Some people don't get it! The issue is not Hicks himself: at best a zealot and an adventurist in the wrong place at the wrong time? Nor is the issue whether Hicks is guilty of what they - eventually - charged him with. As for his pleading guilty: prisoners always did it in the Soviet era show trials. You do that after years of mistreatment, solitary confinement, located in a gulag, and interrogation.

The issue is that the Bush regime incarcerated him - not as an enemy soldier (although, according to Bush he is a "war president") and the fact they initially accused him of firing on Americans - for more than five years without charge or trial. And his treatment was contrary to the Geneva convention. The further issue for Australians is that the Bush regime did this with the explicit approval of the Howard Government.

The Howard Government - and all its members (my local member and yours) are equally guilty, because they let Howard and Ruddock get away with it - is an accessory to an obscene abuse of habeas corpus, one of the legal pillars of a democratic society. This is a Government which has voted itself authoritarian powers under its anti-terror legislation and with the enhancement of sedition laws. These laws also abuse the principle of habeas corpus. The Government did this in the name of protecting Australians against imminent terrorism. Terrorism which, however remotely possible beforehand, the Howard Government made more likely by supporting Bush's adventurism in Iraq. Iraq was, and now is not because of the child-like policies of the White House, irrelevant to the Al Qaida threat. John Howard has made Australians a target.

Who is worse? An adventurist captured in Afghanistan or a Prime Minister and an Attorney general who abuse the legal principles of democratic law?

There are frequently situations where governments or government bodies find themselves with the need to make a decision, but without the tools or procedures with which to make one. I suggest that this might be one such case.

It happened on a much smaller scale recently in Sydney when a train broke down on the Harbour Bridge. It took three hours for the obvious decision - get the passengers off and walk them 200m to the station - to be made, because there was no-one who felt capable of taking the responsibility.

Having captured Hicks, the US found itself in the same situation: keeping him in Guantanamo Bay (cf. on the train) was a politically safer option than setting him free (cf. walking him to the station). And they couldn't put him on trial because the evidence they was inadequate (cf. insufficient decision support).

We who live in the real world can only look on in wonder at the paralysis this creates.

>>How is that the US and Australia have turned someone who received terrorist training and enlisted with the Taliban into a popular hero?<<

The "popular hero" tag is pure journalistic fancy. But most people dislike bullies, and after five years of semi-public bullying even the most despicable tyrant gets some level of sympathy from humankind. That's all. If he had been dealt with quickly, and with visible justice, - even if it resulted in life imprisonment - there wouldn't be a fraction of the sympathy he is currently receiving.

>>How did the straightforward prosecution of an enemy combatant turn into such a political and public relations disaster?<<

That is far a more realistic question than churning out the "popular hero" nonsense. It was a failure of the US justice process, fed by arrogance and lack of political will on the part of both the US and Australian administrations.

Related to the Hicks issue (and this excellent article) I want to add a bit of perspective.

Revenge is primitive and un-Western but it explains much about America's post 9/11 foreign and judicial policies.

The conscious or unconscious feeling of revenge for 9/11 among Americans is very real. 9/11 was a mass foreign attack on the US resulting in almost 3,000 dead. How would we feel if it had happened in Sydney in 2001? How would we react?

Americans recognise Hicks trained under bin Laden's influence in Afghanistan at the same time that country was bin Laden's command centre for the 9/11 operation.

Naturally this does not absolve the US of blame for the inhumane way it has treated Hicks but massive foreign terrorist assaults can influence things.

Australia's anti terror laws, in their formulation and (more importantly) implementation, have been very mild to the handling of anti terror laws in the US and UK. From this it seems that those countries that suffer the most from terrorism react the most. Whether or not terrorists gain from these reactions we should ask:

“why can't countries/governments react sharply on behalf of their people who have suffered?”

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

We can never know if Hicks is guilty, people say anything to escape torture. I note even ninemsm survey says 60% of people thik Hicks is innocent. The US government have shown themselves to be criminals in more way than one. My heart weeps for the many decent Americans those reputation has been blackened by Neo-con nutters.

I see a lot of people mystified that Hicks is being given hero status... well, you need only look as far as Ned Kelly to see how Australians will idolise someone who they feel has been mistreated - regardless of the character of the victim. By all accounts, Ned Kelly wasn't a pleasant man.

But on the Hicks matter - I don't have much time for those who make him out to be some kind of hero.
But that doesn't mean we can discard legal principles that are a pretty important element of our society.

Why has the military commission accepted a plea of guilty?For expediency?Not enough evidence?Pressure from an ally?Advice from counsel that not to would lead to conviction and life imprisonment?
For the military commission to reject his plea of guilty and put Hicks on trial would appease those who have misgivings about his culpability.
Much has been said about the unfairness of holding him prisoner without a trial for so long.Is it not correct that a nation at war can intern the enemy until such hostilities cease?

The Americans gave the Afghani soldiers who took Hicks prisoner $1000.00 so they could take him to Gitmo and question him on terrorism and how he fit into that system. The Americans have stated on numerous occasions that Gitmo was set up for secure detention of terrorist captured for the sake of intelligence gathering.
If this was a war defined by uniformed nations at war Hicks would have been paroled or traded back in exchange or released as a condition of no longer being considered a combatant. Not something one can do with a committed terrorist.
Prisoners of war or adventures or how ever one chooses to view Hicks participation and acts of terrorism (firing blindly into a town full of innocent civilians) are not given trials. In this instance there is no formal way of releasing Hicks and for the U.S. to officially finish with Hicks detention as a terrorist. The Trial was the solution. It is nothing more than a formality absent in dealing with terrorist captured during a time of war. This is why Civil Courts hearings were out of the question. Hicks was not a civil matter. The Tribunal puts paid to Hicks and he can now come home.

He is a terrorist full stop.

He was an aussie muslim, who loved the ideals of Jihad and went over there with the intention to pursue these ideals and help the cause.

No ifs, no buts, him and Jihad Jack should have had whatever thrown at them. They came from this western society into the barbaric taliban regime with the intention of helping destroy this same society that gave them the choice to choose their own ideals.

Leave both of them over there, just a shame Jack you got off scot free.

I dont agree with his 5 yrs without a trial etc, but at the end of the day if he was to get 20 years anyway, who cares. Im sure he dont, and he knows what he has done.

I think the media needs another beat up story to milk so people like you and me can read about it, watch it and gain our interest for the next few years. We are the dumb ones for getting on the bandwagon. He turned his back on Australia and even his family, he did not bother contacting them, so we should do the same to him. He should be banned from Australia, we taxpayers dont want to fund his incarceration.

An adventurist? A hero? Not in my book. David Hicks irresponsibly abandoned his children to become a disciple of militant Islam, training with the enemy with the intention to kill westerners and jews.

Most countries are permitted to suspend habeas corpus during a national emergency.

There are many of our own prisoners of war who were treated far worse than this traitor.

And there are many innocent dead, resulting from the 9/11 atrocities perpetrated by Hick's maniacal terrorist buddies.

Now that procedures have commenced (a result of America's free legal counsel), the bleeding hearts are excusing Hick's plea of guilty, as one made from desperation. Next they'll be proclaiming his innocence.

Luckily for Hicks et al, it appears that a guilty plea will restrict the real evidence of his actions, which would have been made public during a trial.

Nevertheless, it's commendable that people are objecting to the long-term incarceration of Hicks.

It is not commendable that Hicks, aka Mohammed Dawood, has become the darling of the zealots on the left.

No doubt the militant Islamists will be delighted with these zealots who have contributed, no less, to their pursuit for global dominance.

there are a great many people on this planet whose government is a brutal dictatorship created or supported by the usa. many others were in such case, but chucked the yanks and their puppets out.

consequently, there is no shortage of people eager to strike the usa and some of them have the means. the americans are finally beginning to be on the receiving end of "as ye sow, so shall ye reap".

before you defend the yanks, learn a little bit of history. pay close attention to:

the conquest of north america
the liberation of the phillipines
the vietnam war

from the day of independence from britain, the usa has used any method to get what it wants from weaker societies, mass murder of women and children included. the yanks are vaguely conscious of their character, so refuse to join the international criminal court convention. even so, kissinger must be careful where he puts his foot, for spain was brave enough to indict him in absentia. that was for mere assassination, the bureaucrats and generals who prosecuted the vietnam war would all hang if they found themselves in front of the nuremburg court.

in general, if you look at the background to 'terrorism', you may discover that a terrorist is someone who resists american foreign policy. it's a handy label for someone whose land or resources you want. the yanks used to rage against "red devils" when they were taking america from the people who lived there and the same simple technique gathers support from the ignorant or naturally sycophantic.

ALL YOU DEAF IDIOTS OUT THERE! THIS IS NOT ABOUT DAVID HICKS !

It's about the wilful destruction of our civil rights (since we have no Bill of Rights, presumably we have none). This liberal government has systematically re-engineered Australia to strip the laws of any privilege we have as free citizens. The anti-terrorism laws we NOW have are amongst the most draconian in the Western World. Wanna test it? Just go to Pine Gap and start taking a few photos. You'll be arrested and incarcerated for an indeterminate time before you can say "defence counsel". (BTW - you aren't entitled to one!)

DEMOS: You are spot on!
The USA is the most brutal and destructive Empire on the planet of all time. It has butchered and killed more people, with more Weapons of Mass Destruction, that at any time in the history of mankind. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin's adventures were a Sunday school picnic compared to the psychopaths run by Goerge Dubya !

Demos. I am no fan of the USA, however, you should not restrict your historical accounts of criminality to America.

Other powerful countries were just as culpable in times gone by.

Your criticisms have little to do with the growing adulation now afforded to Hicks whose prime intention was to become a terrorist.

You are very quick to denounce the USA but seemingly also quick to support Hicks whose democratic rights were severely compromised when he chose to take up arms against his own people.

Are you saying it's Bush and Howard's fault that he chose to plot and train with Al Qaeda, one of the most oppressive regimes on earth?

It was Hicks and Al Qaeda who wanted your blood, not the USA.

YOU ALL AREN'T LISTENING !

I have taken the liberty of cross-posting this from a similar post on the Forum.

<Quote>
For those with no memory at all, here's a little bit of wisdom from a Guantanamo watcher. Prof McCoy interviewed on Lateline last year:

Lo bandwidth:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200606/r90598_269857.asx

Hi bandwidth:
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200606/r90598_269856.asx

Listen very carefully.

Hint: Check your ego and prejudice at the door.
<Unquote>

I, too, will ask you ALL to report back to me tomorrow morning. Tell me what YOU would do after a 5 year sojourn in Guantanamo Bay. Would you be innocent? Who knows? Who cares?

The CIA's agenda is PERFECTLY clear ! No wonder they didn't want anything to do with the Geneva Convention or all that silly legal stuff !

I agree with others: no one I know or have read has turned Hicks into a hero. This is simply rubbish and a distraction from real, weighty and unanswered questions.

My own question is why Australia didn't follow the British example and insist that any of our nationals captured there be returned to their home country. In the UK they all then went free, without any charge (what charge could there have been?) and resumed their lives. Why didn't that happen in Hicks's case?

Democracies find it hard to fight against dictatorships, but that is not a reason for us to behave like one.

I agree with TurnRightthenLeft. Ned Kelly was a crim and is a national icon, isn't isn't a far stretch to have Hicks as the same. Personally, I don't think this is the right reasoning.

David Hicks's plight brings to light to major issues that are tenets of our society.

The first major issue at hand is, irrespective of whether the man is innocent or guilty, Hicks has the right to a fair trial.

As a secondary, the issue arises of what protections Australian citizens are given, and what our government is prepared to do to protect them. Our government has effectively sat on their hands with Hicks, and allowed another state to illegally incarcerate & torture a citizen without trial.

Hicks isn't a hero, he is a symbol for people to rally around. He is a symbol by just how far off track the US has gotten, and just how little our present government is prepared to do to protect it's citizens from abuses.

=my2c

60% of opinion poll voters believe Hicks is innocent- how absurd.

He was not some innocent vagabond who got caught in the wrong circles. He was a mercenary who fought in Kosovo and Afghanistan against allied forces. The men he killed- who can ever know?

No legal system is designed to be 100% accurate all of the time. All a democracy demands is that it is accurate more often than it is not and that it is administered on the balance of justice. Is it safer to leave a murder on the street or jail an innocent man?

We as a western civilisation are fighting an unknown battle, against an unknown enemy on unknown terms.

Those who died in the September attacks (3000 of such), in Bali the Bali bombings, in the london bombings will never see justice.

So on the grounds of some absurd moral principle we defend a man who in the whole scheme of these atrocities should have no rights.

We except our government to govern us to keep us safe and yet then expect them to defend a known terrorist.

We turn our society and our democracy into a circus by protecting one man over the best interests of a nation, a way of life, a society.

No one can say that the world is not a better place with the execution of Saddam Hussein.

No one should say that the world is a worse place because David Hicks is not a free man.

If we do- our children will be the one's who scorn our short sightedness.

Bad things sometimes happen to good, innocent people. This is not one of those very rare times.

Marlo,

So if it was all clear, cut & dried, why didn't the US simply charge Hicks & use the legal system it had and has used for the last few hundred years?

To descend into barbarity, authoritarianism & ignoring human rights seems to be a pretty poor method of fighting for high ideals, democracy & human rights.

=my2c

The incarceration of David Hicks is not lawful and he hasn't been charged with a civil offense nor treated in accordance with the Geneva convention.

The incarceration of David Hicks calls into question the integrity of the office of Attorney General, the office of the Prime Minister, whether Foreign Affairs will look out for the interests of the Australian travelling public.

The cost of David Hicks incarceration is too high and the circumstances of his plea bargain are very tawdry. The Australian government are the biggest losers in this whole affair.

Many people sense that there are bigger issues at stake here than just Hicks and they are right. These dictatorial methods will be used for wider layers, who oppose the criminal methods of privatization, the industrial relations laws, and Howards "indefinite war in the Pacific." Hicks in that sense is 'first cab off the rank'to be followed by many more. The media is playing a filthy role in preparing the backward culture required to quasi-legalize and sanitize torture, as well as the abrogation of all and any legal rights.

Incredibly, after denying Hicks the most elementary legal rights to which he is entitled to as a prisoner of war, including the right to challenge his custody in a public court. Denied the most basic right to know what he is charged with. Subject to 5 years of systematic torture from the bully boys, including drugs, solitary confinement and chained to the floor. Scouring the law books looking for some catch all charge the US administration came up with “providing material support for terrorism.” After living life underground Hicks is desperate to resume a normal life. All the legal travesties stacked against Hicks violate the Geneva Conventions and basic legal principles that have evolved over centuries.
National Party MP Barnaby Joyce summarized the process: “One of the many reasons why the law disapproves of prolonged incarceration without charge or trial is because of the intolerable pressure it places on the accused to plead guilty just to escape detention... The only thing that is guilty here is the judicial process under which he was being tried.”
Here is a sick travesty of justice. The larger organization the Taliban came out of, the US administration under Bush senior created and funded to the tune hundreds of millions of dollars in the 1970’s and 1980’s. They would tell us, that is not "providing material support for terrorism."

When Hicks raised his gun to fight against his own countrymen who in other circumstances could have been any of our sons or daughters he committed treason. Those who commit treason should be exiled to the country of their new loyalty.

This reminds me of the outpouring of grief for princess Diana a woman who people didnt even know except through photographs in the media. In a faceless society where people dont even know who lives next door to them if they see someone's photo in the media often enough they start to feel as if they know them and feel sympathy for them even if they dont really know them from a bar of soap.

We saw this in action recently with people feeling sorry for Saddam Hussein when he was executed but no sympathy at all for the thousands of people he gased to death and tortured, because their photos werent in the magazines and papers frequently enough for people to bond with them.

I will add two words to this argument about terrorists and legality:

"Jerry Adams"

IF its not about Hicks...what is it about ? err..what is "IT" ?

Seamus re-assures us that his political credentials are in order by underlining that he and others are simply using Hicks to damage the Howard Government. In other words, it is a shameless use of a human being for political advantage.

If we want to 'damage' Howard and his government, there are plenty of legitimate ways of doing it..This is NOT one of them.

"Is Hicks guilty" ? is a stupid and irrelevant question !

A US patrol in France brings back a German soldier captured during fighting "Is he guilty" ? GOOD GRIEF ! how stupid can some questions be !

Ok.. lets put him on trial ? Lets 'weigh the evidence' about his actual intentions (when he was guarding the Tiger Tank) duh.. what a load of rot.

In Germany.. a man in civilian clothing with a gun is guarding a Tiger Tank.. hmmm is he 'guilty' ? of what ? only one thing .. BEING OUR ENEMY !
Thus, you shoot him on the spot..or.. you take him prisoner and he ROTS in your POW camp until fighting is finished.

So, all those trying to make this about HOWARD, or about BUSH, a pox on you..in my view you are simply amoral political opportunists who care nothing about Hicks and everything about getting a bigger slice of the Australian political/ecomomic cake by getting your mob elected next time. I'm guessing some of you are "consultants" who are drooling over the possibility of the next 'expensive bit of advice' you can gouge out of a government more of your liking.

But hey..its easy, its not "your" mother or sister or daughter who the Taliban raped. You are far removed from the realities of which Hicks/Dawood was a part. Make no mistake.. the Taliban WOULD have RAPED because Islam allows it. Surah 23:5-6

If you want to damage Howard, try "economic rationalism".

I believe that Hicks forwent his claim to Aus rights when he left Aus to join another countries military forces. His feelings must have been strong as he left a wife and kids to do this.

In the recent Isreali/Lebanon conflict we had Isreali Aussies fighting Lebanese Aussies. Would it not be wise to put in laws that people forgo ALL Aussie rights and privliages if they elect to join forces of another country, without our sanctions.

Hicks does not get much empathy from me. He made the situation for himself and his treatment is a matter for the Yanks, not us.

People should be reminded that this case is still not over and may not be as clear cut as it is being portrayed.

These are the specific charges that have been laid against Hicks.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20070301hicks.pdf

Although he pleads guilty to the overall charge, both sides are debating the accuracy of each of these points listed and several of the items are still being challenged.

There is more information to come next week but from the degree of reactionary indignation in the community, I don't expect any of it will change anybodys mind either way.

People made up their mind about this long ago and use the result for self-justification of their own prejudices, no matter what side they take.

Truth (like beauty) may be in the eye of the beholder and is selective and this applies to the Legal system as well as personal beliefs.

For example, you could say that - as for being some sort of hero, he's not in the same league as that other convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela or that famous wife-beater Gandhi.

You could also say that he's not much different from those other Australians who may go to fight for Lebanon or join the Israeli Army.

You cannot seperate Hicks from the colonial and illegal occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as a part of US plans for global hegemony.Afghanistan was vital for the unchecked looting of Caspian Basin oil resources. Its capacity will be about one million barrels per day, significant in itself, moreso when combined with Iraqi and Irani oil. There is also significant supplies of gas involved. Crude Oil trading too has become the resource with the most salient profit potential wielding massive returns. With the colonial invasions and looting there are virtually no costs involved for a select few US oil cartels as the public pay for the war through taxes. Then the oil companies reap the crude refine it and sell it to the public at the bowser at an exorbitant price. The tax dollar reinforces and buttresses the arrangement. But the US plans to monopolize the worlds oil supply destabilizes production relations and heightens the potential for conflict among rival major powers. Hicks was detained illegally and caught up in all of this. Iraq is about looting the resources and economy but Howard does not have a different agenda for here. The anti terrorism laws are going to be aimed at workers and any political opposition.

=>"He was a mercenary" (Marlo, 29-Mar-2007 5:13:42 PM)
A mercenary is a soldier for hire. Hicks was not a mercenary.

=> "convicted terrorist Nelson Mandela"? (wobbles, 30-Mar-2007 9:29:18 AM)
From some online research Nelson Mandela was convicted on charges of, leading workers to strike, leaving the country illegally, sabotage, conspiracy, crimes equivilant to treason. Therefore, Nelson Mandela was not a convicted terrorist.

=> "famous wife-beater Gandhi"? (wobbles, 30-Mar-2007 9:29:18 AM)
I cannot find anything on the net which says Gandhi was a
wife-beater, except for unattributed/unsourced comments
added to discussion forums and blogs.

=>"When Hicks [fought] against his own countrymen ... he committed treason." (sharkfin 29-Mar-2007 11:07:38 PM)
Hicks was not charged with treason. Did he fight against his own countrymen (ie Australians) anyway?

While it's true that Mandela was not convicted for a specific act of terrorism (only planning one), he was considered a terrorist by Margaret Thatcher and Reagan opposed a 1986 Congressional resolution calling on South Africa's apartheid regime to release Mandela and recognise the African National Congress (which was considered a terrorist organisation).
In fact, he helped establish the ANC's terrorist arm called Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) which continued waging terrorist attacks with arson, political murder and robberies. Despite requests , he never publicly renounced the use of violence to achieve political ends.

Many of the unflattering stories relating to Gandhi's relationship with his wife and family come from his own (historian) granddaughter and from his son's biography.

Nevertheless, despite any personal flaws they may have had, they are probably the two greatest men of their age.

David Latimer, "Did he fight against his own countrymen".

When you fly with the crows you get shot down with the crows. (Bjelke Petersen made this very true statement).

David Hicks flew with the crows;in my book that makes him one of them.

How do you prove that any of the Japanese soldiers captured in the Islands to the north by our soldiers in World War 2 actually raised his gun against the Australians. You cant; but they were flying with the crows when the battle was being fought.

johncee1945, You still rereading those old issued of Pravda or have you turned to the new tabloid Pravda for your communist fix. Hicks was a workers hero who was caught up in the valiant struggle to free the masses from the capitalist grasp.

If you had any real convictions you'd join al-Qeada to defeat the horribly spoiled lifestyle you live with all the perks and presents thanks to capital investment. Git in yer GI Joe Jumper styled by Gucci and fly the latest jetliner to Afghanistan and emulate your hero Hicks.
Don't forget your Australian passport. Hurray the left has a hero.

wobbles
I agree with you about Mandela ( cant help but like the guy!)
But what about his mate ( that other darling of the left) Robert Mugabe -shame on you , you left him off your list…

I don't think David Hicks is anybodies hero, at the very best he has been very stupid. In all the material that I have heard or read he has not hurt any individual. Nobody deserves to be treated in the way he has, regardless of what they have done.
He has pleaded guilty to supporting terrorism but under the circumstances that is no surprise, he virtually had no choice.

David Hicks has been gagged in relation to how he has been treated; it amounts to an admission by the US Military Kangaroo Court system that he has been treated in an abhorrent manner

Hicks could be held to end of hostilities.
From all reports the war continues.

So what else is there to argue about ?
No trial was needed. Beats me why they bothered with a trial.
POWs were held for 6 years up to 1945.
Some of the people compared the US to Hitler Mussolini and Stalin.
I suggest you look to see how long Stalin held POWs.
Try up to 20 years AFTER the war.
So don't shout at us calling us idiots. A little contemplation of your
own attitude may help you to understand.

It certainly raises some interesting dilemma's for our society. David Hicks has become the pin up boy for the press and media generally. In doing so they are exercising a freedom of speech which is a foundation of our society. It has caused great concern here but hardly rated a mention in the US. The US population have accepted that in fighting the asymmentric tactics of terrorism, certain personal freedoms will have to be compromised; Australians haven't accepted that requirement. David Hicks raises the fundamental question of whether we change our institutions to protect them or whether we adhere to these institutions / values and possibly compromise our ability to defend againts the asymmetric threat of terrorism. Only time will tell which course the electorate will take but for the time being, all Australian governments are on notice, that they should not erode our institutions as a responce to this ill defined threat - not yet anyway.