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.

Shorbe I am from the other side to you but maybe not so far away on some issues.
Welfare could be one, I see so much waste and so much refusal to get of ones bottom and work for a living.
But one issue we will differ on forever is workchoices.
Hands up we needed reform in IR hands up I proudly am a union official.
But given the boss more often than not invites me onto sites and more often than not is as anti workchoices as I am we need to talk about this bad union stuff.
Leave the lie for another thread but the very real and needless pain workchoices has inflicted on kids and the lower paid is Howard's crime against his battlers I will remember longest.
Welfare? my first mission on leaving school given to me by a father who demanded it get a job!
I help people get a job its a service to future union members.
Jobs offering 70% more than the only ones around my rural town are rejected.
Why? just want to hang around for a few years it would ruin my lifestyle.
Review welfare by all means.

Shorbe, you could be right and enough people might be turned off Howard to make a differance come election time. Time will tell.
Bugsy, you've hit the nail on the head and missed my point all in one. I'm asking whether Howard is the manipulative master he is credited/criticised as being, and if so isn't it likely that he might try to use Hicks in a manner like I suggested? It's easy to see the possibility. (regardless of the rights and wrongs of such actions).
It would be Hicks TRUTH v's Howards TRUTH, Liberals spin v. Labor's.... and like it or not, I would not be sure which version would win out.
A couple elections ago Labor thought they had Howard on toast over the issue of his honesty- "never ever", "core promises",
the "children overboard" etc. Well John turned the tables and asked
"who do you trust?" and won the election.
For all Howards predictability on issues he has shown glimpses of audacious political skill like the example above. Even Kevin Rudd has acknowledged JH's political skills.
John will be looking to pull another rabbit out of a hat,and I'm just asking could David Hicks be that rabbit?

None of us really know what David Hicks has done or not done, if however you judge his level of guilt by the length of his sentence I would say that he is guilty of very little, considering that John Lindt got 20 years and the propensity of Americans to handout lengthy jail terms at the drop of a hat.
Judging by his interview with 4 Corners he didn't seem to do much at all, fighting with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance is not terrorism and from what he said there didn't seem much of that, I don't think he even fired a shot in anger, as for his training with Al Quaeda it seemed pretty basic infantry training and the like, nothing about making bombs or other terrorist related activites.
I realise that this is based on a TV interview and is just one side of the story, but that is all we are going to get as the Yanks weren't willing to get up in court and tell their side, but I rather suspect they didn't have much or they wouldn't enter into a plea bargain, as this was the first terrorist trail of this nature one would have thought they would make a big deal of it and splash it allover the media, but they rolled over for a piddling 7 years, most of which he has served.
I think most of you are frothing at the mouth and getting all worked up about someone who was very very small beer indeed, and that is the reason for the gag, this fool has been painted as some sort of major villian and he is nothing of the sort, and Howard and co don't want to be exposed for villifying a very very minor player.

Bugsy ;- He might just tell us the truth.

It didnt look to me like he was telling the truth on four corners. He adroitly sidestepped any question that might have incriminated him by feigning a vague knowledge of what was going on around him when he was involved with the Taliban. The man had too much intelligence in his eyes to be that stupid.

His letters home certainly indicated that he knew and approved of converting the world to the muslim religion. He was very pleased at the success they had in doing that in Kashmir at the point of a gun. You'd have to be living on another planet not to know that the sworn enemy of Islam is the West. To convert the world to the muslim religion he would have to fight the West. How could he not know that?

Sharkfin wipe yer chin

It seems that it was not Howard who put the gag order on Hicks, it was some American. Howard was happy to go along with it - he seems happy to go along with anything that Bush and his crowd want.

I suspect that the gag order is to try to stop Hicks talking about his time and his treatment in Guantanamo more than anything else. Few in either the USA or Australia would be interested in Hicks' views on Islam and its place in the world. He has, so far, been allowed to say very little about his treatment. He is by far the best known of all the Guantanamo prisoners to Australians. Having him tell in detail all that he was subjected to in Guantanamo could, I suspect, harm the Australia-US aliance. Neither would it be good for the Liberal's re-election prospects (don't forget the Liberals are even more pro-American than is the Labor party), nor for the Republican side in the next US election. The Yanks would hope that the media would have lost interest in Hicks after the one-year's gag ran out - and they'd probably be right.