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.