"Lets we forget."

A freudian typo, Wendy?

Frankly I find your attempt to "claim" the spirit of Anzac (thus I interpret your ill-spelt attempt to use the words "Lest we forget") offensive. I wonder what those who suffered and perished as prisoners of the Japanese would really say about the treatment which is being meted out to Hicks? I know that the suffering of those WWII prisoners was far, far worse than what is going on in Guantanamo. But the lesson I always learned from that bit of history, and from the diaries of Weary Dunlop which I have read and cherished, is that when we take prisoners on the battlefield, we treat them fairly and with dignity.

The simple lesson of the WWII POW experience was that the conditions of the prison say more about the jailers than about the prisoners.

The conditions at Guantanamo, I am afraid, say terrible things about the USA and about Australia as its ally.

I want to put one test to the people who support Hicks continued detention:

If a North Korean defected to Australia, and during some conflict was taken prisoner and treated, by the North Koreans, in the same way Hicks is being treated now, would we be OK with that?

Oh, and Wendy ... why are you the only one who needs to use constant expletives? They make your argument weaker, not stronger.

Anth

My understanding is that the Geneva convention applies to soldiers.
A soldier has a paybook, serial number and a uniform of an army.

If Hicks did not have these he is not a soldier.
He would then be an armed alien civilian.

Marilyn Shepherd –‘Hicks guarded a tank’ – as I asked, who ordered Hicks to guard the tank, and to whom did it belong? Why was this man in the middle of a foreign country, under the command of an organization that is a self-declared enemy of Australia and all other Western nations? And why do you mention Iraq, when Hicks has no connection to it?

What do you suggest be done with Hicks? He is a member of al-Qaeda (read his own words) and a self-declared enemy of the West - and therefore an enemy of my way of life and all I hold dear. Should he be set free to come back to Australia? Perhaps he could join the other brave jihadis already here planning terrorist attacks against us.

As for locking up illegal immigrants – we all know you disagree with this practice, but stop to consider one point:

Every time an alleged terrorist is arrested, his friends and family show the same reaction – they are ‘shocked’, they are ‘disbelieving’ – because, invariably, the person arrested is ‘peace-loving’, ‘family-oriented’, religious, helpful, friendly (just like a boy scout) – they simply cant believe it, there must be some mistake (unless, of course, the families are lying through their teeth, a distinct possibility).

So I ask you, Marilyn, if the jihadis own families don’t know them, if their own families are ‘shocked’ at their actions, where does this leave us? How can we read them if their own families and community cannot? How are we to tell a 'peaceful' Muslim from one who hates us and wants us dead? Can you tell the difference? I can’t.

So commonsense dictates that we do not trust Muslims nor believe their stories until they have been thoroughly checked out. If this means locking them up, so be it. Anyone who has seen the situation created in Europe by Islamic illegal immigrants and 'asylum seekers' could not possibly wish this situation on Australia.

Hang on dee. I'm going to presume to speak for Marilyn for a moment.

The suggestion isn't that we let Hicks out, give him an apple and a library card, and let him run on his merry way.

I'm quite happy for him to be tried and, if guilty, convicted of whatever crimes he might have committed (Treason under s.80.1 of the Criminal Code or the predecessor privisions which applied at the time of his detention, seem worth a shot). If convicted, I'm quite happy for him to serve the appropriate sentence (with an appropriate amount of time remitted due to the fact that he has been in Guantanamo). I don't think too many people here are *supportive* of Hicks.

You need to look past the prisoner to the principle. I am personally quite indifferent to Hicks as a person. But I am very keen on the principle that the bloody USA can't run around grabbing people and locking them up in inhumane conditions in detention facilities. I'm very keen on the principle that the Australian government should render assistance to Australians arrested overseas. And I'm very keen on the principle that nobody should be treated this way while lawyers run around trying to "define his status".

And those principles should apply to everyone from the most enlightened philanthropist through to the most despicable criminal.

Bring him home. Try him. Jail him. But do it by the books!

Anth

The following is a synthesis of some of what's already been put forward which, I think, sums up the situation.

If, as is likely, David Hicks’ case is just an example of misplaced adventure, then how is this terrorism? The soldiers on the ground that pass for military intelligence are often just plods. How would they know whether someone was a terrorist or not? They’ve likely nabbed Hicks because he happened be in the wrong place at the wrong time – in other words, they’re only catching the dumb, the slow and the innocent. How is this fair? They (the plods) are so arrogant and cocksure of themselves that even if the accused has a defence, they would just lie or obfuscate the evidence to discredit it. After all, who’s going to know any different? Anyone with an ounce of experience in how authorities like the police and military operate in real life must have some scepticism. While Hicks has probably been a naughty boy, it’s a lot different to being a terrorist. Four years in Guantanamo Bay is too much for this.

Also, knowing how much the political arm likes having a “bogeyman” to collectively vilify, and how politically expedient it all is to have an archetypal enemy, should make the serious inquirer suspect it’s all a little too convenient and ask more questions.

If there is evidence showing that David Hicks committed an offence then why has he not been brought to trial?

It seems that the US work on the assumption that if they keep someone locked up for long enough then they will not have to be tried as they will die in prison.

It is nearly eight hundrend years since the magna carta was signed,we seem to have gone back to the bad old days of king john when people were imprisoned without charge.