Hi, to all you good people...
I've carefully re-read ALL the posts with respect to the current disposition of Mr David Hicks. I'm so very saddened to see and hear the absolutely vitriolic language of some, levelled at the Bush Administration.; the Australian Government; other organisations; and individuals, who dare to take, a less sympathetic position with Mr. Hick's current dilemma. Of course, David Hicks deserves his day in court. I don't think anyone would deny him this, including President George W. Bush, and his cohorts. What worries me is how this issue has so, schismatized the Australian people. I remember when they returned from South Vietnam, they chucked paint all over our CO as we marched down George Street in Sydney. I never ever thought I'd ever see such a emotional event (as was Vietnam) so divide us, again. Apparently, the David Hicks issue, is well on the path in doing so. I've been out of the Army, for nearly forty years. I do respectfully suggest however, that in order to effectively defeat terrorism, you MUST remove the 'gloves' altogether. And you definitely can't beat 'em, if you have half of society at home, actively preaching, and campaigning against you, at every turn, and at every measure, that you need to take. Terrorists are not bound by ANY law, nor by ANY morality or ANY sense of common humanity.

I'm so very sorry folks...I just don't believe I know this country anymore...I feel I'm an alien in this, the land of my birth.

Ted.

I have read the judgement and the important thing is that it actually uses the wording of the Geneva Convention "regularly constituted court". That means either a civilian court or court martial. It also says that the Uniform Code of Military Justice applies and that the 4th Article of the Geneva Convention only allows for a special tribunal when these other courts are for some reason not available.

So Hick's is either a POW and has been treated illegally under the Geneva convention or he is not and must be tried. He cannot be tried on the current "charges" as they do not exist under the UCMJ.

I realise that as an Israeli-American you are passionate about this issue but this is Australia, we have a fellow citizen incarcerated and probably tortured for over 4 years and now the charges he faces are proven to be false.

Dissenting opinions in court cases are irrelevant, the court has made its decision, even if you think the ruling was wrong.

Bring Hicks home NOW.

Steve:

I live in Australia. I care about Australia, and I write this as an Australian. You evidently didn't read the opinion closely enough. Footnote 32 says that, the charge of "aiding the enemy" can't be applied to Hamdan because he is a Yemeni national. But then the Court stipulates that it could be applicable to Hicks because, as an Australian, he owes allegiance to a country that had deployed military forces alongside the US. So much for your argument that the charges against Hicks "are proven to be false."

As for your point about the UCMJ, the Code is part of US federal law and is easily amended by statute. As I previously pointed out, there are already moves afoot in Congress to amend the UCMJ and provide the explicit statuatory authorization that the Court said was needed in order to make military commissions legal.

As for Hicks being a POW, the Court did not say anything of the sort. The controlling opinion said that the bare bones provisions of the common Article 3 of the 1949 Conventions applied. That is very different from POW status.

And you are utterly and completely wrong in your contention that Hicks must be released. On page 72 of the decision the Court held:

"It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities."

In other words, the Court explicitly accepted the right of the US government to hold Hicks et al until the war against jihadist Islam is over. The decision only related to the military commission process as it is currently constituted, and it even left Congress more than enough leeway to allow tribunals to be reconstituted in accordance with its ruling.

So Hicks is going nowhere fast. Nor should he. He's right where he belongs

Ted.
At least you agree the conspiracy charge was wrong. Time will tell if the “aiding the enemy” charge is legal. I suggest not, this will need to be decided by a court. So now you are saying that Hicks can be charged because he is Australian.

The US is considering retrospective legislation to amend the UCMJ this should be deplored as this is the reason Hicks cannot be convicted of any Australian crime.

The court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply and Charming Betsy will take care of the rest. David Hicks is a prisoner of war or he should be tried by a “regularly constituted court” not an unlawful commission.

What are our Government doing, allowing a fellow citizen to be incarcerated in Cuba when the only charge , in your view, is that he is Australian.

Bring Hicks Home now.

Drooge,

I assume our security services know more about Hicks than we do? He is certainly no innocent abroad. Maybe they should tell us of his activities and a little of his motives. I maintain we are safer while he stays where he is. Have you heard of Mullah Dadullah the current taliban commander in Afghanistan? I fear there will eventually be Australian casualties there

The author still doesn't get it. If I urge the U.S. (and by extension, Australian) authorities to try Hicks and find him either innocent or guilty it doesn't make me pro-Hicks or pro-Taliban.

My rights are no different to Hicks'. So I'm not doing it for him - I'm doing it for ME.