Playing the system for a bunch of Hicks

Now I'm someone who doesn't have a lot of sympathy for anyone who takes up arms as a mercenary in a foreign war, be it a soldier of fortune or a onward christian soldier or a muslim convert who leaves Australia and goes to war in support of muslim forces fighting their conflicts overseas. I can understand their motives, not question their sincerity, even admire their ardour in some cases, like the guys who made up the Flying Tigers air squadrons fighting with the Chinese in WWII.

Where I park my sympathy at the door is when they fall victim to the conflagration they throw themselves into and look to their government to extricate them. I mean, you just cannot expect, in those circumstances, to get the same legal treatment you would at home. You cannot expect the affairs and relationships of your homeland to bend to your own peculiar design.

At the same time, I feel a country has an obligation to ensure that, whatever the outcome might be, it's citizens who do run afoul of other authorities do get some form of justice. Maybe we should not always run to their sides to hold their hands, but we should, on principle, expect other countries to behave in a civil manner towards our fellow citizens. That's a very elastic concept, but you can use, as a guideline, an expectation that the other country will afford, at a minimum, the standards of judicial review that the other country is obligated to provide under international treaties that it signs and its own constitutional demands. We demand it of countries who are holding Australian drug runners, murderers, child abusers and corporate scallywags. We ought also to demand it in cases of mercenaries.

My point is, we do so, not in support of the individual, but in support of the principle. My ideal is that we govern ourselves by laws, not by crowds.

That said, I think the Howard government has been too coy and precious in its efforts on behalf of David Hicks. (See, http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/10/1078594431243.html?from=storyrhs.) This is a judgment I came to after seeing Tony Blair's government obtain the release of its citizens from the clutches of the US military in Guantanamo. I don't think it is radical or unchivalrous to expect the same effort of the Australian government.

It would be indicative of the slavishness of the Howard government to the Bush government if Hicks' lawyers succeed in getting Hicks dual UK citizenship which results in getting his release from custody by the UK government while the Australian government sits on its hands. (See, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hicks-lawyer-confident-on-british-claim/2005/09/26/1127586770108.html.) I'm sure if that happened, Howard would not be so vindictive as to repeal the Australian citizenship of the newly dual citizen Hicks under the mooted new terrorism legislation. Would he?