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/