Heard on the ABC TV news a couple of minutes ago, the American ambassador claiming that it was actually a good thing that David Hicks has been held without charge for five years because it provided him with the "opportunity" to "conduct what I call lawfare". Is that really what he said? Brings a whole new dimension to the aphorism that a diplomat is someone sent overseas to lie for their country. (*)
Nice one, Your Excellency. A nice little bit of dog whistling to insinuate that it's only David Hicks' and other legal activities that have delayed the trial.
Not the need to fabricate some sort of legal framework where none existed, that would guarantee a guilty verdict. No fault of the US at all, you understand.
So on that logic, it would be better if he was detained without trial for 70 years, because then he could die in a familiar environment?
While that dopey trio of shameless blame-shifters, Howard, Downer and Ruddock, have used every opportunity to demonise Hicks in the eyes of Australians - oh, until recently, of course.
Actually, shameless doesn't quite fully capture the disgusting level of amorality the three have consistently displayed. Anyone got a better word? And one for his Excellency?
(*) Actually, look at the link. The author, Philip Habib, calims it's better for diplomats to be honest. A trait that's gone out of fashion over the last 11 years.