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

Dosn't seem strange that the US will only give Hicks a trail if he pleads guilty. One would have to be a dingbat not to spot the fraud. The Northern Alliance sold any foriegners they could find to the yanks now that the dust has settled the US is suck with people they have tortured but have not conmitted any great crime so they can not give them a fair and open trial. The only thing we know about HIcks for sure is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am glad that the US did not invade whilst I was a lad wandering around Afghanistan. It is a facinating and dramatic place but not without peril

Numbat ur a dingbat
Alanpoi

Notice that this is the first time Johnny Howard has been firm towards the US. Not a surprise really seeing that he may have panicked a bit about his chances in the coming election. Also his firmness about bringing Hicks home, however, coupled with a public still too dumb to realise that if it was not for Blair and Howard backing George Dubya, the illegitimate invasion of Iraq would never have gone on.

Yet with our cagey PM with even more up his sleeve and despite many global historians ready to write further flop to US unipolar imperial endeavours in the Middle East, persons like Bush, Howard and Blair, will still insist that America's command of the seas, worse luck, as well as her massive ultra modern nuclear arsenal, backed by tiny but devilish little Israel, can still repair the damage they have done - even though it is a safe bet unfortunately, that America is not only ruining her own future, but also possibly the future of those who back her.

Maybe as Vladimir Putin of Russia mentioned recently the world might have been safer under bi-lateralism, held in order by the equilibrium brought on by the fear from both atomic powered sides that whomsoever side might win, the global damage wrought might also destroy what we now know of mankind.

Therefore it is so historically ironic that it may take an alliance between Russia, China and India, with France and Germany staying neutral, to force the Anglopholic or English-speaking nations to agree to the global political equilibrium that Putin has mentioned.

To numbat "save dear David from the horrible Americans" It is not the Americans but the Bush administration and Howard clearly in breach of war crimes. Creating aggressive war was the charge levelled at the nazis in Nurenberg. Then there is illegal detention which is a war crime - irrespective of making up dubious ad hoc charges as they go along. Hicks has been illegally detained for 5 years!

Numbat, you certainly have Hicks guilty before he is any where near a courtroom.
Of course, it is not just Hicks in Guantanamo but hundreds more all denied Red Cross access, legal access, the right to be charged in a reasonable time, even access to the courts, denied due status as prisoners of war, or even family visiting. That alone the backward thuggery dished out as torture in Guantanamo. Then there is all the other psychological torture including drugs, waterboarding, lights, noise, chained to the floor in blackness for weeks with the skin going yellow, and various degradation practises. All cowardly denied by the military and politicians despite the glimpses, photos, evidence, and testimony that has emerged.

It's impossible in the shadowy world of terrorism to garner the scrupulous evidence that could lead to the prosecution of someone who has been involved in jihad under the present legal processes of the West. Those who seek such evidence live in a world of the will-o'-the-wisp.

Moreover, George Williams is an INTELLECTUAL OPPORTUNIST. While in the past he vehemently opposed control orders as UN-AUSTRALIAN(see The Age, August 30, 2006), he now proposes control orders on David Hicks(see The Daily Telegraph, March 7, 2007) on his return to Australia to allay the concerns of the Federal Government in regards to the possibly continuation of the nefarious activities of the "heroic" detainee with his return to Australia.

For more intellectual opportunists see POWER POLITICS-http://power-politics1.blogspot.com

As of today there is a report Hicks is going to trial on the 20th of this month - so i suppose nobody will know until then! I still believe his best way of coming home is to basically appeal through the Commonwealth law, so at least he can be dealt with through a fair Australian legal system rather than the biased military court he will be in front of. Watch this space!!

In a couple of years being charged with terrorist activities wont be any worse than a drunk driving or a mob hit. A couple of years in gaol, out and about on the good behavior, a quick run at the "this weeks most important novel" list, a bit more on the news channel, and Bob's your uncle. The transition from nobody to media darling in 15 minutes. Anyone found criticizing such an event will be labeled intolerant, a racist, a bigot, but mostly jealous of such well deserved fame.

Er.... thanks for the advertisement Con (Themistocles) !

Dear Numbat - from the murky depths of your sarcasm on can unearth a bit of truth - the bottom line is we dont know anything about Mr Hicks intention, character, sins of ommission or commission - that is what the fuss is about - we only know what we are told and the process to which he is subjected to is not transparent - and he deserves just like Saddam or Osama if he gets caught a fair trial - in an open court

Alright W/Ted, alanpoi, johncee and sneeky and all other b/hearts Hicks was in Afghanistan/Pakistan (where terrorists hang out) but he was, of course, a member of the Number Seven Troop of the Hairy-legged frilly knickered Afghani brownies and all he was learning was fire lighting, cooking and camping. He did not hold a grenade launcher and the photo of him doing so was a frame-up. He did not train as a terrorist its just as a brownie he was practicing his cooking skills for a group that later turned out to be 'you-know-whats'and honestly hicks really really did not know and he was running away from them when the nasty Americans caught him. These horrible Americans eh! just because some terrorists flew planes into the trade centre and killed some thousands of innocent people that's no reason to be nasty towards them is it? Regards, numbat
PS. At the beginning of W/W2 we had our share of bleeding heart nazi lovers and later we had apologists for communist Russia even when they trampled on Hungary etc. Nothing changes eh? Bye Bye Petals

The childlike insults are not needed in debate, please think about it.
David Hicks? in my view no angel and not some one I think I could like.
But he is Australian and he has been a victim of apparent spite and unfairness by some in the American government.
Lack of concern from Australia's caretaker government Howard's, is inclusive of lack of fairness and willingness to use this bloke for propaganda reasons.
It should surprise no one when Mr Howard finds a way to bring him and our troops in Iraq home before the election,
Election wins always concern Howard more than fair go mate ever will.

We do not know much about David Hicks:

1) Is he is likely to run around crying “God is Great” and a few other verses from the Koran as his brothers in arms do.

2) Is he a regular sort of bloke who wants to live in Australia and start a family, get a job and a mortgage?

3) Is he going to seek reward and reparations as his fellow Afghan tourist Habib is doing.

There are a few things we know about him:

1) He fought against the Serbs in the Balkans.
2) He fought against the Australians and Americans in Afghanistan.
3) He fought against the Indian army in Kashmir.
4) He changed his name to Mohammed Dawood although I believe he has since renounced it?
5) He comes through as rather short of education and common sense.

SILLE I have looked at your post at least 5 times and I think you have missed the point.
Some who support Mr Hicks and some who oppose him do so for reasons that have nothing to do with fairness.
So on record I am opposed to his reasons for fighting in the place he was captured.
I oppose all Muslim fundamentalists, and terrorists, I have an understanding of the differences.
In fact I oppose all fundamentalist religion.
Far too much power is given to interfere with human beings in the name of a God.
How ever 5 years without trial? in a prison America holds in another country?
While Britain bought its home?
Do not mark me in the I hate America side, while I have the deepest dislike and distrust of the current government and its directions.
America remains the best hope for world protection if not peace.
America draft Al Gore please the world needs an end to a government that has no direction and no dignity.

I fully agree Belly, especially with;

“America draft Al Gore please the world needs an end to a government that has no direction and no dignity.”

You are all missing the point.
If Hicks was a soldier he could be held until the cessation of hostilities.
If he is not a soldier he could have been shot as a spy.

He was not in uniform, as far as I have read, he did not have a paybook,
and he did not have a serial number.
If any one of those three conditions are true he is not a soldier.
Any one stupid enough to go armed into a theatre of war in that status
can be very happy that he is still alive, let alone how long he has been held.
BTW, the hostilities are not yet over. He has been held for a shorter
time than many POWs.

Hicks must be a terrorist because he creates so much fear...if the evidence against him is so overwhelming and obvious, why are Numbat and his kind so afraid of this evidence being placed before a properly constituted legal proceeding?

Criminals and terrorist, especially those who take up arms against Australians and our allies, should be captured, tried and if convicted, sentenced to an appropriately lengthy and uncomfortable punishment.

What's more, this should be done with rigour and certainty to make sure:

a) the criminal can't win an appeal based on "unfair" treatment;
and
b) in the event the person is innocent, the real culprit doesn't get away.

The problem with justice as run in the Hicks case is that it is sloppy, lazy and dishonest. It fails to meet the standards need to obtain robust and certain convictions. In short, it lets criminals off.

And if it keeps one of them locked up for five years without doing its job properly, the only outcome is a short-lived bit of vengeance against one accused terrorist...and a long period now of loopholes and exceptions that more terrorists can rely on.

Numbat, by supporting these incompetents all you have done is turn your fear of one "not guilty" verdict into a climate where any guilty verdicts will be that much harder to achieve. You and those you support have made it harder to treat terrorists with the swift justice they deserve.

Thanks for nothing buddy.

Drew.Qld.: I recanted in my last post where I said that hicks was probably a member of the hairy legged frill knickered brownies.
Wake up! hicks trained as a bloody, gutless, pagan mindless terrorist, the sort of miserable craven animal that would wipe out unarmed men, women, children and babies including you Drew and that has been reported - YES! he was prepared to be a dribbling suicide bomber. He even changed his name to some stupid arabic name in fitting with his new "career" as a psychotic killer. Perhaps he could plead insanity - yet he has got the pathetic 'bleeding hearts' on his side hasn't he Drew all asking for a fair trial for a miserable slaughterhouse bastard? Regards, numbat

Makes you wonder how moot this conversation would be if the Americans had not offered $1,000 dollars to the Alliance soldiers who captured Hicks guarding his tank. Would the lefties be crying to have his body returned to Australia. I imagine in the future there will be a sharp down turn in the numbers of terrorist "captured".

Drew.Qld;
You are going on about evidence against Hicks.
Evidence is not the point at all.
He was captured while armed and is either a soldier or a spy.
If he is a soldier and has the qualification as such he can be held
till the cessation of hostilities.
If he is not a soldier then he could have been shot and killed.

Why on earth can't you all see that ?

That is the way of war and you just have to accept it.
It has always been like that. War is not a nice argument in court.
It is a bloody nasty business, and the only legallity is whether he
qualifies as a soldier.

All this arguing about human rights etc is just plain nonsense.
I feel fairly certain he is not a soldier so he has no rights.
Any rights that he has are only by the goodwill of the holding
authority.

Get used to it and live with it.

I think David Hicks is seen as a poor darling who has been so badly treated both by the Americans and by our Gov. The fact is, this is a very different war than previous wars and it seems to me that he is a traitor to his country. This may seem old fashioned talk, but when all the babble is set aside, it appears that he has acted in a traitorous manner if what has been published about his activities is true. French Willie, what ever his name is, has just been found guilty of similar conduct and is going to gaol. Good thing. Hicks must be tried in America. They caught him, and in this war against terror, they are Australia's allies. The newspapers should stop showing the same old picture of Hicks. It makes him appear a fresh faced boy who can do no wrong. Just remember, this man allegedly acted against Australia and its allies' interests in a war situation. This is called treason. Please, let's not make him a martyr. JMV