Hicks obviously means different things to different people. Neil James has a military solution for something that does not meet the definition of a war.

I partially see Hicks as a classic case of a religious follower being harnessed for a covert action program by an intelligence agency.

Bruce Haigh has refered to Pakistan's major intelligence agency (ISI). ISI, or Inter-Services Intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Services_Intelligence , recognises that the Pakistani military, due to its inferiority in conventional arms, has been largely forced away from open fighting against India in the endless disput over Kashmir.

Hick's is partially a product of Pakistan's recuitment drive for Kashmir. Partially using Saudi money ISI has supported a system of "Madrasahs" (Islamic Schools) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasah#Criticism whose scholars may graduate to paramilitary jihadist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

One network of such camps led by Osama bin Laden(in which Hicks trained) was associated with ISI and mainly funded by the Saudis.

These military training camps DO produce international terrorists but ISI has successfully sold the idea (to its Government) that they also produce unofficial, hence deniable, recruits to fight the Indians in Kashmir (shades of David Hicks’ career http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21201110-2702,00.html).

All this is what is called a (Pakistani) covert action program. An indication that such programs are not a CIA monopoly.

So Hicks, amongst other things was a sucker of (Muslim) intelligence professionals then thoroughly done over by US intelligence, seeking revenge for 9/11.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

In your writing you leave out many important issues and that is not accidental but deliberate and unprincipled. You leave out the illegal aggressive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

These attacks on Hicks and other Guantanamo prisoners have a wider agenda and that is to undermine fundamental democratic rights at home and abroad. As well, these illegal detentions of prisoners captured in Afghanistan or Iraq are being used to legitimise illegal wars of aggression and prepare for new wars of plunder such as Iran.


First there is a long history of military juntas and dictators using political repression methods and kangaroo military courts. Military kangaroo tribunals violate American military law, the US Constitution and basic legal rights established over centuries. Hicks is being held in Guantanomo, precisely, to circumvent US legal law, due process, and basic legal rights. Yes even prisoners of war have rights. Guantánamo Bay prisoners, are defined as "unlawful combatants" or "enemy combatants" categories that have no status in international law and called such to void prisoners rights. But the Geneva convention covers this opportunist practise and still a war crime. As well, prisoners are reguarly subjected to intense interrogation, including the use of psychological stress techniques, which are classified under international law as torture.The Guantanamo prisoners have no access to civil court appeal and very restricted legal advise. Legal advise is supplied by the same military body intent on a conviction and listened into. Just to make sure even if found not guilty prisoners can be still be held indefinitely. The tribunals allow hearsay evidence, and wait for it, confessions extracted under protracted stress and torture. It was fully two years in solitary before Hicks was allowed access to a lawyer and officially charged in June 2003. The charges collapsed and now the dubious retrospective law has been conjured up five years after the event. Amnesty International, the Red Cross and other human rights organizations have condemmed the disgraceful conditions and the inhuman treatment of prisoners.

Mr. James, I don't buy your argument (really claim) that there is a war, and I might address that later. And, I'm not impressed by a bloated article which needs to bolster itself with reference to an article ten times its length. But here I want to focus upon something more obvious, the main reason why your article is being treated with contempt.

You have written a "dispassionate analysis" of Hicks's legal situation as if that is the main issue. It is not. "The subject of David Hicks", the question of "what to do with David Hicks" is not legal, however much you may want to pretend: the subject is moral. Your smug and superior dismissal of talkback/blogs is totally inappropriate.

Three obvious points:

1) The fact that an act is legal does not make it moral. As I'm sure you are aware, many of the horrific acts of the Nazis were legal (i.e. validly made laws enforced by properly constituted courts).

2) The legal questions matter, but it is now very clear (finally!) what is more important are the political questions. It is the political embarrassment from the moral reprehensibility of Hick's treatment which is much more likely to set him free.

3) You claim people are ignorant of the facts and probable facts. Well, so are you. And, failing appropriate judicial oversight, so will we all remain. Stop pretending you're in any position to act as Judge.

The legal questions are of course extremely important. But to write of this as if that is all, without proper reference to the moral and political setting? To pretend you know enough of Hicks to decide his fate? This is not dispassionate, it is blinkered and arrogant.

With a name like bushbasher one is hardly in a position to lecture another on "morals".

The fact that David Hicks trained and took up arms on behalf of fundamental terrorists does say something about his "morals".

If you don't think that a war is being fought against terrorism you really need your head read.

In my view, I repeat, that David Hicks should be kept in confinement until hostilities in Iraq and Afganistan are over and democracy is functioning without undue unrest in those countries.

I accept that he will be released at some time in the future, perhaps soon, because of political considerations. But the moral side of the argument is certainly not in his favour.

Dear Sniggid:

1) My writing name is obviously irrelevant to the discussion of morals. The demonstrable fact that President Bush is an uninterested and astonishingly stupid Good Old Boy, is highly relevant.

2) My original point (which many have made) was exactly that declaring war on an abstract noun is simply absurd, which in particular leads to flip references to people such as Hicks being prisoners of war.

3) Even if you believe there is a war, and you believe that Hicks can be held/incarcerated/detained, or whatever you want to call it, I don't see why you would want to avoid the discussion of the morality of Hicks's treatment.

4) Most importantly, you are in no position to judge or sentence Hicks. You presumably don't give a damn what I think about Hicks: I certainly don't give a damn what you think. What I and others give a damn about is whether an appropriately just body can decide what to do with Hicks.

Many comments are approaching the topic from the wrong direction. While you may genuinely want to help David Hicks, ignoring the international law applying actually has the opposite effect.

Many comments raise points that are already addressed in the original short article and/or the comprehensive analysis, or ignore that not every aspect of a very nuanced legal situation could be addressed in the short article.

The bulk of the article and its overall intention is quite plain: releasing David Hicks from Guantanamo Bay by concentrating on the most practical, legal and moral solution. Emotional, ideological and irrelevant posturing, such as Bushbasher’s comments, are part of the problem because they detract attention from practical solutions and do not help Hicks one iota.

International Humanitarian Law is universal and applies to everyone. There is no special “get out of gaol free card” just because you are an Australian. If you choose to go overseas and fight in a war there can be consequences. Emotional arguments or ones based only on civil domestic peacetime law do not help free David Hicks.

Those criticising the detention of captured terrorists need to have a practical and legal alternative. Just killing them or detaining them for ever are not legally or morally valid options.

Deny the war in Afghanistan all you like (as is your right) but in international law that war is a war because it exists as a fact. Remember also that the Islamist terrorists regard themselves at war with us no matter what we might think.

The article and the longer analysis do not once use the term “war on terror” or even “war on terrorism”. Following UN practice we clearly identify the enemy as Islamist terrorism.

The legality of the original coalition intervention in Iraq is an arguable point in international law and remains genuinely controversial. The subsequent operations to rebuild that country are fully endorsed by the UN. The coalition intervention in Afghanistan has been endorsed by the UN from the start. Emotional blanket claims about “illegal wars” simply demonstrate the bias and lack of research of the claimant.