"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.