The left is just as unable to appreciate how a large number of people feel about Hicks as they were with the Tampa. As an Australian, perhaps the best thing to do with Hicks would be to bring him before a kangaroo court, with Judge Lynch presiding. If that is unplatable, he could follow the tradition of Breaker Morant and be processed under rule 303.

I couldn't make such sense of Nick's article, probably because he threw me when he described Malcolm Fraser as an "eminent and well respected Australian". That's not the man I remember as Prime Minister, and I feel sure it's not the same man whom the lefties said of: "give Fraser the razor".

I am sure "Bomber" Beazley would jump at the idea if he could travel to Cuba on a Navy vessel and get to fly on an Air Force plane. Unfortunately I can't see Howard offering the services of the Defence Forces to help this mission of mercy. Thats the price you pay for being Leader of the Opposition (sic) instead of PM - you dont get to play with the toys.

Nic,

We all know now that Beazley and Labor knew about the kids overboard and the Howard/Reith lockout of media when it was taking place. They baulked, they stalled, and they said nothing lest they slip back into “conviction politics”.

I doubt very much that Beazley and Labor [who are more scared of their own party's history of conviction politics than they are of Howard's regime] - would come out swinging over David Hicks.

Beazley regularly confuses political pragmatism as a 'politic of conviction'. Its not that he does not care about issues like Hicks that clearly requires a conviction, he just doesn't know how to go about expressing it strategically. When faced with a fight he's give lots of flowery commentary about a fight he will knowingly not engage in. Basically, he's got no mongrel in him, nothing that even resembles the ticker his old Dad was known for. He was obviously the ‘runt’ (yes hard to imagine) of the Beazley litter. Lots of eloquent barking at the moon but no bloody bite. It’s sad but true.

I have just posted (rather late – apologies) to the Online Opinion Forum on Tony Smith’s piece, “The Hicks case is becoming a constitutional crisis”. Interested readers might like to look at it.

The Hicks case is becoming very serious – I agree with Tony Smith and Nick Gruen. Would that Labor could see it that way. Our neo-cons are now fighting rather desperately to keep their fingers in the dike on this – just look at Gerard Henderson, Plerdsus and Numbat ( on the Smith thread). I think it is important for liberals to try to keep their arguments cool and focussed on due legal process that should be every Australian’s right. We are not about burning witches here, I hope.

Nick what a good idea.

I fist wrote to the Washington Post at Christmas three years ago complaining "Hey Hick's is an Aussie!" I followed through with arguments about defending democracy, rule of law, Geneva conventions, ANZUS agreements, blah, blah blah..
I have been writing ever since that its in the U.S.'s interest also to give Hicks a fair trial.

The current arrangements wont, cannot and should not appease no one!

Re Kim Beazley’s Tampa

Who's David Hicks? & What’s a Tampa ?.......
………….only those who consciously or unconsciously support the objectives of David Hicks and the mass murdering savages he ran with, have the time to lose sleep over the fate of “our David” their romantic Che, their very own “Muslim freedom fighter”.

As for Tampa, as repugnant as the concept may be, to the various Australian based cheer squads for mass Islamic colonization under the guise of humanitarian refugee relocation, Australians see nothing wrong with deciding who will, and who wont, enter their country as opposed to been told who will, and by whatever means.

Weird isn’t it? but that’s the way the majority of Australians think, sick bastards, you see they are just not as educated or as intelligent or moral as “Our David” and his supporters and the castaways / Pirates of the Tampa.

RSole

tony kevin,

Haven't you got the gender wrong? What's this about burning witches? I thought we were talking abour wizards.

Pierdsus, obviously, the gender of the scapegoat is not important to my argument – David Hicks could be man, woman, or child (and he is a very young man still). What matters is the disregard for facts, the hysteria, and our government’s deliberate construction of a false reality around him. In three and a half years he has gone from being “a bit of a goose” (Downer) to someone now being presented as highly malevolent and dangerous – your letters on him offering good examples of how successful the process has been. This isn’t so different to the way alleged witches were demonised , tortured and killed in the Dark Ages.

It’s why the Hicks judicial process matters so much – we don’t want to go back to those days. (And it is why Arthur Miller had to write "The Crucible" as a warning against contemporary McCarthyism). A fair judicial process for Hicks really does matter to us all

Tony Kevin

You are completely correct. Whether Hicks is innocent or guilty is not the issue - the issue is that we supposedly have a system which enables anyone accused of a crime to a fair trial. If we lose this we lose a fundamental part of our democracy.

Unfortunately Beazley is just as confused about a fair and just society as is our little PM. And more importantly, for reasons I cannot fathom, much of Australia couldn't really give a rat's about Hicks. Even if Beazley did manage to find the 'ticker' the sad and awful truth is that the average aussie voter would not be at all impressed - they think that Hicks brought it on himself and they don't seem to realise the danger to their own little lives that this debacle represents.

Not that I'm cynical or anything......

I find it extremely disturbing that some people here are willing to assume Hicks' guilt (of precisely what charges I'm not sure), without so much as a skerrick of proof or transparently accountable process.

For all that any of us actually know, Hicks MAY be guilty. If so, then the evidence against him should be tested in a properly constituted court. In the USA if necessary.

Equally, for all that any of us actually know, maybe Hicks is NOT guilty and is merely being held in perpetuity on suspicion in the absence of evidence that would survive even ordinary standards of scrutiny.

The enthusiasm of some people to join in a baying chorus of condemnation, from a standpoint of complete ignorance - is incredible. I assume such people would be willing to submit themselves, or a beloved family member, to the same standard of justice and imprisonment - on the basis of mere allegation from a 'friendly' government that does not dare deal with its own citizens in the same way.