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.