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