The general consensus is that PM Howard does not want David Hicks to get his chance to tell his story to the Aus. public before the election.
Can't see it myself- if Howard is even half as dastardly as his critics hold, half as Machiavellian, then he would buy Hicksey a soapbox, whack on some wheels and set him freewheeling across this wide brown land.
Imagine the first interview- "Mahmood, as a member of the Taliban and a believer in amputation for common thievery, tell us your thoughts on justice...?" Or, " Davey, as a member of a group opposed to education of females, tell us how you feel about....?"
I don't know who Hicks has shot at, but I do know he has managed to shoot himself in both feet so far. When he enlisted with the Taliban he joined the wrong team- a barbaric throwback to the darkest of ages and practices.
I'm sure John Howard would see your Gitmo injustice and raise you a public stoning ,and come out smelling roses with enough of the public.
We've yet to see Nick Cohens argument take off in Aus. - but when push comes to shove Howard will be able to sell a flawed Yank democracy over a murderous, medieval theocracy without raising a sweat. And a fool like David Hicks let loose would save him the trouble.

If you think thats what would happen, then why don't they let it happen? the fact is, you wouldn't know what he had to say, just as much as anyone else. Whatever the Americans have said, there's a bit too much Fox news-like spin floating around. While I am sure that the Foxy leading questions would make you cream your pants, he might just tell us the truth, how about that?

It would not happen thats why he has the gag, no hero Hicks but our prime minister is far from that too.
Having watched a bloke called Harold Holt crawl on his knees to an American leader saying all the way with LBJ I now see far worse from Howard.
What ever sins this idiot Hicks has on his plate John Howard and his government by lies can more than match.

"...but when push comes to shove Howard will be able to sell a flawed Yank democracy over a murderous, medieval theocracy without raising a sweat."

Unless of course, people consider that there might be more than two options in life...

Maybe the problem people have is twofold. It probably isn't that they think Hicks is a lovely guy. I'm sure many don't (I suspect he probably is/was a ratbag). The problem is that people would like to think that: 1) anyone is entitled to a fair trial (and within a period a lot shorter than five years!), including the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, not to mention there being a certain amount of transparency in the process; and, 2) that the Australian government would go in hard for anyone who ended up in trouble overseas (the government is there to bat for us as citizens, not to make moral judgements).

I would suggest that people are more than a little upset about this because it's bad enough that 1) wasn't fulfilled, but the way the Australian government has behaved with respect to 2) leads people to feel very, very betrayed. The Australian government has made a bigger or wider "symbol" out of Hicks, and people are more than a little worried about whether the government would stop at selling one man out (even if he is a ratbag).

palimpsest: It's amazing that in this post-9/11 world, with this whole so-called "War on Terror", that both the U.S. and Australian (and British too I guess) governments have managed to get their (and other) populaces so incredibly offside with what should actually work very much in their favour. I'm certainly no fan of the left, but I think that Bush will be regarded as in their handful of worst (not just ineffective) presidents, and that Howard will ultimately be remembered for much longer for things like this than anything else. Obviously, it goes without saying that people on one side of politics don't like the opposition, but no one really hates any previous prime ministers. Not so with this one.

The irony in all this is that I should be the Liberal Party's biggest fan. I'm right wing on economic issues, and I'm also anti-welfare, pro-Work Choices, etc. I'm sure you can paint the rest of the picture yourself.

However, I'm (and I'm sure I'm not alone) so disgusted over the way this government has handled issues like this, the Iraq War, the general so-called War on Terror, refugees, etc. that I couldn't even begin to offer any support for Howard and his ratbags even if I wanted to (because I have major issues with the system of government we have, but that's another issue). When the Liberal Party turns off people who describe themselves as classical liberals, you know there is something really, really wrong with it.

Shorbe, I’ve certainly got different views to you on welfare, refugees/asylum-seekers, etc. But I otherwise agree.

The implementation of the gag order over Hicks is utterly disgusting, as is the Howard government’s lack of outcry over it.

But then we could hardly expect our government to be concerned about the fundamental violation of the right to freedom of speech when they fundamentally violated the basic democratic notions of innocent until proven guilty or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe.