Hicks @ Paul Kelly

Submitted to The Australian - Paul Kelly blog (on a book on Hicks) and it only lasted anhour or two. This may have sunk it?
-------

Ok – I dropped a long response in Matt Price’s blog because I could not find one for you. So, I have also resubmitted a shorter version here of the key points.

Firstly, thank you for the book review. I now won’t be buying it. I expected more. You make some good points but there are obviously some ‘issues’ for The Australian, perhaps because they are starting to come tot terms with the changing Australian socio-political landscape. In respect to Hicks:

1. Hicks is not the issue – it is treatment he received by the USA military (Mori exempt) and the lack of Australian government support.

2. You fail to mention that Blair did the right thing for his citizens in respect to Gito-bay.

3. You perpetuate the myths surrounding Hicks in respect to training organisations. So, was that a crime? No. So, what is your point? I note that Israel sets a nice precedent for all minority groups that seek to free their homelands. What has changed since 1948?

4. You state that Hicks is a well trained ‘white man’? Is ‘white’ something of a racial value here? And do I assume that ‘black’, ‘brown’, yellow’ and ‘red’ men don’t count? And are you including the feral Australian army elements that become mercenary soldiers of fortune round the world – or even sell a few anti-tank missiles to Australian organised crime? Or are they all ‘non-white’?

5. The thesis that there is war of civilizations is not proven – simply believed. Hicks was fighting in Afghanistan, for their government of the day against a terrorist organisation called the ‘Northern Alliance’ – a band of renegade thugs and drug traders that now run the country and supply the world’s expanding heroin.

6. We are not at war with any country that has tried to ‘invade’ us – but continuously hear from the media that we are about to be. Sorry, I beg to differ. The reactionary forces ‘out there’ seeking our demise are simply the results of aggressive invasions. Why don’t the media argue for a change in public policy?

7. “9/11” was not an act of war. Acts of war are committed by States. It is simply crime – albeit on a larger scale.

8. Organisations, which you refer to as ‘terrorist organisations’, are fighting the US (and others) because of meddling in their localities – e.g. Vietnam. Draw simple correlation maps using oil, drugs and tin-pot puppet regimes and it easy to reframe this as piracy and plunder. Would we react differently? Some might – but under Japanese occupation (scenario B 1945) these people would be terrorist of the State – or would they be those fighting the ‘war of independence’? Depends on their colour (&/or religion) I assume.

9. The issue is not about ‘honour’ or even ‘clueless ness’ -- it is about the abuse of the rule of law by Howard and Ruddock. .

The only thing David Hicks did that has any meaning is take the smart road home after five and a half years of psycho-physical abuse and torture while being held without due court process. Have any Americans been through this Cuban experience? No. Was it an illegal military commission process until a few months ago? Yes.

I look forward to reading Hicks’ story and hope he and his family benefit through this suffering. What rubbish that politicians make empty threats about denying him his rights. It is quiet simple 101 stuff: (a) he did not commit an Australian crime while associating with the governing forces of Afghanistan; (b) he has been suffered over five years detention and torture which is continuing in Adelaide through an election period; (c) he elected, after standing his ground on principle for all this time, to simply take the quicker/easier way out and home – even Galileo did similar recanting, although the earth still continued to traverse the sun; and (d) this abuse of our legal system is an attack on us all and our freedoms.

So give Hicks due respect for his rights – they are the same rights as yours and mine are they not? This is about rights. Not about Hicks. Get it?

Hicks is only responsible for what he did. He is not a proxy for everything going on in the minds of the public. This phenomena is related to culture – and the correct response is cultural, not military war. But I guess one has to have a culture to respond without guns it seems.

But the bigger shame is on us for even considering that the general public’s opinion matters at all in the proper functioning of our system of justice. I understand it is law that matters!

If you and the public want a hanging, or a witch to burn, then go live in the ‘Deep South’ (e.g. try Texas) where, only a few decades ago, they used to lynch black men. The reason? Same as now I assume: they were mad …and still are! So, perhaps a black & white issue underlays your story: but now it’s simply ‘bare-heads vs. turban’.