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