Doug, why have a legal system? you accept uncritically that detainees are guilty, without evidence, trial or any due process.

from an editorial in the sydney morning herald, a year ago..
Hicks still a long way from justice; June 14, 2004

When Australian David Hicks was captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in 2001, the Herald reported that he was with the Taliban and had trained with al-Qaeda. The charges now brought against Hicks by the US allege he was with the Taliban and had trained with al-Qaeda. This is after almost 2 years of questioning at Guantanamo Bay.

It is not surprising that Hicks's US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, should complain. He says that Hicks was labelled "one of the 10 most dangerous men in the world and yet he's not charged with actually physically and personally ever injuring anyone".

The charges are, firstly, that Hicks conspired to commit war crimes by training with the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation and by joining al-Qaeda fighters who were guarding a Taliban tank, and because he "joined others ... engaged in combat against [US-led] coalition forces". He is also charged with attempted murder because he allegedly "intended to kill American, British, Canadian, Australian, Afghan and other coalition forces". Hicks is charged, too, with "aiding the enemy" because he "intentionally aided ... al-Qaeda and the Taliban [during] armed conflict". Major Mori characterises the charges as "weak", a view echoed by a number of Australian legal experts.

That is not to minimise Hicks's alleged offences. Giving any help to a murderous organisation such as al-Qaeda is to be condemned. So is supporting a regime as ruthless as the Taliban in repressing its own people.

But having read the charges, Australians are entitled to be surprised that Hicks has been kept somewhere as harsh as Camp X-Ray, and for so long. His detention suggested he was either very dangerous or had very valuable information, or both. Perhaps he did. But there is nothing in the charges to show that.

Another thing that suggested serious and weighty reasons for holding Hicks in Guantanamo Bay was the reluctance of the Australian Government to intervene to have Hicks either charged or freed.

The Howard Government was little moved by suggestions that the test of a government's mettle is how vigorously it defends the rights of even the least popular of its citizens. Rather, Australia was the accommodating ally, content to let the Americans move at their own glacial pace.

Now things have changed. The Prime Minister, just back from Washington, says the US has promised to convene the military commission "as soon as possible". Mr Howard believes it could be underway in August. We do not know what part the Australian Government played in getting Hicks his belated appearance before the commission.

The Prime Minister would, no doubt, be pleased if the lingering Hicks issue could be resolved before the next election.

Meanwhile, the vague and unsatisfactory charges against David Hicks can only reinforce concerns that he has been treated unfairly - and faces further unfairness by being tried in a military tribunal rather than an ordinary court.