Those that support Hicks support a legal system that is fair, not based on torture and one that has a respectable due process. Not even Howard's government supported what happened and constantly pushed for the military commission to proceed. Brievik supporters are the likes of the EDL and the fringes of the tea party. Brievik will get Norways legal process. Hicks got years of limbo. Brievik supporters threaten violence and probably ansl insertion of swords.

So its ok to slaughter innocent people if its not on home soil?

Im not sure if you fully understand the Hicks dilemma, so let me go over it.

If you re found fighting on battlefield you re one of two things: a Legal or illegal combatant.

If you re illegal - e.g. spy or terrorist, you can face the death penalty.

If you are a legal combatant, you are held until the cessation of hostilities, because thats how prisoners of war are treated.

So - was Hicks legal or illegal? Should he still be locked away as a prisoner of war, or shot for being a spy or terrorist. HE picked the LATTER. He pleaded guilty to being an illegal combatant, and served a jail sentence for it.

He could have stuck with being a Prisoner of War, and still been in G Bay!

The legal system that covers those found fighting on a battlefield is fair and effective. The problem is most people don't understand how it works.

Then you wont mind me saying that I think you have a heck of a lot in common with the Norwegian nutter... his logic seems to be very simililar to your STRONGLY held views....such as this you wrote

"Did my time in the Infantry thanks mate.

forget the keyboard warrior, Im much worse in real life. I tone it down here so that soft buggers don't have a sob. But if you want to meet me in real life go for it. Or are you one of those liberals who think the world is a nice place full of friendly people?

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

If I was ASIO, i'd be watching you

Where was he found? What did he plead guilty to? A what point during his imprisonment was he convicted?

People who helped Hicks did so after the chance of a legitimate process happened. To say those supporting Hicks getting a fair trial also supported terror is an illogical jump.

A major problem was that the US legal system saw the process as unfair and Bush had to change the law retrospectively. The US screwed it right up and after 5 years dropped a charge.

A decent legal system is one of many things that distinguish our democracies from the systems the terrorists want.

Explain then how, when your one of the worlds superpowers, that you can simply invade a country & start waging war upon it's people & not expect the man in the street to fight back? Hicks at least went to fight for something he believed in, unlike the majority of the U.S forces that are out there who are fighting a war against what Islam? Terrorism? Anyone with a kaffiyah on their head?
Your explanation works for a war between opposing armies, it fails when a nation is invaded & bombed into peaceful harmonious happy ever afterwards.

You forget the fact that Hicks didn't confess anything of his own free will, he was repeatedly tortured until he confessed. A confession under duress is worthless. A much better way would have been to tie him to a chair & throw him in a river if he floated he'd have been a terrorist..........................

Unfortunately your first post summed you up on this thread so why I'm bothering is anyone's guess, boredom I expect

If he wasn't a soldier, he gets a proper trial in a proper jurisdiction involved. Not a military tribunal.

Problem is, immediately that happens the trial falls apart due to the torture and treatment. He's released because no legal trial is possible. In addition it is required that ALL those involved in the torture go on trial.

If he was a soldier, then no, you don't get to shoot him. You have to treat him as a prisoner of war, and as such you STILL have to arrest and charge those guilty of torturing him.

So no, no legal trial took place. You seem not to grasp why the bad guy in this switched from David Hicks to those who mistreated him. The crimes committed by those who kidnapped him were worse than those he trained to carry out. And the guilty still walk free.

What?! He trained to kill people while hiding himself amongst the civillian population. I find it remarkable he simply wasn't shot on the spot.

Did they invade or join the Northern Alliance?

What was Hicks fighting for and against?

Exactly which innocent people did he slaughter?

Was he training to fight the Northern Alliance or to committ terror against perceived enemies of Islam?

Seems to be what people forget. Nato invaded a foreign land,not forgetting these were remnants of the same folk that the Americans supported in weapons two decades before in support of the battle against Soviet occupation forces.
These guys were certainly terrorists in the eyes of the Soviets.......

And what exactly were the National Alliance? A rather corrupt,ragtag militia that had support from only some tribes within the country.

It's widely accepted that he trained with LeT and went on a 'kill' mission to kashmir.

No, some of them (leaders of anyway) are Uni educated - such as Abdullah Abdullah. He's more intelligent than most/all on this site!