I always laugh when I read commercial lawyers try and analyse international law. I remember almost watching my sides split when I read Dr Janet Albrechtsen's analysis on the alleged legality of the 2nd US-led war against Iraq. She was treating UN Security Council resolutions as if they were provisions of the ASX Listing Rules.

Now another commercial lawyer has thrown his 2 cents worth in, though I wonder if it is even worth that much. The Geneva Conventions are just one aspect on the issue of the War on Terror & Other Adjectives/Pro-Nouns. Alan has not considered other aspects of international law.

Finally, I doubt the family of David Hicks will be framing Alan's analysis on their lounge-room wall. And neither will my international law lecturers at ANU.

Alan, do yourself a favour and stick to commenting on legal regimes you are qualified to comment on.

I would very much like to see supporting information that the "party" must be a party to the convention or apply it, and that the armed forces must follow the "4 rules". Because it seems to me that we are being asked to ignore basic rules of construction and accept that provisions stated in different language with varying degrees of specificity and referring to different but partially overlapping sets were all designed to have uniform meaning. If that were true then it would have been uneccessary to draft multiple provisions.

No mention of the Taliban. The assumption appears to be that Hicks wasn't there to fight, but to be a terrorist. As evil as the Taliban were, and with their connection with Al-Qaeda, they are different. It is not manifestly clear that they are not POWs; most critics don't want a full trial, just is a reasonably unbiased one. Interrogating soldiers and suspects could also prevent attacks or crime and identify other enemies/criminals.

"One view holds that the war on terror is 'more a figure of speech than a legal term of art' and 'more accurately described as a non-state specific campaign against globally organised crime'. "
The author thinks this view is absurd and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and not assume he thinks it is better described as a legal term. Is it a campaign against crime or a war? For them it is a war, but they aren't fighting for "terror", it is their weapon. We aren't fighting terror, terrorism or terrorists in general. We certainly don't act like we are fighting a war and if not for Iraq we wouldn't consider ourselves "at war". We go about our normal business, and our efforts are mainly reactive, with us waiting for them to commit acts or conspire to do so. Intelligence & law enforcement have an increased role, but they still and always will dwarf active military involvement. Some concessions may be need for evidence rules in order to make it possible to prevent terrorist acts, but nothing drastic is needed.

'Information from Guantanamo interrogations derailed plans for attacks during the Athens Olympics and elsewhere' Any hard evidence to back this up? Or is it just an assertion by the US military to justify the otherwise indefensible.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." — Benjamin Franklin

The repeated claim that extraordinary powers are needed to combat ‘terrorism’ is another of the justifications of those in authority who believe that they ought to have complete control.
The choice for ordinary people is the minimal risk of harm from a terrorist attack or living under the unfettered power of authorities, or government.
For me there is no contest — I’ll take my chances with the terrorists!

Firstly, I would like to thank Alan Anderson for helping the Liberal Party's re election chances. His touching concern for the people who would happily murder all of us in our beds marks him indelibly as a supporter of the ALP, the Greens or the Democrats.

There have been numerous attempts by usually Third World countries to have ununiformed terrorists accepted as POW's. The civilised countries will not have a bar of it because it would give legitimacy to any insurgent group who has a beef with the West.

Terrorist organisations like Italy's Red Brigades or Germany's Red Army Faction were essentially minor domestic problems that were handled adequately by national police forces. But International terrorists who are organised into well armed armies, and who have the capacity top launch serious attacks upon the civilian populations of advanced societies, are another thing altogether. These people base themselves in lawless societies beyond the reach of any nations legal jurisdiction.

These people are neither POW's nor criminals. Soldiers wear uniforms. Criminals do not blow themselves up when resisting arrest. They are international religious terrorists, and terrorists have never been protected by any treaty that allows human beings to murder each other in a civilised way.

Personally, I do not know why we do not classify them under the Old British system of "Outlaws". That means exactly that. They are completely outside any protections of any Law.

It's funny that Alan Anderson claims that we can not win the War on Terrorism unless we implement legislation that will guarantee that we will lose it.

Alan Anderson’s argument is akin to a shop assistant suggesting the removal of my toes because the available shoes are too small for my feet.

And to that extent, he makes himself an apologist for Bush, Blair & Howard & their flagrant disregard for International Law.

But Anderson’s arguments are all the more specious because he has chosen to ‘fashion’ the facts to suit them.

David Hicks was not ‘captured on the field of battle’ in any conflict involving US or allied forces. Quite to the contrary, Hicks was captured & held by members of the northern alliance insurgency in December, 2001, prior to the US-led invasion of the country, before being subsequently ‘sold’ to forward units of the US military after the invasion commenced.

As far as Mamdouh Habib is concerned, he was arrested in Pakistan, illegally ‘rendered’ to Egypt & tortured, then transferred & held at Guantanamo Bay for 2 years, before being released without charge.

Notwithstanding slanderous allegations made against both men by various politicians & members of Australian security services, under the protection of Parliamentary privilege, the Australian government has repeatedly stated that neither have broken any law.

No change to International Law is required to test the status of David Hicks under the terms of the Geneva Convention & any evidence against Mamdouh Habib could have been produced in civilian courts in Pakistan or Egypt, but wasn’t.

The abuses of International Law visited on David Hicks & Mamdouh Habib by the US, Pakistani & Egyptian governments, with the active support & connivance of the Australian government, says more about the willingness of governments to abuse their power.

Alan Anderson should be using his talents to emphasize the importance of upholding existing International Law, rather than advocating its replacement with ‘laws of convenience’.