If it is a case of just not having any evidence to convict him Davros then it should send some CIA agents to Ironworks because a few people on this board seem to know for sure what happened! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]He signed up with Al Qaeda, an enemy of Australia. That doesn''t only make him a terrorist, or at least a terrorist supporter, but also a betrayer to his own people. Why are you so eager to get him off the hook anyway ? You think he'll just forget about what happened, and blend right back into Australian society, acting as a normal citizen once more ?

I don't need to know what happened, he signed up with Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or whatever name they choose to give themselves, and that's all the information i need.

I suppose you might be correct. Perhaps he is a terrorist. But I still think he should be given a trial.

Ok, my next question here; are we going to start having trials for every POW we capture? Who is planning to pay for that? I don't think I've ever heard of POW's being tried for being enemy combatants in a war. That's not the way it works. Criminals get trials, and possibly executed. POW's get to live, albeit in prison, until the end of the war, when, it's my understanding, they are released. In the long run, it would be better to not take prisoners, if you're going to have to spend thousands of dollars giving them a day in court to prove that yes, we took you prisoner on a battle field, where you were engaged with our forces in a pitched battle. Uh, flair for the obvious here...He was captured on a battle field, engaged in a pitched battle with Coalition forces, therefore, he's an enemy combatant, and is probably being held as a POW. No country would be willing to fork out thousands of dollars per prisoner to try each and every POW. Bullets are much cheaper.

Lets agree on some things - I don't agree with what he has done, and I don't support the slimy toe-rag. In my mind, as in yours Johnny, he is most probably guilty of something that I cannot accept.

All that aside though, what I do support is the justice process and right now he is getting none. All these years there has been time enough to bring charges and try him in a court of law. If years of torture haven;t revealed anything new, what else does the prosecution believe it is going to find now?

Any and all other prisoners are entitled to be held for a reasonable time until the prosecution can bring what charges they may - the years and years of this case are not acceptable. If the system doesn't let us keep OJ without a trial because we believe he is guilty, why should this guy have different rights? Sure, you might wish the system did let us hold OJ right now, but that is a different argument altogether.

So when does this "war against terror" stop?

So when does this "war against terror" stop? </font>[/QUOTE]Never.

So when does this "war against terror" stop? </font>[/QUOTE]Never. </font>[/QUOTE]So when does Hicks get released or even charged and put to trial?

In due time.

So it's your intention to charge him with being an enemy combatant? In so far as I know, this has never been done, but hey, what ever floats your boat.

If he is considered a POW he can be held for as long as the war lasts, the longest held US POW from Vietnam was held for 9 years before being released