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.