Hicks v Howard

Howard's view was, and obviously still is, that it was better that an Australian citizen "go before a military commission given the allegations that had been made against them than be brought back to Australia and not be capable of being charged".

Howard's denials - based on his past record - are not worth anything. David Hicks faced trumped-up charges and they couldn't make them stick.  They had Hicks over a barrel. He had nowhere to go.  The charges against him have never been tested and could never be tested in a court of law. For Howard to raise Hicks' guilty plea on Q&A is disingenuous at best.

Contrary to Howard's cheap rhetorical tricks, nobody has ever portrayed Hicks as a hero.  The people who stood up for him stood up against the repression.  Saying he's not a hero doesn't shift the focus from the iniquity of Howard or his government.

Howard exposed the fundamental flaws in the Australian Parliament which led to substantial abuses of the system. The accumulation of power in the Prime Minister's office still exists today because the flaws have not been addressed. Checks and balances must be restored to Australia's Parliament. The Prime Minister is appointed by a party not the people. People elect individuals in their electorate whom they expect to have greater power than they do.

Over 11 long years Howard did not seek to preserve democracy, he sought to take away democratic rights. Children in detention, indigenous rights, Haneef, wars without UN Security Council Resolutions authorising the initial use of force, Hicks, the list goes on.  The fact that Australia is "a great country that allows this kind of exchange to occur....that would not occur in other countries and in dictatorships..." is no thanks to Howard or his regime.