sources, says Hicks was captured in Kandahar in the closing days of the civil war, between the then Taliban government of Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance insurgency supported by US special forces and airpower. The insurgency prevailed and the Taliban government, for which Hicks was fighting, fell. Hicks was captured by Northern Alliance troops. He can fairly claim that at time of capture he was under arms as a foreign volunteer for a sovereign government which he supported. In what ways does this differ from the foreign volunteers who fought for the losing Republican government in the Spanish Civil War against the successful Francoist insurgency? (more)

(continued) Yes, we do not like the Taliban government, and we know the US decided to unseat it for giving refuge to Al Qaeda, but those facts of themselves do not make Hicks an Al Qaeda fighter. ( to be continued)

(Continued)The US military allegations cited by Henderson that he was trained by Al Qaeda as an international terrorist are just that – unproven allegations. They need to be tested in a real court under proper rules of evidence, not by a military Star Chamber.

As to Hicks’ record of fighting for the Kosovar Liberation Army, were not the KLA defending the Kosovar people (Muslims) against genocidal acts and mass ethnic cleansing by militarily dominant and brutal Serb forces? Weren’t a million Kosovars forced to flee their ravaged villages into Albania? Wasn’t the KLA "on our side" at the time?

Henderson condemns Hicks’ political and religious views as privately communicated by letter to his father. Isn’t Henderson here accusing Hicks of Thoughtcrimes (cf. "1984")? Hicks was not on a public platform; he was trying to explain his ideas to his close family. However much many of us will dislike such ideas, we must surely in a democracy defend his right to have them?

In recent days, many eminent Western lawyers , Australian and international, have made some of the above points, in particular as to manifest inadequacy of the legal process – even including the ADF’s senior military counsel, Captain Paul Willee. Such unanimity among legal professionals must be given due weight. I give no weight to Henderson’s piece, which is nothing more than poorly constructed propaganda in defense of the indefensible.

The truth is – Howard has painted himself into a corner on Hicks . Having knuckled under to everything the US said and did, he cannot now protest without risking generating doubts in the Bush circle as to his loyalty under pressure. Hicks is the victim of that, and this is injustice. Australians are right to protest

Australia does not need a Bill of Rights for many reasons. One of these - and maybe the most important – is that if Australia were to obtain a Bill of Rights, be it under the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, the rights that Australians would get would be ruled upon by judges. The judgements made would be upon the principles of the rights, and no individual and specific rights could be set out in the Bill of Rights.

Also, one major claim by those rallying for a Bill of Rights, claim that the separation of powers that has held government responsible through a hostile Senate for 20 years or so has suddenly ‘gone out the window’, and because of this, a Bill of Rights is necessary now more than ever. But the fundamental problem with this is that whether there is a hostile senate or not, a Bill of Rights would not hold the government responsible anymore on these issues.

Then who would be responsible – nobody.

Judges who would rule on these cases could not be held accountable for making a judgement based on the law. It is what they are paid to do. Unlike parliament, they are not responsible to the people, but to the law, and therefore cannot be voted out of office by a hostile electorate, unlike the members of the parliament – who because of their responsibility to the electorate - are kept in check and are responsible for the laws they enact. Therefore we should not have a Bill of Rights just because it is the Flavour of the Month, and not considering the consequences of its enactment.