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