"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.