Mr Lapkin, what interpretation do you put on the Pentagon's announcement yesterday that it would now treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions?

Do you "read" the memo issued by Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England as a repudiation of the administration's earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus not subject to the Geneva protections?

Do you see any significance in the fact that the White House announced its change of policy in an indirect manner with nothing from the key public figures who normally lead these matters?

In the light of the Supreme Court's criticism of the US for not adhering to the internationally recognised Geneva Conventions, particularly Article 3 which prohibits "violence to life and person" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" of detainees, do you think David Hicks will now be freed from his solitary confinement with no access to reading or legal material? Should he be?

“Ok... I'll play within your newly narrowed parameters.”

Ted, it was you who jumped right outside of the arena of our discussion. I haven’t narrowed the parameters at all.

“You can't isolate the 'crime scene' with bright yellow tape during the middle of a battle.”

You can’t isolate a crime scene or gather clean evidence in many cases in civilian law either.

I don’t have great faith in the civilian legal system. The chances of a judgement matching the crime are compromised by all sorts of things, and the chances of even the best democratic legal system getting it wildly wrong are quite high. But it has still got to be a million times better than interminable incarceration with no hearing or judgement.

I have no problem with the admission of hearsay evidence in any court, just so long as everyone is aware that that is what it is. If it is the best source of evidence in some cases, then so be it.

You go to some trouble to point out how the law of wartime and peacetime could differ in the courtroom context. But the magnitude of differences in peacetime law is so great that it encompass these differences. Again, any perceived differences should not for one moment mean that there is no courtroom proceedings for enemy combatants or alleged combatants, or that their day in court should be delayed for any longer than for civilians.

Ted, I don’t think any of your arguments support the notion that people should be left in limbo in incarceration in a democracy (or anywhere)….. at any time.

I also wonder what position you would take on this whole subject if you thought David Hicks was innocent. You maintained neutrality towards him in the article, but then demonstrated condemnation for him in your posts. This is most unfortunate because it has clouded, or at least given the strong impression that it has clouded your judgement on this issue. It is hard to imagine that you would advocate a system that would keep an innocent person under such conditions.

Ted

Are you feeling so secure in your views today? Hicks as I said is now and always has been a prisoner of war. A position confirmed by your beloved Republican Party (Don't worry I would have skipped the country if my boss was beaten by Hillary Clinton :))

The quicksand of Guantanamo is starting to suck more victims in, after the first tuesday one november it will haunt some forever.

Steve - wrong again. You should really read the material upon which you pontificate before you hold forth. It might save you some embarrassment.

Hicks was not declared to be a POW by the Hamdan decision. The Court declared that Gitmo detainees were eligible only for the "minimal protection falling short of full protection" that is afforded by the GC's common Article 3. That "mimimal protection" does NOT equate to POW status. The Supreme Court majority did not argue that jihadists who fight wearing civilian clothes and who see the deliberate slaughter of civilians as a legitimate tactic of war should be worthy of treatment as honorable combatants.

And I am quite convinced of the rightness of my view (pun intended). My coming to Australia was due to the conquest of my heart by a lovely Aussie damsel, not to any need to "skip the country."

Ludwig:

I disagree that I "jumped outside the arena of our discussion." You stated that you:

"don’t accept that there should be a different rule of law in times of peace or war, especially one that is so profoundly different in terms of human rights, basic decency and democracy."

You didn't originally qualify your statement in any way would limit its application solely to courtroom proceedings. Hence my illustration of the ludicrous implications of your position on the ability of soldiers to fight effectively on the battlefield.

When you later declared that you meant to limit your comment only to "the detention of prisoners and their determination as guilty or innocent," I agreed to stay within your newly specified parameters of argument. And I then proceeded to demonstrate how your argument is flawed, even within those more narrow boundaries.

It's not my problem if your arguments aren't tightly worded enough.

Frank:

I think that the conditions of Hicks confinement should be dependent on his behaviour. If he is cooperative, then I'm sure he'll benefit from more a more lenient regime of treatment. That is no different to the SOP in any other prison, military or civilian.

Ted.

As you well know I am not talking about the Hamdan decision I am talking about the backdoor statement from the Republican Party today. As you have selectivly quoted verbatim the inquiry I know what you know.

Also the evidence that a Canadian citizen in Gitmo was considered a human mop to collect urine and was not allowed to change his clothes for 2 days.

Your views are being eroded as each day goes by.

Bring him home now.

Alright Ted, I appreciate your interpretation on that particular point.

Now, can you present an argument for the indefinite detention in a democracy of people captured in a combat environment? You really haven’t done so to date, if I may say so.

Can you also give an undertaking that if you thought David Hicks was innocent, you would hold the same point of view, which would be to condemn a person whom you considered innocent to detention with no end in sight, and might I say in conditions much worse than those of the average civil criminal or alleged criminal, with about 23 hours a day solitary confinement and no reading material or scant other matter with which to occupy himself?