An observation

[jack_ryder]

Yesterday, on the ABC news, Hicks was defined as a terrorist supporter (e.g. "David Hicks, terrorist supporter, has arrived in the country.)

On this morning's radio news they've shortened it to terrorist.

Guess they want that government funding badly, huh?

Comments

[jack-ryder.livejournal.com]

Islamic convert is probably the most accurate.

(Is there any real evidence that he actively supported terrorism, as opposed to armed struggle?)

[ashamel.livejournal.com]

He was 'convicted terrorist supporter' on TripleJ this morning.

[mrteufel.livejournal.com]

He plead guilty to "supporting terrorism", so technically that's correct.

[mrteufel.livejournal.com]

It's the charge he plead guilty to. Legally, that's all the evidence they need to call him a supporter of terrorism, I guess. Australian Taliban? Well, he was fighting in the employ of the Taliban. [/devils advocate (see blog name)]

[mrteufel.livejournal.com]

Calling Hicks a terrorist supporter is supportable. Calling him a terrorist is unforgivable.

[murasaki-1966.livejournal.com]

Is calling him a stupid idiot allowable?

[iwoolf.livejournal.com]

So he's to be held in solitary confinement in Adelaide with a concrete bed for most of a year and then massive surveillance and discrimination for at least a year after that. Without even the appearance of due process under Australian law. I thought he was white?

Hicks's status seemed to get worse in every report on ABC TV, all the way up to "convicted terrorist". I was waiting for "enemy of the people" to come next. I guess the Government Man at the ABC wants Howard to look reasonable, so they have to pretend Hicks is dangerous to more than their chances in the election. No more non-Government-approved connotations allowed at the ABC.

Ruddock is already trying to get credit for Hicks return for "behind the scenes efforts" - no doubt with a rubber hose.