While not wishing to dilute a fine article with specious flim-flammery, I nevertheless took out Occam's Razor and fashioned myself a tinfoil hat - to whit:

How many laws must the kamp kommondants shred, before the fog of self-delusion clears? How big must a turd be, before some of us react to the smell? Guantanamo is a criminally inspired dive run by a criminally inspired US Administration.

Guantanamo is a node in the CIA network. One compartment in the CIA is charged with the responsibility of nurturing and shepherding the world's heroin production, without which, some major money-laundering Wall Street banks would go to the wall.

In early 2001, the Taliban pirated the heroin supply at it's source.

In late 2001, the demolition of the WTC provided a handy pretext for the sly-boys to redress the balance, and the opium poppies have since flourished like never before. Air Rendition (TM) provides an efficient heroin courier service, while posing as misguided zealots in the "war on terr'r".

Any innocent suspected of knowing anything about the scam is incarcerated at Guantanamo.

There's your terrorist. Try seeing Hicks in the light of that conspiracy theory. If you do your homework, you may end up drawing the same conclusions as me.

Natasha is correct in arguing that Phillip Ruddock's treatment of David Hick's has besmirched the office of Attorney General. Phillip Ruddock's treatment of the Baktiari family established his credentials as a nasty small minded liar.

'universal human rights and Judeo-Christian morality'. How selective can an author be? I take it she opposes abortion and homosexuality or does the ethics then change.

Ruddock taints everything he touches. He lowers standards just by being wherever he is. Remember him being cheered at a Coalition indoor barbie?

That's what he lives for. Applause.

One very sick puppy.

But he's got mates, oh yeah. That's why he;s surrounded by them all the time. Lonely in that phone booth isn't it Phil?

No one questions that Hicks should have long ago had his day in court.
However remember this, if he was really a soldier he could be held
until the end of hostilities, be it five years or a hundred years.
If he was a soldier he would not face trial at all.

However it seems that he did not have a uniform, a paybook or a
serial number.
If anyone goes running around armed and does not have the requirements
of a soldier he is very very stupid.
That seems to be Hick's status and I have not heard anyone claim that
he was a soldier. He really has no one but himself to blame for
his predicament. On a battle field he could have been shot as a spy.

I have tried to get the A-G to realise that the US has let him (and us)down. They say they're going to give Hicks a fair trial, and that it's coming on soon, but it's all blather. Their 1st military commission was proved unconstitutional, and still our A-G and PM go on believing the US is doing the right thing by Hicks. By all accounts, the next military commission won't be any better, but our boys now say that Hicks must be tried soon - not a word about whether the proposed trial will be fair or not. The implication is, though, that any delay caused by questioning the legality etc of the new commission will be Hicks's and his legal team's fault.
I have also pointed out to the PM that my three highly educated and productive children live and work overseas. They are embarrassed about the deterioration of their country's abandonment of the 'fair go' principle in the last 10 years.