“SCOTUS deliberately left an opening for Washington to sidestep the judicial process entirely by simply incarcerating Guantanamo detainees until such time that it determines the war to be over.”

As the war against Islamic fundamentalism will never be over, we can look forward to Hicks being caged like the animal he is until he dies unless, of course, the US does reconstitute military commissions. Either way, justice will prevail

Ted.

I take you back to your article in 2004

"The al-Qa'ida and Taliban prisoners detained at Guantanamo were captured under arms while fighting against US troops and US allies. The concepts of civilian criminal law, such as habeas corpus, do not apply to their circumstance. Moreover, these men belonged to organisations whose violations of the laws of war have rendered them ineligible for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. As illegal combatants who are a constituent element of the global web of Islamist terror, it is entirely appropriate these men should be tried for their crimes by military commissions."

Now that this load of rubbish has been totally proved wrong you move on to say OK Hicks is now suddenly a prisoner of war.

I prefer to get my opinions from people who have not worked as spin doctors for the Republican Party.

BRING DAVID HICKS HOME NOW - Happy 4th of July.

Mr Lapkin,

I have read many comments and analysis in the media in the USA and Britain as well as in Australia and not one has indicated other than the SCOTUS ruling was a severe setback to President Bush's "war on terror" and his entire program to increase the powers of the presidency especially in times of war to something that existed in pre-Nixon days.

To quote just one: Marjorie Cohn (professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists) in an article entitled "A Supreme Rebuke, Bush Loses Guantanamo Case" dated June 30, 2006...

'One of the most critical parts of the Court's decision was its ruling that Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions applies to al Qaeda. Common Article 3 prohibits "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." ‘

Article 3 Common requires that prisoners be treated humanely; it forbids outrages on personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn06302006.html .

President Bush has now to negotiate with congress a law to cover the inmates of Guantanamo and it could take some considerable time. Even when passed into law it will undoubtedly be contested once again to the Supreme Court.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Prime Minister John Howard will sit on their hands, and do nothing as David Hicks, rotting in appalling circumstances for the last 4 and a half years, will remain incarcerated.

You might be willing to sell your fellow Australian’s human rights and accept the Bush administration’s attitude that ‘the man is guilty, trust me’ but there are far more Australians that having seen what President Bush’s word is worth will insist on David Hicks getting at least the minimum requirements of justice with a fair trial

Mr Lapkin, your derisory opening gambit detracts from your argument. You don't have to live in "upscale urban precincts" and "have contempt for America", as you put it, to be pleased that the US Supreme Court has brought down its finding on Guantanamo. You can be pleased with the decision because it demonstrates that the separation of powers in a democracy is still operative. You can be pleased because executive government is once again called - as it should be - to be accountable. You can be pleased because the Americans will now have to consider alternative handling of a difficult matter. You can be pleased because charges and allegation may now be tested in a more widely acceptable forum.

Leigh, meanwhile will prematurely ejaculate in the depths of his anti-humanity and demonstrate his perverse sense of justice by contemplating David Hicks "being caged like the animal he is until he dies unless".

Leave Hicks where he is or ship him back to Afghanistan. We must assume he is unstable or fanatical and a potential danger to Australia (who is going to pay to monitor his movements if he is back in Australia). He will no doubt start a damages action as soon as he is able as he has a host of lawyers around him. They will all be looking for the chance to collect their silver while posturing as civil libertarians.

Hello there Leigh & FrankGol...
I must say that in my humble view, Mr. Hicks is guilty - in 'copper-speak'...he was caught, and when caught, he was "in company, whilst armed"! However,he deserves his day in court, (the sooner the better) if for no other reason/s :
(a) Justice must be seen to be done; and (b) To afford him the opportunity to explain his actions, in order to perhaps, in some way mitigate his behaviour.
Interestingly, when Major Moro (his Defence Counsel) was recently asked if Mr.Hicks had made certain admissions (in Maj. Moro's presence) with respect to his warlike conduct and intent. Major Moro would not, or could not answer the question. That said, as a grandfather, I FULLY appreciate the feelings and emotions of Mr. Hicks Sr. I further believe, that David Hicks is an extremely lucky young man, to have the benefit of such an erudite and consconscientious lawyer, as Major Moro.
David Hicks apparently wished to live the life of an 'Adventurer' of some type. Well, in the real world, when caught, you pay a very heavy price for your lifestyle.