Well Runner you have a strange point of view.Mr Hicks deserves a fair trial,Ms Corby wasn't held for 5 years before going to court.The laws
of the Geneva Convention should also apply,yet it depends who is giving the comments in the US some say it apply's others have said it doesn't.Now the latest news Mr Hicks lawyer is going to be charged, it's getting really ridiculous.Mr Howard said he doesn't have to protect Australians oversea's,he is very selective how much did it cost the taxpayers to bring home paper Australians from the eastern countries before Christmas?Whats going to happen next,why not just give the man a fair trial & stop playing politics.

Either you believe in a world with the rule of law or not. Either you believe in deciding guilt or innocence by a fair and open trial or not. The rest is mindless drivel spewed out to cloud reality for some reason or another. Use the tools of the enemies of humanity you are the enemy of humanity. Surely even those of the slenderous wit can understand this.

Thank you Whispering Ted. Australia's confinement and torture of Sharif Assad and the withholding of a quick and fair trial by his peers shows Australia to be the enemy of humanity. "Surely even those of the slenderous wit can understand this." So the question becomes, which face do we show to the world. The Australians are champions of their citizens who commit crimes in foreign countries when it is politically expedient face. Or the face of Australia beating, torturing, and then medically neglecting a migrant in a immigration detention centre. Ah, the complexity. The ins and outing. The dance of the two faces

Aqvarivs

I think you should have a Bex and a good lie down- you’re getting a bit worked up here.

As far as I can tell, you’re the only one talking about Sharif Assad. If you want to debate immigration detention policy, then I suggest you open a general topic- I’m sure you’ll get many takers. But the rest of us are talking specifically about Hicks.

[So- dragging us, kicking and screaming, back on topic]

Only two posters have suggested that Hicks be repatriated. The rest of us have argued that he be tried fairly in a court of law. And no one has even mentioned returning other Australians found guilty and incarcerated in other prisons.

You see the difference, don’t you- for all anyone knows, he is innocent, because until he goes to court, we actually HAVE to assume that. That whole ‘rule of law’ thing.

I also notice you have not commented on your opinion of the Military Commissions Act (MCA). Not able to defend the indefensible? Or do you just not care if Hicks is tried fairly?

Case in point: You’ve argued before that Hicks has been locked up for so long because we needed some sort of new legal system. Well, the MCA enshrines that particular little trick by specifically excluding the requirement to offer a speedy trial and forbidding anyone their right to appeal.

So the second they find you guilty of being an unlawful combatant, they can toss you in a dank hole for the rest of your life, without EVER putting themselves to the bother of charging you and proving you’re actually guilty.

Sound fair to you? [Note- this is just one issue].

Long term incarceration without the ability to have someone question it is what we’ve fought wars against. Are you suggesting we just to sit in the corner and shut up while the self-proclaimed ‘standard bearer for democracy’ goes out and betrays everything we stand for in the name of expediency? Asking America to stand up for their own values is not being ‘anti-American’. I’d call it being a friend.

Kelvin Thompson writes, "David Hicks' detention at Guantanamo Bay long ago ceased being about him. It is now about us. Do we still believe in habeas corpus - no imprisonment without trial -with its proud history dating back almost 800 years to Magna Carta? Do we still believe in a fair trial, and understand that the right to be tried by a jury of your peers is part of the package? Labor believes that the rule of law should be universally applied. Anyone accused of a crime should be afforded a swift and fair trial, irrespective of the nature of the allegations
or political sensitivities. Australians regard a fair trial as the legal form of a fair go. So it is worrying that the Attorney-General says the extent of his focus for David Hicks' case is "ensuring that any process is as fair as possible".

This is Kelvin Thompsons opening salvo. So it is not about David Hicks it's about US. Our beliefs, our sense of justice, our history, our experience with jury trials, our government (in the name of the Labour Party). And whether or not the Attorney-General is "ensuring that any process is as fair as possible".

“Labor believes the rule of law should not be compromised. Deviations from the rule of law undermine the system and expose individuals to risks of physical abuse as well as injustice.”

“The Attorney-General’s Government needs to reacquaint itself with the Australian tradition of a fair go and direct his department to seek the same on behalf of all Australian citizens. Legal cases which highlight the adverse consequences of government policy should be no exception; Australia’s laws should be administered without prejudice and every Australian given access to justice.”

If your not willing to consider Sharif Assad equal to the same out cry and considerations as Hicks when it comes to justice it is not I that should get on topic. Justice specific to Hicks and justice specific to Assad. Your cry for exceptions argue the authors assertion of any Australian value or tradition of a fair go.

When a nation denies basic human rights it debases the whole nation and the individuals in it. That Australia is involved should be no suprise considering what nation of toadies we have become. That this needs to be explained demonstrates that the process of debasement of humanity in OZ is well under way.