.. maybe not even pro. Maybe accepting the need for such a fine institution of dubious legality and definate immorality.
See the Four Corners Transcript from 'The Case against David Hicks'.
I'm watching the repeat now. It's delicious seeing Howard defend the indefensible.
'JOHN HOWARD, 16 JULY 2005: Let us remember the allegation about Hicks is a very serious allegation. It is an allegation that he trained with al-Qaeda. It's an allegation which includes, allegations including the specific allegation that he was in Pakistan on the 11th of September, 2001 and in the wake of those events, rejoined his colleagues. So we are dealing with serious allegations.
So f_cking what. I don't care he he danced the loosey f_cking goosey with Osama himself Howard. Why can't you, like the UK, accept the fact that Gitmo promotes both incarceration without charge, military trials, and the use of torture. The UK got theirs out. Why not Hicks? Hicks, who as it turns out, was sold the the yanks for the pricely sum of $1000.
In fact - here are all the Howard comments
JOHN HOWARD, 19 JULY 2005: Australia is satisfied that the military commission process in relation to David Hicks, as he is the one Australian held in Guantanamo Bay, will provide a proper measure of justice.
JOHN HOWARD, 4 JUNE 2004: If Hicks and Habib were to be returned to Australia, there is no, on my legal advice there's no... crime under Australian law with which they could be charged.
[er, ok, can he come home then?]
JOHN HOWARD, 20 MAY 2004: The man you refer to is a Taliban supporter. I find it strange that these allegations of abuse against Mr Hicks and Mr Habib have arisen only since the prisoner abuse scandal erupted.
[He was a Taliban supporter before S11 you twat. So was the US government. When they had the Taliban round for tea a couple months before S11 to discuss the pipeline.]
JOHN HOWARD, 16 JULY 2005: I can inform you - and we'll provide you with a letter later - that we have received written advice from the Defense Department that after a very thorough investigation of the allegations of Hicks and Habib about mistreatments whilst they were in American custody, no evidence has been found to support those allegations.
[Does this even need a comment?]
JOHN HOWARD ON RADIO 2002: He's in detention. He knowingly joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I don't have any sympathy for any Australian who's done that.
[Again, before S11.]
JOHN HOWARD, 16 JULY 2005: Let us remember the allegation about Hicks is a very serious allegation. It is an allegation that he trained with al-Qaeda. It's an allegation which includes, allegations including the specific allegation that he was in Pakistan on the 11th of September, 2001 and in the wake of those events, rejoined his colleagues. So we are dealing with serious allegations.
[The border was closed, he was surrounded by Taliban, in the middle of f_cking Afghanistan. Where the f_ck was he going to go?]
Hicks may be rah rah fanatical Islam. And frankly anyone who is rah rah [insert ideological belief that says it's ok to kill people not of your belief] is a f_ckwit.
But he's our f_ckwit, being held in morally dubious jail, still to face trial, not guilty of any crime under Australian law, and likely been tortured in the common sense of the word. Oh, not in the Attorney General of the US's word, since torture is that which is physical pubishment that may cause organ failure, not things like mock executions, stress positions, or interrogators faking menstruation then rubbing the blood on an inmate's face.
F_ck I hate Howard. I hate him for what he's done to this country where the man in the street thinks that people like Hicks deserve extra-judicial punishment and to be treated as sub human.
The US did not deserve S11 in any way. They don't deserve any terror attacks ever. But the current administration has made it far more likely that young men in women in Iraq are in harm's way, and that their people in the US may face yet another macro terror event. Especially when they treat those they capture with contempt and abuse. Because you treat a man less than human, then he sees you the same way.