Hicks was tortured into a confession at Gauntanamo Bay and is now found innocent. Most sane people know the war on terror is a farce created by our elites to establish their New World Order of a single unelected Govt run by bankers.

Most sane people know that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were based on lies. If Hicks is a monster our criminals Govts are far worse. No mention of our Govts at the last G20 in Brisbane who signed off on a Cyprus style "Bail in" (deposit confiscation) of our bank accounts. Now that is real criminality that goes unaddressed.

Perhaps we should re-try and innocent Lindy Chamberlain and send her to jail again.

Simply labelling an organisation as terrorist does not make it so. The Taliban were the ruling power in Afghanistan and were facing an invasion by Western Forces. He went to fight for them. That does not make him or them a terrorist. Many young men go off to fight in foreign wars. Whether they join the French Foreign Legion, the Israeli Defence force or some other organisation that they perceive is on the side of right.
Funny the author made no mention of his time with the Kosovo liberation army. Was he a terrorist then? Or does the fact that we backed them at the time mean they are not terrorists?
The training described sounds very like military training for the purpose of taking on military forces. There is no mention of Hicks being involved in blowing up school buses or shopping malls. That is terrorism. Taking on some of the most powerful military in the world is hardly terrorism except by the definition that if we disagree with them, they must be terrorists.

He also trained with the Taliban, a terrorist organisation, that provided a safe haven for fellow travelers. And while there's no credible evidence that he was involved in active operations; none that he wasn't.

I mean, what was he, a Bin Laden devotee doing there, and training for what? A flamin summer holiday, boys own adventure?

Come on, pull the other one, least I start walking lopsided!

And he was tortured how?

What, had his eyebrows burnt off, fingernails pulled? An electric charge sent surging through his testicles.

Yes water boarding can be unpleasant as is drowning, but there's not pain nor scars!

Had he served on the Burma railway with the real patriots, he might have discovered true torture and inhuman brutality, which by the way, is only exceeded by ISIL; a brother organisation to the also brutal Taliban, who's only real claim to fame is they hide behind women and children; like the brave warrior class they and their guest, Hicks clearly is!?

The only sympathy I could extend to this traitorous monster; if I had my druthers, comes in a full metal jacket, and delivered right between the eyes!
Rhrosty.

@JLH
i agree with you
tell that to the legalist Poirot
:)

It's a folly to use word like morality when it comes to war. The victor writes the history but everyone hands a dirty.

Had Hicks traveled to Afghanistan during the Russian invasion when the west was sponsoring the Jihadist would you feel the same way about him?

@cobber

hmmm...
we swore allegiance to our flag...our constitution right?
if the govt of the day has decided on a stand, we will have to be obliged to wear the australian armed forces uniform right?

if we feel strongly about a stand the govt of the day is taking, we can opt not to support it

but to GO AGAINST it and wear the uniform of the enemy which the govt of the day have aligned itself with?

i think we are idiots to court the Japanese...to fly to Syria ... to support usa in ukraine...etc
i will not want to participate by wearing the uniform
i will criticise

BUT i will not join the enemy or enemies of our allies or put on their uniform ...firing a bullet or not is not the issue

that is crossing the fine line

:)

Mr Lea-Henry has a common misconception about "terrorism". He also completely misunderstands the events that Hicks was involved in. The Taliban was the legal government of Afghanistan. The salaries of its ministers were being paid by the US government. The US had no problem with the Taliban (whom it helped put into power through its training, arming and financing of mujihideen in the post soviet occupation of Afghanistan). Incidentally, one of those mujihideen was Osama bin Laden.

The Afghanistan government fell out of favour with the Taliban government when the latter refused to agree to an American company, one of whose directors was Condoleeza Rice, build a pipeline from the Caspian basin to a Pakistani port. The contract went to an Argentinian company, Bridas, who later successfully sued the US government for compensation, although you will never read that in the Oz msm. The decision to invade Afghanistan was made in July 2001, well before the ostensible reason of the 9/11 attacks in the US.

That invasion was illegal. Hicks, in choosing to fight with the Taliban was breaking no law, either US or Australian. To call him a "terrorist" is nonsense. To completely avoid talking about the real terrorists, those who invade, bomb and terrorise countries that do not comply with its geopolitical aims, is typical intellectual dishonesty, of which this article is a prime example.

Abbott jihad?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vvrYfxD1RUw/VOuIHIq7QbI/AAAAAAAApgA/eDcZLHg9mr4/s1600/david%2Bpope%2Btampa%2Babbott.jpg

James
You’re being a bit selective here. There was a prolonged civil war in Afghanistan in which the Taliban gained the upper hand for a few years, but it never controlled all of the country, and was never recognised by the UN as the government, nor by the vast majority of countries. In fact, only three countries recognised it – the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

I agree with the author’s premise. David Hicks is scum. What he did should have been illegal, but it wasn’t – or at least, he was not legitimately convicted of any crime. His treatment was disgraceful, as was the neglect of his case by the Australian government. Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran are scum too (or they were), but the Government is – quite rightly, in my view – doing what it can to save them.

Hicks was entitled to due and fair process, the same as anyone else. I just wish it had landed him legitimately in jail.

@Rhian. I would deny being selective. One of my points was that the US had no trouble with the Taliban until they ceased to play ball. Then they were attacked. I agree that they were not recognised as the legitimate government, although the US nonetheless supported them financially. The part they didn't control was the non-Pashtun north, largely run by a collection of despotic drug dealing warlords, including Dostun and Hekmatyr. One of the consequences of the illegal invasion was that heroin production massively increased, providing, inter alia, a major source of funding for the CIA's off the books terror campaigns.

I discussed many of these aspects in an article in the Journal of 9/11 Studies a few years back. I particularly recommend two books by Peter Dale Scott, "The Road to 9/11" and "American War Machine" both of which discuss the geopolitics of what really happened pre and post 9/11 with Afghanistan.

Section 80.1 of the Australian criminal Code states that a person has committed the offense of Treason, if the person

Levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; or engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:
(i) another country; or
(ii) an organisation;
that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force; or
instigates a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth; or forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act.

In February 1998, Osama bin Laden signed a fatwa, as head of Al-Qaeda, declaring war on the West and Israel. Later in May of that same year al-Qaeda released a video declaring war on the US and the West.

On 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the 11 September attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., NATO invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and declared the attacks to be an attack against all 19 NATO member countries. Australian Prime Minister John Howard also declared that Australia would invoke the ANZUS Treaty along similar lines.

David Hicks was a member of an Al Qaida army who's leader had declared war on the West, which included Australia. Prime Minister John Howard invoked the ANZUS alliance which declared the Al Qaida attack to be an attack upon the ANZUS signatories. Australia was at war with Al Qaida when David Hicks surrendered with the Al Qaida and Taliban Army trapped in Kunduz. He was an Australian citizen in an enemy army. As such, he should have been prosecuted for Treason

James O' Neil thanks for your remarks, we are only told what Governments want us to know, the rest is hidden, the word "terrorist" is now the word we must hear from our leaders, not mentally deranged or unstable in their attitude, Martin Bryant would now be a terrorist, the biggest terrorists are the leaders who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan some time ago, mainly Bush, Blair and Howard, this now has led to the predicament the ordinary people are now all facing in the Western countries, terrorism created, when will they admit it.

LEGO look at the truth.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTv2nFjMBk Here you will see a youthful Tim Osman alias Osama Bin Laden co -operating with Zibigniew Brezezinski the biggest influence on US foreign policy since 1975.Zibigniew wrote the book 'The Grand Chessboard'in 1998 saying," What we need is a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." Others echoed this saying they need a new Pearl Harbour.

Al Qaeda was created by the USA oligarchs as their controlled opposition to bring on their wars of terror.

Hi LEGO

Well argued.

What did he think he was doing, learning in training camps, how to kill and blow-up non-Muslims?

Notice how unrepentent he is?

I reckon if he still wants compo from the Commonwealth then charges should be brought against him. Treason looks viable.

Meanwhile he can whip up a West hating cheer squad who:

- will give him appearance money at all the anti-Government moon-ins that he'll be attending

- there's always private Arab money

- book rights, and

- film rights

- nutjob theatre rights

He'll do better than people who served Australia in Afghanistan and Iraq.

plantagenet, "Hi LEGO, Well argued"

Well argued both of you. Your tenacity is welcome, thanks.

Regardless. Of who is the terrorist America or the Taliban
As argued by some here..

David Hicks fits the criteria for a traitor, who was willing to commit treason against
His own side.

If Osama Bin Laden changed sides and was fighting alongside the American soldiers
Against the Taliban, would they also not see that as treason. They probably would have cut his throat, or burned him alive in a cage not given him 5years in an unpleasant prison.

If you fly with the crows you get shot down with the crows.

If you are, looking and acting and squawking like a crow(writing letters home crowing about establishing the Muslim faith in Kasmir in India ,achieved with the slaughter of innocent village people). Then. You are a crow.

Hicks was extremely fortunate he was captured by the Northern Alliance. They may have thought they could get a ransom for him. Sit back and consider, there was a compound from which allied forces had been fired on, the usual response would have been to flatten it with an air/artillery attack. As for basements standard training step one, lob a grenade or two down the stairs. Oh dear we have a dead person of european appearance, he is armed and in company. He may have even fired on allied forces. What a pity he was in the wrong place at the wrong time!

This is a man who had his initial training in Kosovo, then moved on to Afghanistan for further training admitted firing on Indian troops in Kashmir. If he had died in any of these places we would have never heard of him.

For some reason https does not work on OLO. Here is Osama Bin Laden best friends with Zibigniew Brezezinski. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTv2nFjMBk The USA created Osama Bin Laden to fight the USSA and later used them to bring on their wars of terror

This is very revealing.General Wesley CLarke was told soon after 911 the USA would take out 7 countries in 5 yrs. By Sept 20th 2001 they had already decided to invade Iraq. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Now we have liars trying to tell us that Russia is the problem when they are defending their own sovereignty.

Where's Foxy? David Hicks is under attack.

I'm confused by James O'Neill's comments:

1) The Taliban was the legal government of Afghanistan.
2) The Afghanistan government fell out of favour with the Taliban government when the latter refused to agree to an American company...
3) I agree that they (meaning the Taliban) were not recognised as the legitimate government, although the US nonetheless supported them financially

Is this an example of James stating facts on the run, being confused on the issue, or simply a concerted effort to disseminate misinformation and getting caught out?

Arjay nice to hear the truth, the lies that spew from the mouths of politicians and media is beyond me, WW1 the glorified war, we would prefer to hear the truth of all those young unnecessary lives lost, not bull sh.. just to keep the masses quiet, people like yourself look beyond the untruths being told on a daily basis. The USA has caused in one way or another the problems that now confront the Western world under the guise of terrorism, created by them.

How can you say Hicks was not a terrorist, or the Taliban were not terrorist, because they were part of the lawful government of Afghanistan?

So according to that theory, a lawful government is free to commit whatever crimes they want, so long as they take the trouble to validate it with an act of legislation?

This of course is exactly what all governments do - they just exempt themselves from their own definition of terrorism. It is only this facile definition that prevents them all from being identified as the worse terrorists, and everything they do as based on what they themselves define as terror.

Ojnab, this is where we are headed if we don't face the truth. http://kingworldnews.com/paul-craig-roberts-nuclear-war-now-threatens-destroy-world/

The living will envy the dead.