Oh I get it quite well, bennie. And my primary interest is to enhance, rather than eviscerate, our ability to deter those who would commit war crimes. For international law to have any chance of preventing the next Beslan massacre, it must include draconian provisions that will discourage future war criminals. And to this end we must retain a powerful weapon in our deterrent arsenal: the promise that those who commit illegal battlefield acts will wind up in Guantanamo rather than enjoying prisoner of war commissary privileges.

If the prospect of being tried before a military commission deters even one potential recruit from joining al-Qa'ida's mass murder spree, then the enterprise is morally justified. Thus captive mujahidin must never be afforded the consideration that we afford to honourable foes. Military tribunals are the only ethically and legally appropriate means of dealing with jihadists.

So if you are really concerned with your own best interest, you should be wholeheartedly supportive of tough policies towards captured terrorists.

This isn't the Victorian magistrate's court, nor should it be. War is played by a different set of rules and it is folly to expect that standards of normal jurisprudence should be applied to a situation that arose out of the battlefield. Hicks volunteered for bin Laden's jihad, and was captured while bearing arms in an active combat theatre of operations. You don't treat uncommon terrorists like common criminals. Hicks played at jihad, and now he'll have to pay the piper in the form of a military commission. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Ted.

Who has ever proved that Hicks is a terrorist, I suggest nobody. It is alleged he translated training manuals into english an amazing feat for someone who did not read arabic.

Guantanamo was declared unconstitutional in 1993 and will be again.

You overlook the fact that he is an Australian ignored by our Govt. I think that the SAS were the first troops in Afghanistan. If he has broken no Australian law why do we allow him to be incarcerated. Habib was also called a terrorist but this has been proved false. Let the man come home where he belongs.

Steve:

Your ability to swallow myth over fact is impressive.

For the umpteenth the Court DID NOT rule that Gitmo was unconstitutional. In fact, the majority opinion explicitly recognized the right of the US government to hold al-Qaeda/Taliban. A 1993 US District Court (the lowest rung of the Federal court system) ruling on the detention of Haitian refugees in Gitmo is completely irrelevant to our current situation. Apples and oranges.

The Supreme Court in Hamdan ruled on statutory (as opposed to constitutional) grounds that military commissions were not legally constituted. But the justices expressly left an opening to Congress to authorize military commissions through legislation. And bills to that effect have already been introduced to the US Senate.

Hicks did not break any law on the Australian books at the time, which is why he can't be tried here. But he did violate US law and the law of war. And given that the US has custody over him, they are the ones to decide his fate. And justifiably so.

Hicks boasted in letters to his family that he trained with al-Qaeda and fought with al-Qaeda in Kashmir. He cops to fighting for the global jihad in his own words. There is absolutely no question about his involvement with al-Qaeda.

What part of this don't you get?

Ted Lapkin, I think your primary tenet, as expressed in the article and several posts, is deplorable.

“It is worth remembering that Hicks was a professional Islamic holy warrior who fought for two jihadist movements that spurn every tenet of civilised warfare. And he was captured in an active combat theatre while bearing arms.” (from the article)

How about giving him a chance to present his side of the story before you brand him as a purely evil enemy combatant?

“So Hicks is going nowhere fast. Nor should he. He's right where he belongs” (6 July)

A shameful thing to write, before he has been determined as guilty, innocent, simpletonian or insane, or before a full understanding of intent, possible entrapment or mitigating circumstances is gained.

“Hicks volunteered for bin Laden's jihad, and was captured while bearing arms in an active combat theatre of operations. You don't treat uncommon terrorists like common criminals. Hicks played at jihad, and now he'll have to pay the piper in the form of a military commission. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.” (8 July)

You label him as a common terrorist. Well Mr Lapkin, you are quite frankly totally out of place in doing that. It is the role of a court or properly constituted military commission to determine that. It is obvious that you have convicted Hicks in your own mind. But wait, what is this basic tenet of democracy that says something like ‘innocent until proven guilty’ or shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or after a non-coerced admission or plea?

There is NO WAY that Hicks is right where he belongs. And those of us who believe in democracy or basic decency SHOULD be outraged by incarceration without trial for any longer than adequate time to prepare for said trial.

I don’t believe he should be brought home, but he MUST be tried as soon as possible. It is as simple as that. And we must denounce indefinite incarceration without trial for anyone, whether they be prisoners of war or whatever.

The problem with messr Hicks (& co), is that while they are not guilty of terrorism offences; they cannot be, they have yet to be tried; they are enemy combatants. In fact, I have yet to see anybody try to plausibly deny the fact that a person who is trained by an enemy army (or terrorist organisation) could be seen as anything other than an enemy combatant. Mr Hicks has certainly never denied his having received training from both the Taliban & Al-quaida, although he has attempted to deny ever fighting for them (makes it hard to imagine how he was captured).

None the less, the US is well known for its willingness to overturn Constitutional Law in time of war (so are we, if you doubt it read Latham CJ's judgment in <i>Pidoto v Victoria </i> (1943)<http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1943/37.html>).

The problem for Mr Hicks, is did he impliedly renounce his citizenship of Oz when SAS troops entered Afghanistan to fight the taliban? That made him an enemy alien at least, and appears to be Cth position. If so, has he any right to <i>habeus corpus</i> under Australian Law, or even under US law? In our law he could not have, as aliens can be sent to Naaru without access to the Courts & I assume US will try the same argument. Quite frankly, he left the protection of the 'rule of law' by taking up arms against his parent nation, and did so voluntarily.

I don't like it, but I don't like the idea of meeting trained al-quaida fighters in the checkout at Woolworths. He got himself in the mess, he best get himself out.

Inshallah

2 bob

2bob,
One thing you overlook in your comment on Mr. Hicks is that when he trained and joined al Qaeda, he commited no crime under Australian law as it was only AFTER the USA had involved itself in Afghanistan along with our troops did the Howard government declare al Qaeda an enemy organization.
The guy did get himself into this mess as you point out but the question that begs an answer from our present government is why do other foreign countries demand the return of their citizens (notably Britain and Saudi Arabia)and they are repatriated and yet we in Australia allow our citizen(s) to rot in appalling and inhumane conditions in Guantanamo Bay for the last 5 years?