There's a significant absence of the word "alleged" in this article - much like the rumours of "alleged" torture of prisoners at Guantanamo.

At least the British (eventually) had the guts to stand up the the USA for their own citizens.

You can see the strength of the charges against some detainees at this link - http://www.reprieve.org.uk/casework.htm#guantanamo

I have respect for Neil James' organisation because it has tried hard to avoid the traditional trap for defence-related associations of becoming a slavish cheer squad for right-of-centre politcians and governments.

But I can't agree with this column. Neil loses sight of the wood and sees only legalist trees in his analysis.

Where do we start in this kind of debate? I think we start with the value of what we are defending. If it is valueless, then its defence may even be a mistake. In fact we are defending a liberal democratic system, far from perfect but still superior to the alternatives, against a mix of religious fanatics, corrupt authoritarian regimes and bigots who hate everything about the west. This is indeed worth defending.

Next: how do we defend it? Within the spirit of the laws of armed conflict, certainly, but more than that, within the spirit of our core values. The key point is: if we use the methods of authoritarianism to defend liberal democracy, we are already defeated.

One key core value we have is that no-one should be deprived of liberty except by due legal process, and that that process places the burden of proof on the accusers. Others are the right of cross-examination, an open court, impartial judges and a jury.

Hicks has had little of this. He has spent years in foreign detention. The "military tribunal" set up to try him meets few of the requirements of a real court of law. The key admission is that he cannot be tried under Australian law because he has done nothing to violate the law as it was when he was detained. And the US refuses to bring him before one of its regular courts.

Hicks is entitled to either: (a) a proper trial in a proper court on proper charges or (b) release and compensation for years of wrongful detention.

I don't much like Hicks, but Neil needs to remember: it's easy to grant democratic rights to those you like. The essence of democracy, tho, lies in granting them to those you don't.

Trying to survey Hick's mentality through camera shots, he could almost be classed as a slow learner who may have simply joined the Taliban not as a freedom fighter, but as one looking for an idiotic change or escape might have joined the French Foreign Legion.

Anyhow as far as breaking laws are concerned, while Hicks has only broken one, America since 9/11 has broken possibly half a dozen, the illegal attack on Iraq being the most blatant, another for locking up most of the Guantomo inmates for so long without trial.

So under normal Justice Court rules it should be a case of Case Diss-missed.

A study in semantics.

What's so complicated about "is he guilty or is he not?" That's what the legal system exists for and to deny him access to it is indefensible.

Try him for heaven's sake. Then we can talk about it.

Can I ask the obvious question here?

What on Earth was he doing fighting with the Taliban anyway?

Hes certainly not your average Ausie now is he?
A trial would be handy.
Just to keep the do gooders quite if nothing else.
I personally dont have much time for somebody who goes to that extream which is so different to our custom.

He would have been fighting our soldiers if he were still kicking around with the crew he was running with.
However yep he should be put in court and then forgotton about.
With any luck he may have at least served as a warning to other so called young Australians that we do keep an eye out.

Just in case anybody else is looking for a new freedom and training.
If your not feeling free in Australia you never will.
I personally think he was a aggesive trouble maker who found the excitment he was looking for.

He studdied Islam and told his father he was off to fight for the taliban.
What more proof do you need.

Some people just like fighting and killing, like people who hunt animals and then call it sport.

Either way they are cold blooded killers who do go out of their way to kill because they enjoy it.

Hope the tax payers of Australia are not paying his legal bill.