"Peter Wiley" wrote
Let *who* go? The guys in Gitmo? Sure. Either that or charge them.

We are chasing our own tails. AFAIK everybody in Gitmo has been charged,
convicted and sentenced in the country where captured before being sent to
Gitmo. You mention convicts being held for execution in Oz. If one of them
could help US law enforcement break a big international drug ring, would you
let us question him, perhaps even outside Oz if assured all Australian laws
would be upheld? Probably. Now if instead of returning him we gave him a new
US trial and let him go you'd be understandably ****ed. Substitute
Afghanistan for Oz and that's the case here AFAIK.

Look, I could easily construct a scenario for people like David Hicks.....

No need, he admits he went to Afghanistan, joined al Qaeda, and participated
in unlawful activities that could (should?) have got him executed there.
Instead, after determining his guilt per their own local custom, he was
given over to the US for questioning. Right so far?

The *point* is - you guys won't allow him to challenge his detention in
an open court. That's wrong.

Hey, he'd have gotten the same or worse had he committed similar crimes in
Spain, France, et cetera. If he wanted Anglo-American justice he should
have stayed where it is practiced. Instead, he left Oz and fought to impose
a very different draconian system on other peoples - a system where women
were systematically killed for being literate! He has been tried under that
same Islamic system he wanted to impose on others and, were he not in Gitmo,
he'd have been killed. Perhaps he should be returned to Afghanistan for
summary execution, but an Anglo-US type trial? You gotta be kidding!