Red Herrings all around

You gotta wonder what's going on.
For more than a year, a rising outcry about David Hicks has been fueled by his father and repeated articles in various press outlets. Now it turns out that all the government had to do was ask the US for Hicks to be released, and he almost certainly would be released. - Is this just a red herring to defer the attention of the Australian public from more important issues inside Australia?

There is no question why David Hicks' father would do anything he could to save his son from going to jail or being executed; or why the Australian attorneys hired by his father would apply pressure for his release.
But this is a man who was found armed in a war zone, opposing Australian troups and their allies, and had been trained to bomb Australians in order to destroy Australian society. He had converted voluntarily not only to Islam, but to the radical Islamic beliefs of Osama bin Laden.
Why would any Australian who valued their way of life or the safety of themselves or their children want David Hicks back in Australia?

Hicks faces some significant charges.

The 30-year-old convert to Islam was captured in Afghanistan where he allegedly fought alongside the ruling Taliban against US-led forces who invaded after the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

He faces charges of conspiracy, attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent and aiding the enemy.

If Hicks were returned to Australia, he would face none. At the time of his arrest, he had done nothing illegal in Australia.
If that doesn't sound insane enough, the fact that Australia does not bind itself to protect similar rights for the citizens of other countries within the borders of Australia makes the whole issue a massive hypocrisy. Why should other countries protect the rights of Australian citizens when Australia does not commit to protecting those same rights for anyone; even the citizens of Australia?

Politicians and governments rarely do things publicly without knowing the outcome beforehand. It's a cardinal rule of politics. If we assume this to be true, then the Australian government's overtures to the US are purely a sham to assuage the somewhat misguided sensibilities of some Australians. If we assume this to be true, then the Australian government has made it clear to the US that they do not want David Hicks returned to Australia - a position that would be perfectly logical and reasonable.

One commentator from the Australian blog summarized the whole situation:

ATTENTION Greg Hamilton (Letters, 8/1). Hicks was captured fighting for the enemy. He is a prisoner of war. He does not have to be charged. He does not have to be released. End of story.

When the revelation that most of the US congressmen and women who would have had to vote to release Hicks had never heard of him, those conclusions appear consistent and rational, if more than a little misleading and manipulative.
That sort of political misdirection has proven to be the savant talent of the Howard government; and it's been mimicked by successful state administrations. The Bracks government in Victoria has always found a way - usually a very expensive but attractive way - to redirect the public's attention from important issues to a sports extravaganza or some massive building project. Bracks favorite tool is to appoint another study to "look into it".
The most recent example was the outrageously political move of using taxpayer funding to find out if the public would support building more dams. Let the public pay to find out which decision would draw the most support; don't show any leadership - that might be politically dangerous.
If the idea weren't so disgusting, it would be a hilarious joke.