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.