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.