Hicks

The only Australian to be held in detention at Guantanamo Bay, David Hicks, is finally to face a 'special military commission'. The charge? Material Support for Terrorism. The second charge of attempted murder was dismissed through lack of probably cause. The first charge carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Material support for terrorism. What is that?

I don't have a problem with Hicks being in detention. I do have a problem with the length of time he and his fellow inmates have been in Gitmo; Five years for Hicks - a sentence in itself.

This charge sounds like something to cover the fact he's been in prison for so long.

In fact, I would argue that these people aren't criminals, but prisoners of war given the American declaration of War. Never mind it's on Terror. Could it be any more amorphous than that? A war without end means the detainees stay in prison for as long as their natural lives.

The whole idea of sending the prisoners to Gitmo was ill-concieved and hasty in the extreme. Yes, something had to be done, but if you're going to prosecute a war, you'd better have all your ducks lined up and it's clear Bush had no idea. "A war? Sure, it'll be fun; I'll play!"

And if Hicks is proven to be innocent? (Fat chance - there's to much invested in his detention.) What then? Those five years are lost; no amount of money is going to get them back, nor is it going to help the psychological damage done.

Hicks' father, Terry, has been fighting for his son's release ever since David was detained. A good Dad, for all intents and purposes, and yet he's never come out and explained what David was doing in the fortress in Afghanistan when the CIA agent was killed and the Americans captured it. Mr Hicks is full of diversionary comments and half-hearted denials.

But that no longer makes a difference, for Terry is using his own son as a battering ram against the Prime Minister. It looks like Terry has forgotten where and when and why his son was detained and instead believes his son is a victim of American aggression and Australian indifference.

I think that to save face all round, the Americans will have to pass a 'guilty' verdict to affirm the five years in prison, but release him soon after the trial to appease the growing unrest here and as a trade for Australia's continued good will. Mr Hicks won't see it that way; he'll see it as an injustice (the old 'my boy, he good boy' denial, even with obvious proof); he already sees his son's continued detention as a betrayal by our government and, no doubt, he's filled with hate for the Americans.

Well, Mr Hicks? What was your son doing in an Al-Quaida fortress? And why do you think David is innocent?