This article is not about torture, it is about lying. It is about Jason and his little terrorist mate Hicks, lying about torture.

Extracts from the Al Quaeda training manual:

“At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.

Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

Make arrangements for the brother's defense with the attorney, whether he was retained by the brother 's family or court-appointed.

The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge. [These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.] “

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/network/alqaeda/manual.html

The terrorists know that they cannot win, but use the decency and laws of the community which is the target of their hate filled crazed attacks to attempt to damage the community.

Jason, you do not just lie about torture, you lie about everything, so your assertions mean nothing.

The technique of using laws aimed at fairness to frustrate the justice process was seen in Australia, when the Islamic rapists used delay after delay to break the nerves of the young girls they had raped, and who were faced with the ordeal of giving evidence. If you want to talk about torture, that might be classified as torture of the girls.

Dear Jason, I look forward to your interviews with the victims and families of the Bali bombings.

That you have an agenda is clear and that agenda has robbed you of real compassion. Selective compassion has no value other than to support your agenda.

Not a very balanced article.

Davidf,

When you write,

"David Hicks was neither a traitor nor a terrorist. He owed no loyalty to the US so could not be a traitor. There is no evidence to show that he was a terrorist...."

your second sentence is correct - after all, Hicks was not a US citizen. Whether he was a traitor to Australia, is a different matter. And surely, if he worked for al Qaida AND fought for the L-e-T against India, terrorist organisations, then he was clearly a terrorist,

* i.e., working with terrorist organisations (did he or didn't he ?),

* i.e., organisations which commit terrorist acts (have they or haven't they ?),

* i.e., acts which kill innocent people indiscriminately and are designed to strike terror into our hearts and weaken our support for governments (is this or isn't this the point of terrorist acts ?).

He got copped, did some of his time for his links to al Qaida, and was out in barely six or seven years. He got off lightly. Move on.

Joe

While all you lots are quibbling about how 'compassionate' we should or should not be over a former fundamentalist wahabist militant KLA/LeT member getting caught by a country that commits human rights abuses, and 911 conspiracies:

*I* will be saving my attention to Julian Assange- an Australian citizen who has not only been abandoned by our government in the face of dubious charges of his own, but unlike Hicks- is no remote potential security threat, and has actually been trying to do US a great service, as opposed to the types of people David was trying to help.

- and let's not forget Bradley Manning, who is now being subjected to what Hicks has been:

HIS accused crime?
Upholding the First Amendment.

But no- lets not distract ourselves from shedding a tear for David.

There is little doubt that Hicks is a nong but it is more important that our justice system does not also act as a nong.

The Hicks story is not just about Hicks the man but about the travesty of an unjust judicial process that could equally be open to abuse and tyranny for any other person accused of a crime.