Australia does not need a Bill of Rights.

David Hicks & the 9 drug smuglers knew the risks they were taking.
We should not make laws to protect the "lawless".

Tony Smith sounds like someone who likes to protect "crooks".

If numbat is right and the evidence on which is opinion is based, is actually sound and substantial, then Hicks can and should be tried in a legitimate court. The fact that the US government is unwilling to have its 'evidence' against him (whatever the evidence is, is not apparent) tested in a legitimate court under transparently proper process, is grounds for intelligent scepticism, indeed for grave doubt.

I do not trust the current US federal administration. I do not trust the beat-ups. I do not trust the hysteria or wisdom of people who base their opinions on a photo and tabloid story.

I would however trust a legitimate justice process and accept the result it produces. If the evidence against Hicks IS substantial, why hasn't he been brought to trial after all this time? Why must he be hidden away? Why won't the government allow him the same standard and accessibility to legal representation to which any other person would be entitled if accused (rightly or not) of rape, murder, cruelty, war crimes, etc etc. Is Hicks worse, is Hicks LESS deserving than Saddam, the one whose alleged tyranny justified the Iraq invasion?

C'mon numbat, where's the credibility?

Numbat
I seem to remember a photo of Senator Lightfoot holding an AK47, does this make him an unlawful combatant?
With David Hicks we seem to have gone back to pre Magna Carta days when anyone could be locked up because the guy in charge said so.

In one of my correspondences to Mr John Howard I did set out why the Magna Charta was still applicable in the USA. Several months later, the US Supreme Court handed down its decision that the Magna Charta was still applicable.

We have people arguing about that we need a Bill of right. Why?

The Delegates to the Constitution Convention Debates who framed the Constitution made clear that the Commonwealth of Australia would have no power to interfere with the rights provided under the Magna Charta! And, they referred to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1999 (UK) but then known as the Constitution Convention Bill 1898 to be the “new Magna Charta for the people by the people!

This also has been extensively set out in my 30 September 2003 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

Personally, I may deplore what David Hicks was doing or allegedly was doing, but still he is an Australian national and so entitled to have the benefits provided for within the Australian Constitution, which also is within the US Constitution being the Magna Charta rights, the bill of rights provisions, etc.

Moreover, this includes that no prisoner shall be transferred over the seas!

While Hicks might be dealt with within Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) hardly would Howard & Co want to do that as then they themselves might be charged within that provision for invading Iraq!
Last, I knew, Iraq was a “friendly” nation, as we had not declared war, as that required the Governor-General first to publish a DECLARATION OF WAR!
My position is clear that if we have any treaty with the US then the rights of our nationals shall be no less then that of the Americans, and Hicks should have a right to a civil court in the same manner as any American had who were alleged to be fighting against them!

Nothing to do with liking or disliking Hicks conduct, it is about the constitutional rights Australians have while in custody by the US!