Complete twaddle. There is no war.

Dispassionate analysis? And what legal training and knowledges does Neil James have? I think international and constitutional specialists may offer a more nuanced (and accurate) opinion.

It isn't a bad article, but I suppose there is a few key principles here which the rest of the article hinges upon.

Firstly, if Hicks is detained on the basis that a war is being fought, then it really comes down to the legality of the war.

"What’s more, in international law armed conflict (war) exists as a material fact - thus automatically triggering the limitations and protections of the Hague and Geneva Conventions respectively - not because some individual or some government (or even some lawyer) declares that the war concerned does or does not exist."

This is a fallacy: war exists, so this war is valid?

There can be no doubt the war exists, but the legitimacy of the war is in question - but again, that is a side issue.

The real issue is, that this is a war that has no defined enemy - it is simply a war on terror. You can define it as a war on Al-Qaeda, but such a disparate enemy hasn't existed before - even communism was a collection of states.

I can see no end in sight to this war on terror. Therefore, the 'detainment' of Hicks needed to be reviewed. Five years is simply unacceptable, even Howard is hammering this line.

Who gave it the heading 'dispassionate analysis'? It may have been written with dispassion but passion for the 'services' and the military permeate the whole article. Accordingly the author may be accused of having the same narrowness of attitude that he asserts for the legal people.

So if what Mr James asserts is correct why (if he did) did the PM say he could have him (Hicks of course) brought home.

Unconvincing entirely Mr James ... may be good for the mess and morale but adds nothing to the morals.

An interesting contribution to the debate, but disturbing.

At what point does a war which is not declared by politicians etc ever end, assuming it is against "terrorism" as opposed to a country vs. country, army vs. army situation? Are we to assume that the law is such an ass that "detention" of prisoners may continue indefinitely while ever any person or persons are fighting each other and one declares the other to be a terrorist ?

Do we take it that one country can detain another person for these purposes in any other country of the world, move them to some remote place, and then keep them imprisoned for the rest of their lives (calling it "detention" is mealy-mouthed, given the circumstances)?

If not for the rest of their lives, what's reasonable under this ass of a law ? 5 years ? 10 years ? 20 years ? 25 years ?

Does this "law" then mean that terrorists (the other side of the war) are also justified in taking, detaining, and trying troops on our side ? And keeping them "detained" indefinitely ?

Presumably, if this "law" were in force, Palestinians might have incarcerated Yishak Shamir indefinitely for his part in terrorist activities, including an offence against a UN official, given the war on terrorism in that area of the world (two sided) has been going on for more than half a century.... which might have stopped him becoming Prime Minister of Israel.

Interesting, but ultimately stupid, the idea that we are governed by some sort of "law" that allows indefinite detention whilever someone shoots at someone else in any part of the world.

Presumably means people with guns can determine how long someone stays in prison, just by taking a potshot, and keeping it all going.

Sometimes legal people say really stupid things without thinking them through.

I declare War on Authoritarianism. Now I'll lock some people up until the War is over. But don't worry, I'll be sure to tell you all when the war is over.