Oh, come off it, Bill.

Let's reduce the rhetoric and look at this carefully.

Point number one: Nobody except Hicks actually knows what he did or did not do, or whether he is (or was) actually a terrorist. The reason for this is that there have been no findings of fact in an open court, and that admissions he has made have been palpably made in the context of (and most likely in response to) duress ranging from the relatively mild (lights on 24/7) to the much more aggressive (see the recent discussion about interrogation techniques). So, while I don't necessarily believe the "careless adventurer" story, the reality is that there are no credible facts on the table making him a terrorist either. There are, in fact, no credible facts at all - which means, Bill, you are leaping to conclusions just as badly as those you criticise.

Point number two: Regardless of what he may or may not have done (and remember, Bill, you have no more of an idea than I do about that), it is simply not just for a person to be locked away in a place such as Guantanamo, with no charges, no rights, no visits, in solitary confinement for years. We would not treat rapists or child molesters that way - why? Are they somehow more morally worthy than Hicks? Really? Truly?

I do not lionise Hicks. He is at worst a terrorist, and at best a complete doofus. But none of that made it OK for Australia or our ally to hold him in prison for five years without charge. He may have done wrong to others, Bill, but we did wrong to him.

Anthony

This is a fine example of what bothers me about the rhetoric that comes from the fringes of both ends of the political spectrum.

Step 1) focus on the stupid arguments, ignoring the valid ones.

Step 2) treat the fringe minority as the majority, using the tactics employed in Step !

Step 3) this allows you to paint your ideological opponents as extremists or idiots, or both.

Step 4) then present your own views as a palatable alternative, making them look less extreme, and the other arguments as way out there.

For starters, Mr Muehlenberg - as Anthony Marinac pointed out, many of us believe Hicks was somewhere between a fool and a terrorist. Certainly not a hero.
I for one, think the emotional use of childhood pictures was a disgusting ploy. If I could find some nice childhood pictures of Osama, would that make him a nicer person?

That being said - our system of justice relies on having to fit everybody. That means that regardless of what an individual is charged with, you can't start punishing them until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt they are guilty.
This applies to pedophiles, rapists and murderers. No matter how much we hate them, we still need to ensure a proper process.

This article is codswallop. Poor reasoning, even poorer writing.

So, that triumph of market capitalism, the "get rich quick" scheme, is the fault of lefty intellectuals. Crikey.

Right on, Bill I bet if we kept him in a bit longer we'd crack him, and we would find out finally who killed Jimmy Hoffer!
Hicks has got greater punishment then some of the guards that pushed Jews into gas chambers. This is just some plain old right wing dishonesty here by this teacher of ethics.
I just find it funny that many on the right think Hicks deserves less right’s then what we gave the Nazis leaders? This war on terror will be this the US war on Drugs pain and misery to the little people while the big fish walk free.

Anthony
I find it strange to be honest that we are somehow in denial that we are at war. I'll repeat..WAR. No, its not trench lined up against trench, nor huge battles in Tobruk or Kokoda, but there is a force at work against us which is as dark as the darkest of our worst enemies.

FACTS (not disputed)
-Hicks was in Afghanistan.
-He was handed to the Americans by the Northern Alliance.
-The NA claimed they captured him while guarding a Taliban Tank.
-NA are allies of Australia and the USA in the War against radical Islamists in Afghanistan.
-Hicks became a Muslim.
-Hicks has been photographed holding a rocket launcher with Islamists.
-Hicks 'enlisted' in Al Qaeda. ? (may be in dispute)

NOW this is the part where my head explodes when people talk about 'findings of fact in an open court'.

Hicks is lucky the NA didn't shoot him on the spot. How in the world can any such person be put on 'trial' under these circumstances. Are we going to call NA witnesses, transport them across the seas and house them for the duration of a possibly tedious long trial ?
Would Taliban witnesses (crucial to the case) be forthcoming about his true status ? No.....would they show up as witnesses for the prosecution ? No....

Imagine if we had 50 such people.. or a 100 ? each with different circumstances.

I think this is more a case of:

-Lawyers trying to raise their profile and make money.
-Left wing lawyers and politicians trying to damage Howard via Hicks.

To put it bluntly, it stands out like dogs testicles on a grasshopper.

SOLUTION. Hicks should renounce Islam and denounce Al Qaeda, then free him. (let history take it's course thereafter)

Bill's article is I hope a set of massive exagerations.
From what I've seen I doubt that Hicks has the smarts to be stage managed enough to cope with numerous interviews without putting his foot in fairly deeply. I think those who currently regard him as some kind of rightous cause will have some significant issues when confronted with the reality of someone who appeared to regard the Talliban as an ideal government.

Someone who chose to go and fight on behalf of a government which promoted a far less just system than anything Hicks has experienced, a government which executed people for breaches and alleged breaches of sexual morals, a government that blew up important religious monuments of other faiths. More than a dupe, someone who actively fought on the side of repression.

Time to seperate out Hicks from the wrong done by in Cuba (and other places). Yes the promotion of the case against what the the US has done is easier with a victim we feel some sympathy for. Portrayal of Hicks as a victim is likely to backfire badly unless the beliefs that lead him to the Talliban in the first place have changed significantly.

What the US has done in Cuba and elsewhere is a danger to how justice is practiced. Opposition to incarceration without trial, trial without fair representation etc are too important to be dependant on someone who chose the Talliban as a cause worth fighting for.

R0bert