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.