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.