I feel the Australian goverment has sold out David Hicks..
He,s spent years locked up with little hope of a fair trial in America...

What possesses a country to allow one of its own to be treated little better than a dog at Americas pleasure?

Why hasnt the Government intervened?

I totally agree Ozgirl

This episode has got to go down as one of the most shameful things in both Australian and US history.

It strikes just so grossly against the fundamental principles of democracy and basic decency.

There is simply no way that we can accept interminable or long-term incarceration without trial of anyone who has been deemed to have broken the law, no matter how guilty we might think they are. This episode puts the US, and Australia via its lack of official outcry, back in the dark ages in terms of human rights, alongside the worst despotic governments and holders of political prisoners.

It shows that the US, which preaches democracy around the world, is only too willing to step right outside the bounds of democracy when it suits.

I am as disgusted as anyone could be that Hicks is still in GITMO, still untried, still held in conditions similar to those imposed upon the worst types of offenders, and still without much prospect of having his case dealt with in the foreseeable future.

Anyone with common sense has turned his/back on David Hicks. David Hicks turned his back on his own country and culture when he went off to train with Islamic terrorists.

What about David Hicks's 'strike''against the fundamental priciples of basic deceny and democracy', Ludwig?

Yes. It would have been better if Hicks had been tried in short time; but, given this man's character, actions and intended actions, all this sympathy for Hicks is way over the top - just another excuse for the expression of anti-Americanism and anti-Howard government.

Feel free to be 'disgusted'about the tardiness of justice for Hicks, Ludwig. But,please, don't go overboard for the nasty little twerp.

“What possesses a country to allow one of its own to be treated little better than a dog at Americas pleasure?”

Isn’t this a perplexing question. Why on earth hasn’t our government maximised it’s lobbying on the US to deal with this matter?

It is not because of our close relationship and some fear of offending America. Our relationship is strong enough for us to be able to vigorously express our concerns.

It is not because Howard wants to show unwavering support for the war on terror. He can do that while still lobbying hard for the basic democratic and humanitarian rights of one of our citizens.

I think it is because we have lost our way with the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ or ‘shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’. We hold this up as a pillar of our whole system of governance. But in reality it’s a crock of sh!t.

It sits amongst other chronic lies that we consider to be pillars of democracy, such as freedom of speech, equality, the notion that our vote will count where we want it to, or that we are voting for expressed policies rather than being forced to vote for the lesser of two or more evils.

In fact, when you think about it, the condoning of disgusting treatment of Hicks by the Australian government isn’t really outside of our general pseudodemocratic or antidemocratic practices.

So, our government hasn’t launched a full outcry over Hicks’ detention as a matter of principle because…well… there effectively is no such principle (of fairness, right to trial, right to be treated as innocent until shown otherwise by a court of law, right to self-expression, etc) in this country.

Without digging back through countless Google websites, I may be wrong on one or two concepts. But the way I see it is this.

David Hicks, an Australian [or joint Australian/British citizen], was caught whilst fighting on the side of "the enemy". I don't believe that one's birth or citizenship should necessarily mean that you are a traitor to your country, if you are OPENLY fighting for the other side [ie not a spy or fifth columnist]. You may simply hold a different point of view to the current govt of your own country. As such, I see him as a prisoner of war.

It could be said, by a stretch of the imagination, that the war in which he was taken prisoner is still going on, therefore it is justified to continue to hold him prisoner. But why is he still being held in a US prison? Why not in Australia? By what right has the US continued to hold him prisoner? After all, the peacekeeping action in Afghanistan is a joint effort of which Australia is part, not the US versus the former most influential Afghan force.

If he is judged to be a serious threat to peace, then by all means keep him locked up. But he is entitled to a trial and I believe his trial should be in Australia and conducted under Australian rules. And his trial should have been over and done with years ago.

And the fact that this situation has been allowed to drag on has to be laid at the feet of the current Australian govt.

Yes, it is very unsatisfactory that no trial or hearing of any sort has occured in David Hicks case.
His problem is that this is a war with new undefined rules.

It is like these statements we hear that an American action has killed so many civilians. But all the insurgents are civilians !
He was a civilian that it is alleged was running around with military style weapons and traing in military operations.
My understanding of the Geneva Convention is that it covers military personal, ie people with a uniform, a paybook and a serial number.
It also covers captured civilians. That is those unarmed people not in uniform.
David Hicks and his contempories fell between these two stools.
There is no provision for an army of civilians.
It is in fact a contradiction of terms.

That it is a war is hard to contradict. But where is the enemy ?
Enemy troops are normally held until the cessation of hostilities.
Wounded soldiers are sometimes repatriated. However fir soldiers are never repatriated, just to rejoin their army.
If he wants to be considered a soldier he can be held until the cessation of hostilities.