Agreed wre, the point made by one of the senators in the film; that every man should have the right to meet both his accusers and the evidence against him, is a pertinent one. As is the point that there is a world of difference between criticism of a government and sympathy for an enemy.

Downer’s continued public accusations as to hicks's character and guilt, conducted without the possibility of defence or rebuttal, bear a striking resemblance to those of McCarthy.

If 'he's a really bad man' is the extent of the case against him it’s hardly surprising his trial will remain both conditional and private.

Surely a guilty verdict in a court of law would be a great boon for this government, a symbol not only of our operational success, but also the continuing integrity and principal of our judiciary.

That they maintain their secrecy suggests that the issue of hicks's guilt is not as certain as Mr Downer would have us believe.

Thank you, thank you,, John Andrewartha, for sticking up for that traitor Hicks. There is only one thing that you did not do. When you are crying over terrorists next time, could you do your best to associate yourself with the Labor Party, the Democrats and the Greens? It will do wonders for John Howard's re election chances.

And I see that you are dredging up the Hilton hotel bombing. The bloke who confessed to planting that bomb, and who got clean away with it, had an attack of consciounce years later and fingered Anderson as the mastermind who put him up to it. How Anderson beat that rap is beyond me.

I personally think Anderson is just as innocent as OJ Simpson and those US cops who beat Rodney King half to death.

Sorry I see him fighting for another country, not Australia. More or less says he didn't want to be Australian anymore.

He also volunteered to FIGHT and anyone, even one who joins regular military has to understand that carries a great risk. H even chose an outfit that had no regard to international law, yet now demands it?.

He may well have killed, a choice he made that he found acceptable, so he lives, a better option?

Anyone dealing with warfare, from Bush to hicks has made their own bed and has to accept the consequences.

Redneck and Verdant:

If David Hicks is a traitor and was an Al Qaeda sympathiser/ member then he deserves to be locked up for a very long time. But you guys are missing the point- all we know about Hicks is what has been released to the media through the government. Let's just speculate that that version is wrong-afterall we don't really know.

As it stands accusations have been levelled at Hicks and he has had no oppurtunity to defend himself. His own legal team, appointed by the US military has stated categorically that Hicks is not being afforded due process. Meantime Hicks has sat in a 'jail' for 4 years despite the fact that he has yet to face any determination on his guilt.

At best Hicks is guilty of extreme stupidity. At worst he is guilty of treason. However I would expect that as an Australian he is entitled to an institution other than the American military determining his guilt. He is also entitled to support from his government. It seems the most cliche of lines has been forgotten- innocent until proven guilty!?

In any case it makes me a little nervous to travel- let's speculate again...What if I was sitting in a town in Thailand that was suddenly swept by soldiers who found the majority of villagers to be Islamic militants? What if I was arrested, found to be guilty by association, not given a chance to defend myself, my countrymen assumed I was a militant based on 'facts' put forward by the media and I was left to rot in jail?.

To Mr WRE

David Hicks was caught fighting for a hostile armed force by members of an armed force allied to our cause. It was only through circumstance that he did not exchange fire with Australian troops in Afghanistan. Your claim that he was some sort of tourist is laughable. He did not go to Afghanistan to look at the Babiyan Buddhas. If David Hicks had been caught fighting for the Germans on Juno beach by the Canadians, there is no doubt that he would have been immediately considered a traitor. In the unlikely event that he survived the first hour of capture, he would have been promptly tried and hung, along with other British traitors like Lord Haw Haw .

David Hicks was a member of an armed force that was committed to keeping in power a “government” that was recognised by only two countries in the world. He wore no uniform and he was fighting for a regime that was committed to protecting Osama bin Laden and his merry band of fanatical Jihadi’s. This organisation has murdered Australians.

Now, I would like to know why Hicks has not been charged with treason. If what defines treason today has been so watered down that it means nothing anymore, then you can go on, and on, about his “rights” and I could not care less. There are two principles at stake here, not one. And as far as I am concerned, my definition of “Justice” means that Hicks must either be charged with treason, or I could not care less if the Yanks use him for target practice.

This is not a civil legal case it is a new kind of war. Our soldiers kill the people who have no legal authority to fight us and who represent no government. These terrorists have declared war on us because we do not bow down to their God. They have declared that our women and our children are legitimate targets and consequently I see no need to be nice or fair to either them or their supporters. The gloves are off

Mr Redneck:

You'll probably find that the reason David Hicks has not been charged with treason is because he hasn't been before any court capable of charging him with treason. In fact if he is guilty i would much rather his trial be on Australian soil in an Australian court so other Australians will think twice about doing what he is ALLEGED to have done.

I completely reject your assertion that had Hicks been caught fighting for the Germans against the Canadians (what the) that he would have been lucky to last an hour- last time I checked the CDF and ADF didn't summarily execute people without trial. In fact what you have desribed fits more closely with the WWII Japanese Military-a military our diggers were executed by and despised.

You'll also note that the 'tourist analogy' I used was an attempt to get your one tracked mind thinking about what the indefinite detention of an Australian citizen without charge means for you, me and other Australians. I wonder if Hicks had been detained by Indonesia or China whether you would be just as content to let the status quo continue?

I readily admit to being a staunch conservative but this is wrong no matter where on the spectrum a person sits. Denying people the right to defend themselves and for evidence against them to be openly disclosed in order to prove guilt, is the first step towards a society that is not Australian. I don't want to be a part of that.