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.