You want to get away with using verbiage that exaggerates the American "process". You want to deny the actual process. You want to ignore his own councils machinations. You want to ignore the fact that the American legal system is based on an adversarial approach towards agreement or resolution. You want to deny that the system is working as it should from American point of law. You want to displace what the Americans are doing with the Australian legal system. You don't want to have to understand. You want, you want but, you don't want to give anything towards that understanding if it curtails your ability to rant and slag the Americans or their judicial system. You want to be able to accuse the Americans of torturing Hicks when there is no proof of Hicks being tortured. Yet you want to be able to attack any one who repeats Hicks own deeds and cry that there is no proof. You want to call the Americans barbarians for being in Iraq, for Afghanistan, for anything and everything that suits your narrow outlook on world affairs and the responsibilities of government and obligations to friendly powers, alliances and conflict resolution on a global scale. You want to be free to use any piece of tripe published that attacks America, Bush, or this single case because that is your particular political bent and honesty is no part of your argument for justice.
And yes I take full note of your language. It's a marker of intent, of perceptions, of bias, and about the communication of ideas. Language is everything.
Which is what the Americans are doing. Defining language usage for the judicial war against terrorism and interoperability across nations to be practiced tomorrow. They are struggling to develop a process and define benchmarks for a war fought by people of no moral or ethical restrictions about how they execute their war. Women, children, cats, dogs, buildings, institutions, everything is game and no rules, period. To suggest that the Americans are traveling down that road is the cheapest sort of anti-American rhetorical frippery.

Um, well I didn't claim Hicks was tortured, and I didn't call the Americans barbarians for being in Iraq or Afghanistan. Should I go through your diatribe line by line listing all of your misrepresentations, misdirections and obfuscations? Maybe I should, but I simply can't be bothered.

I was right the first time: you're a contentless bore. But please go on. I'm sure there are others who would be willing to address your empty twaddle. Me, I'm done with this pointless exercise.

Yo Aqvarivs. Impressive.

But we STILL don't know what Hick has and hasn't done. I don't. You don't. We're told he got sold at some point though. After 5 years he's only been charged using retrospective law. I think we have every right to crticize the US's behaviour, the same way that, oh, just about every other developed country does.

As for language? The Americans have perfected framing the debate like never before. We don't need to go into detail, we'd be here all night. Let's just say the current wave of anti-Americanism sweeping the globe could be considered "blowback".

aqvarivs

Your argument that Americans can treat their own citizens differently to others is exactly the point I was making. Thank you for agreeing there is a double standard.

Hicks' final charge will now be found to be unconstitutional, the law he is charged with was enacted after he was arrested. The American constitution specifically makes this illegal. (Unlike Australia).

I have great faith in the US legal system, but like all legal systems it takes a lot of time. Eventually they will rule that the executive has exceeded its powers in setting up these military commissions.

As for torture, I have no evidence Hicks was tortured, just as you have no evidence he was aiding terrorists. But the CIA have admitted "rendition flights" to take prisoners to places where they can be tortured. One example is someone being boiled alive - Fact, not your misguided fiction.

Bennie, My stand is that the Hicks case is not simply a matter of a fair go as the author of the article claims. I see it a much more involved and broader issue than a fair go for Hicks, and I've tried to articulate that in my posts. As much as I can tell it's been used to pick at Howard's government and to batter Bush and Co. by the left. Oh the righteous cry justice. Bring Hicks Home. As if that in itself epitomizes justice. Not anything further to justice which extends beyond the immediate fashion in Australia. If at the end of the day Hicks comes home to a parade and statue unveiling by the greens left and socialist that's fine by me. If he's pardoned or paroled, matters not to me. I'm willing to accept that that establishes a new definition of justice in Australia. I'll look to see if it's universally applied and that the government left, right or centre immediately begins to have all 45 odd Australian prisoners held by 19 foreign countries brought home and their sentences commuted. You know. The ones that have been imprisoned before Hicks went Islamofascist. No. Wait. They aren't victims of Howard's war on terror so stuff them anyways. No political capital there. Fair go, yes. As long as it is applied across the board and not as a political wedge. Justice. Right.
Hicks is just a tool of the left and their phony cry of justice will die still born once Hicks drops anchor in Melbourne harbour. Then of course there is the special case of Sharif Assad, a Syrian being held in Sydney’s Villawood immigration detention centre, tortured, medically neglected, and eventually disabled by the resulting epilepsy. Yes. Australia home of justice and renown basher of Yankeedom. We drip with self-righteousness. Our gaze firmly fixed on the horizon. There's nothing on our shoes. America torturer of avowed jihadis. Australia torturer of those in search of citizenship. Yes mate, blowback. We should wipe at least one of our collective faces before presenting to the world. No?

Lets move this debate into a new phase.

Hicks will be tried under the Military Commissions Act, an act passed in 2006 specifically to try the new class of 'unlawful combatants'.

For a concise review of the act, please refer to the attached link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act

I've decide my position on the fairness of these trials but don't want to prejudice any minds. Therefore I challenge all comers to have a look at the court procedures and see if they are consistent with the rule of law in the US.

Interested in your comments.