dlowan wrote:Sounds to me like Howard has done a deal with Uncle W, to get rid of an electoral liability.
Anyone think I am being too cynical?
Edit: Lol! Just looked at the cartoon.
Clearly, my cynicism is reflected everywhere.
Good morning, Deb.
I was half-way through a ponderous, lengthy response to your previous post last night when KAPUT! it vanished! (Continuing Adventures in Luddite Land. A long story! 
) But perhaps it's as well, I could have been accused of all sorts of things this morning! 
I will have another go later. I think you raised some interesting issues there ......
Are you being too cynical over the Hicks verdict?
Hell no! That's what everyone thinks!
Check out the letters to the editor in my morning paper today. (The AGE, in Melbourn.:
An indelible stain on this GovernmentGraeme Scarlett, East Malvern
In La-La Land
THE Howard Government is in La-La Land if it thinks David Hicks is no longer an election issue. Late last year, a seachange occurred among Coalition voters. Maybe it was the five-year anniversary of Hick's incarceration that did it, but something caused the scales to fall from their eyes and they finally saw Howard, Ruddock and Downer for what they really are: so ruthless as to drive an Australian citizen to the brink of insanity in order to appear tough on terrorism. And they saw that these three only found "compassion" when they realised they were out of step with the vast majority of their supporters. They will not forget.
Lloyd Swanton, Wentworth Falls, NSW
No political mileage
TO PARTIALLY quote D. Fraser (Letters, 28/3), now that David Hicks has pleaded guilty to the main charge five years' incarceration in Guantanamo Bay has produced, I hope that Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard et al do not attempt to get political mileage from the fact that the man in all probability will be back on Australian soil before the election. To do so would be seen by those Australians who are aware that Hicks knowingly took up arms in support of Osama bin Laden as a cynical attempt to capitalise on something that would not have occurred if it was not an election year. To do so would see them show their displeasure at the ballot box.
D.M. Murison, Hawthorn East
The assault on our freedoms continues
FOR David Hicks to be held in jail in Australia to serve whatever sentence the Guantanamo tribunal may dispense (The Age, 28/3), he will have to be denied the normal resort to appeal, review and habeas corpus that is every other Australian prisoner's right. Otherwise, any Australian court before which he were brought would be bound to release him on the ground that he has neither committed any offence that obtains under Australian law nor been convicted by any legal process that an Australian court can recognise.
In keeping Hicks in jail at the behest of the US military's irregular tribunal, Messrs Howard and Ruddock will be betraying more than this one desperate Australian citizen. Once he is returned to Australia, they have committed themselves to subverting the foundations of Australian law and, accordingly, to degrading the very freedoms that the so-called war on terror was meant to safeguard.
Patrick Wolfe, Carlton North
Political ends
THE plea bargain effectively forced on David Hicks should be seen as no more than the inevitable confession of a tortured man. Having been Guantanamo-ed for five years, and the final screw turned with the stripping from his defence of two legal counsel at a critical moment, Hicks cannot be blamed for failing to challenge his charges through to the end. Desperation did indeed drive the deal.
And what of the US military prosecutor Morris Davis forecasting Hicks' return to Australia by year's end? It all smacks of cynical orchestration between the US and Australian governments. And that's all the more worrying when the system can be manipulated to political ends but never to deliver timely justice, or justice at all.
Darren Lewin-Hill, Northcote
A cop-out
DAVID Hicks' "guilty" plea is a cop-out. Not only has he abandoned his innocence, but he has also spared himself (and his misguided supporters) the embarrassing displeasure of having to sit through the damning evidence exposing his links to one of most oppressive, human rights-abusing regimes on the planet.
Instead, pleading guilty has allowed him some room to hide behind both the political and legal arguments regarding process, therefore attaining for himself an almost cult hero status among the anti-American crowd.
For the innocent Afghan victims of the tyrannical Taliban regime, this last result is a cruel injustice indeed.
Steven Sher, Glen Iris
Non-core plea
DAVID Hicks' plea does not reflect his guilt. His plea is a product of the coercion that saturates the entire military tribunal and its relationship with Guantanamo Bay. Five years of torturous conditions with the prospect of it continuing indefinitely would be enough to make even the most stubborn man admit he did something that he did not necessarily do. Such conditions could even break John Howard's resolve to never apologise or say "sorry" for wrongs (even if he felt he was not personally responsible).
Jay Tilley, Brunswick
Mind games
IF DAVID Hicks had been born with a Middle Eastern name and had a dark swarthy appearance and pleaded guilty to terrorism acts, then we would have believed him and felt a little more comfy.
Hang on. A few weeks ago wasn't there some other bloke who fitted that description and made confessions which we also chose to doubt? I can't figure it out.
Perhaps it's a case of us applying too much reverse-reverse psychology. In any case, Osama must be chuckling.
Tony Chew, Ballarat
Comrades in arms?Rob Wiseman, St Kilda
An editorial for all seasonsHelen McTaggart, Seaford
Material support for terrorism?
IF DAVID Hicks can be convicted for "material support for terrorism", I fail to understand why Australian Wheat Board executives and members of our own Government are still at liberty.
AWB funnelled $300 million of taxpayers' money to our so-called enemy Saddam Hussein while Australian soldiers were in Iraq fighting a war. According to the PM's own statements at the time, Saddam had clear terrorist connections. Why then do we not see those responsible for this abysmal "bribe" charged under our counter-terrorism laws?
John Howard must be hoping for a collective dose of amnesia and unconsciousness to descend over the electorate next November. I for one plan to stay awake.
Nina Philadelphoff-Puren, Oakleigh
http://www.theage.com.au/letters/index.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
