I continue to be amazed at the effort being expended by otherwise intelligent people on behalf of David Hicks. I can only think that it is a way of expressing their fundamental anti-american and anti-capitalist sympathies.

As far as I can assess, the fact that is not disputed is that David Hicks was captured in Afghanistan in a battlefield situation fighting against American forces.

As the regime for which he was fighting was not internationally recognised, and as he was not wearing the designated military uniform of a recognised country, he could not possibly qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention, and would have the status of unlawful combatant.

Under the convention, the americans would have been fully entitled to have him put up against a wall and shot. However, I gather they thought it would be better to send him to Guantanamo Bay for questioning.

The failure of the left intelligensia to recognise that we are in a war situation, continues to amaze me. The entire western world could well be brought to its knees by these terrorists, particularly if they succeed in interrupting the flow of oil from the middle east.

The events in Spain and Britain in the last few years are, I believe, only local actions perpetrated by isolated groups. Osama hasn't pulled of a big one since 2001. If it comes, it is likely to be an attack against the oilfields.

As a frequent air traveller I have had to consider what I would do if I were to be involved in an airborne terrorist incident. Should I kill a terrorist in self-defence? How would I go about doing that? After much thought I have decided that if possible I should not kill the terrorist, but capture him so that he can be sent to Guantanamo Bay to be tortured.

Even if it is possible to justify his detainment, there is no excuse for the conditions in which he is forced to live. You wouldn't even treat an animal in that way. Bloody disgraceful.

If Hicks hasn't learned patience during is incarceration he never will. However his patience or lack of patience is irrelevant. It appears that he will go nowhere soon.

John, as with most contributors, hasn’t properly referenced his citing of Bob Ellis. I have just scanned my 1998 copy, and can’t find the comment. Perhaps there is a later edition or I’m haven’t looked hard enough.

Of course, I fully accept that anyone who quotes Bob Ellis in a positive way would regard Alexander Downer as “pathetic”. As a one-time constituent of Mr. Downer’s, I can say he did as reasonable a job for his electorate as did any other politician, and David Hicks never lived in Downer’s electorate, as far as I’m aware. Downer wasn’t speaking of his duties as Foreign Minister (which would be his only interest in Mr.Hicks), if John Andrewartha’s quote is correct.

Most of this article is not connected with the author’s hope that Mr. Hicks is patient, and his attempts to gain citizenship of a country his only connection with is it's his mother’s birth. The whole thing is just an excuse to lambast Alexander Downer, as others have over the entire period of Mr. Hicks’s incarceration. I thought we had got past that. Downer and the Government have repeatedly said that they will not intervene on Mr. Hicks’s behalf. Now this author want’s interference lodged with another country on a matter which certainly has nothing to do with Australia – who that country accepts as a citizen. That makes as much sense as Premier Bracks asking for the Cypriot Government to excuse a Cypriot tennis player from military service because he plays well.

If this is journalism, I’ll eat my hat. If contributors are going to merely express opinions, they need to be restricted to 350 words as we are.

The treatment of Hicks is beyond comprehension. Our leaders continue to show total lack of social conscence and moral fibre falling in line with all the disturbed President's whims.Sadly our nation is burdened with these poor excuses for leaders

Hicks joined a death loving pagan religion then trained to fight the perceived 'enemies' of this nasty butcherous religion [all other religions are included as enemies of course]
How much mercy would he or has his compatriots shown their enemies be they unarmed civilian men, women or even babies and children.
Hicks is not stupid [well he is actually for joining them] he knew what he was signing up for. He knew he would be a part of a merciless group of murderous, gutless thugs.
With a little more indoctrination would he have strapped a bomb on and suicided killing innocent people here in Australia?
Hicks is a trained bloody terrorist, hicks would have obeyed and killed his fellow countrymen and women with their children.
As you can see I have little compassion for a terrorist whatever his/her nationality.
Yes I have seen a picture of him, Hicks, cradling a grenade launcher, though he could have just been going rabbit shooting I suppose. There are more important things to worry about you know, a lot more. numbat

As somebody who's concerned about the fate of Hicks, I'd like to apologise for this article. The author's naive faith in the innocence of Hicks isn't representative of those of us who care about this issue. Here's the problem- the UK successfully demanded that their nationals be released from Guantamo. We haven't, though we've repeatedly raised our concerns about the detention of Aussies and been ignored. At the very best, this makes us look like the junior partner in the coalition. However you look at it, it's embarassing. Downer claims that Hicks couldn't be tried here, but wasn't he fighting for an organisation that professed a desire to establish an international caliphate? Doesn't that qualify as treason, or at least sedition? Bring him home, put him on trial, and if he's guilty lock him up.