I haven't actually seen much hero-worship of Hicks. What I have seen is frustration that the process has taken so long, combined with a certain disgust that the right to a fair trial has been so blatantly subverted by the executive.

The separation of powers has never looked flimsier and we are well on the way to seeing western governments that are capable of persecuting their political liabilities.

I can't help but wonder how the US would treat Iranian soldiers in the event of hostilities. Will they find a way to label them as 'enemy combatants' instead of soldiers, and ignore the rights of their enemies under the geneva conventions? What if they are operating as soldiers of an enemy state?

It is the way we treat our prisoners that differentiates us from them. Now enemies of the west can claim to hold westerners without trial, and our objections will be nothing but hypocrisy.

Welcome to the new world.

As a self educated Grandmaster “constitutionalist” I look at the Hicks issue from a constitutional point of view.
Personally, opposing any violence, I would not particularly approve of some of the conduct David Hicks has been reportedly been involved in, however, he is an Australian, and entitled to his constitutional rights.

Why is it that we do not seem to have competent constitutional lawyers in that respect.
Section 51 (xxix) gives the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to deal with external affairs. As the Delegates at the National Australasian Convention (Constitution Convention Debates) made clear this power was given so the Commonwealth of Australia could pursue that Australians abroad could receive the same rights as the citizens of a country where the Australian was held.

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention)

Dr. QUICK.-
The Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to deal with certain external affairs, among which would probably be the right to negotiate for commercial treaties with foreign countries, in the same way as Canada has negotiated for such treaties. These treaties could only confer rights and privileges upon the citizens of the Commonwealth, because the Federal Government, in the exercise of its power, [start page 1753] could only act for and on behalf of its citizens. Therefore, it is desirable that the Constitution should define the class of persons for whom these rights and privileges would be gained.

In this regard there is clearly a DUTY OF CARE upon the Commonwealth of Australia as to secure the release of David Hicks.

Further, within the provisions of Section 24Aa of the Crimes Act (Cth) it is an act of treachery to attack a friendly nation.
Just that John Howard unconstitutionally took over prerogative powers to invade Iraq, a “friendly” nation without the Governor-General having published in the Gazette a DECLARATION OF WAR. It also did so against Afghanistan. Hicks on the other hand, no matter my views about his conduct, came to the aid of a “friendly” nation.

See further part 2 posting

Therefore it is John Howard who appears to me to be the war criminal and so his cohorts and Hicks the defender of a “friendly” nation.
Also, the treaty between Cuba and the USA in fact does not allow the keeping of prisoners like David Hicks. I will not go into details in this posting, but my books set this out, including my 6-7-2006 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

This book was subsequently used as evidence in my successful appeals on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria where I totally defeated the lawyers of the Federal Government on all constitutional grounds I had raised, after a 5-year long legal battle.

And there is a lot more to David Hicks position. For example the transfer of prisoners to Cuba is in breach of old British law, that is part of Australian law. Further, unbeknown to most if not all lawyers, the European Union Human Rights Act is in fact applicable to the Commonwealth of Australia

What I view should be the pressure upon the Government is that they face to be charged for failing their duty towards David Hicks! As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, any Minister not acting within his powers appropriately could be sued in court.

Also, as I have set out in the past to John Howard, constitutionally retrospective legislation isn’t permissible. Hence, no retrospective legislation could be put in place against David Hicks. And, as John Howard himself appears to me to be in breach of Section 24AA of the Crimes Act (Cth) and other legal provisions he is hardly going to attempt to get David Hicks charged under Australian laws, even if they were made retrospective.

I do compliment Dr Natasha Cica for her statement and would like lawyers to finally get of their backside and do some appropriate research, as I did, to check out all relevant matters. For the sake of any Australian in need.

If you've been waiting for the mainstream media to take up the Hicks story I hope you haven't been holding your breath. But it's a mistake to assume that people only form views on what they read in the papers, or that they only have views about what's currently in the papers.

There's been a large, long and increasingly complicated dialogue going on among Aussie citizens about Hicks for years now in the alternative of the blogosphere.

The current gummint habitually respond to whatever the commercial media and shock jocks are spouting at any given time. If they'd been watching the blogosphere they would have seen the wave of support for Hicks coming long before it hit them. And if they'd seen it they would have understood they needed to do something.

Media opinion does not make public opinion, but public opinion can make political action. We've yet to see whether an election can make justice happen in the Hicks case.

SHONGA

I agree. Howard will likely be the hero of Hicks' last minute return to Australia. However, on arrival in Australia Hicks might be held incommunicado (on charges pending or a Control Order) till after the election so he can't criticise Howard.

TurnRightThenLeft

The US has been unable to legally, morally or politically solve the problem of what to do with captured alleged terrorists. If its a "Long War" Hicks can't be kept locked up as a POW for (say) 30 years.

Equally if Hicks is only guilty by associtation (as seems to be case on current info) a sentence of (say) 10 years sounds excessive.

The fact that the US has released maybe half the inmates of Guantanamo (perhaps) due to presssure from their home countries makes US doctrine seem even more confused and poorly based.

Mr Gerrit

If Ruddock went into bat for Hicks over Constitutional rights/protections (his job) instead of US alliance politics (which he appears to see as more important) Hicks would indeed be home by now.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Poor old Phillip Ruddock.
Sitting behind a desk, quietly organizing and approving a bureaucracy that does the dirty work must be very difficult.
Poor old Adolph Eichmann had similar difficulties.