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.