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.