Plerdsus, you say ‘we live in a new century,’ how much have you read about the middle ages? War against terrorism is not ‘totally different’ probably the discourse is different, but pathological fear (paranaoia) has existed for as long as human have existed, and the use of that fear by those seeking power and control has also been used for a very long time.

'Wars of extermination' ditto.
‘People get killed in wars’ I agree. However, new media coverage of wars of invasion has surgically removed the victims.

If David Hicks was brought to Australia and set free, it would be because he has not broken any laws. If he has, or if he has broken the laws of other country then there are treaties and covenants that cover this field.

You say ‘at the time he was fighting allied troops in Afghanistan there was no law against that.’ You are mistaken, our ‘common laws’ go back a long time, and the law-makers have made sure to cover most of the areas in regards to criminal acts, here and abroad (inclusive they have gone far beyond and that is why we need to discuss the issue of a Bill of Rights – as the 2002 anti-terrorism legislation, for example, does impinge on our human and civil rights).

In regards to ‘retrospective legislation,’ you are correct, it would be ‘the greatest violation of our rights.'

‘Declamations against torture…, [and]...a terrorist secretes a nuclear bomb…’ I believe in this statement you boarding the areas of paranoia and that is why we have laws, so we do not go on killing our neighbours just because we thought they were about to implant a bomb in our house, when they were merely looking for their pet!

‘Does anyone seriously consider that there is any prospect of him rehabilitating?’ I do not know whether this question has anything to do with David Hicks legal status or trial. You are already passing judgement.

‘…we run the risk of another terrorist group…’ here we go again with the ‘pathological fear.’ Do you have any chance of rehabilitation

Dear Readers,
Some of the comments posted really put a chill up the spine. I remember some of the the old cowboy westerns when the lynch mob would catch some cowboy and say right "string him up!"

Don't you think if Milosovic can get a fair trial though the I.C.C. then so should Hicks or any of the other detainees in the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay.
The need for a bill of rights to me seems more evident now that the assistance of the Foreign Affairs department is so lacking given that help for Aussie standed overseas is at the whim of the foreign minister.

You only have to look at the comments of the Majors who resigned from the Military Commissions who said such things that (the commissions)"were a fraud perpetuated on the US citizens."
that they were struggling to cobble up evidence and that it was neccesary to use hearsay evidence from fellow inmates extracted under torture! to have any prospect of a conviction.
There is I know a photo of Hicks with a Rocket launcher over his shoulder as there was of a photo of 'children overboard' one needs to know in what context it was taken. If it was a training photo so be it. Probable every foot solder in the Australian or US army could have a similar photo taken.

In my view Hicks has been held at Guantamamo Bay for so long because its been expedient for the U.S. Govt politically given the so called war on terror. Holding suspects for so longer tells the US citizens that they have done something about 9/11.
Secondly he has been held for so long because the government has little or no evidence that can "stand the light of day." Otherwise if there was it would take little effort to put him before a Judge and Jury and try him according to ordinary natural justice

Marlene, it is great to be able to have a robust discussion on this subject, as it helps everyone to clarify their ideas. Yes, I have read a lot about medieval war, and think we are heading right back in that direction. Just look at the factors that will influence this century:

1 The world population is increasing at 6 million per month, almost entirely in the third world.

2 We are coming to the end of the age of cheap energy, and this must mean that living standards all around the world will decline sharply in the near future.

3 The only way we know how to run an economy is with perpetual growth, and this will be no longer possible because of 2.

4. The last period of sustained economic decline was the Great Depression, and people didn't like it much.

The effect of all the above unfortunately will be more terrorism, conflict and violence as nations fight over the limited resources left and endeavour to keep out illegal immigrants desperate to join the party and get away from the third world.

The only reasonable yardstick by which anyone can forsee how this will work out is to assume that human nature, which has not changed throughout recorded history, will remain at the same abysmal level it is at today.

I believe that the best example of how life will be like here in 50 years time is given in modern-day Israel.

As far as my rehabilitation is concerned, I don't believe in inflicting violence on anyone, except in self-defence, and don't expect to be changing that opinion.

As far as "common law" offences are concerned, they do not apply outside Australia. Recently in parliament several opposition members proposed retrospective legislation to cover the difficulties in prosecuting Hicks if he were returned here.

The difficulty I have with David Hicks, is that we just don't have reliable facts or details from his accussors which we can verify.

Some reports have described Hicks as a Taliban fighter, others as an Al Qaida operative. I don't believe that these descriptions are interchangeable. One group was the unrecognised government of Afghanistan, the other a terror organisation.

If he was fighting for the Taliban surely he is a POW, if he was fighting for Al Qaida he is nothing more than a common criminal, and should be treated as such. To much time has been wasted trying to classify and determine how to treat Hicks. If he was really bearing arms against Coalition forces he is either an enemy soldier or attempting to commit murder.

Lets get his trial underway, show the world the evidence and convict or free on that basis.

The USA has had a bill of rights for a long time. That has not prevented them from exercising electrifyingly cruel and unusual punishments of a terminal nature against many of its citizens who were, posthumously, found to have been wrongfully convicted.
A Bill of Rights might have a lot going for it, but on US evidence, is no guarantee.
The body of laws we currently have, if appropriately applied, would cover many of the deficiencies under present scrutiny.
Our community has every reason to be concerned that the philosophy and practices of the Virginian Captain William Lynch are creeping into acceptability for current society.
Things were bad enough during IRA troubles when Lord Denning commented on what he viewed as unfortunate - the discontinuance of the death sentence, as it had enabled the revelation of police malpractice: Had the wrongly convicted suspects been executed, the law would not have been exposed to bad repute. Now it appears that the social scene in Britain is so much worse that British police have followed someone they regarded as a suspect into a train where he peacefully seated himself, and shot him: so far, without much more than an "oops, sorry".
There may be occasions when someone must arrogate to themselves the right to be, literally, judge jury and executioner. I do not endorse their proliferation. I would like to have, wherever possible, the facts of the situation presented in the light of day, under the aegis of either a bill of rights or of adequately administered existing law. That rather than a standardised "shoot first and ask questions later" attitude.

One thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post is that to date David Hicks status as a Belligerent has yet to be ratified. According to the Geneva Convention the status of a person must be verfied by a properly
constituted court. This has yet to be done! Also the U.S. government
tried recently to raise the level of what constitutes torture in the military conventions. Also why is it that U.S. soldiers are indemnified against criminal actions by failing to ratify international conventions?
Again I reiterate this has nothing to do with making Hicks a Hero or a martyr it simply ascribes that we all deserve 'due process'according to international law no matter what the circumstances.
In addition this has nothing to do with left or right-wing ideologies it is simply about giving Hicks a fair trial and fair punishment should that be necessary.
Given that Hicks has been held for nearly for years mostly in solitary confinement, subject to abuse and torture in a foreign country.
Maybe the neo-con's in the U.S. administration should revisit the U.S. 1977 movie 'Midnight Express."