0 Sung Wu

Interesting bunch of friends you have and yes we get your point but it probably went over `some heads.`

Yes its a war and yes he was picked up in a war zone in another country.

Here is other another theory.

1 The USA just kept him as a prisoner of war for fun?

2 The guys who picked Hicks up had nothing better to do?

3 He wasnt really in a war zone fighting against us- its all lies?

4 He wasnt there at all but kidnapped from a tourists trip/

5 They got the wrong guy?

6 He has a look alike and its a huge mistake?

7 USA just wanted to lock up one of their best friends cizs to make things run better?.

8 George Bush had the humps with Australia and said- Go get me an Aussie?

9 Hicks mother and father lied and he didnt convert to Muslim and say he was going to FIGHT for Islam?



How about a bit of loyalty for your country ladies and gentleman- War is not treated the same as a B and E for goodness sake.
Cival laws dont apply- thank goodness.

Terry Hicks said on tv the other night
Quote. "I dont care if hes guilty or not?"
Great just great and some nutter wanted to make him father of the year.!

Thanks 0Sung Wu and dont everleave Australia please.
We need sensible fair minded Aussies.

Rumplestiltskin,

Actually, my post opposing Bill (it's the first one) did none of the things you suggested. I made no personal comments about the author, and the only comments I made about Hicks himself were hardly laudatory.

I actually did exactly as you suggested, and argued the toss as to whether justice was done. And I maintain that, because there were confessions under duress, an absence of open justice in an open courtroom, and a five year detention without charge, justice was not done.

In addition, I am really struggling to understand why I am suddenly a member of the loony left for arguing that 1. Justice delayed is justice denied; 2. Justice should be open and conducted in public; 3. Justice should be conducted in accordance with fair rules of evidence, and 4. the Australian government should support not abandon those facing overseas judicial systems.

Which of those proposals are leftist in nature? Honestly, they all look very conservative to me.

It seems the author may have retreated to the "I was only joking" defence. Maybe so, but if so, it was a poor joke in poor taste.

Anthony

“Ludwig, it is generally accepted that it is bad to be able to profit from your crimes…”

It is not that simple Volition.

The magnitude of the story has got a hell of a lot more to do with the antics of Bush, Cheney et al than it does with Hicks. Their utterly disgusting antidemocratic treatment of him has become his story. Without this he wouldn’t have much of a story to tell at all, there would far less public interest and his potential for profit would be minimal.

Perhaps the Australian government or legal system should declare that he can only keep 99.5% of monies earned from telling his story. That would be about right I reckon – 0.5% guilt on his part and the rest laid directly on Bush, when we consider the whole saga.

But of course he would need to get around the disgusting ‘no profit’ statement first, that the military commission forced him to sign as part of his light additional sentence.

If you check out Bills blog Culture Watch you will find that one of the ideas that he celebrates and advocates is the so caled "Victory of Reason". A conceot much liked by many right wing "culture" warriors ---there is a book by the same name.
The trouble is Bill doesnt use "reason" in any sense whatsoever--either in this posted essay or on his Culture watch blog.
Most of his rantings are comic book cliches---full of hyperbole,emotional manipulative cliched "button" words and plain good old fashioned horse pooh.
He is a typical example of a right wing "culture" warrior---full of sound and fury and signifying nothing ---except his own self importance and cultural illiteracy.

Wow, the bleeters are out in shrill force today!
Methinks you need to get a sense of humour....
And the cardianal rule of response appears to be: don't refute the facts, attack the author- convinces every time (those with half a brain anyway)!

Bill, after reading your thesis, My Goodness, I must say things have changed in our academia.

I myself early in my retirement studied at Curtin WA, and later backed by Murdoch while taking groups in philosophical topics at Mandurah U3A.

Certainly can see Howard and Costello mixed up in your doctrine, mainly because your academic theologies are closely associated with the Hillsong Church to which our PM and his Secretary have been purported as having attended.

The danger with your doctrine, Bill, is that it is based on too much faith and not enough reason. Just as George W Bush's politics are based on faith and not enough reason.

In your studies, only hope you have learnt of St Thomas Aquinas who had the commonsense to accept elements of Socratic Reasoning which really lifted Christianity out of the Dark Ages, eventually bringing on the Ages of Reason and Enlightenment, and furthermore, the democratic themes we now live by, not adapted from Christian theology, but from Classical Greek Reasoning.

What worries us, Bill, is that some of the members of the theological ultra-right especially in America, when interviewed get a gleam in their eyes too much similar to that of a Nazi stormtrooper.