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.