The David Hicks Hex & Mocking Phillip Ruddock

Originally posted on 'The Road To Surfdom'

By Darryl Mason

It’s not often you get to see a roomful of Australians laughing at the Attorney General, twice, in the space of an hour. And it wasn’t a pretty sight.

No doubt Phillip Ruddock was expecting a particularly uncomfortable afternoon when he went along to the taping of SBS’s Insight forum show debating the American detention of terrorism suspect, and Australian citizen, David Hicks.

You can only imagine Ruddock never expected it to go as bad as it did. How bad?

Absolutely terrible.

Ruddock was given numerous chances to make his case for why the Howard government had not done more, earlier, to pressure the Bush administration into getting the David Hicks military trial underway, or to get him released. But there was nothing new from Ruddock. His talking points were dashed by lawyerly waffle and blame-gaming.

Blame Hick’s defence, blame the other Gitmo inmates who appealed against the earlier, discredited, Supreme Court rejected military trial set-up, and yes, even blame the Americans as well.

Ruddock wasn’t out to save the credibility of the American military trial system now in place. He wasn’t out to save the credibility of the prime minister, or Alexander Downer, or President Bush. Ruddock was there, with his Amnesty International pin in place, to try and rescue the last fading threads of his own credibility. And he failed.

The loudest laugh from the audience, a laugh full of contempt and disbelief, came when Ruddock said the Australian government had never been happy with the time it had taken for Hicks to firstly be charged and then for the military trial rules to be finalised and accepted by the highest court in the United States.

They laughed because they know the Howard government only changed its tune on Hicks once it became clear that his five year long detention, without trial, was the sort of “fair go” issue that could hammer Howard hard at the 2007 federal election. They changed their tune when the polls showing almost 70% of Australians were not happy with Howard on the issue of David Hicks told them they had no choice.

But even worse for Ruddock, his waffly, defensive rhetoric seemed even more cold and empty than usual because David Hick’s dad and his shattered step-mother were sitting only a few seats away. The distress on her face alone made Ruddock’s words seem all but meaningless.
Ruddock looked close to tears himself, on a number of occasions, even though the case against what has happened to David Hicks was argued reasonably, and calmly, by Terry Hicks, former Guantanamo Bay detainees, audience members and Hick’s defence lawyer Major Mori.

It was hardly a gang assault of abuse and shouting aimed at Ruddock, but he still came close to cracking.

He was there to represent the government and his department but he also found himself, as usual, defending the actions of the Bush administration, something he was clearly not happy having to do. But there lies the rub. Ruddock had choice but to try and back up the stance of Bush Co. when it comes to detainees like Hicks. They’re our closest ally, after all. And this is supposed to a war against terrorists, suspected and/or confirmed.

Most in the audience didn’t look particularly angry, just sad, disappointed, worn out by the apparent pettiness of the evidence against Hicks that was raised by his military prosecutor.

Is that it? Is that all they’ve got on this guy?

As terrible as it is that a young Australian went to fight for an outfit as odious as the Taliban, the charges still not formally laid against Hicks, and the case made by the prosecutor (who couldn’t have asked for a more open forum to say whatever he wanted), still don’t add up to enough to make most Australians think Hicks deserves to be held like a rat in a steel box for half a decade.

Let alone be tortured and mind-fucked.

Go Here To Read The Full Story

Prime Minister : I Can Free David Hicks Whenever I Want...

But I'm Not Going To

David Hicks is probably the most famous and easily recognised name in Australia at the moment. His plight has generated enormous publicity in the Australian media, and for the past three months, much of that spotlight's glare has been downright sympathetic.

Which is remarkable, when you consider that the US military accuses 31 year old David Hicks of aiding terrorists and attempting to commit murder.

He is one of the Guantanamo Bay detainees that President Bush, and former US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, used to refer to as, "killers who kill" and "the worst of the worst."

For five years, Hicks has been isolated, tortured, deprived of sunlight, of sensory stimulation, of human contact. His lawyers claim he has become like a tired, old man, desperate and despondent. They fear he may prove to be mentally unfit to stand trial.

Hicks spends 22 hours a day in what his lawyer has described as a "steel cell". He is under constant surveillance, in order to prevent suicide attempts.

Hicks's lawyer, David McLeod, spent four days visiting Hicks In Guantanamo Bay last week :

"...when I left David on the Thursday, in my 30 years of professional life it was one of the hardest and most heartrending things I had to do.

To look him in the eye and say "David, I don't know when we'll be seeing you again, we'll do our best for you", but it was like looking into the eyes of someone dying from a potentially fatal illness who is being denied the life saving drug that would cure his ill and to leave him in that state alone with his thoughts, nobody to talk to, nobody to comfort him, it was a very heartrending thing for me to do...."

The US military have denied Hicks the opportunity of independent psychiatric assessment. No doubt they fear that any psychiatrist given access to a man like Hicks, who has been detained in such conditions for so long, is going to shout long and loud about the intolerable inhumanity inflicted upon him.

Last week the US Military announced they were planning to finally charge Hicks, but last night they revealed it could be months more before Hicks even gets close to facing trial by the reconstituted military tribunal.

Three years ago, most Australians would have not recognised David Hicks' name, or known why he was being held hostage by the American military in Guantanamo Bay.

But they know who he is now.

They know his face, they know parts of his life story, they are seeing images of him as a bright-eyed kid on a televised ad campaign, and they know the pain and torment his aging father has suffered while the Howard government refused to even pressure President Bush to get the Australian charged and on trial for four long years.

It was only after shocking polls showed just how much support the 'trial now or release him' demands by campaigners had found amongst the Australian public that John Howard was finally seen to be putting at least some pressure on his "close friend" President Bush.

As a sign of the extraordinary change in how Australian view Hicks' plight, a story about his extended detention and shattered mental state was aired last night on the highest rating current affairs in the country, and there was barely a mention that he was a suspected terrorist, or that he had been 'captured' by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks and sold for a bounty to US forces.

The story on Today Tonight stuck to a new script determined by polls that showed more than 70% of Australians were vastly unhappy with how the Howard government has dealt with the Hicks fiasco.

Almost 50% of Australians said that what happened to David Hicks would affect the choices they made come election day.

Remarkably, the demands by the Australian public that Hicks either face a fair trial for his alleged crimes or be set free is now shaping up to be one of the four key election decisions that will determine whether or not John Howard remains prime minister of Australia come 2008.



Prime minister Howard admitted yesterday that he can get David Hicks out of Guantanamo Bay any time he wants to.

But he won't do it, because he believes Hicks must face the terrorism-related charges set to be filed by the US Military, despite the fact that virtually no reputable law firm or expert in the world believes the trials proposed by the US military will come close to being fair, or just.

When Howard told his coalition MPs yesterday afternoon, on the first day that federal parliament resumed for 2007, that he could get the United States to set Hicks free, at least six MPs demanded to know why Howard wouldn't allow Hicks to come home.

Howard replied that Hicks couldn't be tried for his alleged crimes in Australia, as no offence under Australian law been committed at the time he was captured.

What Howard is saying is that he cannot stomach the fact that Hicks could be flown home to Australia and go free, to be reunited with his family after five long years.

But Australians have grown very aware of how their prime minister has manipulated them over the past decade, and they will be extremely suspicious if Howard manages to secure the release of David Hicks in the coming weeks.

If Howard thinks he can now boost his rapidly diminishing chances of winning the upcoming federal elections by Hicks out of Gitmo, before he faces trial, he's going to be in for a shocker of a surprise.

Hicks coming home would make the vast majority of Australians very happy, but that is unlikely to translate into votes for Howard. If anything, it may make Australians even more cynical about the prime minister's motivations, and his humanity.

From the Sydney Morning Herald :

(Howard) indicated yesterday he would not let him languish indefinitely, saying he would set the US further timelines for the case to be dealt with.

He earlier gave the US until the middle of this month for Mr Hicks to be charged. At the weekend, two new charges were sworn against Mr Hicks but have not yet been approved or laid.

Lawyers from the US State Department said yesterday it was unlikely he would be formally charged by mid-February, and it was too early to say whether he would be tried within a year.

The Prime Minister said public sentiment was shifting and the matter had not been well handled by the Americans.

But this did not deter backbenchers from speaking out, saying it was not the person but the process that concerned them.

....MPs pointed out that Mr Hicks's case was becoming a "big concern" in the community.

The West Australian senator Judith Adams said a Labor victory in a state byelection in Perth over the weekend was in part fuelled by anger over Mr Hicks and Iraq.

Mr Howard dismissed this.

Labor's legal affairs spokesman, Kelvin Thomson, said Mr Howard's claim exposed the whole process as a joke.

"If the Prime Minister is claiming he can determine, and therefore by default, is determining David Hicks's fate, this is outrageous," Mr Thomson said.

New Charges Against David Hicks Announced : Is That All They've Got On Him?

Attorney General Approves Use Of "Coerced Evidence" Against Hicks In Trial

Hicks' Lawyer : "He's Clearly On The Spiral Of Despair"

US & Australian Troops To Open Up New 'War On Terror' Front In The Philippines

Australian troops will soon join the fight against Islamist militants in the Philippines. Exercises are planned in a region dubbed a "heartland" of Al Qaeda-linked fighters.

The United States already has forces deployed in the Philippines, reportedly hunting down militants liked to the Bali bomings and Jamaah Islamiah "kingpins"

From news.com.au (excerpts) :

Australia will send troops to strife-torn central Mindanao in the southern Philippines under a landmark defence agreement designed to upgrade Canberra's role in the regional fight against Islamist terrorism.

As US-backed Philippines forces close in on Bali bombers and Jemaah Islamiah kingpins Dulmatin and Omar Patek, on southern Jolo island, Australian defence forces are planning military exercises with their Philippines counterparts in the Mindanao heartland of local and foreign al-Qaeda-linked terrorists.

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front separatist group has led an insurgency in the region for more than three decades but is now involved in official peace talks.

Already Australia has promised 30 river boats to aid local forces in their search for armed rebel groups linked to JI and the allied local kidnap-for-ransom group, Abu Sayyaf.

A local mayor in Mindanao doesn't like the idea of the Australian military deploying to the region.

He believes "foreign terrorists" will pour in to fight the Australian mlitary presence :

"The Australians should send more economic assistance, not military presence," Cotabato City's Mayor, Muslimin Sema, said. "That will just create problems. Al-Qaeda could come here and create violence as a reaction.

MORE TO COME....

Angry Australian Soldiers Blows Whistle On Top Secret Taliban Fight

Six Diggers Wounded As Australian Special Forces Kill 150 Taliban

"Most Intense" Battles Since Vietnam War




By Darryl Mason

A soldier involved in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has revealed his anger at the decision to pull an Australian Special Forces team out of an area now shaping up as the largest battlefield in the 'War On Terror'.

He's angry because the Australian Defence Force is not going to send in replacement forces when the task force leaves.

"It's not right to pull out. We shouldn't just go there for a shoot 'em up and then come home..."

The soldier is referring to news only now reaching Australian media.

In July, Australian special forces and commando units were involved in a nine day long battle against the Taliban in Southern Afghanistan.

150 Taliban are reported to have been killed by the Australian teams, with six Australians suffering serious wounds during the fighting.

From news.com :

"In the most intense battles since the Vietnam War, Diggers from the Special Forces Task Group used superior weapons and overwhelming airborne fire support from USAF AC-130 Hercules Spectre gunships.

Codenamed Operation Perth, the hardest fighting took place in July during search-and-destroy missions in the Chora district, about 40km northeast of the Australian base at Tarin Khowt, in southern Afghanistan.

During the year-long operation the three rotations of the task group have sustained 11 casualties, including several men seriously wounded.

One commando had part of his jaw blown off, another was shot in the buttocks and an SAS specialist was hit in the abdomen. Amazingly, the round missed his vital organs.

In one action, six commandos, including the company sergeant major, who sustained leg injuries, were wounded by an enemy rocket-propelled grenade.

...at the height of the battle, three AC-130 Spectre aircraft ran out of ammunition.

The task group includes a commando platoon of 50 men from the Sydney-based 4RAR and 40 SAS troopers from the unit's No.3 squadron. The 100 support soldiers include chemical weapons experts from the Incident Response Regiment.

If the Australian government is so committed to the 'War On Terror', why are they pulling special forces teams out of battlefields where the fighting appears most intense?

Running out of money? The Australian government has committed more than $20 billion to defence and war-fighting in the next few years. This may be a key reason why they are so enthusiastic about flogging valuable assets of the Australian taxpayers, like Telstra and Medibank Private.

Or does the Prime Minister, John Howard, in particular, fear the reaction of the public if the body count of Australian soldiers killed fighting the 'War On Terror' starts to rise?

One thing is clear. Australian special forces are not happy at all about being wrenched away from the battlefields where the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is so vitally important, and proving to be extremely decisive.

No doubt they fear a repeat of what happened last time, in late 2001, when the focus for Australia's military was pulled away from the war in Afghanistan to prepare for the 'War On Iraq'.

A clear majority of military analysts across the world now believe moving the 'War On Terror' fight away from Afghanistan to focus on deposing Saddam Hussein is chief amongst the key reasons why the Taliban have been able to gain back so much ground in Southern Afghanistan.

Australian special forces have a hard-won and highly respected reputation amongst the world's military forces for never walking away from a fight.

But now it seems at least some those forces don't have a choice when it comes to leaving Southern Afghanistan.

Howard and his 'War On Terror' chiefs have made their decision.

They're out. Presumably to prepare for deployment elsewhere.

Syria and/or Iran perhaps?

Six Australians To Be Shot On A Bali Beach

Indonesia's War On Terror Vs War On Drugs




8 TO 18 YEARS FOR BALI TERRORISTS

DEATH SENTENCE FOR DRUG COURIERS

By Darryl Mason

The story of 20 year old Australian Scott Rush is an unfolding tragedy. He got busted in Bali, part of a gang hired to smuggle heroin out of the Indonesian province and into Australia. His father knew what he was going to do and dobbed him in to the Australian Federal Police.

But the AFP didn't intervene, like his father had hoped they would. Instead, they gave Indonesian police the information and Scott wound up being busted in Bali and sentenced to life in prison. The Indonesian police managed to lose track of the suppliers of the heroin.

Rush appealed the sentence, against his own gut instinct, and now he is facing the death penalty - a bullet in the head on a Bali beach at dawn - along with five other Australians who also acted as drug couriers.

But there's another sting in the tail to this story.

Yesterday, the same day that the new death sentences were made public, two Indonesians involved in the Bali terror attacks of last year, were also sentenced for their crimes.

From the Jakarta Post :

Judges sentenced two Islamic militants to up to 18 years in prison Thursday for involvement in the 2005 terrorist attacks on Bali...

Mohammad Cholili and Dwi Widiarto were among four men charged in the attacks on the Indonesian resort island, which killed 20 people and wounded nearly 200 others.

Death for drug couriers.

Prison, with the chance of parole, for convicted terrorists.

The Indonesian judge who tossed aside the life sentences and handed down death instead said :

"Drug problems are a very dangerous crime against the Indonesian community, and not just for Indonesia but also for other countries and communities," Judge Kamil said.

"This is a serious case. The amount (of heroin) is quite large. Heavy crimes must be paid with similar punishment."

Obviously, blowing people up figures lower down the "heavy crimes" chart than being a drug courier.

For the families of those now facing death by firing squad, the way they found out was a total fiasco.

The father of Scott Rush was not told by lawyers or any government official that his son's appeal against a prison sentence had been commuted to the death sentence. No.

Like the parents and families of the three other young Australians who also just learned they are now facing the death penalty, Scott's father knew nothing had changed until he was informed by the media.

The federal government, including the prime minister, the foreign minister and the justice minister also claimed they knew nothing about the horrific changes to the sentences, even though the decision had been made some three weeks earlier in Jakarta.

It is a mark of acknowledgement of just how Indonesia feels about Australia that the key Australian ministers were not even briefed, off the record, about what has already proved to be a public opinion bombshell in Australia.

Nobody from the Indonesian government contacted their Australian compatriots because they obviously have no respect, or time, for them at all.

The news that drug couriers copped a death sentence, but terrorists got less than twenty years in jail has caused has caused widespread angst, disgust and plenty of dissent in Australia.

Prime Minister Howard has said he has little sympathy for convicted drug smugglers, but has been careful not to stir up anymore trouble in Jakarta than is necessary to try and appease his public, who in the majority are firmly opposed to death sentences.

Australia, and the Howard government, clearly have little influence in Jakarta now.

Particularly since tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of Indonesians were outraged to see Howard, and numerous other ministers and opposition politicians, on television parroting the Bush Co. mantra that : "Israel has the right to defend itself" last month, while Israel reduced Southern Lebanon to rubble and massacred hundreds of Lebanese Muslims.

Australians are mostly unaware of just how often clips of their politicians defending Israel's actions were shown on Indonesian television, followed by graphic footage of dead Lebanese women, children and the elderly.

In the space of one week in Bali, I saw such a sequence of images on the news at least a dozen times, in the course of less than 20 newsbreaks. The destruction of Lebanon by Israel, with the backing of the US and Australia, was the biggest story across Indonesia for weeks.

For the prime minister to now kick up a fuss about convicted drug smugglers being put to death in Indonesia is clearly going to increase tensions between the two countries.

It won't help, either, that the government backs the US in slagging and lie-mongering about Iran.

Indonesia views Iran as a closer friend, and a far more important strategic ally and trading partner than Australia.

The Indonesian president can use clemency provision to free the Australian drug couriers, or clear them of the death sentence. It's not going to happen, even though it would be a huge favour to Howard.

Howard will say little that may offend the Indonesians, even though he insists he will push pleas for clemency, knowing it won't matter an iota.

This is why Howard has now started his spin campaign about Australians living on "false optimism" that the death sentences will be wiped.

He wants, and needs, to get Australians used to idea that all too soon Indonesian police volunteers will execute six young Australians.

Howard can hope that the brutal execution of these six young Australians will not take place while he is still prime minister of the country. Death sentences in Indonesia can take years to be carried out.

But widely respected QC Lex Lasry believes the executions may come even sooner than most people expect, including Howard.

"I'm not confident that there's two years to go, I think it might well be less time than that and I think it's therefore important that we do the things we have to do reasonably quickly.

Scott Rush is ready to beg for his life, awestruck at the extremely short future he now faces :

"If there is anything people can do to prevent this, please make it happen because I need a second chance at life...they won't give us a second chance …"

This is going to get very, very ugly.


Scott Rush : "Don't Bury Us Before We're Dead"

A Mass Execution Of Australians?

Final Throw Of The Dice For Bali Nine

Australians Need Threats & 'Realities of Terrorism ' & War To Feel United

By Darryl Mason

This is downright weird, and a little disturbing.

A piece in today's 'The Australian' claims that our "sense of well-being" has plunged, mostly because we feel so distant, so unconnected with our fellow Australians.

Something called the 'Wellbeing Index' has recorded the "lowest personal wellbeing" ratings since April, 2001 :

"...the marked drop was directly linked to how we feel about our relationships and connection to the community.

It was also linked to the fact Australians were feeling less threatened by external events and were subsequently less attached to each other.

This in turn caused their personal wellbeing to drop, he said. As people felt more secure within the world, their sense of wellbeing was more attuned to the quality of personal relationships.

"(The Index) showed a marked rise in personal wellbeing following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bali bombing and the early stages of the Iraq war...."

Go here for the whole story.

Does this explain why John Howard is apparently planning to use National Security as a key platform in next year's federal election?

There may well be a serious threat of terrorism in Australia - we don't really know for a fact if this is true because the details of such threats are now off-limits to the public, journos, lawyers, even those accused of being a threat - but it is a little creepy to think that all a politician has to do is ramp up the "You Will Be Bombed Soon" mantras to unite the country and install a sense of national unity.

Or can they?

In the US and the UK right now, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are learning that The Threat Of Terror isn't uniting the masses like it used to.

At least, The Threat is not uniting the public behind their leaders.

Recent polls in the UK exposed a mind-blowing statistic : Only about 20% of all Brits believe their Prime Minister when he talked about the threat of terrorist attacks in the UK. And that's after the July 7 bombings last year.

Very, very strange.

One of John Howard's closest mates, and former staffer, is Sydney Morning Herald columnist Gerard Henderson. He stated a few days ago that :

"....John Howard and (Treasurer) Peter Costello have given clear indications that national security will be an election issue, with a focus on the real threat of radical Islamism..."

If we go the way of the Yanks and the Brits, John Howard may discover that ramping up the rhetoric about terrorism and Radical/Militant Islam Threats To Our National Security won't work to unit the country behind him like it used to.

It's something like the threat of Bird Flu.

The headlines may well say, "1/3 Of Humanity Could Die," and you can then hear of outbreaks killing people in countries around the world, but until it happens in your own country, until you lose someone close to you, or see lines queuing outside of hospitals or bodies piled up in the streets, the Fear Factor fades after a while, the threat doesn't seem so real, so looming.

The hassles of day to day reality intrude on the sense of being in perpetual danger from something deadly that may or may not impact upon your life. The longer it doesn't, the easier it is to treat The Threat dismissively.

When something terrible happens, it's easy to get The Fear, but then it fades, it always does. You move on, you get on, and the talk of The Looming Threat loses its power the longer the danger remains an unreality in the lives of most people.

How many Australians live with a serious fear of a massive meteor strike destroying a population centre?

Or a tsunami smashing coastal communities?

Or out of control bushfires destroying whole towns?

Or perpetual drought causing a whole city to eventually run out of water and result in tens of thousands of people having to relocate?

All of these are serious possibilities, and all would cause a far larger loss of life and have a far greater impact on the economy and the lives of everyday Australians than a terrorist attack the size of most we have witnessed during the War On Terror.

But what if Attorney General Philip Ruddock is right?

"One has to be clearly focussed, we believe that Australia is vulnerable, a terrorist attack in Australia is certainly possible."

What if Australia is hit by a terrorist attack between now and the federal election late next year?

Will Australians' "sense of wellbeing" rise as a result?

Will Australians feel more connected to each other, more united?

And will we then, on mass, unite behind the Howard government?

Or will Australians be like the Brits and, in the majority, blame their leader for any terrorist attack?

Hopefully, we won't have to find out.

Court Declares David Hicks' Military Trial Would Be Illegal

Prime Minister Howard Blames "Bad Advice"...Yet Again

Prime Minister John Howard likes to boast, in private, that he can get Australian terror suspect David Hicks freed from Guantanamo Bay any time he likes just by calling his good mates George & Dick.

But how quickly Howard changes his tune when he realises how big an election issue the David Hicks saga may become.

From news.com :

Prime Minister John Howard has urged the US to find a quick alternative for dealing with terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay after the inmates won a major court victory. In a blow to US President George W Bush and the US military, America's Supreme Court has ruled the controversial military commissions set up to prosecute Australian David Hicks and other Guantanamo prisoners were illegal.

Mr Howard said he was not embarrassed by the ruling but admitted his government, and the US administration, were incorrectly advised that the military commission process was lawful.

He said the US government had to move fast to find another process to try Hicks and the other detainees at the US naval base in Cuba.

"What now has to happen is that, quite quickly in my view, the administration has to decide how it will deal with the trial of the people who are being held," he told Southern Cross broadcasting.

"Our view in relation to Mr Hicks is that he should be brought to trial.

"As the military commission trial is regarded by the court as unconstitutional, there clearly has to be another method of trial – a court martial or a civilian trial – which conforms with the supreme court decision."

From the Sydney Morning Herald :

Australian terror detainee David Hicks's military lawyer said he was not surprised by Thursday's US Supreme Court ruling upholding a challenge against military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay inmates.

The decision will have major implications for Hicks, who has faced a military commission, but is yet to face trial.

Marine Major Michael Mori, the US military lawyer appointed to defend Hicks, said the ruling did not surprise him.

"The military lawyers who have been defending the defendants at Guantanamo have been saying this all along," Major Mori said.

"Any real lawyer who isn't part of the administration knows this violates the Geneva Conventions."

From news.com :

Mr Howard said he was not embarrassed by the ruling but admitted his government, and the US administration, were incorrectly advised that the military commission process was lawful.

He said the US Government had to move fast to find another process to try Hicks and the other detainees at the US naval base in Cuba.

"What now has to happen is that, quite quickly in my view, the administration has to decide how it will deal with the trial of the people who are being held," he told Southern Cross broadcasting.

"Our view in relation to Mr Hicks is that he should be brought to trial.

"As the military commission trial is regarded by the court as unconstitutional, there clearly has to be another method of trial - a court martial or a civilian trial - which conforms with the supreme court decision."

Federal Human Services Minister Joe Hockey said it was up to Mr Bush to decide what to do with Hicks.

"We have been pushing and pushing the US Government to put him to trial - to try him and have him convicted," he said.

"There has been a lot of legal argy bargy.

"Now the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the US, has said that they believe the Guantanamo Bay process is wrong ... and the ball is now back in President Bush's court.

"Obviously, we will be waiting for the US Government to find out what they will do now with Hicks."

Quotes From Key Players In The Gitmo Fiasco :

PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH:

"As I understand it - now, please don't hold me to this - ... there is a way forward with military tribunals in working with the United States Congress. As I understand, certain senators have already been out expressing their desire to address what the Supreme Court found. And we will work with the Congress.

"And one thing I'm not going to do, though, is I'm not going to jeopardise the safety of the American people. People got to understand that. I understand we're in a war on terror, that these people were picked up off of a battlefield, and I will protect the people and at the same time conform with the findings of the Supreme Court.

LT. CMDR. CHARLES SWIFT, a lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, defendant in the case before the US Supreme Court:

"All we wanted was a fair trial and we thank the Supreme Court. Yes it is a rebuke for the process. ... It means we can't be scared out of who we are."

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL:

"Today's Supreme Court ruling blocking the military commissions set up by President George W. Bush is a victory for the rule of law and human rights. The US administration should ensure that those held in Guantanamo should be either released or brought before civilian courts on the US mainland."

ZACHARY KATZNELSON, lawyer for 36 Guantanamo inmates including Ethiopian Binyam Muhammad, one of 10 who faced charges before the military commission:

"I think its a fantastic victory for us. It's a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court to President Bush. They clearly have said he is not above the law and that the men at Guantanamo absolutely have rights, and the military commissions are just blatantly illegal."

US SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY, Vermont Democrat on Judiciary Committee:

"For five years, the Bush-Cheney administration has violated fundamental American values, tarnished our standing in the world and hindered the partnerships we need with our allies. This arrogance and incompetence have delayed and weakened the handling of the war on terror, not because of any coherent strategic view it had, but because of its stubborn unilateralism and dangerous theory of unfettered power.

SENATORS LINDSEY GRAHAM AND JON KYL, Republicans of South Carolina and Arizona:

"We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision. ... It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. ... We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions.

SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts Democrat:

"This decision is a stunning repudiation of the Bush administration's lawless behaviour at Guantanamo. As we approach the Fourth of July, it is entirely appropriate that the Supreme Court has reminded the president and Secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law, even when our country is at war."

MICHAEL MORI, a military lawyer appointed to defend Australian prisoner David Hicks before the tribunals:

"It doesn't come as a shock to me. The military lawyers who have been defending the defendants at Guantanamo have been saying this all along. Any real lawyer who isn't part of the administration knows this violates the Geneva Conventions."

FARHAT PARACHA, whose husband was sent to Guantanamo in 2004 after 15 months at a detention centre in Afghanistan:

"There is no justice. They have no rights, even don't have status of prisoners of war. It reminds me of the medieval era. ... Really, it is not serving any purpose but triggering more and more hatred."

Supreme Court Completely Rejects Gitmo War Crimes Trials

Supreme Cout Decision Is "A Nail In The Coffin For The Idea That The President Can Set Up These Trials"