What a load of cods wallop. If this were the case why has the British, Spanish, and French Governments all refused to allow their citizens to be tried in Guantanamo Bay? Even the Americans have removed their citizens from Guantanamo Bay and ensured they face a fair trial at home. The situation is a disgrace and David Hicks should be brought home.

There will be a rally in Canberra to Coincide with the opening of Parliament on Tuesday 6 February 2007 at 11 am.

Check out:

Fair GO for David Hicks:
http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfiles/main.htm

And:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/BillboardsForJustice.asp?campaign_id=63

As long as the most well respected jurists and legal academics in the country and the like of Geoffrey Robertson are of the veiw that the detention of David Hicks is unlawful - putting to one side the outrageous treatment he has received - I tend to go along with them - he needs to be freed - even if we have no capacity to try him here

I see that David Flint is employing his usual 'economic with the truth' style in this article. After all, why let facts get in the way of dishonest opinion. Can he please explain under which "Laws of War" the US is allowed to keep David Hicks? Can he perhaps predict a date for the "end of hostilities" in this 'war on terror'? Sometimes I get the feeling that he writes these articles simply to get a rise out of others, such as myself. Having seen him on TV, have noted his tendency to use hyperbole, and ad hominem attacks, in his arguments to distract attention from the innacuracy of his statements. All done, of course, in his unfailingly polite manner.

David Flint demonstrates here he is as gullible now as he has ever been in public life.

For the USA, the issue is what it can get away with by bluster and the smoke-and-mirrors exercise that is the Military Commission model.

When it *cannot* get away with applying sub-standard conditions to trials, it applies (apparently with no particular difficulty) the same criminal trial system as applies to any other crime. It did so in respect of USA citizens in the same conflict in which Hicks was caught up. Only days ago it promised (in return for agreement to extradite) that it would prosecute a Danish individual in its civilian courts and not by Military Commission. It got its man and has delivered on this promise. None of the British, Spanish or USA allow citizens to be subject to Military Commissions, yet Flint thinks its good enough for Australians.

Flint says there is no standard as to what should be admissible. He is wrong. The standard is the rules applicable to Courts Martial, which are applied to USA soldiers accused of crimes. That is the standard applied in the situation of armed conflict. It is a standard that is entirely capable of accounting for security concerns without affecting ongoing war-fighting capability.

Flint says hearsay and coerced evidence is fine because it could be considered by a Royal Commission or coronial inquest here. Neither creature has the function of imposing criminal sanction - that is reserved to criminal courts applying fair criminal procedures.

Flint suggests that the average Australian might be less inclined to object if it were widely reported that consular assistance has been provided to Hicks. He is far out of touch with any average Australian. What the average Australian sees is a system which is not good enough for the Brits, USA etc., but is deemed to be good enough for Australians. The application of consular assistance is simply the salve the Australian government is applying to its conscience. It certainly does Hicks no good.

Hello David and correspondents.

The Federal Government's line - that we have no capacity to try Hicks in Australia - is false.

Ruddock has said that we have no power to make retrospectively operating criminal law. That is wrong. There is ample authority for the proposition that the Commonwealth Parliament has constitutional power to make criminal laws with retrospective operation. David, please consult your constitutional law texts, and read Polyhukovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501.

This "no power to make retrsospective law" reason is not the real reason why Hicks has not been returned to Australia. The real reason is that John Howard has ceded Australian foreign policy judgment to the Bush Administration. That explains why the Howard Government has been so muted in their criticism of the US for being so slow to bring Hicks to "trial" (incidentally folks, it won't be a trial aything like a genuine criminal trial, so don't get too excited about the prospect of due process being afforded to Hicks or any of the other detainees at Guantanamo...) Our Government does not want to offend the Americans.

What a disgraceful, craven response to a blatant violation of human rights.

Human rights are owed to everyone - even terrorism suspects - because of our common humanity. Australia's complicity in the Guantanamo Bay gulag should be a matter of national shame.

Anyone who supports that gulag and the policies informing it should likewise be ashamed

David Flint is right to make the point that Hicks should not be considered in the same light as some one who has been involved in civil criminality. Maybe one day those who disingenuously dismiss the reality of the threat we all face from the Jihadists by the clever use of semantics and statistics will realise that it is a war we are involved with here. I only hope that it does not take an atrocity on our soil to convince them.

Hicks, is lucky not to have been summarily shot and his detention for the duration of hostilities is entirely consistent with any civilized understanding of our conventions on the prosecution of war.

This article is simply not credible either in its content or reasoning. Save your energy for debating that is at least properly argued.

Brilliant, Flinty. I haven't enjoyed such wonderful satire in years. David Hicks got real lucky to end up in the hands of the Americans. Sure was. Five years free board and accommodation. I liked the cheeky way (how did you keep a straight face?) you describe Guantanamo Bay as no tourist resort. That will keep the riff-raff out. And it's not like Changi or Nazi death camp. No way, the Americans do summer camps brilliantly. Lucky Hicksy.

I loved the way you reminded those soft leftists that Hicksy has already been promised he won't hang and once he's been found guilty (we don't doubt that he will do we Flinty?) he'll be allowed to come home for his sentence. Lucky bugger.

And hasn't he been lucky with all that lavish consular and legal assistance provided by our humane government - to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars? I'm so envious - all that free accommodation and lavish parties to boot!

It's no wonder Hicksy got his trial attorneys and the bien pensants (I love your way with words Flinty, you sly old academic you!) to use delaying tactics. Wouldn't you? And you're right to tell the bien pensants that Hicks will probably tell his own story - for a profit. And all us taxpayers will want a refund. After all it was our bien pensant money that kept him their free of charge and charges for five years.

I loved your advice to the Americans (have you told Johnny to tell George?). In exchange for a lighter sentence, they make Hicksy not only fess up but also promise not to make a habeas corpus application. And I chuckled over your line about Hicksy ruling out any international travel.

I fell about with your funniest line - pure Flint: "The most unfortunate about this case is the vilification of our close ally and the use of untruths and the suppression of fact to achieve that". Now our Johnny would never be found out telling untruths and suppressing facts, would he? He's no bien pensant.

Hicks is incarcerated indefinably by "The Military Order" a document that clearly disallows legal challenge. This violates Article I of the US Constitution and international human rights laws. Clearly, the President upon taking office swears an oath to uphold the US constitution. As the lawyers explain "Once a person has been detained, the Order contains no provisions for him to be notified of the charges he may face. On the contrary, the Order authorises detainees to be held without charges. It contains no provision for detainees to be notified of their rights under domestic and international law, and provides neither the right to counsel, nor the right to consular access. It provides no right to appear before a neutral tribunal to review the legality of detainees’ continued detention, and no provision for appeal to an Article III court. In fact, the Order expressly bars review by any court." The most elementary right is negated as well the presumption of innocence. The sick torture, the cowardly refusal to trial prisoners in a court of law under their peers is a reflection of a criminal war.

David do you read these responses?

Since you ask, Major Mori is an independent lawyer challenging an unlawful situation. There is not one representative legal body on the planet - not in Australia, not in England, and not in America - that finds his treatment legally acceptable

David Hicks is the 'international' scapegoat from Australia!

As you said Flint;

1) "A lot has been made about the sort of evidence that can be admitted against him."

2) "The truth is that there is no hard and fast standard as to what should be admissible."

3) " The rules change from time to time", and I believe it is; "helpful to keep on saying that it is better that 100 guilty people go free rather than that one innocent be imprisoned."

And YES Flint, we have a core problem;

4) " The question is where do you draw the line."

I draw your readers interest to the time and place politically, and to reconsider why Hicks was seeking someting from Afghanistan, Flint.

The world was a different place prior to the War on Afghanistan.

With the worlds most informed inter-governments representatives and all the worlds most trusted media being confused about who’s who...at the time (pre- Afghanistan War), it is understandable that a civic person, as young, bold and susceptibly curious (before that time) as David Hicks was, would lead him and others toward agitation.

Frankly, if we could allow the perpetrators sinking the Greenpeace ship "Rainbow Warrior" to go back to their own country… then surely by comparison, (in this situation, which involves a citizen of this country), the right thing to do is to demand Hicks to come home, to face the national authorities, as a first responsible step toward good governance and transparency.

Australians must work harder against reproductive injustice, occurring at all national and international levels.

Reform is a two-way process if; one persons life is part of any equation, before citizens and government.

Hicks has a national and international right, as do all Australians to be tried by our laws, in our country.

Fair-Go Australia is at it’s highest test here… and for me, there is no line, in this specific case.

Great article David, as usual. Hick made his own bed, took his own decisions and now must live with the consequences. He could have been tried long ago but for the intervention of his own lawyers. Hardly the fault of the Australian or US governments.

I have no doubt that Hicks would have willingly fired on our own troops had he had the chance to do so.

When he is charged, let him plead and have his case heard in the US military court.

So much heat and so little light generated over the fate of one traitor. As Flint says, Hicks is lucky the Northern Alliance valued him alive. In having to put up with this interminable bleeding heart stuff about bringing Hicks home I often think it would have been better if the Northern Alliance had been less temperate and had sent him home in a box.

If Hicks is bought back to Australia for trial he will get some anti Australian hotshot QC who will get him off on a technicality. He will then sue the Australian taxpayers (government) for unlawful imprisonment, make millions in compo send some of the money to his Jihadist mates overseas so they can try and kill more aussies then write a book a make a couple of sqillion more. He gets all this because

1. He fought against Australian troops overseas.
2. He has lots of left wing do gooder supporters who have complete contempt for Australian soldiers serving overseas in the defence of this great nation. These @rseholes would like to see hicksey set a precedent where if you go overseas to fight a jihad against Australian troops and are taken alive you can look forward to millions in compo and a book written about your heroic deeds.

It makes me sick and it would be a slap in the face of all the diggers overseas!

I think the very basic point that people such as Reynard et al just seem entirely unable to come to grips with is not the bring-him-home issue, but the forum for trial. No-one is able to come up with any sensible reason that Hicks should be tried by a Military Commission rather than before a (USA) Court Martial or a Military Commission which has rules identical to those provided for in Courts Martial. Even Hick's lawyers say they would be happy to go to trial in these circumstances.

I think the reason for this failure to come to grips with the issue is that there is only answer which is able to be given - the USA needs to try Hicks before a kangaroo court because it has no demonstrable basis for its allegations beyond hysterical innuendo and coerced testimony which has no reliability. No doubt it is embarrasing for Flint and his cheer squad to have to acknowledge this, so they don't.

While I can't speak for et al (whoever they are) I am not unable to come to grips with the issue of how Hicks is tried, I simply have no wish to come to grips with this issue as it is a matter of total unconcern to me. As I said in my previous post it is a pity the Northern Alliance were so temperate in their dealing with this traitor.

The war on terror is hardly a conventional war and to say you can detain people for the length of the conflict is just ridiculous. Realistically if the wars goal is to remove terrorism as a major threat its hardly a goal that’s attainable in any small time frame. It’s a war that may keep going on for centuries if not indefinitely.

"The war on terror is hardly a conventional war and to say you can detain people for the length of the conflict is just ridiculous."

The whole point of detaining enemy combatants during a war is to remove them from the military equation. This kind of stupid statement is precisely why the loony left are so lacking in credibility on this and other issues pertaining to the threat from the Jihadists of this world.

What do we do with these captured Jihadists? How could any sane government release captured Jihadists knowing that they still remain a threat? So in a very long conflict captured Jihadists may be detained for the rest of their natural lives? Tough!

Well the answer for them is simple give up on the idea that they have a right to try to impose their perverted vision of Islam on the rest of the world.

easytimes said:

It makes me sick and it would be a slap in the face of all the diggers overseas!

no mate, the slap in the face I got for saving your @rse from the Yellow Peril In Vietnam was the wet slap of your lousy saliva as you spat on me, because [as now] you simply believe every bit of propaganda by our govt. Like did you also believe WMD?

The other slap was from the lousy Rodent who tried to get my vote by apologising for your "un Australian action", even though he won't apologise for the govt actions in stolen generation. Compared to my govt and "My Fellow Australians" Charlie was a walk in the park, by comparison almost a mate, mate

He wants to give us a lousy medal. What an @rsehole when this same mob gave my War Service Home to a German. Yes it's true, but is a long story of governmental depravity. I bet you are saying I shouldn't be allowed to include it in my own book?

Sniggid: "I have no doubt that Hicks would have willingly fired on our own troops had he had the chance to do so."

You seem awfully certain Sniggid. You must have heard evidence given in court.

Wait a minute... last time I checked, Hicks had been incarcerated for five years without a trial. In fact... I don't think we've had the chance to hear any facts at all.
If the US were as certain as you seem to be, then perhaps he'd have been tried already.
See, I was under this strange impression that one of the key things that made our legal system a little different to sham dictatorships, was something called innocent until proven guilty.

I suppose that should be amended to, innocent until proven guilty*

*Though we'll imprison you until such time as we decide to determine whether you're guilty or not.

As for the notion that we should trust the US government, I can't help but wonder if they're using the same standards of evidence for Hicks as they do when they decide a nation simply must have WMD's.

Cause that just went to swimmingly.

If a reasonable standard of evidence can find Hicks guilty then fine. But there is no excuse for holding someone for five years without trial. He's had no defence, no nothing. We simply don't know what he's done, because he hasn't been to trial.

If we live in a world where this is permissible none of us have any guarantee of being treated fairly by our own western governments.

Hello opinionators, especially those of you who think that David Hicks is 'getting off lightly' and should have been executed by now, or should continue to be detained indefinitely.

Put yourself in his shoes, and ask yourself whether you would want the same treatment.

For goodness sake we don't even know what the man has done! All we have is the proaganda of governments about what he has done. A charge is not a conviction. Or would you prefer to have the Police or armed forces mete out justice without the courts being involved? If so, your stupidity is breathtaking.

The argument that we are under threat by Jihadists and that somehow justifies extreme preventive detention measures is a non sequitur. Whether you see the threat that Australia and Australians face from extremists as the consequence of our foreign policy (the ALP view) or simply the consequence of being a Western country (the Coalition's view) has no bearing on the question whether Hicks should be tried, and speedily, in a proper court.

I note in the case of David Hicks, the mother of the children he sired (I would not say “fathered”, it assumes he merits being called a father) never has anything to say for this particular piece of flotsam which floated around the world until he found a war to play in, rather than look toward his paternal responsibilities and work to support his offspring.

That he chose to participate in a war on the side of murder and terror was his own choice.

That the warmongering of his fellow terrorists continues is a fact.

What spin the legal minds care to place on it does not alter the fact that he remains an enemy combatant in an unconcluded war.

Let him rot in hell and when the war is over, then let him meet the common terms of release along with his terrorist buddies.

The government stand is simple, they recognize that retrospective legislation is the worst form of legislation and if he were to return here he would have no case to answer. The government do not intend to adopt poor legal practice in an attempt to extricate Hicks, the fellow who abandoned his country, his children and all right to consideration in pursuit of his own selfish indulgences.

Oh suggesting “I put myself in his shoes”, difficult to do, people born with a moral conscience would not pursue acts of treason any more than they would abandon their children.

If David Hicks was being held under the conditions he is by any country other than the US, the Australian govt would be making every possible effort to get him released, or brought before a proper court to face genuine charges or brought home to be dealt with here. We would be going to the UN, imposing sanctions, withdrawing ambassadors, cutting off aid (if applicable). But because it is our great friend and ally the US which treats one of us so shamefully we just roll over and accept it - for 5 years! If we make a stink over this, John & Jeanette might not get another invite to the Bush ranch
Flint talks about the laws of war. The US has made up its own laws which even the US Supreme Court threw out. The laws have been rewritten but are still unlikely to satisfy the Supreme Court.
The laws invent a term "military combatant" to circumvent "prisoner of war". If Hicks were a prisoner of war the Geneva conventions would apply and he would not be subject to prosecution.

I take the global view like Francis Ford back in 1979, in Apoc Now

But here we have Clinton mob did everything possible to hide the evidence a cat named bin Laden used the Oklahoma gig as a warm up for 9/11 and if you believe M Moore ver, as I do, Bush assisted bin Laden to drop some flimsy NY buildings using America's own WMD, ie planes.

Bush went "lookin for" bin but went to another country and bombed the livin sh** out of it and killed 600,000 "collaterals" [well not "real" people because at that stage they didn't have God on their side, and were not even democtratic, for cryin out loud, so don't matter.]

So don't look no different to Kurtz version:

" But we must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig, cow after
cow, village after village, army after army. And they call me an
assasin. What do you call it when the assasins accuse
the assasin? They lie.. they lie and we have to be merciful
for those who lie."

and later [to describe the goons pulling strings of Hicks]

KURTZ
" Are you an assassin?"

WILLARD
" I'm a soldier."

KURTZ
" You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks
to collect a bill."

"David Hicks, otherwise known as Mohammed Dawood"

He is not otherwise known as Mohammed Dawood, other than by those seeking to tar and feather the man before he's been tried. Did he change it by deed poll or did he marry and adopt his bride's name? By all accounts he's turned away from Islam and is known as David Hicks because that's his name.

"He may try to have the Americans agree not to make public any of the evidence against him. This would be against the public interest - Australians are entitled to know what he was doing in Afghanistan."

By that rationale Australians are also entitled to know the evidence about what certain Australian public figures do in public toilets. Australians are also entitled to know what corporations hand brown paper bags of money to particular popular broadcasters, or do we have one rule for mates and another for everyone else?

There seem to be two streams of argument favouring the return of David Hicks - one about justice and issues of law and the other about "our" government letting a citizen rot to please America.

Given that your average Joe or Josephine is unfamiliar with the intricacies of law we have to conclude that the growing groundswell of support for Hicks boils down to the simple fact that he's an Australian being sacrificed for our great ally.

Whether it's pragmatic or not, the stats show that Australians are among the world populations increasingly rejecting America's cowboy stance and cavalier attitude to everyone else, an attitude they clearly have when it comes to Hicks and the Aussie fair go we hear so much about these days.

And by the way, the term "War on Terror" is nonsensical, particularly coming from people who should know better. We might as well have a war on sadness or a war on Christmas cheer. Why not have a war on bossiness? Or a war on the weather? Or a war on sand in our cozzies?

It is a pity that such an important issue was raised here by our resident comic instead of someone at least marginally credible. I agree with FrankGol - it would be difficult to imagine a more elegant satire.

Reading the responses, it is interesting to note how difficult people find it to separate the legal and societal aspects of the case from the individual. Apparently, all you need to do is to read your newspaper and draw your own conclusions of Hick's innocence or guilt. No need to worry about the law; if we have decided he is guilty, then no punishment is too much. Even summary execution, according to some.

And as for the manner in which it reflects on our society, you couldn't get a better example of utter disregard for your country's citizens. It is not "human rights" either, it is simply common decency.

There has been a great deal of hot air and incontinent wind expelled on this forum about "Australian values", and I think that next time the topic is raised I shall offer this as an example of "un-mateship".

"Yeah, he's a mate, but frankly he can swing for all I care".

Personally, I couldn't give a monkey's whether Hicks is Osama's right hand man or a misguided and very stupid youth. What worries me is the absolute disregard of the need to actually find out the truth, preferring instead to take the word of journalists seeking headlines.

Or a fragrant professor, for that matter.

Damn well said Pericles.

If Mr. Hicks ought to to be tried by any civilian authority, shouldn't that authority be the government of Afghanistan?

Ah David, how arch,how craven;the more noise,the more the empty vessel.
You the court jester and praiser, contorting conscience to secure invitations to the despots table, but oh, the shame of it, for those who cheer are uncouth,unkind,unclean and unlettered.
Groomed,perfumed and bejewelled but condemned to consort with the rough end of town;it is sad is it not.
Bruce Haigh

Sorry I asked.

Ah! Davo, Yes Hicks is a luck man, being jailed, tortured and having his freedom taken from him without a charge being laid for 5 years, just what would you consider lucky? I think you are lucky to be still writing such tripe.

Here's a few thoughts at this juncture from someone outside government:

Over the years Hicks has been charged with serious crimes, then the charges (temporarily) withdrawn, rehashed and then recharged. At the moment he's in "between charge limbo". But weighing up the admissibility of secret evidence vs natural justice (eg knowing the identity of witnesses and detail of the evidence) is a perpetual legal tension.

It seems under Australian law Hicks would go free almost the moment he landed here. This would be a political embarrassment all round. Perhaps even if Australia changed the law to accommodate his case we would not have access to all of the secret evidence against him (perhaps much of it is US EYES ONLY) - don't know.

I'd say Hicks would very likely have a Control Order imposed on him on rdturn to Australia - requiring him to be at home every night, only use certain telephones and report every few days to the police. In Hicks case it would be a form of political control (he would become a cause celebre of the lawyer/human rights and jihadist movements whether he wanted this or not).

A Control Order would also be there for its officially intended function - security. All kinds of people would expect him to be a font of knowledge/natural leader on terrorist operations and perhaps approach him with their schemes...

I don't think the (US) Founding Father's would have envisaged 5 years without trial even for an alleged enemy combatant ("alleged" because there has been no trial).

Hicks will probably want a quiet life when he returns to Australia rather than being a front man or target for everyone's imagined causes.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Howard has allowed this kid to be gutted.On all that can be ascertained David will require professional care for the rest of his life.If David had done something awful you can rest assured that we would know about it by now.Downer has lied about the information supplied to him by Australian consular officials.These people are not stupid,they are trained.They can recognise stress,distress and illness.Feel for them in the politicised environment that they are
forced to work in and stand aghast at the inhumane qualities and fundamental weaknesses displayed by Ruddock,Downer,Ellison and Howard. These obvious and significant flaws in character should be of sufficient concern to cause their decision making capacity in all other areas of public life to be questioned and I have not mentioned the publicly documented occasions when Howard has lied to hide his
motives or to protect himself at the expense of the public good.
Bruce Haigh

The USA IS entitled to hold Hicks - but only as a POW.

The '5 years without trial' is a misunderstanding of international law. in fact, the USA has _no right_ to try him by military commission, or legally define him as an 'unprivileged belligerent', until his status as a legal or illegal combatant has been determined by a competent tribunal, as laid out by the Geneva Convention.

But they do have the right to hold him until hostilities against the Taliban (and, possibly, against Islamofascism generally) are over.

And the USA is also entitled to release Hicks on POW parole. I think this should happen, but I also think he should be closely watched if he returns to Australia.

These arguments were recently fleshed out in detail at:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/30/david-hicks-gerard-henderson/

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

David Jackmanson

Yes, David Flint, it is worse for some. The Canadian detainee Omar Khadr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr was legally still a child when picked up in Afghanistan. He was wounded while being apprehended, and has reportedly lost the sight in one eye.

With David Hicks, he has now been charged by the US military commission, not as a juvenile, but as an adult.

The United States has no plans to charge approximately 320 of the men they are currently holding at Guantánamo. These don’t have hope of a review of any kind.

Having declared war on an idea, rather than on a state, the United States is claiming for itself the right to determine that any individual anywhere in the world is an “enemy combatant,” to render that individual for interrogation in third countries, and to detain and torture that individual for as long as it likes, without scrutiny or judicial review.

The fact that others are indeed in a worse position than David Hicks doesn’t make this situation any more tolerable.

"I have no doubt that Hicks would have willingly fired on our own troops had he had the chance to do so."

- pathetic, but understandable for one who must operate behind a pseudonym Sniggid.

FACT: Hicks broke all records for resisting the mind-numbing, sensory deprivation techniques of the CIA. Guantanamo is a major node in the CIA network.

FACT: Hicks' return, with or without a functioning mind, would be the beginning of the great unravelling. The great shaky tower of lie piled upon lie, would crumble upon those who have the greatest interest in holding it up.

FACT: Lord Downer of Baghdad and Mr Ruddock would face the opprobrium they so richly deserve. They would themselves become "persons of interest" in a more enlightened Australia.

FACT: Hicks is a hostage.

--

From Prof Alfred McCoy's interview on Lateline, June 2006:

"Guantanamo itself is a system of torture, OK?"

"So this was designed to break Hicks down and make him capitulate and co-operate with the military commission, something he's not done. Something that he's resisted in a way that very few of the other detainees have been able to do."

"...David Hicks by refusing to capitulate, by refusing to confess, falsely perhaps, but to confess and to cooperate by persisting in his insistence upon his innocence, has in fact resisted and his lawyers are representing his will. Let's not diminish the COURAGE of the man."

--

Professor Flint. No matter our views, I am sure we would all be grateful if you came out from behind the curtain and engaged us in person, right here in the comments section - sir.

5 years in an American prison in a part of another country America has little right to.
Enough a man not convicted or charged with anything.
A fool maybe I have no idea why he did what he did but he should now be home .
America plays with him, like a cat a very vindictive cat, with a mouse.
Australia ,Howard watches without understanding it is wrong.
What happened to the young and foolish American who was captured at about the same time in the same place?
America sells its fight against terrorism as badly as Bush fights it, dreadfully!
No I am not rom the left ,but I demand Australias leadership find the guts to say ENOUGHT.

I look forward to a day when Hicks is able to face an independent media.

As well as the obvious questions, I'm sure he will have some interesting things to say about the last five years.

If he ever comes home through the front door we may hear the sound of the back door slamming and some commentators may become strangely silent.

he is an adult and he made a choice to become a terrorist - bring him back and hang him

Fair go!? we did not hang most of the Nazi,s America rewarded some and protected them because they could help America fair go?
The worst murderers of ww2 prisoners of war in the Pacific lived or still live in Japan free, fair go?
What evedence do you have?
What happened to that young American? was his name Walker? who fought alongside Hicks?
In the battle for hearts and minds ,the only chance the world truely has AMERICA has missed the start.
Is running last and the jockey has his feet out of the stirups is looking in the wrong direction.

Admiral, a more pertinent question to put to the surfeit of Jack McCoys that this article has flushed out might be: If civil courts are going to decide on military matters why not ask military courts to decide divorce cases? Wouldn’t that complete the burlesque?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the power to detain without trial has been established. Mr Galea, appearing before the Wood Royal Commission investigating the NSW Police Force refused to answer questions, thereby invoking the right to silence. The right to silence dates back to 17th century or possibly earlier. The ‘civil’ courts, those arenas where rights are tested, were of no use to Mr Galea. He was thrown in prison for 27 months without trial.

The precedent to detain without trial has been established.

Hell another Flint piece, and up to his usual standards the only surprise in this article is he didn't mention John or Alan! Hicks now has been a guest of the US longer then some Nazi's that ran the gas chambers! Fair_go and other posters, one you've never meet the man so how can you know his motives. Two he was with the Taliban not "the base". When Hicks was with the KLA he was a freedom fighter. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The point already been made but I'll say it again. No Westerns not eve US citizen will be tried at Gitmo expect Aussie Hicks. John Howard is a populist without a principled bone in his body.

Yes, Sage, you've said it before, and each time you've said it, you were wrong.

The Wood Royal Commission was granted the “power under s. 18A of the 1923 Act to cite persons for contempt.” (http://www.pic.nsw.gov.au/PDF_files/VOLUME3.PDF Page a17). For refusing to answer the Commission’s questions, Bruce Galea was charged with contempt, tried and convicted http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/supreme_ct/unrep102.html

It’s clear from the judgement that Galea knew that he was in contempt, and knew that he would receive a custodial sentence if he refused to answer questions.

Therefore this is not a parallel to Hicks’ case for two reasons. First, the due process of law was followed, and second, Galea was aware of his position in relation to the law from the moment he stepped before the Royal Commission. Neither of these applies to Hicks.

Arbitrary detention without trial _is_ allowed in Australia under the new “anti-terrorism” laws, but only for a limited period (I think it’s one week), after which a judicial review must take place.

Your comments are welcome here, Sage, but could you please show the rest of us some respect and check your facts before making wild assertions.

Belly, I wouldn’t bother responding to “fair_go” if I were you – it’s a troll:

“a post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke readers; or a person who makes such a post” www.archivemag.co.uk/gloss/T.html

sad about hicks but this is a red herring, in this case to get the punters to take eye off the ball that USA started this war [the IraK one as Bush calls it] AND there is only muted debate re has he killed 600,000 or a million civilians [sanitised by calling them collaterals]

Hence my ref above to the truth and deja vu in the movie Apoc Now "but we must slaughter them, .." Actually didnt the initial Brigadeer in Iraq invasion resign?? for same reasons as Kurtz

Ironically one of the best red herring instances ie grabbing a rag arse off the street [Timothy McVeigh], put him in a yellow jump suit and parade him before the press was all DONE to deflect the punter from knowing about the "bloke with a beard called bin something", whose fingerprints were all over the Oklahoma bombing [read Others Unknown, but FIRST edition]

the irony is that Bush would not have had his excuse for his war on terror had FBI dealt with bin Laden back in mid 1990s, and remember until 9/11 people were saying George who? [as well as Rodent who?] ie 9/11 MADE both of them, hence my own inclination to believe all the evidence Mike Moore has provided

other thing is that Habib bloke [and his whole family] is getting a far harder time from Howards goons back in "the land of the free" [THIS one, ie Oz, not USA] than he ever got in Camp X ray so I cant imagine Hicks could/would ever live here if released

"And I gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing" Dylan/Byrds

so as I also keep saying, I am not too sure by my being forced to save your ars** from "The Yellow Peril" in Nam that any of us feel free in Howard's Oz [oy oy oy] - I sure don't

It was good to read an alternative view from David Flint re: Hicks given the amount of hysteria being generated in the media about "Our Nice David". Please! It was also interesting to read a number of the comments on Flint's article, which reveal that so much of today's commentary is simply driven by a deep seated anti-Americanism. Oh well, I guess it's just too easy to stir up some mindless populism against the world's pre-eminent power, especially when we speak a common langauage and American culture is so readily "available". For all its flaws, the US represents a far better option than what the anti-Americans offer us...just take your pick from the range of undemocratic dirt bag regimes and other useful "ideologies" floating around the planet...And, BTW, Hicks will get his day in court unlike the victims of terrorism.

OK so D.Hicks is a criminal. Which law did he break?

Was it an International law?
A Pakistan Law?
An Afghan Law?
An American Law?
An Australian Law?

Did the Law(s) that he is supposed to have broken exist at the time of the alleged breaking?

Come I am hardly from the left and not anti American in fact here and in pages now gone I suported the Iraq war, I WAS WRONG.
However in thinking GWB is not fit to run a fish and chip shop ,even with his mate Howard helping I know
David Hicks who may well be a fool, should be free, he is like a mouse taunted by a cat not unlike Americas worst ever leader Bush
John Howard SIR if your much loved Sir Robert Menzeies ruled Australia today Hicks would be home by nightfall, and Mr Howard Sir BOB WOULD TURN HIS BACK ON YOU.

yeah that's real funny about Sir PigIron Bob - he didnt sugar the pill with WMD he just said "we must kill the Yellow Peril", and got the Nat Service Act passed in peacetime. Not even Rodent would try that. So I was FORCED to kill dem Yellow Perils and Sir Pig knocked me back on a $32 text book ["repatriation" application] after my 2 years. Real nice bloke that Bob.

But even funnier was my ex father-in-law was Fat Cat in Canberra as Commiss of War Service Homes and he was "incredulous" that by way of a Vivienne Solon type loophole he had offer a Home [heavily subsidised by Oz taxpayer] to "Herman the German", so we used to do a BBQ stopper on BBQs down the Cotter River after a few beers

Soldier, you fought in the war?

Yes Sir

I am in charge of WSH, do you want a Home?

Yes Sir

Then sign right here - oh sorry you fought for Australia did you? how stupid of you, we only give our homes to the enemy

ha ha ha Oy Oy Oy and a few more beers, but if you compare Hicks to Solon, dont seem much different now under Rodent rule.

If no comprennez, but for the $5 billion p.a. sham marriage industry [aka Mail Order Terrorism] run by blood sucking lawyers, Solon could never have got to Oz in first place

Further to the Mr Hicks issue - I havent bothered with this thread not do I care too much about what others have written - having said that -

who can belive anything that has been said about him? - at least those things alleged by his allegators when we have no idea how the information was extracted?

Secondly the PM's woeful handling of this - in terms of the repsect of basic human and legal rights - and in terms of the kind of support an Australian citizen might get if in strife overseas - is in itself sad - however the longer things drag on the worse it getsfor Mr Hicks.

In thier heart of hearts I am damn sure Downer and Howard just want this guy to go away - if he ever returns for better or worse he will be a cause ce'leb and that is the last thing they want in an election year.

We can assume Howards late calls for a "quck resolution" was a hollow effort - and I think we can safely assume we wil hear little about Mr Hicks from the Americans or Howard as the election closes.

if Mr Hicksis luckier than some I would be keen to know what flint thinks is unlucky

I was born during WW2. As a youngster I loved reading Biggles books, war escape books and, indeed, anything about WW2. In the last few years I have been in a kind of daze. I still cannot believe what is happening in Australia, UK and US. I am gradually coming to see that I was a victim of propaganda.

Bush, Blair and Howard are not Hitler or Stalin. But they are all of the same spirit. And that spirit is in us all. The sooner we wake up to that, and start trying to identify the spirit, the better.

David Flint you are spot on, David Hicks should count his belessings. He could be nailed the floor of his steel box 24 hours a day rather than being chained to it for for 23 hours a day.

Let me try this again; David Flint you are spot on. David Hicks could be nailed to the floor of his steel box 24 hours a day rather than chanied to it for 23 hours a day.

"David Hicks is luckier than some" How do people who hold such horifying -anti human ideas, get to have such a prominent blog?

yendis

By just being a normal Auatralian citizen. That's how.

There is nothing normal in taking comfort in the suffering of Mr Hicks - to date an innocent man in the eyes of any court - and even if guilty of any crimes made up otr otherwise he certainly deserves better - there is nothing Australian about it either - in fact this government looks more un australian with every passing minute

Chainsmoker says Hicks uses the name Mohammed Dawood that probably says it all. His fellow detainee Habib is standing for election NSW while trying to gain damages for his holiday in Cuba. Hicks will no doubt prove a bigger burden than Habib and with the support of his civil libertarian friends will seek compensation and reward.

sneekeepete

You might like to consider him to be some sort of Hero, but the facts that are known speak for themselves. Sure he needs to be tried in a court and a military court is fine so far as I am concerned.

The strange paradox in the argument of so many civil libertarians is that they would be the first people to be persecuted in the strict Islamic State David Hicks wants to see established in this country and around the world. Death to many classes of people including women having sex outside marriage, homosexuals, etc, etc. It is so strange that so many people cannot recognise what could well be the situation created by their support of such people as David Hicks.

The “many classes of people” you mention, Diggins, are already disadvantaged in this society.

The support for other minorities comes from a core belief that all of us, even those who find themselves in the majority, are enriched in a society that values diversity.

We are all damaged by the existence of prejudice among us. Some minorities appear to understand this better than others, but this doesn’t give anyone an excuse to gang up on the ones who understand less.

Similarly, it doesn’t give anyone an excuse to persecute someone who’s in an even worse position than them. On the contrary, being disadvantaged yourself can give you some understanding of what it’s like for others.

Try it, Diggins. Imagine yourself in someone else’s shoes for a minute. Don’t worry, it won’t turn you into a civil libertarian, though going by the posts around here, it will definitely place you in a minority

Hicks, Hicks, Hicks... if only the miserable sod had of fought to the death like he was instructed to.

"Hicks, Hicks, Hicks... if only the miserable sod had of fought to the death like he was instructed to."

yes indeed I too was instructed how to fight by Pig Iron Bob's National Service Act

in our boot camp [USA term but not to mind] we were instructed in bayonet drill on how to hit Charlie [aka Yellow Peril] in back with bayonet fixed to rifle

Then the Sergeant said it may gat jammed in his backbone so you put right foot on Charlie's back and pull it out and go to next Yellow Peril, for "there are lots of them to kill"

People like you back home all said being in the Army would "make a man of me" [but remaining silent as to miserable sods like you who, but for a fortunate birth date, sat on your @rse]

problem is it was NOT the sort of man I was hankering to be - get the drift buddy, our own f* govt instructed us same as your ASSUMED Hicks instructors did, and I was spat on and refused a home loan

IMHO the assumed miserable sod is you - but you will claim "rights" that neither Hicks or I were ever afforded which say YOU can assume re others but no need for any proof for your sorry @rse

People like you make me sick, and as I keep saying IF I had had the choice I would have LET the Yellow Peril "Terminate you with Extreme Prejudice"

so sod off, creep

"...and I was spat on and refused a home loan"

Aussie Home Loans dude, they'll save ya.

You should have joined the Navy if you didn't want to be taught to kill, or the Salvos maybe, what kind of training did you expect to receive as a (ASSUMED) ground soldier? You thought all that business with the guns and bombs was TV fiction? Hell you must have heard of WWII, you know, D-day and all that?

Rights that you and pal Hicksy were both denied - you were imprisoned for going AWOL? Pulled the old Klinger trick with the dress?

Not even sure if you're for real or just having a bad trip after an Apocalypse Now viewing.

How did this thread get side tracked? start another one if you wish.
The fact is David Hicks is most likely a fool but he has recanted his Muslim conversion and does not call himself that.
5 years in a yank prison without charge?
Heard about the Geneva convention have we?
America is as always the best hope of the free world, AND THAT FILLS ME WITH FEAR!
Send the silly bugger home far worse than him are free in Australia.
Mr Ruddock Mr short on honesty Howard Australia awaits while you search for your Aussie fair go, its been lost some where.

David Hicks has not been treated fairly or in accordance with Australian law.

Its still OK in law for Australians to fight in the Israeli Defense Forces despite the fact that the IDF sunk the an american military vessel in the last 20 years. Its still OK in law for men to wander around Australian towns bragging about the fun they had committing atrocities in the Serbian forces.

Phillip Ruddock opens his mouth to further besmirch the office of Attorney General. The government's treatment of David Hicks is destroying the faith ordinary Australians have in the government.

Regarding someone's suggestion of a "control order" on this string at 2 February 2007 11:26:10 PM (originally posted 30 Jan 07 on Pete's Blog http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com)

ie:

"...Hicks would very likely have a Control Order imposed on him on return to Australia - requiring him to be at home every night, only use certain telephones and report every few days to the police. In Hicks case it would be a form of political control (he would become a cause celebre of the lawyer/human rights and jihadist movements whether he wanted this or not).

A Control Order would also be there for its officially intended function - security. All kinds of people would expect him to be a font of knowledge/natural leader on terrorist operations and perhaps approach him with their schemes..."

I see that Neil James, Executive Director, Australian Defece Association may have used this Control Order idea the next day - in The Australian of 3 Feb 07, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21161972-5001561,00.html

"Releasing the Adelaide man under a control order was the most practical solution, Mr James said.

"It's a win-win situation. Hicks comes home, the Americans get off the hook, the (Australian) Government gets off the hook, the Opposition gets off the hook, the lawyers shut up. There are no losers in this option."

I'm assuming Neil is reading OLO - if so I think this is a good result.

If anyone has seen the control order for Hicks concept elsewhere, (pre 3 Feb 07 that is) please provide details.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Second thoughts I have now found references (last year after the Jack Thomas Control Order) discussing application of a Control Order to David Hicks on return eg. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/put-hicks-under-control-order-worried-lawyers/2006/10/06/1159641533675.html . That idea was stated by Hicks' legal team no less.

If you want a new idea read an old book I suppose.

Looks like Howard is under intense pressure to bring Hicks home - something Howard will need to do before the Federal Election - South Australia has several marginal seats...

Not to mention 5 years neglect of Hicks' human rights in the name of Truth (not), Justice (not) and the Bush Alliance (Definitely - Hey Johnny?).

Pete

Hi there HarryC, and you said:

"Aussie Home Loans dude, they'll save ya. You should have joined the Navy "

OK, I now have a few minutes to explain these things to you

The War Service Home Scheme was set up to entice people to join the SERVICES [even the Navy buddy] - AND it worked well and come Vietnam we HAD enough forces but PigIron Bob needed votes and did same Howard suck @rse to USA and FORCED people like me AGAINST THEIR WILL to be conscripted. Are you with me so far?

The Wog Simmons who heads Ozzie Home Loans is a shamster. But even so, if we are to believe the propoganda that FORCED me to kill nice Yellow Perils BY ORDER, had I NOT done so we were told Simmons would have been too scared Yellow Peril wise to COME here - still with me?

But he came and the scam is this. As we know from NAB losses, mortgage reselling operates on very low margins. Simmons came up with a scheme which SUBSIDISES that by application fees. I did a sting on him to confirm the scam. A "consultant" comes to your home and paints a totally rosy picture where "you WILL get the loan, just sign here and pay $800 applic fee"

The fraud is simply that 2 out of 3 applicants get a "Dear John" letter to say no, but John KEEPS the fee and thus transforming marginal profit into zillions - understand that Harry?

even the lousy NAB refunds fee if not successful, but NOT our little Wog turned Aussie

David Flint,

Oh dear. Still looking for publicity mate? How's about we put you in Mr Hicks place, for an hour even?

I look forward to your absolute silence.

RobbyH
HOW ABOUT WE MAKE THE ARRANGEMENT PERMANENT

Oh come on.

Flinty has put out some excellent, humanitarian articles in the past.

Granted the US:
- saved Australia's bacon in WWII
- Australia actually asked the US to put boots on the ground in Vietnam, and
- the US provided make or break intelligence and military support for Australia in East Timor (1999)

BUT in the case of the War on Terror there is a strong feeling of revenge for 9/11 in the US. Hicks is an easy target and victim of this revenge. Punishing the small fish is partially due to US frustration that it can't/won't get at Big Fish that is Saudi members of the al Qaeda leadershp who, it seems, are protected (by quiet agreement) in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

While countries like the UK, Germany and France retrieved their nationals detained at Guantanamo in 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detainment_camp#Released_prisoners )Australia has not done so. Why? Are we so uncertain of our own independence and future prospects?

No matter what Hicks intended to do leaving him for years without trial in a US prison of shifting legality is a low point in Australia's apparently servile support of US foreign and security policy.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

I think I heard but forget the USA version of distinction between Hicks and Habib [who they/we set free] - anyone know?

now Habib is going for Parl in Oz, so Hicks for PM? - nar, I'll keep on supporting http://www.amandaforpm.com

yo all sing along now "land of hopes and freedoms - nardy dardy"

but let's not shoot the messenger - the Hicks thing is Howard, Downer, RubberDick fiasco, not Amanda

I mean Amanda wasn't even chucking kiddies overboard, that was the 3 above

Pete

I'm not so sure Howard would actually want to bring Hicks home before the election - it would raise a huge amount of publicity, and while Howard would capitalise on it as best he can, depending on what Hicks says it could be even more damaging.

The best outcome for Howard would be some kind of assurance (just prior to the election) that Hicks is actually coming home in short order, though for his actual arrival to be shortly after the election.

This way Howard can capitalise on it, but also avoid the negative fallout.

TurnRightThenLeft

Its uncertain but I'd say the the US might short circuit the full trial process in Hicks case for the sake of alliance relations with Australia (read - saving Howard buddy's electoral bacon).
- Bush is highly unpredictable and like any imperial Head of State type he can apply a Presidential pardon (or similar) while maintaining prestige.
- in any case French, German and UK nationals in Guantanamo were repatriated years ago - so there are many precedents.

Howard has made the odd move of criticizing Obama and in that I see a unusual Bush thankyou in the offing.

So I'd give 50% possibility to the following:

Hicks is retrieved before the election and held on a charges pending rap (or severe Control Order (including no contact with press)) throughout the election period so Howard can claim:
- he gotten tough with the Yanks and won
- but he's still maintained Australia "tough" stance on terrorism by putting Hicks on some restrictions.

Morality remains largely distorted while Howard defuses his own embarrassment.

Alternatively I think your idea is equally possible ie:

I suggest we could continue this discussion under Cica's new Hicks article (looks like it needs heelp keeping on topic :)

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

In the Howard government’s so-called "war on terror" it desperately needs credibility and victims - the sacrificial lambs. Hicks emerged like a windfall for Howard, particularly, in a time when all the lies were being maufactured and dispensed for the illegal colonial intervention into Iraq to plunder the huge oil reserves.
Under the tribunal system, trials will be conducted behind closed doors. The military trials are so obviously designed to secure guilty verdicts that even the Pentagon-appointed military lawyers assigned to the defendants have publicly denounced the procedures. “Never in American history has a president or a Defence Department asserted this raw power and certainly not after the revolution in international law heralded by the 1949 Geneva Conventions which the United States signed and ratified in 1955. The current military commission flatly violates not only the United States constitution but the very laws of war the Administration claims to be upholding.”

Get over this!!

David Hicks did the wrong thing, and has to pay for what he has done.

I am so bloody sick of everyone whining about him.

All you do-gooders GET A LIFE!!

Hi all,
I believe David Hicks is a typically ill-educated hick(no pun intended) who was bound to end up in some sort of dire predicament in his life. (The reliance on the excuse of poor education as a reason for his predicament is self-delusionary, by the way. Anyone caring to challenge that best save themselves the embarrassment).
His life has been one of ill-advised and risky choice. He has chosen paths that have carried great consequence, tending towards an unfavourable personal outcome.
He has, by his own admission in journals and letters, chosen to adopt a life based on the teachings of mohammed.
Mohammed, dissatisfied with garnering a religious following (150 followers in 10 years) found greater results when applying a political, or warlike, approach to his recruitment ( 2 choices; join us or die ).
True political islam is one then that allows dualistic beliefs i.e a muslim may not cheat, steal, harm or kill another muslim but may inflict such acts upon an non-believer should it further the cause of islam.
David Hicks undertook to subscribe to this point of view, disavowing allegiance to his "former" country, Australia, whilst maintaining citizenship.
By law, Hicks is an Australian citizen. In his heart, he is not. He has already denied allegiance in his writings. Conscious choice.
As a human being, regardless of personal belief and according to international law, he is entitled to expedited common legal process, in order that his fate may be known to himself and others.
Having said that, it would not confront me were the Australian government to revoke his citizenship and let him seek solace in the arms of his arab benfactors.
Fair, do you think?

tRAKKA,

How do you know all this about David Hicks in advance of his trial (which you obviously think is superfluous)?

Did John Howard or Phillip Ruddock or Alexander Downer tell you? Men of truth!

I recall an essay by Francis Bacon which begins: '"What is truth?" asked Pontius Pilate but would not stay for an answer.'

take a look at this clip from the film Nuremberg - lucky door prizes for those who can spot more than 10 similarities, going forward, between Hitler and Howard/Bush

Like even the flavour of the month term "going forward" was used by Hitler

http://csacalc.com/divorce/janning.htm

Hi Frank,
SBS aired a program outlining the situation, with a fair attempt at objectivity. Without rebuttal from and indeed with confirmation from his father, his early childhood exploits were sketched. David chose to succumb to some of the less character building activities and engaged in substance abuse and delinquent behaviour(temptations presented to all of us during our formative years, no doubt. Some of us just chose to respond differently.)In addition, letters from David to home were narrated in which he spoke of his enthusism for becoming an islamic warrior and helping create a new world order.
I'm sorry that you misunderstood my comments regarding trial. I thought I did say that no matter his persuasion, political or religious or otherwise, he is entitled to due process, which should be granted sooner rather than later. His decision to turn his back on, and I use the term advisedly, a "western" lifestyle and declare himself an islamic warrior removes any obligation of the Australian government, IMO, to maintain his citizenship subsequent to the outcome. David himself commented on the willingness of his arab benefactors to provide money for living and learning his new "trade", that is, destruction of the "non-believers", a group which you are probably a member of, being at least nominally christian.
Only a fool accepts from a politician or from the pulpit on face value. So the answer to your question is , No, I was not told by John or anyone else.
Trusting this satisfies.

tRAKKA,

Let me see if I've got this right.

1. A television program aired some stories about David Hicks' childhood.

2. These were not rebutted by David Hicks (how could he?), and his father "confirmed them".

3. These stories included substance abuse and delinquent behaviour.

4. David's letters home spoke of his enthusism for becoming an "islamic warrior" and helping create "a new world order".

5. Now I think you move from the televison commentary to your own opinion when you say: 'His decision to turn his back on, and I use the term advisedly, a "western" lifestyle and declare himself an islamic warrior removes any obligation of the Australian government, IMO, to maintain his citizenship subsequent to the outcome.'

6. David Hicks received money from "arab benefactors" and this, you say, was for living and learning his new "trade", that is, destruction of the "non-believers", a group which you say (with absolutely no evidence) I'm probably a member of.

7. You say: "Only a fool accepts from a politician or from the pulpit on face value. So the answer to your question is , No." You do not make the same claim about telesion "facts".

Now, if all that's right - and leaving aside the matter of hearsay and other kinds of evidence being scrutinised in a properly convened court - what crimes has David Hicks committed? Has he shot anyone or tried to do so? Remember stated intention is one thing; real action is another. Stating a belief in a value system is one thing; doing something about it to the unlawful detriment of others is another.

As I see your case, it surprises me that you have decided already that it is the right thing to revoke Hicks' citizenship. What's the rush in advance of his trial - which you concede he is entitled to 'regardless of personal belief and according to international law'?

Is it possible that those who will try him will - like you - have already made up their minds?

Flint,

What a stupid statement. Luckier than some? Name one? He's a token white "terrorist" and Bush is going to use him until the election. What's new. Can't you get a real job Flinty? Perhaps penning some letters and publishing them would be a good idea.

The world's most dangerous terrorist? Bush followed by Howard. Both have tunnel vision. Howard sees terrorists under his bed and I'm betting they are really there. Just whispering. Keeps him awake you see so he can listen to his masters voice, Jones of course.

"The world's most dangerous terrorist? Bush followed by Howard"

couldnt agree more, walked in to another country and killed almost a million of the poor sods

It was same for me being conscripted to go and kill the Yellow Peril in Vietnam

Like they were never about to row to Darwin and walk across the Simpson desert to zap us

It was all the same big fat porky as WMD and Rodents in the Wheat Silos

But if we can just give them democracy ... like we have ... like we are affording Hicks

Makes me sick

Hello Frank,
Let me clarify a few points.
1. The program concerned the Hicks issue as a whole and gave some background.
2. His father provided the details of David's childhood/teen/young adult exploits.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
5. Yes, again. Based on my readings and understanding of political islam and the koran. You may wish to "Google"...
6. Muslim doctrine declares anyone who is not muslim a "non-believer". So, unless you are a muslim, you are a non-believer. Clear?
7. It's hard to argue when the words come from David and his father.

With regards to crimes, I can't say.

Re:stated intention.
To knowingly engage in practices whereby, in this case, you may be called upon to use an issued (and accepted) firearm to inflict harm upon another smacks of willingness and "readiness for the off".

Re: stated intention;real action.
What about the case of the soldier who, without firing a shot and perhaps with an unwilling attitude, is captured and incarcerated by the enemy until the cessation of hostilities? (No need to answer, it's rhetorical)

Nowhere in my post did I say that I had decided that it was the right thing to revoke his citizenship. All I said was that, in effect, I would lose little sleep. And I did say subsequent to the trial, not in advance of. My point was that if his benefactors were so keen to train him and care for him when he was an
active "warrior", they should be equally keen to look after him now.

I have not made up my mind about David's innocence. There have been no charges proferred. The possibility of those who will try him having already made up their minds is obviously possible but not very probable.
Decision makers within the criminal legal system base their decisions on the evidence presented and always work with possibility of reasonable doubt.

It is apparent, Frank, that any "surprises" that you receive are as a result of your unwillingness or inability to properly comprehend the posts you are reading. Take your time and get help if you need it.

Lets send Flinty to Iraq, they'll soon beg us to take him back.

tRAKKA

Thank you for clarifying that you have not made up your mind about David Hicks' innocence. You would be in exalted company if you believed he was guilty - see below. And if after a trial, he is found not guilty, will you still want him stripped of his citizenship?

You said that 'no matter his persuasion, political or religious or otherwise, he is entitled to due process, which should be granted sooner rather than later'. I take it you would be concerned about the inordinate delay in bringing him to trial.

You also said, 'The possibility of those who will try him having already made up their minds is obviously possible but not very probable.' Your faith in the system is touching; but a succession of powerful leaders have already declared him guilty beofre trial. And those conducting the trial are military/political appointees and are not part of the normal American judicial system. And the rules of evidence to be allowed including hearsay are not those of normal courts.

Rear Admiral Harris, the head of Guantanamo Bay told ABC Radio on 8 February: 'I believe there are no innocent detainees here.' (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1843517.htm)

The then US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld said Hicks was 'among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth'.

Australia's Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Foreign Minister and the Attorney-General have all made public statements implying Hicks is guilty of crimes - and all before charges have been laid.

You may be aware that last week, in relation to Hicks, leading QC Robert Richter publicly called Phillip Ruddock a liar - and worse - and explicitly challenged him to sue. I don't expect Mr Ruddock to sue in the face of the fact that truth is a defence against defamation

Frank,
Let me again respond in point form.

Not fussed. Again I'll say to you that given his adoption of the islamic way, the government would be within their rights to revoke his citizenship. I commend to you some investigation of the workings of political islam and remind you of the duallistic nature therein, that is, it is acceptable for a muslim to lie to a non-believer if it furthers the cause of islam. How can we be sure that David's recanting of his conversion is true? In theory, it's like you ever really trusting the son-in-law who laid hurtful hands upon your daughter. There is a tendency in western society for forgiveness, so it's also possible that his citizenship won't be revoked. So be it.

Yes. Reprehensible delay.

There is nothing to suggest that any of those appointees will distance themselves from that which is right, proper and truthful.They would be acutely aware of the eyes of the world pointing in their direction. Shame upon them otherwise.
If you were one of the appointees, would you be swayed(having survived all attempts of perversion and being successful in your appointment anyway) by improper and/or inappropriate advances? Would you succumb and honestly maintain good relations with all your kin? I think not.

Who cares for the opinion of Admiral Harris? That's his belief system at work.

He may be among, or amidst or amongst them, but it doesn't mean he is one. So what? Opinion again.

PM,T,FM,A-G. Opinion, opinion, opinion, opinion.

No comment.

What?! The government can revoke citizenship on the basis of religion? tRAKKA you gotta get a grip on reality. Your opinion is welcome but you shouldn't dress it up as fact.

This article isn't about belief systems, it's about law and convention. There isn't one legal body on the planet that condones the abandonment of Hicks.

tRAKKA

Do you realise the enormity of the implications of your view that: '... given his adoption of the islamic way, the government would be within their rights to revoke his [David Hicks] citizenship'?

You are condoning discrimination on the basis of religion.

If such a position became government policy, some 300,000 Muslims in Australia would potentially be stripped of the rights.

If it's OK to do that to Muslims, why not also to Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and atheists?

Then why not extend it to Roman Catholics or other Christian denominations?

If it's OK for Australia to act in this way, why wouldn't it be OK for any government anywhere to practise the same oppression?

If it's OK for governments to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, would it not also be OK to discriminate on the basis of skin colour? Or political beliefs? Or gender?

Frank,
Wrong yet again. Please, please make the effort to read something about political islam. You may then understand. As I said, ANY muslim who claims to be a proper devout practising muslim must not tolerate the existence of any othe religious movement. Now go and read or sit on the naughty chair. Totally unasseptable...

Bennie,
You too, you wombat!

Frank and Bennie,
While I'm here. My point with the revocation issue is this.

He adopted an lifestyle that was in direct contrast to our own.
Religious practices aside,it condones any methods to undermine western culture.

Try and get your heads around this. He agreed to the possibility of killing you if you don't decide to see things as he does. That's ingrained into islamic culture. Do not kid yourselves otherwise.

As I said before, maybe his benefactors should be as enthusiastic now about his welfare as they were to train him.

Get off your stupid politically correct high horses and YOU see the reality for a change. Try being true to your own thoughts rather than adopting a crowd pleasing attitude that you yourself are uncomfortable with.

It's obviously very easy for you to be sheeplike and stay with the herd right now, but I do recommend thinking for yourself.

tRAKKA

So you're now arguing that "He [David Hicks] adopted an lifestyle that was in direct contrast to our own." I presume you mean in direct contrast to your own - since you have no mandate to speak for me. Now let's not quibble over that; let's just see where your logic leads.

If any other Australian wanted to adopt a lifestyle that was different from ours would it also be OK for the Government of the day to strip her of her citizenship? Suppose she went to live in the Kalahari Desert and adopted a nomadic subsistence lifestyle should she be stripped on citizenship? Suppose an Australian man went to live with an exotic religious sect in the wilderness of Brazil. Would the government of the day be entitled to strip him of his citizenship?

Simply choosing to live a different lifestyle to the norm is no crime. Crimes are precisely defined in our democratically-derived justice system. Governments that punish citizens just because they don't like their decisions to be different are governments of terror. And isn't that the whole point? If 'we' become like 'them' we have lost.

tRAKKA, I've read heaps about political islam (and know personally a number of Muslims) and I simply can't agree with you that 'ANY muslim who claims to be a proper devout practising muslim must not tolerate the existence of any other religious movement'. To claims that Hicks 'agreed to the possibility of killing you if you don't decide to see things as he does' is mere speculation in your part. And even if you are right, the fact is he did not kill or try to kill anyone. To agree to the 'possibility of killing someone' is not yet a crime.

So to run with your mixed zoological metaphors - I'm not sitting on a stupid politically correct high horse and I won't be sitting on the naughty chair with the herd, being sheeplike.

Thanks for the recommendation to think for myself. I think already - that's why we disagree.