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.