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?