Aspro? Namba lad?

The “Free David Hicks” caravan is going to take some body blows if there are Australian casualties in Afghanistan. From what is coming out of Afghanistan on Mullah Dadullah the chances of Australian casualties are increasing. If Hicks does get out his lawyer friends will no doubt push for compensation or some sort of settlement and Channel 9 or 7 will want to buy his story. The rest of us will then have to pay the cost of monitoring his movements.

I hate to say it, but I concur - who cares?

Mr Hicks volantarily entered a legal la la land, when he entered Afghanistan to train with the taliban & al quaida. The argument at the present time, seems to be focussed upon his inalienable human rights & liberties.

The interesting point, which is yet to be addressed by the anti-us forces, is that his captivity (in fact his life) only came about due to his good fortune in fighting american forces. I do not think that if he had been captured alive by the Northern Alliance, that he would be granted all this appeals process that he has now (he would have died within days, hours if he was lucky).

So the only reason we don't fight for his return is because he is held by our bigger ally? Bullsh*t, the only reason he is alive to be fought for, is because he is held by the US. What gets on my goat is that this country ignored its own veterans when they returned from vietnam, yet provides pop-star treatment to a person who voluntarily seeks to fight for this countries enemies.

Bring back the death penalty for treason.

Inshallah

2 bob

"But don’t be conned into thinking that the changed stance by the Australian Government has anything to do with the legalities or ethics of Hicks’ detention. It is all about pragmatics. The Australian Government has known all along that Hicks’ detention was illegal. It did not criticise the US simply because it took the view that the welfare of Hicks wasn’t worth a diplomatic stoush with our closest foreign ally - the US." In other words, our government decided to abandon one of our own citizens, deny him assistance that any civilised country would be expected to provide, because its head is <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/">Bush’s butt boy</a>?

“Pragmatism always trumps principle”, writes Mirko Bagaric.

But the two are not mutually exclusive. Pragmatism must take into account principle.

And in the Hicks case, or the Guantanamo Bay case, principle is extremely important.

I don’t believe that the principle in question here needed to be trumped. Australia could have maintained a strong relationship with the US while still expressing outrage at the corruption of a principle that is fundamental to democracy, as is the case with the UK and the US.

Mirko doesn’t mention the contradiction between interminable incarceration without trial and basic democratic doctrine. The two are at awful odds. For those of us who believe in true democracy, the principle that has been overridden here is almightily important, because it strikes right at the very core of democracy….in a country that holds itself up as the shining light of democracy.

How can the US espouse democracy while at the same time demonstrating that it can override basic principles of decency, law and well….democracy? It should respect the notion of innocent until proven guilty and should strive to put all captives on trial as soon as possible, and certainly not entertain the absurd situation whereby some countries can win the freedom of their people in captivity without determination of guilt or innocence while other countries (even close allies) have their people languish without charge or trial. This reeks of international favours and trade-offs completely outside of the principle of law.. oh, and democracy.

How can Australia not let this be known just as assertively as Blair did? Isn’t Australia’s relationship with the US strong enough for us to be able to do this? Are we really just that completely fearful of irritating Bush?

I can appreciate that Hicks was an insignificant element in our relationship with the US at the start. But that has progressively changed, as his time in prison without being found guilty has lengthened and as the Australian populace have rightly expressed increasing outrage.

So it is well and truly time that principle trumped pragmatism.

continued

“So yes, Hicks deserves a bit of your sympathy….”

Well, I don’t know if he does… because I don’t know if he is guilty. For all the rather condemning information we have heard about his activities, we don’t know how much of it is true, exaggeration, hearsay or deliberate misinformation. We’ll only know if he deserves sympathy after he has had his chance to express his intent, possible entrapment and mitigating circumstances and been thoroughly cross-examined….in a properly constituted legal setting.

The thing I find most unfortunate about Mirko’s article is his lack of appreciation for the extremely strong principle that is being violated here, and the extraordinary hypocrisy of the US in violating that principle of democracy.

Phoowey to the notion that anyone can be detained any longer than necessary to organise their trial, whether they be enemy combatants, prisoners of war or whatever.

In fact in the heat of battle, or international conflict or tensions of all sorts, innocent people can easily get caught up in the strife …..much more easily than in most domestic situations. This is all the more reason for all captives to be tried as soon as possible. Some of them could very well be innocent, or guilty of a much lesser charge than they are suspected of.