I am surprised that Ruddock and Howard have not been called more to account for this fiasco, and that the media really does not seem too serious about highlighting it more. The media should really be hammering this much more. And where are the lawyers? The arbiters of justice? They are not screaming loud enough.
Good article, but let's hear more.
Arcticdog

Hicks I believe will be the pawn in the next election. Howard will ask Bush to release him to the Australian legal system, and appear to be a hero. Hicks of course by now is a basket case, so whether found guilty or not he will have to be supported by the nation in some way.

This will be heralded as Howard stands up to Bush, a Hollywood script, that may or may not con the average voter in this country, Hicks is Howard's trump card and will be played when the time is right.

BAZZ:

I'm afraid you missed the point! Even if Hicks is "guilty" and/or a stupid, unwitting pawn in a multinational drug cartel game(oops, did I say that!), he STILL deserves the right to a fair trail, according the internationally accepted standards of most of the western world ! Anything else is, quite simply, a continuing abuse of human rights.
END OF STORY !

SHONGA:

You got that one right mate ! Watch Johnny and Phil get up there and bark like little lap dogs at the US in the lead up to the next election! It is simply another mealy-mouthed, morally bankrupt election stunt waiting to be enacted. Wanna bet on when it will be shown on national TV?

It's a bit late to be moaning about respect for the law.

Runner... this is about as far from abortion as you can get. That issue is not black and white. You can argue your view, fine, but if you're trying to pretend that there is a simple ethical stance to be taken on abortion, you've clearly lost the plot - here I thought that abortion is always being strenuously debated. I'd be far more interested as to whether you think the plight of David Hicks is okay, and that ignoring hundreds of years of the rule of law was acceptable.

The only defence I've seen for the treatment of David Hicks is the argument that he must deserve it - for which we've been denied the evidence due to the fact we haven't had a trial.

TurnRightThenLeft

Every person does have a right to a trial. I am however sickened by the fact that this man who was so willing to take up arms on a number of occasions is now being heralded some kind of hero. Suddenly the ones he was prepared to kill (to line his own pockets) are the villians. It seems very warped logic to me.

Had the author not invoked what she describes as the Christian Judea ethic abortion would not of been mentioned. The fact that she somehow appeals to this ethic on this topic and very selectively is a mis reprentation of God's views.