An article by two well informed writers.

Recently I stated that if Mladic is taken before the The Hague as he should be, then Bush be also a charged with crimes. His contribution to the deaths of not only Americans, no more important than Iraqis, but the differences in numbers of almost five thousand compared to perhaps hundreds of thousands, making Mladic’s crimes pale by comparison. Let us not even count the permanently wounded, permanently scarred and unfit for life as they once were. What a record for a President, but then no worse than Kennedy for Laos and Cambodia, Johnson for Vietnam. Proud records indeed. Now they are the terrorists, by any description you can muster.
Bush lied to the world and people died, lots of people. A crime, surely.

On a lesser scale, Howard knew he had lied but still committed our troops to an illegal war which has now expanded into a war where 26 Australians have died so far in Afghanistan, a war about drugs, oil and US military hegemony. Don’t doubt it for one second. As I have been saying for over a year, Pakistan is next and recent events confirm that.

There will always be those who try to capitalise on misfortune, like Leigh Sales writing anything but a definitive document.

An ovation for David Hicks was the least he deserved. An apology from Howard may be welcomed and some form of retribution warranted as well. Mamdouh Habib was well able to make the Government see reason in his case and David Hicks deserves no less than an apology from those who turned their back on an Australian in a foreign place just to satisfy the ego of a weak, sycophantic Prime Minister and his fawning relationship with a stupid, lying US President.

Presidents all seem to be tarred with the same brush including the current master of lying rhetoric, Obama, as It is not talent that decides these things, but graft and corruption. It is the US, after all.

Hang on to your hats in 2012.

Decent Australians have always supported David Hicks.

This article says more, [& none of it good], about our writers than it does about Hicks, or anyone else. I don't know what world they live in, but it sure isn't the one most of us know.

I have friends in Afghanistan right now, & if keeping them safe meant I had to shoot a dozen Hicks, I'd ask for a second clip of ammunition.

Dear Bruce and Kellie, I’m sure you will always find some receptive audience on such as OLO and we do seem to warm to diverse perspectives and opinions. Activism for almost anything today seems to require the suspension of reality to make room for ideology.

I think this is where your article falls down badly. I don’t understand why you feel no embarrassment or shame at your headline:

“At the Sydney Writer's festival the audience found Hicks' account so compelling they gave him a standing ovation, all 900 of them.”

Let’s just think about this for a moment. So at a writer’s festival, 900 attendees (all of them) gave a standing ovation to David Hicks for his compelling “story”. Wow!

I have to wonder how many Australians take the view that David Hicks was captured as a battlefield combatant, cowering in a bunker, having trained with the enemy and fought for the enemy, whilst many Australian soldiers have sacrificed their lives to defeat that enemy. Some might also take the view that he might have been very lucky he was not shot on the spot by the Northern Alliance and even luckier that as an enemy combatant, he might have access to valuable intelligence. In the good old days of uniformed military he would have also been tried as a traitor and then shot.

But those sharing such a sentiment are of course, out of step with you two and 900 writers. I am eternally grateful to count myself as one of those very, very distant from these writers. I don’t know how you sleep at night but I’m equally sure you have an explanation and a copious supply of hallucinogenic substances.

Those in our ADF who have sacrifced their lives will never have the opportunity to enjoy their families or write a book. But don't let that bother either of you. We all need our hero's don't we?

I think it's impossible not to mock the lefty intelligentsia when it comes to David Hicks.

All up there applauding, proud of their little terrorist!

I like him... well not him, I just relate to the whole underdog thing, the rule of law, the anti-Uncle Sam, Howard hating, there are heaps of appealing angles, I can see the appeal and all, but I just think it's funny.

There's something adoringly cute about it all. Maybe something to do with the same said people probably needing a dirty neo-con to protect them the hint of the sight of a real terrorist. I dunno, it just strikes me as cute and funny.

900 writers gave Hicks a standing ovation.

How sad

The article contained: "Simplistic and inaccurate characterisation is a habit that dies hard for some Australian journalists, shock-jocks and opinion writers who were only too willing to point out that "Hicks ain't no Che Guevara" when hearing of his standing ovation at the Sydney Writers' Festival."

I get from the above that the author considers Che Guevara a good guy. He isn't. He headed some of Castro's firing squads. Dictators (left, right or middle) have the nasty habit of murdering those they see as their enemies with either show or no trials. Those who willingly serve those criminals are also criminals. If "Hicks ain't no Che Guevara" that's something in Hicks' favour.

You know, I am entirely convinced that the only reason Hicks gets support was because his circumstances made him anti-Howard material.

I personally (also a decent person, rexw), do not sympathize for someone who fights on behalf of the militant wings of nasty theocratic powers on the basis of expanding their dominion, regardless of if they are caught by one of the countries he was fighting against and mistreated- and I definitely have no problem with my government deciding not to rescue him from them.

What makes me sad is that Julian Assange is, right now being put to similarly bogus charges and there is hardly a peep for him in articles at the moment- especially considering that HE, on the other hand is actually fighting these governments to uphold OUR civil rights- as opposed to the right of some religious extremist to subjugate a nearby village.

Hi Chris,

Laudable that 900 leftie 'intellectual' academic writers identified themselves as true 'sad sacks' so obviously hooked to the hate of everything western, liberal or democratic ... except their right to free speech.

I still don't understand why David Hicks won't talk about his training in Afghanistan?

imajulianutter states "Laudable that 900 leftie 'intellectual' academic writers identified themselves as true 'sad sacks' so obviously hooked to the hate of everything western, liberal or democratic ... except their right to free speech."

Since when did torture and incarceration for nearly six years without charge or trial constitute anything "Western, Liberal or Democratic"?
I thought our liberal democratic system specifically condemned torture and arbitrary detention without trial. Obviously I was wrong.

imajulianutter

I think that is the joke of many on the left who claim to know 'moral' correctness.

In the case of Hicks, they merely gravitate to the parts of the Hick experience that gives them some food for fodder: his treatment without formal charge.

In reality, Hicks was a misguided fool. He should have done more homework before joining extremists.

Yes, I too would also like to know what attracted Hicks to extremists.

A short while ago Bruce Haigh was sermonising about us having accepted the latest candidate for the position of Sri Lankan high commissioner. According to Bruce the candidate had been associated with (though never tried and found guilty of !) some aggressive actions against the Tamil minority.

Here’s a little snippet of what he said:
“ It is wrong for Sri Lanka to have put forward a senior naval officer intimately involved in the civil war as High Commissioner and wrong for Australia to have accepted Admiral Samarsinghe.”

And,Bruce even had some harsh criticism for the Aust govt for merely liaising with Sri Lankan govt agencies:
“It is a crying shame that the Australian Government has settled for lower standards. In the interests of fighting people smuggling, the AFP have posted officers to Colombo to liaise with their Sri Lankan counterparts. However the Sri Lankan police have blood on their hands, having engaged in the extra-judicial killing of Tamils for several decades. “

Anyone who read that article or earlier ones by Bruce might have seen him as a champion of justice & human rights.

So it is somewhat puzzling now to read Bruce, in this latest article, lionising David Hicks.

The same David Hicks who , if memory serves me right, allied himself with the Taliban. A group that among its other notable atrocities wanted to have Hindus wear a distinctive star which would set them apart & no doubt qualify them for special! treatment.

And the same David Hicks,who,allied himself with Muslim groups, fighting in Kashmir, who are less than kind in their treatment of non-Muslim minorities.

After reading this article I found myself asking : “What are the real core values of Bruce Haigh?”

Yeah it's one thing to be against imprisonment without trial, no matter the charge. It's another to give a standing ovation to someone of such dubious moral character.

Either Hicks is an exceptional writer, and they were applauding his linguistic prowess, and put aside for the moment his character, or they really admire that he is fighting for the Taliban, and they identify with this belief system and see him as a freedom fighter.

Perhaps Hicks is a hero to them, as he is putting his life where their mouth is. Really, deep down, they want to wage war with the western world, but find it too hard because their existence is too cushy.

'Oh if only I could just get out of my arm chair, climb down this ivory tower, and breath pure desert dust and wield an AK47' seems to be the essence of the admiration. Aaah, what a man! Although I'd do it while not oppressing women and in an environmentally friendly way in an non-threatening, inclusive culture of sharing and caring, where minorities aren't socially excluded and with complete respect to cultural identity.

Despite himself, Hicks has became a poster boy because of failure of due process.

You don't have to be a Hicks supporter to support a fair judicial system.

Hicks has become a symbol for all the revelations about Guantanomo Bay, rendition, illegality of war and secretive nature of governments.

However there must be better symbols that can be found such as Andrew Wilkie and Joe Wilson.

Hicks did not kill anyone to our knowledge and he has more than served his time, so he should be free to live his life - but a standing ovation?

On the 'due process' issue- there is another problem;

WE did not charge him.
Our act was to simply decline to ask for him to be released, based on the potential security risk of doing so when he is returned domestically.

If it WERE us doing this ourselves I might actually agree with those demanding the government change its act; but as it is, they simply did not intervene, and I am quite happy that my country is taking such a policy (and putting the rights of domestic citizens' safety ahead of a religiously-fanatical-deserting citizen's right to not be mistreated by a foreign country after being part of numerous terrorist groups and illegal militant organizations).

Hazza
The US was remiss in it's own judicial process that was and is the only point. While I think to many Hicks was just another anti-Howard trigger as Houlley suggested, Hicks has also become a pro-Howard symbol in the same way. Both views are equally wrong if looking to politics first and ignoring the wider implications.

Failure of the judicial process has potential for a much wider impact for everyone and especially the innocent.

When governments start locking up people at will ignoring the separation of State and Judiciary we are on a slippery slope.

Hicks could not be charged here because we had no law to hold him but as it turns out neither did the US. New laws formulated in the US to deal with the problems of Guantanamo Bay were made retrospective.

Personally I don't give a stuff about any real terrorists serving time but failure of due process in this instance also meant many innocent men were serving time for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Google 'Guantanamo Bay innocent' to get a feeling for the high incidence of illegal detentions, the incidence is staggering.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7092435.ece

I would imagine the same 900 would give Australia's greatestPM a great boo. The kind you find on Q&A. What a self righteous bunch the left are. I wonder if Bill Henson was the cheer squad leader.

Dear runner,

'The same'again. The lump of inchoate mass you disagree with and lump together.

I enjoyed the article but like others, blanched a bit at the standing ovation.

Is that true? Is the cultural left so out of touch that they would applaud a man who fought with terrorists? Are they thinking he's some sort of Hanoi Jane with an AK47?

King Hazza makes a good point in that Hicks never went to trial. He should have.

Habib & Hicks may not have committed crimes against Australia - so they should be taken back to where they were captured and turned over to the Northern Alliance. It is true, nobody had any right to short-circuit the Northern Alliances Justice System (and that is who they were working against). At least there are no complaints that there is any uncertainty or that justice is delayed, rather justice is certain, swift and incredibly merciful (nobody is held for a decade, that is for sure). It is also much more in line with their professed beliefs, getting captured in Afghanistan isn't the best of ideas for most, I don't see why these two should be treated any differently to anyone else.

I'm amazed at so many experts on the subject of David Hicks. I guess the Internet attracts so many experts on so many subjects - who feel compelled to express their knowledge and expertise on such a diverse range of topics behind anonymity. I personally will wait until I can read the book before judging anyone. There's always more than two sides to any given scenario - the more information you gather - the better you'll possibly understand what actually went down. As for a standing ovation - not sure about what prompted that - wasn't there.

@pelican: The US was remiss in it's own judicial process that was and is the only point. ...

Wow. The lady nailed it.

I've never followed this Hick's thing very closely, but there is this one thing I just don't get. One side is claiming Hick's sided with our enemy and effectively help them fight a war against us and our allies. That sounds like a heinous crime to me. Yet he broke no law?!? How is this possible. It seems to me either the law is a complete ass, or Hick's exploits were so minor no one had thought it worth the effort to make a crime of them until now. Which is it?

@runner: What a self righteous bunch the left are.

Some of them are devoted Christians, just like you runner. Just like you they say they are meek, mild mannered and altogether really nice people. So I guess the righteous bit you hate comes from God, not them.

Pelican, problem is these are still made irrelevant as;

1- Hicks WAS a combatant (tracing back his past campaigns), and was still credibly a great potential threat to Australia due to the proclaimed goals and actions of his letters and his previous employers all being fronts to fight for control of areas from non-Islamic countries/persons.

2- Australia wasn't handling him, the USA was. Meaning that Australia's only options were to go out and rescue him, or decline to do so in consideration of 1 when deciding if he would be a risk to the community he would be set free into.

So the bottom line is to what extent Australia is required to intervene on behalf of its expats, against factors of;
1- compromising the safety rights of domestic citizens
2- the expat was part of numerous unrecognized militant groups that would easily hold hostile views towards western societies.

Whether or not the country holding and mistreating him is an ally of ours, or if that ally pretends to be a Rule-of-Law country or not makes no difference.

IF it was Australia handling Hicks in this way I would see it differently- but for not stepping in and rescuing someone who is a high risk to others, I would say not.

Hi Rhys,

We westerners don't support torture or lenghty detention without trial. We specifically outlaw them.

When we discover such we condemn it, criticise those involved, lay charges where practical but most of all we put an end to it.

You weren't wrong. We do condemn such activities and treat those involved with the usual forgiving nature of our justice system if they 'fess up' or are found guilty at trial.

What we don't do is give the criminals or those suspected of such standing ovations when they write self-serving books that exclude their dark sides and only highlight why they are victms of the system.

aka John Howard ... you might suggest.

cheers

I wonder why there is so much resistance to returning these characters to where they committed their crimes to be judged by those they committed them against (allegedly)? If they are innocent, they have nothing to fear, after all they are not frightened of Muslim law. What right do we have to help them to avoid the consequences of what they chose to do? They are not immune to the law of Afghanistan, where they chose to go, why on earth should they be allowed to benefit from being illegally extradited (as they claim)? We should help them out and return them to Afghanistan, after all they wanted to be there.

I would advocate an immediate investigation into Hicks's allegedly providing material support for terrorism. But before we investigate and judge the actions of one feeble individual, we should first investigate the actions of a super power, and its allies, in fabricating evidence and propagating a war on false premises.
How is it that people can condemn the impulsive and perhaps misguided actions of a single individual, while they simultaneously overlook the lying, calculating and wholesale lethal actions of lawless governments?
I say let's try George W and his cronies, and Hicks, in the same court--defence based on "motive". I think I know where the sh!t would stick!
And that's without even considering the myriad abuses of the conventions of war.
Hicks is actually great ideological PR for the US and co and their "evolving" terrorism laws. They're the wolves ... guess who are the bloody sheep!

David Hicks certainly should not have been mistreated or tortured or hurt in any way. As a couple of contributors have pointed out, he should have been properly tried, perhaps in Afghanistan, found guilty of fighting for a bunch of reactionary medievalists and jailed for an appropriate period.

As well, since he was engaged in fighting Indian troops in Kashmir, firing on them and supporting the LeT, another reactionary Islamist group which has surely met the criteria of 'terrorist', it would not be a surprise if the Indian courts issue an arrest warrant, requiring his extradition, to answer charges of performing terrorist acts against India.

A standing ovation ? Unbelievable: what has the Left come to ?

Joe

Of course Hicks is a hero. He went off to fight with the most noble of peaceful causes, the Taliban.

Their record on women's rights, respect for other faiths and cultures, the innate sense of justice and mercy is of a world leading standard.

We all remember their important restoration work on those run down Buddhist statues http://0.tqn.com/d/middleeast/1/G/3/2/-/-/0910-bamiyan.jpg . Their contribution to female education is second to none (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/29/living-taliban)

Their stance on gay rights was world leading.

It's no wonder that so many felt the need to stand an applaud a man who choose to go and support the Taliban. What a hero.

R0bert

I agree with Custard and Loudmouth- what about the Afghan, Pakistani and Indian courts?
I mean, considering that the whole reason we waged war on the Taliban was because they didn't hand over Bin Laden- yet we are not handing over someone who might actually be guilty of war crimes against these countries?

As much as some posters really wish this could only be about how mean the USA, Bush and Howard are, there are simply far more issues surrounding this story that they are refusing to touch.

Let's try a different scenario- let's pretend that the USA actually bombed its own towers in 911; How does that in any way make a fanatical Taliban soldier suddenly not so?
Answer- it doesn't- hence why, no matter how evil a country someone is fighting, if the opposing individuals are themselves say, extreme Islamist combatants, we should not be helping them either.

Hazza
My points relates more to America than Australia. However, Australia is an ally in the 'War on Terror' and usually the process is such that each nation takes care of its own in terms of infringements or criminal action. This is my understanding of International Law in wartime.

Hicks's crime - 'providing material support to terrorism' - was not a crime against the US, the US was one of a group of nations involved in the war. While I understand the legal intracies were difficult, Australia might easily have passed new legislation to deal with such a case and made it retrospective. Ultimately the US did just that.

The judicial loophole or gap, has been closed should a similar situation arise again. It is imperative it was done to avoid the risk of innocents being interred for long periods of time without trial.

http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr29_3/Zelinka.pdf

As squeers points out as a whole we are much harder on individuals who commit war-related crimes than on governments unless in some cases where they happen to be on the losing side.

But Pelican, he was taken prisoner by the Northern Alliance for being a member of the Taliban. The Americans in their infinite wisdom decided to take him elsewhere - ILLEGALLY - as has been pointed out. He left this Country voluntarily to become an Afghan, once he was released by the Americans he should have been repatriated to Afghanistan (where he chose to be) and given back to the Northern Alliance, against whom he did commit a crime (being a member of the Taliban, same as being a member of the Northern Alliance is a crime against the Taliban). Why he was ILLEGALLY repatriated here is beyond me. Return him to Afghanistan, fix the ILLEGAL transfer problem and the constant refrain that he has done nothing wrong by us. Let the Afghans sort out the problem, I strongly suspect justice would be done and seen to be done within hours. That I would stand for and applaud loudly, he chose to turn his back on this Country, to fight to maintain the most repressive regime on earth, he has made his choice.

I heard David Hicks' father speak in Ballarat when David was being held in Gitmo. Now there is one bloke I would stand up and applaud any day of the week.

Andrew Leigh...Kellie Tranter.

Nice little put together if I do say:)

The human man animal..lol...trust me, its as funny as hell to me.

I think we import Pat Condell to Australia for our leader-ship, and Hicks does ( as evolved first world people ) delivered understandings of what not to do, when acting out. Think! people! Why would you help a person thats helping a people that we are trying to help move along with the rest of the 21 century? Do we have all the time to fight like the proverbial tens rats in a box...I do think so.

To move all together in the 21, is the smartest thing we can do....and trust me, some see the big picture.

All for ONE AND all FOR ALL...............Thats the sh!t.

LEA

Hazza,

You're on the button - Hicks committed offences against India and (by working hand-in-glove with the Taliban) against the Afghan people. If the world worked precisely as it should, he could, as Custard points out, be sent to Afghanistan to face a court there before being taken out and shot, or be sent to India to face a court there before being jailed. Perhaps to India first. On reflection, he may decide that Gitmo was the soft option.

So now the Left opposes women's rights in Afghanistan, especially their education ? It opposes a secular legal system, a separation of 'church' and state, gay rights, tolerance of any other belief or no belief ? Sorry, I must be on a different planet. Or have I got it wrong ? What does the Left support these days, apart from thugs and medievalists ?

Joe

csteele writes

'I heard David Hicks' father speak in Ballarat when David was being held in Gitmo. Now there is one bloke I would stand up and applaud any day of the week.'

so it was you who voted him father of the year.

Runner.....thats a cheep shot.

L

Extremely good point SPQR.

The more I read the opinions of trendy lefties, the more convinced I am that they think entirely in double standards. Orwell noted this and called it "doublethink."

Hence they will denounce any person "suspected" of committing human rights abuses but will aquire a case of acute myopia when it comes to condemning terrorists like Hicks.

My favourite trendy lefty contradiction is their habit of claiming that it is oh, so wrong to prejudge, label or stereotype any group of people, while they prejudge, label and stereotype every right wing group which they despise.

No wonder that Australians have such a low opionion of the Artz caste when this mob consider it the height of chic to always make heroes of Australias enemies. All any write has to do to win a Miles Franklin Award is to claim that they are aboriginal and then write a fictional account of how oppressed they were when they were "stolen" and they are a shoo in.

Australians have no hope of winning any literary award if they have are white and patriotic. They have to change their names to "Helen Demidenko" or any other ethnic name which suits their fancy to be even taken seriously by the literati mafia.

For all of those whining about torture and due process I have got news for you.

There are no legal protections for illegal combattants, there never have been, and there never will be. The United States and prusssia were the first two countries to sign an agreement stipulating that soldiers wearing uniforms were not to be considered criminals, and if captured have legal protections.

But this never applied to un uniformed combattants. Any person who engages in hostilities with a state can simply be court martialed and shot, which is exactly what should have happened to Hicks and Habib. That most states deal with terrorists through the courts through convenience does not detract from the fact that legally, they have no protection at all if caught on the battlefield engaging in hostilities.

This is not a hard and fast trule it depends entirely upon circumstances. The USA chose to regard captured Viet Cong as enemy soldiers, but it was perfectly routine to shoot almost every wounded Japanese soldier. This was because of the extreme brutality of the Japanese, and because it was just too dangerous to try and capture them.

We are now fighting terrorists which are simply "private armies" representing no state who have decided to mass murder our civilians because we do not worship their non existent God. Under such circumstances, we should take off the gloves and come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Perhaps the Sydney Writes Festivval want to suck up to Islam just in case one of their number offends Allah with something they write, and so they hope that the terrorists will forgive them?

Have any of you actually read David Hicks' book? I haven't either, but I am going to reserve it at my local library. As I wrote earlier - we need to get the full story before making judgements. It is here that writers, with their concern for the human condition and their special skills with language, can enable us to better understand the horrific reality of war and conflict and possibly nerve us to build an alternative future.

Lexi I've not read the book and unless I hear of some compelling reasons to do so I can't see why I'd bother.

I don't think that there is any dispute that Hicks chose to go and fight with the Taliban. Their record and a number of human rights issues is staggeringly bad.

It takes a pretty determined effort to choose to go and fight with an outfit like that.

I don't know where Hicks is at now but if he want's a cause the first port of call should be speaking out loudly against support for regiem's like the Taliban. They are still inflicting their brand of faith on the world, one of the links I posted earlier spoke of current activities in Pakistan.

What the US did (and appears to continue to do) is wrong, it should be spoken against but in no way should the wrongness ever be translated to their enemy is my friend which appears to be the case for Hicks.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

I don't question what you're saying - I question - what we really know about David Hicks. And as I stated earlier - I prefer to wait until all the facts are in - not just the media hype.

Dear RObert,

I just read two reviews on the web taken from my local library catalogue - of David Hicks book. "Guantanamo My Journey."

One reader wrote: "As an Australian David Hicks was completely demonised by the media and we were told that he was dangerous, lethal and a terrorist. Reading his book I found that he's none of those things. He's simply an idiot. Misguided - naive. The portrayal of him is wide off the mark. Why would he go to Kasmir? He had no real connection with the Kasmiris. A reading of his book makes him look foolish - not lethal. His account of what happened in Guantanamo may be just scratching the surface."

And, another reader stated: "We just may be left bewildered by the actions of any government that ever supported the establishment of the
Guantanamo "solution."

Anyway, as I said - I'll read the book for myself - and then judge.

RObert and Lexi,

I said above, <let's try George W and his cronies, and Hicks, in the same court--defence based on "motive">

The review you cite, Lexi, bares out what I was getting at. I haven't read the book either but assumed Hicks was acting according to some kind of misguided idealism. To me this amounts to some kind of expiation of his guilt. While it's true that many an atrocity has been committed in the name of idealism, suicide bombers for a start, the twisted logic of an individual is always at least a partial defence; idealism/martyrdom is a form of naivity, or "idiocy", easily manipulated.
The calculated and cynical actions of well-informed government bodies, on the other hand, unmotivated by idealistic feelings, but by ideological supremicism, are far more culpable.
The reason people are so condemnatory of Hicks while simultaneously tolerant of the cynical crimes of "our" governments, is BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT US. We kid ourselves that our discrimination is based on consideration and values.
Nononononono! It's based on ideology, on us against them.

Well LEGO if it wasn't for whining about due process we would be living in dictatorships. Thank heavens for whiners.

As for Hicks it has always been a mystery as to how he ended up training with an overseas terrorist organisation.

Was he groomed? From all accounts he was a likely candidate - young, naive, disenfranchised and all the rest (possibly not a high IQ). Whom did he come into contact with who encouraged and arranged this training? Has anyone been investigated? I don't presume one can just ring up Al Qaida and ask for an interview or write to the Taliban enquiring where to join.

Lots of questions left unanswered but perhaps these are all part of ongoing investigations.

Dear Squeers,

As always you've probably nailed it in one. And as Pelly points out,
so many unanswered questions...

Based on what we have learned about the lies I'd not be standing to give George W. or cronies a standing ovation either.

If I'm considering misplaced idealism a big enough mitigation to get Hicks to the status of deserving a standing ovation then an awful lot of people now in prison should be released.

I agree Hicks appears to have been an idiot but he is an idiot who went and fought on behalf of a regime that murdered large numbers of people who didn't comply with their view of religion, who denied women education, jobs and basic freedoms, who deliberately destroyed priceless cultural artefacts etc, etc.

Other muslims were trying to get some of their excess stopped.

Take a breath, forget about Howard, Bush etc for a few minutes and think about the Taliban and the nature of someone who choose to go and fight with them.

R0bert

[Deleted for abuse.]

LEGO,

.....charmer that you are...I thought I'd add a thought or two to the mix.

Don't you agree that it's fascinating how the U.S. (and yourself, no doubt) supported the "suicidal civilian mass murderers....armed with anti aircraft weapons and anti tank missiles" when they were lobbing them in the direction of Russians.

Why, the Americans even supplied the weapons.

The only principle in play here is that attitudes change depending on who is staring down the barrel, and the U.S. decided to introduce some fancy word play to to wriggle out of it's commitment to the Geneva convention.

What was that you were saying about overly thick craniums?

Well put Poirot.

Fact is bad behaviour should have consequences no matter if it is atrocities committed by governments or individuals. Many like LEGO believe only those who oppose his views need atone for wrongdoing, those who parrot his own worldview can apparently get away with murder.

Accountability is needed more than ever and there are positive signals that people of all persuasions are agreeing at least on that one principle.

For the record, the audience from which Hicks received a standing ovation is unlikely to have consisted of 900 writers. It is likely to have consisted of 900 ordinary Australians - some schoolkids, some senior citizens, some uni students, some writers ... while some were undoubtedly perched high in their ivory towers, others were not. You don't have to be a trendy lefty academic snob to appreciate literature or to attend the writers' festival. That said, I'd imagine that it would take some strength of character to remain seated while the other 899 audience members stood and cheered.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

As for Hicks, a few other posters have raised what I consider to be the most interesting point in this whole debacle. What on earth possessed Hicks to join forces with the Taliban? What was missing in his life that pushed him that far? What could they offer him that an ordinary, sane and humane life could not? Perhaps those answers - if we ever retrieve them - will be the best thing to come out of this whole sorry saga.

Pelican

>> Many like LEGO believe only those who oppose his views need atone for wrongdoing, those who parrot his own worldview can apparently get away with murder. <<

Exactly, which is why the old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a fraught way to deal with exigencies - your enemy's enemy may well come back to bite you.

As for Hicks; Pelican, Lexi and Poirot have made pertinent comments (as usual) regarding his motivation. Would like to add that Howard's handling was less than well thought out, using the hapless Hicks as a scapegoat for all "terrorists" ultimately backfired.

Like jailing for life a drug-mule instead of the drug-lord.

'The calculated and cynical actions of well-informed government bodies, on the other hand, unmotivated by idealistic feelings, but by ideological supremicism, are far more culpable.'

Oh rubbish squeers. You know who makes up governments, multinational corporations and 'the military industrial complex'? People!

Yet lefties assume they're all full of conspiracy and all sorts of evil. I say they're full of half-arsed slacker bastards like myself.

They're full of aspirational yes men, tiresome bureaucrats, career protecting politicians doing the bidding of the squeakiest wheels.

You know what has to happen, people have to make decisions, trade-offs, least worst scenarios, and unintended consequences, and cover their arse just like the guy who's been taking 3 hour lunch breaks and carrying around bits of paper as he walks past the boss to create the illusion he's just come from a meeting.

I'm sure Hicks is an idiot, moreso than a Taliban honcho, but why the standing ovation?

Just like cancer survivors and victims all fight equally hard and that fighting doesn't make them a hero, so too a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time because he was an idiot.

A standing ovation? How bloody ridiculous! I want a standing ovation if he gets one. I think Bill Clinton deserves one for his Lewinski affair then too. He was an idiot with no malice.

Houellebecq,

Only time for a quick response, but look I agree and that's a common-sense appraisal.
Nevertheless geopolitics has been choreographed by the US since WW2, and despite the fact that the various offices are peopled by ordinary sad sacks, each office has a specialised area of intelligence or research or strategy or something, and together they precipitate, fabricate and formulate government policies--each of the no doubt tens of thousands of slack arse individuals involved do the "working out", probably without the faintest idea of what they're contributing to. One thing is for sure, and that is that every major action serves a political agenda; they may be able to be defended/rationalised in the detail, but the devil's in the detail and the trend is to maintain and /or increase geopolitical dominance. The actions of States are generally irreconcilable with their professed ideologies--constitutional spin.

Maybe the standing ovation was for a person who lived the false ideology---but I'll have to read the book too.

Ammonite was correct in saying that Hicks was a Howard government scapegoat....and it was the fact that he survived this dubious honour that probably accounts for the standing ovation.

The moment the U.S. decided to flout the usual conventions in the treatment of prisoners of war, was the same moment that the government heightened its spin in regard to Hicks and others. Ordinary people were urged to just accept the rise of places like Guantanamo and state sanctioned torture as a new kind or normality - because of the "threat".

Remember that Dr Haneef was lined up in an act of desperation in the dying days of the Howard government to play the same role.

'Remember that Dr Haneef was lined up in an act of desperation in the dying days of the Howard government '

And I've never forgiven Kevin Andrews for his impersonation of Goebbels in the whole affair.

But it wasn't all bad, in the dying days of the Howard governmnet, the orang-utans in Indonesia were saved.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/conservation/howard-pledges-help-for-orangutans/2007/11/11/1194724814449.html

BTW: The decision to revoke Haneef's visa was given in principle support by the Shadow Minister of Immigration, Tony Burke

Poirot- in response to your point about the Afghan campaign against Russia, I can say for myself that I staunchly oppose the act of arming the Afghans against the Russians and personally hold it against the United States for going ahead with that policy.

In reply to some others talking about Bush/Howards' war crimes- by all means do charge them with their parts in an international court (even though Australia's role in the war was really quite a lot smaller than most realize)- what has this got to do with Hicks though?

It STILL doesn't change the fact that Australia would still be faced with the same decision of whether they should rescue a brainwashed jihadi and consequently, let him lose in the Australian community- or weigh up the security risk against the decision and NOT do so.
Doesn't matter if we were a neutral country, passive country, uninvolved in the conflict or an active member in the war- we would STILL be faced with that same decision.

Houellebecq: A standing ovation? How bloody ridiculous! I want a standing ovation if he gets one. I think Bill Clinton deserves one for his Lewinski affair then too. He was an idiot with no malice.

Yep. Clinton should definitely get a standing ovation for Lewinski. But don't feel too bad for him, I'm certain he has already got a few for other, less deserving reasons.

As for Hick's standing ovation - you lack imagination Houellebecq. I don't know why they have him a standing ovation (I wasn't there), but I can think of a few. Since most people don't give standing ovation's for act's of idiocy, so I doubt it was that phase of his life that impressed them.

So what could it be? Maybe Hick's is a reformed idiot. There no law that says an idiot can't have some sense knocked into them, and Hick's had more than a few people doing the knocking. He should be a lucky reformed idiot because he didn't harm anyone, unlike say some drunk driver that kills 6 people. But then he finds he is not so lucky, because he becomes the ball in political rugby game played by international governments. It seems like the whole world is lining up to make an example of him not hurting anybody, and get this - they even go to the extent of retrospectively making up new laws so they can do it! Despite the obvious unfairness of it all it seems everybody is in on it, even the press in his own country. He ends up being treated worse than the drunk driver - locked up for years in a prison where they torture people, abandoned by his own country. And yet he survives! He actually outlasts all the powerful forces lined up against him, and even manages to land a blow or two on them!

Amazing story isn't it? Granted he didn't start off on the right foot, but it ended well. Well maybe not, but perhaps it was worth a clap or two.

@ RStuart.

Re: “ Amazing story isn't it”

No, a better word would be delusional.

When David is cornered about having admitted to terrorist acts , his out is that such admissions were made under duress, something that many are all too eager to buy.

However, there is another source that (should) well and truly torpedo his claim to folk hero status.
And it could hardly have been made under duress. His letters to his mother :

i) “As a Muslim we believe in destiny that when it is my time then so be it. If it is my time that is called martyrdom I will always fight for Islam”

ii) “There is one thing I wish to explain about jihad the non-believers, Jews and Americans in the western world are determined to prevent it to come back again. Jihad is still valid today and will be for all time. The West is full of poison. The western society is controlled by the Jews with music, TV, houses, cars, free sex takes Muslims away from the true Islam keeps Islam week and in the third world”

iii) “As a Muslim young and fit my responsibility is to protect my brothers from aggressive non-believers and not let them destroy it.
Islam will rule again but for now we must have patience we are asked to sacrifice our lives for Allahs cause why not? There are many privileges in heaven. It is not just war, it is jihad.One reward I get in being martyred I get to take ten members of my family to heaven who were destined for hell, but first I also must be martyred.”

iv)"I have met Osama bin Laden about 20 times he is a lovely brother the only reason the West call him the most wanted terrorist is because he got the money to take action.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/in-david-hickss-own-words/story-e6frg8yx-1111115167069

He certainly seems to knows what he wants, and to have given it much thought. Hardly a poor confused cobber who just happened take the wrong turn and wind up in bad company.

SPQR,

It's frightening, isn't it, the number of people who are driven to commit or instigate violent actions for their cause and beliefs.

Take George W, bush, for instance. He certainly seemed to know what he wanted and to have given it much thought.....

I suppose you would roundly condemn him as well, especially since his actions resulted in the slaughter of thousands - but then again, God told him to do it......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

I Seem to remember at the start of the Hick's affair, when his stepmother handed his letters to her; to the Authorities, that he also boasted about restoring the Islamic faith to the village of Kashmir, in those letters. This required the shooting of Indian villagers.

She later said she wished she had not handed those incriminating letters over. His father must surely have read those letters. Was
his defence of Hicks completely honest or the desperate act of a father to save his son.

I cannot specifically state the content of the letters like the previous post, but from memory that is what I remember reading in some news reports and a television documentary regarding the same, at the time. It is what sticks in my mind when I judge Hicks.

Also the fact :-
< If you fly with the crows, you get shot down with the crows.> (quote from former Qld, premier-Bjelke Petersen)

Nah,Poirot ,old GW was a namby-pamby panda compared to David.

Compare the two:
When the 9/11 hijackers struck –where was George?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IedVRYUNWUU

He was at elementary school reading a god damn book!
Just look at the surprise and indecision on his face.

David read a god damn book too –but there was no indecision with him ---listen to the masochistic resolve in this letter to his mum:

///As a Muslim young and fit my responsibility is to protect my brothers from aggressive non-believers and not let them destroy it. Islam will rule again but for now we must have patience we are asked to sacrifice our lives for Allahs cause why not? There are many privileges in heaven. It is not just war it is jihad.

We must do this because we are forced simply because the West knows how strong Islam is when practiced.

One reward I get in being martyred I get to take ten members of my family to heaven who were destined for hell

But first I also must be martyred. We are all going to die one day so why not be martyred?///

And after writing that, David flew out and reported straight away to Al Qaeada HQ!

And that is why, David is still playing to packed halls (never mind that they’re largely lightweight lilly livered lefties!)

And old George. why, he'd be lucky to pack a hen house.

Nah, Poirot, if you’ve looking for someone who's likely to make headlines in the future --David's your man.

SPQR,

He'd have to go an awful long way to achieve the scale of death and destruction wrought at Georgie's instigation.....remember, as president, this vacuous neo-con marionette once blurted that the hardest part of his job was to connect Iraq to the war on terror.

Poirot

It is a sad irony that we get statistics on every Australian soldier killed in the Middle East, but no accurate or regularly reported statistics on the lives lost by civilians (men, women, children) in those nations.

And none given to the long term effects of people unlucky enough to live there:

http://tinyurl.com/3ca5yd2

Poirot- that STILL doesn't change this situation I am quoting from my last post:
"It STILL doesn't change the fact that Australia would still be faced with the same decision of whether they should rescue a brainwashed jihadi and consequently, let him lose in the Australian community- or weigh up the security risk against the decision and NOT do so.
Doesn't matter if we were a neutral country, passive country, uninvolved in the conflict or an active member in the war- we would STILL be faced with that same decision."

THIS is what Hicks story is about- as far as Australia is concerned.