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.