... 'The David Hicks Problem is a real problem'

Normally a person whose activities are deemed illegal has a reasonable expectation of being charged, undergoing a fair trial to face his or her accusers and receive a judgement based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of the worst criminals of the last 75 years got such a hearing: Joachim von Ribbentrop, Herman Goering, Martin Boorman, Rudolf Hess all had a their day in court. So did Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic, Nikola Sainovic, ex-army chief of staff Dragoljub Ojdanic and three former generals. Even recently Sadam Hussein got a trial in a public court in spite of the fact that he was a known horror merchant.

Their crimes fell under standard black and white laws. In a Judaeo/Christian legal system (such as the US's), normally no matter what a person is supposed to have done, the person is normally charged, tried, then sentenced or freed, not imprisoned and tormented for ever-so-long because it feels OK to someone in charge.

David Hicks' case however is a real problem. As I understand it, it's like this: When American forces caught Hicks, the U.S. had no law about even so much as being caught in the company of a terrorist group so there was nothing to charge him with according to law but there was enough belief in his culpability for him to be rounded up with others. Some of these have proved to be inoocent. Maybe that was the problem right there that day. Maybe the soldiers on duty should have held up their fingers and yelled, 'Barleys!' while they asked everyone if they were sorry for being there and would they like to go back home or back to the hills and practice making bombs some more, or whether they would like to be locked up in Guantanimo Bay for five years. Make it really democratic and nice. Maybe.

Because Hicks was not a member or citizen of an enemy 'state' he couldn't be a prisoner of war under military court rulings. What was he then? Innocent or guilty? And if either, then innocent or guilty of what and according to whom and how could it be determined? Should he have been freed to roam the world again? Nice thought but according to whose ruling could that have come about?

Australian courts would be in the same dilemma if the 'Bring Hicks Home' campaign were to prevail. Which court could try him and under what charge? If nothing could be drummed up would that mean he should be freed? Big call. I wouldn't want to be making that one. Would you?

It's a tricky one. The emotions have nothing to do with it. He is apparently in poor health or at least a poor state of mind. All we can ask on his behalf is that he be treated humanely while incarcerated and I join with all the campaigners in harmony with that part of it. And if he was just a tourist in the wrong spot like the Tipton Three were (the young Englishmen whose story is told in the movie 'Road to Guantanimo') he should be freed and compensated. Then again Hicks was hardly caught in his wedding suit with a nicely wrapped cake tray under his arm as a gift was he?

This is unlikely to have a happy ending though. Wishing won't make it so. David Hicks made a clear choice to run with the terrorists at whatevr level, which has caught him up in drastic circumstances and like all of us, he's going to have to endure the consequences of his choices.

Hicks' father has my sympathy and drumming up media and public support is an understandable response from a Dad but overlooks the reality that his son wasn't actually trying to save the rain forests. Nor does his blaming the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister for his son's lot in life diminish the reality that his son made a choice to turn his back on said Prime Minister, Foreign Minister kith, kin and countrymen. David Hicks' life is going to be unhappy for a long long long time.