Ah! Davo, Yes Hicks is a luck man, being jailed, tortured and having his freedom taken from him without a charge being laid for 5 years, just what would you consider lucky? I think you are lucky to be still writing such tripe.

Here's a few thoughts at this juncture from someone outside government:

Over the years Hicks has been charged with serious crimes, then the charges (temporarily) withdrawn, rehashed and then recharged. At the moment he's in "between charge limbo". But weighing up the admissibility of secret evidence vs natural justice (eg knowing the identity of witnesses and detail of the evidence) is a perpetual legal tension.

It seems under Australian law Hicks would go free almost the moment he landed here. This would be a political embarrassment all round. Perhaps even if Australia changed the law to accommodate his case we would not have access to all of the secret evidence against him (perhaps much of it is US EYES ONLY) - don't know.

I'd say Hicks would very likely have a Control Order imposed on him on rdturn to Australia - requiring him to be at home every night, only use certain telephones and report every few days to the police. In Hicks case it would be a form of political control (he would become a cause celebre of the lawyer/human rights and jihadist movements whether he wanted this or not).

A Control Order would also be there for its officially intended function - security. All kinds of people would expect him to be a font of knowledge/natural leader on terrorist operations and perhaps approach him with their schemes...

I don't think the (US) Founding Father's would have envisaged 5 years without trial even for an alleged enemy combatant ("alleged" because there has been no trial).

Hicks will probably want a quiet life when he returns to Australia rather than being a front man or target for everyone's imagined causes.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Howard has allowed this kid to be gutted.On all that can be ascertained David will require professional care for the rest of his life.If David had done something awful you can rest assured that we would know about it by now.Downer has lied about the information supplied to him by Australian consular officials.These people are not stupid,they are trained.They can recognise stress,distress and illness.Feel for them in the politicised environment that they are
forced to work in and stand aghast at the inhumane qualities and fundamental weaknesses displayed by Ruddock,Downer,Ellison and Howard. These obvious and significant flaws in character should be of sufficient concern to cause their decision making capacity in all other areas of public life to be questioned and I have not mentioned the publicly documented occasions when Howard has lied to hide his
motives or to protect himself at the expense of the public good.
Bruce Haigh

The USA IS entitled to hold Hicks - but only as a POW.

The '5 years without trial' is a misunderstanding of international law. in fact, the USA has _no right_ to try him by military commission, or legally define him as an 'unprivileged belligerent', until his status as a legal or illegal combatant has been determined by a competent tribunal, as laid out by the Geneva Convention.

But they do have the right to hold him until hostilities against the Taliban (and, possibly, against Islamofascism generally) are over.

And the USA is also entitled to release Hicks on POW parole. I think this should happen, but I also think he should be closely watched if he returns to Australia.

These arguments were recently fleshed out in detail at:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/01/30/david-hicks-gerard-henderson/

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

What is the pseudo-left?
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/disc/members/568578247191

David Jackmanson

Yes, David Flint, it is worse for some. The Canadian detainee Omar Khadr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr was legally still a child when picked up in Afghanistan. He was wounded while being apprehended, and has reportedly lost the sight in one eye.

With David Hicks, he has now been charged by the US military commission, not as a juvenile, but as an adult.

The United States has no plans to charge approximately 320 of the men they are currently holding at Guantánamo. These don’t have hope of a review of any kind.

Having declared war on an idea, rather than on a state, the United States is claiming for itself the right to determine that any individual anywhere in the world is an “enemy combatant,” to render that individual for interrogation in third countries, and to detain and torture that individual for as long as it likes, without scrutiny or judicial review.

The fact that others are indeed in a worse position than David Hicks doesn’t make this situation any more tolerable.

"I have no doubt that Hicks would have willingly fired on our own troops had he had the chance to do so."

- pathetic, but understandable for one who must operate behind a pseudonym Sniggid.

FACT: Hicks broke all records for resisting the mind-numbing, sensory deprivation techniques of the CIA. Guantanamo is a major node in the CIA network.

FACT: Hicks' return, with or without a functioning mind, would be the beginning of the great unravelling. The great shaky tower of lie piled upon lie, would crumble upon those who have the greatest interest in holding it up.

FACT: Lord Downer of Baghdad and Mr Ruddock would face the opprobrium they so richly deserve. They would themselves become "persons of interest" in a more enlightened Australia.

FACT: Hicks is a hostage.

--

From Prof Alfred McCoy's interview on Lateline, June 2006:

"Guantanamo itself is a system of torture, OK?"

"So this was designed to break Hicks down and make him capitulate and co-operate with the military commission, something he's not done. Something that he's resisted in a way that very few of the other detainees have been able to do."

"...David Hicks by refusing to capitulate, by refusing to confess, falsely perhaps, but to confess and to cooperate by persisting in his insistence upon his innocence, has in fact resisted and his lawyers are representing his will. Let's not diminish the COURAGE of the man."

--

Professor Flint. No matter our views, I am sure we would all be grateful if you came out from behind the curtain and engaged us in person, right here in the comments section - sir.