Cheney says Hicks will be among first detainees tried
 

Australian detainee David hicks to be near the head of the queue for trial:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...2/s1856137.htm

About bloody time!:nope: Guilty or not, 5 years is too long without trial and the job done by the US on these trials has been simply diabolical from a human rights perspective.

This one i can see several sides to the story - i can empathise to a certain extent with all points of view. I can certainly understand people who think it has beeen too long without a trial (bear in mind, Hicks' own defence lawyers have tied it up almost 2 years with appeals and whatnot). I can also understand people who say that the detainees by their actions have forfeited the rights they may otherwise have held.

To be honest, i dont think that Hicks should be brought back - i DO think he should be given some visitation rights by at least his father. (OT - mind you, whoever voted terry hicks for aussie of the year oughta be shot!)

I want to see what the guy is like. Maybe if we got to see him in the media people could make up their minds whether he's an arsehole, or a normal Aussie bloke. He has already spent 5 years in detainment... already a fair sentance. Not so sure about what exactly he did.

@Boris I'm not sure that he's what you would call a typical Aussie bloke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

Not too many Aussie blokes with a wikipedia entry like this one!

I've got no opinion as to whether or not he is guilty, I just think that 5 years in lockup without being charged is a bit much.

@baggygreen At least some of the delay was actually caused by the US govt and the civil righs movement in the US as they had to argue about whether or not the process was actually lawful and how or if it fit within the consitution. Regardless, in any other justice system other than the US military one, the accused would have to be charged or let go within a set period.

I'm saying from a purely human rights standpoint that regardless of his guilt or otherwise, something should have happened before now and I think that the Australian Government has been completely slack in not standing up to the US until public opinion started to turn on them.

Well, Hicks surely isn't a typical Aussie bloke. What I meant, is there any reason at all to be sympathetic towards him now. 5 years is a long time to reflect on what you've done.

Dunno the bloke well enough as media reports are my only contact with him. Have a good read of the whole article and it covers most of what I've seen in the media about him.

I don't know for sure but seeing the campaign to get him out led by his father, I'd say there are some details in the article that his family may have had input to.

I just hope they get the trial started ASAP so we can find out what the evidence against him is for the charges they've laid. Gotta say I think the attempted murder one is a long bow given the prosecutor admits he never fired a shot!

hows about "conspiracy to commit to attempt to try to commit murder"???:hmm:

According to what I've seen he's not been charged with that. I saw a forum show on SBS in the week with both reps from both sides legal teams and this was discussed at length. EDIT: Added link http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/

According to the charge sheet

• In early 2001 Hicks personally collected intelligence on the U.S embassy in Kabul Afghanistan as part of an al-Qaida training exercise.
• Hicks travelled between Pakistan and Afghanistan before and after the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC.
• Using the name Abu Muslim Austraili he attended al-Qaida training camps.
• In April 2001 Hicks also trained in al-Qaida's guerilla warfare and mountain tactics training course.
• Hicks expressed to al-Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden his concern over the lack of English al-Qaida training materials.
• On or about September 9th 2001 Hicks travelled to Pakistan, and that while at a friends house he watched the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC and expressed approval.
• On his return to Afghanistan Hicks was issued an AK-47 automatic rifle and armed himself with 300 rounds of ammunition and 3 grenades to use in fighting the United States, Northern alliance and other coalition forces.

Does this constitute an attempt on anyone's life? I think the supporting terror charge is more likely to stand up, but according to Hick's lawyer (A serving US Marine lawyer), these charges did not exist in the US military statutes at the time of his "arrest".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks#New_charges