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.