Mr. Tanner’s final paragraph says all that needs to be said, and even though many don’t seem to agree that Australians and other foreigners should not be treated in, say Singapore, exactly the way citizens of the country are treated, that is what happens and that is what should happen.

However, in comparing the cases of ordinary criminals like Corby and Nguyen with terror suspect and known associate of terrorists, David Hicks, Mr. Tanner loses his way.

Mr. Tanner overlooks the principles he sets out in his final paragraph. Hicks was captured and incarcerated by America. Therefore he is subject to American jurisdiction, not Australian.

Hicks has not received much sympathy from Australians, and the Government has repeatedly refused to interfere. That is because, unlike Mr. Tanner, most Australians see a great difference between a suspected terrorist and criminals who, to them, have received sentences they believe to be well out of proportion to their misdeeds. They see terrorists as a much bigger threat to humanity than criminals, even drug smugglers.

Therefore, whether or not people sympathise with Corby and Nguyen, it is only the anti-America, Howard-hating brigade who make any fuss about Hicks. Hicks is not seen to have any rights at all. True, he hasn’t yet come to trial (he almost did at one stage, but his defence team were not ready after all the time he had been held and they had the trial delayed), but there is enough information of his training, brandishing weapons, and letters written by him in the public arena to indicate that he has no sympathy due to him.

Comparing lawbreakers, who have clear rights under law, with terrorists for whom laws are still evolving because they are a new threat, will not wash with level headed people

Mr Tanner.

I appreciate your article. I watch Online Opinion basically for articles relating to this subject.

I cannot disagree with your comments - or Leigh's about David Hicks -but the situation goes way further than that regarding any foreigner of any nationality who is incarcerated in any country whether rightly or wrongly. They deserve recognition and support.

Please refer to the case of Nick Baker incarcerated in Japan and the website http://www.justicefornickbaker.org/index.shtml
and the Foreign Prisoners Support Service website where many people are currently incarcerated and not well publicised.
http://www.usp.com.au/fpss/index.html

It is a complex issue. Basically one of Human Rights. See United Nations website and Amnesty International. But most certainly one which I think "some thinking people" are becoming aware of. Gradually. In the case of our Australian citizens I believe that the government could and should have been/can be - more proactive in using the option of "trade agreements". Had more Australians been informed of the ramifications of same then I believe more pressure could have been applied in the case of Schapelle Corby and Van Tuong.

This, because I believe that citizens in these other countries do not have the option to do so (as we do) because of their political structure/s -yet we do - and should exercise same.

G. Williams

If Hicks had become a British citizen before going on his "adventure" with the Taliban he would not be in prison. He would be a free man living in England.

Hicks was not captured by Americans, he was captured by Afghans. He is being held in Cuba to avoid American Law. Australian troops were also in Afghanistan yet we let America incarcerate suspects on our behalf.

Hicks's trial was delayed in November 2004 when the US Federal Court ruled that Commissions were neither competent nor lawful, not because his defence team was not ready.

The picture of Hicks with a weapon was taken in Albania when he was training with the KLA and backed by the US Army.

Hicks may very well be a dangerous man who needs to be locked up, but to keep him in a military prison for more than 3 years without trial is wrong and for people to remove his right to a fair trial with adequate rules of evidence is also wrong.

Steve,

As I recall it was only a few months ago that by a chance comment to one of his lawyers that David may have been able to regain UK citizenship by virtue of his birthright - the first time he became aware of it. Or mentioned to his lawyer.

I believe there have been various "legal arguments" pertaining to same since that time. (UK citizenship).

I reiterate - any person - of whatever nationality - has the right to a fair and just trial in whatever country they may be incarcerated in.

Within the last 48 hours I saw an article on one of the major news sites either here (Australia) or BBC (or USA which I doubt) that Hicks is facing a "kangaroo court". I think it may have been BBC. Not sure.

Whatever - it does not appear as if it is going to be a fair and just trial. And that is against the statute of United Nations and Amnesty International and needs to be brought to the attention of the world arena who often become apathetic after such a long time of a trial commencing.

There have been news reports of our Prime Minister, Mr Howard and Mr Bush having, I believe, discussions about this situation. To what outcome I am not immediately aware. Although I am sure they are documented on google.

The link below will give you more information.

http://www.usp.com.au/fpss/prisoners.html

So as not to go "off topic" we all need to pay much more attention to any detainees in any country and the surrounding circumstances and do whatever we can to help them and their families. While at the same time pursuing other avenues of assistance. eg Government.

I have noted and reinforce the comment that Mr Tanner "lost his way when comparing Nuygen, Corby and Hicks, in the same package".

David Hicks is a political prisoner and also an advertised prisoner of the system of American Retribution. He is a warning to all those who Oppose or Join a Terrorist Organisation.

The others are simply criminals, whether genuine or not, who have been punished for a crime against the Nation which holds them accountable for actions which are against the Law within the Territories of Indonesia/Singapore.

David Hicks was caught fighting for the Taliban and so be it. He is now subject to American control of his destiny. The Law is looking like it may win this one eventually. And so it should.

David being tried for crimes against America etc. will be a triumph for the Law makers of this world. Whether the trial will be a Fair Trial or not will determine how the World views American Law in the future.

Helen Treloar Duggin

If people break the laws of countries, they should be prepared to accept the punishment of those laws.
The Bali drug smugglers would have known Indonesia's laws. There is doubt about Corby, Hicks was looking for adventure...he found it.
Australian law is too soft particularly on drugs.
Australians should have a referendum on capital punishment.

Mr.Tanner/Steve Madden,
Thank you for your comments, they have shed light on an otherwise dark subject.
As for Corby, there has been questions surrounding baggage handlers, and our police may discover further evidence there.

On Hicks, those who claim he should not be in the same grouping as the others, have obviously not afforded him the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and have been happy to go along with trial by media.

What a sad inditement on the radical right, as Senator Barnaby Joyce described them "the lunatic right" who are unable to see past their collective noses.

[Deleted as comment spam]

[Deleted]

People say David Hicks has never got a fair trial. Nor did Van. What sort of trial was that? Certainly not fair. Just a rubber stamping, no more, no less.

We have our hands tied, we cannot ask for a fair trial because the meaning is lost outside our shores. Even within our shores to be honest.

So they suffer what fate deals them, has nothing to do with fair trials at all.

I will not travel to any country that I feel has an unjust legal system, so I guess I am stuck visiting the Great Barrier reef for the next century. Not that I mind at all:)

David Hicks is one of the few (from 3 years ago who are still being held in GTMO. Most have been found to be innocent, many have been returned to their countries. He is being held up and is most certainly to be the sacrificial lamb for the USA to show the world what they will do to 'terrorists' whether innocent or not. If the USA try David Hicks in a military court room, there will be no justice as western nations expect. This will not be a fair trial. The Australian Government, by its lack of pressure toward the USA Government is showing all Australians that they will not have any protection against such illegal detainment of its citizens. This is not about drug runners, this is about a man who has been incarcerated and treated as guilty, without counsell, without rights, without all that we would expect (in a legal system)from a democratic ally. Are Australians so hooked on the word terrorist that any punishment handed down is fair and just? David Hicks did not commit any crime on USA soil, if he had, he would be tried in the usual way and within the Justice system of that country.

In a Western Democracy, are not all men innocent till proven, with reasonable doubt, to be guilty. Will the USA also be on trial for supporting the Taliban against the Russians? Something stinks, and we are just as culpable as the USA in this matter.

Error in comment: wrote *with reasonable doubt - I meant to type beyond reasonable doubt. I am sure the readers will understand.

Unfortunately due to typing this error correction, I cannot now comment again today, so any responses to my post, which may require further comment, will have to wait till tomorrow night. * oh bugger it.

Good article, Lindsay.

David Hicks is regarded as an "enemy combatant", a very new 'crime'. Hicks was in the army of a nation invaded by US & Australia (and (few) others). If, for example, Australia invaded New Zealand, every New Zealand soldier would be defined as an enemy combatant and be potentially subject to prosecution under this process. Yes, his Afghan army was partially trained by the Taliban, but this does not make him a member of the Taliban. Similarly, the US army is not part of the Australian army just because thay perform some exercises in Australia. There appears to be very little evidence (made public) that suggests that Hicks has done anything out of the ordinary.

If he's done wrong, punish him. I don't think too many people would disagree with such a statement. However, irrespective of his guilt, David Hicks, like anyone, deserves a FAIR hearing, and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. After all, isn't that what democracy is all about?

Tim.

David Hicks is being held as an unlawful combatant. Not an enemy combatant. But by international law he should be treated as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention. That is why his lawyers are holding Bush and Rumsfeld PERSONALLY responsible for his treatment.

Unlawful combatant (also illegal (enemy) combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) describes a person who engages in combat without fulfilling the conditions that confer lawful combatant status according to the laws of war.

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII); nor does the word "combatant." However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." It is suggested that those who do not meet this definition should be determined to be "unlawful combatant." Should there be doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war.
Unlawful combatants may retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration has detained hundreds of people with a military order drafted under authorization granted to President Bush by the United States Congress, and the U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as "Illegal enemy combatants".

Wow Steve.

Thanks so much for your post. A lot of research gone into it and very much to digest.Well done.

Steve,
Thanks for properly expressing what I was getting at. ;-)
Tim.

Steve thanks for your input. I guess that aspect of this thread has drifted a bit from the central concepts of the article but it does seem relevant.

I'm very concerned about what the USA has done by holding prisoners in the way that they have. Problem is that I don't have good answers to what they are trying to achieve. We have crossed a boundary in our globalised world when the rules of war don't seem to be enough to deal with the realities of terrorism. I'm assuming that the existing rules were drawn up with the idea that when a war was over you release prisoners of war and they go home and cease hostilities until the next time you fight. It does not seem likely that when the war in Afganistan is finally over that the non Afgani fighters who were in Afganistan fighting for the Talliban will cease hostilities. More likely they will move on to another country and continue the struggle.
Is it reasonable to release them so that they can continue the fight?
On the other hand what happens to our democracies when we start holding people without trial for years at a time?
When we assume guilt without the presumption of innocence?
When torture is seen as a legitimate tactic to gain information? Where do those kind of tactics stop?
At what point do they become a bigger threat than the terrorists?

R0bert

Robert

You are correct in that it may have gone "off topic" from the original article posted. However - the responses indicate to me that Mr Tanner's initial article has exposed - in a very short time - other underlying issues that need to be addressed.

Yours and Steve's comments are illuminating and I hope that we receive more comments on this topic from readers.

It is time that these issues are brought into the "world arena" of politicians' awareness and Human Rights for open discussion on such a forum as this. No matterwhat the original topic was.

Mr Tanner, you talk about interfering in the Indonesian justice system but the Australian government wasn’t shy during the Abu Bakr Bashir case. Would you like to explain that?

It is not the Indonesian justice system we object to, it is the Australian government. According to the Indonesian court, Corby or an associate grew $80,000 worth of marijuana and when asked why the Corby’s weren’t under Australian investigation, Mr Keelty said, “It is not the AFP’s job to clear people”, implying that any investigation would clear her.

What we have here is a young uneducated woman being thrown to the wolves. Prior to her departure, she worked in a fish and chip shop where she saved $1300 for her holiday. She posed in Brisbane airport with her family and friends for holiday photos where she is laughing and fooling around.

But you would believe that she miraculously came by $80,000 worth of marijuana without leaving a trace or a rumour. Then she took it to Bali where the stuff grows wild. She didn’t conceal it at all but slashed the vacuum-seal Space bag so that the stench would make it obvious to anyone opening the bag.

What if she is exactly who she says she is Mr Tanner? As the years pass by and she still pleads her innocence, people will begin to look. Unlike you, they will look at the case and the evidence. They will ask the simple question, “If Indonesian customs didn’t cut the Space bag as they claim, then who did?” Schapelle is not looking for any special treatment, just an investigation, something guilty people don’t often do

Abu Bachar Bashir perpetrated crimes against Australians, so there was scope for our authorities to be more involved there, not that, in my opinion, they did any more than they did in relation to Schappelle Corby.

Tim.

Bob

A very succinct response.

Moreso, I read in yesterday's news that a person had been arrested/detained by customs officials on arrival at Melbourne airport "on information/advice from the AFP". Please? In direct contradiction to what the AFP allegedly did for the so-called Bali 9?

This raises serious concerns which must be addressed forthwith. What is happening between our Customs Department and AFP?

Maybe there should be a Royal Commission?

It seems to be quite out of hand to my mind. I have already given sites for reference to the matters originally brought up by Mr Tanner and quite obviously it goes very much deeper than what he may have thought from his original article. There are very many concerned people who have done a lot of research into all of the the matters mentioned herein. Here is another site which discusses all of these issues:
http://www.fairbloodydinkum.com/

It all revolves around airports/drugs/AFP/Customs and Baggage Handling/Airlines.

Surely someone can take up the cudgeon? If not - why not?

I think that each and every one of us has a right to question the laws of other countries, particularly when human rights are being violated. If noone ever questions them then they would probably never change. Do you think that we should not have questioned what Hitler was doing?

Lindsay Tanner's article completely misses the point delivering a spectacularly stupid and unfair ideological line. The following three points are most relevant here and Mr Tanner please pay attention:

Firstly, Tanner seems to be saying that we must respect the unfair processes of Indonesian law for Schapelle Corby, but we must not accept the unfair American processes to which David Hicks is being subjected.

Secondly, the point that is so blatantly obvious but seems so often to be missed is that in all these cases - Hicks, Corby and the Bali Nine - these Australians are small fish who are just being sacrificed for bigger Australian foreign policy and security objectives. They are all expendible for the sake of relations with the US and Indonesia respectively. If they had been arrested in a country like Laos like Kay Danes and her husband were, they would be free now.

Thirdly, Tanner totally misses the point on the extraordinary circumstances of the Corby case. Unlike almost every other case in which an Australian is arrested overseas, this case involves crime committed in Australia and all the evidence to establish her guilt or innocence is in Australia. But Tanner still seems to insist that Australian authorities do nothing to investigate the case and see whether she checked the 4 kg of ganja through two Australian airports on October 8, 2004 or whether baggage handlers planted it in her luggage (as seems more likely). And good point Smyth!

We should look at the role of the AFP in Bali,
An AFP officer mocked Renae Lawrence, one of the couriers, while trying to get her to confess to owning two suitcases where some heroin was allegedly found, Lawrence says in one of the documents.

"Dont be a silly girl. The silly little girl thinks that she is going to go home," Lawrence says the unnamed officer told her soon after her arrest.

The parents have accused the AFP of being directly involved in the exposure of their children to the death penalty.

"In Australia, no Australian Federal Police officer could expose a citizen to the death penalty," the letter said. "Under Australian law, no Australian citizen can be exposed to the death penalty in Australia.We believe this is now the time to act."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/13/1137118970289.html?from=rss

We know the AFP hindered the Corby trial, and they have their fingerprints all over the Bali nine case.

Our police forces especially the Federal Police should be above politics but unfortunately they have been corrupted by our Govt. who have become experts at ignoring accepted rules to get their agenda through.

Thankyou Steve

Down to "nitty gritty"

Sad deplorable many apathetic people don't take the time to find and read articles and then read through them and read behind the lines to come to the obvious conclusion.....which is always a question....why?

Questions to be answered which the public have a right to know.

Hence my question - maybe a Royal Commission?

Reported in the press yesterday that Singapore "may review the death penalty". This is a big move in the right direction for Human Rights and would like to think this is Van Tuong's legacy. This article can be viewed on

http://www.fairbloodydinkum.com/

Not only Van Toung but Schapelle Corby and the Bali 9 which is fast-escalating. See the news articles regarding the judgement has to be made prior to Feb 24 or thereabout or they will go scot-free. There is a lot of pressure there now. Apart from Renae Lawrence pleading for her life - and the parents of those Australians incarcerated - I might add - a direct result of the information given to Indonesian authorities by Australian Federal Police - they face the firing squad on a beach at dawn.

This is reprehensible. You will find all news articles at the above link.

It was bad enough imagining Van Tuong being hanged at 6am Singapore time.

How can we all feel with handling 4 young Australian people being sentenced to death by a firing squad on a beach early morning?

When it is the druglords who are responsible are tracked down and made accountable. It is widely reported that the drugs going into Singapore come from Burma - yet - Singapore has just allowed a major Burmese company to be registered on the Singapore Stock Exchange.

At what cost to a life? Or in this case - four lives. Because I cannot see that one life will be spared - no matter the pleading of themselves or their parents.

WHEN WILL OUR GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION AND GET PRO-ACTIVE? RATHER THAN RE-ACTIVE.

When will there be a Royal Commission between Customs Departments and Australian Federal Police?

I invite your comments.

Liz.

I think the answer to your question about when will there be a royal commission is never. This pathetic Govt. we have will not hold an enquiry that may show they influenced the AFP and Customs.

Remember we are being “ruled” by the Lyons Forum members. Kevin Andrews, Tony Abbott, Alex Downer, Kevin Andrews, Peter Costello and many others.

I have recently read Marion Maddox's God under Howard. It lays open the role of the Lyons Forum, the "I understand" statement, and Liberal politicians' claims to Christian values.

One point of particular interest is a reference to an interview with 3AW's Neil Mitchell in which the Prime Minister pointed out that he supported the Indonesian legal system in making a determination on the Bali Bomber's future. He also floated the idea that people around him had expressed their support for the death penalty.

Now, we only have his word for the fact that he and his team had worked quietly and assiduously behind the scenes to allow the Singaporean Government to save face. I might point out by not being too vocal he kept the 50% who were in favour of the death penalty in the camp. The dog whistle is operating.

Remember that David Oldfield (One Nation) was electoral secretary to Tony Abbott.

Howard is walking a political tightrope; he cannot retire as leader because the Liberal Party will split in two. I equate this to the ALP. DLP split an organisation known as "The Movement" led by B.A. Santamaria and strongly influenced by Catholic social doctrines.

They gave up on the Labor party and have infiltrated the Liberal Party, it will result in the destruction of the Liberal Party but by then how much damage will have been done.

Never mind the Lyons Forum, what about the Jakarta Lobby that controls DFAT, Department of Defence, AFP and any other policy-making organisation that can influence Indonesia policy, including the Liberal Party and the ALP. Obsensibly, their aim is to promote good relations with Indonesia. This is definitely a worthwhile aim, but it has gone crazy and now means good relations with Indonesia at any cost. Over the years, this has meant that Australia has supported the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor in which over 100,000 people died, but its effects are greater than this. It is now established fact, thanks to the Toohey enquiry, that the Department of Defence cut off intelligence lines to our troops in Timor in 1999 - who were in harm's way - after Lieutenant-Colonel Lance Collins reported on militia links to TNI Indonesian regular forces.

It's no stretch that if they were willing to do this to their own troops, they would not be too concerned about a bogan girl from the Gold Coast or a bunch of misfits like the Bali Nine. The AFP handed over the Bali Nine to Indonesia in the hope that this would win them better cooperation on terrorism and other issues. Similarly, they actively promote the idea that Schapelle Corby is guilty by spreading false information about photos of her with drug dealers (which it has now been established were taken after she was arrested) and refuse to investigate her case out of fear that such a line of enquiry would reveal that she is innocent and hence "embarass" the Indonesians. The latter, of course, is a far more terrible outcome in their minds that sending an innocent young Australian woman to spend 15 years in a tiny Balinese cell. And this is the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia and the Lindsay Tanner's Australian Labor Party.

If Hicks was of a different ideology and had been captured by islamic nutjobs he would've long ago been the star of a decapitation video.

At least with the Yanks he's still alive and with a chance of winning his freedom.

He's got what he asked for, no sympathy for him.

"He got what he asked for". Hicks fought for another nation (as many do) which we happened to invade. He was then tortured and denied legal rights and process by the very nation that claimed it was bringing democracy to Afghanistan.

Tim.

Lindsay says:
There is another Australian rotting away in a foreign prison, who has received far less public sympathy than Schapelle Corby. His name is David Hicks. He’s been locked up without trial for four years by the Americans and is going to be tried by a kangaroo court.

Hicks has some public support, but because he’s accused of associating with terrorists, the Howard Government has made little effort to defend his rights. Schapelle Corby and Van Nguyen weren’t treated fairly, but at least they got a trial.

David Hicks has been locked up for four years and has still not been tried. He could be a dangerous terrorist, but it’s now becoming clear that some innocent people have been wrongly caught up in the American crackdown on terrorist suspects. Some have even been tortured.

Without a proper trial, we’ll never know for sure what David Hicks is guilty of, if anything. He sits rotting in a foreign prison without the most basic legal rights that even mass murderers such as Martin Bryant are accorded.

What is Lindsay doing to persuade the ALP to insist that Howard does something about this shocking state of affairs?

The circumstances of David Hicks and Schapelle Corby are different, but what they have in common is that they are both being subjected to unfair trial processes and are being sacrificed by the Howard Government in the hope of gaining better security cooperation with the US and Indonesia respectively. So yes, the question is: "What is our Opposition doing?" Even when they could have secured electoral advantage by supporting Corby in April - May last year, their line was a mind-dumbing: "We support the Government".

I have absolutely no sympathy for David Hicks. As far as I am concerned, Hicks is a turncoat and a traitor to his country and his people. Why should we support a man who is so bitterly hostile to our nation, culture, society, government, heritage, and freedoms? If he feels he is more Moslem than Australian, then he should have the courage of his convictions and accept what is meted out to him instead of whinging like a spoilt child the moment he is caught in a foreign country in a Moslem terrorist organisation training to be a Moslem terrorist or otherwise supporting Moslem terrorists. He is exactly where he belongs and he ought to stay there for the rest of his life. If by ill chance he is released, he should never be permitted to re-enter this country. Bye, David. You've got what you deserve.

Ripsnorter.

You pig ignorance is overwhelming, where do you get your facts?
Hicks has never been found guilty of anything, our politicians have stated he has violated no Australian law.

Ripstnorter

I suggest very stongly that you check out your facts which are vehement and uninformed in the first degree. I do not know where you got your supposed information from but you should check articles on google and then wikipedia and finally do a search on BBC news site.

This requires quite a lot of research rather than you going off onto a subject of which you have not really researched. And going off into a tangent - completely misinformed and non-researched and VERY militant to say the least.

Which is what you have done.

If you choose to make a comment at least make it with intelligence and knowledge of the subect of same.

Windyliz

Thanks Steve for expressing my thoughts so well on this person.

Steve Madden:

David Hicks has already admitted in his own writings to undertaking weapons and explosives training with Al-Kaida. This makes him a self-confessed Moslem terrorist in-training in the opinion of most people, if not yours. And he has adopted a the creed of a fanatical religious cult which is wholly alien to Australia, its culture, institutions, and society. This has also been documented in his own writings. And if you are going to resort to personal abuse by calling my opinion "pig ignorance" be prepared to get it back in your face as a typical lying, dhimmi fool and obnoxious Moslem bootlick. Hicks is a traitor and a turncoat and he does not deserve the protection of this country and nation that by his actions he has spat on and renounced.

Windyliz:

As for the BBC, their credibility is nil. They are the most Moslem-appeasing, Islamic-apologist, and left-wing international broadcasters on the air waves. They even admit it themselves. Read the Daily Mail article on the liberal-left-wing bias of the BBC below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

The BBC as an impartial broadcaster is a damned sick joke.