The point is not that whether he was "innocent" it's that he wasn't charged or dealt with at law. He was detained and tottered and held without charge in a secret institution.
Advocates of hicks are mainly advocates of civil rights and rule of law.
What is it that you are so convinced that he was not innocent of? What crime, of what country's law, and on what evidence and process are you relying on for your conviction?
A photograph and some rhetoric?
There is indeed two sides to the David Hicks saga. The first is his actions which resulted to his arrest and thereafter his treatment in the hands of the US.
I was talking about the former and you are focusing on the later.
He refuses to talk about his pre-arrest life. There are accounts however that do place him in Afghanistan and certainly with unpleasant company.
Hicks himself confessed to the AFP & ASIO that he had extensive time with Al-Qeda training camps. Witnesses have also attested about his character, his past and the terrorist intentions that he often vocalised. Notwithstanding this, the Feds have been unable to build a case that sticks. So I guess he may very well be found "innocent".
I agree, his treatment and torture in the hands of the US was inhumane and Howard's gutless decision to stand up to the US plus Labor's remarkable acquiescence to it was deplorable.
All this aside, Hicks needs to be taken into a back alley and punched the crap out of. Add to that, the government should fight to the living end to prevent this merkin from profiting in any way from this. That's my kangaroo court opinion anyway.
:C:
. So much for his sign.
