Firstly the Americans, have in the past promoted themselves as champions of human rights. What's that saying 'America is the land of the free!'

David has become a pawn in a game, unfortunately now the Yanks cannot retreat and let him go because they are in too deep. It would not surprise me that when Hicks gets to trial he will be found guilty and sentenced to time served.

This gives the Yanks a way out.

I get the impression that the Yanks do try to protect their own citizens from foriegn powers, yet hypocritically our own government has thrown David Hicks to the wolves.

Hicks has no right to a ‘fair go’. He gave up all rights when he took up with terrorists. He and his terrorists associates do not give anyone a fair go.

The Magna Carta and the culture it came from, are both now sneered at by Thompson and other lefties. What a hypocrite!

Hicks used up all of his privileges when he was told his dirty little life would not end at the end of a rope.

“Labor is calling for justice…..”. Rubbish! Labor is calling for votes at this year’s election. Pretty stupid, really, when it is merely preaching to the converted.

Despite the hullabaloo from the usual suspects about Hicks, the little creature figures very low in the minds of the majority. It’s a pity that wimpy John Howard now seems to be suddenly ‘concerned’ about Hicks, too, because he listens to the quantity of comments, not the quality.

Hicks is an enemy of Australia. So are the people who support him in any way at all

Leigh. You are blind to the concerns here. This isn't about David Hicks, it's about legal protections that protect all of us.

I don't know if David Hicks is a terrorist or not. I concede you may well be right; he might be a danger, he might be the fiend you speak of.

The point is - we don't know. We just don't know. The US government tells us it is so, but then again, they told us there were WMDs in Iraq.

"The US Government itself knows that the military commissions do not constitute a fair trial - it has banned any US citizen from being tried under them!"

An american caught in the same situation wouldn't be subject to this.

Answer me this Leigh - why is it okay for an Australian and not an American?

This isn't about Hicks. This is about what we define as legal process - innocent until proven guilty.

This is about how we establish whether someone is guilty or not - it's all well and good to say bad people should be punished Leigh - few disagree.

But the issue here is how we decide if they're guilty or not.

You seem content with a system that merely says: he's guilty. Trust us.

Well, I'm afraid I'm not all that keen on that system. It's what enables governments to do things like holocausts and war crimes.

I'm not equating the US government to those sorts of things, though it may look like I am - I'm merely saying these precedents don't lead us down a positive path.

Gee Leigh - so now I am an enemy of Australia!

- I find myself in good company the likes of Geoffrey Robinson the bulk of the judiciary in this country and it would seem those in the USA - with the exception of the military lawyers - and even some of those side with Hicks these days - Tony BLair and the judicial system in England sided with those British citizens caught in the same web as was Hicks - all seem to be on the same page - Hicks' treatment is demonstrably unfair - regardless what he has done.

The only real enemy in this sorry farce are those who seem hell bent on throwing out the priciples of justice because a few nut bags have blown up a few people mainly of an Anglo Saxon heritage - that gutless conduct has just led to more carnage - speak not to the sneekkemeister of enemies -

"Anyone accused of a crime should be afforded a swift and fair trial, irrespective of the nature of the allegations or political sensitivities."

I don't agree.

David Hicks or Daoud as he is now called was caught red handed on enemy soil in a war zone - having previously fought in Kosovo and trained in terrorism in an Islamic Madrassa in Pakistan - he is no saint.

He was apprehended by Americans and is under their war jurisdiction now. Similar to our drug mules caught in Indonesia for example – they are in Indonesian jails under Indonesian law.

John Howard knows too well that he has no influence whatsoever on US politics – but he and all naïve Australians like to think he has. And if (we) want to get Hicks back in Australia all (we) have to do is ask the US for him. Well Howard did ask and the request was ignored. So let’s not embarrass our PM any further and forget about Hicks.

As far as I am concerned, Hicks is no longer an Australian citizen. He has abdicated that right when he became a Muslim and joined the enemies of Australia... by choice.

As a parent myself I feel for his dad and step mother. However I have no sympathy for them as they are still in denial and are oblivious to the criminal mentality of their son. They find no harm in David’s actions like memorizing the Qur’an and subjecting himself to the evil teachings of Islam...

To turn David’s misfortunes into a humanitarian saga is denying all decent citizenry a “fair go” as you call it.

Coach, whatever argument you're trying to make (which I note doesn't touch on the legality of the situation) is kind of shredded with:

"He has abdicated that right when he became a Muslim"
and "They find no harm in David’s actions like memorizing the Qur’an and subjecting himself to the evil teachings of Islam."

So you're saying, what? You become Islamic you're an enemy of Australia? This is about religion to you?

It seems to me, the only argument I'm seeing for the other side, is that "Hicks is bad, so it's okay."

Oh, sorry, I forgot the stellar argument of "He's a muslim, so he's bad, so it's okay."

You're going to have to do better than this.

I say again - we have only the word of the US government that Hicks is guilty, who also happen to be the prosecution, and now have a vested interest in the outcome of the trial.

Has anyone got any arguments that address this, and explain why it's okay to assume guilt and operate from that standpoint?

David Hicks was picked up in a war zone. So he is entitled to be held and kept away from the war until
1. It is clear to the US that he has not a case to answer with regard to possible war crime behaviour and if released would not return to fight against the US.
2. He is brought to trial in a military court.
3. Hostilities have ended.

If his lawyers continue to attempt to keep him from facing the military court, then the length of his custody is on their heads.

As I understand the situation of David Hicks truth and justice have long ceased to be the issue. In to-days AUSTRALIAN Greg Sheridan reminds us that David is/was a member of four different terrorist organisations. Apprehended on the battlefield and with quasi POW status he can be held indefinitely. I used the word quasi because he was not in uniform or fighting in the name of a sovereign country.

A trial is only necessary if David has committed serious crime, which is alleged to be the case. Surely, habeas corpus rules are not relevant to POWs or enemy combatants.

Enter the lawyers. If the facts are with David they would argue the facts. Otherwise they argue the procedures. What is meant by a fair trial? Clever legal arguments and utilising procedures to the full may mean the guilty go free. While, unless the innocent can afford a top gun they are at serious risk of wrongful conviction.

Arguing the procedures includes appeal to public opinion and the media. Subjudice rules do not apply to the defence. If the prosecution joins in, well they are clearly prejudicing the court against their client.

So successful have been the defence in this case, that the politicians are getting in on the act. After all K. Tomsom has an election to win/lose.

I am surer too that there is nothing like a win in a high profile case to provide the pro bono lawyers with free advertising and a guarantee of future high profile cases.

It is clear to me that there is much obfuscation in this case that we will never get to know the truth. Can there be real justice with out the true evaluation of the evidence. Subjectivity and emotion may sell news papers. Attempt at objective examination of the evidence is a turn off to most. Likewise, politicians are not required to be either objective or impartial.

How many of Hicks supporters shouted loud at the Indonesians about Schapelle Corby. Those people now look a little silly if not embarrasing to Australia. Thankfully Mr Howard did not bow to the pressure of her supporters. Surely their are more worthy causes of the oppressed to be taken up elsewhere rather than to support someone willing to shoot Australians. This grandstanding is more about peoples hate of the US then anything else.

I'd like to echo the view that Hicks' case is reflective of the rights that might potentially be afforded/abrogated with respect to any citizen of this country.

The fact remains that several other countries have requested and received their citizens returned to their countries from Guantanamo Bay. So if it is a case of political will, then there is no evidence to suggest that our case would be inferior to theirs.

Hicks has been held for five years without charge. The US Government has repeatedly flagged their INTENTION to lay charges, which means that POW rules do not apply (and assuming that they did, he should have been released and/or charged/deported when the US claimed the "end" of the Iraq war shortly after it began...am I the only one who remembers those images of George Bush on the aircraft carrier with "mission accomplished" escaping his lips?)

I don't think Hicks is necessarily a nice person. I'm not convinced that he is necessarily innocent of any wrongdoing. I'd just like to see that a process is applied to him in a manner fitting with the US' international claim to be upholders of the rule of law, and the example by which other countries are judged (rightly or wrongly).

I'm also curious: if I move to France and become Roman Catholic - do I deserve everything I get too?

I totally agree Kelvin.

The suspension of habeas corpus in this case (or in any case) is just totally unnecessary and unforgivable. There is no reason for it. There is no acceptable reason why Hicks couldn’t or shouldn’t have been tried quickly, within the mainstream American legal system.

The USA is always promoting democracy. But if it is willing to step outside of one of the fundamental tenets of democracy and one of the basic principles on which its society is (at least in theory) based – habeas corpus, then where does it leave them?

We’ve got to ask just exactly what is it that America is promoting on the world stage.

Not only has Hicks been detained for more than five years without trial, but the conditions under which he is being held are just disgusting – befitting only the worst tried and convicted and rebellious criminals, or perhaps not befitting any human being incarcerated in a half-decent society.

Then there is a shameful saga of military commissions, which don’t constitute proper legal process, and which again are a step outside of habeas corpus.

The US is basically saying that its fundamental principles are optional and that it can step into the lawless world a barbarism if it so chooses.

The duplicity is incredible. It has done the US an enormous amount of damage. Bush and others responsible for this need to be brought to trial themselves. Surely they have brazenly violated their own constitution which must compel them to act in a fair and democratic manner at all times.

The Scene is set thus:

In 2 days time Howard will enjoy an audience with "Dead Eye" Dick Cheney - noted Vice President (US) and Lawyer Shooter.

"Thanks for needling Obama and Hillary and increasing troop numbers in Iraq. Oh and a shame about AWB bribing Saddam more than us. Oh - whats your name again son?"

Howard "Its John Howard Sir and Thankyou Sir"

Cheney "I see you're having problems with that Terrorist Hicks Howie"

Howard "Yes Sir. We need him back before the election. You know truth, justice, fair go"

Dick raising eyeballs "Yeah pathetic really. OK your plea is granted - you expected we'd keep him locked up quietly forever - but we like to help the little Party of our little buddies Howie Boy"

Howard "Thankyou Sir and would you like even more, lots lots more of our troops soon Sir?"

Future highlights of Dead Eye Dick's Royal Progress in Australia to be continued...

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Coach, Leigh: The Rule of Law (which is kind of at the heart of democracy) does not allow for 'hey, he's evil and therefore not entitled to a fair go'. It says that everyone, regardless of their crime is entitled to be presumed innocent and be tried in a fair court of their peers.

Habeas Corpus also should not allow for any wriggle room- the state is obligated to lay charges against you, give the defence full access to the evidence against you and try you as quickly as possible.

Efforts to abrogate habeas corpus, deny the juristiction of the Court and convene military tribunals only emphasizes that the US does not have a case that would hold up in a constitutional court of law.

And yes, Anti-green, procedures are important. They are worth fighting over because they ultimately determine what methods are allowed to prove innocence. And make no mistake about it- Hicks will be required to prove innocence (though proving a negative is always problematic)

Personally, I have no great feelings about Hicks one way or another. I think he was just an idiot looking for a fight.

But I care very much about how we debase the core of our legal system- you know, Leigh, that whole Magna Carta thing- in trying to acheive some sort of vengeance on him. I care because it is never as far from doing it to one person to do it to everyone as most people think. I care because we are supposed to be better than lynch-law- it says so in our constitution and our body of law.

If they have a case- try him fairly. If not, release him. That is what we stand for as a free country and THAT is what we are supposed to be fighting for.

If Hicks had gotton luckey and lobbed a rocket into an Australian Troop carrier and 31 Aussies were dead what would the touchey feeley brigade tell their dependents ?

Would they be prepared to tell the dependants that their loved ones were killed by an Australian fighting with the Taliban Terrorists ?

Would they let Hicks back into Oz for Family visits ?

Hicks is a terrorist by choice , he is not a mercenary , he is a murderer by cherished desire .

He would proudly wear the "Medal from Hell" for murdering the 31 Aussies .

Get lost Hicks you will never get any empathy from me .

On Insight this week Philip Ruddock got laughed at by the audience:

JENNY BROCKIE: So if it's highly likely, why haven't you done it? Why haven't you done it the way other governments have done it?

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Because we want to see the trial dealt with as quickly as possible (laughter) so he's got no –

JENNY BROCKIE: I think the reason –

PHILIP RUDDOCK: I am surprised in a society where we believe in the rule of law where there are serious allegations that one would take the view that they should not be properly tested and dealt with so if somebody is not guilty, they can clear their name. I'm surprised at the mirth because the principle is a very important one. And I make the point - and it's something that Mr Hicks himself has to be conscious of - as to whether or not simply to be freed with those matters unresolved is in fact the best way forward.

JENNY BROCKIE: But the reason for the mirth is the time it's taken. The reason for the mirth is the time. The reason for the mirth is five years.

Yes Mr Ruddock there is reason for the mirth. If it wasnt so sick it would be hilarious.

As Peter Finch in 'Network' declared "Im mad as hell and Im not gonna take it anymore". This is the sentiment right now across Australia and the maladorous Howard Government is gonna be savaged in the media, voting booths and worst of all HISTORY.

What about a fair go for American Tax payers who foot the bill to keep these scum alive, and fed better than some Americans/ Australians.
What about a fair go for Australian Tax payers; personally , this situation will never arise again , complete media silence, and hand him over to the Northern Alliance, or even now, extradite him to India where he can face war crimes and Murder charges for the crime of killing Indian Soldiers in Cashmere.

Ether way, 25 cents is all it should cost, not 5 million + hard earned Looted tax dollars of poor unsuspecting victims of Stupidity.
Lets do the Math’s and costing of MY TAX Money for Mamdue Habib .
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Where are the compassion bed wetters when it comes to spending money where it counts?

Ooooo no there is none left ; it has been all looted.

Almost a year ago, Hicks was reputed to be the most dangerous man in Guantanamo Bay and was the only token westerner. The second most dangerous was somebody's chauffer.

The worst of the worst.

Another 10 people were picked up in Pakistan simply for wearing a certain model of Casio digital watches (suspected to the type used as bomb timers.)

Despite all the rhetoric most of the people in Gitmo were not picked up "on the battlefield" but were sold to the West by bounty hunters - a very profitable industry - or detained on very shakey grounds.
Given the same circumstances, I'd probably sell out some stranger myself for the equivalent of a few years' salary!

The US (and Australia) are in this mess too deep now to back out with any dignity or credibility.

For an example of what some of these so-called evildoers have been charged with go here - http://www.reprieve.org.uk/casework.htm#guantanamo

At least the Brits had the guts and the common sense to get their people out.

We don't have to go and fight Iraq any more - with our new-found disdain for human rights, we are becoming Iraq ourselves.

In modern times war is not a licence to use unlimited powers. Until 2001, the US was rightly proud of the civilised way it tried to manage prisoners in war zones - the use of Article 5 tribunals to prevent innocent detainees from languishing in custody is an example.
If the Guantanamo prisoners are not entitled to POW status (which guarantees humane treatment and prevents punishment for merely acting as soldiers), then they are protected by Geneva Convention 4 which gives them rights as civilians, or else they are entitled to come under Common Article 3 which prohibits outrages upon personal dignity, humiliating and degrading treatment, cruelty and violence. There isn't some yawning gap between these categories down which the US President can deposit nominated enemies. Seems it's now OK to make it up as you go along. Just refer to "9/11" and discard your principles. I blame 50 years of junk American war films myself.

The Hicks case has certainly highlighted the newest Australian disease - let's make a fuss about the bad guy's 'rights', and to hell with the victims.

It's not just the fatheaded left and the wackos who post here; it has also been contracted by judges, lawyers (to be fair, it's only the money for them) and politicians.

All this yammering about habeous corpus is total drivel. We are not talking about criminals in a civilized society; we are talking about a mad dog who aligned himself with an organization committed to killing all non-Muslims and ruling the world.

David Hicks should have been dealt with permanently when he was caught. Then we would not have to put up with hearing about this rotten little creature's 'rights'. He has no rights.

The US Supreme Court ruled in June 2006 that the Guantánamo Bay military commissions were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions. Howard responded by scheming up new laws to be placed on the books, 5 years after the event - called retrospective laws. Years of combing the law books by legal teams had come up with nothing to charge Hicks. Even 5 years of mental and physical torture in a darkened rat hole, chained to the floor produced nothing useable in the courts; which says much in and of itself. Here the governments are abrogating the right to arrest and torture without charge and accountability. Included too, is the many revelations that have emerged about the sadistic mental and physical abuse practiced on Guantánamo prisoners.

What Bush and Howard are doing cannot be expressed openly and requires a political cover that conceals and shelters their real agenda on behalf of big oil, the financiers, and the war industry. Hicks and many like him are useful pawns whereby their illegal torture and detention is used to shield the real motives and legitimize the so called 'war on terror. As well, the US has the world’s largest debt that is so immense it borders on spiraling out of control. Hence the US embarking on global hegemony of the world’s resources, oil being prominent.

Leigh

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your last post. As usual you miss the point.

Let me set the scene, Leigh goes on holiday to an exotic location (no not Dubbo) somewhere overseas - you know the place where all those nasty foreigners live.

A nasty person (who would never be allowed in Oz) knows that he can get $5,000 from a certain superpower just for saying you are a terrorist - good money for nothing.

You get taken to a secret prison, you are blindfolded, handcuffed and beaten. You have things shoved up your bum and your genitals are sliced with a scalpel.

You eventually end up it Cuba after spending months in a cupboard, your Govt will do nothing.

This is not about Hick's its about how we treat prisoners of any persuasion. Our Govt. is complicit in atrocities.

If we are not civilised how can we complain?

The charges against Hicks would read: He became a Muslim with the sole intention to join our Muslim enemy in a war zone. To fight and kill with that enemy against (us).

To those who still don’t see the relation between Islam’s teaching and terrorism – do us a favour and read their Qur’an.

Hicks didn’t stop there, he memorised the entire book in “Arabic”, saturating his mind and spirit with pages of hatred and revengeful anger against all non-Muslims.

He did all that willingly and wittingly – enrolling himself in an Islamic terrorist school – not under duress or coercion. Insanity could not be entered as a plea in his case. He was quite sane when he joined our enemies.

Hicks was not backpacking across Afghanistan. He was there on a mission to kill.

Hicks is a decided Muslim, a convert with intent, an anti-Australian/ American combatant. An enemy of our democracy and human freedoms. A danger to our society. A Muslim by excellence.

He should be locked up until he repents of his actions, and/or ceases to be a Muslim.

The war against terror is a war against Islam, no two ways about it. Islam is the source of global terrorism today.

Just a reminder: All terrorists including London, New York, Madrid, Bali, Baghdad, Mombay, etc... have one thing in common: they were all Muslims, who went deeper in their Islamic beliefs and applied the perilous teachings of the Qur’an.

So in my book, Hicks is not a case of innocent until proven guilty. Hicks is guilty as “will-be-charged”, guilty of becoming a Muslim terrorist by choice.

As for mistreatments in jails and human rights, they never did really apply in time of wars – we all know that.

This is not a civil case; it is a war crime against humanity. War tactics rule.

I just love these people who argue against calls for a fair (and speedy) trial with diatribes about how guilty Hicks is.

Graham, you do have some very disturbed and sick people posting on this site.

I don’t know why anyone refers to Mohammad Dawoo as David Hicks; or is it his Anglicized name a better weapon than his chosen new Identity.

I bet all these offended emotional bed wetter’s were a bit like Moslems on the 9/11; when they heard the news of Pauline Hansen; and amerced themselves in absolute glee that their corrupt justice was administered in the typical Gulag/Concentration camp corrupt way;( They make it up as they go along) Australians very first Political Prisoner ; innocent of any wrong doing but be it for the motivation of absolute hatred; then watch all the useless idiots admire Habib whilst conducting a University lecture tour on Terrorism.

“Graham, you do have some very disturbed and sick people posting on this site.”
Posted by Young Dan,

Well said Young Dan , but what sickness do you mean?

This Government moves "further and further away from what Australians recognise as decent".

Thank you Kelvin Thomson and everyone who is trying to speak clearly about what we mean by justice here, as a diverse Australian public.

I also wish to thank the parents and friends of Davids family for their sensible approach to the way they have researched, to understand, and advocate (at great cost) for their son.

I feel, in telling what you know of Davids story, you have been transparent, and as parents, we have learnt through you, important things David (as a human being) cares about most in the world. It offers some balance to this difficult crisis, and puts us all on notice as citizens, to solve problems rather than make it worse with spin found through the mounting projections of evidience... which appear undisclosed.

I feel David Hicks has a story that ought to enlighten us all on issues concerning the "life of another" and especially in reference to the way many of us are seeking a world where elements of justice are seen to prevail through practice.

I deeply believe; "Australia’s laws should be administered without prejudice and every Australian given access to justice."

He meant you All.

ALL must be sick, he diddnt use the word 'looter' once.

One thing I'd like to put to Leigh, Coach, PortoSalvo et al.

What is it that you believe has made Western institutions great? What is it that you believe has created these places, which are so worth defending?

I certainly agree they are worth defending, though I am curious as to how you frame the struggle for "freedom" which lies at the heart of the matter.

I for one, believe western institutions are strong, because they were based on a foundation of certain principles.
It was a system designed to govern in a just manner, and had to be able to withstand the selfish, power seeking nature of humanity.

To this end we created a system, where our judiciary had to be separated from our executive and legislature. The media also had a role in watching what was going on in these institutions.

Lately, this system, on which we founded our society, appears to be decaying. The media is owned by a handful of individuals, and most posters here have expressed a distinct distrust of the mainstream media.

What is more concerning, is that the separation of the three central institutions is being blurred.
If George Bush is free to rewrite the rules of trial, how can we be sure he would be brought to a trial in the event he committed a crime?

If Hicks is to be tried - without the presumption of innocence, without a jury, (and in conditions the americans won't subject their own to, I might add) then... well... aren't we giving away the foundations that made the West the place it is?

I'm honestly interested in what you think has made the West great Leigh. What is it that separates us from the tinpot dictators, if not the fact that our leaders aren't supposed to be free to rewrite the rules as they see fit?

Well?

With respect to this article, it must also be asked why, considering John Howard (only yesterday)and others have claimed that David Hicks is afforded the presumption of innocence, is David Hicks locked up in a prison/torture chamber and why has everybody in the US Administration form Warren Terra (aka George W Bush) down to the Commander of Gitmo and some guards there, as well as the Chief Prosecutor on LateLine 2 nights ago, said, and continue to claim, that he is a terrorist, when he has not been charged until very recently, and has certainly not been found guilty of anything, which immediately undermines the claims to fairness of the system he is being held under and belies all claims that the US Administration and all the others who claim that he and other inmates are being afforded justice. One cannot be fairly judged by a system populated with persons who claim unstintingly that you are a terrorist when you have not been found guilty. The US system cannot deliver a fair trial or judgment.

Hi to all you good people...

Personally, I'm so very confused by all the erudite correspondence, opinion and 'expert' advice that have been generated, over the invidious position that has befallen David Hicks.

I also feel so very sorry, for the untenable position that Mr. Hicks senior has been involuntarily placed. And who has valiantly attempted to defend, the good fame and character of his son, David.

In NSW, there was legislation, the 'Consorting Act' that gave police power to arrest criminals who were found to be 'consorting' with other known criminals. It was not necessary to substantiate the offence of conspiracy. Or that they'd formed any intent to commit a crime. Only at the time they were detected, they were found to be consorting.

It would read something like thus...' (name) found in company of: (name) a known criminal/s, (and sometimes) whilst armed '... It was not necessary for them to have formed an intent to commit a crime. Only simply to consort.

I understand that is exactly what has been alleged against David Hicks. Further, it's also been alleged that he has uttered certain words, and made certain statements. Apparently, to the effect of what act/s he and others proposed to do. And what act/s they intended to commit, against the United States and her allies.

Apart from his grossly unacceptable, and protracted time spent in custody, WITHOUT charge, I really can't see that he has any capacity whatsoever, to rebut any of those charge/s, that have been widely published and described in the media.

The often used assertion that David was simply, an easily led, impressionable young fellow, given his reported activities in Bosnia, also amounts to nought, in my opinion.

Oh, by the way, when he is ultimately repatriated to Australia, David's economic future will be absolutely preserved. And that of Major Mori's too, I suspect. I reckon the Harry M. Miller's of the world will make particularly sure of that!

Cheers...sungwu.

Oh, O Sung Wu. Deeply sensitive, curiously motivated and perhaps idealistic... maybe, but hardly a "easily led, impressionable young fellow", is David Hicks.

I feel many citizens of the world feel confused about the "state of humanity" and especially before the war on TERROR ... as we know it today.I.e., there are some 101 wars occurring at anyone time throughout the world, causing dire poverty and dispair... not just the ones in focus through western politics.

I believe, many of the worlds most informed leaders were/are just as (culturally) confused and they had/have access to information which was/is supposed to give them true "intelligence"?

My interest here is on the subject of "community engagement" and what this term truly means. I believe David Hicks motives for going anywhere has been mis-communicated by those who denied him a fair trial... five years ago!

I believe many of us who are learning about how David was seeing things at that time.... explains most of what we need to synthersise... ourselves, and not what we each see as afterward... meaning now that we have been exposed, as a world population to the "spin" on these serious events.

If we don't get this right... God help other young men and woman who seek pathways that we fail to seriously understand.

God help the future of community engagement, anywhere... as it is the thing causing most of our human made problems... or the lack of understanding it - in all its complex forms.

I.e; The Australian Defense Force is one example of an institution wanning on this issue. I sense it has a important role to play in civilian issues at home as well as abroad and that in doing so... people like David perhaps would not be left wandering alone... for whatever reason. I need to see a "No Wrong Door" policy in the Defense Force just as I do in Social Services in general.

Engagement vs Dis-engagement over dis-connectedness, and rejection of those who feel they want to help but have nowhere to channel their potential knowledge and valuable energy.

“ ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore’. This is the sentiment right now across Australia and the malodorous Howard Government is gonna be savaged in the media, voting booths and worst of all HISTORY.”

Absolutely D B Valentine.

“One cannot be fairly judged by a system populated with persons who claim unstintingly that you are a terrorist when you have not been found guilty. The US system cannot deliver a fair trial or judgment.”

Quite so Freedoms.

It is time for Howard to demand that Hicks be sent home. Up until this point I have been calling for a fair trial for him in the US. But the US has indicated very strongly via their actions over five years and via the comments as elucidated by Freedoms that a fair trial would not be likely. They’ve had their chance. Hell, they should have foregone their chance after incarceration for one year without trial, let alone charges being laid.

The US has stepped so profoundly outside of the principles of democracy and basic decency over this saga that it must be relieved of its responsibilities (irresponsibilities).

I think Colonel Moe Davis said something like he and the US Government respects John Howard and his wishes and concerns regarding David Hicks.

So Mr Howard, just bring him home and be done with the whole bloody mess…..and hopefully regain a little bit of the condemnation that you will be forever burdened with through history over your promulgation of this totally unacceptable and antidemocratic debacle.

Yes, Hicks was in Kosovo, as a Muslim fighter: I hate to tell some of you this, but the USA and NATO got involved in Kosovo to aid the Muslims there against the ethnic cleaning activities of the so-called Christan Serbians. In effect, in Kosovo, Hicks could be seen as the same as those in the Spanish Civil War who went to Spain to try to stop Fascism. Therefore, according to coach and some others of you, George Orwell was a terrorist.

As for his activities in Afghanistan: When he went there he was fighting for the Taliban, which, unfortunately due to some very short-sighted foreign policy decisions made by the USA from around 1980 to 1995, was the generally accepted government of Afghanistan. Yes, he underwent military training, but in effect his situation is no different than that of an Australian taken prisoner whilst fighting for the French Foreign Legion (yes, there have been a few of those over the years). The Taliban are particularly unlikeable religious thugs, but they are also supported by that great ally of the USA, Pakistan. Why hasn't the US arranged for the illegal transport of the Pakistani war criminals to Gitmo?

Lastly, many men have travelled to foreign climes from their homelands and served in armed forces. A classic example being an Australian Vietnam veteran, who on his retirement parade wore not only the Military Cross that he had won in Vietnam, but the Iron Cross he won fighting for Germany in WW2. Or should that man have also been jailed as a terrorist and mercenary?

Good points Hamlet - but not much help in the case at hand.

How many soldiers of your example become Muslim knowing that the religion is a passport to terrorism and anti-Australianism?

The west makes mistakes - Afghanistan was one of them - but this is 2007 and we are faced with an enemy the likes you have never encoutered before in history.

For the first time a political supremacist ideollogy is turbo-charge by a supremacist religious belief.

The notion that that religion is false is not the point here. Muslim militants don't know better. They just follow what they are told, no questions asked.

Why do you think the US is in Iraq right now? There's is more than they are letting you know about the explosive situation of Islam in the world.

Hicks made a huge mistake and is paying for it.

So please don't make a martyr out of a coward deserter who joined enemy troups.

His dad obviously did not do a good job raising him... where was he when his son got off the rail and became a Muslim?

That is not a good point Coach- it is morally bankrupt comparing a uniformed soldier whether German or Australian is not a moral comparison to the virtue of Mohammad Daewoo aka Hicks.
The operative relevance is Defense force and deployment; that is not even an argument Hamlet, if anything it is testimonial to assimilation of previous migration policies and integrity placed upon new arrivals; un like the pre determined Apartheid of Multi Culti Utopia today. It is more like an enemy occupation without a war. Just fly the White Flags.

The same argument in that form would also apply to every other migrant pre dating the political decimation period of Whitlam, and beyond.

He would only have been permitted to ware the Iron Cross on his final parade as a mark of respect as a soldier and would never have been permitted to display it otherwise; He would not qualify as a Lobotomized terrorist; although there would be a moral outrage if he was Waffen SS which in kind would be a reasonable assumption that was not the case. People actually did high security checks back then. Un like now days.

Un less there is an inside job ?

Send Hicks strait to India for further charges of MURDER.

And as far as his Father goes; if anyone depends on Whitlam and fellow Proletariat idiots for Moral encouragement automatically qualifies as Intellectually bankrupt and no need for further interpretation and their meaning.

That it self is a damming testimonial.

What a pointless argument. The U.S. doesn't give a damn about the rule of law or the rules of war. They either want to lock Hicks up forever without trial, or try and sentence him under the most revoltingly unfair procedures. You either understand that is the issue or you don't. Some people, who love scaring themselves with muslim boogeymen and love Howard's authoritarian twaddle, clearly don't.

Coach, you wrote:

'Why do you think the US is in Iraq right now?'

It certainly has nothing to do with terrorism, after all terrorism has thrived in the ME since the coalition of the drilling invaded.

One excuse was weapons of mass destruction - we all know that was a lie. Another that Saddam sponsored terror against the USA - another lie - but you know this.

Another was that Saddam was a very bad man who needed to be removed - well he was a very bad man, but that didn't stop the West from doing business with him and his ilk for years.

The real reasons why the coalition of the drilling are in Iraq?

There are two, one of which is oil (obviously), the second is dynastic:

President Bush the First, the one who went to war in the early 1990s, was the last US president who had seen service in WW2. He knew more about war than President Bush the Second could ever know. Bush the First stopped Desert Storm when its aims had been achieved. He didn't want to see the USA get embroiled in something that it had no need to get caught in.

King, I mean President, Bush the Second, however, only saw that his dad was not in power, but his dad's old enemy was still sitting on HIS throne in Baghdad, and decided to do something about it.

Heaven knows what will happen when Jeb Bush makes it onto the throne in a decade or so.

The real reason why there has been no further major terrorists attacks against the USA is that without acknowledging it the USA has met one of Al Qaeda's major demands, and removed its forces from Saudi Arabia.

Coach maybe you should put your Islamophobia into perspective and read a little history.

Hi to All... *To: Hamlet

I've read your post contained herein and found it quite thought provoking. I notice you draw a reference to an individual that apparently served with the Germans in WW2, winning the Iron Cross, and later served with Australian forces, in Vietnam winning a further gong?

Actually Hamlet, the individual to whom you refer did serve with the German Air Force, in the capacity as a WAG and a rear gunner. At the conclusion of the War,after a short period as a prisoner of war, he gained employment with the British NAFFI, serving in both Germany and Austria.

In the fifties he migrated to Australia and joined the RAAF. Later to be commissioned into the Equipment Branch. He saw further active service with the RAAF, 9 (Helicopter) Sqn., in South Vietnam. In the seventies he was awarded the MBE for his services, as a Senior Barracks Officer, at RAAF Richmond, NSW. An interesting case I'm sure you'll agree.

I sincerely hope this may shed a little further light, on the gentleman, to whom you refer.

Cheers...sungwu.

You articulate the technical discussion well. Thank You Hamlet.

Political history , viewed in context along-side psycho--history... as in the 'Emotional Life of Nations' (Lloyd De Mause), is one way to comprehend what we see the relationship between historical progress of human development, or a nations (leadership) role through the events of Peace or War.... and POVERTY!

This is to consider how the influence of social change, effects the 'emotional life of a people' ... under certain conditions, and to see the way it applys on a larger scale to nations as their inter-relationships are acted-out on this planet... the podium, until today.

A focus on our inter-relations, as a study of every day life, reveals many of the things we take for granted.

Because we take so much for granted, some things become difficult to explain as important - as they are left out, unsaid or consealed, from the knowledge of how we understand ourselves, as true players, against the backdrop of inter-exchange on this eventful podium.

This war on terror is not a war based on an idea of collective securities, it is a war made up of terror, by a willfulness that defies human understanding and it's own attributes toward future progressiveness of humanity in a meaningful sense.

Schoolyard (bullying vs bystanders) reflects the workplace of tomorrow as children become adults. Families reflect nations as a set of collective inter-relationships, influencing the outcome of national and global social exchange.

Left unsaid, is the individual reasoning. The sensiblities that influence the driving motives of our inter-action with one another; be it with our perception of David Hicks or as citizens working for self-government somehow, collectively.

There are rules to war that men of warfare abide by. If your caught in uniform your a prisoner of war and treated as such until the end of hostilities. If your caught in the other sides uniform your a spy and your personal value will depend on whether or not your of any assistance in prosecuting the war for that side. If your caught with out uniform, your a saboteur and generally shot on the spot.
Terrorist are saboteurs. They are about global sabotage. It is a war.
The trouble with this new war of global terrorism is that we are just learning and defining the rules on the hop. There is no real past experience to relate back to for guidance. The anti-Americans on these post always have the same simplistic rhetoric of American abuse of power but, they don't have an honest look at the totality of the situation. There are judges and lawyers of every allied/NATO countries working to define a methodology for dealing universally with terrorist and terrorism. Until such time as there are effective and safeguarding procedures in place for general society and new laws made; Gitmo will be the reality. That David Hicks or any other suspected terrorist is going to be let loose to continue the murder of civilians or destroy social infrastructure is unlikely.
That a terrorist will ever be treated with the same respect as a soldier in uniform is also unlikely.
For myself. When ever someone mentions terrorist I always check my shoes to see if I've stepped in dog turd.

"An honest look at the totality of the situation". And what exactly does that have to do with secret prisons, torture and kangaroo courts? It's not anti-Americanism to point this out, it's pro-justice.

bushbasher, you know about secret prisions? Some secret. Torture? Do I really care if they waterboard some creep who has taken it as a life choice to coerce little boys and little girls to strap on a semtex bomb vest and blow up themselves along some street cafe or bus stop in the name of Allah? The terrorist do a lot worse with their captives and give them much less judicial consideration. You self-professing seekers of justice act as if hundreds of innocent people are chosen at random every year and abused as terrorist. While willingly forget or dismiss the hundreds taken captive and abused and murdered in the name of the terrorists special cause. The freak is getting three square meals a day, and every consideration that they themselves with hold from society. I'd say justice is well served. Real justice would be tit for tat, beheading's and dragging their corpses through the streets as they do. That and lots of video.

You better check out the Foreign policy of Arab Nations and Africa- even France- how many prisoners does France have incarcerated with out charge- even China- hell you people are clueless; Your interpretation of History would be best served in the latrines in Guantanamo bay if this is the best of supposed intelligent people can conger up; that only represents a fantasy of some other lobotomize moron.
Al quada is a product of M I; 6 UK secret service just after WW11 to eradicate the New State of Israel. Alquida, to which was abandoned by the Nazi’s; {for obvious reasons}, and on sold to the C I A at a later date under false pretences.( Cambridge Uni; Communist infiltration and plot)
Throw your Fantasy books into the garbage a get real journals and real information; or it will only back fire eventually.You can only live off lies and propaganda for a short time; Then the number is up.

And now the number is up.

Well aqvarivs:"There is no real past experience to relate back to for guidance." OH REALY.
One of the problems the US has about trying Hicks is what may come out. After all, nobody else in the world, repeat nobody, but the US financed and armed (to the tune of hundreds of millions) the Islamic fundamentalist opposition that the Taliban emerged out of. This was done to undermine the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and drag them into a quagmire like Vietnam.
Later on well into the 1990’s author Ahmid Rashid explains "The Clinton administration was clearly sympathetic to the Taliban, as they were in line with Washington’s anti-Iran policy and were important for the success of any southern pipeline from Central Asia that would avoid Iran. The US Congress had authorised a covert $20 million budget for the CIA to destabilise Iran, and Tehran had accused Washington of funnelling some of these funds to the Taliban."
Of course, the pipeline referred to is Mr.Cheneys 'bringing the oil from the Caspian to market.'

It’s going to irk and annoy me if Hicks sues for damages when he returns to Australia. His brother in faith or Afghan tourist Habib is going for damages and has a barrage of lawyers pressing for the usual “fair and equitable reward” that will see him in comfort for the rest of his life. Hicks carried weapons and fought in Kosovo, Kashmir and Afghanistan and probably cried the usual ”God is Great” as he killed non-Muslims. He is going to make a great citizen of Australia on his return.

Sille

It will be interesting upon his return what sort of a character he has become and whether he will hold a devine hatred for the establishment.

I think they are out to use time to weary this merchant soldier of ever wishing to return to arms.

His capture by the US was he was said to have been returning to Afghanistan to retrieve his passport.

You have to commend his father, who is fighting for his sons return and freedom.

Something any respectable father would do for one of their children, no matter what the circumstances were.

Although Australian Law has been able to be changed in a split second eg. Dick Cheney and his own guns, it would appear our government is not giving us the chance to with an Australian citizen, quiet possibly caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps.

WHY HAS THE ARABS BEEN SENT BACK AND NOT A WHITE AUSTRALIAN. WHY HAVE THESE ARABS NOT BEEN HEARD, AND WHY HAVE WE NOT LISTEND.
WOULD IT MAKE IT A DIFRENCE IF IT WERE A WHITE AUSTRALIAN, WHO FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM IN BOSNIA. WHEN THE MURDERING OF MUSLIM MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN WAS HAPPENING. AND WE WERNT LISTENING, WOULD WE LISTEN THEN. HOW DID DAVID HICKS END UP IN AFGANISTAN? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW AND HEAR IT FROM HIM. KNOWING WHEN HE SPEAKS ITS NOT FROM FEAR OF PERSICUTION FROM THE AMERICANS. WHY DO WE LIVE IN A FREE WORLD AND WATCH OUR BROTHER BE OPPRESED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WE HAVE BEEN SHOWN OTHER THAN PARTS OF A CLIP ON THE NEWS (NO FULL VERSION). MAKE AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIANS FREE LIKE IT WAS. LIKE NO OTHER COUNTRY LIVING TOGETHER ALL NATIONALTYS AND RELIGONS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK DAVID WHY DID YOU GO RISK YOUR LIFE AND FREEDOM? WERE IS THIS FREEDOM OUR SOLDIERS ARE FIGHTING FOR, FIGHTING WARS THAT IS NOT OURS. WE NEVER HELPED POOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN OF BOSNIA. BUT NOW WE ARE IN IRAQ KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN. CREATING TERRORIST OVER SEAS AND AT HOME. GIVE A FAIR GO TO OUR OWN AND LETS TRY AND UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER, WHY DO WE DO WHAT WE DO?
IN AUSTRALIA WE GIVE THE WORST OF CRIMINALS A FAIR TRIAL. HICKS DID NOT BLOW PLANES, BUILDINGS, TRAINS, OR ANY OF THE SORT. ANY TERRORIST IS A CRIMANAL, TO ANY RELIGON ESPECIALY THE MOST BEAUTIFUL RELIGONS JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, AND MUSLIM. LETS KILL THE ANGER AND THE DEVIL, NOT EACH OTHER. LETS SHOW THE WORLD AUSSIE THE WAY WE WERE A PEACE FULL COUNTRY. BRING OUR BROTHER HOME AND CONVICT IF SO AT HOME. HERE WE ARE CAPABLE OF JUDGING OUR OWN, NO ONE LIKES A TERRORIST. PEACE BE TO ALL AND LETS FIND IN OUR HEART TO ASK WHY?

johncee1945, Your comment to my post is immaterial and unrelated to Hicks. Hicks is a nobody and can not shed any light on your American world domination conspiracy. I suggest you get an atlas and study Afghanistan and then plot out your "Cheney oil route" from the Russian steppes to any middle eastern seaport that would pass through Afghanistan.
I'm sure if you give yourself the chance you'll see that your "oil route conspiracy" would probably end up costing more than some of these other posters "Iraqi oil conspiracy". To date the Americans have spent 500 billion executing the Iraqi war and the more than four years of policing and rebuilding infrastructure. Iraqi oil revenue doesn't even scratch that surface of expenditure. Iraqi oil revenue is calculated in millions of dollars per day total...not billions and only 7.4 billion per year. Even your stupid Americans can tell the difference between million and billion.
People as stupid and greedy as you lot want to make out everyone to be would be at least able to compute profit and loss.
For an example, the Canadian Athabasca-Wabiskaw oil sands constitute about 175 billion barrels of easily recoverable oil alone, and 100 billion have been invested to speed up recovery and wean America off middle-eastern imports by 2015. Iraq has proven reserves of 112 billion barrels. How much oil will America get for their 500 plus billion dollars back of the 112 billion barrels Iraq will ever have?

I saw David Hick's stepmother on television talking about the letters from David that she wished she had not handed over to Australian authorities. In those letters David brags about establishing the muslim religion in a village in India. It was also widely reported on the news about the Indian people who were gunned down as David and his Muslim friends enforced Muslim control on these people.

So here you have what amounts to a signed confession in the form of a letter from David Hicks to his father and stepmother. This is a man who in his own words sees nothing wrong in gunning innocent people down in the name of the muslim religion.

People who say the only evidence is unsubstansiated accusations by the Americans should think about the reality of those letters.

Great point Sharkfin.
I haven’t seen it reported anywhere else.
It should have been headline news from every media outlet.Makes one think about the motivations of some of our opinion leaders!

This is ridiculous. People can form their opinions of Hicks's guilt or innocence all they like, and it's completely off the point. People shouldn't give a damn if I happen to think Hicks is innocent, I certainly don't give a damn if they think he's guilty.

The point is whether Hicks's guilt or innocence will be established by a proper court of law, with proper rules of justice, and whether this will happen some time before the second coming of Christ.

Bingo bushbred

I am tied of the endless denunciations of how evil Hicks is. That's irrelevant. This is not about how evil they are.

It's about how good we are.

The point's not whether or not Hicks is guilty or innocent. It is about Australia standing up to be counted when it comes to providing the protection of the rule of law.

That is what Australia is supposed to stand for- equality before the law and the rule of law.

Does anyone in this list seriously believe that this cornerstone of our democracy is wrong or can be ignored?

If you do then, as far as I am concerned, you're as un-Australian as the terrorists.

How can we call the enemy barbarians while you advocate destroying the very thing we say we are trying to save?
How can we go around the world building democracy while dismantling it at home?

Can't you see that is wrong?

Once we start down the path of justice delivered by fiat there is no turning back. We cease to be a democratic, law abiding country and become the same as Pinochet's Chile and Saddam's Iraq

Let him be tried in a legally constituted court of law. We owe it to ourselves as much as we owe it to him. If we do it then we can stand tall in the face of our enemies and say 'no matter what you do we stay true to who we are. You cannot win'.

However, if we don't we let them destroy our democracy without firing a shot. We become the authors of our own destruction. We stand up with despots and dictators and betray the legacy given to us by our forebears.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". It is time to be vigilant. It is time to make our leaders own up to the principle of freedom they preach. It is time to proclaim loudly to the world that we are free and we are going to stay that way.

By giving justice to Hicks we both honour and save ourselves.

Part of Hick's problem is that he has not , up till now, been seen as a vote winner.
When the election is over he'll be forgotten again by most pollies,especially by Howard & Co.

Hicks major crime was to become a Muslim. It only got worst from that point on.

Those who wish him a fair trial better pray that he doesn't get a court where capital punishment is still allowed.

Why should Australia (and tax payers) stand by its citizens when they make stupid irreconcilable mistakes here and abroad?

Public opinion and protests did not help Australian drug traffickers before – why should it be any different now with a convert Muslim terrorist mercenary mongrel caught in a war zone?

Fair is fair people – you play with fire you get burnt

Coach my understanding is that Freedom of Religion is one of the tenets of the Australian Constitution. ( Or is the Australian Constitution a fabled fiction?)

Whether HIcks is Muslim or Catholic should be immaterial in the eyes of the law.

The longer the Prime Minister and Attorney General, both trained lawyers, permit an Australian to remain in Guantanamo Bay in inhumane conditions the more damage they do to the credibility of their offices of Prime Minister and Attorney General.

I gather Phillip Ruddock's Amnesty International membership is a tawdry joke.

ahh, I guess coach is what's referred to as patriotically incorrect, and ah, just failed the citizenship test for knowledge of Australian laws and values

those who proclaim their nationalism the loudest are the ones who understand their country the least and do it the most damage.

I think many posters here who champion justice forget what it is to be outlawed. They talk of Australian values and Australian system of courts justice and law but, fail to pay due attention that Hicks wasn't caught out burgling the local pub come a Saturday night of high-jinks. He was caught out with those who's explicit will is to bring down our culture and society. What mechanism has Australia in place to bring Hicks to trial for crimes committed beyond it's borders? What laws do Australia have in place to prosecute global terrorism or terrorist? Would the knee-jerk emotionalist prefer that the captured al-Qeada types did their community service in their neighbourhoods with in Australia? Or does GITMO seem a little more reasonable considering public safety.

It all depends what constitutes a Religion.

The rights to worship God or gods is fine by me. But that stops when a politicaly motivated minority disguised as a religion is threatning to take over ALL your freedoms and human rights... is when the red flag goes up.

Before you criticize me, please have a look at the enemy standing at your doorstep and ready to invade your home. No one is safe.

Political Islam is not only out there in the Middle East or Asia, but right here in our own turf. And what you do gooders Australian patriots do? Defend a miserable Muslim terrorist that was fighting to reverse the course of humanity and make it living hell for your children and grandchildren.

Our government is stuck between a rock (the US war machine) and a hard place (Australian national security).

Sometimes to be a humanitarian is to take the hard decisions - or in the case of the Howard clan no decision at all.

Cheers.

My understanding of David Hicks is that he was kidnapped from a bus stop in Pakistan and sold by bounty hunters to the Americans. At various stages Hicks had

fought in Bosnia on the same side as the Americans
fought in Afganistan on the same side as the Americans

Its very hard to keep your allegiances straight when the USA changes alliances overnight.

And if its good enough for Australians to fight in the Israeli Defence Forces or the Ustasha then why is fighting with our buddy the Taliban not right?

An american soldier conviced of killing Iraqi prisoners has been sentenced to 8 years goal. David Hicks who has not been charged with anything has been held in solitary confinement and tortured for over 5 years.

Torture hasn't been part of the Ausralian Penal system since transportation stopped in 1853. Hmmm very shaky logic since the yanks modern version of transportation is "rendition" and the hapless prisoners fly in chains rather than sail the seas in leaky boats.

Coach: I understand the point you are making, but I disagree with your methods.

We can't fight for human rights and freedoms by breaking them when it is convienent. This is the core of my position.

It can't matter whether or not Hicks was burglarizing a house or pointing a bazooka at a Coalition tank. It must not matter.

This is not a bleeding heart, knee-jerk, bedwetting liberal position (as many have denigrated it). This is about preserving what it is to be Australian in the face of people who want to change us.

Its about honouring the legions of the fallen who have been lost first winning then preserving these values.

Terrorism thoughout the ages has been aimed at one thing- making it too costly for a society to continue to maintain it's core values and beliefs.

The terrorists cannot take away our freedoms unless we let them. How we treat our enemies says more about us as a people than how we treat our friends.

Aqvarivs: how can championing justice be a negative? Is it not what we are fighting for? We deposed a dictator supposedly to restore the rule of law and return justice to Iraq. Why do we do this for others, at great cost in the lives of our young people, only to denounce it at home?

You argue Hicks was consorting with people "who's explicit will is to bring down our culture and society". What is our society if it is not rule of law and equality before the law? If we deny it to anyone are we not "bringing down our culture and society"?

People here forget that what is holding up the trials is the supporters of hicks and his comrades launching appeal after appeal. He would have been tried years ago if these appeals didn't jam up the process.

Grey you forget that the military tribunals were found to be illegal by the US Supreme Court.

This is not about David Hicks, it is about how our Govt. discharges its duty to look after its citizens. But given that they are happy to deport them, its only fair they should be condemned.

Kelvin, when was the occasion that you questioned the Federal Executive to the fact that they only can exercise “external powers” for the benefit of Australians?

As a Grandmaster “constitutionalist” and Author of the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® book on CD series, I rely upon the Constitution to determine what is appropriate;

See also my website www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog http://au.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

Hansard 2-03-1898 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.

Again;

could only act for and on behalf of its citizens.

Therefore the Federal Government has no constitutional powers to pursue the US to charge David Hicks, as they can only act to have him released!

I may not approve of the reported conduct of David Hicks but that has nothing to do with his constitutional rights, and as shadow Attorney-General I view you should have pursued this matter far more then I understand you did.

mylakhrion, Don't you realize that one component of international justice is that all countries work from the same page. If you were honest you would reread my post and understand that justice is exactly what I'm about.
To take from bushbasher's post. "The point is whether Hicks's guilt or innocence will be established by a proper court of law, with proper rules of justice,..." The main point being that we don't have a proper court of justice or the laws immediately at hand to prosecute those who are found to be involved in global terrorism. We can't use war crimes or the Hague Conventions because they are not soldiers of any given nation. At least not one that will officially recognize them. And criminal courts left alone would set their own precedence, and accused terrorist would be demanding that their trials be held in countries who's courts have set the most lenient punishment and strictest criteria for evidence use. As I said in an earlier post. The trouble with this new war of global terrorism is that we are just learning and defining the rules on the hop. There is no real past experience to relate back to for guidance. There are judges and lawyers of every allied/NATO countries working to define a methodology for dealing universally with terrorist and terrorism. Until such time as there are effective and safeguarding procedures in place for general society and new laws made; Gitmo will be the reality. That David Hicks or any other suspected terrorist is going to be let loose to continue the murder of civilians or destroy social infrastructure is unlikely.
That a terrorist will ever be treated with the same respect as a soldier in uniform is also unlikely.

I don't see any reason why the criminal courts cannot be used for a charge of "attempted murder". But more to the point, we are discussing the U.S. charging people, and so we are talking about U.S. standards of justice. I don't see why that need involve torture, secret prisons, rendition, lack of judicial oversight, lack of humanitarian oversight, lack of medical and psychological oversight, the use of hearsay evidence, the use of evidence obtained under "coercion", the redefinition of torture, and on and on.

If there were any sign of good faith from the U.S., then there may be an argument to have. I see no such signs of good faith.

bushbasher, I rather suppose that it has something to do with Hicks and those others accused of terrorist activities are prisoners of war. Attempted murder or any other civilian charge would be easily defeated by a slick Councillor as not pertaining under the circumstances.
The very fact that you profess awareness of secret prisons refutes their secretiveness. What they are if a name is needed are secure establishments for prisoners of war. Prisoners of a war I might add, that was initiated by terrorist, and is not defined by any rules on the side of the terrorist.

We are not discussing American standards of justice. We are discussing the establishment of a entirely new set of legal recourse to cope with a people who kill, main, hijack, bomb, suicide, disrupt and destroy innocent life, all in the name of Islam and for the sake of Allah on a international scale.

Prisoners of a declared war don't receive trials. They are not criminals. They are traditionally held captive and away from society until the end of hostilities. The very fact that people like Hicks are being held for trial and has legal council should tell you that the Americans are interested in the pursuit of the truth and justice.

Aqvarivs: I agree. You have expressed the situation exactly as I recognise it. Thank you.

Aqvarivs- honestly :) I see your point, but disagree that this issue is new.

Terrorism has been a part of politics for decades and prosecution of international terrorists isn’t new. A considerable body of international law has accumulated around the issue of global terrorism with many forums available for the prosecution of offenders. More often than not, the main issue was extradition rather than prosecution with states sponsoring terrorists harbouring them after the event. However, there was little debate about the validity of the courts of affected nations to prosecute these people- as long as a credible case could be built demonstrating their guilt.

What we face here is a change in form of terrorism, not a change in nature. The basic principles should still apply. If it can be demonstrated that Hicks (or anyone else) violated law by illegally injuring or killing citizens of a country, destroyed property; engaged in illegal activity, then the offended state has the option to assemble a case, extradite the offender to a court of appropriate jurisdiction and prosecute.

Actually, in today’s arena of religiously-motivated rather than politically-motivated terrorism, states should be far more willing to allow extradition- making the process even easier.

If, instead, you are talking about pre-emptive action to imprison suspected terrorists BEFORE they have committed an attack then, yes, I agree that the legalities are still up in the air. Because this would violate the basic rules of law- requirement/intent of a crime and the presumption of innocence.

The FACT here is the US has had Hicks (who, according to the US, is an "illegal combatant" and NOT a PoW) for 5 years without bringing charges forward in a legally constituted court of law. Everything else about his supposed actions and guilt is pure speculation because we have not had the opportunity to see the evidence.

Instead, what we seem to be doing for Hicks is what you suggest that the terrorists would do- find a court that has rules of evidence and procedures suited to the finding of the right verdict (in this case- guilty). That is the issue.

Three cheers for mylakhrion.

mylakhrion, My intention isn't to change your mind. I'm merely trying to
remove the misconceptions or inferences to what I'm hoping to transmit in
a 350 words limit.
Today the most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by small
and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a particular cause.
However, many of the most deadly operations in recent time, such as
9/11, the London underground bombing, and the 2002 Bali bombing were
planned and carried out by a close clique, comprised of close friends,
family members and other strong social networks.

“The presence of non state organs in armed conflict has created disputes
in the application of the laws of war.”

I think it's important to consider the use of the word network here.
It's one of the fundamental differences between yesterdays
political and centralized terrorist operation such as Bader_Meinhof,
The Red Brigade or even the IRA. Todays terrorist have no centralized
authority and that makes prosecuting a search for individuals by obtaining
individuals and following the network to take out particular cells or
cadres. It's about severing fingers not heads. Very big difference and
requires a whole new approach and set of laws.

Personally I like. Qur'an, 5:33-34
Very fitting as justice goes. I say they want Islam. Give it to them.
Make them live up to their stated beliefs.
Hicks is two faced. Went out years ago to be the great white Muslim
terrorist and once he was pinched he cries for all the advantages of the
culture he went out to defeat.

I would also suggest that Hicks has had council at hand since
early days and is in no danger of being gravely mistreated. The very fact
that he has been held as long as he has may be that he has some intelligence
to offer on the subject.
I should think that the “Americans” would be well finished with an innocent
tourist backpacking through Asia. Especially since keeping Hicks in gaol
runs about $50,000 a year or more.

"The very fact that [Hicks] has been held as long as he has may be that he has some intelligence to offer on the subject". Good summary.

The only thing we know about Hicks is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and it is all we will ever know. After so long in an American torture camp there is no truth. A number of non Aghanis were picked up US invasion forces more were bought from the Northern Alliance. All we know about these people is that they were there. I have not been in Aghanistan for many years but I found it a totally facinating place, I always regret not staying longer.
UK and the Europeans demanded the return of their citizens Howard did not. He wants us to be patriotic but his inaction he makes being Australian meaningless

I cant belive this topic gets so hot on afghans Taliban’s U.S and all other countries what’s wrong with us today we have our courts our supermax 23hours lock ups.
Bill scaff the rapping dog gets a fair trial he gets to see his family on weekly visits, Ivan milat gets a fair trial and weekly visits. For god sake we have child killer rapists that get parole and get to sunbake nude near children recreational areas and still get a word in our courts. The Bali bombers get their say in court in their country. Bali bombers left to be jugged by there own not taken to Guantanimo bay.
Bring hicks back to Australia, we fight besides the U.S, we deserve the wrights and respect to try our own.
Mate if we are not good enough to try our own then why are we good enough to send our own to a war that is not ours.
it was stated by Osama bin laden to Australia. "you are a mutual country, we have no problems with Australia" but we got involved and we helped our allies then we became a target and now we cant try one of our own terrorist.
We are who we are, I guess, to young to dumb. Thank you, that is the statement we are given by our allies.
My heart goes out to hicks family, all victims and the families of victims of terrorism the true martyrs.
It is believed in islam to kill a person you are to take all there sins with your self to hell and the victim is given eternal paradise. I challenge any learned Muslim to justify terrorism I know they cant so if their is a fool have a go.

Peace be to all.

Personally I am sick to death of debating Hick's beliefs, morality, loyalty or any of that stuff. It is irrelevant to point at hand.

The point is simply this: Is Hicks is entitled to a speedy trial in a fair court of his peers with full access to the evidence against him with the presumption of innocence.

Arguments about new forms of terrorism or outraged gnashing of teeth about betrayal of 'our way of life' is all smokescreen.

This is a binary decision set. The response is either 'yes because I believe in the rule of law' or 'no because I don't believe in the rule of law'.

There is no room to equivocate. Either the law applies to everyone or it applies to no one.

As for 'no danger of being gravely mistreated'. Leaving aside the wealth of evidence that says GITMO is not your average holiday camp, I'd contend that 5 years imprisonment without charges or a trial would be considered a grave mistreatment in most people's book.

The ironic part about this whole mess is that little Johnny has probably made both his and Bush's lives more problematic by NOT insisting on Hick's return earlier. Without Hicks, there would be no white faces in GITMO and, more than likely, it would have fallen away from our fickle news focus, left to languish in the hands of the NGO like Amnesty. Instead it is shaping up to be a key election issue that will force both Howard and Bush into making further embarrassing backdowns.

I guess those birds really do come home to roost eventually.

Three more cheers for mylakhrion.

It isn't a simple question of yes or no. That is just your simple interpretation that allows for a simplistic answer. Laws are not created for everyone. They're created to answer to specific situations or conditions. There are many laws on the books that rarely see the light of a court room but, if the occasion arises, there they are. I especially like your implication that the USA is only holding Hicks cuz he's white and that's the reason it's in the news.
What you should do is lobby for Australia to be come the world depository and courts centre for global terrorist judicial hearings and sentencing as well as take over the responsibility and cost from the Americans and there fore some of the news attacks for not living up to individualist ideologues and expectations of your personal time lines.

Firstly- a correction. I don't think Hicks is being held because he's white. I think this issue is still being debated so openly BECAUSE he's white. There are more than a hundred other men at GITMO but who knows any of their names? They're all subject to the same lack of justice as Hicks but I'm confident that this issue will disappear once Hicks is returned.

Secondly- why would I advocate for Australia to be trial destination for global terrorists? We don't need that sort of headache. Either the courts of the aggrieved nations or the international courts are suitable. Likewise, no one asked the US to keep Hicks and the others at GITMO for all this time at whatever cost. They did that thenselves.

But these are still red herrings.

My position is simplistic? Maybe it looks like that, but I believe I'm proposing the harder option. I would argue its very easy to say "this is a special case, so therefore we can ignore the rules". This is the emotionally satisfying option. It allows for rage and revenge. It doesn't require us to exert ourselves in any fashion. Rather, it allows us to relax the ideals of civilization and let our baser emotions run free.

Instead, I believe giving Hicks a fair trial is the harder option. It requires us to retain the strictures of civilization. It requires us to argue a case on its merits. And it requires us to acknowledge the fact that we might be wrong. Harder still, it requires us to accept that we may not have the right rules in place BEFORE the alleged crime was committed and therefore we have to release him because we as a commuity did not say that what he did was wrong before he did it.

No- this is not a simplistic answer. This is by far the hardest.

There may be many laws but there's only one forum for exercising them- court. Even crimes involving manditory sentences must still be brought to trial. This is what's been denied Hicks and his fellow detainees for too long.

"Instead, I believe giving Hicks a fair trial is the harder option. It requires us to retain the strictures of civilization. It requires us to argue a case on its merits. And it requires us to acknowledge the fact that we might be wrong. Harder still, it requires us to accept that we may not have the right rules in place BEFORE the alleged crime was committed and therefore we have to release him because we as a commuity did not say that what he did was wrong before he did it."

We have all the right rules in place and have since the dawn of warfare. Terrorism is warfare outside of the accepted rule. We require the mechanism and laws to prosecute these miscreants not as soldiers but, as terrorist. Hicks is a individual joining other individuals to bring about the wanton murder and destruction of society. His actions are a personal vendetta against society not sanctioned by State or Nation in self defense. We can not return them to their country. They have none. They are not members of our society but, that society of terrorist and terrorism.
In order to be just and develop commonality of International law in dealing with GLOBAL TERRORISM it will take time and experience. Hicks will get his day in court. There have been advances since his capture.
That he should be released to perpetuate terror until we have the legalities worked out because his personal rights and freedoms are being curtailed is about the sickest most selfish individualist pandering I've heard in a long long while.
I fully support the rights of the individual but, not the rights of an individual bent on the destruction of my society over the safety and security of my society, my community, my family.

Aqvaris is simply no reliable evidence on Hicks. A court of law is the only place to uncover the truth. Unfortunaly after years of torture in the US gulag even this may not be good enough. As for terrorism if you use the methods of the enemy you are the enemy, no reasons, no excuses.

Dear Whispering Ted and mylakhrion, I suggest you give up. Some people understand notions of justice and some don't. Some people understand the political nature of war (and "war") and some don't. Some people are aware of the self-serving nature of governments, and are suspicious of the propagandistic nature of their declarations, and some aren't.

Whispering Ted, Your bias is well established. The same media that brought you information on Hick's terrorist history also brought you reports of torture coming out of GITMO. So your declared position becomes- no evidence to support terrorist accusations for Hick's but, since you read about torture by Americans at GITMO, that is evidence a plenty to suggest Hick's has suffered years of torture. As in
"Unfortunaly after years of torture in the US gulag even this may not be good enough."

As for torture, it isn't the defining methodology of terrorist. Australians have used some form of torture in every war on some of their prisoners of war and even in some reported incidences of community policing.

If Australians had suffered a terrorist attack the likes of 9/11. [The hijackers crashed two of the airliners (United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC), resulting in the collapse of both buildings soon afterward and irreparable damage to nearby buildings. The hijackers crashed a third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, near Washington D.C. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers [4]; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania.]

If these planes had been loaded with your family or members of your community you wouldn't be crying, "Bring our beloved Australian home." You'd be saying, "Keep the bastard until he's done with.

The media antics employed by the Hick’s defence team indicates that they must be aware that their case is poor. Why else use every trick in the book to delay or put off the trial?

The defence lawyers must be anticipating defeat. Why else label the military tribunal “unfair prior” to its appointment? How can they possible claim that a trial which is schedule to take place at some unknown future date has to be “unfair?” Are they not just trying in advance to find excuses?

If the defence was sure that they had good evidence to refute the charge, then they would be singing praises about the tribunal.

Well, this morning's news gives everyone lots of hope, eh?

Hicks will now be tried in a kangaroo court against a charge made up just for him- materially supporting a terrorist organization. A law that did not exist in anyone's legal system prior to it's announcement this morning.

I mean, I believe a know-nothing nobody like Hicks could definately provide terrorists with all sorts of help that would 'materially' increase thier capabilities. After all, doesn't he have access to all sorts intelligence, armaments, money, media contacts and political figures that would significantly helped Al-queda? No?

But hey: he's a traitor so who cares, right Aqvarius? So it really doesn't matter that it is a retroactive law being tried in an unfair court. And the charge is definately something I'd want to put someone away for life for.

Of course it's only because I'm naive and I didn't know any of the people killed in 9/11 that I think this is a crock. Amazing how you know this about me, isn't it? [BTW: You're wrong. I thank you shut up in future- you don't know what happens in people's lives]. I disagree with the handling of Hick because it is wrong. Period.

Anti-green: a court that allows procedures that are different from the normal standards is unfair by definition. Who cares who is assigned to it, it doesn't change the nature of the court. And, based on their need to make up a new charge for Hicks, it doesn't appear to be the defence that is anticipating defeat.

Aqvarivs (and others): if you don't think the rule of law applies to everyone, at least be honest about it. Say we need a new legal system that allows things like unfair courts and retroactive laws because of GLOBAL TERRORISM. Just don't try and wrap our current system around it- it doesn't stretch that far.

mylakhrion,

Do me a favour old sock and don't take a post named for another, in this case Whispering Ted, and personalize it to use it to attack me. It makes you look stupid and unnecessarily so. I made no reference to you what so ever.

I don't give a fig about Hicks or his difficulties. I know because of people accused like Hicks that the Americans are struggling to work out a mechanism and a series of legal actions that they can take in the future against any terrorist attacks. I'm not impressed with your bleeding for Hicks or your assumptions of American torture or any other bits and pieces of anti American thinking. I'm giving the Americans, my friends, the benefit of the doubt and time to heal and develop a system to deal with global terrorism. I am no fair weather friend in person and I can't be in politics. I do not have your whinging expectations of immediacy and perfection in a resolution to the Hicks case. I personally think he's very lucky to be alive yet getting any kind of trial. If the Americans can use Hicks to develop tools for dealing with future terrorism good on them. Hicks is but the first of many. It may take several cases and a few mistrials until the Americans have the kinks worked out and what they want. And mate. If you and your friends don't like it. Stay the bleeding hell away from terrorism and terrorist. Betcha ol' Davey don't think he's so clever now playing at jihad. Of course his councillor has him as a changed man and one who only wants to come home and be a good citizen. well, that's if his application to become a citizen of the UK doesn't go through.

Mylakhrion: Definitions based on normal standards are elastic. Whose normal standards? I am no lawyer but court room procedure must vary with both time and place. Definitions in human law are not like the laws in science and can therefore be varied ad hoc and according to circumstances.

For instance do you regard the Tyrannicide Trial of Charles 1 as fair? Geoffrey Robertson in his book clearly thinks it was. Yet he also points to several differences between 17th century assumptions and practice and that which is current in Australian or UK.

Would you be happy if Hicks was tried under Sharia law or the procedures of native law, or the non common law systems utilized in Continental Europe?

You may well have in mind some ideal system of justice, which you would wish to transplant to America. However, please recall that Australian courts too can make gross errors and convict the innocent. (There have been several recent well publicized examples).

I believe the best interest of all would now be served if the US system of military commission is given a fair go.

Aqvarivs: sorry for intruding on an obviously private correspondance. My deepest apologies.

Anti-green: Cogent and relevant arguements. I agree that standards of fairness have changed and different courts automatically have different rules depending on the circumstances. The ability for children to give evidence via video, for example, is a good thing, even though it does violate the right of the defendant to see thier accursor.

That being said, there are still some basic principles about admission of evidence and court procedure that I think are really essential for any fair trial. Things like the inadmission of hearsay evidence and the right for the defendant to see all the evidence against them. Over time, trial and error (pun intended) has taught us that when these sort of things are ignored, grave injustices tend to follow. And miscarriages of justice in high profile cases like this help no one.

And I'm not looking to transplant any 'ideal' version of justice anywhere. I'm not asking for any other standard of fairness that the one that is used every day in the US. That is all Hicks can ask for but it should be one he is also entitled to.

I have just come across the following article. It makes for interesting reading. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2004-05/05rn33.htm

Fair go for the commissions? Agreed so long as they are fair!

Cheers

A fact that the Damn Hick's brigade miss is that NO American will ever be tried under this kangaroo court.

NO Australian should be either.

mylakhrion, your forgiven. I wasn't about to hold it against you forever. :-)

Yes, that(your link)even being a couple of years old, was an interesting bit of reading. Surely having read it yourself you can see that all parties are struggling to develop a mechanism of justice to deal with terrorism, and that however unfortunate it may be that Hicks is caught up in the process, it is not simply a matter that the U.S. is having their moment of pleasure bashing him about. The creation of new rules of warfare and legal avenues regarding detention and prosecution of these new (world) enemy combatants take time, trial and error. Both the Hague Court for war crimes and the U.N.World Court, are also being tested by the participation of terrorist and terrorism in world conflicts. It isn't as some would suggest just "that evil America".

Steve Madden, Grow up mate. David Hicks is much better off going through an American Military Tribunal than any American found to be aiding any terrorist or being caught up for terrorist activities being tried under American Criminal Courts. If you have any doubts take a look at how they have dealt with their own homegrown terrorist. They wont and don't have the advantage of Hicks coming home to serve out some minimalist sentence in a cushy Oz gaol. They're doing hard time in an American supermax facing 23 hour per day isolation lock downs and are shackled hands and feet every time they leave their cell no matter the reason. The American public don't bleed for them one iota. It's a matter of fact that they have to be protected even from the other inmates who being murders and thieves can't abide a terrorist.

"David Hicks is much better off going through an American Military Tribunal than any American found to be aiding any terrorist or being caught up for terrorist activities being tried under American Criminal Courts."

This is irrelevant, and also meaningless without identification of the particular "terrorist". But more pertinent, why the hell can't you guys stop presuming Hicks's guilt, equating him with convicted terrorists? It's exactly the goddam point, that Hick has been locked up for years, without guilt or innocence being determined by a fair court.

And, the idea that the U.S. is "struggling" with notions of justice is laughable. First, no one has given any argument why Hicks can't be tried in a normal criminal court. Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence that the U.S. wanted to lock people up and throw away the key. They're not strugglnig with justice, they're struggling with the political swamp they've created through their barbarism.

bushbasher, are you stunned? Hicks has already told of his terrorist connections and al-Qeada training. He doesn't deny it. His councillor doesn't deny it. He just claims that he never used it and never killed anyone once he received his training. There's no question that he's a wannabe jihadist.

"I don't see any reason why the criminal courts cannot be used for a charge of "attempted murder". But more to the point, we are discussing the U.S. charging people, and so we are talking about U.S. standards of justice." This is your statement. So it's not meaningless or irrelevant to point out that he's better off facing the tribunal rather than American criminal courts.

The question lies in is he to be treated as a combatant, an enemy, a terrorist, a civilian, a pow, or just a harmless Ozzie out for a bit of nature in war torn eastern Europe and Asia.

Step out from behind the bush. It's blocking your perception, And I'd see a specialist about that shoulder. It looks some awful infected. You know if you leaned just a little to the right you wouldn't be dragging it along the ground like that.

Meaningless response, carefully avoiding actually addressing any real issue raised.

For the very, very last time, It doesn't matter whether you, or anybody else, thinks Hicks is a terrorist. It is not the point. It has never been the point. The article which started this thread was pointing out exactly that this is not the point. The reason we have notions of justice and the rule of law is exactly to protect Hicks, and everyone else, from smug, authoritarian creeps.

Talk about goddam bias. When you are willing to address the reality of documented U.S. actions in their "war", then you'll be worth listening to. Until then, you're just another proagandist for old-testament style barbariansism.

aqvarivs

Once again you miss the point, the US citizens have been to trial and found guilty (and not guilty) by a proper court.

If this is good enough for a US citizen why is it not acceptable for an Australian citizen?

How many posters have actually read the Kuran?
Just curious.

bushbasher, And I'd be more willing to accept your claim that you're
sole interest is in justice if you weren't using exaggerative and
emotionally abusive language like,

-the U.S only wants to lock Hicks up for ever

-try and sentence him under the most revoltingly unfair procedures

-torture and kangaroo courts

-Some people are aware of the self-serving nature of governments, and are
suspicious of the propagandistic nature of their declarations

-the idea that the U.S. is "struggling" with notions of justice is laughable.
First, no one has given any argument why Hicks can't be tried in a normal
criminal court. Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence that the U.S. wanted
to lock people up and throw away the key. They're not struggling with justice,
they're struggling with the political swamp they've created through their
barbarism.

A person truly interested in justice would apply it equally and across
the board, not selectively for emotional grandstanding. A person concerned
with justice would be just in their views on America. Not be a person who
capitalizes on pejorative language to assault a nation to appear
sensitive to the plight of an individual. A just person would be much more
balanced and able to see the broader implications and view Hicks case not
as a denial of justice but a series of steps toward justice not only for
Hicks but for all accused terrorist, America, and the rest of the world
during these trying times of global terrorism.

Yes Steve tried, convicted or vindicated as Americans by Americans for crimes against America from inside America. Not as foreign nationals found working against the security of a country and American military aid in a foreign land during a time of war. I don't quite think it is I failing to understand the complexity of justice. Popping Hicks into an American criminal courts environment would be decidedly unjust for Hicks. American jury post 9/11 will not be a sympathetic jury for someone accused of aiding and abetting the Taliban. Exactly what is the death toll for Australian soldiers in Afghanistan?

You don't like my emotive langauge? Big fat hairy deal. This gives you an exuse to avoid discussing the content of my (and other's) posts, but hardly an argument for it. It's not a matter of mistrust of me because of my langauge, it's a matter of whether you are honestly willing to deal with specific issues and specific arguments.

In fact, your tactic is to stay away from specifics, specific criticisms in people's posts, and the specifics of the treatment of Hicks, to instead talk vaguely about "broad implications". People have clear, specific objections to the treatment of Hicks and others, and you simply don't respond. You can't, since otherwise you'd have to honestly address the loathesome behaviour of the U.S. government.

For the same reason, your call for "balance" is vacuous. Appropriate balance can only be judged in relation to specific situations and specific arguments: otherwise you end up with nonsense arguments for "balance" for intelligent-design advocates and the like.

You want to paint we justice-for-Hicks folk as anti-American, but that conclusion just doesn't follow from our stance. We are appalled by specific American acts and policies, and it is the possible justification of those acts and policies you should be addressing.

To quote Barnaby Joyce (from yesterday's NY Times): “It is about due process of law, the principles we are fighting for in Iraq ... In fighting the barbarians, we are starting to imitate the barbarians.”

You want to get away with using verbiage that exaggerates the American "process". You want to deny the actual process. You want to ignore his own councils machinations. You want to ignore the fact that the American legal system is based on an adversarial approach towards agreement or resolution. You want to deny that the system is working as it should from American point of law. You want to displace what the Americans are doing with the Australian legal system. You don't want to have to understand. You want, you want but, you don't want to give anything towards that understanding if it curtails your ability to rant and slag the Americans or their judicial system. You want to be able to accuse the Americans of torturing Hicks when there is no proof of Hicks being tortured. Yet you want to be able to attack any one who repeats Hicks own deeds and cry that there is no proof. You want to call the Americans barbarians for being in Iraq, for Afghanistan, for anything and everything that suits your narrow outlook on world affairs and the responsibilities of government and obligations to friendly powers, alliances and conflict resolution on a global scale. You want to be free to use any piece of tripe published that attacks America, Bush, or this single case because that is your particular political bent and honesty is no part of your argument for justice.
And yes I take full note of your language. It's a marker of intent, of perceptions, of bias, and about the communication of ideas. Language is everything.
Which is what the Americans are doing. Defining language usage for the judicial war against terrorism and interoperability across nations to be practiced tomorrow. They are struggling to develop a process and define benchmarks for a war fought by people of no moral or ethical restrictions about how they execute their war. Women, children, cats, dogs, buildings, institutions, everything is game and no rules, period. To suggest that the Americans are traveling down that road is the cheapest sort of anti-American rhetorical frippery.

Um, well I didn't claim Hicks was tortured, and I didn't call the Americans barbarians for being in Iraq or Afghanistan. Should I go through your diatribe line by line listing all of your misrepresentations, misdirections and obfuscations? Maybe I should, but I simply can't be bothered.

I was right the first time: you're a contentless bore. But please go on. I'm sure there are others who would be willing to address your empty twaddle. Me, I'm done with this pointless exercise.

Yo Aqvarivs. Impressive.

But we STILL don't know what Hick has and hasn't done. I don't. You don't. We're told he got sold at some point though. After 5 years he's only been charged using retrospective law. I think we have every right to crticize the US's behaviour, the same way that, oh, just about every other developed country does.

As for language? The Americans have perfected framing the debate like never before. We don't need to go into detail, we'd be here all night. Let's just say the current wave of anti-Americanism sweeping the globe could be considered "blowback".

aqvarivs

Your argument that Americans can treat their own citizens differently to others is exactly the point I was making. Thank you for agreeing there is a double standard.

Hicks' final charge will now be found to be unconstitutional, the law he is charged with was enacted after he was arrested. The American constitution specifically makes this illegal. (Unlike Australia).

I have great faith in the US legal system, but like all legal systems it takes a lot of time. Eventually they will rule that the executive has exceeded its powers in setting up these military commissions.

As for torture, I have no evidence Hicks was tortured, just as you have no evidence he was aiding terrorists. But the CIA have admitted "rendition flights" to take prisoners to places where they can be tortured. One example is someone being boiled alive - Fact, not your misguided fiction.

Bennie, My stand is that the Hicks case is not simply a matter of a fair go as the author of the article claims. I see it a much more involved and broader issue than a fair go for Hicks, and I've tried to articulate that in my posts. As much as I can tell it's been used to pick at Howard's government and to batter Bush and Co. by the left. Oh the righteous cry justice. Bring Hicks Home. As if that in itself epitomizes justice. Not anything further to justice which extends beyond the immediate fashion in Australia. If at the end of the day Hicks comes home to a parade and statue unveiling by the greens left and socialist that's fine by me. If he's pardoned or paroled, matters not to me. I'm willing to accept that that establishes a new definition of justice in Australia. I'll look to see if it's universally applied and that the government left, right or centre immediately begins to have all 45 odd Australian prisoners held by 19 foreign countries brought home and their sentences commuted. You know. The ones that have been imprisoned before Hicks went Islamofascist. No. Wait. They aren't victims of Howard's war on terror so stuff them anyways. No political capital there. Fair go, yes. As long as it is applied across the board and not as a political wedge. Justice. Right.
Hicks is just a tool of the left and their phony cry of justice will die still born once Hicks drops anchor in Melbourne harbour. Then of course there is the special case of Sharif Assad, a Syrian being held in Sydney’s Villawood immigration detention centre, tortured, medically neglected, and eventually disabled by the resulting epilepsy. Yes. Australia home of justice and renown basher of Yankeedom. We drip with self-righteousness. Our gaze firmly fixed on the horizon. There's nothing on our shoes. America torturer of avowed jihadis. Australia torturer of those in search of citizenship. Yes mate, blowback. We should wipe at least one of our collective faces before presenting to the world. No?

Lets move this debate into a new phase.

Hicks will be tried under the Military Commissions Act, an act passed in 2006 specifically to try the new class of 'unlawful combatants'.

For a concise review of the act, please refer to the attached link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act

I've decide my position on the fairness of these trials but don't want to prejudice any minds. Therefore I challenge all comers to have a look at the court procedures and see if they are consistent with the rule of law in the US.

Interested in your comments.

Well Runner you have a strange point of view.Mr Hicks deserves a fair trial,Ms Corby wasn't held for 5 years before going to court.The laws
of the Geneva Convention should also apply,yet it depends who is giving the comments in the US some say it apply's others have said it doesn't.Now the latest news Mr Hicks lawyer is going to be charged, it's getting really ridiculous.Mr Howard said he doesn't have to protect Australians oversea's,he is very selective how much did it cost the taxpayers to bring home paper Australians from the eastern countries before Christmas?Whats going to happen next,why not just give the man a fair trial & stop playing politics.

Either you believe in a world with the rule of law or not. Either you believe in deciding guilt or innocence by a fair and open trial or not. The rest is mindless drivel spewed out to cloud reality for some reason or another. Use the tools of the enemies of humanity you are the enemy of humanity. Surely even those of the slenderous wit can understand this.

Thank you Whispering Ted. Australia's confinement and torture of Sharif Assad and the withholding of a quick and fair trial by his peers shows Australia to be the enemy of humanity. "Surely even those of the slenderous wit can understand this." So the question becomes, which face do we show to the world. The Australians are champions of their citizens who commit crimes in foreign countries when it is politically expedient face. Or the face of Australia beating, torturing, and then medically neglecting a migrant in a immigration detention centre. Ah, the complexity. The ins and outing. The dance of the two faces

Aqvarivs

I think you should have a Bex and a good lie down- you’re getting a bit worked up here.

As far as I can tell, you’re the only one talking about Sharif Assad. If you want to debate immigration detention policy, then I suggest you open a general topic- I’m sure you’ll get many takers. But the rest of us are talking specifically about Hicks.

[So- dragging us, kicking and screaming, back on topic]

Only two posters have suggested that Hicks be repatriated. The rest of us have argued that he be tried fairly in a court of law. And no one has even mentioned returning other Australians found guilty and incarcerated in other prisons.

You see the difference, don’t you- for all anyone knows, he is innocent, because until he goes to court, we actually HAVE to assume that. That whole ‘rule of law’ thing.

I also notice you have not commented on your opinion of the Military Commissions Act (MCA). Not able to defend the indefensible? Or do you just not care if Hicks is tried fairly?

Case in point: You’ve argued before that Hicks has been locked up for so long because we needed some sort of new legal system. Well, the MCA enshrines that particular little trick by specifically excluding the requirement to offer a speedy trial and forbidding anyone their right to appeal.

So the second they find you guilty of being an unlawful combatant, they can toss you in a dank hole for the rest of your life, without EVER putting themselves to the bother of charging you and proving you’re actually guilty.

Sound fair to you? [Note- this is just one issue].

Long term incarceration without the ability to have someone question it is what we’ve fought wars against. Are you suggesting we just to sit in the corner and shut up while the self-proclaimed ‘standard bearer for democracy’ goes out and betrays everything we stand for in the name of expediency? Asking America to stand up for their own values is not being ‘anti-American’. I’d call it being a friend.

Kelvin Thompson writes, "David Hicks' detention at Guantanamo Bay long ago ceased being about him. It is now about us. Do we still believe in habeas corpus - no imprisonment without trial -with its proud history dating back almost 800 years to Magna Carta? Do we still believe in a fair trial, and understand that the right to be tried by a jury of your peers is part of the package? Labor believes that the rule of law should be universally applied. Anyone accused of a crime should be afforded a swift and fair trial, irrespective of the nature of the allegations
or political sensitivities. Australians regard a fair trial as the legal form of a fair go. So it is worrying that the Attorney-General says the extent of his focus for David Hicks' case is "ensuring that any process is as fair as possible".

This is Kelvin Thompsons opening salvo. So it is not about David Hicks it's about US. Our beliefs, our sense of justice, our history, our experience with jury trials, our government (in the name of the Labour Party). And whether or not the Attorney-General is "ensuring that any process is as fair as possible".

“Labor believes the rule of law should not be compromised. Deviations from the rule of law undermine the system and expose individuals to risks of physical abuse as well as injustice.”

“The Attorney-General’s Government needs to reacquaint itself with the Australian tradition of a fair go and direct his department to seek the same on behalf of all Australian citizens. Legal cases which highlight the adverse consequences of government policy should be no exception; Australia’s laws should be administered without prejudice and every Australian given access to justice.”

If your not willing to consider Sharif Assad equal to the same out cry and considerations as Hicks when it comes to justice it is not I that should get on topic. Justice specific to Hicks and justice specific to Assad. Your cry for exceptions argue the authors assertion of any Australian value or tradition of a fair go.

When a nation denies basic human rights it debases the whole nation and the individuals in it. That Australia is involved should be no suprise considering what nation of toadies we have become. That this needs to be explained demonstrates that the process of debasement of humanity in OZ is well under way.

Mylakhrion, cont.

Yes, I'm the only one talking about Assad, the only one who has mentioned the other 45 odd Australians who are imprisoned in foreign countries around the world and being subjected to foreign courts and justice system. What exactly sets the Hicks case above these? Other than the left is using it to make all kinds of credibility attacks against the Howard government. Even Thomson uses the Hicks case to advance the Labour Party as the “moral party”.

I find it very hard to blast the Americans for holding Hicks as a suspected terrorist, while in Australia we are holding a migrant under Australian law and abusing him and torturing him and denying him medical care and basically getting up to the same behavior. Is Assad a terrorist? Has he had a trial? What's the evidence against him?

As for what the MCA hasn't done. There has been no trial as yet. They have laid charges and from what the Lawyers have said. Hicks ought to be home in short order and what ever steps Australia takes once that happens is of no concern to the U.S. or the Military Tribunal. Essentially saying Australia can free Hicks if that's it's decision.

As I said in an earlier post. I see the total exercise of Gitmo and the Military Tribunal as an American process towards justice. Others went before Hicks and others will follow (400), and eventually the Americans will have their process in place and the next government will have a model to use as a starting point. Where it goes from there is up to the next government. Just as it is here in Australia. Terrorism isn't going to end with the Hicks case or the Howard government.

Kelvin Thomson talks about our proud history going back 800 years in the establishment of our justice system. He excludes mentioning the history of inhumane treatment of prisoners, torture, and their being used as slave labour, as part of the process towards creating a truly just system of laws and behavior and that that process is still in effect

Aqvarivs

Again: this debate (until now) has not been about Australia's immigration detention policy. It is about the American handling of a legal case.

Two different things. My own 2-cents worth is that, yeah- you are right. The Government's handling of the detention center policy is often cruel and inhumane. Does that somehow give America a free ride on Hicks and the others? Is America entitled to abuse others because we do?

I still fail to see the relevance of your point to the debate here.

Yes- the US have laid charges. They are convening a court. However, as far as I can see they are still retroactive charges in an essentially unfair court.

Did you have a look at the link I included earlier? Did you read the rules of the MCA? If so, do you have a comment on them? Courts ain't courts! (to abuse the old Castrol ad) and even though no trial has taken place, the rules of the game can be used to judge it's fairness.

Kelvin's quotes are very appropriate to this point. So are your comments. The long history of Western legal tradition has often lapsed in areas like slavery, torture and the like. I'd like to think that we have learned from these mistakes, that the accumulation of legal precedence shows us where we have failed in previous time. In short, that we are getting better.

In getting better, we have seen where we went wrong. Things like speedy trials, tight control on the types of evidence introduced, the ability to appeal a trial that was conducted unfairly have all been added to the requirements of a fair court because when they don't exist, injustices occur.

The MCA was introduced specifically to eliminate many of these guarantees. That is why I believe these courts are unfair. If America was interested in justice, then they should be using the very best in legal jurisprudence. Instead they are using Military Commissions that are judge, jury and (potentially) executioner.

Do you think this is fair? This is the question I'd like you to answer

aqvarivs

Again you open your mouth to change feet, the treatment of Sharif Assad is obnoxious. To tie an epileptic to a bed is wrong. But who is allowing this to happen? The same Australian Government that allows Hicks to be locked up for 5 years without trial. Who is complaining about his treatment? The left (as you would call them).

Sure your going to say Labor instigated mandatory detention, but our Right wing Govt. is the one who has abused the system.

Hicks and Assad are symptoms of the same disease, political expediency from our dishonest Prime Minister. Remember it was a member of his own party that called him a lying rodent.

This debate isn't about Hicks, it isn't about our detention policy and it isn't as you are trying to direct, about the MCA. IT'S ABOUT JUSTICE. What part of JUSTICE allows you to seek specific entitlements for Hicks alone? I should focus on American judicial experience in relationship to terrorism but, ignore Australia's efforts to develop a legal process for dealing with terrorism. I should focus on Hicks but, shy away from Assad because they are being tortured by different institutions? You have varying degrees and definitions of the rule of law and justice depending on the institution under review? We hold the Americans to a higher standard while excusing our own behavior, and then blame them for our behavior because of what? Hubris? They made us do it?

The courts system and the development of law(s) has always been a two steps forward, one step back reality. Especially when the laws and charges don't match the circumstances. And I believe that there is no law yet that matches the circumstances of global terrorism and international policing of terrorist actions across nations. I have chosen to adopt a wider view on the subject of bringing terrorist under the arm of the law. I don't know what the end result will be but, I do hope that terrorism and terrorist are not given over to civil criminal law. If not a Military tribunal then at a minimum tried in the Hague or World Court for war crimes.

If Hicks or any other accused terrorist is tried under civil law than other Nations will demand the same standard. We can not say Hicks is a civil matter and then pursue war crimes in Darfur. I'm concerned with the outcome of this subject for it's global ramifications and not for Hicks specifically.

Steve Madden how simplistic. Barracking for the left by blaming Howard for the acts of a few individuals who exceeded the laws established by the left who were in power before Howard. How do you know they didn't support Labour. And exceeded their powers by divine right of being party supporters?

aqvarivs

With each post you dig a deeper hole, terrorism is nothing new, we do not need new laws to deal with it. As a descendant of a member of Óglaigh Na Herein I can debate this issue with you forever.

If you are sucked in by the politics of fear, your problem. We have laws, equally applied to everyone. Or else we have tyranny, your choice is that governments can do whatever they like, mine is different.

Steve Madden,
The attempted appropriation of this noble and historic title is an insult to the memory of those who, like General Michael Collins, strove for Irish freedom and to those who have stood ready to serve and defend this country since independence.
This distortion and perversion extends to the abuse of language and phrases, particularly the corruption of the name: Óglaigh na hÉireann.

There is only one Óglaigh na hÉireann – it is the Irish Defence Forces.

The words “Óglaigh na hÉireann” appear proudly on the cap badge of every member of the Defence Forces, just as they appeared on the cap badges of their forebears in the Irish Volunteers.
THE MINISTER FOR DEFENCE, MR. WILLIE O’DEA - 22 February 2005.
COLLINS BARRACKS, CORK

Your an intellectual fraud Sir. Claiming to be a descendant of a member of The Irish Defence Forces or it's earlier namesake The Irish Volunteers or misrepresenting the “Irish Troubles” by implication does not give you a right or a superior platform from which to discuss anything. That you would even hint at a relationship between David Hicks predicament, todays terrorism perpetrated by religious gangs in the name of Allah -with the struggles of a tiny nations attempt to overcome the institutionalized feudal oppression of a larger more powerful nation is beyond any standard of reason or reasonableness, and abuses an entire people, culture, nation- and just so you can think you've come off as intellectually superior. Your unconscionable. You'll stoop to anything to get your pounce in, rather than participating with a genuine opinion on subject.

Michael Collins was born on 16th October 1890 near Clonakilty in West Cork. He spend his short working life in London and returned after 9 years to take part in the 1916 Rising. In 1917 he was elected to the Sinn Fein executive and when in January 1919 the Anglo-Irish War began, Collins became the main instigator of a Sinn Fein terror campaign against British administration in Ireland.

How do I know? Because my maternal grandfather was executed for being a terrorist. Why is this pertinent to the Hicks case, because terrorism is nothing new. Yet the majority of your posts infer we need a different set of laws to deal with terrorism.

My point is that we do not. Your view is that Collins strove for Irish freedom, but he was seen as a terrorist by the British. Get my point?

If you read your last post you will find many similarities between Ireland and the Middle East, although I suspect you don't realise you have again shot yourself in the foot.

“the struggles of a tiny nations attempt to overcome the institutionalized feudal oppression of a larger more powerful nation”

Nothing has changed. Larger more powerful nations continue to oppress smaller weaker ones, to take their resources and look after “our interests in the region”.

Keep going aqvarivs each post reveals your lack of knowledge and your bigotry. :)

OMG! You've now got the Irish fight for national freedom, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the general situation in the Middle East all implicated in Hicks trial/non-trial/civil courts/military tribunal debate. Oh ya, and it's all my fault. You poor simple creature.
I guess it's up to me to put an end to this. There is no end to your circuitous convoluted prevarications.
I'm outta here dude.