This post is where the term fascist is applicable to those on the right of politics.
While the law may not have kept up with what was alleged, surely the principles of law should be adhered to?
Even if Hicks committed the most grievous war crimes conceivable there is no reason to enact retrospective laws to punish him or other alleged perpetrators. There were proper trials after WWII where allegations were put to the perpetrators and they were allowed to have their say in open court.
Look at the hysteria when "retrospective laws" were proposed on the treatment of superannuation, yet when it comes to something serious retrospective laws are quickly sought.
If we want torture as part of our criminal process then lets specify it in the law statutes. No surprises, nor hypocrisy about it. John Howard actively supported the torture and indefinite detention of an Australian citizen, without testing those allegations, no other democracy would tolerate that, yet Howard was treated with adulation and adoration by Liberal party supporters.
This abhorrent behaviour was supported by Tony Abbott and was generally unquestioned by the Liberal party. Why? What does Abbott have planned for the future? Given his previous support of torture and the suspension of legal rights when it suits his circumstances does he plan to revoke the law when it suits him in the future? He's done it before so he may well do it again.
This was in direct contrast to Howard's treatment of members of AWB who paid millions of dollars in bribes to Saddam Hussein who undoubtedly used the funds to advance terrorism in his country. There was a token investigation using laws that had a statute of limitations that conveniently expired and his mates were not punished for crimes equivalent to those alleged to have been committed by Hicks.
If there is confusion about whether an action is terrorism or another crime then let's discuss it openly and make a determination about what it actually is and punish accordingly. But don't change or even create a law after the action. That is a very slippery slope and one that will threaten democracy.
You're right. I apologize.
We should simply catch and release those who took up arms against us in Afghanistan and consorted with Al Qaida.
"Mr Suspected Terrorist - do you perchance happen to know anything?"
"No - jolly good old chap - sincere apologies for the inconvenience - would you like a free F lounge pass to use when we fly you back to your cave in F?"
I'm interested in how you would have handled these enemy combatants given that (as has been demonstrated) the laws in existence at the time were not sufficient to hold and convict.
I'm also interested to know if your view would change if these released terrorists / terrorist supporters then committed an act which killed someone close to you?
It's all well and good to take the high moral ground in a decent civilized society such as ours - but in practice it doesn't work when we are dealing with people who don't respect the rule of law - nor a civilized society.
And as far as David Hicks being an Australian citizen - citizenship doesn't mean the government gets you out of trouble if you get into trouble overseas. IMHO he lost any claims to Australia when he took up arms against us. I have no problem with him being treated the same as all the other jihadists. Besides - I believe he got his consular visits - and that really is all you're entitled to.
As an aside - post WWII trials were successful because the Germans (whilst committing heinous acts) kept ample records about who actually committed what (as surviving witnesses could corroborate).
Most terrorism laws have only been enacted post-2001, which would make new prosecutions much easier - but that didn't help at the time without the "retrospective" issue.
It's so not black and white - and I would absolutely place the human rights of the rest of us (our right not to be blown up) over terrorists and their supporters.
(I'm not for one second disagreeing with you about the "slippery slope", I truly do share that concern, as would most people. But it's not like Hicks was sitting in his Adelaide living room watching Neighbours when the Stasi come through the door and lock him up on "suspicion" of something. He was picked up in Afghanistan fighting in a war with Taliban/Al Qaida on one side and us and our allies on the other. He had no business being there at all unless he was engaged in said activities). Had he been "picked up" almost anywhere else in the world - my view would be closer to yours.
Little social conscience - member of Surf Living Saving, Rural Fire Brigade and is currently riding his bike in the Pollie Pedal event raising money for worthy causes. The list goes on......
