[Mellagar]

I've been exhausted by it, but I've read all that's been said here thus far. However, there is one point I've not seen, or perhaps missed, and that is this: Regardless of whether or not he fired a single round of ammunition or preached any rhetoric, he WAS in the surroundings of terrorists, he received training through terrorist or extremist groups. Even if he never killed anyone, just being associated with them is enough to draw unwanted heat. The fact that he was armed is enough to arrest him. He wears no symbol or recognizable uniform. Someone made comment that the army stands around with weapons, true, but they also wear a distinguishable uniform that shows who they are, and not civilian clothes like most terrorists so they may blend in the crowd easier and stand out less. If someone were to be standing in the street where you live and had an assault rifle tucked under their arm, even if they hadn't fired a single shot, would the police just drive by and say 'you be careful now, you hear?' The armed forces in the east are a 'policing' force, and if you stand with a rifle in your hands you will be arrested. Depending on your history, as was the case with Hicks, you can be detained. As for his treatment in the prison, well, all I can say is that if he'd decided not to intermingle with the people he did, he wouldn't be there. The USA does go into people's bedrooms and roust them out and take them into a room where they are forced to talk under whatever means available. The UK did it to the Irish who were suspected of being IRA. They were beaten, threatened, and found guilty though some were innocent. This isn't a US patented trick here, and if these beatings are happening, yes, it is not humanitarian, but then again its not responsible or fatherly to abandon a wife and children to take lives of others because of some belief you fell in love with. As for Bono's cries for release, why doesn't he try to make Northern Ireland free from British rule? Or resolve Tibetan prejudice? Or argue that Native Americans should be given back lands taken from them and be given opportunities lost for centuries? As for Hick's being Australian, I feel that has little bearing on the matter. A man is, and if not, should be, tried based on his actions, not his racial profile, or nationality. If he has committed no crime, free him, but judging from his past he is not free from any crime, because being affiliated with terrorist organizations IS a crime. Just like housing escaped prisoners, or aiding them IS a crime, in any country. I see the same points argued, and the same counterarguments made with the same uneven and endlessly unresolved conclusion. So it seems to me to be this, do you want him freed because he's Australian, he's not been charged with any offense, or because he's with wife and child who should have a father figure? That can be answered with a simple voting poll. So unless there is something new to offer, why beat a dead horse? In the morning he will still be in prison, the war on terror will still be burning away, and we will all still argue this point until it makes our eyes numb from the monitor's electric glow. Like Hick's case, should this topic not be put to rest?