Oh, come off it, Bill.

Let's reduce the rhetoric and look at this carefully.

Point number one: Nobody except Hicks actually knows what he did or did not do, or whether he is (or was) actually a terrorist. The reason for this is that there have been no findings of fact in an open court, and that admissions he has made have been palpably made in the context of (and most likely in response to) duress ranging from the relatively mild (lights on 24/7) to the much more aggressive (see the recent discussion about interrogation techniques). So, while I don't necessarily believe the "careless adventurer" story, the reality is that there are no credible facts on the table making him a terrorist either. There are, in fact, no credible facts at all - which means, Bill, you are leaping to conclusions just as badly as those you criticise.

Point number two: Regardless of what he may or may not have done (and remember, Bill, you have no more of an idea than I do about that), it is simply not just for a person to be locked away in a place such as Guantanamo, with no charges, no rights, no visits, in solitary confinement for years. We would not treat rapists or child molesters that way - why? Are they somehow more morally worthy than Hicks? Really? Truly?

I do not lionise Hicks. He is at worst a terrorist, and at best a complete doofus. But none of that made it OK for Australia or our ally to hold him in prison for five years without charge. He may have done wrong to others, Bill, but we did wrong to him.

Anthony

This is a fine example of what bothers me about the rhetoric that comes from the fringes of both ends of the political spectrum.

Step 1) focus on the stupid arguments, ignoring the valid ones.

Step 2) treat the fringe minority as the majority, using the tactics employed in Step !

Step 3) this allows you to paint your ideological opponents as extremists or idiots, or both.

Step 4) then present your own views as a palatable alternative, making them look less extreme, and the other arguments as way out there.

For starters, Mr Muehlenberg - as Anthony Marinac pointed out, many of us believe Hicks was somewhere between a fool and a terrorist. Certainly not a hero.
I for one, think the emotional use of childhood pictures was a disgusting ploy. If I could find some nice childhood pictures of Osama, would that make him a nicer person?

That being said - our system of justice relies on having to fit everybody. That means that regardless of what an individual is charged with, you can't start punishing them until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt they are guilty.
This applies to pedophiles, rapists and murderers. No matter how much we hate them, we still need to ensure a proper process.

This article is codswallop. Poor reasoning, even poorer writing.

So, that triumph of market capitalism, the "get rich quick" scheme, is the fault of lefty intellectuals. Crikey.

Right on, Bill I bet if we kept him in a bit longer we'd crack him, and we would find out finally who killed Jimmy Hoffer!
Hicks has got greater punishment then some of the guards that pushed Jews into gas chambers. This is just some plain old right wing dishonesty here by this teacher of ethics.
I just find it funny that many on the right think Hicks deserves less right’s then what we gave the Nazis leaders? This war on terror will be this the US war on Drugs pain and misery to the little people while the big fish walk free.

Anthony
I find it strange to be honest that we are somehow in denial that we are at war. I'll repeat..WAR. No, its not trench lined up against trench, nor huge battles in Tobruk or Kokoda, but there is a force at work against us which is as dark as the darkest of our worst enemies.

FACTS (not disputed)
-Hicks was in Afghanistan.
-He was handed to the Americans by the Northern Alliance.
-The NA claimed they captured him while guarding a Taliban Tank.
-NA are allies of Australia and the USA in the War against radical Islamists in Afghanistan.
-Hicks became a Muslim.
-Hicks has been photographed holding a rocket launcher with Islamists.
-Hicks 'enlisted' in Al Qaeda. ? (may be in dispute)

NOW this is the part where my head explodes when people talk about 'findings of fact in an open court'.

Hicks is lucky the NA didn't shoot him on the spot. How in the world can any such person be put on 'trial' under these circumstances. Are we going to call NA witnesses, transport them across the seas and house them for the duration of a possibly tedious long trial ?
Would Taliban witnesses (crucial to the case) be forthcoming about his true status ? No.....would they show up as witnesses for the prosecution ? No....

Imagine if we had 50 such people.. or a 100 ? each with different circumstances.

I think this is more a case of:

-Lawyers trying to raise their profile and make money.
-Left wing lawyers and politicians trying to damage Howard via Hicks.

To put it bluntly, it stands out like dogs testicles on a grasshopper.

SOLUTION. Hicks should renounce Islam and denounce Al Qaeda, then free him. (let history take it's course thereafter)

Bill's article is I hope a set of massive exagerations.
From what I've seen I doubt that Hicks has the smarts to be stage managed enough to cope with numerous interviews without putting his foot in fairly deeply. I think those who currently regard him as some kind of rightous cause will have some significant issues when confronted with the reality of someone who appeared to regard the Talliban as an ideal government.

Someone who chose to go and fight on behalf of a government which promoted a far less just system than anything Hicks has experienced, a government which executed people for breaches and alleged breaches of sexual morals, a government that blew up important religious monuments of other faiths. More than a dupe, someone who actively fought on the side of repression.

Time to seperate out Hicks from the wrong done by in Cuba (and other places). Yes the promotion of the case against what the the US has done is easier with a victim we feel some sympathy for. Portrayal of Hicks as a victim is likely to backfire badly unless the beliefs that lead him to the Talliban in the first place have changed significantly.

What the US has done in Cuba and elsewhere is a danger to how justice is practiced. Opposition to incarceration without trial, trial without fair representation etc are too important to be dependant on someone who chose the Talliban as a cause worth fighting for.

R0bert

This is such poor writing. Lacks balance, is poorly researched, begins in speculation and concludes in hysteria.

Based on supposition that David Hicks has lucrative media deals on the go, Bill Muehlenberg goes overboard. The 'malignant left' (cliches masquerading as facts) has made David Hicks into 'an international cause célèbre'. Not a mention of the tragically inept handling of the case by the Americans and the Howard government. Had they acted with due diligence from the outset I daresay most Australians would never have heard of Hicks or would have forgotten him long since.

'In an age of spin doctoring,' says Muelenberg, 'the Left has become expert at turning the truth inside out.' Only the left, the malignant left, has a monopoly of spin in the Hicks case?

The fact is that many commentators who sharply criticise the bungling of the Hicks case make a strong point of their contempt for Hicks's association with Islamic fundamentalists. Muehlenberg ignores this condemnation of Hicks by those who also condemned Hicks's treatment and the 'trial' process. Instead he turns the case into a black/white, right/wrong scenario where 'radical Westerners' and 'Western intellectualoids' are pro-terrorist and anti-'everything we hold dear in the West'. You wouldn't expect to get this tripe in an undergraduate essay.

Muehlenberg's fantasy on Hicks's 'Triumphal Entry' is the product of a fevered imagination. Muehlenberg gives us Hicks as ALP recruit, movie hero, national living treasure, member of the Order of Australia, celebrity ABC interviewee (no Channel 9?), canonised by 'liberal/left churches' (even a Saint Hicks day). And invited sermons by Hicks on how Jesus was a terrorist and George Bush the anti-Christ.

Muehlenberg sees Hicks becoming a multimillionaire with his tell-all book contracts, gossip mag stories, and TV interviews (where would the ABC get the $$s for that, Mr Muehlenberg?). In Muehlenbergland, "it pays to be a self-confessed terrorist".

After this rant by Muehlenberg, his claim that 'the Left has become expert at turning the truth inside out' looks a little partisan. Has he been hoisted on his own petard?

Well who has credibility? A right wing christian "family values" fella who believes in dad, mum, kids and white picket fence or emminent QCs who publicly complain that the trial of David Hicks is a travesty of justice that damages Australia's legal system.

"how quickly it came"? It has taken five years.
"saying Hicks could make millions"? O.K. you are jealous of your fantasy of wealth which Hicks does not have and is unlikely to ever have. But it is your fantasy, I only question why do you fantasize about this.
"malignant Left" - so in your mind anyone following your leadership must be called a "Lefty" "Commo" "Pinko"
"turn David Hicks into an international cause célèbre"? - NO, that would be George W Bush and his conduct of "war" against an imaginary nation of radical Islam who have turn Hick's into a "célèbre".
"blame America and Australia" ... "are the bad guys" - NO, not America or Australia, just the idiots who decided to elevate Osama bin Laden to the level of nation-hood by declaring "war" against him and what must be his Islamic nation. Yes, the SANE thing was to send the POLICE after criminals, supported if needed such as against the Taliban by the military, but it was and is very stupid to pretend Osama or any other criminals are soldiers of some invisible Islamic nation.

The Islamic people I know and have had dinner with are like most people decent civilised people; I can not say the same about the way John Howard has applied double standards against the Australian citizens he does not like, he is quite un-Australian. David Hicks may have been a guileless dope, but he did not break any Australian law, did not break the law of the country he was in, did not shoot at or aid the shooting of any Americans or Australians.

George Bush's statement that everybody at Gitmo were murderers who had killed Americans, was a lie. Australia should be a better friend than to allow America to continue its delusions of fear.

dissapointing post - read better on the back of a shopping docket....try again with some facts buddy.

It would be very unrealistic to cast George Clooney or Tim Robbins as Hicks, they look nothing like him. Sean Penn might do alright. I wouldn't make Charlie Sheen his dad either, he's a bit young. Martin Sheen would be the wiser choice.
As for Hicks, maybe Leo DiCaprio or Matt Damon?

ps. this article is stupid

I wonder whether Bill would change his tune if Hicks joined Opus Dei ...

Hicks is Filth. Although Bill does get a bit carried away he has a valid point when saying a self confessed terrorist like Hicks is going to make a bucket load of cash from his attempts to turn the West into an Afghan like state in which barbarism is a celebrated part of everyday life.

Go back to Afghanistan and die Hicks nobody wants you hear you are an embarrassment to Australia.

I wish RightThinkers would do some actual research, you know beyond reading Ministers press releases and rehearsing to Alan Jones. Very few think Hicks himself is anything special, how would anyone know when he has been buried in a box for five years? (of course Bill Muehlenberg doesn't support any of his claims with evidence - how very modern of him).

What this gay-whale-loving-red-under-the-bed is concerned about is not Hicks The TShirt but the rule of law. That the Howard government has no problem with a citizen being sold by drug traffickers (the Northern Alliance), flown off for torture (Egypt?), and then kept drugged in a gulag (as Amnesty International described Guantanamo Bay) for over five years is despicable, and no amount of 'WooOOO BE AFRAID!!' will change that.

Scare mongering on a threat that has killed less people than falls in baths will win him many friends in the arms/death industry, but doesn't it give comfort to the enemy? Not if the Rule of Law is RightThinks real enemy.

If Hicks is Abu Muslim al-Austraili or Muhammed Dawood, he would be more interested in blowing things up rather than making money through relating his experience as a terrorist. But if he is David Hicks again, welcome home. He was, after all, mislead by the teachings of Islam.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-no-longer-a-muslim-exdetainee/2006/06/23/1150845378125.html

Bill

Congratulations you have exceeded all expectations. The obvious blatant errors in your article can only make me feel you are auditioning for the Chaser's War On Everything.

Good luck in your Doctoral Thesis, you're going to need it.

From what we have noticed about Hicks over the last five or so years, could say he seems to have been like an over-adventurous nut-case like the ones joining the French Foreign Legion in older days.

Our Eighth Divvy Aussies fought against them in Syria during WW2, just odds and sods similar to Hicks apparently desperate to escape, having been knocked back even by the local easy-touch Sheila or such like.

By using country boy, Hicks, Bush, Howard and Blair were evidently out to prove something symbolic as justification for the war they have been consistently losing, despite George Dubya having the most powerful military establishment ever - on call.

But pity they did not pick a better subject than a silly someone like Hicks, especially for our ultra-right wingers, who with their rotten rhetoric are far more damaging for peace in our world than any a Hicks would ever be.

Spot on Bushbred.
.

Bill, David Hicks signed a gag order for twelve months media silence. He also signed away any rights to profit from his story.

You’ve overlooked these points entirely!

These were ‘requirements’ by the military commission in order for him to be released or to get the small additional sentence that he has received. They should not have been part of the commission’s role. But now that they are secured in writing, they will be ‘honoured’ by the Australian government and legal system.

Some basic principles:

Once he’s done his time, the slate should be clear.

He should have full freedom of speech.

He should be able to profit from this saga, once the slate is cleared. His profits would be in line with the level of community interest, in just the same way the Beaconsfield miners profited. Todd Russell and Brant Webb didn’t do anything good for the community or anything smart in a business sense in order to secure those profits, they won them purely via extraordinary circumstances. The same should apply for Hicks.

The proceeds of crime argument should not prevail, as he had no intent to profit from what he did in Afghanistan, and he would not be winning those profits by committing a crime or an extension of wrongs committed, but rather by addressing the enormous public interest in the case.

The level of interest has been generated predominantly by the appallingly antidemocratic treatment he received in Guantanamo. There is a far graver level of wrongdoing here than Hicks exercised. If he had been tried and convicted or released early on, interest in his story and profits gained it would been far less.

I would argue that he should be paid for interviews, book and movie rights and anything else that is in the public interest. (But I do think that payments for this sort of thing, including to the Beaconsfield miners, are too exorbitant).

Bill I don’t think your article sits at all well with your position as a lecturer in ethics!

What is this? Pick on the Author day?

Bill's gone to so much trouble to write this sensible, realistic, well-informed, non-partisan article for us and most commenters are rubbishing him for it. Shameful behaviour.

Now I'm off to feed my unicorn.

I'm actually extremely disappointed in this article. The arguments are based on false assumption which can only lead to an incorrect conclusion. Furthermore, the level of hyperbole used towards the end is astounding.

Whilst the Beaconsfield miners experience was appalling, I don't recall any incarceration without trial, or deliberate treatment contravening the Geneva Conventions from a superpower which used to maintain, and still claims a moral high ground. I suppose the link is the black hole they were stuck in: Hick's legal black hole & the miner's physical black hole, both parties without means of escape. Would that be it or is it really simple case of a non-sequitur?

Binary thinking is used in the article which clouds the ability to see the whole picture. Clearly, you regard yourself on the right side, and all agreeing views are definitively correct without question. Of course, following is all contrary opinions are nothing but 'spin doctoring' from the 'malignant left', which is actually identified as such by it’s contrary opinion.

One wonders if they senior intelligence expert's statement was true & supported, along with all the other strong evidence against Hicks, why wasn't it used in a standard court of law? The entire Hicks debacle wouldn’t exist. There would have been no 5 years of incarceration without trial. There would be no suggestion of torture to elicit intelligence & confessions, and there would be no downward slide of the moral, ethical & legal high ground the U.S. is facing globally.
I have heard no-one yet produce a reason why standard legal procedure needed to be binned with such an allegedly strong, clear-cut case.

In addition, this article claiming, without any comprehension or actual knowledge, that Hick’s future would be just fabulous and offset any previous suffering he has experienced. This cheapens the effect of incarceration without trial, let alone allegations of mistreatment. I'm thinking the statement provides more insight about the writer’s view that money can make you happy than anything about Hicks.

There is no point even touching on any of the rest. It is mere ranting & hyperbole.

I am appalled that this person purports to teach ethics in a theological college (I can't imagine what sort of education his students are getting) and that he purports to be doing a PHD at Deakin. (Will Deakin take on anyone for money?) The current state of moral philosophy in Australian Universities is worse than I thought.

I am also deeply concerned that the editors of 'online' permitted the publication of this article. It is simply a diatribe. It is not even factually correct. It is part of the conditions of Mr Hick's release that he does not profit from his story.

i'm used to reading venomous and dishonest posts from those who hate david hicks (which is the only real hating at issue here). but it's quite a shock to read such disgraceful, untruthful, nasty and pointless rhetoric from a purported lecturer in philosophy and ethics. muehlenberg's classes must be an intellectual feast.

Well, if you agree with the authors take on the Hick's saga or not, he does raise an interesting point. Will the Left drop their darling and native hero before he hits Sydney Harbour or will they cling long enough to milk the final vestige of "the right is the enemy of justice" rant that they used Hicks to perpetuate. Much of the Left of Centre politicos got off their knees in adoration once the process for the Military Tribunal was finalized. There has only really been one fellow adamant in carrying the hero worship to the extreme and attacking Howard non stop, and I doubt he is going to be elected to run the country. Then again I'm probably wrong. He holds and plays the emotional cards and Australians like to think of themselves as victims of something. It's a national competition of sorts. Mostly out of sorts. :-)
I can hardly contain my excitement while I wait for the next "Heroic Victim" to be raised up for public consumption. It's just so Romanesque, big, masculine (even the women) Gladiators battling for who will direct our emotions. God, I hope they make a David Hicks coin or a stamp at least.

I think that this is the worst essay I have read on On Line Opinion, and embarrassed that its author is a doctoral candidate at an Australian university.

An illuminating argument.

Apparently, if you try to uphold the right of an Australian - any Australian - to be tried fairly in another country, you are some kind of left-wing loony.

Also, it appears, by attempting to bring common sense into the argument on the right to a fair trial, you are some kind of terrorist-lover who by definition puts the David Hicks of this world on a heroic pedestal.

What a wacky world.

Populated, clearly, by people whose idea of the unvarnished, self-evident truth is Fox News.

Who believe that if you are arrested, you must be guilty - totally at ease with the concept that this state of affairs only holds true in a police state.

The article is quite shameless in its pandering to its audience, who respond so quickly and vehemently to its dog-whistle.

I disagree with matilda, though.

>>I am also deeply concerned that the editors of 'online' permitted the publication of this article.<<

It is vitally important that articles such as this continue to be published. Free speech, and the right of the individual to access it, is one of the last bastions of our civilization. Reading such unstructured ravings is the price we have to pay, and I for one am happy to fork out for it.

I'd rather hear the detail of their arguments, such as they are, all the better to hone my own.

The thought of David Hicks making millions in Australia from reminiscing about his criminal activities must be music to the ears of other Australian ex patriot criminals. Perhaps there are a few pedophiles ready to tell of their criminal exploits for a price. I wonder how much they might get?

I think Don Aitkin is right, although I can remember one other article that was an absolute shocker too.

Interesting contrast in responses to the same article by Bill Muehlenberg on his own web site:
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/04/01/how-to-make-millions-by-hating-the-west/

There he's pumping out the old dualisms - devil/god; them/us; liars/truthtellers; left/right. He's milking the line that the Left is a 'sour and humourless' lot going 'absolutely ballistic' with 'plenty of hatred and venom being poured out' in OLO comments.

Apparently, if you disagree with Bill, you are part of that 'sour and humourless' Left. If you agree with Bill you are part of the Right which 'still has a sense of humour'.

But I don't think he gets his own joke when he maintains that 'the Left has become expert at turning the truth inside out'.

This article and the various responses gladden my heart. The crunch is, surely, not whether the article was over the top and contained not too funny humour. Neither does it matter that some of the resposes are rather excited, perhaps even a bit personal and also over the top.
What does matter this that we all have the right in our society to speak out, to be candid, to express our opinions, to bawl at the government if we feel like it etc. So to the author and all the critics I offer my thanks because you have all demonstrated the inner strength of our system.
Mr Hicks mixed with, consorted with people whose objectives are to produce a society which, being theocratic, would be entirely contrary to what has been shown in this article and responses.
To me Hicks represents a thinking which I reject outright. Hence I am unable to have any sympathy for him at all.
Again thankyou to all of you.

Each and every attacker of the author has used the same old leftist strategy; deconstruct the argument and the arguer. It's not David Hicks per se that evokes such foaming at the mouth but rather the idea that someone would dare to put forward the idea that...wait for it...Justice was done...*gasp* He deserved five/six years in jail and more; that he actually got off quite lightly and that actually the US with this generous offer, has relinquished their chance to actually go through the long list of Hicks' treasonous actions and see real justice done. Actually real justice, as one contributor has pointed out would have been a well-placed bullet instead of the handcuffs as was the military's right in this war.
Or, alternatively, we could just hand him over to India if you don't like our legal system and let him be tried for his crimes against their citizens just like our other Aussies who transgressed the laws of other states and are suffering the consequences.

I can’t wait till the C I A releases the Mohammad Dawood History files;
Especially the one that names him a Whale killer and an animal genocidal maniac; and the Neurotic change created an Islamic Terrorist.
I want the video footage rights of the Leftoids lobotomized bouncing around in their rubber rooms extraordinarily violently.
We the living just hope they get the Hertz frequency correct.
The Horror, The Horror.
Ha

I guess that is something we did not know, and besides, India is applying for Dawoods extradition to face charges of war crimes in Cashmere.

All the money in the world will not save him.
25 cents would have saved all this drama and disappointment.

I'm Barraking for India.

I must admit that I was flippant in my previous post because I thought that Bill Muehlenberg's article was rubbish.

To respond to his support group (welcome to OLO). Bill has spent at least 15 years in his crusade, he is in the vanguard of the fundamentalist right wing Christian movement in Australia, he is entitled to his views, but so am I.

His Christian theocracy is not all that different from Hick's Muslim theocracy.

His culture wars and not dissimilar from bin ladens.

I find his ethics immoral, his views hurt others, and his methods deceitful.

Bill is the kind of person we need to worry about when the political pendulum swings back to the left, whenever that eventually happens.

Bill your regular blog readers have advised you to tone things down, you belatedly say you were being facetious. I find this about as objectionable as it can get. You have the intellegence and wit to portray your facetious intent in the original article, you did not. You respond to your blog comments, but do not have the testicles to respond here.

Even with a centre right federal govt. you have achieved nothing. 15 years of hot air, how demoralising.

Culturewatch? Sorry your benefactors are on the path to oblivion, so are you. :)

Hi to you Bill, and all the other Correspondents...

Wow, as usual you've certainly managed to stir up a hornet's nest !
However, I must confess that I totally agree with your sentiments though Bill, in principle at least. As you've stated herein, the David HICKS issue has certainly managed to be turned into a cause celebre, and possibly a major election topic too.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the draw, but my understanding is that - he is a confessed terrorist; and was caught in the company of terrorists, and when caught, was armed with an RPG with ordinance.

I guess if we'd apprehended Mr. Hicks, in South Vietnam, all those years ago, and in exactly the same circumstances, the issue of a trial, military commission, or whatever, wouldn't be an issue ?

From a purely personal perspective. I must say categorically - within the small group of Vets that I generally hang 'round with, Mr Hicks would not have received ANY compassion or appropbation from any of them, I would suggest.

I know that most contributors, would not share any of my views or opinions. And I've often been described as an ol' Dinosaur by my many critics. I can't help how I feel folks. Therefore I will not make, nor offer any apology. In my humble view, Mr Hicks is an absolute disgrace to his family and to his country (wherever it may be, Australia or England?). My heart goes out to Mr.Terry HICKS, his father. Imagine for a moment, the absolute shame he must feel, apropos his son. As I said, he was very lucky that he was caught in the Pakistan/Afghanistan region, in the years of the 'two thousands', and not in South Vietnam, in the mid sixties. Cheers...sungwu

Eyejaw, yes its nice that we still have the freedom to voice our opposition to the illegal treatment of Hicks, but its cold comfort when doing so rarely makes a difference.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians marched against the (most recent) invasion of Iraq, and still Howard went, the press and Labor backing him. 650,000+ dead Iraqi's later and our Prime Miniature still says an exit plan is 'letting the terrorists win'. And we let him.

I think Hicks is the red herring to keep our minds of the genocide being carried out in our names in Iraq. One good thing out of Saddams downfall: they hang war criminals, don't they Mr Howard? (even if they're just US puppets)

For God's sake, when will you guys accept it: this is not about Hicks and it is not the "left" who is concerned, unless you define the left in australia as 70% of the population. it is a concern for an open and honest and moral judicial process. it is a concern that just because some enemies of the west are barbarians, that we ourselves do not become barbaric. that's it.

stop it with this inane left-right labelling. and stop pretending anybody regards hicks as a hero or a saint or a sacred cow. it is patently absurd straw-man nonsense.

Ludwig, it is generally accepted that it is bad to be able to profit from your crimes (otherwise it's like having an incentive to commit crime). The Beaconsfield miners weren't guilty of crimes, Hicks is. That's the difference, and that's why the miners should be allowed to profit from their story, and not Hicks.

This was the worst article I have ever read on OLO.
Just rubbish.
Editors- what were you thinking?
Hicks is a very real and fertile subject at the moment. Eagerly have I been awaiting a professional and incisive article dealing with this... instead we get Muehlenberg's vacuous and base polemic (or if we are to believe him- facetious humour).

Some of his comments from his site
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/04/01/how-to-make-millions-by-hating-the-west/

"Was I being facetious here? Did I exaggerate? Did I overstate the case? Were these rhetorical devices? Yes to all… Sometimes the silliness and moral vacuity of the other side’s arguments seem to warrant such polemics – but not always."

"Yes it is clearly risky business trying to use a bit of humour on sacred icons such as Saint Hicks: the peace-loving Left goes absolutely ballistic. Plenty of hatred and venom being poured out in these comments. The Left does seem to be a pretty humourless and sour bunch."

and finally

"I of course was being facetious, but the Left has little time for such things. Whether he makes a penny or not is not my main concern. My real concern is how so many on the Left are seeking to make him into a hero, while demonizing the American and Australian governments."

Muehlenberg's real concern (as stated above) may just (if he actually put in just a little scholarly effort and integrity) have made for base level tabloid opinion piece.
What he presented was a self-righteous troll and little more. A deliberately insulting attack at not only OLO and what it stands for, but specifically, genuine intellectual discourse on the Hicks matter itself.

OLO- please get your act together. There are plenty of other places on the net to wallow in this level of intellectual drivel. I, and I am sure many others, come here hoping and expecting so much more.

Hans.

0 Sung Wu

Interesting bunch of friends you have and yes we get your point but it probably went over `some heads.`

Yes its a war and yes he was picked up in a war zone in another country.

Here is other another theory.

1 The USA just kept him as a prisoner of war for fun?

2 The guys who picked Hicks up had nothing better to do?

3 He wasnt really in a war zone fighting against us- its all lies?

4 He wasnt there at all but kidnapped from a tourists trip/

5 They got the wrong guy?

6 He has a look alike and its a huge mistake?

7 USA just wanted to lock up one of their best friends cizs to make things run better?.

8 George Bush had the humps with Australia and said- Go get me an Aussie?

9 Hicks mother and father lied and he didnt convert to Muslim and say he was going to FIGHT for Islam?



How about a bit of loyalty for your country ladies and gentleman- War is not treated the same as a B and E for goodness sake.
Cival laws dont apply- thank goodness.

Terry Hicks said on tv the other night
Quote. "I dont care if hes guilty or not?"
Great just great and some nutter wanted to make him father of the year.!

Thanks 0Sung Wu and dont everleave Australia please.
We need sensible fair minded Aussies.

Rumplestiltskin,

Actually, my post opposing Bill (it's the first one) did none of the things you suggested. I made no personal comments about the author, and the only comments I made about Hicks himself were hardly laudatory.

I actually did exactly as you suggested, and argued the toss as to whether justice was done. And I maintain that, because there were confessions under duress, an absence of open justice in an open courtroom, and a five year detention without charge, justice was not done.

In addition, I am really struggling to understand why I am suddenly a member of the loony left for arguing that 1. Justice delayed is justice denied; 2. Justice should be open and conducted in public; 3. Justice should be conducted in accordance with fair rules of evidence, and 4. the Australian government should support not abandon those facing overseas judicial systems.

Which of those proposals are leftist in nature? Honestly, they all look very conservative to me.

It seems the author may have retreated to the "I was only joking" defence. Maybe so, but if so, it was a poor joke in poor taste.

Anthony

“Ludwig, it is generally accepted that it is bad to be able to profit from your crimes…”

It is not that simple Volition.

The magnitude of the story has got a hell of a lot more to do with the antics of Bush, Cheney et al than it does with Hicks. Their utterly disgusting antidemocratic treatment of him has become his story. Without this he wouldn’t have much of a story to tell at all, there would far less public interest and his potential for profit would be minimal.

Perhaps the Australian government or legal system should declare that he can only keep 99.5% of monies earned from telling his story. That would be about right I reckon – 0.5% guilt on his part and the rest laid directly on Bush, when we consider the whole saga.

But of course he would need to get around the disgusting ‘no profit’ statement first, that the military commission forced him to sign as part of his light additional sentence.

If you check out Bills blog Culture Watch you will find that one of the ideas that he celebrates and advocates is the so caled "Victory of Reason". A conceot much liked by many right wing "culture" warriors ---there is a book by the same name.
The trouble is Bill doesnt use "reason" in any sense whatsoever--either in this posted essay or on his Culture watch blog.
Most of his rantings are comic book cliches---full of hyperbole,emotional manipulative cliched "button" words and plain good old fashioned horse pooh.
He is a typical example of a right wing "culture" warrior---full of sound and fury and signifying nothing ---except his own self importance and cultural illiteracy.

Wow, the bleeters are out in shrill force today!
Methinks you need to get a sense of humour....
And the cardianal rule of response appears to be: don't refute the facts, attack the author- convinces every time (those with half a brain anyway)!

Bill, after reading your thesis, My Goodness, I must say things have changed in our academia.

I myself early in my retirement studied at Curtin WA, and later backed by Murdoch while taking groups in philosophical topics at Mandurah U3A.

Certainly can see Howard and Costello mixed up in your doctrine, mainly because your academic theologies are closely associated with the Hillsong Church to which our PM and his Secretary have been purported as having attended.

The danger with your doctrine, Bill, is that it is based on too much faith and not enough reason. Just as George W Bush's politics are based on faith and not enough reason.

In your studies, only hope you have learnt of St Thomas Aquinas who had the commonsense to accept elements of Socratic Reasoning which really lifted Christianity out of the Dark Ages, eventually bringing on the Ages of Reason and Enlightenment, and furthermore, the democratic themes we now live by, not adapted from Christian theology, but from Classical Greek Reasoning.

What worries us, Bill, is that some of the members of the theological ultra-right especially in America, when interviewed get a gleam in their eyes too much similar to that of a Nazi stormtrooper.

Bushbred

I don't think it will be long before you see Mr Rudd heading off to those evil Hillsong Christians. I mean fancy the 20000 or so Hillsong people worshipping God, helping the poor, promoting family values, reaching out to the street kids. I mean having an academic been involved in this malicous behaviour would be frightening.

By the way I have never been a member of Hillsong and probably don't agree with all its doctrine but the envy or venom shown by many uninformed people regarding this successful church is incredible. Maybe you would be happier if Hillsong was a church of 20 people over the age of 80 years old just hanging in there.

Sheesh. Maybe Bill's comments are over the top, but seriously, anyone caught toting guns for the other side in wartime used to be executed as a traitor. Now, some may say that's not necessarily the case, but he was caught in a foreign land fighting or at least aligned with the enemy then how can we avoid the reality of the situation - there isn't any nice spin that we can put on it. And if that's the case then why should we be expecting a legal case to be mounted in his defence - prisoners don't have legal cases - at best they rot in POW camps.

Justice. Is that the basis of your arguments? Then I would say that if it was a civilian situation and if he were not caught redhanded as it were, then maybe a miscarriage of justice worth protesting against. But that's not the case. I must be missing something here. It seems to me that he has even confessed his allegiance with our enemies for goodness sake. I can't imagine what he's gone through but he's brought it upon himself and should be glad that he's alive. He should be counting his blessings that he will get a trial, though it is such a political circus and will be more farce than anything, whatever the outcome.

Fellow Australians, let's find a more appropriate cause to defend and spend our time arguing about. There is far more injustice in this world worth caring and fighting about than asserting this foolish and/or misguided man 's personal rights over the collective rights and good of our country and its citizens which he, by his own admission, turned his back on and sought to undermine.

Em: "don't refute the facts, attack the author"

What facts? This miserable excuse for an article consists almost entirely of Muehlenburg's fantasies and suppositions.

Which is, of course, why it has been so roundly derided by those of us who have more than half a brain :)

Here we go, Bill Muehlenberg is not a 'proper academic' (Read 'he disagrees with leftist ideology and the party line)...Why would online opinion allow his opinion? er...well because it is called online opinion and not online leftist propagandist party line...Just wait til the left finally get into power...I can just imagine what you're dying to do with all we dissenters who believe that David Hicks is, in actuality, a traitor, and that, he really, truly deserves punishment, and that his short bout in prison is, unless of course you can't see that the emperor is wearing no clothes, way too short for the murderous, cowardly individual that he is.
And of course, the inevitable shrieking "It's all those Christian-Right-Extremist-Hillsong-going-non-intellectual (insert here any number of other buzzword labels you wish though I think I've covered the most popular)
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.

it's not a question of whether muehlenberg is a proper academic, it's a question of whether his article has any facts or reasoning whatsoever. if so, i simply can't see it. his post is a pointless, snide, humorless and thoroughly dishonest piece.

you hicks-haters can go on as much as you like about hicks being a traitor. it may be true, it may not be true, but your opinion regarding hicks is totally irrelevant: it simply isn't the point. any time someone wants to make a point about justice, or morality, or openness in government, or the lack of reasoning of a hicks-hating poster, you simply change the topic and whine about how evil hicks is, and how stupid the "left" is, whatever the hell the "left" means. it's so pathetic it's beneath contempt.

Can’t argue with that summary Rumplestiltskin;

You could say ; if you disagree with Leftoids, then there is a 99.99999 % chance you are correct in any found assumption.
Here we have a total demonstration that the Trope Theory and the Metaphysics of appearance, fully enacted.

Proletariat army and all.

With some of the commentary, any reasonable person would think Bill was the convicted Terrorist under Leftoid Trope theory; and Mohammad Darwood was a poor miss understood victim of Allah Indoctrination and those dastardly Christians- and dare I slip in Jews.

If anything, People will now learn about Trope Theory; have a good giggle

And the S A Labor Premier is cute in asking the department of Foreign affairs if it will be safe when Darwood is released from prison.
Fairdinkum.

Nice of 'All-' to drop in an irrelevant reference to jews in his defence of BM, "by their works shall ye know them" (RightThink parrots). But i don't think your pastor/demagog will be pleased with letting that piece of his ideology slip.

Bill Muehlenberg writes that 'the Left has become expert at turning the truth inside out.' OLO posters might be interested in truth-Muehlenberg-style. I wrote three posts on Bill's website (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/04/01/how-to-make-millions-by-hating-the-west/).

He censored one by about two-thirds, and did not publish the other two at all. Truth eh, Bill?. Bill's idea of truth is strictly limited to that which agrees with Bill's version of reality.

Bill has obviously read this thread but he chooses not to respond. His prerogative, but I find it odd. He is happy to comment on his censored blog but will not debate his supposedly facecious article here.

If he is unwilling to back his claims in an open forum. I think this indicates why so many are ridiculing him.

Come on Bill, you are better than that. Defend your assertions or face the ridicule you seem to want to provoke.

We do not need a Culture Warrior in a cowards castle, we want to debate your views. Alas I think it will not happen Hypo-Testicularitis is a sad disorder.

To Whathisname who was whining about Mr Muehlenberg not publishing your comment on his blog, you may be unaware that that's what comment moderation is for...It's quite common practice in the blogosphere to employ the device of comment moderation to block out bile-filled comments from trolls. You'll get used to it, I'm sure.
Bushbasher, the article has plenty of facts, just not the sort you like, so you employ some hackneyed leftie favoured descriptive adjectives to describe it instead. I quote: <i>pointless, snide, humorless and thoroughly dishonest</i>
Thoroughly dishonest, that's an interesting one...Isn't that the one that came into vogue when you and your team tried to con the Australian public into not voting for John Howard at the last elections?
You mention 'justice' and you want a self-confessed terrorist off the hook; you mention 'morality' and you are happy to see a deranged individual who actually talked at one point about how great it was to get the chance to hold a gun in his hand; a person who shot across the border at Indians and has said appalling things about Jews, Australians and the West in general...I guess immorality is the new morality and injustice is the new justice.
By the way, Bill's comment about Labour possibly recruiting Hicks for a candidate may not be so far from reality. If you check out Andrew Bolt's column, you will find that the Democrats in their desperation to join the new recruit-a-celebrity (as per Peter Garrett) and raise their failing election performances, have expressed an interest in that Cause Celebre and media darling, David Hicks. Now that's worth a good belly laugh.

Utter Hogwash Bill Muehlenberg. I am also ashamed that you are (if it is true) associated with lecturering anything in ethics and philosophy, or even allowed loose on learners in an Australian institution that I would otherwise respect.

Perhaps it is you who is in denial.... eh? A one who wants or needs glory, envy and or millions.

A Most Dreadful Article!

It seems anyone can lecture at a 'theological college' these days, I wonder if he gets paid for it?

I also wonder how much objectiveness one can expect from someone who believes intelligent design is intellectually rigorous?

Come to that, hey Bill, how can I land a lecturing gig? Can't be too much to it surely?

Rumpleman,

who is my team? why am i on the left? you're simply using "left" as a meaningless term of abuse, and making an ass of yourself in the process.

as for the name-calling, read the article again, and see who is really doing the name-calling here.

and as for the "facts" in the article which i don't like, choose your favourite, whichever "fact" you think i most dislike, and please point it out to me.

Why is it that those who are consistently barracking for the Left, take umbrage at being referred to as a Leftie. One could hardly refer to the Left as Centrist. And the Lefties surely don't have any issue with defaming or slagging someone with a right of centre view. What's with the double standard boys and girls?

Still with the off-topic jibes eh aqvarivs? This critic of Howard govts illegal behaviour objects to being called a Leftie because its simple wrong. I haven't voted for Labour since i was 18 and don't expect to in the future. Rudd may be less-worse than the proven liar and treasonously pro-US John Winston Howard, but only time will tell. Labour has not been a courageous defender of the Rule of Law re Hicks or any other issue and your repeated attempts to make the Hicks-Labour connection suggest either you have the beautifully simple mind of a zealot or are a pretty cunning liar yourself.

Liam, I have a beautiful mind. Thank you.

I do see that you have a propensity for lunging at pretty colours. No wonder your constantly being hooked. Fish bait.

That little dial next to the reel handle sets the amount of line drag. Crank yours down a notch or two. Your wound way to tight to ever be successful at avoiding phishing.

Muehlenberg's "six burning questions" show his agenda - David Hicks is just the cipher for Muehlenberg to deliver his anti-Labor anti-Left wing rhetoric. In the same order as his questions appear:

1. The link between the ALP and David Hicks is cheap wedge politics. Rudd has been careful to argue the cause regarding the process but not argue the cause regarding the man.

2. Hollywood lefties get a gurnsey but I prefer my lefties to be closer to home.

3. Hicks' followers have never idolised him.

4. Read the terms of Hicks' pretrial agreement. I have. Anyone who writes about him should have. He has a 12 month gag order. Profits are assigned to the Govt of Australia.

5. Oh yes, lets not forget about religion. Shame on you.

6. Again, Muehlenberg has either not read the pretrial agreement or has chosen to deliver misinformation. Either one, he has committed an inexcusable offence. Any profits Hicks may make are assigned to the Govt.

I've got a post awaiting moderation on Muehlenberg's site. I may as well reproduce it here.

I Thought I’d mention that many of the critical OLO responses aren’t from posters who you would categorize as of ‘the Left.’

Plenty of people think that Hicks was either a fool or a terrorist. While I agree with this assessment, I find your glib article offensive in it’s misleading simplicity.

Fair enough, the fringe left has gone over the top in painting hicks as some kind of hero. The majority of leftists however, are more concerned with the fact that Hicks has been tried with a system that is open to interference from the American executive. If this isn’t the case, I’d like to hear a practical explanation for his gag order.

You of course, haven’t discerned between the majority of leftists and those of the fringe. I won’t do the Right the same disservice by assuming they all use such simplistic arguments as this to distort perception… this article is guilty of the same tactics as used by those fringe leftist hicks supporters.

The language of this article paints a simple picture:
Hicks is bad, therefore whatever process occurred in Guantanamo is justified.

Of course, Hicks is under a gag order, so he can’t say otherwise.

--

On reflection, the last statement does place emphasis on what Hicks has to say. Actually, one of the points I'm trying to make is that the man himself is irrelevant, it is the process used to try him.

The gag order itself is the issue, not what a rather foolish Adelaide boy has to say.

Rumplestiltskin (how could I forget your name?)

I drew a contrast between Mr Muehlenberg's censorship and the lack of censorship on OLO. I was not bleating, just drawing attention to a fact. I wonder if your language - 'bile-filled comments from trolls' - would be accepted on Muehlenberg's website? I guess it would - since you support his line.

As for Muehlenberg's article having, as you put it, 'plenty of facts' Mr Muehlenberg said of his own article: "Was I being facetious here? Did I exaggerate? Did I overstate the case? Were these rhetorical devices? Yes to all." (3 April 2007)

The other questions Bill could have asked include: Was it a mischievous article? Was it untruthful? Was it politically-motivated? The answer is also Yes to all.

In response to Bill's rhetorical question about the ALP endorsing Hicks, you say: "Bill's comment about Labour possibly recruiting Hicks for a candidate may not be so far from reality." Yesterday Bill gave us this about-face: 'Labor may not consider asking Hicks to run, but it appears that the Democrats are not hesitant about such a possibility.' True to form Bill then cites a beat-up in the Sydney Daily Telegraph quoting a SA Democrat responding to the ALP Premier Rann saying that Hicks was 'on the nose' as far as he was concerned.

Is there no end of this twisting of the truth?

aqvarivs

The problem with terms like 'left' and 'right' - and their abusive variants like 'loony-left' and 'rabid right' - is that they are tossed around without regard for accuracy and relevance, thus deflecting attention away from the real issues of debate. It's time commentators stopped being lazy and treated arguments - from whatever source - on their merits.

Thought your comment on my last Post needed an answer.

Probably you will term it, old Pap rubbish, but it just happened that even the Nazi's had their soft sides.

Hitler, in fact was a lover of pets - animals - and he also was one who brought in donations for new mothers and generally looked after the poor. But of course, to receive such benefits, they needed to follow the ultra-right nationalist line, similar to the old Wermacht supporting Hitler, angry with the way they had been treated by the allies after WW2.

Many of the above humanitarian policies were copied from those of Bismarck, and it is a pity the Nazis did not copy such Realpolitik to the full.

It has been said, in fact, by historians, that if Bismarck had been alive just before 1914, he would have made sure the Kaiser would not have begun WW1. Furthermore, without WW1 we would never have experienced WW2, as Maynard Keynes gave mention before he died in 1944.

Finally, a good browse through most of our university libraries will find that both Roman Catholic and Lutheran Bishops gave support to Hitler.

So ultra-right wing church groups, please take a warning

Whether or Hicks did what he did is not something that any of us can speculate. We have not seen the evidence, nor should we be his judges.

The only way Hick's guilt should be determined is through a transparent court process, in which admissible evidence supporting a finding of guilt is delivered by a prosecution, and the defendant has the right to freely challenge such evidence.

The Military Commissions Act that Hicks was subject to was a joke. Evidence obtained under torture prior to 2005 was admissible, statements put forward by the prosecution did not have to disclose how the evidence was obtained (making it impossible to cross-examine) and the Geneva Conventions were completely excluded from consideration by the Military Commission.

Worse than providing Hicks with a show trial, we have denied him his right to a show trial for 5 years.

I almost feel proud to be an Australian again. Reading these posts has cheered me up. Nobody is trying to make a hero out of Hicks. We are as Australians disgusted to the core by his treatmant. Disgusted by our Federal Govt. Sick to death at the falsehoods and sheer bile that spew from Downer,Bolt Howard etc.We now have this clown adding to the utter crap being pedalled about Hicks. The terrorists have not got to me.I still value the rule of Law. I still value freedom of speech. Our Govt and thier friend Bush have been well and truly beaten by the terrorist scourge.They have abandoned all our principles. It is up to us as lovers of Democracy to vote them out while we still can. Our current extremist Govt. may soon seek to strike out that right. To protect us of course.

Quite amusing reading many of the responses to this article. Bill Muehlenberg certainly knows how to stir the pot. A lot of truth in the article and obviously Bill upset the 'golden calves' of many of the left. The simple truth is that many on the left knew or strongly suspected that he was and is guilty. Along with the Labour party media (ABC) machine they saw another opportunity to blame the 'evil' Howard & Bush Government for something. As Hedgehog writes 'Disgusted by our Federal Govt. Sick to death at the falsehoods and sheer bile that spew from Downer,Bolt Howard'

It would not matter if it was Osama himself caught the lefties would be happier with him becoming a hero if it means the demise of Mr Howard.

Wow Bill....it seems people are a mite sensitive about David Hicks. It seems he is indeed the cause celebre...

A few facts that some of the posters here are either ignorant of or ignore.

1) David Hicks' defense team intentionally delayed David's trial in order to get public support behind Hicks for being held without trial for so long. Such cynical hypocrisy is breathtaking.

2) David Hicks' views are clearly outlined in his letters to his Dad, and are in complete accord with him fighting on the side of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and against Australia and America. Doing so in a time of war would normally result in near instant execution.

3) David Hicks' signing of a gag order for 12 months is unenforcable in an australian court of law

Turn Right and then Turn Left - I agree with your point and it is well said with regard to the case of David Hicks;

a) " the man himself is irrelevant, it is the process used to try him." and;

b) The gag order itself is the issue, not what a .... Adelaide boy has to say.

For me, I see Mr David Hicks no different to other young curious lads, people who are curiously seeking something different in life.

I believe the interviews on David Hicks are utterly transparent.

However and unfortunately, I believe the process (scapegoating - unhuman mentallity) from Australian and US governments, is not transparent. It is too easy to exhibit these sort contradicts as an exclusive drama!

This is dissapointing and explains to me something about why perhaps there is not a HUMAN FACE available through their administrations, in other strategic areas '. Shameful, Wasteful denials, time, energy of taxpayers attention and money.

To understand something about David Hicks, is to understand something about ourselves as well as our youth. Then of course there is the factor of "timing" - given the US and Australia were also so very confused with the issues burdening one civilian they found in David Hicks!

Again, I thank David Hicks father for bothering to investigate, by retracing his SON's journey.

This is regrettably more than any government does to help solve the diversity of issues bound in humanity as refelcted in this one person's life, the life of an Australian Citizen.

,

Sorry Grey, get it right. Hicks defence team constantly argued for due legal process to apply. An arguement upheld by the US Supreme Court. I think that was thier job as defence counsel.People like you are very spooky. How would you like me to capture you, detain you for 5 years, then make up an offence i can convict you on retrospectively.
You see Grey, Hicks is just a naughty silly boy,and that was not a crime when he was captured. I accept Bush made it a crime in June 2006.I do not condone Hicks in the slightest. However i am not prepared to condemm him for being silly with his life choices. Lets all be clear on this. Hicks was not part of 9/11, was not a Bali bomber, did not gas the London Underground or blow up Trains in Madrid. So get your hand off it.

Alan Grey, my second favourite evangelist. Sorry Alan, Bill's got his own wikipedia page, something you need to address.

Given that your "evidence" seems to come from News Limited op-ed pieces I am still waiting for some original thought.

Copy and pasting from the Sunday Herald Sun is really bad form mate.

I must admit you are having a bad twelve months, RU486, Stem Cells etc. don't worry I have a prediction. It will only get worse. (Unlike your prediction that the UK and US will mount a surgical strike to release the British in Iran - bet your peeved about thier release).

We have totally opposite views, that's OK, its the way things should be. But if OLO publishes an attack piece on the Liberal's in our society it is perfectly OK for us Liberal's to attack our Conservative foes.

dear runner,

how kind of you to keep rumpleman company. perhaps you would care to answer the questions i put to him?

1) why does objecting to muehlenberg's article have anything to do with being "left"?

2) can you point to a single "truth" in muehlenberg's article which you believe i find upsetting?

Grey Thank You

Well I dont know about the gag not being enforceable. Hicks wont test it I am Sure.

I cant understand the postings[either way] re Hicks.

Its just supports the cause.

The grub doesnt deserve anything.

If Hicks wanted to train and learn to be a soldier and "fight' he need not to have looked the Australian Army.

Australia is well known for its training such as SAS for eg.

All these places call upon Australia to train theirs!

So that shoots his story in both his left feet.

What Hicks story does show however and attention people- is the clear agenda by some within Australia to signing up of idiots like him to fight for Islam.

I am sure there are plenty more of "the willing' living here.
Probably on center link.

Wo be it for me to praise the Howard Government due to their blatent discusting lack of deceny towards animal welfare.-

However Howard got it right about the importance to protect Australia.

Anybody who supports this creap Hicks should be deported in my view.

Mind you I have my own personal theory on justice- Its called Cow Karma.

We the Australian people have not been able to get off our selfish back sides to care enough to stop the export of alive animals to feed these people.

They grow stronger taking our jobs and flooding our nation with drugs.

We feed them 'litterally' with unthinkable cruelty to our Australian Animals. Nobody cares.

Mums busy changing nappies and poo hars anybody saying- Excuse me but look at this.

"Oh no please is the normal reply-" "I dont want to see this-" I dont want to know about it."_ I have to get my children to footaball of piano lessons."

When Australia is finally taken and she will be- Just remember the suffering by Aussie Animals that you were all too busy to care about.

The old saying.
The wheels of justice turn slowly but surely.

As for Hicks I suggest we sent him back to the UK and Daddy too.

Good riddens to bad rubbish.

I know that I'll probably raise the ire of the majority of contributors to this topical thread, but I absolutely agree with the views expressed by 'BILL', 'RUNNER', and 'PEOPLE AGAINST.....' in relation to this David HICKS saga.

As a veteran myself, to think that this individual (fettered with an electronic manacle, or not), will in nine months time, again walk the streets of an Australia city, ostensibly a free man, beggers belief!

The shame he's brought down, both heavily and with finality, on the heads of his extended family must in private, be almost too much for them to bare! Their collective sorrows as to what motivates a son of theirs, their own flesh and blood, to take up arms against his very own people, must be almost incalculable.

Mr. Hicks Snr. must sadly, reflect as to what imperfection he possesses in his own character or genes, that allowed the propagation and raising of such a treacherous 'piece of work' as Mr.David HICKS, his son.

Sir, now that you, with the help of many others, have managed to secure the release of your son. I believe you should now 'cut him loose' and let him stand on his own two feet, and be accountable for his own actions in future.

Though, I suspect that this immature individual will never stand on his own two feet. But, when he again encounters trouble, will once more call on his poor Dad to provide succour and bail him out, as before.

Folks, I don't mean to demean any of your opinions. Gee, I reckon many of you are very much more erudite then me. It's just that I feel very strongly about this bloke, and he has prima facie, appeared to have 'gotten away' with it ! I guess I've no faith or respect for this country anymore? We seem to genuflect to anyone, any minority, that 'pulls us on'. All our Politicians', seem to be morally corrupt and without courage. I dunno people, it beats me.

Cheers...sungwu.

Bushbasher

You ask

1) why does objecting to muehlenberg's article have anything to do with being "left"?
Objecting to the article does not have anything to do with the left. The disguise of making a martyr out of a terroist because you hate the policies of the incumbent Government does however say a lot about a person's political persuasion. Again read some of the comments by the Howard haters above. The silence of the injustice done to the 2 Danny's in Victoria from the left was incredible. I wonder why? Here we see true injustice and the left is silence. Why? They can't blame Howard.

2) can you point to a single "truth" in muehlenberg's article which you believe i find upsetting?

Not knowing you personally this is difficult. The labelling of the ABC/SBS bias often gets many in the left up in arms because they quick to point out others predujices but blind to their own. I would probably guess that the authors statement which I believe will prove to be factual that 'The very West which Hicks has been warring against now seems ready to reward him for his actions. ' would upset many on the left.

I think you are drawing a long bow there Leham;
Lesson 1 is the left have had it in always for Jews; (See Karl Marx) he also hated Slavs and Negro’s, and now Leftoids have soiled in their own pants over that saga, you should correlate your theology and apply some observations to some commentary above;

I can see that your masters did not tell everyone the truth about your Creator (Marx) aided by Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci's strategy for achieving the total state.

The same vial hatred is being preached upon Christians this time around, but still secretly snuck away brooding over the Jewish question; it still lay close to the surface for your brethren. And just on a few special occasions it blurts out.
I can supply volumes if you wish, but some how I realize you would not read it.

It must strike people odd; Jesus preached all the tolerance and love you proletariat do, but that’s the point; He and Christians now are demonized whilst your Idol created only Psychological Guilt by tearing out people’s souls , the persecution- execution. Yes, a long history indeed.

Your whole Idealism is based on a Psychological Trope Theory ; sureal and Twilight zoned Metaphysics of nothingness but perseptions , and very wet pockets.
Nothing is real in that world.
But we the living must continue.ha.

runner

If Nalliah and Scot had been locked up in solitary confinement for 5 years without trial you may have a point. They were not so you do not.

But it brings us back to the point of this this article, it is about how we allow other people to treat Australians and whether our Govt. has a role in ensuring that, no matter what the accused has done, he or she receives a fair trial. A principle I think is hard to deny.

Nalliah and Scot have the benefit of our legal system, their appeal has resulted in a retrial and will probably end up in the High Court. A fair legal system in action.

My personal view is that Bill, Alan, Salt Shakers etc. are dangerous for our society, my view I am entitled to it.

At least I am honest enough to say what my opinions are, and try to back them with some kind of logic.

On another matter, should we shoot the army colonel who has just been arrested for selling stolen rocket launchers in Australia?

I read this article as mostly a humerous exageration of Bill's beliefs. I think he was basically saying Hicks is not a hero, and he shouldn't be considered as such, even if the way he said it may have been a little off-putting for some OLO readers.

Personally I think it was absolutely wrong that Hicks was detained for so long without charge/trial (goes against every legal principle I know ) but now that he has been charged, I look forward to some form of justice finally happening (which could mean the appropriate punishment, if he is in fact a terrorist... and if he is found not guilty... wow... I can't imagine how USA/Australia will try and make it up to him).

runner, i don't fundamentally disagree with what you wrote, but i think it pretty much bolsters what i was saying.

1) the point is to not make unwarranted caricatures. it may be true that some howard-haters are simply using hicks as a way to beat up on howard, but:

a) the sense i get is that people writing here are not using the hicks situation as a political tool, but rather are genuinely disgusted (as i am) by the unjust procedures. of course, since howard by and large supports these procedures it is easily consistent to also hate howard, but that doesn't mean howard-hating is the motivation.

b) hating howard (and bush) leaves plenty of room to hate many others. my disgust for howard doesn't preclude my disgust for many others, on both the left and the right.

i think your two danny's example reinforces the point. some people supported, or failed to support, these guys for straight political reasons, but it was and is silly to automatically characterise such stances in any particular way. on the two dannys, i happen to agree with you (though i think steve is right to question the comparison to hicks): what happened to them was legal thuggery, and bracks is a moralising creep.

2) i think your sbs "fact" is more opinion than solid fact (though i tend to agree with it). your second "fact" is a prediction: it may come true, and the possibility is worth noting and debating, though i can't imagine who it would upset. but i think the examples you've chosen indicate the factual poverty of muehlenberg's article: whatever is upsetting me and others, it's definitely not muehlenberg's facts.

I seriously doubt you actually believe that;
Prisoners of war surrendered or capture- they then try applies a supposed civil law suit against his captors, regardless of nationality; it is ridicules and absurd;

Using your Theory, we would dismiss our armies and parachute battalions of social workers and baeurocrats.

Some seem to be drawing from the Chomsky theory of protecting fellow anarchists by any means. As we well know there are thousands of Terrorists and equally idiotic anarchists who are held for long periods with out charge.
So this is in turn a cheap shot and a typical anti Americanism charge of reduculess proportions.

In some obscure round about way ; I am more suppressed that John Howard has not been accredited to be the most powerful man in the world, as he can even dictate to the President of the U S A and be obeyed, and that is some mighty authority John Howard carries.
Fairdinkum.

How many Americans or Brits are held in prisons in the Middle East without charge; if indeed they are luck enough to escape their captors barbarity or be disembogued or skinned alive ?
Even Pericles will love this link;
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/18b.htm

Thanks - by the way

Hicks might not be able to sell his story here but the rest of the world dont listen or abide by Australian law. Cant you lot see the Hicks story WILL be sold and sold to raise more money for people just like him.

He will of course be made to look as a hero in some places.

He might come back to Australia yeh sure but after three or four years he will most probably be off again and this time for good.

He wont like living in a country where many dont want him.

You can see the dicks basically a little attention seeker.
Hicks father has yet to go through a great deal. Far more than he ever thought.
Of course its only natural he will fight for his son no matter what.
I think most people will understand that. After a while when the honey moon period wears off Terry Hicks will need to deal with some of his own feelings.

Sooner or later Davids going to say or do something that going to tick the old man off big time.

Davids clearly not big on family either leaving his own two kids.

No theres nothing here for David Hicks long term and he wont stay in Australia forever I am sure.

Terry and David will have an argument but not for a while thats will be in years to come.

After Davids not the center of Attention anymore with some of these ding alings that have run the free Hicks crap David will go back over for good.

He will no dought meet up with his buddies again and receive a heros welcome.[ David will like that]

When you look at it like that you really do have to feel sorry for Terry Hicks.

The poor old bugger one day will finally have to addmitt his sons just a traitor. Not only to his country but his family.

I feel sorry for you Terry Hicks.
Hes going to betray you and our country again

"The problem with terms like 'left' and 'right' - and their abusive variants like 'loony-left' and 'rabid right' - is that they are tossed around without regard for accuracy and relevance, thus deflecting attention away from the real issues of debate. It's time commentators stopped being lazy and treated arguments - from whatever source - on their merits."
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 5 April 2007 11:32:13 AM

I agree whole heartedly. I should like to see each article discussed on merit and not angst.

Unfortunately, it isn't the case with left of centre thinkers attacking everything not written by a ( I just read this word, never heard it before) by a Leftoid. (I immediately began to wonder if a right toid was something more severe.) For some of the commentaries posted here on OLO political perspective is everything and must be spread. Then they attack some Christian and mock him for evangelizing and didn't he know God was a fairy tale.
Under these circumstances it's very difficult to have true conversation and actually discuss the real events of a case and what is truly happening outside of the media Left-Right spin doctoring. My case in point on topic is a couple of articles back when the Executive Director Australia Defence Association, was posting to give us good information on the situation free of media bias concerning Hicks and the process taking place. At the end of the day no one learned anything and those same folks are now here on this thread reposting the same line.
Most of them haven't even picked up on the fact that Hicks has made an out of court deal for release and that the MMC in his case is now moot.
There still shouting unfair trial, torture, gulag and slandering the USA, Bush, Blair, Howard, apple pie and daylight savings time. go figure!

The other night 4 Corners played-out Hicks interview with Australian officialdom soon after his arrest:
When asked why he went to Afghanistan his answer was -to increased his “military preparedness"
When asked why he needed military preparedness he said -he intended to use it to fight in Chetneya, Kashmir & Palestine .

He never thought to question the rights or wrongs of these conflicts -and it clearly didn’t concern him one iota that his chosen side in such conflicts regularly & deliberately hit civilian targets & torture their opponents...

This is not quite true Horus.

He was asked; “For what purpose?”

He replied; “To stop the atrocities that are happening to the people in these places, the oppression.”

Ludwid- the full quote:

DAVID HICKS: To go and FIGHT in places like Kashmir, Chechnya - these types of places, Philistine.

OFFICER J: For what purpose?

DAVID HICKS: Huh?

OFFICER J: For what purpose?

DAVID HICKS: To stop the atrocities that are happening to the people in these places, the oppression.
......................
Now, was he going to these places to play the role of Mahatma Gandhi or was he going there play Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

He was being asked what he thought were the objectives of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, not about his own motives.

He didn’t say that he intended “to go and fight in places like Kashmir, Chechnya – these types of places, Palestine”. He said that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda intended to do this.

And he said he was never a member of either.

“Now, was he going to these places to play the role of Mahatma Gandhi or was he going there play Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?”

Horus, I think it is pretty clearly neither. It was more a case of going on a big adventure, with the prime motive of proving himself as a worthy human being by doing something significantly different that would be perceived as tough and dangerous by his father and friends back home. His letters to his parents are quite telling in this regard.

There seemed to be a strong sense of inferiority, of having failed, and of needing quite urgently to find a purpose in life and to be seen to be doing so.

I hazard a guess that his very short stature, and the consequent way that many people view short men - with a strongly superior demeanour, has a lot to do with this.

It is hard to come to the conclusion that his motives were particularly sinister. He just wanted to get home when the sh!t hit the fan.

Hicks is no searching/adventurerous adolescent:

‘The documentary The President Versus David Hicks … which aired on SBS TV…with Hicks's permission, the documentary quoted from some of his letters to his father, Terry. On February 14, 2000 David Hicks said "I am now officially a Taliban member" who would mix "learning" and "fighting". On August 10, 2000, he said that while fighting with Lashkar-e-Toiba, he "got to fire hundreds of rounds" into Indian-administered Kashmir. He also described himself as a "well-trained and practical soldier", and declared he was prepared for "martyrdom" since "the highest position in heaven" is reserved for those who "go fighting in the way of God against the Friends of Satan".
Hicks described the Taliban regime as "the best in the world" and praised the fact that the (then) leadership ran "the country by strict Islamic law" - including "the death sentence" and "all Islamic punishments".
In his letters to his father, Hicks advocated "an Islamic revolution" and maintained that if the Afghanistan experience was "spread throughout the Muslim world" then "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim rule again". The President Versus David Hicks also quoted from a poem written by the South Australian-born Islamic revolutionary in 1998: "Mohammed's food you shall be fed/To disagree, so off with your head."‘
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/this-young-revolutionary-was-true-to-his-word/2005/08/15/1123958006649.html

Going by the record amount of our OLO's it certainly looks like Hicks may also break a record in publicity.

Not bad for a no-hoper, as he must be for what he performed.

Pity he hasn't the look of a dashing hero, like the one they are chasing in East Timor.

Also pity Bush and John Howard didn't pick a better character than silly Hicks as the one to symbolise the worst of Western traitors against a justified cause.

Pity also that the cause wasn't more justified rather than part of the American Project for the 21st Century, the unlawful attack on Iraq being the introduction, and an atomic attack on Iraq undoubtedly the next.

Also looking at the characters who still control the White House whom most of us would not give the time of day,
never you know, Hicks might be accidently on the right track in the long run.

Correction from BushBred with apologies.

In sceond last paragraph of my commentary please replace Iraq with - IRAN.

“Hicks might accidentally be on the right track in the long run”

Bushbred, how could you (:>() !!

No hold on….it is an interesting thought: just how far off-track the US has gone, dragging its allies and indeed the doctrine of democracy down the gurgler along with it. And I don’t think we have seen anything yet, with a looming showdown in Iran.

Horus

In the interview aired on 4 Corners, Hicks was asked;

“Were you at any time a member of the Taliban?”

He replied;

“No”

This is in direct contradiction to what he said in a letter to his father;

“I am now officially a Taliban member”

So what do we believe?

Gerard Henderson’s article is pretty condemning. But at the end of the article, which contains many alarming quotes from Hicks, he says;

“It is easy to dismiss such words as the ravings of a juvenile foot soldier”

Hicks was asked about the letters in his interview. He said that they were full of exaggeration and were due to him being “over-excited”.

The 4 Corners interview strongly contrasts with Henderson’s article. It seems to me that Hicks addressed the questions in his interview in a frank manner, with a willingness to fully answer all questions and not attempt to skirt around anything.

If the stuff he had written in his letters could be upheld as true at face value, then he would surely have received a seriously long prison term.

I try to put Hicks in context with various people who need to be brought to justice. He seems to be about 0.00001% as bad as Bush and those responsible for the disgrace of five years without trial in Guantanamo, and the way that they have handled the whole ‘war on terror’, ~0.001% as bad as our illustrious PM and treasurer, ~0.01% as bad as my local mayor and about equally as bad as a police officer that I came up against a few years back, who brazenly perverted the course of justice to my detriment over a minor road safety matter.

It is amusing seeing all the Howard haters posting. They demonstrate two things; firstly that they are incapable of clear honest thought, and secondly that Bill is right.

The couple of facts mentioned in the article were obviously true, the rest was opinion, to which the author is entitled. If the opinion was unpalatable to the left, then they were entitled to disagree, and put an alternate.

Post after post vilifies Bill as a liar. Not one refutes any fact which he put forward. A number of them confirm Bill’s opinion that the left wish to regard Hicks as a young adventuresome man. Most of them confirm his characterising of their approach. One even wondered why he did not reply. Why would he? They complemented his article.

Hicks was not a prisoner of war entitled to the benefit of the Geneva convention. If he had been then he should have been incarcerated until the end of the war in Afghanistan. His status was such that he should have been tried by court martial forthwith, but there were difficulties with evidence, so it was deferred.

There was nothing wrong with the process, except in the rabid minds of the left, the same people who when the children of the illegal aliens finished up in the water through the criminal actions of their parents or their associates, raised a quibble about the expression “thrown overboard”.

Where do they keep coming from, these Leo Lanes, these warriors of high cliche, these idelopgical ignoramuses? No ideas, no understanding of the fact, no comprehension of the context, but fully loaded with the tired old cliches thrown at those who disagree - 'the Howard haters' and 'the rabid minds of the left'.

With not an idea to rub between them, they trot out the old discredited stuff: 'Hicks was not a prisoner of war entitled to the benefit of the Geneva convention'; 'he should have been tried by court martial forthwith, but there were difficulties with evidence, so it was deferred'. One out of ten for comprehension, two out of ten for clear expression; ten out of ten for blind ignorance.

Judging loyalty to yesterday's cause to be paramount, they are above the truth, and insist that Bill Muelenberg is absolutely right even when Bill himself has long ago conceded he went way over the top. "The couple of [wait for it!] facts mentioned in the article were obviously true, the rest was opinion, to which the author is entitled." Yes Bill is entitled to his opinion even if it is daft and most readers can see it's bulldust.

Truth doesn't matter - what's important is to stick up for your side of the ideological divide. Bill shows the way by censoring comments that raise awkward comments on his website. And his rent-a-fact-club cheer with their mouths and minds wide shut.

And then, without a blush, they accuse the people who disagree with them of being 'incapable of clear honest thought'.

Still living the lies of the Howard regime, they go on the attack against those who even 'when the children of the illegal aliens finished up in the water [sic] through the criminal actions of their parents or their associates, raised a quibble about the expression “thrown overboard”'. Truth and compassion overboard, eh Leo! Beats thinking and using the facts - that's way too hard, mate.

now THAT i enjoyed reading!

Ludwig,
Re; Hicks apparent contradictory allegiances/ statements :

Mindful of Ockhams Razor - let me offer a different explanation.
( one that doesn’t require psychoanalysis or adolescent hormonal imbalances)

In Germany of 1941 most people were Nazi/Hitler supporters
In Germany of 1945 most people were not.
Put simply, everyone likes to be on a winner…

When the Taliban was rampant Hicks was a loud, proud Muhahadeen.
When the Taliban were vanquished, & he was in enemy hands, he was a poor cobber who had wandered off the beaten track…

Thanks Cranky Frankie, I realize it is of the utmost importance to maintain a healthy sense of Humor, but like most things, there is a limit.

If I may ask you to indulge for a moment; and have supplied a few links to publications relevant to your humorous outburst; and if I may also indulge in some deductive observations; that you may well benefit from these E books.
I like to think some Intellectually minded people possess the ability to possess truth in a manor relevant to that displayed by Sherlock Holms, and not Heinrik Himmler.

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: By Ludwig Wittgenstein: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5740

Carveth Read, , 1848-1931 : Logic : Deductive and Inductive : http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18440/18440-h/18440-h.htm

DEDUCTIVE LOGIC BY :---ST. GEORGE STOCK, M.A. PEMBROKE COLLEGE, OXFORD:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/8ddlg10.txt

And if you enjoy this service, although it is free, please consider the costs and efforts and act appropriately : Something Old timers would consider calling ; “The Honor system.”
Enjoy.

As its Easter I think we should so some respect. Some of these comments are great and a bit funny too which is always good.
But Honest the posts that support this traitor should at least wait until after Easter.
Its honestly making me feel sick to read support for this low life who turned his back on our God.
Please dont write that crap of Easter Please.
Its too upsetting.
If you want to do something thats Churchy go to the post on the Salvos.
Just people always remember their is a difference between our lord and people running the Church.
If the people running the Church are not folowing the lords wishes then they should be exposed.
Getting back to Hick The Dick Really everybody its Easter Sunday.
Lets leave it until after Easter and show some respect for our lord and our country.

Please

David Hicks has been stupid to the Nth degree; those who take a black and white attitude I believe, just do not understand that what happens to David Hicks and others in the long run has an impact on us and our children. If we accept third rate justice for one, then in the long run it can come back to haunt us. If Hicks had been tried in the same way as an American citizen then we cannot murmour. If there had not been a new tradition of torture, rendering and use of hearsay evidence with limited powers of defence; then reasonable people would accept any judgement made against Hicks.

There have been laws made in relation to fellons not profiting from their crimes; in other words the whole tenant of Mr. Muehlenberg's article is based on a false premise.

Bill Muehlenberg's outrageous comments do reinforce my distrust in so called Christians. His comments do not belong to the Christianity I was taught at school eg Sermon on the Mount, and story of the Good Samaritan. I believe if Jesus was about today he would be overturning Mr. Muehlenberg's table as well as the tables of many other Christians. Love and forgiveness I believe underpins pure Christian thought.

Mr. Muehlenberg makes an almost slanderous comment when he says: "First, how soon before the Labor Party invites Hicks to be their next star recruit, their next celebrity candidate? Eventually the supply of unionists and ABCers will dry up, and the exciting new category of “freedom fighter” can be tapped into."
Where is the ethics in making a nonsense loaded comment against the Labor Party? Given that Mr. Muehlenberg teaches Chritian ethics; where is the Christian content in the above comment.

I do not belong to the Labor Party, and have never done so in the past.

Thanks FrankGol.

A perfect sample of the type of leftist contribution I described, containing no facts and no argued position.

Six paragraphs of incoherent denial and abuse.

I will keep it as a specimen.

Frank...I have to agree with Leo's assessment of your last post mate.
Self righteous babble if you ask me. I know you can do better.

Horus put us straight about Hicks, and from Hicks own mouth.
If anyone is in any doubt about what 'fighting in Chechnya' would involve they need only to visit some of the more sickening web sites for a visual awakening. Example. A Chechen leader with a long beard, selecting a young Russian Captive, dragging him off and then demonstrating step by step to his troops (of whom Hicks would be a part) how to decapitate your enemy. The hapless Russian tried to run after the first slice, was grabbed, bludgeoned into submission and he collapsed to his fate, and the Chechen brute continued his work.

So, David.. why was it again you want to goto Chechnya ?
"To fight, and stop the ATROCITIES there" but David.. which ones ?

Frank, he is condemned out of his own mouth, no trial needed, simply declare him guilty and either execute him or jail him for life.

Frank.. am still interested, are you a member of a political party ? If so, which ? I'm not a member of any.

BOAZ_David

With you and Leo's glowing assessment of my post mate I feel really pleased that people of such quality volunteer such insightful references on my work. Thanks.

You say David Hicks "is condemned out of his own mouth, no trial needed, simply declare him guilty and either execute him or jail him for life". Now, for which offence would you shoot him or gaol him for life without a trial? The one the Americans 'tried' him for? Some other that they didn't but should have? Some other offence you think he committed anyway (something you saw in the media perhaps)?

Who else should we shoot David? John Howard has committed some woeful offences against the Australian people, and the Iraqis. Let's string him up without trial - shooting's too quick for him, eh? Then there's my neighbours - you should have heard what they did last night. And the Greens - Bob Brown - I can't stand him. Off with his head! I've got a long list! Want to see it or shall I just execute 'em all forthwith? Save a lot of money, eh?

I like your style, David. None of this compassion stuff. That's only for leftie Christians. If they seem guilty to King David, that's enough for to shoot 'em or lock 'em up for life. Nice Christian sentiment at Easter, David. Shoot 'em without a trial? Lock 'em up for life, on King David's say-so? Man of action, I salute you (just in case I'm on your list.).

David, I recently answered your question on political party membership when my imagined membership was used by someone on OLO to explain (incorrectly) why I took a particular position. Sorry to undermine your thesis but I'm not a member of any party. But, what if I were? Would my ideas be any better or worse for being a party member? I know simple labels help simple people find simple answers to complex questions; but not this time. Anyway, I'm not going to admit it - you might have a plan to shoot all party members.

Your All! A discrace. And the think some of you call yourself Christians.
Dont ever preach to me about what the lord said again!
Going on like this especially on Easter Sunday when all we should be thinking about is our lord.
You bring much Shame to All Of us.
I did ask nicely but oh no you just had to ignore.
Especially one person I know is always preaching.

Easter Sunday
Shameful

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Happy Eostre. :)

I have no sympathy for Hicks. Apart from the crimes to which he has confessed, he abandoned his wife and children to fight and kill for .... well what exactly? A world wide Muslim Caliphate?

Unlike many posters I have no doubts about Hicks' guilt.

BUT, imprisoning someone for 5 years without trial does not constitute "due process." Nor does bringing them before some cockamie "military tribunal."

This is not about Hicks. It's about a "fair go." This was denied Hicks.

In a way Hicks lucked out. Had the US Government not messed up his case so much he might now be serving twenty years like the American, John Walker Lindh.

A very marginal improvement already, FrankGol, but no one should hold their breath.

Hicks was not in uniform, or part of a recognised army, so was not entitled to the benefit of the Geneva Convention. Before you make a fool of yourself again, Frank, check this. He was liable to court martial, and faced an outcome of execution.

He remained liable to face execution, until Howard and Ruddock came up with the bright idea of obtaining an undertaking, from the US that he would not be executed, which some would see as exceeding the call of duty to an Australian citizen, in those circumstances.

It also had the unfortunate effect of encouraging those deluded enough to be supporters of Hicks. They ignored, or were ignorant of, the act of grace of the government, and pursued the government with a campaign of whining, and aggression, much like the mongrel dog which is shown a kindness.

It seems likely that his captors believed, or were persuaded by Hicks, that he had information of value to the allies, otherwise, there seems no reason not to try and execute him immediately. Dim as Hicks appears to be, he may realize this.

Unfortunately, he now has a better outcome than if he had been a member of a regular army, and locked up until the end of the war in Afghanistan. Thanks to the misinformation, assiduously pushed by his supporters, there is, instead, a perception that he was denied his “rights”.

It will be interesting to observe the antics of this fundamentalist muslim, on his return

People person, I fail to see how sensible discussion (or any discussion for that matter) on this subject (or anything else that is in the public interest) is in any way showing disrespect to “our lord and our country” over Easter.
.
Horus, you make an interesting point.

“When the Taliban was rampant Hicks was a loud, proud Muhahadeen. When the Taliban were vanquished, & he was in enemy hands, he was a poor cobber who had wandered off the beaten track…”

Before most people knew just what the Taliban was or how significant it would become, its members including foreigners were not looked upon particularly harshly. But of course the situation was immediately very different after 9/11.

When the crunch came, Hicks just wanted to get home. That sorted the men from the boys. He proved to be a boy. He proved to be full of bluster and then not willing to stand up for his apparent convictions.

Like the majority of German citizens that deserted the Nazi regime when the consequences of it became apparent, so Hicks deserted the fray when the going got tough.

He was viewed by one and all as being an extremely bad piece of work in the new light of the 9/11 atrocity. But everyone agrees he had nothing to do with it, nor in any significantly tangible manner with terrorism against the west. So he should have been viewed as nothing more than a base-level foot-soldier in a country far removed from America, in the pre 9/11 context.

Viewing him in the post 9/11 context is akin to retrospective laws. It is fundamentally wrong. If he’d stayed in the fight after 9/11, then yes, it would have been perfectly reasonable to view him in that manner.

I think he was entirely wrong to have been involved with the Taliban and other groups. In fact, bloody stupid. But a total sentence of about six years and two months, which is what he will serve, is about right for him to recompense for this foolishness.

Dear Frank
as far as I'm concerned (putting on my 'Generals' hat for a moment)
Hicks need only be asked a few simple Questions.

1/ Did you join the Taliban/Al Qaeda ? (show him the photo and read testimony from NA who captured him.)
2/ Did you train in any camps in connection with this ? (refer to any evidence)
3/ Were you guarding a Taliban Tank ? (NA testimony)
4/ Why were you holding a rocket launcher in that photo ? (Show photo)
5/ Were you planning/training to goto Chechnya to fight ? (Show transcript of interview)

Nothing more. If he denied any of this, evidence could be provided to confirm it, but at the Military level, NOT the civil. His fate thereafter would depend on military protocals in place. Execution for non uniformed illegal combatants is normal unless I'm wrong. (By all means correct me)

Taking of the Generals hat and replacing it with the 'Pastoral', Hicks should be offered counselling to free him of his Islamic mental prison, if he declined, there is no more pastoral attention needed.
(Luke 9:3-5)

Hicks must stand or fall on the basis of his chosen position in life as we all must.

People Against... no, shame on 'you'. For being incapable of discussing serious issues in a robust way without trying to heap a spiritual guilt trip on fellow posters. Remember on Calvary there were 2 others, both criminals. ONE was told "Today you will be with me in paradise" for his humble and repentant attitude. The other .....nothing, but his choice did indeed determine his fate, just as Hicks did for himself.

Honest John Howard lets the facts speaks for themselves on the David Hicks affair.

25 January 2002
“[Hicks is] in detention. He knowingly joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I don't have any sympathy for any Australian who's done that.”

2 August 2002
Interviewer: “David Hicks, the suspected terrorist being held indefinitely without bail – is that fair?
Howard: “Well, given the circumstances of Afghanistan, I think it is, yes.”

2 August 2005
“…I was told, and it was publicly repeated by Donald Rumsfeld…that the trial would come on very quickly, and we’ll continue to press that. In relation to… [allegations by two American prosecutors who quit in protest at the bias of Military Commission regime], our Ambassador spoke again to the Pentagon last night…and the head of the Military Commission operation said that those allegations had been extensively investigated over a two month period.”
Interviewer: “By whom?”
Howard: “By the people against whom the allegations were made.”

29 January 2007
"I do not accept that he can be held indefinitely without trial, whatever view I may have about the alleged offences with which he is charged."

2 February 2007
"The delay of the last five years has been very regrettable. Some of that has been due to objections by people including Mr Hicks' advisers. But a lot of it has been viewed as a slow process in the United States and I am glad that it is now finally come to a situation where charges are being laid. I would encourage in a very public way, and will be doing it privately, for the trial to be bought on as soon as possible..."

11 February 2007
“...the concern that I've expressed to President Bush, and will go on expressing it; we are unhappy, frustrated with the amount of time it's taken. I don't think the Americans have handled that part of it well and it has made people legitimately concerned...

Coincidentally, on 12 February 2007, the Herald/Nielsen poll reported that two in three voters disapproved of Howard's handling of the Hicks case and only 30 per cent approved. Mr Flexible?

Leo Lane.

You seem transfixed on the fact the Hicks was not in uniform. How many Talib, members of the Taliban (the legitimate Govt. of Afghanistan according to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other USA allies.)wore uniforms?

In fact your view that if you are not wearing a uniform you should be shot is a dangerous proposition. How many special forces including the Australian SAS wear uniforms?

From your comments it seems that if an Australian soldier was "captured" in Afgahnistan it would be OK for the Taliban to keep him or her locked up until the end of hostilities. If this does happen, and of course I hope it never does, what will we call them ? I suggest hostages will be the term used.

The point is in any conflict there are two sides, you cannot say it is OK for us to act in this way but you cannot, if you say Hick's should have been executed what is your defence if it ever happens to a SAS soldier?

As Australians we are better than that, we have obligations under international law, conventions we have signed with the UN, if our Govt. chooses to ignore these obligations they should withdraw from the conventions. They cannot have it both ways and pick and choose what suits.

We have a clear demonstration from the posts on this topic of the successful campaign of misinformation by the Hicks supporters.

Hicks had no right to a trial until the war is over, which is unlikely to be in his lifetime.

Ludwig even thought that Hicks was not involved after 9/11. The war in Afghanistan was a result of 9/11. When prominent lefties, like the story book writer Bryce Courtney state on a radio interview, that 9/11 was the result of America invading Iraq, it is not hard to imagine the nonsense they tell people, when there is no interviewer to pull them up. Constantly repeated lies are eventually believed.

Civil process demands prompt trial, but this is a wartime basis, and is different. By conflating the two, the Hicks enthusiasts managed to deceive the public to the extent that, if you believe the poll, two out of three citizens believed that he was entitled to be tried promptly, with the irresponsible Major Mori running around stirring them up. I do not understand why the US Army could not pull him into line.

It is a travesty that Hicks was not given life

Howard is the Prime Minister and aims to give Australians what they want. He had to put his own views aside on Hicks, the same as he has had to on global warming, because a majority of citizens have been misled, by media backed tripe

Steve Madden

According to the Geneva convention, to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member "must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a uniform and bear arms openly."

That's what it actually says, not what we would wish it to say.

One of the countries that insisted on this qualification was Afghanistan.

If a SAS member is caught out of uniform in enemy territory he would not have to be accorded POW status.

Leo Lane: "Constantly repeated lies are eventually believed"

Well yes - but the electorate eventually wakes up and votes the incumbent bulldust artists out. This is of course the very situation which the Lying Rodent and his cohorts currently face in the lead-up to the next election.

I don't expect that the inevitable Rudd Labor government will ultimately be much less mendacious, but at least they'll be slightly different kinds of lies.

Leo Lane, with your whines against Hicks and an imaginary Left, you sound more and more no better than the Bush, Blair, plus Howard nut cases now trying to straighten out Iraq - us cases just trying to prove that each is not much better

When the tide brings in a swarm of jellyfish, the only thing to do is get out of the water.
BM's rehash of the same old spin has attracted some frankly lunatic defenders (no surprise), but i don't think even the most sane and engageable of his supporters will ever see a fascist abuse of power they don't like (until it hurts them personally). Jesus wept.

At least BM is prepared to go against the tide of popular reporting on David Hicks. Why not stir the pot? It beats the constant "Hug-a-Hicks" campaign in our neo-tabloid papers.

Steve,you are a dreamer. Any one who adverts to past experience, knows what would happen to a member of the SAS captured by the Taliban. There would be no advertance to the Geneva convention, in or out of uniform.

In any event, I have set out the law which applies, as against the misinformation given by Hicks supporters. You dance around that in a most ineffectual way, putting up no argument other than a fanciful, and inapplicable supposition.

Even FrankGol, sticks to a format of facts , now, but bushbred has supplied another pure specimen of incoherent lefty abuse, with no trace of fact or debate. If he was bush bred, he must have spent a lot of his later life subjected to brain addling, in Glebe or Balmain, to counteract his breeding.

CJMorgan does not realize that Howard is the first truthful Prime Minister since Gorton, but a leftie would not know the difference. A less kind interpretation is that the assertion is part of a typical campaign of the left to label an honest man a liar.

“…Howard is the first truthful Prime Minister since Gorton…”, Leo Lane, 10 April 2007

Honest John playback - Part 1

JH May 1995: "No, there's no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy."?
Journalist: "Never ever?"?J
ohn Howard: "Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters in the last election".?

JH February 1996: "It is our policy, without qualification, to retain Medicare . . . Not only does Medicare stay but so does bulk billing…Medicare will be retained in its entirety."?Health Minister Abbott November 2003: "No-one can guarantee bulk billing. No-one can guarantee bulk billing without conscripting the medical profession. Medicare has never been universal bulk billing-never . . ."?
Truth: Bulk billing rates have declined and dental plan abolished.

JH 2001 election: My Government's policies would "lead to reduced premiums" for health insurance.
Truth: Since 2001, the Government has regularly approved massive increases in premiums.

JH October 1999: "I can guarantee we're not going to have $100,000 university degree courses."?Truth: About 20 different degrees now cost well over $100,000.
JH October 1999: "Well, it means that we'll not have deregulated fees…the Government will always maintain a control over what the level of the fee is."
JH September 2003: "We do need more money in our universities . . . and some of it should come outside the budget through a managed and sensible deregulation of the system."

Kerry O'Brien February 1996: " So for the next three years, not even a one cent increase on cigarettes or beer or wine or petrol, no other indirect tax increase, no tax increase of any kind?"
JH: "That promise is quite explicit."?
Truth: By 30 September 2002, Howard had introduced legislation for 130 new taxes or tax increases.

Alan Jones August 1998: "Will the number of pages in the Tax Act be reduced by the introduction of a GST? "?
Prime Minister: "Yes it will".
Truth: The Tax Act has grown from 3,000 to over 9,000 pages.

Honest John Tapes Part 2 (Dedicated to Leo Lane)

Question to JH September 2002: "Prime Minister, was the government contacted by the major Australian producer of ethanol or by any representative of his company or the Industry Association before its decision to impose fuel excise on ethanol?"
JH: "Speaking for myself, I did not personally have any discussions, from recollection, with any of them."?
Truth: On 1 August JH met Dick Honan, the head of Manildra Group which makes 87% of our ethanol to discuss how to help the ethanol industry.

JH February 1996: "Well, we're certainly going to maintain the existing level of funding for labour market programs."
JH August 1996: "Well, it is true that we are not spending as much money on labour market programs".

JH November 2001: "…We were advised by Defence that children were thrown overboard, we made those allegations on the basis of that advice, and until I get Defence advice to the contrary I will maintain that position".?
Truth Mike Scrafton: "I left him in no doubt that there was no evidence, that there were no children thrown overboard."

JH February 2003: "The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons."?
JH July 2003: "We entered the war in Iraq based upon the failure of the Iraqi government at the time to comply with United Nations' resolutions . . ."?

JH February 1996: "Our plans. . . will involve not replacing. . . up to 2,500 positions over the first term of a Coalition Government - a process of natural attrition with no forced redundances."?
Truth: In the first term of the Howard Government, 32,400 jobs were cut.

JH October 2001: "I want to re-state the assurances I have previously given . . . nobody's benefit will be cut as a result of changes to the social security system".
Truth: In 2002 Howard announced that it would cut the pensions of 200,000 people with disabilities, and later cut the allowances of 30,000 parents caring for children with a disability.

FrnkGol, I'm impressed that you can go back to 1996 and cover JH through 2007. Says a lot in favour of the mans political career and the faith the average Ozzie has for him and his government. Now pick a politician from the left who has had an equal length in office and highlight their decisions and political waffling. See anything to parade in front of we OLO readers as inclusive political truths or is it just JH and his government. Or have you just taken up the farmers axiom of making hay while the sun shines?

Frank, I have already complimented you on your format of facts, now all you have to work on is the content. Scurrilous left wing garbage will not do.

I have already detailed the disgraceful nature of the children overboard campaign by the left. The criminal actions of the illegal alien parents, or their associates, caused the children to be thrown into the water, from the sinking boat which they had sabotaged.

The left put their own definition on “thrown overboard” and had various stooges deny that the parents physically threw the children into the ocean, as if anyone cared. Their actions put their children in the ocean, which was obvious enough, to sufficient voters.

This campaign of lies had an effect on Howard, in tarnishing his image, but not in costing him votes. I do not intend to analyse all your other examples. I know what I would find. More of the same.

Howard is an honest man, continually attacked in a grubby manner, by people whose outstanding characteristic is their spiteful negativity. Fortunately, he remains in office.

The handling of the Hicks affair by him and Ruddock has been most effective. The pressure has all gone now, and future efforts by the Hicks supporters, to cause mischief for the government, will gain no traction.

Thanks FrankGol, handy list of some of Howards bigger lies. Question is, should we try him locally for domestic crimes (theft by privatisation, swindle by cheap credit bait'n'switch, treason by Free Trade Agreement..) or send him to The Hague with Cheney, Bush & Blair?

Leo, I despair of you. Where have you been? Even John Howard now admits there were never ever any children overboard. Quote: ‘the children overboard claim was incorrect…But I do know that the belief at the time was that it had happened. We were told that and that is why I made the claim.’ (The Age August 18, 2004). Retrospective truth.

Notwithstanding the many instances I was able to cite within in the OLO word limit, you say ‘Howard is an honest man, continually attacked in a grubby manner, by people whose outstanding characteristic is their spiteful negativity.’

Who are these grubby, spiteful attackers? Well, last post I gave you Howard’s own words. You don’t believe him?

Well how about the Liberal Party President, Shane Stone, who told Howard in 2001 that his Queensland Liberal parliamentarians thought he was ‘mean, tricky, out of touch, and not listening’. Tricky! His own colleagues.

Then there’s his Deputy, Peter Costello, who last year publicly confirmed Howard was lying about the agreement they had made about the leadership. Only one of them was telling the truth and Costello knew it wasn’t Honest John. Spiteful man the Treasurer, thinks a man should stick to his word and tell the truth.

You say, “The handling of the Hicks affair by him and Ruddock has been most effective. The pressure has all gone now…’ Leo, if you believe that you’ve been smoking something for the past five years.

Apart from the many documented specific lies Howard has told, it’s a more insidious and hypocritical form of dishonesty that I find really scurrilous. Howard constantly uses words like “egalitarian”, “fair play”, “compassion”, “choice” and “tolerance” when in fact his policies and actions are aimed at taking Australia in the opposite direction.

Julian Burnside asks us to imagine, in 2001, Howard saying:

"I know the asylum seekers did not throw their children overboard - they were just doing what any decent parent would do - they were trying to save them from the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein."

Now that’s compassion - and that the truth.

Many Western intellectualoids have managed to convince themselves that some citizens with questionable backgrounds and intentions are actually bloodthirsty, murderous, traiterous, mass-murdering, serial rapist, cold-blooded, hot-blooded gun-toting terrorists

How did the writer get on this forum with such rubbish? Where are the quality controls?

Leo Lane Thanks.
I said I wouldnt comment any more on this stupid! trouble making thread. Hicks the Dick is coming home soon SADLY and hes lucky he didnt get shot!
Very Lucky. No the people have NOT turned against Howard over David Hicks.
As for the kids overboard - Whats the matter with you people?
They set fire to the boat and chucked em in themselves!
DuH!
If Anybody wants to pick on something that Howards not done anything about then dont look past live animal exports.
I just dont get you lot. Here you are tapping away about a dangerous traitor but not giving a rats arse about innocent animals that WE send in SHIPS to much worse than what hes been through.

Then I look at the top of the page and see bank with Elders!
I could just thow up.
NO I wont bank with Elders or Have insurance with Elders because they are one of the largest Live Animal Exporters in Australia.
I wont use their real estate agents either.

As angry as I am with Howard for Not Pulling Vaile in Line over li ve exports I tell you now we dont need a young inexperenciced smarty pants running Australia in these troubled times.
Most people i know Would vote Howard Again and Like the way hicks was caught as a POW.
The only thing is they dont want him back in Australia.
They want him left with his new Muslim family and! his names not David by the way its Mohamed.

I might pop in and see the little low life myself if hes stupid enough to think hes welcome here.
Also I wish Andrew Bartlett would spend more on on Australia and especially his QLD people rather than follow the trouble makers around.
In Years you refuse to do one little thing towards assisting with creating co joint farm and abattoir ventures along with Animals Australia.
Well Andrew unless we find an alternative to live exports it will never stop.
But you know that already - dont You.

Hicks 105 Mulenberg 15
With such a land slide no wonder David Hicks deserves to profit from his endeavours.
My understanding is that David Hicks went to Bosnia to help stop the genecide of the Muslims of ethnic cleansing.
A noble start to an Australian Hero.
The British Americans and Europeans were on David Hicks side.
Then came 9/11.
Hicks was fighting for the freedom of Muslims in Afganistan,So was the USA.
Hicks get captured by the Drug Barons and handed over to the US for cash.
He is then tortured etc,and guess what,He confesses to being the Numero Uno Australian Terrorist.
The five years being kept as a terrorist only because he was born an Australian,poor fellow if he was British born he would be free to walk the streets of London.
The whole episode is a clear case of Xenophobia by the Bush administration toward Australians.

"Thanks FrankGol.

A perfect sample of the type of leftist contribution I described, containing no facts and no argued position." Leo Lane

FrankGol has certainly accepted the challenge, and now I'm afraid Leo your criticism has been blown out of the water.

A recollection of mine is that Mr.Howard was called a "rodent" by one of his Conservative mates.

David Hicks has been a fool of the first order, but the important isue surrounding David Hicks is that the justice conferred on him was a sham. Some of his legal team were deemed to be ineligible to defend him before the Military Court. Hearsay evidence is allowable, evidence gained through torture is also permissible by the Military Court. Hicks may be guilty of the charges against him; but it is important that proper legal action occur. There would be little argument if David Hicks had been tried by a properly constitued American Court.