Gee, you two are a pair of troublemakers. The trouble is that the press who have been complicit in the whole Hicks affair are not going to give any credence to your complaints. As you rightly point out, the system had Hicks over a barrel, but because of his negative publicity in the Australian press, our citizenry are not on his side, neither are the politicians who should have been standing up to Howard and insisting that the rule of law applied.

Keep up the good work, but don't expect to get too many wins.

David

If hicks had had the chance, how many Aussie soldiers would he have killed?? Your crocodile tears for him are little more than conspicuous compassion and are very un-Australian.

Au contraire, the way Hicks was treated by Howard and Co was very un-Australian.

David

Hicks is alive today because the Americans found him, if anyone else had, they would have just shot him on the spot.

That's a very specious argument, I must say.

David

It's not an argument David, it's an opinion.

Everything looks like a nail, to a hammer.

Basically, we are talking about someone who by admission of his own letters was a brainwashed Jihadist with a history of helping Islamist extremist groups kill non-Islamic persons, and for some reason this wasn't considered an offense in this country.
We also know that he was in PAKISTAN when 911 occured, and he returned to AFGHANISTAN and took up arms under the Taliban.

Said person gets caught by one of his enemies and detained. But because this enemy in question acts illegally towards its prisoners, we have to RESCUE this guy knowing that we would leave him loose on the streets?

Confronted with that information, I would have applauded the government for putting my welfare before such a character and leaving him to his fate.

However, what set a clear example that the government did NOT care about my welfare when they returned him, and set him LOOSE, for admitting GUILT. Any logical government keeping him away for security reasons would staunchly refuse him if that were the case. That was the beginning of the end of my Support for the Liberals.

I'd say Hicks has definitely put that life behind him now- although I wonder if that would have been so much the case had he have been fished out immediately?

Personally, I think it is better if we made it illegal to serve in any armed forces save for specific groups we give exemption to- the penalty is relinquishing Australian citizenship. That should ensure we are not expected to put our actually law-abiding citizens at risk by rescuing people that we are really better off leaving outside.

I think you all shuold have a long hard look at this site, http://ae911truth.org/ before you pass judgement on anyone.

Yes,well argued.

There seems to be an assumption by a sizeable proportion of the Australian population,that those persons accused of repugnant crimes are not entitled to a fair trial and humane treatment.
The Howard government's warmongering and its craven,cynical and unprincipled abandonment of an Australian citizen is a disgrace and it diminishes all Australians.

Another well written but biased position, although I also agree that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.

However, it must be so good to write with so much moral authority about what is wrong with Howard, what is wrong with our parliament and so on. I mean Howard tried to destroy democracy because the authors said so.

It all sound so easy when you read such authors. According to the authors, Australia should have told its main ally what it should do with regard to the treatment of its citizens, even those fighting for the enemy trying to blow up Americans. I mean what world are the authors living in.

Perhaps the authors can run for political office, win, and then have a go at making the same difficult decisions in a world where Australia is merely a small player also dependent on allies.

I've read all your views and subsequent arguements, and noted the contents therein.

I note also that Hicks's book has been nominated the fourth highest selling non-fiction book available on the shelves today.

Myself, I'm not a lawyer, nearly seventy years of age and a veteran.

My understanding is, that Hicks was caught in company with 'the enemy' or terrorists, whatever you want to call 'em. And whilst in their company, he was found armed.

Dear readers, had he being apprehended in South Vietnam (in my time), in such a predicament or quandary, he'd simply be shot. There'd be no question about it.

Is he a traitor ? I dunno ? In my perception, is he the enemy ? Yes, most definitely !

Yet this bloke has now penned a book, will obviously make good money from it. And in some circles he's perceived as a real victim ? He's even been acclaimed and lionized by many as some sort of hero ?

Sometimes,I really don't understand or know this country anymore, I really don't ?

Kellie and David apparently had no problem with the Taliban slaughtering women for adultlry and men for being gay? No education for women at all and a whole host of repressives practices too? They do have a problem with one of Australia's longest serving Prime Ministers but no problem with David Hicks being in/with the Taliban. You should both be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves but your collective bias and ego will not allow that will it?

The reason for us being in Afghanistan is a terror attack by Muslim extemists.However nearly all these supposed terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.No one can find Osama Bin Laden and no one has been officially charged with the crime of 911.The FBI says they do not have the evidence to charge Bin Laden with this crime.

We need a new independant investigation into 911.Millions of people around the planet do not believe the official story.Only fools in the West with their corrupt media believe all the BS. http://patriotsquestion911.com/ http://ae911truth.org/

JBowyer et al, it might be apropos to point out to you, that some time ago when the Russians were in Afghanistan, the Americans and their acolytes all thought that the Taliban were great fellows and did all that they could to help them. This included amongst other things, trading weapons for opium, the latter of course which found its way into our country as heroin. What a bunch of hypocrits you are.

David

I sadly suspected the David Hicks issue would deteriorate to this.
This whole discussion of whether we demand another country drop a deranged jihad loony on our soil boils down to whether that country is America or not, and whether the Jihad loonies he was working for were personally responsible for that one attack on America?

Suppose (a historically warped example), that David Hicks were a neonazi captured by guerillas fighting Apartheid- for guarding an apartheid tank as an apartheid soldier, and detained in a similar manner on similar grounds. Would we demand his return and release, knowing that he has a long history of undergoing violent activity for neonazi groups elsewhere and is consumed in neonazi literature?
Let me know your answer.

"We need a new independant investigation into 911.Millions of people around the planet do not believe the official story.Only fools in the West with their corrupt media believe all the BS."
-Arjay the Slow

No, we really don't. The WTC collapsed because some crazy Saudi Arabian (yes, Saudi Arabian... Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan had nothing to do with it) terrorists crashed hijacked planes into it. There was no conspiracy; man did walk on the moon; and the American government did not create AIDS to screw over the black man. Maybe you should take off your al-foil beanie and get more fresh air and exercise.

"However nearly all these supposed terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.No one can find Osama Bin Laden and no one has been officially charged with the crime of 911.The FBI says they do not have the evidence to charge Bin Laden with this crime."
-Arjay the Slow

Yes, evading caprture certainly makes one innocent... just ask The Fugitive. Look, a traditional law enforcement approach is never going to be adequate to deal with this sort of criminal enterprise. Personally, I think the western world would have been better served by covert intelligence actions than by shock & awe. But I don't see what the FBI have to do with anything - maybe you were thinking of Interpol?

If Afghanistan is indeed a place where terrorists are harboured then one can safely assume that Australia is a place where morons are harboured. I have no figures to back that up only daily evidence.

No matter how manipulated or used Hick's was he was still guilty. It is irrelevant that he was foolish, childish or brainwashed, we are all responsible for our actions.
What the problem was, is the whole sale abuse of human rights and failure to follow proper legal procedure. Well may you say that this scum don't deserve it nor did they follow human rights in their crimes, but this is the corner stone that separates us from them. We are civilised and are able to afford people the decency of human rights and a fair trial for their crimes. We even go so far as to give them the opportunity to reform.
I am sure David is changing his life and realises his stupidity in the "Big Adventure" he thought he was having, but he should never expect any sympathy for how he was treated. I don't think it was David we were angry for, rather the abuse of justice and the possibility that it could spread further into our communities if we did not make a stand now.

Again, the confusion;
"We" didn't do anything to Hicks- another country did- WE simply refused to rescue him on what may well be considered as security grounds for our sake- something we SHOULD be enshrining into law (and what would guarantee that Hicks would not be set loose under a GUILTY PLEA under a corrupt deal).

It's really sad that so many people, even those that don't like America, have their heads so far up the USA's backside that they cannot even differentiate our country from theirs.

No bloody wonder we keep tagging along in every single conflict they create.

"I think you all shuold have a long hard look at this site, http://ae911truth.org/ before you pass judgement on anyone."
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 28 October 2010 1:39:47 PM

Sorry Arjay but that website has been so thoroughly discredited you do yourself no favours suggesting people visit it.

Why is it that we are investigating whether or not Hicks can 'profit' from his experiences when we do not ask the same of Howard? Is not his book the record of a war criminal?

BAYGON,

As far as I understand, Hicks was never properly convicted,as he wasn't allowed a fair legal process. So all the talk claiming that he can't profit from his book is just verbal diarrhoea.

As to Howard,I'd say a conviction is unlikely,regrettably.

While I think Hicks was an idiot, his treatment was disgusting. Australian governments do more for convicted drugrunners. I note the authors didn't mention Howard's gun laws in relation to democratic shortcomings, so presumably they supported them? From my point of view, Howard went down many points in my estimation by appearing in front of an angry, but law-abiding, group of gun owners in a flak jacket.

Its a wonder Bruce and Kellie have not nominated Hicks as Australian of the Year.

The key element among the noise about the Hicks case is the right to a trial under the law regardless of whether you think he is guilty or not. In a democracy, something for which we are supposedley fighting for, the right to a trial or 'innocent until proven guilty' are enshrined in law and in principle.

Hicks was possibly naive, not very bright, and an emotionally disenfranchised fool, but even fools deserve a trial by their peers even if it takes place on foreign soil.

What is it we are supposed to be fighting for if when it comes down to it we are no different to those with whom we are at war?

It is hypocritical to fight a war on a human rights agenda unless you value and respect those same rights otherwise it is just rhetoric.

You don't have to like Hicks to support a fair judicial system. It was never just about Hicks, it was about justice.

Again, missing the point;
"WE" didn't deny him a fair trial- another country he was fighting did, and we were in a position to decide whether we were to intervene- knowing that doing so would mean letting him free in Australia, despite being a potential security risk.

Again, this whole issue is skewed by Howard/America/doublespeak blinkers on so many people they can't see the issue for what it is- the issue of rescuing Australian nationals at the expense of public safety.

So let me pitch a new question to you- what then if we were NOT participants in the War on Terror at all- and the country that captured him and denied him his rights was, say, Turkey? But an added complication, he was found with plans to commit a terrorist attack on Australia?

What if it were Ivan Milat instead?

The reason I ask this is because I'm trying to set a clear simple case where the implications are unavoidable- No America, No Howard, and you HAVE to weigh a security consideration into the decision.

Now seeing as Hicks has a violent history of killing infidels on behalf of Islamist groups launching cross-national militant campaigns, has possessed numerous anti-semetic, militant and Islamic-supremacist literature, and has expressed such sentiments numerous times, AND returned to Afghanistan and took up arms when 911 occurred, I think that constitutes a potentially dangerous person.

To be honest I think I'm wasting my time here- none of you can answer my questions, and too many of you are so obsessed with America and Howard you can't even tell America and Australia apart (which funnily enough, makes people like you the type most likely to accept our unquestioning alliance).

King Hazza
I did not say WE denied him a fair trial - just that Hicks was denied a trial at all until the Nth hour. Australia did apply some pressure for the judicial process to commence.

"The Australians desperately needed the miliary commissions to run smoothly to vindicate their decision to trust the process when the Blair government had not" - Leigh Sales 'Detainee 002'.

From the same source it appears the Howard Government was unimpressed by the lack of professionalism in the first military commissions. John Bellinger, lawyer in the national Security Council,was quoted to a DFAT employee as saying 'Frankly mate, that was a bit of a circus. It was unprofessional and untidy.'

Later some US employees left the miliary commissions because of fears of 'rigging'.

The irony in this case is that Australian Ministers argued our Government could not bring in a new law and use it retrospectively when it was clear we had no law sufficient to charge. Yet it was a retrospective US law that was eventually applied.

To Howards credit the pressure applied by the Australian Government did ensure Hicks was the first to go to trial under the new miliary commission even according to Leigh Sales in 'Detainee 002' it was a risk that the Bush administration took to go ahead with Hicks as the first to be charged, given it wanted the 'worst of the worst' prisoners to be tried and Hicks did not fit the bill compared to prisoners like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (self-confessed as masterminding Sept 11) and Hambali (2002 Bali bombings).

Despite Australia's reticence to use a law retrospectively, in the end Hicks was charged with a 2006 US law for activities in 2001.

The irony if Ivan Milat had been charged for criminal acts overseas he would have been tried far quicker than Hicks under US Law. If you commit a crime in an OS country you will be tried under their laws. However, we are an ally of the US and in war no such provision applies usually each nation taking responsibility for their own.

Retrospective laws are a controversial issue (although in this case I think it would have been justified). Normally a retrospective law might overlap somebody who was doing something that seemed to be ok and were, in fact, doing the right thing by the law, and suddenly turning around and penalizing them when the lawmakers change their mind.
Although in this case I think given the nature of the armed forces he was joining previously and their objectives and policy (especially towards non-Muslims) would easily go under a clear breach of assumed allegiance to Australia and purely a dangerous law-making oversight to not have addressed- anyone who would be affected by such a change would likely be confirmed in what they already knew, the law merely catching up with them.

Also, suppose Howard never lifted a finger towards the issue either which way (simply continuously refusing to intervene)?
(personally for me it still does not override the next issue).

All the same, the illegitimacy of the legal process of other country, allied or not, still boils down to the question- should we have the right to NOT have to repatriate citizens under any circumstances if domestic security concerns are raised out of bringing them back, regardless of if domestic law was acute enough to specifically rule them out as criminal at the time?

Amazing "WE" have Taliban supporters in Australia !

Poor Fellow My Country.

If it can happen to Hicks it can happen to you or me.
So next time you're out trying to kill Australian troops
with the Taliban, be thankful that there are people like
Tranter and Haigh fighting for your right to do so.

Garum Masala, go back and read my previous post. When the Russians were in Afghanistan, they had a lot of Taliban supporters, both here and in the US.

David

Nothing like another "Trantor/Haigh" communist article of journalistic bastardry to further erode any remaining dignity Aussies might feel before they capitulate to the Fabians 'inevitability of gradualism' that Trantor and Haigh regularly promote.

This is simply stunning:

//Whether or not you believe David Hicks' version of his own story is irrelevant.//

Oh... REALLY ?

Then

//David Hicks has now told his story of the privations and physical and mental suffering he had to endure as a political pawn. //

But...wait..I thought hicks version was 'irrelevant' ?

Then..

//Why this occurred, who was responsible, who needs to be held accountable and how it can be prevented from happening again, are questions that should be occupying the mind of every Australian.//

Ohhhhh..so first it's all 'irrelevant' then.. "we must hold those buggers to account"

COMMENT
The thing which is and should be occupying every Aussie mind is how you 2 can be allowed to get away with the utter socialist tripe you peddle here regularly.

Oooh...look at this:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/bring-hicks-home/2006/12/02/1164777845596.html

While Hicks has been in legal limbo, John Walker Lindh — the so-called American Taliban who trained at the same camp as Hicks — has been charged, pleaded guilty and sentenced. But Lindh broke American law; Hicks has not broken Australian law.

Hicks broke more laws than one can count.. the main one "Him being an enemy of Australia, guarding a Taliban Tank" I.E.. treason.

The only 'due process' Hicks deserved was a bullet on the front or if he surrendered, life in prison.

Section 80.1
(d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; or
(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:

(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or

(f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:

(i) another country; or
(ii) an organisation;

As Kevin Bracken says,the arguments about justifiable wars in Afghanistan,Pakistan,Iraq etc are meaningless unless we have an unbiased,all cards on the table investigation into 911.

Western Govts are scampering for cover because their very power base is under question.They do not serve the people or have their best interests at heart.Our de-mock-racy is a lie.

Arjay you poor bugger..... (look of pity on my face)...

It's not 9/11 mate..seriously... you are mainlining on that arn't you ?

It's HUMAN HISTORY mate.. get real for goodness sake before this 9/11 rubbish consumes you and turns you into a mindless vegetable.

Arjay, regardless of 911 the predicament of nationals serving the Taliban or Al Queda abroad, and getting caught and possibly having their rights violated would still be an issue.

In my opinion, even if 911 was an inside job, and Hicks was fighting against the USA for the Taliban and ended up in Guantanamo- and Australia instead had always refused to join the conflict (in my opinion rightly so), we still should not help him.

Its really Hicks v The Australian people

I find it absolutely amazing that the authors would be more concerned with this Jihadist being able to avoid punishment on a technical legal argument than accepting that his training with the Taliban in order to kill westerners (including the likes of Tranter and Haigh) is by far our main problem.

The tendency of the mindlessly paranoid Left to fear and demonise any conservative politician seems to blind them to the real issues at hand. Its mind blowing to think that the likes of Tranter seem to believe John Howard is a greater enemy than the Taliban.

Its idiots like these that will get us all killed one day.

Atman
You don't think a leader who takes a country to war under false pretences is a threat to its people?

The greatest threats to democracy and safety is not only terrorism but hidden and dishonest diplomatic/economic agendas which put us all at risk.

Better international relations and reducing economic disparity would make better attempts at world peace than the motives of any vested interest group.

pelican

You have obviously fallen for the lefty media scam about Howard lying to take us to war for some personal reward or gain. You must also believe that Bush, Howard, and Blair in addition to the other 30 OR SO nations involved in the Iraq war were all conspirators and or liars or maybe just plain stupid.

Leaders acted on the best information they had at the time and Saddam Hussein had already killed a million people with WMDs.

People who believed Howard was some kind of warmonger were subsequently easily taken in by Kevin Rudd who proved one our most disturbed and bizarre PMs ever. Those who voted for Rudd were thoroughly conned - a fact they continue to gloss over.

In the press, Conservative leaders are panned mercilessly while the behaviour of people on the Left is easily excused, no matter how bizarre.

David Hicks trained with the Taliban to kill westerners. So he got off on a technicality. How does that make John Howard bad?

And, by the way, the 'disparity' you talk about is not caused by the rich nations as much as the corruption of the leaders of the poor ones.

Not for a personal reward or gain Atman, but a pretence of WMDs to be able to legitimise support to an ally on dubious grounds. Very dangerous stuff IMO.

"And, by the way, the 'disparity' you talk about is not caused by the rich nations as much as the corruption of the leaders of the poor ones."

Yes, many of them propped up by Western democracies when there is an economic advantage.

Don't mistake me for a Hicks sympathiser, only a supporter of a judicial system and a democracy for which we are forever arguing is what we are fighting for. Do you prefer the 'talk the talk' and not 'walk the walk' alternative.

I agree Rudd was a dud but at least his own party, fed up with totalitarian leadership, managed to oust him under the Westminster system of Government. If that had not happened I guess the electorate would have got the chance at a later date but given the offerings we may still have ended up with the dud.

We have waited a long time for those who armed, trained and financed the Taliban to be put on trial. Whatever the Taliban did when fighting the Russians was okay but when they fought the Americans it is another story.
The same goes for Saddam Hussein. When he gassed the Iranians and Kurds it was okay to supply the chemicals to produce poison gas, when he did not do as he was told then the gassing became a crime for which he was executed. When will his suppliers be tried?

ARJAY
There is one glaring problem with your 9/11 American conspiracy theory. Osama Bin Laden boasted all over the world through Arab television sources that he was responsible for the bombing of the twin towers.

As for David Hicks;- If you fly with the crows you get shot down with the crows. He boasted to his mother in one of his letters how he and the Taliban brought a village,Cashmere in India if my memory serves me right under Muslim rule, There were quite a lot of people killed in that little escapade.

The man is a traitor. If he had been given a trial it is likely that he would have(or should have faced a firing squad). Howard saved him from this by gauging public opinion(wrong though that opinion was)and deciding to let it go quietly.

Pelican
"Not for a personal reward or gain Atman, but a pretence of WMDs to be able to legitimise support to an ally on dubious grounds."

Nonsense. You are just saying that leaders of 30 + countries including Australia pretended Saddam had WMDs so they could invade Iraq for no reason?? This logic is commonly spouted and is nonsensical in final analysis.

"Yes, many of them propped up by Western democracies when there is an economic advantage."

So Obama and Julia Gillard, for example, are deliberately keeping poor nations poor?? Evidence please. You could start by naming present day leaders and which nations are being kept poor. You won't be able to of course but you will still believe what you said was correct.