What next for David Hicks?

John Howard physically struggled against triumphalism following the guilty plea entered by David Hicks today. The Albrechtsens of the Australian media showed no such restraint, and shall no doubt be sharpening their knives for the Left for months to come.

One of the biggest problems during this case has been to separate the principle from the situation. To support a fair trial and humane incarceration for Hicks is not to argue in favour of his guilt or his innocence - it is to emphasise the inarguable fact that nothing disqualifies anyone from a fair process, whether they are defending a parking fine or mass genocide.

The situation is very reminiscent to that faced by the Labor Party in the 1950s, when the Menzies government launched the Communist Party Dissolution Act, a referendum proposing to ban the Communist Party from Australia. Opposition Leader H.V. Evatt - a pivotal figure not only in the formation of Australian foreign policy but in the creation of the United Nations - successfully argued against the ban, which was narrowly defeated.

Evatt's courage and audacity in this battle cannot be underestimated. The Petrov Affair was gripping the nation, and anti-Communist hysteria would shortly contribute to the split of Evatt's own party and the creation of the DLP. Defending the right of the Communist Party to exist would have been seen in almost the same light as defending the right of Al Qaeda to exist. Nevertheless, Evatt - no fan whatsoever of Communism or the Communist Party itself - was able to objectively separate the principle of defending freedom and democracy from the specific circumstances. To twist the now-familiar argument, banning the Communist Party would mean the Communist Party had won.

Like that battle, the David Hicks issue has never been one of guilt or innocence, but of the defence of democratic principles. Losing sight of this and personalising the issue is something of which both sides have been guilty. Hicks and other Guantanamo Bay detainees have repeatedly been referred to as `terrorists'. They have also been described as completely innocent. Either description misses the point.

Debate will probably rage forever more on whether Hicks' plea truly represents his guilt, or was simply designed to expedite his return home. While it's a shame we are now unlikely to hear the case for or against him outlined in court, it's entirely likely that the military commission process wouldn't have helped to reveal the truth either.

The inarguable fact remains that Hicks was held and tried in unjust circumstances, and that the Federal Government did little to redress this. For this, they still remain culpable.