The analogy to Hitler is interesting; Germany invaded and attacked other countries....the US, Israel and followers are far more akin to Nazi Germany..THEY, not Arabs or Muslims, have invaded,occupied, stolen land and natural resourses and killed hundreds of thousands of human beings.

The US and Israel have a very deep similarity with Hitler's Germany. However, their propaganda machines leave Hitler's way behind.

You must be getting rattled if you stop addressing your posts to me and instead look for support among your like minded cronies.

David Hicks can hardly be given a fair trial for his obvious treason because our laws have become so ineffective that they no longer recognise treason as a crime. According to Australian law, this traitor is free to live in Australia at taxpayer expense just as his Egyptian friend is now doing. Fortunately, he was captured by the Yanks and he is being tried under martial law as an illegal combatant. He is not a POW, because he did not wear a uniform, and this fact is critical when assessing whether a combatant receives POW status. As an illegal combatant, the Yanks can keep Hicks incarcerated for as long as hostilities persist.

You talk about the sanctity of the law, but you refuse to recognise that the Americans do have a legal point. If this is not so, then the US Supreme Court can either order the release of all detainees, or demand that civil charges be laid. But the US Supreme Court is very unlikely to get involved in that for two reasons. The first is that the US Supreme Court would be meddling in the legal jurisdiction of the military, which it is very loath to do. The second, is that the Supreme Court knows that the American people are right behind their President when it comes to the treatment of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. If the Supreme Court intervened on behalf of the terrorists, it would create such a political furore that the US public might feel compelled to change their laws to reduce the powers of their own Supreme Court.

The key concept here is what the US (and Australian) public consider is justice. The legal fraternity sees nothing wrong when it’s own members seek creative interpretations of the law when defending their clients from justice, so they can hardly complain when the political servants of the public do exactly the same thing when ensuring that the public's concept of justice is done.

Redneck:

I'm not rattled by you-just dumbfounded.

Your simplistic argument is so easily diagnosed as one that is pulling 'the cart before the horse'. How can somebody be guilty if never tried? How can somebody be tried if the evidence against them is not disclosed? Whatever happened to the separation of powers? Do you understand the different roles designated by democracy to the executive, legislature and judiciary? Obviously not-it is not the executives job to make the rules up as it goes nor to enforce the rules without judicial sanction. Turning your nose up at the basics is the beginning of the end.

As for your arguments about the Geneva Convention- I think they may be limited by your experiences as a cook in the ADF. If wearing a uniform is truly the primary test as to whether a captive is a POW, what about covert operations in which no uniforms or insignia are worn? Additionally insurgents in Iraq are caught and interrogated as POW's as were the Viet Cong despite the fact they were largely without conventional uniforms.

It's interesting that Habib has returned to Australia and not been charged-just as 12 British citizens were returned to England and not charged. The British have more extensive laws in this area than we do yet Scotland Yard in all its wisdom did not lay charges. Why do you think this was- that's right Mr Redneck thinks he's a better law maker, judge, jury and executioner than Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Marcus Aurelius, Hobbes, Mill, Disraeli, Lincoln.

Lets all make a pact to ignore Redneck. Lets not respond directly to his inane ravings. Let us simply post our own views concerning the lead articles.I fear we are encouraging him. Mind you Wre, i am glad you have picked up that he was a cook in the ADF.

Good point hedgehog - there is no point fuelling the flames.
But I do wonder if REDNECK ever spat in the broth.

"Lets all make a pact to ignore Redneck."

I'm in.

I don't really see much point in arguing with someone who is in obvious need of psycological help from Veterans Affairs. I guess trying to explain to Redneck the insanity of his views would be like trying to convince a schizophrenic that no one's out to get them.

We should just let him have his say and leave it at that.