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 ...