Whoah! The Australian cannot be serious with this editorial! Seriously, whoah! It's pretty rank. I mean, spitting about David Hicks "garnering an impressive cheer-squad among 'progressives'", despite being "a violent religious fascist". Yeah. I'm sure his extended incarceration without charge or access to representation was not at all central to their drawing attention to his situation, irrespective of his guilt/innocence or personal beliefs. What progressive bastards! Making a stand for the 'rule of law' and 'democratic principles' and 'civil rights'! Losers!

Oh well, he has a lawyer now anyway, so there. And he's been charged. Two big ticks. So what are people still harping on about? Oh, not that whole 'the military tribunal system is unfairly weighted against him' argument? Jeez! I mean, it's kind of like a real court. Almost. What more do they want? Oh, a really real court. Well that's just silly! Where do people get these fanciful notions? Probably from yesterday's Age. Well la-dee-da! Fine! Be that way! If you wanna inform your view by reading a reasonable and principled argument, go ahead! Read the frickin Age editorial! Dumb-arses! Think they're so great. Don't they know that Hicks is like, a bad guy? And anyway:

"Instead of being taken out the back and shot – which is how al-Qa'ida and LET would deal with anyone suspected of treason – Mr Hicks will receive an open trial before a military tribunal."

Hmmm. I guess everything's alright then. I mean, as long as the process under which Hicks will be judged compares favourably to those of al-Qaeda and LET! Yes, everything's obviously tip top! Carry on! CUNTS!

P.S. This blogging lark is too easy. All I have to do is go on to a newspaper website, click to the commentary section and find something hateful and offensive that I just have to rail against. Second day straight following this strategy to achieve enragement. Huh. Wonder if it could be managed every day? Shit. Probably.