I personally think Hicks was unfairly dealt with and the Australian Government should let him keep the proceeds from his memoir http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/hicks-...-1226099339432. What do you think?

No

I don't believe he was given a fair trial and question exactly what he was guilty of, other than being a foot soldier for the Taliban, which is not a crime. However he was found guilty and therefore in my opinion he should not be able to gain proceeds from the crime.

If he were to be retried and found not guilty then I would have no problem in him keeping the proceeds. If you allow him to keep them as it stands right now you are setting a dangerous precedent for drug related criminals

Though the article says he has not been convicted of a crime under US or Australian law. Maybe it's something to do with being convicted under US Military Law? I don't know. "Providing material support for terrorism" seems like something they thought of on the spot because they'd detained him for for three years without charge and had tortured him and needed to justify it.

I'm for criminals not being able to benefit from the proceeds of their crimes, but not sure he falls into this category. It'll be interesting to see what happens to Shapelle Corby if and when she eventually comes home.

I agree, however I do not for one minute think that girl is the least bit innocent

I don't either - but I'm sure the media will swoop on her the minute she steps on the plane and her tell all book will be on the shelves within a couple of months.

Its a tricky one isn't it? He pleaded guilty to the offence, but claims he did so as a plea bargain to avoid a longer sentence for an inevitable conviction following an unfair trial. However the cynic in me says "he would say that wouldn't he". Because there is little doubt that he was more than the misguided sympathiser in the wrong place at the wrong time he and his supporters would have us believe. He was a self confessed admirer of OBL, received training and undertook terrorist missions albeit not against allied forces in Afghan. Just check him out in his own words - extracts from letters to family are on wikipedia and elsewhere including this gem: "I am now very well trained for jihad in weapons some serious like anti-aircraft missiles".

Plainly that wouldn't constitute an admission in a criminal court and it doesn't justify his rendition and prolonged detention without charge, but you can see why the Americans treated him as a person of interest and why the government wants him to forfeit the book proceeds.

I personally would have a lot more sympathy for him if he took active steps to challenge the American conviction in the appropriate forum rather than just talk about it.

no

he is a convicted terrorist

Yes, because he's not a convicted terrorist; because the US kangaroo court isn't recognised by anyone who has a passing association with justice. You can't torture people and get away with it by claiming convictions are fair, they aren't. The criminal activity stinks up the whole process and makes it null and void.

And let's face, the money the book earned was because of the kidnap and torture by the US, not because he was daft enough to play games with the Taliban. The money was a consequence of the story that arose from the illegal torture by the US, aided and abetted by Australia.

As such, and in lieu of those guilty for that crime being punished, be deserves the money as some small compensation.

He is an enemy combatant, therefore trying him in front of a military court is valid IMO.

Western military soldiers captured by the Taliban are tortured and then murdered with no court involved.

What has happened to Hicks works for me.

So if you are recognising him as a soldier, then all the rules of war apply and is torture is a war crime and he is supposed to released after the war, etc. None of that says you can steal the money he earns from writing a book, but they do mean the military court is still invalid because of the mistreatment and torture.

Look, he's probably as much guilty of being a terrorist idiot as he's supposed to be - but the behaviour of the US basically lost them the opportunity to convict him, or punish him, or anything. You want to blame someone for that, get Cheney and dubya into a court. They screwed up BIG time.

With hindsight, 'combatant' was the wrong word to use. He's a muslim terrorist. If he was tortured (his word) then I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Nothing wrong with a bit of mistreatment for pricks like him.

So you don't really care about the rule of law, justice, or civilised society?

What exactly are the troops fighting for again?

To kill 'em all

What was the difference between you and the terrorists again?