According to a recent Insight program, one of those British Nationals confessed to various terrorism-related crimes while in Guantanamo.

He said that the confession had been forced out of him, then when MI5 conducted an investigation, they discovered that the person in question had been in another country at the time of the offence he'd confessed to.

I can see other explanations for this, but really, it does raise one hell of a question mark over the whole process.

It is not agreed that David Hicks has been charged under a retrospective law. This is only a claim, not necesarily a fact.

“For five years we have been told that David Hicks must remain in Guantanamo Bay because he committed war crimes. We now know this to be untrue”.

The only charge that he is facing is not a war crime. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the US would have charged him with anything within the definition of a war crime if they thought it would hold up, even under their dodgy Military Commissions system.

Those responsible for this debacle in the US have completely blown their credibility and shredded their country’s reputation as a pillar of fairness and democracy.

“Retrospective criminal laws breach the rule of law”.

Absolutely. This new retrospective non war-crime charge has got to be denounced entirely.

The Military Commission has got be denounced. His continued incarceration has got be denounced.

Clearly, Howard MUST demand that he be sent home forthwith.

There is no longer ANY excuse for not demanding that he be brought home.

I believe Amnesty International here in Australia is conducting an ongoing protest action every Friday, until Hicks is home. Look for your local place and time, on their web-site.

Sniggid says: "It is not agreed that David Hicks has been charged under a retrospective law. This is only a claim, not necesarily a fact." Whatever can he mean? What part of the statement is 'not necessarily a fact'?

Is it not a fact that the charge of providing material support for terrorism does not exist in the laws of war?

Is it not a fact that the US and Australian Governments say that this offence is not new because it is based on existing American domestic law?

But is it not a fact that that law did not apply to foreign nationals? Is it not a fact that from 2007, the law will now apply to foreign nationals? Is it not a fact that David Hicks is to be tried under this new law for 'crimes' he is alleged to have committed when the law did not apply to foreign nationals? Is it not a fact that David Hicks is a foreign national?

Is it not a fact that the Australian Government long ago ruled out any possibility of Hicks being brought home and charged in Australia because it could not and would not create a retrospective offence with which to charge Hicks?

Enlighten us Sniggid please.

Oh you pathetic 'bleeding hearts' please save dear David from the horrible Americans. We know that hicks is not really a trained bloody terrorist don't we? We know that this wonderful person - a truly faithful moslem really loves all us wonderful kaffirs and if he had to kill us he would do so with a heavy heart. We know don't we that he is not a prospective cravenly cowardly suicide bomber. You bleeding hearts instinctively know these things know that this loyal decent Australian is innocent. Yet the Americans are framing him, the Americans are liars, cruel, nasty and dangerously horrible and dear david just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, probably just a backpacker eh?. I hope that you, your parents, babies and children are not the recipients of a hick's bomb in the future. regards, numbat