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