Agreed rossco.

His plea will be scrutinised to the nth degree by the tribunal anyway, apparently to just the same extent as a not guilty plea would have been, but within a much shorter timeframe. So presumably it is entirely possible for this plea to be rejected if it is based overwhelmingly on matters other than actual guilt or innocence.

As others have argued, we don't know what Hicks is said to be guilty of, despite his apparent confession. What I would like to know is whether all the British captives caught at the same time were similarly guilty (of whatever), though the British Government called successfully for their return to the UK. As far as I know none of them was later charged with anything there. What was different about Hicks? Why didn't our government also demand his return? There may be a reason. I see no reason why we are not told.

BOAZ_David

Your comments are very pertinent. However, if Hicks renounced his Islamic faith, his life expectancy could well be brief; particularly so if he converted to Wahhabism, the militant Islam of Osama bin Laden. The penalty for apostasy, in Islamic law, is death. Such is the reality of this occurring, that in 2004, the UN was urged to protect Muslim apostates.

Better still -

Why don't we crucify David?

Hey, we could get a centurion to jam a spear through his side - a spongeful of vinegar to comfort him. No need for cave and rock - just shove him into a 1.8 m2 cage. Let him be resurrected now! Har, har, har!

*

David is an Aussie hero, mark my words. His mum and dad are heroes too.

When I look at his jailers and our politicians, all I see is rats. Rats in fine clothes, and rats with brass buttons. Rats scuttling to avoid what David stands for. Rats scuttling to deny what they have done. Rats scuttling to justify the Big Lie. Rats ALL.

One day, his story will be told. On that day, celebrity actors will queue to play the part of David Hicks.

We can give Guantanamo back to the Cubans, then pay them to keep all of our rats there.

Are you listening, RATS?

If Hicks did do something wrong then America could have avoided a lot of ill feeling and bad press simply by bringing him to trial in a US court. They only needed to give him the same recourse to justice as they do to child murderers, child rapists, drug barons and the general run of murderers, kidnappers and major arsonists.
For some odd reason they chose not to do so, was his crime so frightening that he was worse than the worst criminals?
Did he kill? Who was/were the victims?
Did he rape a child? murder one? torture one? If so who? where?

Or was he simply a not too bright character who was handy for a bit of propaganda?

I wonder did John and George ever discuss him over morning tea?

the apologists for the hicks case were very clear- they weren't going to treat the people they put in gitmo as they treated americans. they are consistent: they will bomb 150 people at a wedding party of whom one might be an avowed enemy of usa, as long as they're all ragheads.

to those of you who regard the label 'terrorist' as a license to beat your chest and cry out "kill, kill!: america has been killing anyone who opposed their policies or rule since 1776. they have made themselves hated and despised anywhere on this planet where justice and money are not in bed together. anyone who knows any history should have said of the 'twin towers': "there's the first shoe." thousands of moslems are getting ready to drop the second, and there'll be many more.