David Hicks was picked up in a war zone. So he is entitled to be held and kept away from the war until
1. It is clear to the US that he has not a case to answer with regard to possible war crime behaviour and if released would not return to fight against the US.
2. He is brought to trial in a military court.
3. Hostilities have ended.

If his lawyers continue to attempt to keep him from facing the military court, then the length of his custody is on their heads.

As I understand the situation of David Hicks truth and justice have long ceased to be the issue. In to-days AUSTRALIAN Greg Sheridan reminds us that David is/was a member of four different terrorist organisations. Apprehended on the battlefield and with quasi POW status he can be held indefinitely. I used the word quasi because he was not in uniform or fighting in the name of a sovereign country.

A trial is only necessary if David has committed serious crime, which is alleged to be the case. Surely, habeas corpus rules are not relevant to POWs or enemy combatants.

Enter the lawyers. If the facts are with David they would argue the facts. Otherwise they argue the procedures. What is meant by a fair trial? Clever legal arguments and utilising procedures to the full may mean the guilty go free. While, unless the innocent can afford a top gun they are at serious risk of wrongful conviction.

Arguing the procedures includes appeal to public opinion and the media. Subjudice rules do not apply to the defence. If the prosecution joins in, well they are clearly prejudicing the court against their client.

So successful have been the defence in this case, that the politicians are getting in on the act. After all K. Tomsom has an election to win/lose.

I am surer too that there is nothing like a win in a high profile case to provide the pro bono lawyers with free advertising and a guarantee of future high profile cases.

It is clear to me that there is much obfuscation in this case that we will never get to know the truth. Can there be real justice with out the true evaluation of the evidence. Subjectivity and emotion may sell news papers. Attempt at objective examination of the evidence is a turn off to most. Likewise, politicians are not required to be either objective or impartial.

How many of Hicks supporters shouted loud at the Indonesians about Schapelle Corby. Those people now look a little silly if not embarrasing to Australia. Thankfully Mr Howard did not bow to the pressure of her supporters. Surely their are more worthy causes of the oppressed to be taken up elsewhere rather than to support someone willing to shoot Australians. This grandstanding is more about peoples hate of the US then anything else.

I'd like to echo the view that Hicks' case is reflective of the rights that might potentially be afforded/abrogated with respect to any citizen of this country.

The fact remains that several other countries have requested and received their citizens returned to their countries from Guantanamo Bay. So if it is a case of political will, then there is no evidence to suggest that our case would be inferior to theirs.

Hicks has been held for five years without charge. The US Government has repeatedly flagged their INTENTION to lay charges, which means that POW rules do not apply (and assuming that they did, he should have been released and/or charged/deported when the US claimed the "end" of the Iraq war shortly after it began...am I the only one who remembers those images of George Bush on the aircraft carrier with "mission accomplished" escaping his lips?)

I don't think Hicks is necessarily a nice person. I'm not convinced that he is necessarily innocent of any wrongdoing. I'd just like to see that a process is applied to him in a manner fitting with the US' international claim to be upholders of the rule of law, and the example by which other countries are judged (rightly or wrongly).

I'm also curious: if I move to France and become Roman Catholic - do I deserve everything I get too?

I totally agree Kelvin.

The suspension of habeas corpus in this case (or in any case) is just totally unnecessary and unforgivable. There is no reason for it. There is no acceptable reason why Hicks couldn’t or shouldn’t have been tried quickly, within the mainstream American legal system.

The USA is always promoting democracy. But if it is willing to step outside of one of the fundamental tenets of democracy and one of the basic principles on which its society is (at least in theory) based – habeas corpus, then where does it leave them?

We’ve got to ask just exactly what is it that America is promoting on the world stage.

Not only has Hicks been detained for more than five years without trial, but the conditions under which he is being held are just disgusting – befitting only the worst tried and convicted and rebellious criminals, or perhaps not befitting any human being incarcerated in a half-decent society.

Then there is a shameful saga of military commissions, which don’t constitute proper legal process, and which again are a step outside of habeas corpus.

The US is basically saying that its fundamental principles are optional and that it can step into the lawless world a barbarism if it so chooses.

The duplicity is incredible. It has done the US an enormous amount of damage. Bush and others responsible for this need to be brought to trial themselves. Surely they have brazenly violated their own constitution which must compel them to act in a fair and democratic manner at all times.

The Scene is set thus:

In 2 days time Howard will enjoy an audience with "Dead Eye" Dick Cheney - noted Vice President (US) and Lawyer Shooter.

"Thanks for needling Obama and Hillary and increasing troop numbers in Iraq. Oh and a shame about AWB bribing Saddam more than us. Oh - whats your name again son?"

Howard "Its John Howard Sir and Thankyou Sir"

Cheney "I see you're having problems with that Terrorist Hicks Howie"

Howard "Yes Sir. We need him back before the election. You know truth, justice, fair go"

Dick raising eyeballs "Yeah pathetic really. OK your plea is granted - you expected we'd keep him locked up quietly forever - but we like to help the little Party of our little buddies Howie Boy"

Howard "Thankyou Sir and would you like even more, lots lots more of our troops soon Sir?"

Future highlights of Dead Eye Dick's Royal Progress in Australia to be continued...

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com