Hi Pelican,

You didn't finish your last sentence:

"The Hicks story is .... 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 ...."

you could have added:

".... such as armed attacks on the armed forces of a friendly country [India] or working for known terrorist organisations such as al Qaida and Lashkar-e-Taiba."

Just trying to be helpful :)

Joe

Amnesty International has stated that the military commissions established under the Act to try David Hicks (and others) did not meet international standards for fair trials. Therefore the charges would be irrelevant if the trials did not meet international standards.

The Red Cross received a full report as to the way David Hicks was treated. He had no contact with his lawyers for almost two years after he arrived in Guantanamo Bay. For 5 years he was detained where the lights never go off and windows never open. He was repeatedly beaten, once over 8 hours, including while restrained and blind-folded.
He was forced to take unknown medication. He was subjected to sleep deprivation "as a matter of policy." He wasn't allowed to leave his cell or exercise in sunlight, and the list goes on.

I was always under the impression that the US Bill of Rights stood in protection of the individual against the capriciousness and overwhelming power of the state. That the US Constitution guaranteed the individual certain fundamental rights and protections. That US laws were based on the principle that the law serves the individual, not the state, and that state political interests cannot outweigh the interests of the individual, who must stand in law as a free man.

Apparently, this is not the case, certainly it wasn't - in the case of David Hicks - whose government also let him down. He did not receive a fair trial - that is obvious - and he should have as an Australian citizen - regardless of the charges against him.

Lexi,

You're right, Hicks should not have been mistreated - he should have been given prompt access to a lawyer of his choice and a fair trial, and then perhaps not shot, but given 25 years, released in, say 2030. Then the Indians can deal with him.

Joe

Just to follow Chris Shaw's post, if ever you are around here David, do drop in, I have left a few rat traps set for you to find.

Hasbeen:

I don't know of anyone who would actually want to visit a rat-infested home especially not someone like David Hicks.
Having been kept a prisoner in Guantanamo for five years would have been enough of an "experience" putting up with vermin.

It seems that some here hate the US so much, they are willing to overlook and understate the fact that Mr Hicks was a mercenary who liked shooting large calibre weapons at his fellow human beings for fun.

He was picked up by the Northern Alliance NOT the US Army. It is clear he is a thrill seeking violent individual who has had his wings clipped by being put in Guantanamo Bay for a while.

It is worth reading the words of his fellow Al'Qaida trainee Feroz Abbasi who claimed Hicks had said he'd said he "wanted to rob and kill Jews back in Australia and crash an airplane into a building"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1592997,00.html